Dear George and Banjo,

I am happy that the 90th anniversary of my birth has given both of you another opportunity to express your views.

.

Dear David and George,

.

The discussion has reached an interesting point and in view of David’s kind hospitality, I hope you don’t mind, George, if I add some comments on your last post.

You employ the term “physical reality” which seems to me to be something of a pleonasm, a bit like the expression “free gift”.

The OED definition of “physical” is :

• relating to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind

The philosophical definition of “reality” is :

• something that exists independently of ideas concerning it

The only reference I have found for the term “physical reality” is in a paper (referred to as “EPR”) that Einstein co-authored in 1935 entitled “Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?”

As the following article indicates, "although the authors do not specify just what an 'element of physical reality' is they use that expression when referring to the values of physical quantities (positions, momenta, and so on)":

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-epr
.

According your definition of “reality”, George, if I understand you correctly, this includes reality you esteem to be falsifiable as well as that which you consider to be impossible to falsify.

The former type of reality, that which you esteem to be falsifiable, is what you call “physical reality”.

Needless to say, that is a radical departure from the conventional meaning of the term “reality”. Dreams, imagination, fairy tales, the so-called supernatural, etc., do not qualify as “reality” though some may “believe” they are “real”, at least for a time.

But belief in reality is not reality.

The belief in a reality that is impossible to falsify is also hypothetic. Judging by the past, what seems impossible today may well be possible sometime in the future.

For example, are the so-called “black holes”, “dark matter” and “dark energy” that we think we have detected in space today falsifiable reality or not ? If not, is there anything to justify us concluding that they will always be impossible to falsify ?

What guarantee do we have regarding the future ?

.

Dear Banjo,

If I understand you properly, you are objecting to the term “physical reality” because it does not exclude the possibility of another reality that is not physical, i.e. amenable to investigation by natural sciences (or, in your words, related to things perceived through the senses as opposed to the mind).

If you believe that there is no such “other” reality, or even that one cannot make statements about it, then of course, for you “physical reality” is a pleonasm, and there is no point in discussing the matter with those who do not share your a priori belief (or unbelief).

[This is what I had in mind when I said that some people cannot resist the temptation to mix their a priori world view beliefs into discussions about the object of these beliefs (or unbeliefs)].

In my paper “The nature of reality” (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464) I tried to discus the problem of (physical) reality and existence in a way hopefully comprehensible to those who believe this reality "is all there is”, as well as to those who don’t.

I do not understand how reality, however one sees it, can be falsifiable (in distinction to statements or theories). Physical reality discussed in the philosophy article you linked to about the Einstein-Podolsky Argument is exactly what every (theoretical) physicist - atheist, Christian or what you have - intuitively understands as the object of his/her investigation. However, the questions you ask can be understood, properly formulated - even more, answered - only by somebody who has sufficient qualifications in both physics and philosophy. I have neither, and probably the same with you.

So may I suggest again that we leave it at that.

.

Dear George,

.

Your article, “The nature of reality” and the 23 comments it generated, helps put your comments on this thread in perspective. I understand you wrote the article in reaction to Dawkins’ graphic science book for children, “The Magic of Reality”.

Though your article was not written for children, but rather for an audience of adults with a fairly solid mathematical and scientific background, I think I managed to understand the essence of what you had gathered from various sources on “reality”.

Your conclusion is particularly enlightening:

« In spite of all these uncertainties and ambiguities - concerning the nature of reality, its structure and the working of consciousness - when we need a level of understanding sufficient for everyday life, common sense is a practically reliable (albeit in most cases) guide »
.

In your last post on this thread, you indicate:

« If I understand you properly, you are objecting to the term “physical reality” because it does not exclude the possibility of another reality that is not physical, …»

No. It’s simply because “reality” seems sufficiently explicit to me. The term “physical reality” does not exist in the OED and you did not indicate any definition either. Subsequent research revealed that neither did Einstein et al in their 1935 paper commonly referred to by the experts as EPR.

Apparently you would like to extend the meaning of “reality” to include your religious beliefs but, unfortunately, “religious beliefs” do not qualify as “reality” anymore than any other beliefs, dreams, fairy tales, imagination, etc.

To quote one of my favourite authors :

« … when we need a level of understanding sufficient for everyday life, common sense is a practically reliable (albeit in most cases) guide ... so, let's leave it at that ! »

.

Dear Banjo,

>> It’s simply because “reality” seems sufficiently explicit to me <<

That is your prerogative, but if “numbers“ is “sufficiently explicit to you” when referring to what others call rational numbers, then there is no point to talk about mathematics that involves irrational, imaginary etc numbers

I am sorry, but I cannot give you a more explicit definition of what one means by “physical reality” but I take it as a compliment that you put me in the same category of unjustified users of the term as Einstein (and others - Google gave me 635 000 hits for the phrase “physical reality”).

I certainly agree that we should leave it at that and also agree to disagree on what we believe about reality and existence.

Dear Banjo and George,

A Queensland woman had three sons who were going to establish a cattle station in north Queensland. They wanted to involve their mother so they asked her if she wanted to suggest a name and a brand. She advised them to call the place FOCUS and have as a brand a lens with parallel lines on one side and lines converging to a point on the other side. “Why FOCUS?” they asked. “That’s where the sons raise meat, and that’s the reality.” It can also be where the sun’s rays meet. That’s also the reality.