Uniqueness of Reality

[Moon Double Comb]

By your definition of reality, do you think that reality is unique, and if so/not, is it provable that reality is unique or not?

To give the question some relevance...do you think it is possible that two theories, based on a different set of axioms/postulates, but with exactly the same verifiable results represent reality on equal footing or will only one describe reality as it is (although maybe not verifiable)? Or are both equally "real"?

[DougShrapnel]

Interesting question. Reality is NOT unique. Two observers can observe the same thing differently, and both would be correct.

[Georgia Avenue]

Yes a good question. If understand you, (probable but not certain) I guess I would say that " two theories, based on a different set of axioms/postulates, but with exactly the same verifiable results " ARE possible. I'm trying to think of some examples but I'm having difficulty...Here are some ideas and maybe you can give me better ones...

1. Copernican vs Ptolemaic astronomy
2. Neurology vs Freudian Psychology
3. Socio-biological ethics vs liberal Judeo-Christian morality
4. Western Medicine vs Eastern Medicine
5. Sociology vs Common Sense

Now, in all of these cases the first one has been said to have supplanted the second because the set of axioms is thought to be more rigorous and less wishy-washy. Yet they are often identical in terms of results (predictions/prescriptions/etc).

HOWEVER, these are all human constructs. I don’t see any problem with saying, “Reality is what it is, many theories can be made about one thing.” We discard the ones that sit wrong with our other ideas but that doesn’t make them invalid results-wise. Reality is unique, but the net to catch it in may vary. I mostly agree with Wittgenstein’s Tractatus (http://www.iep.utm.edu/w/wittgens.htm#H2) , insofar as I understand it.

Anyway, good question.

Is this an example of what you mean?
All religions are different theories coming to the same conclusion. There is a God.

If so, then yes, you can have an infinite #of realities, because human beings can make up an infinite # of religions.

But if you're talking about physics, then there's just one reality. or at least a slice of reality, based on the way the human brain processes physical phenomena.
Shooby.

[ QUOTE ]
By your definition of reality, do you think that reality is unique, and if so/not, is it provable that reality is unique or not?

To give the question some relevance...do you think it is possible that two theories, based on a different set of axioms/postulates, but with exactly the same verifiable results represent reality on equal footing or will only one describe reality as it is (although maybe not verifiable)? Or are both equally "real"?

[/ QUOTE ]

This "question" has nothing to do with the uniqueness of reality. "two theories, based on a different set of axioms/postulates, but with exactly the same verifiable results " -- all this states is that the theories describing reality are not unique, not that the reality itself is not unique. Example: classical physics and relativistic physics may give exactly the same "verifiable results" for experiments under desktop conditions. The "reality" is unique, however. The pendulum goes up and comes back down exactly the same way. THAT is the reality. The theories are both just approximations of this reality which fit the observed phenomena. Because it can be described equally well using relativistic or classical approaches does not mean its a non-unique reality.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
To give the question some relevance...do you think it is possible that two theories, based on a different set of axioms/postulates, but with exactly the same verifiable results represent reality on equal footing or will only one describe reality as it is (although maybe not verifiable)? Or are both equally "real"?


[/ QUOTE ]

A theory based on axioms/postulates can never describe reality as it really is. (<=Gödel)

Two models that give exactly the same verifiable results are for all practical purposes the same.

You might be able to claim in some fuzzy fashion that one is closer to reality than the other if you managed at a future date to verify some new results that show an observable difference between the models.

Its seems natural to believer reality is unique but forever beyond our understanding. However its possible that things are a lot weirder than that.

[Georgia Avenue]

For someone who claims to know very little about Science, you sure do love scientific reductionism a whole lot. No physicist worth his weight in salt would claim that the theories he works on are based on "the way the human brain processes physical phenomena." That would make it a kind of shared illusion. Physics exclusively employs math, a logical system based on a series of axioms. Then the theories are tested in experiments which reduce human observation to a minimum. The theories are considered “Facts” when they pass all available tests and return unambiguous results. If a good reason arises, they are scrapped immediately (or rather, subsumed into a larger theory). This is what gives them their strength. Scientific theories are immortal teachers, hanging around waiting for the next student to question and argue with them and (usually) agree with them eventually.

I don't mean to be grumpy with you, but it seems like you understand "Science" to be a one-word answer that reduces all ambiguity to silence, similar to "The Bible Teaches..." or "Because your mother says so, that's why." I feel like you're doing yourself a disservice with your oversimplifications. That is all.

"No physicist worth his weight in salt would claim that the theories he works on are based on "the way the human brain processes physical phenomena." That would make it a kind of shared illusion."

Physical laws are constant(mostly, I think light varies speeds somewhat, but physical laws as we know them are physically constant), yep, I agree.

But we agree that they work a certain way because all of our brains process sensory perceptions pretty much the same.
Our reality, including the physical phenomena that physicist agree upon, is the way it is because of the way our brains process information.
Shooby

[sexdrugsmoney]

"There is no reality, only perception"

Yet perception is the only reality we know.

[ QUOTE ]
For someone who claims to know very little about Science, you sure do love scientific reductionism a whole lot. .... The theories are considered “Facts” when they pass all available tests and return unambiguous results. .... I feel like you're doing yourself a disservice with your oversimplifications.

[/ QUOTE ]

As long as we're guarding against oversimplification, no physicist should consider any physical theory a "fact". Equations modeling observable phenomena are models which fit well under the circumstances for which they are validated. But they are not necessarily "facts". Einstein demonstrated this when his relativistic theories smashed the paradigms of classical physics for behavior at relativistic speeds. The classical laws of motions never were "facts", just models which fit well under the conditions tested.

try reading "The Tao of Physics" It is about Eastern Mystisicm and it's corrolation to quantum physics

[Georgia Avenue]

That was my point, well put. Or similarly: That was my point well-put.

[Georgia Avenue]

Would you say that Math "is the way it is because of the way our brains process information?"

Personally, I would not. Maybe before the discovery of Non-Euclidean Geometry, but not now. I'm not sure what Math is exactly, but its axioms lie outside of our everyday sensory perceptions.