Where is your experience?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Paul2

But I used your phrasing, your words ("not corresponding with reality" - not an exact quote). I merely wanted clarification on what you said.

You said Naive Realism doesn't correspond with what we know about reality, I'm merely asking for you to provide details.

What we know is that we can make models, that they are tested against facts, and that no model is "more real" in the sense of being a "more accurate map" of a "real territory", as the territory is always an abstraction (ergo a model in itself).

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

What we know is that we can make models, that they are tested against facts, and that no model is "more real" in the sense of being a "more accurate map" of a "real territory", as the territory is always an abstraction (ergo a model in itself).

Certainly one model can be a more accurate map. If the territory were an arbitrary abstraction, then you'd have a point. But if it's not arbitrary, that means that it has some level of relationship to the thing itself, and therefore we can in principle judge whether one model is better than another.

Are you really saying that all models are equally useful?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Certainly one model can be a more accurate map. If the territory were an arbitrary abstraction, then you'd have a point. But if it's not arbitrary, that means that it has some level of relationship to the thing itself, and therefore we can in principle judge whether one model is better than another.

Are you really saying that all models are equally useful?

No. Every model has its uses, and it is only relevant in a particular context. And the territory is an abstraction, quasi arbitrary in the sense that we make our mental models based on previous ones, it is only after an avalanche of new facts that a new paradigm arises, only to be taken, this time, as the real map, about the real territory.

Take for instance what I wrote about Ptolomeus model, it was so powerful, so completely elegant and clever that it was believed to be a "true representation" of what was believed as reality (the presumed territory) for a thousand years.

It was only after many years of new data, and new ideas, that humanity experienced a paradigm shift, where the old theory was viewed as imperfect and its assumed referent (the so called territory) as false.

What we take as a territory is nothing but an abstract, background idea, a frame to hang all new theoretical models from diverse fields, a general notion or belief about what we believe our model "really" depict.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

No. Every model has its uses, and it is only relevant in a particular context.

Aww, not "context." Really?! I didn't see that one coming. OK, I'll bite. Given the same context, is every model equally useful?

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

And the territory is an abstraction, quasi arbitrary in the sense that we make our mental models based on previous ones, it is only after an avalanche of new facts that a new paradigm arises, only to be taken, this time, as the real map, about the real territory.

What does "quasi arbitrary" mean in general (not in relation to this particular discussion)?

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Take for instance what I wrote about Ptolomeus model, it was so powerful, so completely elegant and clever that it was believed to be a "true representation" of what was believed as reality (the presumed territory) for a thousand years.

It was only after many years of new data, and new ideas, that humanity experienced a paradigm shift, where the old theory was viewed as imperfect and its assumed referent (the so called territory) as false.

Are you saying the Ptolemic model is now - today - just as useful as the heliocentric model?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Paul2

Aww, not "context." Really?! I didn't see that one coming. OK, I'll bite. Given the same context, is every model equally useful?

I said that it was only relevant in the appropriate context. For instance, QM and GR, both incredibly successful in their respective context, yet, incompatible between them. If one is right, the other one must be, necessarily, wrong (if we want to keep a naive realist POV regarding what reality "is").

Now, given the same context, two competing models would be useful as long as they describe the needed facts. For instance, it is easier to calculate trajectories for space travel using Newtonian mechanics instead of GR, but in general, GR is considered as to be superior, in the sense it describes facts NM can't.

Originally Posted by Paul2

What does "quasi arbitrary" mean in general (not in relation to this particular discussion)?

That, to a point, new paradigms are always based on the previous model.

Originally Posted by Paul2

Are you saying the Ptolemic model is now - today - just as useful as the heliocentric model?

Depends on what you need. If you want to calculate when the next eclipse is going to happen, Ptolemaic model is more than enough. You should use the model that represents best the data you need. Oh and regarding the heliocentric model, do you believe it is a more accurate representation of reality? because, if you read a bit about how Einstein conceptualized it, there are no privileged frames of reference, so, the equations used to describe the movements of the solar system, ARE mere conveniences, and so arbitrary...

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Depends on what you need. If you want to calculate when the next eclipse is going to happen, Ptolemaic model is more than enough. You should use the model that represents best the data you need. Oh and regarding the heliocentric model, do you believe it is a more accurate representation of reality? because, if you read a bit about how Einstein conceptualized it, there are no privileged frames of reference, so, the equations used to describe the movements of the solar system, ARE mere conveniences, and so arbitrary...

I quickly getting out of any hope of having expertise in this area, including astronomy, but I thought - hold onto your hats here - that the earth revolved around the sun, and it seems like you're saying that that is not necessarily the case, depending "on what you need." Do I have that right?

[Dancing David]

BDZ: Um, the model of reality created in our visual field for example is accurate enough most of the time. And as long as one is willing to examine the models that is about as good as it gets.

Reality behaves the way it does.

Absolute truth is never achieved.

[H'ethetheth]

Originally Posted by Paul2

I quickly getting out of any hope of having expertise in this area, including astronomy, but I thought - hold onto your hats here - that the earth revolved around the sun, and it seems like you're saying that that is not necessarily the case, depending "on what you need." Do I have that right?

There's a thread about this at the moment. I agree with BDZ here. It's a matter of calculatory convenience and intuitiveness. There is no other reason to prefer a heliocentral model of the universe. It is as correct and incorrect as any, given that it is a formulation of relativistic physics .

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Paul2

I quickly getting out of any hope of having expertise in this area, including astronomy, but I thought - hold onto your hats here - that the earth revolved around the sun, and it seems like you're saying that that is not necessarily the case, depending "on what you need." Do I have that right?

Yes. to put it in the easiest possible way, consider this; If movement is relative, it is equally right to claim that the earth revolves around the sun, than that it is the sun that is going around the earth.

Let me attempt a more detailed explanation, I'm far from expert in the field, there are other members in here with the appropriate qualification. That said, GR is one of the most successful theories of our times, it has been able to prove its strength against a large series of experimental work.

Now, one of the pillars of the theory is that there are no "absolute inertial frames", and what this means is that the laws of physics are relative to the acceleration of every particular frame in relation to the inertial frame of our choice, and so, the idea about the earth "really" going around the sun, presented as an "objective reality" of some sort, was based on the idea that there was something immovable (the absolute inertial frame), like the earth was before Copernicus et al. Now the very concept is seen as obsolete, as movement can only be defined in relation to other bodies.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

BDZ: Um, the model of reality created in our visual field for example is accurate enough most of the time. And as long as one is willing to examine the models that is about as good as it gets.

Reality behaves the way it does.

Absolute truth is never achieved.

The question is, accurate for what? "Reality", whatever that is, "does behave it ways it does", it is as clear as it goes (a bit circular and tautological)... that said, what I object is that there is such a thing as "absolute truth" in the first place. As with GR, I believe that all we have, and can have, are frames of reference, or to put it more clearly, conceptual frames of reference. We then contrast one model with another in relation to known and projected facts. That's all.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Yes. to put it in the easiest possible way, consider this; If movement is relative, it is equally right to claim that the earth revolves around the sun, than that it is the sun that is going around the earth.

Let me attempt a more detailed explanation, I'm far from expert in the field, there are other members in here with the appropriate qualification. That said, GR is one of the most successful theories of our times, it has been able to prove its strength against a large series of experimental work.

Now, one of the pillars of the theory is that there are no "absolute inertial frames", and what this means is that the laws of physics are relative to the acceleration of every particular frame in relation to the inertial frame of our choice, and so, the idea about the earth "really" going around the sun, presented as an "objective reality" of some sort, was based on the idea that there was something immovable (the absolute inertial frame), like the earth was before Copernicus et al. Now the very concept is seen as obsolete, as movement can only be defined in relation to other bodies.

If a body moves away from another body, I can see how GR and relative motion in general would allow us to view the situation in two ways, either the one body is moving, or the other is moving (or maybe both are moving). But I don't see the same type of equivalence possible between two bodies when, in one view, one is revolving around the other. I can understand that a different description of the motion of the other might be possible when considering the first to be stationary and not moving, but I don't see how the same situation could be described to be that *either* is moving *around* the other.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

The question is, accurate for what? "Reality", whatever that is, "does behave it ways it does", it is as clear as it goes (a bit circular and tautological)... that said, what I object is that there is such a thing as "absolute truth" in the first place. As with GR, I believe that all we have, and can have, are frames of reference, or to put it more clearly, conceptual frames of reference. We then contrast one model with another in relation to known and projected facts. That's all.

The behavior of the universe is what it is. There is no absolute truth.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

The behavior of the universe is what it is. There is no absolute truth.

Then this equals to say a simpler sentence: There is no truth.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Paul2

If a body moves away from another body, I can see how GR and relative motion in general would allow us to view the situation in two ways, either the one body is moving, or the other is moving (or maybe both are moving). But I don't see the same type of equivalence possible between two bodies when, in one view, one is revolving around the other. I can understand that a different description of the motion of the other might be possible when considering the first to be stationary and not moving, but I don't see how the same situation could be described to be that *either* is moving *around* the other.

It seems counter intuitive. I know. Have you read wikipedia's entry about naive realism?

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

It seems counter intuitive. I know. Have you read wikipedia's entry about naive realism?

I scanned it, but didn't see which part might be relevant to the specific problem with the equality between views in which either object may be seen as rotating around the other.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Paul2

I scanned it, but didn't see which part might be relevant to the specific problem with the equality between views in which either object may be seen as rotating around the other.

Well, it doesn't mention any particular problem, but in the end we can see that what you mention is a problem just if you think that there is something like "the real world" that "has to be like this". Guess a better reading would be Model Dependent Realism, also in Wikipedia... which is the closest thing I have found to my own thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Well, it doesn't mention any particular problem, but in the end we can see that what you mention is a problem just if you think that there is something like "the real world" that "has to be like this". Guess a better reading would be Model Dependent Realism, also in Wikipedia... which is the closest thing I have found to my own thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

My point isn't whether there is a real world, my point is whether descriptions depending on one's frame of reference must necessarily be equivalent.

If we're talking about two objects in relative motion in a straight line, it's easy to imagine someone viewing each object stationary relative to each, separately, and in each case it looks like the other object is the one that's moving, and the descriptions of how each object moves will be equivalent.

But if we're talking about objects circling each other, and an observer is stationary compared to one, and then to the other, I don't see how object A can look like it's rotating around object B (in a simple, circular orbit) when the observer is stationary to object B, while object B would look like it's rotating around object A when the observer is stationary to object A.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Paul2

My point isn't whether there is a real world, my point is whether descriptions depending on one's frame of reference must necessarily be equivalent.

If we're talking about two objects in relative motion in a straight line, it's easy to imagine someone viewing each object stationary relative to each, separately, and in each case it looks like the other object is the one that's moving, and the descriptions of how each object moves will be equivalent.

But if we're talking about objects circling each other, and an observer is stationary compared to one, and then to the other, I don't see how object A can look like it's rotating around object B (in a simple, circular orbit) when the observer is stationary to object B, while object B would look like it's rotating around object A when the observer is stationary to object A.

If I'm following you correctly, the misunderstanding is right at the start, I highlighted it. How do you define they are circling each other? Whats your frame or reference?

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Then this equals to say a simpler sentence: There is no truth.

I have said that before , all human ideas are equally right and wrong, some are more valid than others.


:helmet:

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

If I'm following you correctly, the misunderstanding is right at the start, I highlighted it. How do you define they are circling each other? Whats your frame or reference?

The CMB

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

If I'm following you correctly, the misunderstanding is right at the start, I highlighted it. How do you define they are circling each other? Whats your frame or reference?

I am questioning whether there are any two possible frames of reference in which, for the same event and same two objects, one would be seen as rotating around another, and vice versa.

[Paul2]

Expansion of the above:

It is easy to see how there are two possible frames of reference in which, for the same event and the same two objects, one would be seen as traveling away from the other in a straight line, and vice versa.

[corbin]

Notice all the different answers there are...

[corbin]

Brain processes are physical processes such as electrical impulses.

Consciousness is subjective phenomenal experience. For example, the experience of seeing red.

It seems to me prima facie obvious that those two things are not identical. Brain processes are physical processes in the brain while consciousness is a subjective phenomenal experience. They couldn't be more different.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Yes. to put it in the easiest possible way, consider this; If movement is relative, it is equally right to claim that the earth revolves around the sun, than that it is the sun that is going around the earth.

Let me attempt a more detailed explanation, I'm far from expert in the field, there are other members in here with the appropriate qualification. That said, GR is one of the most successful theories of our times, it has been able to prove its strength against a large series of experimental work.

Now, one of the pillars of the theory is that there are no "absolute inertial frames", and what this means is that the laws of physics are relative to the acceleration of every particular frame in relation to the inertial frame of our choice, and so, the idea about the earth "really" going around the sun, presented as an "objective reality" of some sort, was based on the idea that there was something immovable (the absolute inertial frame), like the earth was before Copernicus et al. Now the very concept is seen as obsolete, as movement can only be defined in relation to other bodies.

Actually, Bodhi Dharma Zen, it is the other way around, the laws of physics are independent of your choice of coordinate system or reference frame. Which is how they are currently formulated, still just a model of reality by the way but that (GR) and Quantum field theory are the best we got going so far. If they are ever to get together one must change (GR is continuous while QFT discrete). Most likely it will be GR as the singularity is indicative of a failure of the theory to be predictive beyond a certain point (pun intended). Though the thing is that it will be the ability of the new combined (or, heck, new but still separate) model to make accurate and verifiable predictions that will determine its utility. Yes our description of reality depends upon models, thus is model dependent, but reality isn’t dependent on how we model it which is why we strive to make even better models of reality. Were the former untrue there would be no need of the latter.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by corbin

Brain processes are physical processes such as electrical impulses.

Consciousness is subjective phenomenal experience. For example, the experience of seeing red.

It seems to me prima facie obvious that those two things are not identical. Brain processes are physical processes in the brain while consciousness is a subjective phenomenal experience. They couldn't be more different.

Huh?

The subjective phenomenal experience seems to be a byproduct of the brain processes. Are you saying that the perceptions exist in some meta space? If the visual cortex did not create the perception of the visual field, you would not see the color red.

I don't understand the difference.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

The CMB

Well, it is an imaginary experiment

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I have said that before , all human ideas are equally right and wrong, some are more valid than others.


:helmet:

Oh no need for a helmet my friend, I believe their being right or wrong can only be contrasted against facts, and their validity circumscribe to this, well, fact.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Paul2

I am questioning whether there are any two possible frames of reference in which, for the same event and same two objects, one would be seen as rotating around another, and vice versa.

Are you talking about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-body_problem In that case, the answer is affirmative, if you are in one of them you will see the other rotating around you. The to diagrams in there are pretty illustrative, and it could be mind bending.

Originally Posted by Paul2

Expansion of the above:

It is easy to see how there are two possible frames of reference in which, for the same event and the same two objects, one would be seen as traveling away from the other in a straight line, and vice versa.

If I understand what you are saying, it would be equal in a straight line or turning around... Maybe I'm not understanding your point? sorry if Im not.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by corbin

Brain processes are physical processes such as electrical impulses.

Consciousness is subjective phenomenal experience. For example, the experience of seeing red.

It seems to me prima facie obvious that those two things are not identical. Brain processes are physical processes in the brain while consciousness is a subjective phenomenal experience. They couldn't be more different.

The problem with that is that it is based on a dualism ontology. I don't see the need for that.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by The Man

Actually, Bodhi Dharma Zen, it is the other way around, the laws of physics are independent of your choice of coordinate system or reference frame. Which is how they are currently formulated,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, if you choose one frame of reference then auxiliary fictitious forces like the Coriolis effect must enter the equations?

Originally Posted by The Man

... still just a model of reality by the way but that (GR) and Quantum field theory are the best we got going so far. If they are ever to get together one must change (GR is continuous while QFT discrete). Most likely it will be GR as the singularity is indicative of a failure of the theory to be predictive beyond a certain point (pun intended). Though the thing is that it will be the ability of the new combined (or, heck, new but still separate) model to make accurate and verifiable predictions that will determine its utility.

Our two best theories, what I find amazing is that, if one is correct, the other one most necessarily need to be wrong, and this goes around common sense if we keep the belief about a "real world that follows the laws I imagine". Im convinced about neither of them are definitive in any sense, and they will be useful because they work, but at some point both will be rendered "ontologically obsolete".

Originally Posted by The Man

Yes our description of reality depends upon models, thus is model dependent, but reality isn’t dependent on how we model it which is why we strive to make even better models of reality. Were the former untrue there would be no need of the latter.

It is very tricky, because when we state the word "reality" is loaded with.. well... models...

I believe we can make models that adjust better to facts, without needing any "underlying reality".

[The Man]

Originally Posted by corbin

Brain processes are physical processes such as electrical impulses.

Consciousness is subjective phenomenal experience. For example, the experience of seeing red.

It seems to me prima facie obvious that those two things are not identical. Brain processes are physical processes in the brain while consciousness is a subjective phenomenal experience. They couldn't be more different.

Why “not identical”? Unless by “seeing red” you just mean getting angry, then simply interrupting your optic nerve wouldn’t prevent you from seeing red (though it could make you angry). Other than an emotion “seeing red” is specifically the neurological perception of a color definable as some band of wavelengths in the visual spectrum. Now perhaps having experienced “red” (that band of wavelengths) you can imagine “red” or even see it with your eyes closed from the neurological noise of your optic nerves and visual cortex. However, lacking that or any other objective definition of “red” how do you define it? Subjectively? Fine, but definitions are only useful in their ability to communicate commonly understood meanings. Without such your “subjective phenomenal experience” of “red” can only be “phenomenal experience” for you.

[The Man]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, if you choose one frame of reference then auxiliary fictitious forces like the Coriolis effect must enter the equations?

Nope, you are not wrong but there is a specific reason they are called “fictitious forces”. They are just a result of your choice of cooodianat systems, pick a different system and you could get different “fictitious forces” or none at all.

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Our two best theories, what I find amazing is that, if one is correct, the other one most necessarily need to be wrong, and this goes around common sense if we keep the belief about a "real world that follows the laws I imagine". Im convinced about neither of them are definitive in any sense, and they will be useful because they work, but at some point both will be rendered "ontologically obsolete".

You seem to be speaking in absolutes after claiming “There is no absolute truth”. So both can be true to some regard and/or wrong in some other, perhaps just like I said one needs to change. Oh and they are quite definitive and that’s the thing that needs to change in either, their definitions. The “common sense if we keep the belief about a "real world that follows the laws I imagine"”? Did you even read what I posted? There is nothing “common sense” about "a “real world that follows the laws I imagine"”. That would be a delusion. Again the “real world” doesn’t follow the models; the models follow the real world. Again if the former were untrue there would be no need of the latter.

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

It is very tricky, because when we state the word "reality" is loaded with.. well... models...

Nope, not tricky at all, we model reality as best we can, so yes we load our perception of “reality” “with.. well... models...”. No rabbit out of a hat there, just all we can do . Though, now we’ve gotten to such a point that our instrumentality to make advancements needs such a concerted effort that just getting the hat (let alone seeing the rabbit) is phenomenal.

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

I believe we can make models that adjust better to facts, without needing any "underlying reality".

Facts lacking a basis in an "underlying reality"? We can certainly make model that adjusts better to what anyone wants to believe but “facts” place the same limitation upon those models as a (factually based) "underlying reality" does. Would you prefer some "underlying reality" not base on facts or is it just the term "underlying reality" that you would like to dispense with? Sorry, that’s why there are facts, just something you can’t throw away at your whim, unless you just want to ignore the reality underling those facts.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Oh no need for a helmet my friend, I believe their being right or wrong can only be contrasted against facts, and their validity circumscribe to this, well, fact.

The helmet is not in anticipation of your response.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by The Man

You seem to be speaking in absolutes after claiming “There is no absolute truth”. So both can be true to some regard and/or wrong in some other, perhaps just like I said one needs to change. Oh and they are quite definitive and that’s the thing that needs to change in either, their definitions. The “common sense if we keep the belief about a "real world that follows the laws I imagine"”? Did you even read what I posted? There is nothing “common sense” about "a “real world that follows the laws I imagine"”. That would be a delusion. Again the “real world” doesn’t follow the models; the models follow the real world. Again if the former were untrue there would be no need of the latter.

Regarding speaking in absolutes, negating the existence of something like absolutes is not stating an "absolute claim" (there is no absolute truth) but rather negating the existence of such claims. You are right, claiming that the world "IS" in a determinate way is a delusion. Every "is" statement is an ontological claim, and I see no need for ontological claims of any sort. Well, unless "facts" could be considered an ontology.

I believe the subject is rather obscure, and hence the problems we are having maybe merely semantic. For me, the models follow the known or projected facts, not "a world".

Originally Posted by The Man

Nope, not tricky at all, we model reality as best we can, so yes we load our perception of “reality” “with.. well... models...”. No rabbit out of a hat there, just all we can do . Though, now we’ve gotten to such a point that our instrumentality to make advancements needs such a concerted effort that just getting the hat (let alone seeing the rabbit) is phenomenal.

If I get what you are saying, yes everything would be phenomenal at some point, to be confirmed. I see no need for the word "reality"; I try to use it just to illustrate points.

Originally Posted by The Man

Facts lacking a basis in an "underlying reality"? We can certainly make model that adjusts better to what anyone wants to believe but “facts” place the same limitation upon those models as a (factually based) "underlying reality" does. Would you prefer some "underlying reality" not base on facts or is it just the term "underlying reality" that you would like to dispense with? Sorry, that’s why there are facts, just something you can’t throw away at your whim, unless you just want to ignore the reality underling those facts.

Yes, the facts limits the reach and nature of our concepts, of our theoretical models. I just don't see the need to assume a "reality" behind facts. The "reality underlying those facts" is always, an assumption.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

The helmet is not in anticipation of your response.

Then I didnt get it.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Then I didnt get it.

I have been flamed for that statement by others in the past.

[Paul2]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen

Yes, the facts limits the reach and nature of our concepts, of our theoretical models. I just don't see the need to assume a "reality" behind facts. The "reality underlying those facts" is always, an assumption.

But what else is behind the facts except the thing we label "reality?" What is a fact if not what is in front (so to speak) of reality?

You accept the concept of a fact, yet somehow feel the need to distance yourself from the concept "reality." Reality doesn't have to be anything more than that which is behind facts. Let's call it an assumption, then. It seems a necessary one (an axiom, perhaps?).

If there's nothing behind the fact, why are facts such stubborn things, then?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Dancing David

I have been flamed for that statement by others in the past.

You have been facing naive realists, I guess.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally Posted by Paul2

But what else is behind the facts except the thing we label "reality?" What is a fact if not what is in front (so to speak) of reality?

That's the whole point, its better to stick with facts. Why? because what humanity has been labeling "reality" have changed enormously every time the paradigm changes.

Originally Posted by Paul2

You accept the concept of a fact, yet somehow feel the need to distance yourself from the concept "reality." Reality doesn't have to be anything more than that which is behind facts. Let's call it an assumption, then. It seems a necessary one (an axiom, perhaps?).

About facts yes of course, facts are real, but there is no necessity of having any underlying concept ("below" them). Why? because it will be a concept, not reality. So, no, I don't believe it is necessary.

Originally Posted by Paul2

If there's nothing behind the fact, why are facts such stubborn things, then?

That's the kind of questions that compels us to conceptualize whats "behind" facts. I choose to stop right there, I see no need to go anywhere past the facts.