guitarstring87 Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT (BLUF): Does current reality trump what could be in the future because current reality has already entered into existence and what will happen in the future has not? The basic premise is that current reality has selected one (possibly the best one) option out of all the infinite options the future has in store. So to give a quick example... I sit down in a chair. Before my ass hits the chair there is the possibility it will break, my coworker could kick it out from under me, or it could turn into a unicorn and fly away etc. But once my ass hits the chair and it doesn't break or scamper off or whatever... NOW only one reality exists and all the other POSSIBLE realities go away. So what IS (or current reality) trumps future possibility because what IS has actually come into existence. See below for more detailed explanation. BLUF provided for economy of time and to improve response to view ratio. So to give you some background, the problem came up as I have been thinking on human history, specifically, when thinking about the origins of humanity, the natural world, and anarchism. Stephan has said (in summary) that anarchism has never been given a fair shake and that we have been ruled from the beginning... but isn't ALL of the natural world inherently anarchist? People have always had free will or as Ayn Rand pointed out in the virtue of selfishness we wouldn't have been able to feed ourselves. The rest animal kingdom operates on pure freedom, competition, and individual self interest as well... but out of the anarchy that is the natural world came humans, and humans created man-made (unnatural) systems of government and religion. Anarchism came first, because nature its self IS anarchy (which in my opinion is beautiful and I am not arguing against the principles of anarchism as used in philosophical context). Now to get into the meat of it... Does physical reality trump future possibility? To start I will submit that it does. For example I am typing a long convoluted post that probably no one ever will read and it is possible that ten minutes from now any number of things could happen to me, I could get struck by lightning or choke on some gum or whatever (by the end of this you will probably wish I would have)... but only one future of the competing futures wins, and that becomes what IS and that thing enters into physical reality which is tangible, and is subject to empirical analysis. So like Stephan has said one of his books (I can't remember if it was practical anarchy or every day anarchy) abstract theories must first not be self contradictory, and then must apply to the physical world (what IS) in order to be proven. So before something IS, the future has an infinite number of options of what COULD BE. So it could be said that what IS trumps what COULD BE because out of all the possible combinations of what COULD BE, IS... IS. It won. it actually came to fruition in physical reality. So to tie the previous two paragraphs together, the natural world IS. Out of all the infinite combinations, it is the best system of life (that we know of) that the universe could develop. Many anarchists use the argument that the natural world operates on the same fundamental principles as their philosophical model to justify the “rightness” of anarchism... But this is also the problem.... because the natural world right now, and throughout most of human history, is pretty messed up. So philosophy came about to argue for the way the world SHOULD BE in the future. This is a problem for philosophy because WHAT IS CURRENTLY is the natural extension of what has been. So to rephrase that... We are living in a time where communism rules the world and individual liberty is an endangered species AND we are currently the living result of what the natural world has developed out of disorder through improvements made by evolution. Is this then not our improved natural state? Also, if it stands that WHAT IS trumps any logical model that supposes reality should be any different than it IS, then isn't philosophy shoved off into the same hypothetical, or rather, nonexistent future where I choke on a piece of gum? I guess this kind of gets into some quantum "Schrodinger's cat" type stuff... But that was my best effort to try and put into words my dilemma and explain my meager understanding of the future. Please forgive the length... it is just a fairly complex thought that needs some context. Also please bear in mind I am on your side and am not arguing against any of the principles Stephan puts forward and I am a HUGE fan of the show and philosophy. I am just trying to work through this logically and have ran into a hiccup.Thanks and I look forward to your responses!
aliasneo Posted March 3, 2015 Posted March 3, 2015 I dislike the "shrodinger's cat" experiment very much. The cat is either alive or dead (never both). I think theoretical physicists like to beat that dead cat in order to collect a paycheck from the government whilst contributing almost nothing to science. ...rant over To be honest, I found it very difficult to make it through your post, what with all the elaboration and self-deprecation. I think I absorbed the context of the overall work, and my opinion is: I don't know what the future holds, but I can feel the nature of things changing. I see commercials on TV sometimes that I would have never even have imagined legal nowadays (e cigs, for example). Humanity is constantly changing, I think mostly, for the better. Embrace your base biology. We can learn a lot from animals (in the wild). Welcome to the world of the real
guitarstring87 Posted March 5, 2015 Author Posted March 5, 2015 Thank you for the response! Yeah the question is really abstract and kind of theoretical. The take away I was trying to convey was... Does current reality trump what could be in the future because current reality has already entered into existence and "what will" be has not? Basically the premise is that current reality has selected one (possibly the best one) option out of all the infinite options the future holds. So to give an example... I sit down in a chair. Before my ass hits the chair there is the possibility it will break, my coworker could kick it out from under me, or it could turn into a unicorn and fly away etc. But once my ass hits the chair and it doesn't break or scamper off or whatever... NOW only one reality exists and all the other POSSIBLE realities go away. So what IS (or current reality) trumps future possibility because what IS has actually come into existence.My thoughts on humanity and philosophy were just a back drop on how I started thinking about it and the implications of it on philosophy if it is correct.
labmath2 Posted March 6, 2015 Posted March 6, 2015 I reject the evolutionary argument for social outcomes because it implies the current outcome is the "most fit" outcome. It is the determinist version of philosophy.
guitarstring87 Posted March 6, 2015 Author Posted March 6, 2015 I reject the evolutionary argument for social outcomes because it implies the current outcome is the "most fit" outcome. It is the determinist version of philosophy. Ok. That is a valid opinion... But do you have an argument to support it or were you just stating that you reject it? I am not a determinist. I am an objectivist. As such I am just exploring the world around me and the concepts regarding future and its relationship to reality. No need to go throwing labels on everything.
labmath2 Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 Ok. That is a valid opinion... But do you have an argument to support it or were you just stating that you reject it? I am not a determinist. I am an objectivist. As such I am just exploring the world around me and the concepts regarding future and its relationship to reality. No need to go throwing labels on everything. The reason i reject it is because it implies things cannot be better. For example, Governments exist instead of voluntary societies because governments controlled societies are "more fit." If we use this logic on everything, then there is either no reason for us to change what is, or if we do try to change things, that is also a product of "what is." This negates free will and hence sorts of defeats itself. If you want to change someone's mind it requires that their minds are not merely products of events, but also a product of their own will.
guitarstring87 Posted March 8, 2015 Author Posted March 8, 2015 The reason i reject it is because it implies things cannot be better. For example, Governments exist instead of voluntary societies because governments controlled societies are "more fit." If we use this logic on everything, then there is either no reason for us to change what is, or if we do try to change things, that is also a product of "what is." This negates free will and hence sorts of defeats itself. If you want to change someone's mind it requires that their minds are not merely products of events, but also a product of their own will. Right. And I agree that is a problem. That is why I am having the discussion. However you still have not refuted my argument. Again you are rejecting the fact that reality must trump future possibility without addressing the issue. To make that argument you must address the questions: What is "better", "Why change is necessary", "Why are minds not products of events", and “Why WHAT IS is less desirable than what MIGHT BE. Stephan would call it “arguing from first principles” I don't see how it necessarily negates free will either. I can still choose not to sit in the chair, however when I choose to action on that thought, that reality is real and the one where I would have sat in the chair is gone because it never existed. I am still making the choice about what I do. The future has a selection of possible events that is restricted by past events. So for example, I am sitting here in Afghanistan, in the next 10 seconds hugging my children is not possible because previous choices have lead me down this branch of reality. I still made the choices out of millions of alternate possibilities though. I could have chose to become a doctor or anything else. But the fact that I AM here means that this reality must be the best possible reality because it is the ONLY reality. If you try to retort with quantum theory and parallel universes I will refer you to Stephan's book "Against the gods" Don't get me wrong... We are on the same side, but until I get an argument that refutes it then i cannot rule it out as a possibility. I have chewed on this for a while now and have not found a satisfactory answer. That is why I am bringing it here. To let smarter people than me give it a whack.
labmath2 Posted March 8, 2015 Posted March 8, 2015 I don't see how it necessarily negates free will either. I can still choose not to sit in the chair, however when I choose to action on that thought, that reality is real and the one where I would have sat in the chair is gone because it never existed. I am still making the choice about what I do. The future has a selection of possible events that is restricted by past events. So for example, I am sitting here in Afghanistan, in the next 10 seconds hugging my children is not possible because previous choices have lead me down this branch of reality. I still made the choices out of millions of alternate possibilities though. I could have chose to become a doctor or anything else. But the fact that I AM here means that this reality must be the best possible reality because it is the ONLY reality. If you try to retort with quantum theory and parallel universes I will refer you to Stephan's book "Against the gods" Now i see where our disagreement lies. I feel that the statement i highlighted is just a tautology. Since you are not actually comparing what is to anything else. One thing can only be best when compared to other things for specific reasons. If our reality is the best because it exists, then whatever reality exists by definition is the best. That is just an assertion, there is no proof that it is the case.
shirgall Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 I reject the evolutionary argument for social outcomes because it implies the current outcome is the "most fit" outcome. It is the determinist version of philosophy. Nothing in the family of theories encapsulated as "evolution" says anything about "most fit" but rather "fit enough to reproduce successfully".
labmath2 Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Nothing in the family of theories encapsulated as "evolution" says anything about "most fit" but rather "fit enough to reproduce successfully". Yes, i understand your point, but survival of the fittest is what people often associate with evolution (or at least natural selection).
shirgall Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Yes, i understand your point, but survival of the fittest is what people often associate with evolution (or at least natural selection). They're wrong. Natural selection is not about the "fittest", it's about the "fit enough". It's an oversimplification that causes problems, kinda like High School Physics asserting F=ma. ( http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2718 )
guitarstring87 Posted March 9, 2015 Author Posted March 9, 2015 Now i see where our disagreement lies. I feel that the statement i highlighted is just a tautology. Since you are not actually comparing what is to anything else. One thing can only be best when compared to other things for specific reasons. If our reality is the best because it exists, then whatever reality exists by definition is the best. That is just an assertion, there is no proof that it is the case. Stephan uses likes to use the scientific method as a base for UPB (seeing as this is his forum I like to tie everything back to his concepts if possible). In the book he stresses that the first step in testing the hypothesis is that you test it against its own framework and make sure it doesn't self destruct. If it passes you move on to the next step which is to test the hypothesis against REALITY. If it passes that test then it may proceed. Therefore logic, and reality, are the two most important gate keepers that a hypothesis must pass. The entire concept of empiricism is that the abstract [hypothesis] MUST submit to reality in order to be tested and validated. That is not a baseless assertion, it is fact. So then, I am using that same concept that empiricism trumps mysticism, reality trumps abstract, and the present trumps the future. The present can be empirically tested and observed, and the future cannot. Therefore “what is”, or “the present”, or “reality”, must trump “what could/should be”, “the future”, and what “has not entered into reality” Like I said. I don't like this. Not at all. I agree that things ideally SHOULD be different. But this argument is pretty solid and I dont know how to overcome it.
guitarstring87 Posted March 9, 2015 Author Posted March 9, 2015 They're wrong. Natural selection is not about the "fittest", it's about the "fit enough". It's an oversimplification that causes problems, kinda like High School Physics asserting F=ma. ( http://usersguidetotheuniverse.com/?p=2718 ) Fittest also implies competition and resource scarcity. I don't think "fittest" is a misnomer or an oversimplification as organisms compete for resources to survive. Those that survive have a greater opportunity for reproduction.
shirgall Posted March 9, 2015 Posted March 9, 2015 Fittest also implies competition and resource scarcity. I don't think "fittest" is a misnomer or an oversimplification as organisms compete for resources to survive. It implies a single winner, when there is room for plenty of species with sufficient primary and secondary characteristics, or niches, to thrive. For example, you could have great characteristics, but if you have a specific prey that doesn't thrive where you are, you aren't going to thrive either.
guitarstring87 Posted March 9, 2015 Author Posted March 9, 2015 It implies a single winner, when there is room for plenty of species with sufficient primary and secondary characteristics, or niches, to thrive. For example, you could have great characteristics, but if you have a specific prey that doesn't thrive where you are, you aren't going to thrive either. Ok I see your point. So maybe survival of the "more fit".
Recommended Posts