reality and analytical inquiry
What is real and out there? This question is surprisingly hard to answer.
The only way we seem to be able to define ontology is as shared epistemology. (Every other definition suffers from an immediate deficiency.) In other words, what is real is what every possible point of view agrees upon, and vice versa. There is no such thing as your reality. (Note that this definition breaks the duality between ontology and epistemology. The moment you make inferences about the former, it gets subsumed by the latter. Is this surprising? Epistemology is all about making inferences. In other words, the scientific method itself is what is breaking the duality.)
Now we have a big problem: Ontological changes can not be communicated to all points of view at the same time in an instantaneous manner. This is outlawed by the finiteness of the speed of the fastest causation propagator which is usually taken as light. In fact, according to our current understanding of physics, there seems to be nothing invariant across all points of view. (e.g. Firewall paradox, twin paradox etc.) Whenever we get our hands onto some property, it slips away with the next advance in our theories.
This is a weird situation, an absolute mind-fuck to be honest. If we endorse all points of views, we can define ontology but then nothing seems to be real. If we endorse only our point of view, we can not define ontology at all and get trapped in a solipsistic world where every other point of view becomes unreal and other people turn into zombies.
Could all different points of views be part of a single - for lack of a better term “God” - point of view? In this case, our own individual point of view becomes unreal. This is a bad sacrifice indeed, but could it help us salvage reality? Nope… Can the universe observe itself? The question does not even make any sense!
It seems like physics can not start off without assuming a solipsistic worldview, adopting a single coordinate system which can not be sure about the reality of other coordinate systems.
In an older blog post, I had explained how dualities emerge as byproducts of analytical inquiry and thereby artificially split the unity of reality. Here we have a similar situation. The scientific method (i.e. analytical inquiry) is automatically giving rise to solipsism and thereby artificially splitting the unity of reality into considerations from different points of views.
In fact, the notions of duality and solipsism are very related. To see why, let us assume that we have a duality between P and not-P. Then
Within a single point of view, nothing can satisfy both P and not-P.
No property P stays invariant across all points of views.
Here, the first statement is a logical necessity and the second statement is enforced upon us by our own theories. We will take the second statement as the definition of solipsism.
Equivalently, we could have said
If property P holds from the point of view of A and not-P holds from the point of view of B, then A can not be equal to B.
For every property P, there exists at least one pair (A,B) such that A is not equal to B and P holds from the point of view of A while not-P holds from the point of view of B.
Now let X be the set of pairs (A,B) such that P holds from the point of view of A and not-P holds from the point of view of B. Also let △ stand for the diagonal set consisting of pairs (A,A). Then the above statements become
X can not hit △.
X can not miss the complement of △.
Using just mathematical notation we have
X ∩ △ = ∅
X ∩ △’ ≠ ∅
In other words, dualities and solipsism are defined using the same ingredients! Analytical inquiry gives rise to both at the same time. It supplies you labels to attach to reality (via the above equality) but simultaneously takes the reality away from you (via the above inequality). Good deal, right? After all (only) nothing comes for free!
Phenomena are the things which are empty of inherent existence, and inherent existence is that of which phenomena are empty.
Jeffrey Hopkins - Meditations on Emptiness (Page 9)
Recall that at the beginning post we had defined ontology as shared epistemology. One can also go the other way around and define epistemology as shared ontology. What does this mean?
To say that some thing exists we need every mind to agree to it.
To say that some statement is true we need every body to obey to it.
This is actually how truth is defined in model theory. A statement is deemed true if only if it holds in every possible embodiment.
In this sense, epistemology-ontology duality mirrors mind-body duality. (For a mind, the reality consists of bodies and what is fundamental is existence. For a body, the reality consist of minds and what is fundamental is truth.) For thousands of years, Western philosophy has been trying to break this duality which has popped up in various forms. Today, for instance, physicists are still debating whether “it” arouse from “bit” or “bit” arose from “it”.
Let us now do another exercise. What is the epistemological counterpart of the ontological statement that there are no invariances in physics?
Ontology. There is no single thing that every mind agrees to.
Epistemology. There is no single statement that every body obeys to.
Sounds outrageous, right? How come there be no statement that is universally true? Truth is absolute in logic, but relative in physics. We are not allowed to make any universal statements in physics, no matter how trivial.
