The Narrative

[clv101]

I thought this thread was particularly good:
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1608643464509652993

[Vortex2]

I find that Caitlin's YT channel is (mostly) worth watching.

One thing I tend to disagree with, is the idea that there is some sort of Illuminati pulling the strings.

There is no They there.

Much more likely is that there are few master puppeteers ... just random self-interested individuals and clusters of people surviving day-to-day.

The world is probably a soup of self-interested 'agents' all interacting in a myriad of almost random ways .. and some happen to be rich and powerful.

I have met quite a few CEOs etc - some famous - over the years, and I have not detected any discernible 'organisation'.
Sure, they have fantastic homes, expensive cars .. but they still get shouted at by their partners, they still have arguments with their kids .. all relatively normal stuff.

[PS_RalphW]

There is not one organised “they”, but there are many actors, personal, criminal, corporate and state, each manipulating the narrative that people are exposed to, to their own advantage. A gang or state leader is just one person, who controls by manipulating the narrative for the people around him/her, to emanate and also be controlled by the narrative they themselves have been fed, their own personal subculture and beliefs. Exploiting social media is just the next step up in gaining power over people by exploiting their desires, fears and beliefs. We all grew up in our own micro culture, our own set of memes, and we all manipulate those around us, or across the internet. It is how culture works, there is no right or wrong, good or evil way of doing it, all we can do is use knowledge , logic and experience to navigate our way through it so that we do not create too many contradictions between our thoughts and emotions as we are born, grow and then die. The objective truth is that we can never know the objective truth, we can only evaluate the evidence of our senses, whilst realising our senses are an imperfect mirror, which we can refine by scientific analysis to some extent, but ultimately we respond to narratives and biochemical feedbacks, which have evolved through natural selection to be imperfectly replicated, one generation to the next , for billions of years.

That all got a bit deep

[Vortex2]

GPT provided this simplified version:

There is no one group controlling the narrative people are exposed to, but rather many different actors, such as people, criminals, businesses, and governments, who all use different forms of manipulation to gain power over others.

Social media is just the latest tool used to exploit people's desires, fears, and beliefs.

Everyone has their own unique set of beliefs and values, and we all try to influence those around us or online.

This is just how culture works, and there is no one right or wrong way to do it.

All we can do is use our knowledge, logic, and experience to make the best decisions.

The truth is that we can never know the complete truth, as our senses are unreliable and can only be improved upon with scientific analysis.

Ultimately, we respond to narratives and biochemical signals that have been passed down from generation to generation for billions of years.

[UndercoverElephant]

I thought this thread was particularly good:
https://twitter.com/caitoz/status/1608643464509652993

Quotes:

Few understand just how pervasively dominated our civilization is by narrative. How all our culture, beliefs, political and economic systems, are all made entirely out of mental stories that we collectively pretend are real. Towers of narrative built atop our basic animal needs.

Political and economic systems are real. They are instantiated in the physical world and no individual has the power to change them. We cannot just stop believing in them. We cannot opt out of them.

That choice, that red pill, is committing yourself to a sincere devotion to living in truth, come what may

Absolutely. This has been my self-declared personal religion since I was 18. Seek truth, speak the truth, defend the truth, and do so as an end in itself, not as a means to an end.

Really we're just an adolescent species going through an awkward and confusing transition phase as we learn to use these newly evolved brains maturely, and our confusion is being exploited by a few clever humans who understand manipulation better than the rest of is.

Yes. Homo sapiens sapiens is not the finished article. We have some more evolving to do, and not just culturally. Natural selection loves a population bottleneck.

[UndercoverElephant]

One thing I tend to disagree with, is the idea that there is some sort of Illuminati pulling the strings.

I'd personally say there are probably two sorts. One lot have the sort of power that everybody instinctively understands -- that which comes with great wealth and influence. It is no secret that these people exist, because they have a big meeting every year, behind closed doors, at Davos.

The other sort, if you believe in such things, have some sort of mystical power which comes at the price of giving up, or at least not seeking, the sort of power the first lot have.

The "illuminati" are a mixture of both, and I don't believe in that either. I don't think such people can exist.

[UndercoverElephant]

The objective truth is that we can never know the objective truth, we can only evaluate the evidence of our senses, whilst realising our senses are an imperfect mirror, which we can refine by scientific analysis to some extent, but ultimately we respond to narratives and biochemical feedbacks, which have evolved through natural selection to be imperfectly replicated, one generation to the next , for billions of years.

That all got a bit deep

I disagree. I think we can know all sorts of objective truths, and about physical reality. We can objectively state, for example, that mammals evolved from fish. That's not just a metaphor or a theory. There is no possible future timeline where we find out that this claim is actually false. You might argue that this is just a theory about what Kant called "phenomena", and to know objective truth then we'd need to say something about "noumena", but I'd reject that too. If science doesn't latch on to something real about the noumenal world then how can we explain how science works at all?

This topic is of particular interest to me.

[PS_RalphW]

The basic tenets of science is that everything is a theory, just that some are better at describing the the evidence of our senses than others. Newton and Einstein and all that. Mammals evolved from fish is still a theory, albeit a strong one. We have fossil evidence which is very patchy, and we have dna evidence which is stronger, but our understanding of evolution is evolving all the time. The simple, linear model of descendants having random gene mutations that by chance are better adapted to the changing (or newly accessible) environment gets complicated by many things like gene insertion by retroviruses etc., which previously was not recognised in More com0lex organisms. We still do not have a clear understanding of the fundamental physical laws, and we may not ever get one, because we cannot construct experiments sufficiently powerful to test them. We can never know the size of the universe because it is too big for it ever to be observed by any physical force that is limited to the speed of light. We cannot know the universe because we are inside it and part of it.

My adopted children have taught me a huge amount about what it is to be human this last 18 years, that no two people see the world the same way, and we are all so flawed that it is inconceivable that any of us can declare that we know any objective truth with absolute certainty.

[UndercoverElephant]

The basic tenets of science is that everything is a theory, just that some are better at describing the the evidence of our senses than others.

That is not a tenet of science. It is a philosophical claim about science, and is very much disputed. I think you are expressing a form of scientific anti-realism, which is a minority position in philosophy of science (which doesn't mean it is wrong, but does mean you can't claim it as a basic tenet of science). Scientific realism is the claim that our best scientific theories work because they structurally/mathematically resemble something in the real world. So they aren't "just theories" and they aren't just describing the evidence of our senses, but they are actually telling us something about an objective, mind-independent reality. In other words, they are tending towards the objective truth.

Newton and Einstein and all that. Mammals evolved from fish is still a theory, albeit a strong one. We have fossil evidence which is very patchy, and we have dna evidence which is stronger, but our understanding of evolution is evolving all the time.

The fossil evidence is not so patchy that there are any grounds to doubt this specific claim, which is why I chose it as an example. It cannot be overturned because the claim is so integrated with everything else we know about biology, taxonomy and geological history. The only way it could turn out to be false is if the laws of physics themselves are radically inconsistent, meaning anything is possible, including 6-day biblical literalist creationism. Apart from supernaturally by fiat, there is no way to create a reptile without first creating a fish. [edit: to be clear, even if you are God, there may be no way to create a reptile without first creating a fish. Even if the process was partly supernatural, mammals are still descended from fish, via amphibians and reptiles.].

The simple, linear model of descendants having random gene mutations that by chance are better adapted to the changing (or newly accessible) environment gets complicated by many things like gene insertion by retroviruses etc., which previously was not recognised in More com0lex organisms.

Just because we also picked up some extra genetic material from viruses along the way, it doesn't change the fact that you and I had ancestors who were fish.

We still do not have a clear understanding of the fundamental physical laws, and we may not ever get one, because we cannot construct experiments sufficiently powerful to test them.

Quantum mechanics so far has a 100% agreement with observations (phenomena). How can we explain this fact if it is not because the mathematical laws of QM structurally resemble something in noumenal (observation-independent) reality?

We can never know the size of the universe because it is too big for it ever to be observed by any physical force that is limited to the speed of light.

Sure. But that doesn't change the fact that mammals are descended from fish, does it? Science isn't some sort of monolithic, unchanging objective truth, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have anything to do with truth either. Just because it can't answer some questions at all, and can only answer others provisionally, doesn't mean it can't answer any questions at all.

We cannot know the universe because we are inside it and part of it. My adopted children have taught me a huge amount about what it is to be human this last 18 years, that no two people see the world the same way, and we are all so flawed that it is inconceivable that any of us can declare that we know any objective truth with absolute certainty.

As you can see, I fundamentally disagree with you and believe this discussion to be quite important. I believe there is such a thing a reality external to human minds, and that the only believable explanation for the success of science is that our best scientific theories structurally resemble parts of that external (noumenal) reality. If you disagree then you are obliged to offer an alternative explanation as to how science works, presuming you don't think it is down to luck. See: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scie ... /#MiraArgu

The reason I think this is so important is because I also believe that metaphysical materialism, which is a much stronger claim than scientific realism, has been logically falsified. And if materialism is false, then scientific realism becomes an extremely important "backstop" position. Without it, we enter the realms of unbridled new-age nuttery.

[RevdTess]

I disagree. I think we can know all sorts of objective truths, and about physical reality. We can objectively state, for example, that mammals evolved from fish. That's not just a metaphor or a theory. There is no possible future timeline where we find out that this claim is actually false.

The problem is that half the world now apparently believes in 'alternative facts' and that experts and scientists have 'an agenda'. So there may be no possible future timeline where scientists find out that 1+1=3, but there may well be a future timeline where those who argue 1+1=2 are ridiculed and excluded from public discourse. Such a timeline doesn't change the facts, it only changes what people are allowed to say are facts. I worry that in practice these are the same thing.

[RevdTess]

I believe there is such a thing a reality external to human minds,

This is very much a faith/philosophical position at the moment, hence your use of "I believe".

It's certainly a discussion that I also find very fascinating, both as a former mathematician & information technologist, and now as a theologian.

I find myself watching a lot of videos on PBS Space Time (Matt O'Dowd) and of course Sabine Hossenfelder who recently wrote "Existential Physics" about this sort of question.

I confess I am drawn to the idea of the deterministic 'block universe', or the possibility that our perceivable universe exists entirely within an expanding black hole. I am unclear as to whether I am a scientific realist. I am not sure if it's possible to prove this. I assume that there is 'something' independent that exists ( I believe in a God after all ) but quantum theory suggests that prior to observation, reality is just a probability distribution, and can a blob of possibilities be considered an external reality independent of our interaction with it? Is there a parallel here with Relativity, which says that there is no such thing as independent velocity, but only velocity relative to something else? A theologian might say that the universe is 'relational' and nothing exists except in relation to something else. But perhaps such independent existence is not what you imply by scientific realism - I am sure you will correct my misunderstanding.

[clv101]

...but there may well be a future timeline where those who argue 1+1=2 are ridiculed and excluded from public discourse.

There are some climate scientists who might suggest we aren't far from that timeline already.

[UndercoverElephant]

I believe there is such a thing a reality external to human minds,

This is very much a faith/philosophical position at the moment, hence your use of "I believe".

I could not disagree more strongly. This has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with science. If there is no reality external to human minds, why does science work? Magic? Luck? No. Science works for a reason, and if there's no external world then there is no credible explanation. This belief is justified, hence it is not faith-based.

I confess I am drawn to the idea of the deterministic 'block universe',

Whhhaaaaattt??? You're a theologian and you believe in hard determinism? That means no possibility of any supernatural causality, including God's will and human free will. Why on Earth would a theologian believe in a metaphysical position which rules out such things when there is no compelling reason to do so? Why would you even be agnostic about such things? You're a theologian - presumably you believe in God? What's the point in God existing if it creates a universe that it can't interact with?

or the possibility that our perceivable universe exists entirely within an expanding black hole. I am unclear as to whether I am a scientific realist.

You are not a scientific realist. Scientific realists believe science provides information about an external world you don't believe in.

I assume that there is 'something' independent that exists ( I believe in a God after all )

So do deists!

but quantum theory suggests that prior to observation, reality is just a probability distribution, and can a blob of possibilities be considered an external reality independent of our interaction with it?

Absolutely. Those probabilities are finite. There are a range of possible outcomes, and three possible metaphysical positions:

1: The many worlds interpretation, which is purely deterministic and probably what you mean by "block universe". (You might also have meant something relating to philosophy of time, involving the past existing but the future not existing (this is usually called "expanding block universe", where the present moment is the expanding edge). If so, this isn't a position in QM.)

2: Copenhagen or other objectively random interpretation. This involves only one timeline, but it is objectively random (according to the laws of QM) which one manifests.

3: Von Neumann / Stapp interpretation aka "consciousness causes collapse". Again, only one timeline, but the quantum dice can be loaded. I can see no reason why any theologian would opt for anything else, since the agent that loads the dice could include both God's mind/will and human minds/will.

Is there a parallel here with Relativity, which says that there is no such thing as independent velocity, but only velocity relative to something else?

I don't understand the question.

A theologian might say that the universe is 'relational' and nothing exists except in relation to something else. But perhaps such independent existence is not what you imply by scientific realism - I am sure you will correct my misunderstanding.

I'm not sure what that means either.

[UndercoverElephant]

I disagree. I think we can know all sorts of objective truths, and about physical reality. We can objectively state, for example, that mammals evolved from fish. That's not just a metaphor or a theory. There is no possible future timeline where we find out that this claim is actually false.

The problem is that half the world now apparently believes in 'alternative facts' and that experts and scientists have 'an agenda'. So there may be no possible future timeline where scientists find out that 1+1=3, but there may well be a future timeline where those who argue 1+1=2 are ridiculed and excluded from public discourse. Such a timeline doesn't change the facts, it only changes what people are allowed to say are facts. I worry that in practice these are the same thing.

Yes, this is a massive problem. We have created a world where people think it is OK to believe in "their own truth", and it doesn't have to be logical, nor does it have to take science seriously. This is an ideological malfunction very much specific to Western civilisation, with the United States leading the way. It is directly related to things like climate change denial, and the belief that anyone who believes they are a woman really is a woman, regardless of their genetics or the body they were born with. I was banned from reddit for refusing to accept this sort of reality-denial.

We don't just need a new narrative. We need a new epistemic deal, fit for the 21st century. In fact, we need a new cosmology (in the anthropological sense). The good news is that all the pieces of that particular puzzle are available. The bad news is that most of western society doesn't want to know. They want to go on believing whatever they fancy.

[RevdTess]

I believe there is such a thing a reality external to human minds,

This is very much a faith/philosophical position at the moment, hence your use of "I believe".

I could not disagree more strongly. This has nothing to do with faith and everything to do with science. If there is no reality external to human minds, why does science work? Magic? Luck? No. Science works for a reason, and if there's no external world then there is no credible explanation. This belief is justified, hence it is not faith-based.

Then you shouldn't use "I believe" but rather state "There is such a thing as a reality external to human minds".

I'm still not sure if I agree. It depends on what you mean by 'reality'.

I confess I am drawn to the idea of the deterministic 'block universe',

Whhhaaaaattt??? You're a theologian and you believe in hard determinism? That means no possibility of any supernatural causality, including God's will and human free will.

Still, I think that's where the science is leading. I've never believed in free will, neither as an atheist, nor as a theist. There's a significant strand of Christianity that doesn't accept it either, especially Calvinistic double-predestination - the idea that God decides who goes to heaven and hell and we just play out the roles set for us. Other strands of theology such as Process Theology understand God as being changed by the universe. Yet others believe that there is no such thing as supernatural causality (causality from outside physics). Personally I see God as sustaining physics, not intervening from outside. I think this is compatible with hard determinism, but it means I don't believe in hell, because determinism would mean you have no choice about ending up there.

You are not a scientific realist. Scientific realists believe science provides information about an external world you don't believe in.

Fair enough. I'm not sure if I believe in an external world. It depends on what form you believe that world can take. If you believe there are particles out there whizzing around without observers, then I would disagree. If you believe there is a quantum probability function that independently exists
and collapses into particles when observed, then yes I believe an external world exists.

1: The many worlds interpretation, which is purely deterministic and probably what you mean by "block universe". (You might also have meant something relating to philosophy of time, involving the past existing but the future not existing (this is usually called "expanding block universe", where the present moment is the expanding edge). If so, this isn't a position in QM.)

This is an interpretation that can - as I understand it - never be proven. It is a reality that may or may not objectively exist and we could never know.

2: Copenhagen or other objectively random interpretation. This involves only one timeline, but it is objectively random (according to the laws of QM) which one manifests.

I currently think Copenhagen is more likely to be the best representation of objective reality.

3: Von Neumann / Stapp interpretation aka "consciousness causes collapse". Again, only one timeline, but the quantum dice can be loaded. I can see no reason why any theologian would opt for anything else, since the agent that loads the dice could include both God's mind/will and human minds/will.

This is a fascinating idea, and fondly promoted by my main maths professor at uni in the early nineties. It's what got me interested in the first place. I think recently experiments have cast doubt on it though? I can't say I understand those experiments but I've watched a bunch of videos on experimentalists trying to prove that consciousness is not necessary for collapse to occur and I was pretty convinced, but I never did physics beyond A Level so what do I know.

A theologian might say that the universe is 'relational' and nothing exists except in relation to something else. But perhaps such independent existence is not what you imply by scientific realism

I'm not sure what that means either.

Fair enough. It's woolly theology after all. I was trying to convey the idea that perhaps objective reality only manifests when it experiences an interaction with something. Otherwise it's just a block of possibility. If a quantum system only collapses when observed, did it exist beforehand? Does one's answer to that question have anything at all to do with scientific realism? I expect you will answer 'no', in which case I have to admit I still don't understand your argument yet. But I do find it fascinating so don't give up.