Reality isn’t comprehensible

Reality isn’t comprehensible, because it isn’t real outside of our comprehension.

Inside our comprehension, it is totally logical, but the problem for us is that logic is internally orthogonal, that is, fundamentally ambiguous, because it leaves our search for The Truth with The Axiom of Choice.

This fact may be interpreted as that reality instead is paradoxical (ie, realism, like cladistics and particle physics), but this interpretation falsifies itself.


10 responses to “Reality isn’t comprehensible

  1. The choice of faith.

    • “The choice of faith”…? I’m not choosing here. I’m explaining that reality is (must be) incomprehensible (ie, explaining a fact). This fact does not exclude that we can make better or worse models of how reality functions (which we all also have learned at school), but only that we can’t understand it, although it does mean that there will always be at least two models that describes how something functions just as accurately, ie, the axiom of choice. This is also what mathematics does today in its discrete and continuous aspects if the same problem, and do you mean that mathematicians have chosen faith?

      No, it is actually the other way around. The belief that that reality IS comprehensible IS a faith by definition (ie, a self-contradictory belief). Acknowledging the fact that it isn’t just appears as a choice of faith to realists, because they think that the choice of approach is a choice of faith (since they are blind for their own faith and thus can’t understand non-faith, ie, nominalism). This is also the reason why realists can’t understand atheism, ie, the lack of faith. This approach simply isn’t on their menu. I’m thus stating that acknowledging facts ultimately means denying faith, ie, atheism, including the faith in a comprehensible reality. Left to us is to model and manipulate reality.

      I’m thus not choosing faith, but on the contrary stating that atheism is the only approach that is both consistent not falsified by facts.

      • Ah; from your shorter post, I was coming to a different meaning. I would draw back from ‘axiom’, then to say what I meant – what I was gathering from you, but that was incorrect – was that I mean faith to be that which informs ones truth of reality, and this cannot be chosen out of, but the faith itself behaves for that reality as if there is a choice to be made. For it seems you are stating an axiom of reality, within reality, of how reality works for itself.

      • Axioms do not belong to reality, but do on the contrary underpin our comprehension of (discussion on) reality. A discussion on reality requires that we distinguish at least two levels: reality and our discussion, and I’m simply stating that reality is incomprehensible for discussion. (We can model how it works, albeit ambiguously, but can’t understand what it is.) If we do not distinguish these two levels, but instead include ourselves (and thus our discussion) in the reality we discuss, then the discussion will be whatever the discussion is. This fundamental distinction does not mean, however, that reality IS more real than the discussion on it is, but just that they are different things. We have to make some distinction to be able to communicate with words (ie, with representations), and this distinction unfortunately makes the reality we communicate on incomprehensible. What reality “is” outside of words is impossible to say with words.

      • Yes. But I read Witt as saying what is passed over in silence cannot be but otherwise. what is silent is a condition of that which we speak, so that what may be out side of word ‘is never’, or ‘is nil’, more than ‘is impossible to say’, since whatever there may be is always routed back to words. For what part of reality extends beyond words?

      • Reality does not “extend beyond” words, but rather escapes words; we can’t nail it with words. This fact is not a mystery, but simply a property of a system of representation (eg, conceptualization) and its relation to the represented. It applies on all systems of representations and their relation to their represents.

      • Another way of speaking about it: reality and discussion. So if reality is so large and our ability to say anything about it is so small, but suffices to suit our needs for survival and such, how is reality incomprehensible? Is not that merely another comprehension of what is real? What is ‘reaching or nor reaching’ or to where? When I’m sitting silently in a room with a friend noting some ridiculousness of another person and my friend and I look at each other in mutual recognition of the stupid person, what is incomprehensible there?

        Is not to say ‘we can model’ merely being based upon a model of reality that says we can make models of it, and part of this model is that there is a reserved space for what is ‘outside the model’?

      • This “another way of speaking about it” is incomprehensible to me, I’m sorry. Does it claim that reality is comprehensible? (If so, does it mean that you can explain reality? Quantum mechanics…?)

      • I suppose I am indicating a difference found with including the human being with the operating of the universe. For if indeed we operate universally, that is, are not in any manner separated from the otherwise operating universe, then every concept we have is likewise an expression of that universal operation. That then we have a condition of our knowledge, as you’ve said, where it is ‘our’ model in an otherwise incomprehesibe reality;, but then also that such incomprehensible reality is merely another part of our operating as universal components, that this incomprehension, what is signifies, is likewise a ‘comprehensible’ part called ‘incomprehension’. Ironically, a reality that is ‘really’ incompressible is a part of a particular orientation upon the universe that posits our essential separation from the universe.

      • If I try to say something comprehensible about what reality is, then I say that it is a potentiality – it is always in the state of BECOMING. The reason we comprehend it as it IS, is that we erroneously think we ARE (when we actually are BECOMING), and thus must conclude that also reality must BE (or the other way around). The problem with this comprehension is that not both we and reality can BE at the same time, because BE is in this case an abstraction, and an abstract representation of abstractions is a paradox per definition (which Russell’s paradox demonstrates).

        This comprehension (ie, of reality as a matter of potentiality, or becoming) turns the problem of understanding reality into a problem of understanding potentiality. Such understanding, in turn, lurks in the neighborhood of quantum mechanics, since this discipline evidences that reality actually is a matter of becoming. In this framework, we can understand reality as a matter of probabilities rather than of absolute states. So, in this framework we can understand the fact that a single particle can have opposite rotations at the same time as that it is not actually a single particle, but rather a position in space that may be occupied by different particles with opposite rotations with the same probability at the same time. We thus just have to abandon local realism to arrive to a consistent understanding. This understanding does not, however, make reality comprehensible, but just leads to the question: what is a probability?, which bypasses the comprehension we seek. It thus demonstrates what I try to explain in this blog post – that reality isn’t comprehensible (per definition).

        The nature of this problem can be described with the old Swedish saying that “no matter how you turn, you will still have the ass in the back”. Solving it actually requires putting the ass in the front without taking it away from the back. It is thus just a play with words lacking a solution. Realization of this fact means the death of realism (which provides the foundation for cladistics and particle physics).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s