The Number Two
Let’s say the result of a sequence “s” of mathematical operations is “2”.
There are many such sequences:
s1 = 1 + 1 = 2
s2 = 2 + 0 =2
s3 = 3 – 1 = 2
s4 = 2 * 1 = 2
s5 = 6 / 3 = 2
s6 = 1 + 3 – 2 = 2
In fact, there are infinitely many such sequences.
The result of the sequence of operations tells us nothing about the sequence itself. As long as a sequence is consistent with the result, it is equivalent to any other similarly consistent sequence.
Given the result of such a mathematical sequence, how would you go about determining the sequence from which it was derived?
The Photo of a Rose
I present you with 4 digital prints of a red rose in a glass bud vase.
The prints are derived from:
1. A photograph made by a digital camera of an actual rose in a vase.
2. A computer simulation of a rose in a vase.
3. A very realistic painting of a rose in a vase.
4. A photograph of a silk rose in a plastic bud vase.
Furthermore, the 4 prints are identical in appearance, pixel by pixel, and each is consistent with a photo of a genuine rose in a glass vase, yet their sources – their methods of production – are very different. And although I presented you with only 4 prints, there are infinitely many ways to produce the same identical print.
How would you go about determining which is which?
The Computer and Joystick
I sit you down in front of a computer monitor and joystick. The monitor shows an image of a robotic arm and a metallic cube in an otherwise empty room.
I inform you that the images you see correspond to one of the following:
1. A live video feed of an actual robotic arm and an actual metallic cube in an actual adjacent room.
2. A highly accurate computer simulation of a robotic arm and cube.
3. A live video feed of an actual robotic arm in an actual room overlaid by a computer simulation of a metallic cube.
4. A live video feed of an adjacent empty room overlaid by a computer simulation of a robotic arm and cube.
5. A live video feed of an adjacent empty room overlaid by a live video feed from another room of an actual robotic arm and cube.
6. Sequences of pre-generated , highly detailed images drawn by a skilled artist and displayed in an appropriate sequence by a computer algorithm.
Although I present you with six possible sources, there are in fact infinitely many possible sources of images consistent with what you experience.
I give you some time to use the joystick to move the arm and manipulate the cube, and then I ask you which source is the actual source of the images. How would you respond?
The Boy in the Submarine
A boy is born onboard and lives his entire childhood on a submarine. The submarine has no windows, but instead has video monitors connected to cameras outside.
Throughout the boy’s life he sees many sights and learns many things about the aquatic environment in which he exists. Although he has never seen dry land or the surface, he has learned about these places.
After the boy reaches a certain age, he is told that what he sees and his actual environment is one of the following:
1. An actual oceanic environment with video cameras capturing life as it appears to be.
2. A computer simulation. The submarine is actually parked in a research lab and has never been in the ocean.
3. Pre-recorded scenes of an actual oceanic environment synchronized to appear interactive. The sub is parked on dry land.
4. Live video of a distant oceanic environment relayed to the sub which is parked on dry land.
Each hypothesis is consistent with the life experiences of the boy. Although presented with only 4 hypotheses, there are actually infinitely many. How can the boy determine which represents his actual situation?
The Epilog
What we each call reality is actually a hypothesis we each develop to make sense of our experiences.
The degree of consistency of one’s hypothesis with one’s experiences is not a measure of the closeness to “reality” of the hypothesis. With respect to the nature of existence at least, it is a mistake to think that a hypothesis that is highly consistent with experiences somehow reveals something about the underlying nature of things.
All of the examples I gave illustrate a variety of hypotheses, each equally consistent with the experiences and information presented. Equally consistent, yet in each example only one corresponds to the way things actually are.
I often use the hypothesis “life is a dream” to illustrate this, and some people misunderstand, assuming I believe that life is indeed a dream. The reason I make such statements is to point out that the hypothesis “life is a dream” is consistent with experience (depending on how we define “dream”). The hypothesis “consciousness precedes matter” is just as consistent with experience (maybe even more so) as the hypothesis “matter exists independently of consciousness”.
Considering that there are infinitely many hypotheses about the nature of reality, all equally consistent with experience*, it is highly improbable that any hypothesis one adopts accurately reflects the true nature of things.
*There are also infinitely many hypotheses that are inconsistent with experience!
Let’s say the result of a sequence “s” of mathematical operations is “2”.
There are many such sequences:
s1 = 1 + 1 = 2
s2 = 2 + 0 =2
s3 = 3 – 1 = 2
s4 = 2 * 1 = 2
s5 = 6 / 3 = 2
s6 = 1 + 3 – 2 = 2
In fact, there are infinitely many such sequences.
The result of the sequence of operations tells us nothing about the sequence itself. As long as a sequence is consistent with the result, it is equivalent to any other similarly consistent sequence.
Given the result of such a mathematical sequence, how would you go about determining the sequence from which it was derived?
The Photo of a Rose
I present you with 4 digital prints of a red rose in a glass bud vase.
The prints are derived from:
1. A photograph made by a digital camera of an actual rose in a vase.
2. A computer simulation of a rose in a vase.
3. A very realistic painting of a rose in a vase.
4. A photograph of a silk rose in a plastic bud vase.
Furthermore, the 4 prints are identical in appearance, pixel by pixel, and each is consistent with a photo of a genuine rose in a glass vase, yet their sources – their methods of production – are very different. And although I presented you with only 4 prints, there are infinitely many ways to produce the same identical print.
How would you go about determining which is which?
The Computer and Joystick
I sit you down in front of a computer monitor and joystick. The monitor shows an image of a robotic arm and a metallic cube in an otherwise empty room.
I inform you that the images you see correspond to one of the following:
1. A live video feed of an actual robotic arm and an actual metallic cube in an actual adjacent room.
2. A highly accurate computer simulation of a robotic arm and cube.
3. A live video feed of an actual robotic arm in an actual room overlaid by a computer simulation of a metallic cube.
4. A live video feed of an adjacent empty room overlaid by a computer simulation of a robotic arm and cube.
5. A live video feed of an adjacent empty room overlaid by a live video feed from another room of an actual robotic arm and cube.
6. Sequences of pre-generated , highly detailed images drawn by a skilled artist and displayed in an appropriate sequence by a computer algorithm.
Although I present you with six possible sources, there are in fact infinitely many possible sources of images consistent with what you experience.
I give you some time to use the joystick to move the arm and manipulate the cube, and then I ask you which source is the actual source of the images. How would you respond?
The Boy in the Submarine
A boy is born onboard and lives his entire childhood on a submarine. The submarine has no windows, but instead has video monitors connected to cameras outside.
Throughout the boy’s life he sees many sights and learns many things about the aquatic environment in which he exists. Although he has never seen dry land or the surface, he has learned about these places.
After the boy reaches a certain age, he is told that what he sees and his actual environment is one of the following:
1. An actual oceanic environment with video cameras capturing life as it appears to be.
2. A computer simulation. The submarine is actually parked in a research lab and has never been in the ocean.
3. Pre-recorded scenes of an actual oceanic environment synchronized to appear interactive. The sub is parked on dry land.
4. Live video of a distant oceanic environment relayed to the sub which is parked on dry land.
Each hypothesis is consistent with the life experiences of the boy. Although presented with only 4 hypotheses, there are actually infinitely many. How can the boy determine which represents his actual situation?
The Epilog
What we each call reality is actually a hypothesis we each develop to make sense of our experiences.
The degree of consistency of one’s hypothesis with one’s experiences is not a measure of the closeness to “reality” of the hypothesis. With respect to the nature of existence at least, it is a mistake to think that a hypothesis that is highly consistent with experiences somehow reveals something about the underlying nature of things.
All of the examples I gave illustrate a variety of hypotheses, each equally consistent with the experiences and information presented. Equally consistent, yet in each example only one corresponds to the way things actually are.
I often use the hypothesis “life is a dream” to illustrate this, and some people misunderstand, assuming I believe that life is indeed a dream. The reason I make such statements is to point out that the hypothesis “life is a dream” is consistent with experience (depending on how we define “dream”). The hypothesis “consciousness precedes matter” is just as consistent with experience (maybe even more so) as the hypothesis “matter exists independently of consciousness”.
Considering that there are infinitely many hypotheses about the nature of reality, all equally consistent with experience*, it is highly improbable that any hypothesis one adopts accurately reflects the true nature of things.
*There are also infinitely many hypotheses that are inconsistent with experience!