Virtualist metaphysics: Explanations and other fictions
A short discussion on Conscious Entities inspired me to compose a text too long and too off-topic to post as a comment there. So I’ll post it here, and link to it from there in case Peter or anyone else is interested. If not, at least I got a lot out of writing it myself. For context, here’s the two relevant comments from the comment thread:
My comment:
The physicalist account of qualia is that it is, in principle, reducible to the physics of brains. But here’s a question: What brains and what physics are we talking about? Is it brains and physics as experienced interpretatively by the physical brains of neuroscientists? Or is it the true or real brains and physics themselves, which, so far at least, are far outside the grasp of science?
Physicalist monism seems plausible to me, but very impractical as a frame of mind. I’m not suggesting that we take ontological dualism seriously, but I don’t think we can dispense with some kind of dualist conception, at least not just yet. What I propose is a dualism of true reality on the one hand and virtuality on the other, the latter here being understood as the experiential or phenomenal reality rendered somehow by real brains and real physics. Viewing experience as a virtual reality in this way allows one to identify more directly with one’s experience (as opposed to thinking that a more true approach would be to do like the Churchlands and try to translate experience into neuroscientific terms), because one is this virtuality. Trying to reduce it to physics is of course crucial for science, but it is derailing for the sense of self, and unnecessarily so. Subjectivity as we know it today is not something illusory that will be disposed of once we get our theories right, but the very stuff of our subjective being. Virtuality is a kind of fiction, to be sure, but not one you can dispel without at the same time dispelling subjectivity. I’m even inclined to use the word soul in connection with virtuality, devoid of the Christian connotations of course.
I think that even when (or if) we reach a physicalist explanation of subjectivity, a virtualist or fictionalist dualism of the kind I’ve tried to sketch out will continue to play an important role for us, for practical reasons. The same practical reasons that I think lead many to fight for ontological dualism today. A future theory of subjectivity will be too complicated for our modestly equipped brains to handle, at least for practical purposes. Like quantum physics, it will be so strange and difficult that it will be irrelevant for everyone except a few frontier theorists, for whom the relevance is almost entirely theoretical and detached from the rest of their lives.
I believe that to acknowledge the value of dualism in a virtual variety would be very good for the physicalist cause. What do you think?
Peter’s reply:
In essence, I agree, Gorm. I don’t think many people, even materialist monists, would claim that a single account of the world can exhaust everything there is to be said about it. We certainly at least need to address the world on different levels of description - in fact, on more than just two. So in practice any sensible view of the world has at least two and usually many more aspects to it. It may well be that this is what impels people into dualism; but philosophically, dualism is one of those concepts (like omnipotence, perhaps) that is just drawn too strong to make sense, and needs dilution for safe use. So while I basically agree with your point, I wouldn’t call that dualism. It might be that the best thing would be for us all to stop worrying about whether a theory is ‘monist’ or ‘dualist’, and just discuss the theory itself.
What would be interesting would be a good attempt to explain why the world needs different levels of explanation, how many there are, how they relate, and which levels are fundamental in any particular sense (it looks as if the account given by physics is fundamental in some sense, for example). Alas, I don’t know of any good theorising along these lines that gets very far.
And finally, my text, where start out trying to address the above problem from a virtualist point of view:
According to virtualism, there are no fundamental explanations about the world, because all explanations are in the end merely fictions that fit some relevant portion of the evidence we have available. Fittingness is not a fundamental quality of these fictions, because it is dependent on empirical investigation. The currently fitting fictions may suddenly become unfitting in light of new evidence.
Some distinctions: The kind of fictions that one tries to fit with reality should be distinguished from the kinds of fictions that are more or less indifferent to reality. A further narrowing of the former category would be those fictions that are trimmed by Occam’s razor and experimented with in accordance with the scientific method. Left out would be common sense, mysticism, religion etc, all of which are influenced by other aims than that of fitting with reality (e.g. the aim of making life more comfortable), at the same time as they are competing with science in trying to make sense of reality. (To some people, science is the obvious winner of this contest, because science is more sharply focused on the all-important fittingness issue — while to others, the unscientific theories are superior, because they allow for a more complete and habitable worldview, in that they satisfy more than just the fittingness requirement.)
To think of these different kinds of explanations in terms of degrees of truth or even degrees of fittingness, would make it into an empirical question, and like with all empirical questions, answers can only be provisional until all possible evidence has been gathered. Only then can one compare and make a final judgment about exactly how well and in what way the proposed explanatory fictions actually fit. This gathering is, of course, a task for science, not philosophy.
What philosophy should do instead is to look into the nature of fictions, stripped of their explanatory pretentions and independent of reality. The realm of philosophy, then, is virtuality, a term that includes everything – when disregarding any pretension of reflection of or correspondence with reality. That is to say, even frontier scientific theories are completely virtual, if you view them as models. The same goes for everything we can understand, even everything we can experience, because we can only understand or experience anything in terms of virtuality. This is of course a basic tenet of virtualism. (I’ll try to deal with the problem of justification near the end of this text.)
An example: Gravity. There are several theories of gravity in use in physics today, none of which are useful to our daily lives when dealing with the reality of gravity. In fact, most people live with the outdated Newtonian theory of gravity, or even the Aristotelian one. The truth of the matter is irrelevant to us in our limited circumstances. General rule: What we demand from models of reality in terms of fittingness is usually limited to what is useful in our circumstances. More information than this is cumbersome and distracting us from whatever it is that we’re doing (unless it’s theoretical physics, in which case it’s our job to find out about reality; or philosophy, in which case it’s our job to be encumbered and confused).
But circumstance-fittingness is not the only or most attractive quality in fictions. More important for us is whether or not the fiction in question allows immersion, whether it allows us to believe that it’s real. And in this, circumstance-fittingness is only one of several factors, three of the other being a) the dramaturgical quality of fictions, b) their aesthetic quality and c) our social context. All of these need a bit of explanation:
- What I mean by the dramaturgical quality of fictions is that fictions need to be engaging for us to be interested enough to immerse ourselves in them. Typically, a story-like fiction is what does the trick. We’d love to belive of the world that it is in fact story-like, where we play a well-defined part etc. For most of us, this is hard to take seriously, but in pre-scientific times, it was a very important factor of what fiction or set of fictions could survive.
- The aesthetic factor I would define as the balance of simplicity/elegance against complexity/elaborateness. Too simple is boring, too complex is overwhelming. A simple worldview needs to be stimulated by some kind of ornamentation. A difficult worldview needs to rest in minimalism.
- The social factor is simply that it is harder for us to really believe that our fiction is true and that we live in reality, when people around us voice conflicting beliefs. Relativism kills immersion. When our fictions and those of people around us are mutually exclusive, we have to find some resolution, in order to maintain the illusion of being in true reality. We might group up with those that agree with us, and try to battle off those who don’t. Or we can modify our beliefs to be more vague and compromising. Most often, this manouver weakens at least the dramaturgical factor and the fittingness factor, something which is felt as a severe loss — but the fiction on its own is practically worthless if we’re not able to immerse ourselves in it. So the price is paid, again and again.
This last factor is why, together with the gradual development of civilization from tribe to city state to empire etc, cultural development has become more and more vague, abstract, distant and impersonal.
The fact that fictions are shared is what makes possible things like sports, our money system, philosophy, physics etc. All cultural things has a virtual existence that is shared by a significant number of people (things that are not shared also have a virtual existence of course, but it’s not a cultural one until it lives beyond the individual). Fictions are like programs that run on brains. Our ability to synchronously run identical or very similar programs is the bedrock of culture.
In conclusion: Privileging science is advantageous for a lot of purposes, but this privilege shouldn’t degenerate into an ontological claim. Science is in the end merely a set of tested and useful fictions. Where it’s counterproductive to apply it (e.g. where it becomes way too complicated), we should be able to go with a more practical alternative, even though it’s false in the eyes of science. Fictions have strengths and weaknesses, and we shouldn’t artificially restrict usage of them. Believing that one branch of fictions (e.g. science) is true would be exactly such a restriction. Truth about the world is not accessible to us, because everything we can say must necessarily be said in the language of fictions. The best we can have is thus justification, on the basis of fittingness or otherwise.
Virtualism itself, as a metaphysical framework, should be judged in this same light. It should be justified in empirical terms. Just like with scientific theories, metaphysical theories should be judged as more or less plausible on the basis of certain results in neuroscience, physics, AI research etc.
Metaphysics is, according to virtualism at least, the field of metafictions — the fictions that are supposed to encompass all other fictions, as the operating system of life. It may resemble religion or mysticism in that it’s speculative, but I am quite confident that a satisfactory justification can be found. And if not, well, it’s simply indispensable, so I guess I’ll have to become religious.
Thanks for setting this out, Gorm. I need to think about what you say, but I didn’t want you to think it had gone unread in the meantime.
plegmund
1 Nov 08 at 22:05
I’m so happy you actually read this, Peter! Wasn’t expecting that.
So, do you have a verdict? (I hope I’m right in anticipating one.)
Gorm
7 Nov 08 at 12:22
Hi Gorm.
Thank you for that great post! I really like the way you use that term fiction. The term I have used for those structures that frames our reality is belief, but I’ve been looking for something else, so thank you. Science has called the basic ones natural laws, which I think is very constrictive, since it implies that it is not contained within mind, and that it therefore cannot be changed.
If I understand your philosophy correctly, our personal fiction is the program we run our reality on. We do not live in a virtual reality all by our selves, but co-create with many other entities, and in order to do this, we have to agree upon certain fictions. To change our reality, not only do we have to formulate a new fiction, but immerse ourselves in it. The ability to do this, I guess, depends on faith. As Peter Pan said: Anything is possible if you believe it.
For instance: Cigarettes kill because the basic collective fiction we are operating with at this time is that “cigarettes shorten your lifespan considerably”. Now, I think it is fully possible for cigarettes to be beneficial if one truly believes it, but that requires some personal power of faith.
Hey, I just had an idea Gorm! Wouldn’t it be cool if we used his forum to try to formulate some of the fictions we are operating with at this time? I think it would be highly therapeutic. It could be like a game.
Henrik Highsing
27 Nov 08 at 21:01
It looks like you’re conflating virtuality and reality here. My view is that there is a true reality, external to and unaffected by my fictions, where I have a body that does suffer very real health risks from smoking. If you’re able to believe otherwise, i.e. immerse yourself in an unscientific fiction rather than a scientific one, you’ll probably have some positive placebo effects, but in the end get a nasty surprise: That the scientific fiction was the more precise, and your unscientific alternative just wishful thinking.
My point about scientific fictions is not anti-scientific. When I’m denying scientific realism, I’m not denying the reality of the object of science in general, only the reality postulated by its specific theories.
Science does reign supreme in its domain, but this domain is limited, defined by the aim of formulating the most precise descriptions of reality possible. One of the main points of my virtualism, which I guess is what appeals to you, is that there are other domains, the importance of which should be should be recognized, for reasons of meaning and beauty as well as plain philosophical insight. In particular in our age, when science has complexified beyond laymen’s ability of comprehension. We are forced to come to some simplified terms with reality. Thus a moderate kind of fiction that comes to be seen as vitally important, is more or less obvious to all, and the traditional stigmatization of falsity and fictionality can finally be questioned. Fictionality is a flaw only if truth is realizable. Something which virtualist metaphysics supposes it’s not. Thus all kinds of fiction can be justified, within their proper domains, as defined by our aims. Some examples: Prediction and control of nature; a meaningful existence; community (through religious myths); communicability (this is the domain of intersubjective fictions, including mathematics); taste; ethics (including a lot of political and jurisdictional issues). And so on. If you find a new aim, you can go look for what kind of fictions that are useful. The result is a new domain. But whatever your aim is, you have know what it’s right context is. And for that, you have to consult metaphysics. For instance, if your aim is practical, virtualist metaphysics will inform you that there is a real world out there that is best described in scientific terms. Thus, you’ll have to relate your practical fictions to science in some way. If, on the other hand, your aim is spiritual or aesthetic, you have metaphysical promission to craft your fictions in complete freedom. You’re even encouraged to immerse yourself deeply in them in such a way that you temporarily believe they are true (ontologically true, which strictly speaking, according to virtualism, is impossible) — as long as you’re quite certain you’ll be able to get out of the bubble again.
Gorm
28 Nov 08 at 20:21
I must say I have a little difficulties understanding where you draw the line between fiction and reality. Are you saying there exists a universal reality that we are uncovering through science? Or are we creating reality as we define and immerse ourself in it? Or both?
In my view, the universal void holds all possibilities. Everything therefore is inherently possible, like in a dream. Yet, in any manifest reality, these possibilities are narrowed down considerably to create order and stability. If there were no gravity for instance, objects would be floating around and bumping our heads, and the oceans would come rising. Still, gravity is, i believe, in reality only a fiction, yet totally real because the logos chose to immerse itself in it long ago, and have since then built so much reality on that framework that it would be impossible to change it without plunging the whole world into chaos.
So, the natural laws, and many other basic fictions, obviously serves us well. The problem with limiting fictions however, arise when human beings, as extensions of the logos, immerse themselves in fictions that does not serve them, like the one that “smoking kills”.
Religions are being critisized alot these days for spreding bullshit, but they were at one time highly important to create common frameworks for building mass realities, and thus, civilization. Today, mass media has taken over that role. I agree with you that science “reign supreme” in our modern society, but not because they have uncovered any ultimate truths, but because the scientists are the new priests dictating much of our common belief structures. All truths are valid, because they create reality, so if we believe that the world is a mechanical machine, evolving randomly from a violent explosion through competition and struggle, then that is what we will get: A world of competition and struggle. Not a particularily charming vision, but valid.
Henrik Hysing
29 Nov 08 at 20:29
I have an exam on Monday, so ‘ll have to delay my response until that is over with.
Gorm
30 Nov 08 at 00:55
To your question: I’d say there is an element of both. I made a video to elaborate on this, and on virtualist metaphysics in general. I hope the diagrammatical approach makes it easier to understand.
Something’s wrong with the video, specifically the very slow frame rate. I’ll probably make a new version some day, but this will do for now. It’s practically a slideshow anyway.
Gorm
3 Dec 08 at 05:02
You have confused theoretical physics with metaphysics, they have different goals.
Your proposal seems to be simply solipsism.
Best regards,
Vincent
Vincent
3 Dec 08 at 05:56
How is it even possible for theoretical physics to propose solipsism?
You’ll have to elaborate a lot for me to take your objections seriously.
Gorm
3 Dec 08 at 14:45
A fixed video has been uploaded.
Gorm
3 Dec 08 at 17:00
Continued reply to Henrik:
I believe in a virtuality-independent reality and you don’t. I explain phenomena like gravity by referring to this transcendent reality. You seem to refer to the anthropic principle: That the properties of reality are chosen by a universal spirit for its own benefit. I take it, then, that this world must be the best of all possible worlds — or at least the best of all the worlds imaginable by this spirit?
Supposing the above account is correct: Where do we come in? If we have the power to personally alter reality by belief, won’t this inevitably conflict with other people? Does reality work like a democracy, where the votes of all are counted and a compromise is found? Or is every living being “Spirit Incarnate”, the master of each their own parallel universe? — Or how do you resolve the apparent conflict of interest?
And to your first comment: I’d love to formulate the fictions I operate with and compare them with others’, but I’m afraid we have very differing opinions about what it means to do this. You say that the fictions actually determine reality, while I insist that their powers are limited to the virtual realm. To me, the practice of therapeutic fictions is a continuation of the mythical tradition of the ancients. — Myths are far more valuable and powerful than modernity give them credit for. I’ll even say they’re a necessary component of every culture. So we should start being explicit about them, to prevent becoming infested with hidden, shadowy myths that we don’t fully understand…
Gorm
4 Dec 08 at 00:52
Well, I was pointing to your proposal of Virtualist metaphysics. It seems to be the same as the metaphysics of solipsism.
Best regards,
Vincent
Vincent
4 Dec 08 at 01:09
I’m not necessarily presupposing an ipse (self), so no, it’s not solipsism.
Solipsism is a minimally presumptive perspective — I guess that’s what makes you think it’s foundational in virtualism — but even more minimal is nihilism or radical agnosticism. See my next post to see how I deal with that.
Gorm
4 Dec 08 at 01:27
Hello there.
The word anthropic principle sounds like the act of projecting human attributes on to all of reality. I guess you can say I belong to this category, but with one important difference: It is not reality that is a product of the human psyche, but the human psyche that is a product of reality. The human soul is, I believe, a microversion of the solar system it finds itself within. Its purpose therefore, is to model the larger reality within its own experience, and in that way ground the knowledge of the oversoul in concrete perceptions. Because no human being alone can reflect the immense totality of the oversoul, there is in existance a great divesity of personalities. Each soul will therefore draw into its life and mind the key personalities needed for a complete experience of the whole.
When it comes to yor questions, which by the way I thought were realy good, I must say i do not have any definite answers. I do believe in a virtuality-independent reality, which is the unmanifest potential of the all-knowing “thing” in itself. All manifest reality however, I believe is virtual, or holographic, which means that it manifests primarily as wholes, and not particles. The word universe itself implies this, meaning one-ness, and any fragmentation is really just an illusion.
So where do we come in? Each human soul, i believe, is a universe in itself, separated from the womb of the oversoul to evolve through multitudes of incarnations towards complete interconnection.
I believe what we call reality is really the dream of the oversoul. So in that way it’s fiction, but not the same fiction as that which goes on in the personal psyche, so I guess it’s handy to keep the two terms appart. Everything that occurs in physical reality is therefore on a certain level occuring in mind, yet not our personal mind, you see? The relationship between the personal mind and the overmind is very intricate and mysterious, and i do not yet understand it sufficiently to answer your questions. But I do have the notion however, that the journey of the personal mind is comming close to its destination, which is the total integration of the whole in its parts, and thus the borders between the personal and the divine are blurrying. So be careful what fictions you apply. It might just become real.
Henrik Hysing
4 Dec 08 at 14:12
You need a blog. I suggest using wordpress. Both hysing.wordpress.com and highsing.wordpress.com is available. Just go to the address, and follow the instructions. I suspect you resent the idea of blogging, but think of it as externalizing ideas and putting them somewhere you can refer to later, in discussions like this one. The externalizing part is valuable enough on its own. No better way to attain greater clarity of specific thoughts.
About what you just said: I’m confused, which is why I wish you had a blog where we could discuss this further. I’d probably give you point-by-point opposition, to see our differing perspectives highlighted. That would be interesting in many ways. But for now: Can you relate your metaphysics to the diagram in the video I made? If not, can you make a diagram of your own? I find that to be the most intuitive way of communicating things of this kind.
I can relate to your claim that the universe is a whole, and that fragmentation is an illusion, but would say that virtuality is what’s interpreting fragmentation into reality, not that reality itself is fragmented. In fact, I believe that one can’t separate one phenomenon (like gravity) from all the other properties of the universe. They only appear to us as separate, because this is necessary in order for us to make sense of our circumstances. But a true scientific theory of reality, if this is possible at all, must take all into account, not only quantum physics and cosmology; it must even explain how mental/virtual properties is possible. In other words, it must truly be a Grand Unified Theory. A unification of all phenomena, not just what we’re currently calling “natural phenomena”.
So I disagree with your assumption that virtuality has a penchant for wholes and not parts or particles. Virtuality can be both holistic or reductionistic.
I can’t possibly believe that much of what you’re saying is true (or precise, or reality-fitting). The mainstream scientific theories are far better justified. To me it seems that you’re basing your beliefs on intuition, and that is not good enough for me. Even if you’d manage to get me to share in your intuitions (which would be great), I’d interpret all the notions this would inspire as myths, i.e. not precise accounts of reality, but virtually useful ones (although ontologically impotent).
I think you’ve got some good myths, mixed together into a somewhat incoherent whole. This is (from my point of view) because you take them too seriously. If you’d let go of the serious pretension of truth (like in the video), and make the pretension ironic instead, you’d have sorted out a whole range of different useful myths. On the other hand, you’d lose your worldview, and with that, perhaps even the much needed sense of reality. I don’t know yet if I should promote that, because I don’t master the situation myself.
Gorm
4 Dec 08 at 17:10
You’re right, I should start a blog. I actually made one the other day, but didn’t know where to start, so i surfed the internet and found this post and started writing on that insted :) It feels good writing about these things though.
I don’t see why my pretentions are any less ironic than yours. I’m fully aware of the limitations of language and the relativity of truth. You are the one who’s searching for a Grand Unified Theory of Everything! I think such a quest is preposterous. No formulations of linear logic can wrap up the infinite like that. Its the ego who wants such a closure, and with it, dispell all mystery once and for all. It’s a sad and unhealthy quest, which science has pursued for way too long. Instead of striving for closure, i suggest we consentrate on trying to avoid it. Keep things open and dynamic. The furthest we can get in a linear discription of reality is to the paradox, and after that we have to stop talking and just be. It is possible though, I believe, to go further by living IN the paradox, and experience it. We do have faculties of mind with the ability to tackle a deeper understanding, but these are impossible to voice in any other way than through poetry and art, and in my view, that is exactly what good philosophy is.
I did watch your video now, and to be honest with you, I think you went off wrong right from the start by drawing a circle and stating “this is reality”. Reality is infinite! Truly infinite. Not just as a mathematical abstraction. It has no beginning and no end, for time and space exists within IT, and not the other way around. Whatever is in that bubble is fiction. Nothing wrong with bubbles though. In fact, that is the only way the infinite can experience itself, by creating a fictional framework, or, as I would call it, a hologram.
I’ll see if I can create my view of the diagram in my own blog. It’s called holopark, short for holographic park :)
Henrik Hysing
5 Dec 08 at 19:14
Oh good, holopark.wordpress.com is also available! Or are you using some other service?
My beliefs are ironic because I don’t believe they are true. And neither do you, I guess, but on the other hand, you think of them as able to affect and change reality. That’s what I was referring to when I said you’re taking beliefs too seriously.
This all boils down to the problem of skepticism, I think. My way out of the problem is, as explained in my next post, to accept radical agnosticism at a strict level, while allowing myself to use other perspectives on more forgiving levels. As far as I can see, your philosophy passes this problem by, in a dogmatic manner. For instance, how can you claim that reality is infinite? It would be okay if this claim actually is a mere fiction, but if it was, then you should strictly speaking be open for the possibility for science to reach the GUT of Everything.
My position is that we can’t yet know if a GUT is possible to formulate, but that whether it is or not, the endeavor bears enough fruits to justify itself as one of the core projects of humanity. Furthermore, I suspect that if a GUT were found, it would be less useful than we imagine such a theory to be. This would be the case if the theory was formulated like a cellular automata, as in Stephen Wolfram’s New Kind of Science (this is a long, but really great talk). Then, the formula might be true and final, but the calculation necessary to predict anything would perhaps be impracticably demanding. So a GUT does not necessarily imply a closure of reality.
Looking forward to seeing your blog, Henrik. I can pretend to be an expert if you need any help.
Gorm
5 Dec 08 at 19:47