eujay comments on Closet survey #1 - Less Wrong

53 [deleted] 14 March 2009 07:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (653)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: eujay 14 March 2009 11:45:48AM 2 points [-]

I am an atheist Platonist. I believe that ultimate reality is mathematical / tautological in nature, and that matter, mind, motion are all illusions.

Comment author: cabalamat 14 March 2009 03:00:10PM 8 points [-]

Is this belief falsifiable? If not, is it meaningful?

Comment author: eujay 14 March 2009 07:01:33PM 1 point [-]

Not falsifiable, but more parsimonious than thinking that something 'acts out' the reality that we see. Other explanations of reality leave behind a material residue. A bit like saying that water is made of wet stuff, fire is made of hot stuff, etc. True explantions 'destroy' the things that they explain. And I favor the theological argument that the foundation of reality must be something necessary. Mathematical Platonic reality does the job perfectly.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 15 March 2009 04:33:38AM 6 points [-]

Well, the bit about platonism may be. Tegmark, I believe, came up with a notion along the lines of "well, if all mathematical structures are in some sense 'real', then we just need to somehow parameterize the set of all mathematical structures that could contain beings 'like us', then compare our observed universe to the 'most average' structures. If we differ significant'y from that, it's evidence against the proposition."

Comment author: MichaelHoward 14 March 2009 12:08:34PM 6 points [-]

What do you mean by illusions? If matter, mind, and motion are our subjective perspective of stuff that reduces completely to a timeless mathematical object (I suspect it probably does), I don't think it follows from that that we can say it isn't real.

Comment author: eujay 14 March 2009 07:11:49PM 1 point [-]

Like I said above, fire is not made of hot stuff, water is not made of wet stuff, etc. The 'atoms' that make up our subjective reality would not themselves be in motion or be conscious. But yes, consciousness is odd sort of 'illusion' in that it creates a subjective reality. Would it make sense to think of levels of reality, with some being 'more real' than others? Or maybe we can think of certain levels being 'dependent' on lower / more fundamental levels? Consciousness would then be located at a very high level, far from the 'foundation'. (Which is part of why I am an atheist.)

Comment author: eujay 14 March 2009 07:14:02PM 3 points [-]

Oh, I should also add that I am a communist (ironically, 'converted' while in the Army).