So, Chia’s blog post on reality got me to jell this post, which is kind of sort of an answer to Chia’s post.
If you ask me what authors had the largest influence on my philosophy, I’d have to answer with three: Carl Sagan (Cosmos, Contact), Robert Anton Wilson (Illuminati Trilogy, Shroedinger’s Cat), and Richard Bach (Jonathan Livingston Seagull, Illusions), . At which point, if you’ve read any two of them, you’d be inclined to ask the follow up questions of what am I smoking, and why aren’t I sharing? Carl Sagan and Robert Anton Wilson had a decades long feud, both calling the other out in their books. And both would have almost certainly looked down on the “fuzzy headed new ager” Richard Bach, had either noticed or cared. Reconciling any two of the three would seem, on the surface, to be impossible.
And yet, all three are, in a very real sense, true. The resolution comes when you realize that all three are talking about different realities, with different rules. And that the statements they are making are only true in one reality, and not necessarily true, probably even nonsensical, when applied to a different reality.
First, before you cart me off to the funny farm, let me define what the three realities are.
The first reality I’ll call the Scientific/Engineering reality. This is the stuff that doesn’t go away just because people stopped believing in it- the realm of math, science, and enginering, of quarks and quasars and quaternions. Here, Carl Sagan reigns supreme- as do evidence and logic.
The next reality I’m going to define is the Legal/Social reality- this is the reality of social organizations like the US Congress, the Catholic Church, or Jane Street Capital. Note that this is a different reality with different rules than the scientific/engineering reality- here, things are true because enough people say they are true. Here, Robert Anton Wilson is the most trenchant observer.
And, this is an important point, because the rules are different, how you win a debate about those realities differ. Scientific/Engineering debates are decided by fact and logic, and status hierarchies are almost irrelevant (at least in the good debates). And, in the end, it doesn’t matter how many people or which people say the bridge should stand, or the plane should fly (or the program should run), if the facts and logic aren’t adequately addressed, it won’t. On the other hand, for Social/Political reality, facts and logic are almost irrelevant- it’s all about the social hierarchies and political/economic power.
Apply the debate tactics of one reality are guaranteed to not produce results in the other reality. Make this mistake one way, and you get the Indiana Legislature passing a law mandating that Pi be equal to 3. Make this mistake another way, and you get the L-5 society.
That last statement is going to cause some controversy- how dare I, a self professed major Carl Sagan fan, suggest that the L-5 society isn’t right? I’m not saying that they’re not right, I’m saying that they’re not effective, as the continual shrinkage of NASA’s budget shows. The problem is that they’re trying to apply the debating tactics of the scientific/engineering reality to the realm of politics- they keep thinking that if only they get enough facts to support them, if only they polish their logic to mathematical perfection, then the politicians will suddenly go “you’re right! I never thought of that!” and adopt their platform. And it never happens.
As an example of this, try the following experiment. Next time you’re up in front of a group of scientists, engineers, space enthusiasts, science fiction fans, whatever, ask the audience how many of them support space exploration? If you’ve chosen the right group, all (or at least most) will vocally agree with you. Then ask how many people are willing to vote for the other party if it means they’ll support space exploration? It never fails- everyone will suddenly become fascinated with their shoes. Give me 5,000 people in each state willing to flip their vote, and willing to donate $100 a piece, and I can guarantee huge funding increases for NASA and space exploration. But you’ve got to be willing to play the game.
(To answer your question, no, I’m not willing to vote for the other party to support space exploration. Maybe one day I will be, but at the moment there are other issues I rate more important than space exploration. But that’s a trade off I’m knowingly making.)
Note that the exact same problem is occurring in other areas as well- for example, in the teaching of Creationism in our schools. The truth of evolution is determined by rules of the scientific/engineering reality- but the decision of what we teach in our classrooms is made in the social/political reality. Likewise with global warming- the debate in the scientific community is over, the political debate is just starting.
The third reality is the emotional/perceptual reality. If the definition of what is true in the scientific/engineering reality is that stuff that doesn’t go away even if nobody believes it, and the definition of what is true in the political/social reality is that which enough people believe, then the definition of what is true in the motional/perceptual reality is that which I, and I alone, believe to be true. You, too, have your own emotional/perceptual reality, and he does, and she does, and so on. This is the realm of Richard Bach- things are true because I believe them to be true. And different things can be true for you. For example, I am happy living in New York City, but I know other people who would be miserable. No legislative body nor mathematic proof can make you happy if you decide not to be.
I haven’t stated it plainly, so far, but I should do so now: the definition of a “reality” is a combination of the domain or subject of statements that pertain to that reality, and a definition of truth. So the subject of the value of pi is the domain of the scientific/engineering reality, the subject of the limits (if any) of Executive privilege the domain of the social/political reality, and the subject of my happiness is the domain of the emotional/perceptual reality. These are the three realities I have so far determined to exist- I do not claim that this list is exhaustive. But the important point is this: there is more than one definition of truth, more than one reality- and to be effective, to be happy/to be politically influential/to not have your bridge fall down, you need to recognize which reality you are dealing with, and work within the rules of that reality. Otherwise you are doomed to confusion and failure.
4 Comments
In order to discuss the appropriate word to attach to the entity of which you speak, I’ll first assign it a neutral handle that I can use to talk about it: xyzzy.
The problem with calling each xyzzy a “reality” is that you make each sound separate, independent, and well-defined. While you do seem to write as if they are, I suspect that there’s a good deal more grey in between each xyzzy than there is white (pi == 3.14159… or “whom should we elect president?”).
In fact, your primary example of the Legal/Social reality is that of determining the funding for NASA, and I think that you’ve picked one there that defeats your own argument. While you’re right to argue that scientific evidence alone in its technical starkness will not gain NASA more funding, it’s also not true that data about space has no effect on the Legal/Social xyzzy.
Imagine if the scientists behind the Mars Rover found evidence of life on Mars? or, more cynically, oil? You can bet your bottom dollar that that specific evidence would indeed make “the politicians will suddenly go “you’re right! I never thought of that!” and adopt their platform”.
Sure, it would happen only because the interests of the technical xyzzy and the legal/social xyzzy happened to align, but that’s just further evidence of their greyness.
If you take this reasoning to the limit, you’ll see that your xyzzys, while real, are merely some of the poles on a confusing, jumbled, gradient map of human interest; physical truth, social truth, and emotional truth.
I’m sure if you talked to some radical environmentalists, they’d talk your ear off about “environmental reality”. In fact, the three realities you’ve chosen are just the three that are closest to your world view. Some would choose to talk/write/think about “Sexual reality”, others “Racial reality”, and still others “Martial reality”.
So, if you accept what this post’s claim, what you’ve written boils down to “many people have different interests, which color their world view, and thus see *the very same things* differently from each other”. My challenge to you is this: what more than this are you trying to say? (or alternatively: where has my logic failed me?)
Glad to see you blogging again. As always your post is sharp and a pleasure to read.
I think the notion of what exactly qualifies 2reality” is a subject that has been explored on many levels and seems to unveil itself the more you look at it. It is amazing that what can seem objectively true to a group is different within another group. This also applies to individual; the mind is cryptic and deceitful; there has been examples where I thought remembering something that actually never happened (as a child).
A great deal of epistemology is trying to understand the source of objectivity and how we be confident in ourselves. Popper actually argued that how much we trust ourselves us to recognize the truth when we come across it is a matter of belief. Popper was a stark liberalist and thought conservatisme came from a lack of faith in men (i.e. since we are not able to choose wisely strict rules and traditions shield us from our errors).
@Bill Mill
I’m not sure why Brian hasn’t got back to you, but I think there’s a distinction in his “realities” (I’m not a fan of him using that word, but I’ll roll with it). In those constructs, the way in which something is proven to be true is different in each reality — that’s what defines that particular reality. How would things be defined to be true in an “environmental reality”?
Blin … really beautifully written! All this is so familiar … and truthfully!
One Trackback
[...] The Three (at least) Realities [...]