The Three (at least) Realities

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.

No related posts.