Un-referenceable objective reality goes rather beyond un-knowable objective reality. The second doesn’t collapse into absurdity, while the first does (note that “un-referenceable objective reality” is a reference!).
We can construct a model were we (the external observers) can reference things that not observer in the model (the internal observers) can reference. Here’s an analogy—we can’t prove an unprovable theorem, but we might be able to prove a theorem unprovable.
Incompatible with the sort of physicalism that thinks it isn’t meaningful to talk about “seeing” (e.g. consciousness) independent of a physical definition.
I’m not familiar with that strain of thought, but I can posit why some people might find that compelling
“Define an interpretation scheme” is incredibly vague
Yeah, as I said, this is just a sketch. There’s a lot more that would need to be said it order to actually do this
We can construct a model were we (the external observers) can reference things that not observer in the model (the internal observers) can reference.
An account would have to be given of how we, as humans embedded in the universe, can speak as any kind of “external observer”. I have not so far seen a coherent account of this. It seems that it would correspond to a view-from-nowhere.
I am not sure how the analogy to theorems applies; this seems to be a case of a given perspective forming an argument that it cannot know some fact it can still define, which doesn’t have anything to do with an “outside” perspective external to the initial one.
“An account would have to be given of how we, as humans embedded in the universe, can speak as any kind of “external observer”″ - If we construct a model that doesn’t contain us, then we are an external observer of that model. We can then be analogy posit the existence of an agent that exists in that relation to us.
Re the analogy: We can’t have an entity that is both internally referenceable and internally unreferenceable. However we can have an external reference to an unreferenceable entity. Okay, maybe the analogy wasn’t quite as direct as I was thinking.
As an “external observer”, we still have a standpoint, e.g. getting visual input from some camera. (This is apparent in movies)
We can look at ourselves from the outside, e.g. from the perspective of a camera placed in a room. However, this is a particular outside (that can be placed relative to us). If the outside could not be placed relative to us, we could not know anything about how we would appear to that outside. It would be kind of like getting lost in a random parallel universe and seeing phenomena totally unrelated to ourselves, if this thought experiment is even conceivable (I’m not convinced it is).
Our ability to imagine data about us being received by some perspective, depends on placing that perspective relative to our own.
Maybe this will help. Consider the characters in a video game. We are an external observer as we can see what is happening in the game, but they can’t see us. The point isn’t that we can see ourselves from the outside, but that we can imagine what it would be like to be seen from the outside.
“Our ability to imagine data about us being received by some perspective, depends on placing that perspective relative to our own”—Yes, there are limits to what we can say about the outside perspective as we can’t reference it directly. We can only discuss it by analogy.
That doesn’t at all contradict what I said. The camera in a video game such as Super Mario Bros is placed at particular space-time coordinates, and for the viewer to see Mario, the camera has to be close to Mario, and in fact the game logic makes sure the camera does not drift from Mario’s position. It isn’t a view from nowhere, it’s a view from somewhere pretty close to Mario’s locality.
The camera Mario gets when (hypothetically) he imagines himself from outside is different than Luigi’s if they are at significantly different locations (hence, multi player games such as Maro Kart have multiple screens even in a third-person view).
The outside perspective is outside but it is not observer-independent.
I guess I should have been more precise. Imagine a game where we can see all the information, but some characters inside only have access to limited info.
“The outside perspective is outside but it is not observer-independent”
Sure, but it’s not subject to the world-internal observer effects
The simulator’s perspective is outside “our universe” but not outside the totality; there are multiple possible simulable universes, like there are different video games. Mario’s (hypothetical) notion of “a view outside this world” refers to a view of the world of Super Mario Bros, and this differs depending on the video game character. Additionally, the video game players / simulators live in their own world, which is part of the totality.
Any given perspective can imagine zooming out by a given “distance” (in terms of space, time, simulation level, multiversal branch, perhaps others). This yields a sequence of views, each of which is dependent on the initial perspective. Perhaps the “view from nowhere” may be considered as the limit of this process. I am not convinced this limit may be coherently reified as a referenceable thing, however. In addition, such a view would be infinitely far from our own, and it would take an infinite time to zoom in from there to our actual here-and-now location.
We can construct a model were we (the external observers) can reference things that not observer in the model (the internal observers) can reference. Here’s an analogy—we can’t prove an unprovable theorem, but we might be able to prove a theorem unprovable.
I’m not familiar with that strain of thought, but I can posit why some people might find that compelling
Yeah, as I said, this is just a sketch. There’s a lot more that would need to be said it order to actually do this
An account would have to be given of how we, as humans embedded in the universe, can speak as any kind of “external observer”. I have not so far seen a coherent account of this. It seems that it would correspond to a view-from-nowhere.
I am not sure how the analogy to theorems applies; this seems to be a case of a given perspective forming an argument that it cannot know some fact it can still define, which doesn’t have anything to do with an “outside” perspective external to the initial one.
Maybe I’ll write a post on this sometime.
“An account would have to be given of how we, as humans embedded in the universe, can speak as any kind of “external observer”″ - If we construct a model that doesn’t contain us, then we are an external observer of that model. We can then be analogy posit the existence of an agent that exists in that relation to us.
Re the analogy: We can’t have an entity that is both internally referenceable and internally unreferenceable. However we can have an external reference to an unreferenceable entity. Okay, maybe the analogy wasn’t quite as direct as I was thinking.
As an “external observer”, we still have a standpoint, e.g. getting visual input from some camera. (This is apparent in movies)
We can look at ourselves from the outside, e.g. from the perspective of a camera placed in a room. However, this is a particular outside (that can be placed relative to us). If the outside could not be placed relative to us, we could not know anything about how we would appear to that outside. It would be kind of like getting lost in a random parallel universe and seeing phenomena totally unrelated to ourselves, if this thought experiment is even conceivable (I’m not convinced it is).
Our ability to imagine data about us being received by some perspective, depends on placing that perspective relative to our own.
Maybe this will help. Consider the characters in a video game. We are an external observer as we can see what is happening in the game, but they can’t see us. The point isn’t that we can see ourselves from the outside, but that we can imagine what it would be like to be seen from the outside.
“Our ability to imagine data about us being received by some perspective, depends on placing that perspective relative to our own”—Yes, there are limits to what we can say about the outside perspective as we can’t reference it directly. We can only discuss it by analogy.
That doesn’t at all contradict what I said. The camera in a video game such as Super Mario Bros is placed at particular space-time coordinates, and for the viewer to see Mario, the camera has to be close to Mario, and in fact the game logic makes sure the camera does not drift from Mario’s position. It isn’t a view from nowhere, it’s a view from somewhere pretty close to Mario’s locality.
The camera Mario gets when (hypothetically) he imagines himself from outside is different than Luigi’s if they are at significantly different locations (hence, multi player games such as Maro Kart have multiple screens even in a third-person view).
The outside perspective is outside but it is not observer-independent.
I guess I should have been more precise. Imagine a game where we can see all the information, but some characters inside only have access to limited info.
“The outside perspective is outside but it is not observer-independent”
Sure, but it’s not subject to the world-internal observer effects
See this thread on Game of Life.
The simulator’s perspective is outside “our universe” but not outside the totality; there are multiple possible simulable universes, like there are different video games. Mario’s (hypothetical) notion of “a view outside this world” refers to a view of the world of Super Mario Bros, and this differs depending on the video game character. Additionally, the video game players / simulators live in their own world, which is part of the totality.
Any given perspective can imagine zooming out by a given “distance” (in terms of space, time, simulation level, multiversal branch, perhaps others). This yields a sequence of views, each of which is dependent on the initial perspective. Perhaps the “view from nowhere” may be considered as the limit of this process. I am not convinced this limit may be coherently reified as a referenceable thing, however. In addition, such a view would be infinitely far from our own, and it would take an infinite time to zoom in from there to our actual here-and-now location.