Quote:
Originally Posted by cypher197
A "model" of reality can be something as simple as a subconscious method for estimating where a ball will land when thrown with some amount of force - something which you don't really think much about before doing.
It can also be something so complex as the theories manipulated by particle physicists.
Like those theories of particle physicists that took so long to devise, a subconscious understanding of where some object is likely to land when thrown can be quite useful. Yes, reality changes, but from my observations, it does not change quickly enough to make investment in more complicated and computationally expensive models necessarily wasteful.
I seek to create a formal framework so that I may say "X is bad." and do so with proper philosophical backing.
Perhaps my statement that "X is bad." will be based on an estimation, but at least this estimation will be based on something reasonable, and will be subject to disproof when/if presented with good counter-evidence.
|
It's just part of formality, to state one views on the subject. Your main focuses seem to be the greater moral good, and the nature of reality.
But your definition of reality it's vague enough to invite any interpretation of reality. To follow your analogy, there is no telling that the ball and it's trajectory are not virtual constructs of a machine.
On your Opening Post you set
"Can I make predictions about this reality, using those observations?" as a requirement for your definition of reality.
But it doesn't account for the physical differences that the same object may have on different states of "reality". Let's same a comparison between a ball and a virtual ball.
The problem with a cohesive morality theory it's that it fails to account the different subjective views. The metaphysical and even mystical experiences vary from person, making it difficult to make a moral "absolute". Specially considering that the "true" state of nature it's without morality.