[guy98238710]

> Reality requires bias.

There's only one reality.

> We have limited compute power, and limited time.

Simplified models of reality don't need to be biased. Unless you consider every viewpoint to be a kind of bias, which is really stretching the term.

[pixl97]

>There's only one reality.

You're almost, but not quite there....

That one reality is what I call thermodynamic truth. Now any time someone brings up thermodynamics other statements like arrow of time show up and other issues with informational incompleteness become problems.

Simplified models of reality can quickly collapse in uncertainty in complex situations. Lets say an explosion and subsequent fire at a factory. The people working on the device that exploded where killed, so we only have second hand information on what they where doing. The fire was especially intense so the device expected of causing the explosion was melted completely and only mixed slag remains. The machine was made in the 1950s so other forms of entropy have been involved on information on the metals used in the machine.

There is no simple model of reality that can tell you what occurred with certainty in situations like this. The additional entropy from the fire creates a situation where many possible input situations lead to the same output situation.

We see this kind of entropy in social situations. The game of telephone is a good example of this. You start with "X5W1" and end up with "EXU1" after a few steps and everyone along the way would tell you thats exactly what they heard.

>Unless you consider every viewpoint to be a kind of bias, which is really stretching the term

Not stretching the term at all. Biases exist at all levels, physical processes and mental processes, human and inhuman.

[guy98238710]

> Simplified models of reality can quickly collapse in uncertainty in complex situations. Lets say an explosion and subsequent fire at a factory. The people working on the device that exploded where killed, so we only have second hand information on what they where doing. The fire was especially intense so the device expected of causing the explosion was melted completely and only mixed slag remains. The machine was made in the 1950s so other forms of entropy have been involved on information on the metals used in the machine.

If I cover an apple with a cup before you have time to look at it, the apple does not disappear nor is there any alternate reality with pear under the cup. It's just a blank space in your knowledge, which you are free to fill with any bias-free probabilistic model.

[pixl97]

If you put an atom in a molecular cup and look away, does it stay there? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, yay quantum weirdness.

But even in your example you couldn't even give me an example of a complex system, and instead had to give a simple system that works deterministically and still makes lots of assumptions. Like, how long did you cover the apple with a cup for? If it's a moment the apple will be there. If it's a much longer time maybe when you remove the cup the dessicated rotten remains of an apple come out. Or maybe there was a bug in the apple so when you remove the cup you no longer have an apple, but a bunch of bugs and a pile of feces.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing against determinism. If you knew all states of the matter that went into the cup (well and of the universe) you could most likely accurately predict what was going to be in the cup regardless of what time you look in the cup again. Unfortunately for us humans we're stuck in a universe governed by the uncertainty principle. We can't know at the quantum level, and at the macro level there are enough chaotic actions that predictions of complex systems quickly fall apart. There is only the most probable outcome, with the random chance a less likely outcome could occur.

[guy98238710]

> If you put an atom in a molecular cup and look away, does it stay there? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, yay quantum weirdness.

You are overthinking it. In case of quantum effects, the whole quantum system, including all its parallel states and uncertainties, is part of the single shared reality.

[cf141q5325]

>You're almost, but not quite there....

Likewise. I would guess this to be an issue with vocabulary. So more of a "Yes, but ..." then a "No!" I would argue that reality isnt influenced by the existence or absence of an accurate human-friendly reality model. Thats only relevant for human interaction with reality (which you are talking about), the bias doesnt actually influence reality itself.

While you wont archive a complete model, there is a baseline reality that is indifferent to human bias and understanding. You could simplify the argument as gravity neither being being a social construct nor requiring a complete unbiased reality model to screw with you.

edit: Unless its an actual disagreement, in which case we are arguing Solipsism? So the biased perception actually creating reality. In which case we got to an impasse, if you are creating reality through biased perception, there is no reason to assume you arent also creating me the same way.

[pixl97]

Eh, this couples back into 'what is reality' and at which scale are we talking about.

I believe there is an objective causality based reality at the lowest levels of existence. The arrow of time moves forward. And over the entire system entropy increases.

But as you put systems on top of systems, especially in life, subjective thinking can modify local reality at a macro level. That is the subjective experience of a human can lead them to an idea, that they then manufacture into an object becoming objective reality that object then modifies the experienced reality of those around them both subjectively and objectively. The fundamental structure of the universe does not change in this scenario, but human knowledge is expanded and we have a better view all possible states the universe can be objectively manipulated into.

[cf141q5325]

I already largely agreed. Yes, how we think, our models, influences how we act. And how we act influences an existing reality thats too complex to model completely. With the risk of erroneously over relying on ones model as you described.

However, any greater impact of perspective or intention on reality then through your actions gets you to magic and probability lines. https://www.specularium.org/wizardry

Which still dont disregard the existence of one reality in the moment, just the ability to act in a way to navigate the possible futures.

I only mention it because the existence of one reality unrelated to perspective comes with safety concerns unrelated to intention. Misunderstanding how you influence reality carries risks. Its how the worse in "better or worse results for your reality model" can also look. Your reality model deteriorating too far by overvaluing your perspective due to cognitive bias.

[brightlancer]

> Unless you consider every viewpoint to be a kind of bias,

Yes.

> which is really stretching the term.

No.

There is an objective reality which we can only perceive subjective. We then get together as groups and agree upon what we're going to call "true", building upon what we've previously agreed was "true". This is bias.

But not all agreed "true" are equally accurate! Not all biases are as subjective as others.

So we can (and IMO should) recognize that we're all biased and we're all subjectively interpreting the objective reality, without embracing some kind of fatalism or post-modern idea that all subjective interpretations are equally valid.

[cf141q5325]

While we can only perceive subjectively, reality is more then just an agreement. Once biased perspective collides with reality, reality wins. There being no hope of getting an objective reality model doesnt change that. Looking at your last paragraph, i dont think you disagree.

[pixl97]

Life itself is a biased perspective that, at least temporarily, changes the objective environment around it.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is the number of future potential states is maximized by living and more so by thinking creatures then the future potential state dictated by purely physical interactions such as gravity or chemical bonding. Life can selectively spend energy in one place to reduce the entropy in another place.

Lets look at this in a past/present view. In the past if you got a bad cut, you could die, and maybe if you prayed just the right way or put the right plant you'd avoid the infection and you might not die. Now, we know if you use clean water on wounds and use antibiotics that you and drastically reduce, but not eliminate the risk of infection.

Our view of the problem and solution space massively increased thereby changing how we measured what we thought was true.

[atlantic]

If reality can only be perceived through a subjective lens, then that is the only reality there is. Reality as something independent of any observer is just a fantasy. And if you think about it, it's actually meaningless.

[guy98238710]

> There is an objective reality which we can only perceive subjective.

Observation is not inherently subjective though. The defining quality of objective reality is that it leads to shared, repeatable observations.

[pixl97]

Repeatable observations typically simplify assumptions to achieve stability in face of combinatorial explosions. We gain statistical insight on the probability something is true in particular conditions, not that something is an absolute truth.

For example, if you take someone in the medical sciences when it comes to pharmaceutical treatment if they don't tell you there are wide ranging statistical truths that are difficult to apply to individuals, then they are a bad scientist.

Systems complexity leads to subjectivity due to feedback loops inside the system itself. Think of deeply nested IF statements customized for a particular application, but no one bothers to give you the source code.