[nine_k]

"Reality" is such a loaded word. It assumes a lot: existence of something outside the observer; its durability and continuity; presence of other similar observers, who also sense the reality in "essentially the same" way, with a lot of problems in defining the "sameness"; the idea that the "objective reality" also still exists in absence of any observers. For the reality to be "objective", the observers also need to be somehow durable, so with passage of "time", they could make some repeat observations and notice that the results are the same, that is, the reality must have "laws".

It's pretty tall order.

But, if we go with it by extending the reality past human death (why only human?), we, the humans, usually make it hugely anthropocentric, often more so than when astronomy put Earth in the center of universe. For me, it's a sign that many spiritual movements try to serve as a consolation to humans fearing death, rather than an honest research of anything past "this side" of reality. Certainly there are kinds of spirituality that avoid this trap, e.g. Theravada Buddhism; sadly it tries to describe provably incorrect things, like a number of heavens at particular heights above Earth.

A spiritualism that tries to pass simple checks should either actually predict "physical reality" and thus become science, or drop any pretenses that it can be observable in the "physical reality", thus going firmly into the realm of not even fairy tales but of strictly internal experience of an observer, hence becoming solipsist. Solipsism is logically entitled to anything :)

If you just "want to believe", the Pascal's Wager is as good as it has always been.

[strogonoff]

> A spiritualism that tries to pass simple checks should either actually predict "physical reality" and thus become science, or drop any pretenses that it can be observable in the "physical reality", thus going firmly into the realm of not even fairy tales but of strictly internal experience of an observer, hence becoming solipsist.

The above works if you disregard that all observations of “physical reality”, any models, and the meta mode of attending to reality that leads you to structure your models in a particular way and choose which experiments to perform, are all a product of your mind and start treating physical models as gospel.

Natural science is about making predictions, not speaking truth. It offers models as a shortcut to predictions, but does not even claim to offer complete knowledge or “true” models. The territory is unknowable, all we have is maps, and all maps are wrong (physical models being a special case of maps). Natural science by design is not equipped to get us to any true reference points, and becomes remarkably useless as soon as our mind gets under the spotlight—though what it does do is provide us some useful maps (notably, “useful” as defined by our minds. You see the pattern).

It is a struggle to live a life given such uncertainty. We have options as to how to represent the territory, and so we go about it with varying degrees of rigour.

A seemingly popular approach of just taking the current models provided by natural sciences and using them as a proxy of truth does not score high on rigour in my opinion, since it strikes me as taking physics as a poor surrogate for religion.

Thus, I personally have no problem with spirituality, unless it flies in the face of observations and fails to offer sound philosophical reasoning. Like in physics models are shortcuts for predictions, spirituality/religion could be considered shortcuts for philosophy (with a degree of charitability, depending on the views one holds), and reducing philosophy to physics would degrade, not elevate it (after all, natural sciences came from and are subordinate to philosophy, not the other way around).

This is also why being a physicist and simultaneously a religious person (the case with many famous physicists) is not a contradiction.

[neom]

How are you using solipsist here? I think like "ego" it can have 3 connotations ascribed to it, negative, neutral/clinical and positive?

[keiferski]

That can all be true, but still miss the point of what a good spirituality ought to be. Yes, it may be a flaw of human religious systems to put humanity at the center of everything. But that’s only a flaw if we’re looking for an external explanation of reality. The fact is that from our perspective, we are at the center of our universe and psychologically, we are healthier if we have some coherent answers to tell ourselves about reality.

This is the real flaw with the positivist, scientific-dominant world view IMO. It obsesses over this external notion of objectivity while forgetting that human flourishing is (arguably) more important than merely accumulating information.

[strogonoff]

Do you think it is not possible to hold a view that goes beyond hard natural science and acknowledges human flourishing as important[0], but also does not place humanity at the center?

[0] By the way, note that it is the unstated meta-purpose of natural sciences—at its core, all research is driven by the goal of improving human existence. It is sometimes amusing, sometimes frustrating to see the people who are into physics and natural sciences evade acknowledging that it is a human-centric field, perhaps more so than philosophy (where different branches can be more or less concerned with it).

[keiferski]

I think there are actually two questions there:

1. Is it possible for a view of the world in which humans aren’t at the center, but still flourish? I think the answer is…possibly; but I am a little, but not extremely, skeptical. I think human psychology seems to benefit from thinking we’re at the center of things, or at least that we aren’t merely another random creature in space.

2. The more interesting question is whether this is even possible, given the apparent nature of existence. I’m not an expert on quantum physics, but from my layman understanding, the observer necessarily affects the observed. Which would seem to imply that the observer is necessarily at the center of their own vision of the universe, even on a physical level. Again, I’m not sure how that spells out in physics and I could be mistaken in my understanding here, but: it does seem like the vision of the universe as this independent thing which humans move around on is a cultural legacy and not how reality actually is constructed.

On that last note - not sure I necessarily agree there. I think the unstated meta-purpose of natural sciences is to gain more information, with the assumption that more information is necessarily good. Scientists seem more driven by a desire for knowledge than a desire for human flourishing, to me.

[strogonoff]

I will not give into the quantum stuff, as it seems to me a misuse of physical models intended for another purpose.

> Is it possible for a view of the world in which humans aren’t at the center, but still flourish.

There are non-dualistic philosophical approaches to modeling reality where mind is the first-class citizen (as opposed to being explained away as an illusion, like materialistic monism mostly does). I assume such aporoach does not need to make humans the center of the universe, but intuitively it seems it should automatically put more emphasis on well-being.