[CraigS]

Hi Rob;

Originally Posted by Robh

Craig,
I differ in my point of view on this. I think there is an ingrained reality to the universe waiting to be discovered.

That's Ok Rob .. I appreciate your viewpoint and that's fine … beyond this point in the discussion, I think we really are at a science/metaphysical boundary, (or an observable horizon).

If there is no arbiter or 'describer' of this 'reality' (believed to extend beyond our 'best-fit' descriptions), and our best-fit descriptions do not describe it, then why believe there is one at all .?. other than perhaps, to motivate oneself to improve and extend our existing descriptions of this boundary ?

For me, it really doesn't matter whether a reality exists beyond our best-fit descriptions or not ... the only thing which matters, is that which enables us to visualise the boundaries and perhaps use predictions as clues as to where to go next. (The clues aren't reality until there's evidence).

This 'reality' (assumed to exist beyond our best-fit theories), may not be able to be described in an understandable way by our brains anyway. If it can't be described by scientific terminology and process (resulting in verifiable evidence), then one might as well believe a science fiction book portrays reality! How can you tell the difference?

Verifiable observational evidence .. if this doesn't exist, its not yet reality.

For me, the only thing which matters, in our physical world .. are our 'best-fit' theories, which build on past verifiable data, and making these then align with present-day verifiable observations.

Originally Posted by Robh

This was the point of the dialogue between Amir and Brian. Some of our models seem very removed from our perception of what this reality is. Now, it could be the case that one of these creative models does actually depict the real world but it might also be pure science fiction.

Not if it has observational evidence behind it!
I got the distinct feeling that Amir is just like all of us as we age … we get locked into this belief that because we have some retrospective experience, we are somehow, better able to predict the purely unknown. A corollary of this might tell us that a child can't possibly do better at this than an adult ... but, if the future is not fundamentally predictable (or presently known), then the age-given world view is folly .. and a child, who has no past history, and only senses the present, sees the present undisturbed. To me, this pure 'intuition' is of greater value in exploring the absolute unknown, than age-acquired experience.

I'm not saying everything is unpredictable, either .. but I am saying that if we have no idea of what this unsupported, believed, supposed underlying unknown 'reality' is, then the benefit of unrelated hindsight, misleads us. The only reality is then, past-verified observational evidence which takes us up to the present.
The future is unknown to everyone, and so, the present view, at least enables us to break-free of past biases, to sense what is actually happening in the present, and go where the data takes us.

Originally Posted by Robh

In the end, observational, data will sift out fiction from fact, as it did, for example, with the Steady State Theory. But you can't put every current theory in the same batch as the best view of the world. And, if you can't match a particular model or theory to the observational data and forces that describe our universe then it can't reflect this reality.

Agreed. But it does then reflect a 'best-fit' view, it is definitely verifiable data from the past, and still available in the present, which defines reality.

Prediction then takes an another guise and perspective, (as outlined above).

Cheers