Modeling Reality

In his book, ”God, the Failed Hypothesis”, Victor J. Stenger attempts to model God, based on some faulty assumptions. Because God is not observable, Stenger is constrained to creating his own observations – not empirical observations, but opinions of what characteristics God must have and what God must do, if God is to satisfy Stenger’s conditions. This is destined to futility, of course, because first, none of us can conceive of even basic nature of such a being, and second, that effort to model is not based on empirical observation, it is based on conjecture and opinion.

The purpose of modeling is to accumulate the attributes of a targeted entity in order to describe the entity in an accurate and useful manner. Automobile designers sculpt full-scale clay models of a proposed auto design, then use this not just for visual appreciation but also to test air resistance and manufacturability, etc.

Modeling can be done at several levels. Scientists use models to describe what they observe, and the models serve as aids in visualizing materials or events that are currently beyond direct viewing and are seen only as indirect effects. Models are also used in hypotheses to demonstrate an expected outcome, and are subject to change as experimental data is acquired that verifies or contradicts them. Models can be physical, mathematical or syllogistic. Or they can be lists of expected characteristics.

The best models in terms of accuracy and usefulness might be those that describe visible entities, such as the mathematical model for the moon’s orbit around the earth, or projectile trajectories. Models of observable, sensory characteristics that are continually tested successfully against falsification can become laws in banks of scientific knowledge.

What happens when we try to model something we can and do sense, and about which we can accumulate data, and watch for falsification: Reality? I suggest that this has already been done, and that it has been done across centuries and by some of the world’s most accomplished thinkers. The model of reality comes from observing characteristics of the universe. These are not secret or deeply embedded or too complex for laymen to comprehend. The model of the universe, based on observed characteristics, includes such basic observations as that the physical behavior of mass – energy is consistent enough to conclude that it follows certain principles which can be induced as laws. This can be done with reasonable certainty, having been repeated across centuries and millennia.

There are certain laws that are seen to be universally applicable, and while any law might be found to fail with future observations, these particular laws have not failed across the centuries of observation by humans. If they had failed or were to fail in the future, that failure would impact our view of both the nature of the universe and the ability of our minds to comprehend it. But this falsification has not happened, and the principles are universally valid as far as we can determine.

Such principles include the First Principles as described by Aristotle, which describe the characteristics of matter and existence, the characteristics of truth and falseness, and the relationship of effects to causes. These principles are based on human observations of the attributes of natural characteristics of the universe; they are not derived by assigning laws to personal desires or opinions.[Note 1] They are, as Aristotle points out, metaphysical, since they describe attributes of physical laws, not attributes of physical entities; and they cannot be unequivocally proven experimentally. They are axiomatic in that they are seen intuitively to be the case, where not to be the case is seen intuitively to be against observation of the characteristic attributes of the universe. In other words, they are self-evident universal truths.

Aristotle:

”Hence the principles of eternal things must be always most true (for they are not merely sometimes true, nor is there any cause of their being, but they themselves are the cause of the being of other things), so that as each thing is in respect of being, so is it in respect of truth.”

So the model of the attributes of reality, based on human observations of the universe, might look like this:

Non-controversial observations:

1. If something exists, then it exists. If it is true then it is true. (tautology)

2. Nothing can simultaneously exist and not exist. Nothing can simultaneously be true and not true. [Note 2]

3. Nothing can partially exist and partially not exist. Nothing can be partially true and partially not true. [Note 3]

4. For every effect there exists a cause, which is necessary and sufficient and greater than the effect, and exists prior to the effect; everything that exists is an effect, nothing causes itself. [Note 4]

5. Universal constituents: mass and energy; framework: space and time. Mass exists in space, relative to time; motion exists in time, relative to space.

More controversial observations:

6. On a human scale, existence is consistent and persistent, within the constraints of entropy; things don’t appear or disappear for no reason, but they do degrade.
Material existence is justified by the contradictory possibility of material non-existence; Truth is justified by the contradictory possibility of non-truth (falseness).

7. Attributes are sufficient for functionality; for example, if a thing has all the attributes of a desk, then that is sufficient for the thing to function as a desk, regardless of the internal or base composition or internal granular essence of the thing.

8. Living things are different from non-living things. Living things have an essence (called “life”) which is different from non-living things which do not have this quality, an essential quality which currently cannot be restored after they return to a non-living status. There are two universal categories: life and non-life. The science of life and living things is biology.

9. Living things require nutrients and satisfactory environmental conditions in order to maintain the existence of life; non-living things have no such requirements.

10. In living humans, mental existence includes intentionality, which, as an uncaused causer, is a different category of existence than material, deterministic existence. There are two universal categories: intentional and deterministic.

It is possible to deny the truth of these principles, just as it is possible to deny that physical reality exists at all. As G.E. Moore is reputed to have said, “here is a hand, and here is another hand”, defying anyone to prove otherwise. And as Bertrand Russell said, “I wish that those philosophers who deny reality would just drive into a tree at full speed, and then we can discuss it”, (paraphrased only slightly).

The principles above are said to be “self-evident” or a priori; they can neither be proved nor disproved using experimental empiricism, nor by reference to themselves. But it can be seen that neither the universe nor life would exist in their current forms if these principles are not true. So, taken together, these principles can serve as a model for reality, until either reality changes or we observe it to be different than this model shows it to be.


Note 1:

”Thus the mere organization of probable opinion will never, by itself, transform into indubitable knowledge”, Bertrand Russell, “The Problems of Philosophy”, pg 140.

Note 2:
Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 4, part 3:

”Evidently then it belongs to the philosopher, i.e. to him who is studying the nature of all substance, to inquire also into the principles of syllogism. But he who knows best about each genus must be able to state the most certain principles of his subject, so that he whose subject is existing things qua existing must be able to state the most certain principles of all things. This is the philosopher, and the most certain principle of all is that regarding which it is impossible to be mistaken; for such a principle must be both the best known (for all men may be mistaken about things which they do not know), and non-hypothetical. For a principle which every one must have who understands anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study. Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect; we must presuppose, to guard against dialectical objections, any further qualifications which might be added. This, then, is the most certain of all principles, since it answers to the definition given above. For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be, as some think Heraclitus says. For what a man says, he does not necessarily believe; and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the same time to the same subject (the usual qualifications must be presupposed in this premiss too), and if an opinion which contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it is impossible for the same man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a man were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the same time. It is for this reason that all who are carrying out a demonstration reduce it to this as an ultimate belief; for this is naturally the starting-point even for all the other axioms.”

and,

”Again if when the assertion is true, the negation is false, and when this is true, the affirmation is false, it will not be possible to assert and deny the same thing truly at the same time.”

Note 3:
Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book 4, part 7:

” Again, there must be an intermediate between all contradictories, if one is not arguing merely for the sake of argument; so that it will be possible for a man to say what is neither true nor untrue, and there will be a middle between that which is and that which is not, so that there will also be a kind of change intermediate between generation and destruction.-Again, in all classes in which the negation of an attribute involves the assertion of its contrary, even in these there will be an intermediate; for instance, in the sphere of numbers there will be number which is neither odd nor not-odd. But this is impossible, as is obvious from the definition.-Again, the process will go on ad infinitum, and the number of realities will be not only half as great again, but even greater. For again it will be possible to deny this intermediate with reference both to its assertion and to its negation, and this new term will be some definite thing; for its essence is something different.-Again, when a man, on being asked whether a thing is white, says 'no', he has denied nothing except that it is; and its not being is a negation.”

Note 4:

David Hume famously denied that the "constant conjunction" of an effect to a cause proves that the purported cause actually forces the existence of the effect. [An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, pg 49 - 53] Nonetheless, until the conjunction is observed to be broken when a cause is exerted and the effect no longer occurs, the relationship of effect to cause is a valid, observable attribute.