# Posts Tagged ‘Realism’

## Max Tegmark and Multiverse Hypothesis

Posted by allzermalmer on May 26, 2013

Max Tegmark, a theoretical physicist that teaches at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has proposed that hypothesis that “all logically acceptable worlds exist“. Not only has Max Tegmark proposed this hypothesis itself, he believes that it is an empirical hypothesis or scientific hypothesis.

Possibly and Necessarily: Modal Logic

Before I go into some of the ideas proposed by Tegmark, I will first go into a rough sketch of a form of logic known as Modal logic. More specifically, this form of modal logic is known as the S-5 system of modal logic and was formally created by Clarence Irving Lewis, C.I. Lewis. This system of logic plays off of the ideas of possible and necessary discussed about by Gottfried Wihelm von Leibniz, G.W. Leibniz.

Possible and Necessary are interchangeable, or we may define one based on the other. We may define them as so:

(1) Necessarily so if and only if Not possibly not so
(2) Possibly so iff Not necessarily not x so
(3) Not possibly so iff Necessarily not x so
(4) Possibly not so iff Not necessarily so

Truth is defined based on Necessary and Possible, which is done by Possible Worlds. A statement is Necessary if it is true in every possible world. A statement is Possible if it is true in some possible world.

There are some axioms in Modal Logic, and one of them is what I shall call NP: Whatever is necessarily so is actually so. It is necessarily so implies it is actually so. If it is necessarily so then it is actually so.

NA, in conjunction with some other axioms of modal logic and some rules of inference, is a theorem derived in modal logic. This theorem I shall call AP: Whatever is actually so is possibly so. It is actually so implies that it is possibly so. If it is actually so then it is possibly so.

One inference of Modal Logic is what I shall call GR: Whatever is provably so is necessarily so. It is provably so implies it is necessarily so. If it is provably so then it is necessarily so.

One comment is required of GR. Pythagorean Theorem is provably so, and in fact has been proved to be so, so it is necessarily so. It was proved based on a formal system known as Euclidean Geometry, which has its own definitions, axioms, and rules of inference. From these we are able to prove some statements. These proved statements show that it’s negation is not possible, and so the processes of elimination leads to that proved statement necessarily being so.

(GR) Whatever is provably so is necessarily so; (NP)Whatever is necessarily so is actually so; Thus Whatever is provably so is actually so. This in turn means that AP is actually so since it was proved like the Pythagorean Theorem was proved. Since AP being provably so implies AP is necessarily so. And since AP is necessarily so, AP is actually so.

All that is logically possible to be the case is actually the case

Max Tegmarks hypothesis is the converse of AP. We may call this MH: Whatever is possibly so is actually so. It is possibly so implies it is actually so. If it is possibly so then it is actually so.

We may thus assume MH is true and assume that AP is true. Since both of these are assumed true, they form a logical equivalence. We may call this *MH*: Whatever is actually so is possibly so if and only if Whatever is possibly so is actually so. If it is actually so implies it is possibly so then  it is possibly so implies it is actually so.

Max Tegmark presents his hypothesis, similar to how Albert Einstein presented Special Relativity, by his hypothesis being based on two assumptions. One of these assumptions, as already previously stated is MH. The second hypothesis of Max Tegmark is what we may call EW: There exists an external physical reality and it is independent of human observers.

So Tegmark’s two assumptions are as follows:

EW: There exists an external physical reality and it is independent of human observers.
MH: Whatever is possibly so is actually so.

EW is an existential statement and MH is a universal statement. This is very important to keep in mind, as shall be shown later on.

Mr. Tegmark prefers to talk about MH being something like this, “Our external physical reality is a mathematical structure”. A mathematical structure, or mathematical existence, is “merely freedom from contradiction.” I use MH as I do because the definition of mathematical existence is the same as possible. For something to be possible it must not contain a contradiction. For something to be impossible it must contain a contradiction.

Euclid’s geometry, for example, is a mathematical structure, and also has a mathematical existence. This means that Euclid’s geometry is “free from contradiction”. One cannot derive a contradiction within Euclid’s geometry.

We may say that there are two categories. There is what is possible and there is what is impossible. What is possible contains two sub-categories. These are Necessary and Contingent. Something is necessary because it not being actual is impossible. Something is contingent because it not being actual is possible and it being actual is possible. For example, it is necessary that all bachelors are unmarried males and it is contingent that all like charges repel.

Mathematics and Logic, at least, deal with what is Necessary. Metaphysics and Science deal with what is Contingent. The Criterion of Demarcation, or Line of Demarcation, between Metaphysics and Science, or Metaphysical Arguments and Empirical Arguments, is Falsifiability. Falsifiability was first laid out by Karl Popper in his book The Logic of Scientific Discovery, and throughout his other writings.

Some Criterion of Falsifiability for Empirical Hypothesis

There is one thing that all hypothesis must conform to, which is that of consistency, i.e. don’t allow contradictions. Necessary statements obviously conform to this, and Contingent statements are also suppose to follow consistency.

“The requirement of consistency plays a special role among the various requirements which a theoretical system, or an axiomatic system, must satisfy. It can be regarded as the ﬁrst of the requirements to be satisfied by every theoretical system, be it empirical or non-empirical…Besides being consistent, an empirical system should satisfy a further condition: it must be falsiﬁable. The two conditions are to a large extent analogous. Statements which do not satisfy the condition of consistency fail to differentiate between any two statements within the totality of all possible statements. Statements which do not satisfy the condition of falsiﬁability fail to differentiate between any two statements within the totality of all possible empirical basic statements.” Karl Popper

Karl Popper points out, basically, that both metaphysics and science must adhere to consistency. One of the ways to refute a hypothesis is to show that it leads to a contradiction, which is known as a Reductio Ad Absurdum. You assume the opposite of a statement, and from this assumption you deduce a contradiction from the assumption. This proves the statement derived to be necessarily true, since its negation is impossible.

One tests of Scientific hypothesis is to make sure it is consistent with all other scientific hypothesis (generally, unless a new hypothesis that alters the edifice of science like Galileo and Einstein did). Another test is to show that the hypothesis is internally consistent.

Max Tegmark’s hypothesis, which contains both EW and MH are contradictory to one another. This is because MH allows for, what I shall call IW: There exists world and it is not independent of human observers. IW does not state how many human observers there are. There could be only one human observer, which is solipsism, or there can be infinitely many human observers, i.e. Human observer + 1 or N+1. MH allows for these possibilities, since there is no contradiction in such a situation. This implies that there exists a possible world where I am the only human observer, and it also implies that you,the reader, exists in a possible world where you are the only human observer. This also implies there exists a possible world in which only you the reader and I are the only inhabitants of a possible world where we are only human observers, and etc and etc.

Instead of accepting MH itself, which means both accepting EW and IW, Max Tegmark accepts only a part of MH by accepting only EW and denying IW. MH is both being affirmed and denied since denying a part of MH and accepting a part of MH. This would also follow by a simple example of Modus Tollens.

(1) All logically possible worlds exist implies there exists an external physical reality and it is independent of human observers and there exists a world and it is not independent of human observers.
(2) There doesn’t exist a world and it is not independent of human observers. (Because of EW)
(3) Thus, not all logically possible worlds exist. (Thus, Not MH)

The general point is that it is logically possible that there exists a world and it is dependent on human observers. But it is also possible that there exists a world and it is not dependent on human observers. Both of these are contained in MH, and Tegmark denies one but accepts the other, while also accepting MH. This would be similar to holding to the Theory of Special Relativity (which would be MH here) as a whole and accepting the first postulate (which would be EW here) and denying the second postulate (which would be IW). This is impossible since the Theory of Special Relativity is defined by both postulates together.

“A theoretical system may be said to be axiomatized if a set of statements, the axioms, has been formulated which satisﬁes the following four fundamental requirements. (a) The system of axioms must be free from contradiction (whether self-contradiction or mutual contradiction). This is equivalent to the demand that not every arbitrarily chosen statement is deducible from it. (b) The system must be independent, i.e. it must not contain any axiom deducible from the remaining axioms. (In other words, a statement is to be called an axiom only if it is not deducible within the rest of the system.) These two conditions concern the axiom system as such;” Karl Popper (Bold is my own emphasis and Italics are Popper’s own emphasis.)

It has already been shown that Tegmark’s hypothesis already violates (a). But Tegmark’s hypothesis also violates (b). This means that the two axioms of Tegmark’s hypothesis (MH & EW) are not independent of each other. We may deduce EW from MH, which means that EW is not independent of MH. It would be charitable to believe that Tegmark doesn’t hold that EW is not possible, which means that Tegmark doesn’t believe that EW is impossible.  But MH deals with everything that is possible. And so EW would be possible and thus be part of MH.

These two “proofs” don’t assume that Max Tegmark’s hypothesis aren’t an empirical hypothesis, but they are consistent with Max Tegmark’s hypothesis not being an empirical hypothesis, i.e. consistent with Max Tegmark’s hypothesis being a metaphysical hypothesis. These are also theoretical proofs, not practical or “empirical proofs” themselves.

There are two steps at falsifiability. One of them is that we show that the theoretical structure of the hypothesis is not itself contradictory. If the theoretical structure is not found to be contradictory, then we try to show that the theoretical structure is contradictory with empirical observations. If the theoretical structure is contradictory with the empirical observations, then the theoretical structure is falsified. First we try to show that the theoretical structure is contradictory or we try to show that the theoretical structure is contradicted by the empirical observations.

There will always be partial descriptions

The paper “A Logical Analysis of Some Value Concepts” was written by the logican Frederic B. Fitch, and appeared in the peer-review journal called The Journal of Symbolic Logic, Vol. 28, No. 2 (Jun., 1963), pp. 135-142.In this paper, a formal system was created for dealing with some “Value Concepts” like “Truth”, “Provability”, “Knowledge”, “Capability”, and “Doing”, to name a few. This deals with an abstract relationship, one as usually described by formally consistent systems like S-5 Modal logic.

What Frederic Fitch presents in the paper is what Tegmark would call a “Mathematical Structure”. This “Mathematical Structure” also has some Theorems that are proved within it. Like AP was a Theorem in a “Mathematical Structure” known as S-5 Modal Logic and the Pythagorean Theorem is a “Mathematical Structure” in Euclidean Geometry, so too are there two specific Theorems that are counter-intuitive, and can both respectively be called the “Knowability Paradox” and “Provability Paradox”. These are, respectively, Theorem 5 and Theorem 6 in Fitch’s paper.

Being Theorems, by the rule of inference GR, they are proved to be the case then they are necessarily the case. Whatever is provably so  is necessarily so. By MP, whatever is necessarily so is actually so. So Theorem 5 and Theorem 6 are actually so, which is also consistent with the hypothesis of Tegmark with MH, i.e. whatever is possibly so is actually so. Which in turn means that Tegmark would have to accept that Theorem 5 and Theorem 6 are true if they accept that their hypothesis MH is true.

Theorem 5, the “Knowability Paradox”, states that “If there is some true proposition which nobody knows (or has known or will know) to be true, then there is a true proposition which nobody can know to be.”

Some equivalent ways of stating Theorem 5 is such as: It is necessary that it isn’t known that both “P is true” & it isn’t known that “P is true”. It isn’t possible that it is known that both “P is true” & it isn’t known that “P is true”. The existence of a truth in fact unknown implies the existences of a truth that necessarily cannot be known. There exists such a true statement that both statement is true & for every agent no agent knows that statement is true implies there exists a true statement that both statement is true and for every agent it isn’t possible agent knows that statement is true.

Theorem 6, the “Provability Paradox”, states that “If there is some true proposition about proving that nobody has ever proved or ever will prove, then there is some true proposition about proving that nobody can prove.”

Some equivalent ways of stating Theorem 6 is such as: It is necessary that it isn’t provable that both “P is true” & it isn’t provable that “P is true”. It isn’t possible that it is provable that both “P is true” & it isn’t provable that “P is true”. The existence of truth in fact unproven implies the existence of a truth that necessarily cannot be proven.There exists such a true statement that both statement is true & for every agent no agent proves that statement is true implies there exists a true statement that both statement is true and for every agent it isn’t possible agent proves that statement is true.

These two Theorems show that it is necessary that agents, like human observers, know everything that can be known by those agents and proved everything that can be proven by those agents. This implies that Goldbach’s Conjecture, which hasn’t been proven to be true by human observers or proven false, cannot possibly be proven true or proven false. It will forever remain unprovable to human observers. It also implies that MH, or  cannot possibly be known and will forever remain unknown. This would also hold for all agents, which are not omniscient agents. These is necessarily so and means it is actually so, especially by MH and GR.

This is interesting because MH is presented as a hypothesis that is possibly true and it is not known that it is true or false. But since it is not known to be true and it is not known to be false, it cannot known to be true or false. MH, in conjunction with GR and Fitch’s Theorems, tells us that it cannot be known to be true or false and that it also isn’t provable that it is true or false, i.e. unprovable that it is true or false.

The Knowability Paradox and Provability Paradox also attack one of the aspects of Tegmark’s hypothesis, which is that of EW. EW implies that other agents that are not human observers, which can be supercomputers or aliens, would also fall for these paradoxes as well. This shows that we can never have a complete description of the world, but can only have a partial description of the world. This means that human observers, supercomputer observers, or alien observers, all cannot have a complete description of the world. We, the agents of EW, will never have a complete description.

What is interesting is that both paradoxes are very closely aligned with IW, or lead one to accept IW as true. Sometimes pointed out that the Knowability Paradox leads to Naive Idealism, which is part of IW and is thus not part of EW. This, in some sense would appear to imply that MH again implies another contradiction.

Must a Mathematical Structure be Free from Contradiction?

“Mathematical existence is merely freedom from contradiction…In other words, if the set of axioms that define a mathematical structure cannot be used to prove both a statement and its negation, then the mathematical structure is said to have [Mathematical Existence].” Max Tegmark

Does mathematical existence really have to be freedom from contradiction? It is possible to develop formal systems that allow for both violations of non-contradiction and violations of excluded middle. A formal system of such a sort was developed by Polish logical Jan Lukasiewicz. This logic was created by using three values for logical matrices than two values.

Lukasiewicz three value logic has been axiomatized, so that there axioms, definitions, and logical relationships between propositions. And from this three value logic one may obtain violations of non-contradiction and violations of excluded middle. If there is a violation of non-contradiction then there is a violation of mathematical existence.

As Tegmark points out, A formal system consists of (1) a collection of symbols (like “~”, “–>”, and “X”) which can be strung together into strings (like “~~X–>X” and “XXXXX”), (2) A set of rules for determining which such strings are well-formed formulas, (3) A set of rules for determining which Well-Formed Fomrulas are Theorems.

Lukasiewicz three value logic satisfy all three of these criterion for a formal system.

The primitives of Lukasiewicz’s three valued calculus is negation “~”, implication “–>”, and three logical values “1, 1/2, and 0”. 1 stands for Truth, 1/2 stands for Indeterminate, and 0 stands for False. From negation and implication, with the three values, we can form a logical matrices of both negation and implication. And from these primitive terms we may define biconditional, conjunction, and disjunction as follows:

Disjunction “V” : (P–>Q)–>Q ; Conjunction “&” : ~(~P–>~Q) ; Biconditional “<—>” : (P–>Q) & (Q–>P)

“&” is symbol for Conjunction, “V” is symbol for Disjunction, “<—>” is symbol for Biconditional. Lukasiewicz’s Three-value calculus have the following truth tables:
Lukasiewicz’s axioms are as follows:
[Axiom 1] P –>(Q –>P)
[Axiom 2] (P –>Q ) –>(( Q–>R) –>(P –>R))
[Axiom 3](~Q –>~P ) –> (P –>Q)
[Axiom 4] ((P –>~P) –>P) –>P

Lukasiewicz’s rule of inference was Modus Ponens, i.e. Rule of Detachment:
(Premise 1) P –> Q
(Premise 2) P
(Conclusion) Q

From this it becomes obvious that formal systems do not need to be free from contradictions. This formal system allows for both (P & ~P) to have a truth value of neither True nor False. This is because, as the Conjunction Truth table shows, P= 1/2 or Indeterminate and ~P= 1/2 or Indeterminate is a well formed formula that is itself Indeterminate.

Does this mean that mathematical structures must be free from contradiction? It appears that Lukasiewicz’s formal system, and there are some others that can be created, show that mathematical structures and thus mathematical existence, do not need to follow the being free from contradiction. Lukasiewicz’s formal system can be expanded to allow for infinite number of truth values.

One important part of Tegmark’s idea of MH, which implies EW, is that it prohibits Randomness. He states that “the only way that randomness and probabilities can appear in physics (by MH) is via the presence of ensembles, as a way for observers to quantify their ignorance about which element(s) of the ensemble they are in.” Now Lukasiewicz’s logic can be the way our actual world is. This would mean that the world is random or indeterminate. Lukasiewicz’s even himself says that his three value logic is based on the position of indeterminacy, which is contradictory to determinacy.

[This post will be updated at sometime in the future….with more to come on this subject.]

## Refutation of Realism

Posted by allzermalmer on June 28, 2011

This blog is going to be based off an article done by W.T. Stace. The name of the paper is The Refutation of Realism, and it appears in the philosophical journal Mind, Vol. 43, No. 170 (Apr., 1934), pp. 145-155. This article is a play off of G.E. Moore’s article The Refutation of Idealism.

Now, the obvious question would be “What is meant by realist?”. Stace goes on to say, by realist, he means someone who agrees to the assertion that “some entities sometimes exist without being experienced by any finite mind.” Now, this might not be what all realist would agree to, but it is close enough to the very basic idea.

So let us take a look at what a realist might believe. Before me is a book, and I know this because I am seeing it, I am touching it, and I hear it when I slam my hand against it, I am smelling it, and taste it. Now, a realist would believe that the book continues to exist when I put it in a drawer, and I no longer have those experiences of it, and there is no other finite mind experiencing it. Thus, a realist will at least believe that it continues to exist when no one is experiencing it.

Now, there would also seem to be no point in asserting that entities might exist unexperienced, unless they do, as a matter of fact, sometimes exist unexperienced. Now, imagine that the universe has a property, which we call X, as a matter of fact, the universe has no such property, would be useless, and has no contribution to truth. Now, some realist might think that such a belief of the relation between knowledge and object as such, helps them in someway of helping with the belief in things that exist unexperienced by some mind.

Now, it should be stated as clearly as possible, and which is very important. That statement is,  One cannot prove that no entities exist without being experienced by minds. For, it is always possible that they do exist unperceived. However, it is also possible that they do not exist unperceived. Thus, we find that both are equal in their possibility. But, the main point is this: We have not the slightest reason for believing that they do exist unexperienced. And it is from this that the realistic position is groundless, and one that ought not to be believed. And the realistic position is like that of “there is a unicorn on the planet Mars”. We cannot prove that there is not a unicorn on Mars. However, since there is not the slightest reason to suppose that there is one, it is a proposition which we ought not to believe.

Now it will not be held that objects of experience, like a color patch that is green, are “mental”. And so when it comes to the question of if what we experience is only mental, it will be held that this question is meaningless, and this is a form of neutral monism. Now, the position will be as follows: “There is absolutely no reason for assertion that these non-mental, or physical, entities ever exist except when they are being experienced, and the proposition that they do so exist is utterly groundless and gratuitous, and one which ought not to be believed.”

It will be attempted to show that we do not know that any single entity exists unexperienced. It will be inquired how we could possibly know that unexperienced entities exist, even if they do exist unexperienced.

Let us get back to a previous example. Now, at this moment, I am experiencing this book in front of me. But how can I know that it existed last nigh in my drawer, when, as far as I know, no other finite mind was experiencing it? How can I know that it will continue to exist tonight when there is no one in the room? A realist knows, or at least believes, that they continue to exist. Now a question comes up: How could such knowledge, or belief, be obtained and justified?

There are two ways in which it could be asserted that the existence of any sense-objects can be established. They are by sense-perception, and the other is inference from sense-perception. I know of the existence of the book now because I see it. It is part of my sense experience. Now, I am supposed to know of the other side of the moon, which has never been seen, by inference from all the various actual astronomical observations, and so I make an inference from things actually experienced. And, it is also a possible experience. I could fly out to the moon, and go around to the dark side to have a sense experience.

1. It should be obvious that we cannot have sense-perception of things that are not sense-perceptions. For, to have a sense-perception of something that is not a sense-perception would be a contradiction. Both sense-perception and not sense-perception. And, if we were to have a sense-perception, it would be experienced by some finite mind, and so it would not be existing without some finite mind experiencing it.

2. Now inference seems like the most likely candidate for coming to the belief of things existing unexperienced by some finite mind. So how can I pass, by inference, from a particular fact of experiencing the book now, when it is being experienced, to the different particular fact of the existence of the book yesterday or tomorrow, when no finite mind is experiencing it? Now the onus of proof is on those that say things somethings exist when some finite mind is not experiencing. It would be up to them to show how they passed from what is sense-perception to something that is not a sense-perception. So one may sit back and wait for them to show how they came to such a proposition, which means to support their proposition.And Bertrand Russell had something to say about this, “Belief in the existence of things outside of my own biography must, from the standpoint of theoretical logic, be regarded as a prejudice, not as a well-grounded theory.”

Now, such an inference to things existing when some finite mind is not experiencing it cannot be done by an inductive inference. Induction works from what has been observed, what we have experienced, to what will be experienced, but which is currently unexperienced. For example, every morning I have found that the sun rises in the east. This I have experienced. From this, based on an inductive inference, I come to the conclusion that tomorrow morning, which is unexperienced, that I will experience the sun rising in the east.

Now inductive reasoning cannot help me here, since I have never experienced something existing unexperienced, since that is just a contradiction, and not possible. In other words, there is no case where it has been observed to be true that an experienced object continues to exist when is not being experienced. It is, by hypothesis, its existence when not being experienced, cannot be observed. And induction is also about generalization from observed facts, but there is not one single case of an unexperineced existence, since that is a contradiction, which can be the basis of the generalization that entities continue to exist when one is experiencing them.

Now, since induction is ruled out, we are left with deductive inferences. Deduction depends on consistency. Thus, when given P→Q, we can only prove Q if P is admitted. From P→Q , all that can be admitted is that P and not Q are inconsistent with each other, and we cannot hold both propositions, P and not Q, together, though we can hold to P and not Q as separate propositions. Thus, to assert that the book exists now when I am experiencing it, to the existence of the book when no one is experiencing it, together is an internally inconsistent proposition. But, there is no inconsistency when these two propositions are asserted separately. In other words, deductive inferences do not allow us to reach that because things exist when some finite mind is experiencing them, to things existing when no finite mind is experiencing them, is deductively invalid.

Thus we find that we have no sense-perception to support the realist position, and that we cannot use inferences to the realist position, since deduction and induction do not help us.

Now it is not proved that because we cannot make an inference to the existence of things existing unexperienced by some finite mind, that they do not exist unexperienced. For such a way of reasoning would be fallacious. However, because it has not been proved there does not exist things unexperienced, that it shows that they do exist unperceived. For to argue either way would be an argument from ignorance. An argument from ignorance carries these two forms, which is both, respectively, positive and negative.

Positive:If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
Negative:If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.

Now that we have no sense-perception that can allow us to assert such a proposition, and we cannot make an inference to such a proposition, we ought not to believe it. For we ought not to believe that there is a unicorn on Mars because we have no sense-perception of it, and we have no inference to reach such a conclusion. It does not mean that it does exist or does not exist, but that we ought not to believe it. Thus, the unicorn are like the existence of things existing unperceived by some mind. And from a logical point of view, the onus of proof is on the realist that asserts that things exist unperceived by some finite mind, and until they keep to their burden, we ought not to believe what they say.

Now some might come to use the causal processes to make an inference to things existing when not experienced. The whole argument of causal sequences continuing on when not perceived is  begging the question. For you are still assuming that things that happen when perceived continue on when not perceived, and that is the thing in question.  If  someone, say, John stays in the room as he builds a fire and keeps it going till it is done, which takes about an hour, he observes a certain sequences of the phenomena. The sequence follows like this, m, n, o, p, q, r,  s, t, u. Now if John leaves the room after it starts, and returns half an hour, he will see it at sequence q. If John leaves the room after that sequences and returns to it in a quarter-hour, he will get the sense experience of s. And on this goes. John will thus ‘infer’ that m,n,o, & p have occurred in his absence and that of any other mind. However, the only way this inference can be made is with the belief that things go on in his absence, or as if he were there. John cannot infer the conclusion of things going on unperceived as they do when perceived, because of his belief in uniform causal sequences rests on belief in the general belief in continuity of nature, i.e. continued occurrence of events when he is not perceiving them. He has to first come to the belief in continued existence when no one is perceiving things before he can believe in uniform causal sequence when not being perceived. Thus, he cannot logically make the inference that he does.

So, like we cannot perceived unexperienced things, so too we cannot perceive unexperienced processes and laws. Also, like we cannot infer from anything which we experience to the existence of unexperienced things, so we cannot infer from any processes and laws we experience the existence of unexperienced processes and laws. And our belief in the processes of causality that happens when we experience it, to it going on when we do not experience it, is based on the belief in the continued existence of things when we are not experiencing it, and so begs the question.

Now some have made some distinction between sense-data and our awareness of sense-data. It is said that Green is not the same as awareness of Green. This is said because of us comparing different sense-data. Say that I experience a green sense-datum and a blue sense-datum. We find that there is some common element between them, and this is awareness. Thus, awareness must be different from green, since awareness also exists in the case of blue, and that awareness is not green. Thus, it is thought that Green exists when we are not aware of Green. But this is not the case.

Whenever we come across green, we find that we have awareness of green, but we also find that green and awareness of green are not the same thing. Thus, there is a difference between X and Y. Yet when we find X, we also find Y. Thus, to say that X goes on existing when Y is not there, is not supported by sense-perception, and now we are stuck with inference, and we come to the same problems. We do not find sense-perception to show that green exists when there is no awareness of green, and we cannot make an inference to it either. Thus, such a distinction between green and awareness of green does not allow us to believe that things exist when unexperienced by some finite mind.

Now, since experience and inferences cannot lead us to the realist position, and all the arguments to such a conclusion are fallacious, we ought not to believe it. However, some would say that it is probably true, and thus we ought to believe it. However, all such reasoning would have to be based on the same types of arguments, and they all come to rely on fallacious reasoning. Also, since both options are possible, we find that they have an equal probability, and one does not have a greater probability than another. Heads and tails both have the same probability. Also, we cannot present an argument to support the realist position, and if we could then we could just as well use the critique presented her to show that it could be even more probable that they do not exist when not experienced by some finite mind.

Now some mind resort to it being an animal faith a primitive belief, or an instinctive belief. To invoke such things to support the realist proposition is to throw up ones hands in defeat, and to admit that one has no rational reasons to support their beliefs. It becomes an unreasoned belief, and has nothing to rely on by fiat. It is to be one who files for bankruptcy, and gets ride of rational grounds for their belief.

So, throughout, we find that the logically correct position is this. We cannot have any reason whatsoever to believe that unexperienced entities exist. We cannot prove that they do not exist. The onus of proof is on those who assert that they do exist unexperienced. We have found that experience does not attest to the existence of unexperienced things, and we have no way of inference to reach it (without fallacious reasoning), and thus we find that it is impossible to reach such a conclusion. Thus, we ought not to believe it, if we are to be rational, like we do not believe in a unicorn on Mars.

But, the way around this is to be explained as it being a mental construction, or a fiction. It is a pure assumption which we invent to simplify our view of the world.