> It's telling us how to use real things to build real technologies that have real impacts on people's lives.

That's the popular definition of the word "real".

But this article is about the philosophical meaning of the word "real". And from that viewpoint science hasn't delivered yet, science doesn't know yet what "really exists out there", it can only predict how that thing behaves in experiments.

▲

pdonis an hour ago | parent [-]

> this article is about the philosophical meaning of the word "real".

If the philosophical meaning of "real" admits that computers, the Internet, and the GPS system are real, then I don't see what grounds it has for rejecting that things like transistors and electrons and other such underlying things are real as well, since transistors and electrons and other such underlying things are what we build computers, the Internet, and the GPS system out of.

If the philosophical meaning of "real" casts doubt on whether computers, the Internet, and the GPS system are "real", then why should we care about it?

> from that viewpoint science hasn't delivered yet

If science hasn't, then neither has anything else.

▲

TheOtherHobbes 22 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It does neither. The philosophical meaning of "real" is exactly the process of exploring the various possible definitions.

And it leads to the observation that our experience of reality is not objective, not absolute, and is likely very species-specific.

A cat can sit on a laptop without understanding the laptop or the Internet. All it experiences is a warm object

Is it rational or realistic to assume we don't have analogous perceptual and conceptual limitations which - of course - we're not aware of?

	▲	pdonis 4 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Is it rational or realistic to assume we don't have analogous perceptual and conceptual limitations I never claimed we don't have perceptual and conceptual limitations. Indeed, recognizing that we do should make us extremely wary of "philosophical" concepts like "real" that appear to go beyond the obvious pragmatic definitions that I described, that are grounded in what we can actually do with things.

▲

huertouisj 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

you are confused.

the question is about what does fundamentally exist, not what you perceive through eyes or experiments.

do particles exist or not? is it all just in your imagination because you are a "brain in a vat?" what about the everettian multi-verse, is that real or not?

by saying these SCIENTIFIC questions are trivial to answer because you can hold a GPS receiver in your hand is to completly misunderstand what is being discussed here

nobody said something else deliverd on this question. but neither did science. it's the consensus in physics right now that it can't say what "really exists", this is not a fringe position

	▲	pdonis a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		> you are confused No, I'm not. I'm just not drinking the "philosophical" Kool-Aid. > do particles exist or not? What difference does it make? What should I expect to see if particles "exist", that I should not expect to see if they don't? > what about the everettian multi-verse, is that real or not? Same question as above. > by saying these SCIENTIFIC questions If you can't answer the question I posed above about what difference it makes, on what grounds are you saying such questions are scientific? > are trivial to answer I made no such claim. You are attacking a straw man. > it's the consensus in physics right now that it can't say what "really exists" I completely agree. But you appear to think this is a flaw in science. I think it'a a flaw in the question "what really exists?" And as far as I can tell, that's what most physicists who hold the "consensus" position you describe think as well.