Reality vs. actuality. Column in ComputerraOnline #89
Discussions of "objective reality" are most often linked to a simple sophism: let us imagine that which exists outside our conceptions and outside any connection with them...
I am deeply convinced that whether I exist or not, the Andromeda Nebula is hurtling toward our galaxy. And this nebula, just like the rest of the world, couldn’t care less (pardon the vulgarity)—whether a respected biologist takes it seriously or not... A.P. Gavrilov Well then, I’ll take a chance and continue the topic I developed in my last column; thanks to Mr. Gavrilov for not letting me relax. I would like to point out that he expressed two different judgments: that the existence of “objective reality” has been proven, and that he is convinced of the existence of the external world. The first is a logical fallacy (it has been known since Hume’s time that it cannot be proven); the second is a judgment that one can only believe. I believe: he is convinced. And I live with that conviction, even though I know it is unprovable. So, do our positions coincide? No, one significant difference remains. I will try to explain it using the example of the work of the research group I am part of. I have previously written in my columns about the study of interspecific hybridization in green frogs (about semi-clonality, about the reproduction of hybrids, about multilevel selection). I am fortunate: I live and work in Kharkiv, not far from what we have named the Seversko-Donetsk Center for the Diversity of the Hybridogenic Complex of Green Frogs. Here, one can find, probably, all the phenomena described anywhere for this group of animals, which defy many of the laws established for “normal” groups. Here live diploid, triploid, and even tetraploid frogs; producing gametes of one parental species, another, and a mixture of gametes from two different species simultaneously; with mitochondria of their own species and with mitochondria of another species; passing on nearly unchanged genomes of the parental species and partial recombinants; carriers of genetic markers from all corners of this amazing group’s range. The Seversko-Donetsk Center lacks one of the parental species, yet its genomes are passed down from generation to generation through hybrids and, for some reason, do not degenerate. I have listed far from all the wonders that take place in this center! And the most interesting part of this giant natural cauldron is located near the university’s biological station. Usually, when we talk about this, listeners assume that we’ve simply studied what’s right next to us more thoroughly. Believe it or not, that’s not the case. By assessing the diversity of frogs in different locations, one can clearly see that our biological station is truly situated at the epicenter of these wonders. This is a credit to those who chose its location back in 1913 (we’ll soon be celebrating its centennial). So, is it just a coincidence? On the one hand, yes. On the other, what we know about this center is closely tied both to where we ourselves are located and to what we choose to focus on. This is quite characteristic of all aspects of human knowledge! The work my colleagues and I are doing is fairly typical scientific research. We collect empirical data, piece together a coherent picture from scattered fragments of a mosaic, and try to construct a more or less complete understanding based on it. And now for an important question. Is what we are studying part of “objective reality”? Usually, when uttering this mantra, people emphasize that “objective reality” will calmly continue to exist outside of our existence and the formation of our conceptions of it. Does semi-clonal inheritance exist, as part of “objective reality,” outside our knowledge? There are adaptations to the environment in frogs, and there are adaptations to the environment in other creatures. We have created certain theoretical constructs to describe what we have observed in nature. The case of the frogs breaks out of these constructs, and we create our own special mental constructs for it (and a few other similar situations). In reality, the ecological environment around us consists of green frogs, not modes of inheritance. Frogs are a constellation of insanely complex (and practically unknown to us) processes that form a sequence of ontogeneses. Something in these processes goes differently than, for example, in the processes that form gray toads. Perhaps we should say that frogs exist in “objective reality”? And what would that give us? As I’ve already said, it’s impossible to prove the existence of “objective reality” in general, and of frogs within it in particular. So what’s the point of such a statement? In pondering frogs that feel perfectly at home in a world where there are no humans and no one to perceive them? As soon as we start thinking about them, we violate the conditions of this problem. Frogs, by the way, did indeed exist perfectly well without humans—until the emergence of our species. We perceive them, though this is a very specific, fragmentary perception. We search for scattered remains and construct some mental constructs based on them... But do we really know modern frogs any differently? And regarding them, we have only scattered data, the nature of which is determined to a large extent by the specificity of our attention, conditioned by what we think about these frogs. Talk of an “objective” view of a frog or any other object is usually aimed at promoting a certain opinion, which is declared “objective” and thereby set against all others, supposedly “subjective.” This is a form of intellectual sleight of hand. When speaking of an “objective” approach, they push a viewpoint along these lines: you are all human beings; your ideas are your models, based on your sensory experience. These are all immature versions, but “objective” knowledge, which I will now pull out of my head, like Zeus did with Athena Pallas, is different; it is not tied to any subject and is not based on an interpretation limited by human cognition... I have had to write at length about the “chimera of objectivity” in biological systematics. In this field, there are scientific schools that demonstrate a surprising primitiveness of thought. They seem to think that “subjectivism” in science can be avoided by processing the entire body of information we have obtained about various objects according to some clearly defined algorithms. They simply do not understand that our “subjectivism” is reflected both in the data we collect and in how we interpret it. May I cite a diagram from Marina Kravchenko’s dissertation, which was recently accepted by the special council for defense (I serve as her academic advisor there)? She models population processes in frogs. She tried to assemble a coherent framework of ideas about what she was studying, formalized these ideas into a conceptual model, built a simulation model based on it, and conducted a series of experiments... The simulation model became a way to gather the scattered fragments of our knowledge into a coherent, interconnected whole. The place of various models in the cognitive process, represented as a system with direct and reverse connections. The names of the models are highlighted (figure by M. Kravchenko) And why is the object of study in a frame? Because it is fundamentally inaccessible except through empirical data—the readings of our senses, interpreted using a specific cognitive model. Everything shown in the diagram is a product of our mental constructs—everything except the object. All we can do is “ask” the object questions (by showing interest in certain aspects of it), collect its “answers”—data given to us directly or indirectly through our senses—and try to interpret them using various models. Let me remind you, though this is a topic for a separate discussion: what we call a “fact” is in reality a hypothesis, heavily dependent on our preconceptions... And why is such a diagram needed in modeling work? When working with models, one can get carried away and either confuse the model with reality or imagine that the model can be used to judge “objective reality.” These dangers can negate the benefits of using models. You need to have a clear understanding of what you are working with and what the models you create actually are. You must constantly remind both yourself and those who use the results of your work of the fundamental gap between any model and reality. The gap between our perceptions and reality is clearly illustrated by the example Mr. Gavrilov cited—see the epigraph. This is precisely the case where a person dealing with models imagines that they can judge “objective reality.” I won’t dwell on the simple sophism hidden behind his line of reasoning: let’s imagine something that exists outside our conceptions and unrelated to them... We can speak of the Andromeda Nebula only because it exists in our conceptions. Outside of them, there is nothing to talk about. Within the framework of our conceptions, we most often think of the Andromeda Nebula either as a pattern of radiation or as a cultural phenomenon associated with a certain pool of associations. However, even within the framework of these concepts, one can realize that this nebula is a collection of an astronomical number of star systems, only relatively comparable to the Solar System. At the same time, it is worth remembering the place our immediate surroundings occupy within the Solar System itself... And I think that there is much in the Andromeda Nebula that we simply cannot wrap our minds around. It is even harder to approach a comprehensive understanding of it as it actually exists than it is to grasp the nature of frogs or semi-clonal inheritance! ...I have almost finished writing the column and have already included my thoughts on modeling in it. I’m riding the subway home from work, reading the third of the reports on the limits to growth (D. Meadows, J. Randers, D. Meadows. The Limits to Growth: 30 Years Later. - Moscow: IKTs "Akademkniga," 2007). And, imagine, I see an almost perfect articulation of my own thoughts (pp. 155 and 33). Read: "To remind both ourselves and our readers once again of our dependence on models, we always put the 'real world'—to which the World3 model is compared—in quotation marks. What we call the ‘real world’ or ‘reality’ is, in fact, the authors’ shared mental models. The word ‘reality’ can never mean anything other than the mental model of the person who uttered it. It cannot be otherwise. We can only assert that studying the computer model has allowed our mental models to become more accurate, more profound, and more thorough than ever before." Donella Meadows, Jørgen Randers, Dennis Meadows The entire difference between my position and that of the Meadows and Randers lies in a terminological quibble: they put the word “reality” in quotation marks, while I prefer to speak of actuality (that which acts upon us). There are many realities: one can speak of our psychological reality (the sum of conscious and unconscious factors that determine our actions), or of external reality. If we are interested in our adaptation to external reality, it can be called the ecological environment. No, the authors of *The Limits to Growth* are not solipsists who consider “reality” to be their own invention. They want to make their models more accurate, that is, more consistent with reality. They use the discussion of modeling results as a way to change reality. And in doing so, they have a deep understanding of the nature of what they are working with. The forecasts they published in 1972 continue to be largely accurate. In their ability to foresee the future, they have proven to be the best in the world. They think clearly, write well, and look at the root of things. " ...what a person sees and what they do not depends on their inner convictions—it is a kind of filter. <...> When a person looks through a filter, as if through colored glass, they see through the glass but do not see the glass itself." Donella Meadows, Jørgen Randers, Dennis Meadows Discussions about the possibility of viewing the world without a filter (and that “Hume’s glass wall” can be shattered) are not merely empty. They (like all manner of axioms about the existence of “objective reality”) prevent us from realizing that perception of our world is impossible without filters, and thereby divert our attention. That is why I consider arguments about “objective reality” to be meaningless and harmful to our understanding of reality...