Thankfully philosophically one is not obliged to anything! That’s partly its implicit value. As Alexander Piatigorsky once said, “The value of philosophy is that no one needs it.” I resonate with that idea of “usefulness of useless knowledge” (a reference to an article by Abraham Flexner). I look at it as at a seed for a potential conversation. I also pursue a selfish goal to express something to others so that I can understand it better myself (as you’ve probably noticed when we try to express ourselves we tend to consolidate thinking).
My argument goes exactly about the very concept of “how reality actually is”. I attempt to show that that very reality is under scrutiny. Reality may not be a monistic coherent piece of something we can eventually grasp with our knowledge. Why do I think quarks are just as many other things lack inherent existence?
Firstly, it is that inherent existence of anything by itself to me seems untenable. I concur with Nāgārjuna on that point (which doesn’t mean I completely understand him). It depends on what we mark as “real”. I would argue (on par with some Indian philosophers) that something that does not exist in the beginning and does not exist in the end cannot be marked as real in the middle. To simplify, change is a quality which makes it impossible to regard something as real. Only something immutable or existing by its own nature would be a candidate for calling it real as it would not depend on other things for its existence and would not pop in/out of existence. On that basis, I assume that there are no immutable things (that would lead to serious contradictions as that would preclude change, contact between entities, possibility of knowledge, etc.). So no inherent existence.
Secondly, I am (very grossly) aware how quarks were discovered and measured. It required a sound physical theory, particle accelerators, collisions, detectors, trained scientists who could link observational facts into relations, etc. Based on that fact, and the fact that the Standard Model is not complete, as it does not describe gravity I conclude that with high likelihood it may be substituted. Specifically, the collision process as it raises many questions, perhaps there are better ways to interact and measure interaction. That includes the ontology with which the Standard Model operates. Or they will remain as gross approximations. Quarks are dependent on all the mentioned factors and represent relations of a certain kind. And that has a high likelihood of change. Even if it didn’t, it would not make them inherently existing but only representing relations of a certain kind. And relations are the map of the observer.
Concerning the emptiness. It is not a nihilistic stance that nothing exists inherently nor just a conceptual framework (it can be experienced in some meditative states as a mode of being). It is just another way of saying that things are interdependent. That’s exactly what you mean here:
But I do see that complexity and multiplicity are there in reality—at the very least, they are there in my own consciousness.
Phenomena are interdependent and complex. That’s a synonym for emptiness in that context. If it weren’t for emptiness of essence, they could not inter-be.
Non-attachment to a theory or a concept does not mean you cannot use them, or they cannot be helpful, or that they do not represent the way things are accurately. It means to stop attributing to such theory the fundamental value. As the saying goes, “science advances one funeral at a time”. So to not be in that rigid position. That’s exactly what’s meant. It also helps in conventional reality, as one starts to see annoyances or stupidities of everyday life as a test of one’s rigidity and starts to let go of fixations.
P.S. And thanks for the link! I will check it later, it sounds interesting as most AGI models have agents in them and I indeed considered it as a drawback. Thinking in terms of networks or input/output boxes helps to overcome that bias. But that’s over-generalization and simplification.
Thankfully philosophically one is not obliged to anything! That’s partly its implicit value. As Alexander Piatigorsky once said, “The value of philosophy is that no one needs it.” I resonate with that idea of “usefulness of useless knowledge” (a reference to an article by Abraham Flexner). I look at it as at a seed for a potential conversation. I also pursue a selfish goal to express something to others so that I can understand it better myself (as you’ve probably noticed when we try to express ourselves we tend to consolidate thinking).
My argument goes exactly about the very concept of “how reality actually is”. I attempt to show that that very reality is under scrutiny. Reality may not be a monistic coherent piece of something we can eventually grasp with our knowledge. Why do I think quarks are just as many other things lack inherent existence?
Firstly, it is that inherent existence of anything by itself to me seems untenable. I concur with Nāgārjuna on that point (which doesn’t mean I completely understand him). It depends on what we mark as “real”. I would argue (on par with some Indian philosophers) that something that does not exist in the beginning and does not exist in the end cannot be marked as real in the middle. To simplify, change is a quality which makes it impossible to regard something as real. Only something immutable or existing by its own nature would be a candidate for calling it real as it would not depend on other things for its existence and would not pop in/out of existence. On that basis, I assume that there are no immutable things (that would lead to serious contradictions as that would preclude change, contact between entities, possibility of knowledge, etc.). So no inherent existence.
Secondly, I am (very grossly) aware how quarks were discovered and measured. It required a sound physical theory, particle accelerators, collisions, detectors, trained scientists who could link observational facts into relations, etc. Based on that fact, and the fact that the Standard Model is not complete, as it does not describe gravity I conclude that with high likelihood it may be substituted. Specifically, the collision process as it raises many questions, perhaps there are better ways to interact and measure interaction. That includes the ontology with which the Standard Model operates. Or they will remain as gross approximations. Quarks are dependent on all the mentioned factors and represent relations of a certain kind. And that has a high likelihood of change. Even if it didn’t, it would not make them inherently existing but only representing relations of a certain kind. And relations are the map of the observer.
Concerning the emptiness. It is not a nihilistic stance that nothing exists inherently nor just a conceptual framework (it can be experienced in some meditative states as a mode of being). It is just another way of saying that things are interdependent. That’s exactly what you mean here:
Phenomena are interdependent and complex. That’s a synonym for emptiness in that context. If it weren’t for emptiness of essence, they could not inter-be.
Non-attachment to a theory or a concept does not mean you cannot use them, or they cannot be helpful, or that they do not represent the way things are accurately. It means to stop attributing to such theory the fundamental value. As the saying goes, “science advances one funeral at a time”. So to not be in that rigid position. That’s exactly what’s meant. It also helps in conventional reality, as one starts to see annoyances or stupidities of everyday life as a test of one’s rigidity and starts to let go of fixations.
P.S. And thanks for the link! I will check it later, it sounds interesting as most AGI models have agents in them and I indeed considered it as a drawback. Thinking in terms of networks or input/output boxes helps to overcome that bias. But that’s over-generalization and simplification.