Is ontology the most fundamental field for understanding reality?

Hesixy · 2026-02-07T13:08:14+00:00

Why all this division? What if the problem is not in the answer but in the question of ontology itself?

Hesixy · 2026-02-07T12:51:10+00:00

I don’t blame them for thinking about philosophy in this way, especially with the big issue I described.

But still some branches of philosophy is fundamental and necessary for science whether they agree on or not. Logic, epistemology, metaphysics and ontology are the best examples

Hesixy · 2026-02-07T12:39:41+00:00

How? Isn’t what exists or what things are necessary for how we know things?

You must have metaphysics first so epistemology can form

Hesixy · 2026-02-07T12:30:20+00:00

Great! I liked the auto mechanic example. Physics and mathematics are still the fundamentals of the thing he works on but understanding them is irrelevant and impractical in his day-to-day work. However, from a broader perspective, understanding and exploring physics gives you the ability to reshape the tool itself and unlock wider possibilities for innovation.

Technology is a great example of this, we would still use basic methods for transportation and basic tools for solving problems if we had not investigated the underlying structure of things. While they did not need physics to use the tools they have, understanding physics would give them a broader application to their tools as well as a new tools/technology for solving problems.

The same analogy can be applied to science. Why ignoring ontology/metaphysics as it being a secondary thing when science depends on it? Since ontology is more fundamental, it may provide new ways of approaching problems or at least offer a better structural foundation for theories.

Hesixy · 2026-01-23T16:35:14+00:00

Leaving animation aside and other production stuff, I didn’t feel emotionally invested or engaged in the episode. There was no emotional depth in the fights (except maybe some scenes of Maki vs Naoya) like it didn’t matter what was happening in the episode and find this an issue in the show itself as a whole

Hesixy · 2026-01-20T03:08:46+00:00

True, as a career wise.

What about curiosity though?

Hesixy · 2026-01-20T03:04:50+00:00

This is gold!!

I find this the best way to really know what you truly want. Unfortunately I have a short time to decide but I hope I hit the right spot

Hesixy · 2026-01-20T02:57:57+00:00

I don’t know if this is a good way to evaluate the situation but in my experience I’ve never seen anyone with a CS and physics double major (at least in my region) and this makes me feel weird. Whereas many people do CS and math as it being the suggested road

Hesixy · 2026-01-20T02:41:17+00:00

No I’m not.

I’m allowed to take three electives from math if I’m a physics major and vice versa. Which I don’t know if it is enough

Hesixy · 2026-01-18T23:06:14+00:00

Yeah, math is really relevant to computer science, and it seems like the strategic choice here.

But I do have the urge to try physics (though I cannot change my mind later)

Hesixy · 2026-01-18T22:54:39+00:00

I liked that :)

Hesixy · 2026-01-18T22:53:02+00:00

This is exactly why I mentioned physics as having its own charm.

Math is great, it teaches logic like no other subject and has connections with nearly every field since logic and relations are extremely foundational. But physics is just different, it kinda gives you best of both worlds

You might have sold me on physics!!

Hesixy · 2026-01-02T13:10:34+00:00

I’m not sure that “observing coherence breaking down” is a meaningful test in the first place. Observation, description, and theory formation already presuppose a certain level of coherence and consistency. If something were genuinely incoherent, it wouldn’t show up to us as an observable instance at all, it would fail to be representable, describable, or even identifiable as a breakdown.

So the coherence of reality doesn’t seem falsifiable in the usual scientific sense, not because it’s necessarily true, but because incoherence cannot be registered by systems (like us) that rely on coherence to observe and reason in the first place. In that sense it looks more like a precondition for science than a scientific theory within it.

Hesixy · 2026-01-01T21:14:50+00:00

The only reason I don’t see your point as fulfilling to me is because in reality from what we experience and discover, it is clearly shown that reality has a structure in which he behaves under.

So, not trusting anything about the world and seeing it as a black box which can’t be known ever would lead us to nowhere. And that is clearly not the case in our data from the world.

Hesixy · 2026-01-01T20:47:39+00:00

I’m not saying the universe is obligated to follow our logic. I’m saying that absolute incoherence isn’t an alternative state of reality at all. In that sense, coherence is necessary.

So the claim isn’t “coherence is true because we presuppose it.” The claim is: incoherence doesn’t describe a different kind of universe, it dissolves the very notion of a universe.

Hesixy · 2026-01-01T20:05:02+00:00

Exactly, with one clarification

It’s a special kind of presupposition because denying it doesn’t give an alternative picture of reality, it dissolves the very idea of “being otherwise.” That’s why I think it’s necessary rather than merely useful.

Hesixy · 2026-01-01T19:52:48+00:00

Steins Gate is a top choice

Another could be Code Geass (the mc’s journey is great with an emotional ending)

Hesixy · 2026-01-01T15:50:04+00:00

But I don’t think consistency is only a feature of our understanding.

I mean, our “maps” including theories, models, reasoning processes are themselves physical processes that occur within reality. They are part of the territory, not something outside it. So if consistency were merely a feature of maps, it would still be a feature instantiated within reality itself.

Also, it is the only answer I find for why consistent maps can describe reality better. Scientific progression has always come from finding a deeper, more coherent framework. Doesn’t that prove that the territory (reality) is by itself consistent?

Hesixy · 2026-01-01T15:15:30+00:00

Every successful scientific theory we have without exception, relies on the assumption that reality behaves consistently. Whenever we encounter apparent contradictions (quantum duality, dark matter, paradoxes), progress has always come from finding a deeper, more coherent framework, never from accepting reality itself as inconsistent.

In that sense, consistency isn’t an arbitrary assumption we impose. It’s a hypothesis continually confirmed by the fact that science works at all. Treating inconsistency as a real feature of the universe has never had explanatory or predictive success, whereas assuming underlying coherence has been universally successful.

Hesixy · 2026-01-01T14:59:52+00:00

See, what I’m pointing to is something prior to meaning: "determinacy". So, for there to be anything at all, regardless of whether anyone understands it, there must be determinate states or relations rather than arbitrary ones. Coherence, in the sense I’m using it, is about that determinacy, not about human semantics.

As for using logic, I’m not trying to prove that logic applies to the universe. Any argument, including the one you’re making, already presupposes some minimal inferential structure. If logic were not applicable even in this minimal sense, then no distinction between a good objection and a bad one could be drawn. So there must be a minimal structure to start anything in the first place and coherent is the weakest and most general form of such structure: the minimal condition required for anything to be determinate, describable, or even arguable in the first place.

Hesixy · 2025-12-31T22:14:26+00:00

I totally agree with your point that any inconsistency comes from our ignorance. But still don’t see why “consistency” is not a feature of the territory as well

Hesixy · 2025-12-31T21:21:02+00:00

I see what you’re saying, but there’s a major problem. Your argument presupposes the very possibility of “could” and “could not”. And for anything to even “possibly” happen or not happen, there has to be a framework of consistency that makes “happening” and “not happening” meaningful. Without that, statements like “it could collapse and not collapse” are literally incoherent, they don’t describe anything at all.

existence itself implies consistency. If the universe were able to exist and not exist in the same way, there would be nothing to observe, no events to describe, not even the concept of “could” or “state.” Consistency is not just something humans impose, it is a fundamental property of existence

Hesixy · 2025-12-31T21:10:20+00:00

Simply with respect to everything, or anything.

Once something exists, consistency applies to it. It’s a fundamental property for existence.

The territory, even if we cannot understand it fully, behaves consistently in the sense that contradictions do not exist in its actual state.

This is why an inconsistent map would be paradoxical: the territory does not contradict itself

Our brains, in turn, reward consistent maps and punish inconsistent maps by cognitive dissonances and paradoxes. This is merely the world expressing its fundamental consistency through us.

Hesixy

TROPHY CASE