Video Transcript: What is a Theory of Reality?

Let's come back to the idea of getting a Christian theory of reality. We've seen  now how assuming different divinity beliefs can lead to very different views of  what math is about and how it's to be done. Not just adding a column of figures,  but the theories of math, and how it works and why and whether it does. To what extent, let's take this and transfer transpose it to theories of reality. Theory of  reality is trying to find the basic nature of everything. That means every  everything that we would call creation that Christians would call creation. God's  not a theory. We're not making a theory about God. It's about creation, the  universe, the cosmos, the multiverse, whatever term you want to use for it. And  over the years, I made this point earlier, people have distinguished the kinds of  characteristics that they observe this reality in which we live to have. So people  have observed that it has quantity. And we've cooked up a number theories to  represent the quantity. And then we look for laws to hold among those  quantities. We have observed that things have spatial characteristics, they have  size, they have shape, they have location, they have kinetic properties as well  are able to move or be moved. And they're physical, they have properties such  as solidity, mass, weight, density, some have biotic properties, they also are  alive. They include all these others, but the biotic is added, they carry on life  functions they carry on metabolic processes. Some of those, not all of them are  also sensory there, since they perceive feel the most plants go here, most  animals go here. There's then also the the aspect of logic thing, things not only  are governed by logical laws, they cannot both be and not be in any sense at  the same time, in the same sense at the same time. But that guides our thinking, our thinking has to be guided by not contradicting ourselves. Because nothing  no thing can actually contradict itself. It can't both be and not be in the same  sense. At the same time. There's an historical or formative aspect of the world  as we experience it. I explained this a little earlier, history is the past formative  control that humans have exercised over nature, we, whenever we take a  natural material and make something new, we have been engaged in this kind of practice. And one of the first things humans do that with is language, we take  sounds or marks, and take them make a symbolic system in which they  represent something else. And that's what makes real society possible. And then we also get social relationships, relationships, such as respect, deference,  honor or dishonor. There are when when society arises, we noticed that it also  has an economic aspect there. Things really are valued. Objects are really  subject to the law of supply and demand and diminishing returns and other such norms. Notice that there's a difference here between the way these lower  aspects obey laws and the way the upper ones do. Lower aspects are bound to  the laws and can't break them. There's no way we can break a mathematical  spatial physical law. As the order of these these kinds of properties. As we  ascend up the list, the Law Order is looser. When we get to here with the logical  it's not only that things really can't break the law of logic, the laws of logic, but 

then they become norms for our thinking. objects may not be able to be and not  be in the same sense at the same time. But we can make mistakes, we can  construct a theory that actually has a contradiction in it. But if we don't recognize it, we're not aware of it. So this becomes a norm for thought. A norm means it's  an order that's natural to these kinds of this kind of properties, but which is  possible for humans to violate. Humans can also violate linguistic norms, social  norms, economic norms, but they're, the norm comes back and shows itself  because if you if you violate the linguistic norm, what you say isn't clear and  people don't understand you correctly. You violate a social norm. You may be  ostracized. Violate an economic norm and you'll go broke. We have juridical  norms. laws we make about justice. We experience things and actions to be just and unjust. That's not our invention. The laws that try to deal with that and  ensure justice and punish injustice are our inventions. But there's a real juridical  side to human life. Aesthetic when we recognize that something is beautiful, just  as an example, ethical, when we find that some things are loving or not, I'm  going to identify the ethical or moral aspect of our lives with the human love life.  Whereas the, the juridical has to do with what is just or unjust. The ethical has to do with what's loving or unloving. And then finally, there's the aspect that I called juridical, we were over these pretty quickly a bit a while back. So it helps us may help you to hear them again, Juridical has to do with the trustworthiness of  things. And at the upper end of the juridical, I'm sorry, of the fiduciary, at the very upper end is what we trust most, and what we trust to be most trustworthy. And  that coincides with whatever we regard as self existent. So that kind of trust is  called faith. Faith is trust, that's unconditional, we trust what we trust to be  unconditional is thereby, regarded as self existent, our trusting of it is called  faith. And that faith is not blind, it's not a blind leap into the dark, by any means.  So these are what we have to work with, in a theory of reality. So the interesting  thing to us from the standpoint of these is that objects types of objects exhibit  different combinations of these. Just take a quick look at one a couple of  examples. I'm going to leave this up now for the rest of our sessions. And let's  point out that these different items on this list are supposed to be kinds of  properties, with their laws, kinds of properties, quantitative properties, with  quantitative laws to hold among them spatial properties with spatial laws to hold  among them physical properties, with physical laws that hold among them, and  so on logical laws, and so forth. And I'm going to take the ordinary English word  aspect, and press it into being a technical term, these are going to be called  aspects of reality. There are aspects of reality that we experience. That's how  we know about them in the first place. But take a look at this and see if it makes  some sense to you. If I take an object, such as a rock it seems pretty obvious  that the rock has quantity. occupies space is capable of moving and has  physical properties such as a hard tensile surface. It's very dense, and there's a  lot of weight to it. The Rock however, is not alive, it doesn't perceive it doesn't 

think, it doesn't create artifacts, it doesn't speak. And yet there's a sense in  which these other aspects are aspects of the rock also, the rock does these  things has these properties whether anybody knows it or not. So I'm going to  say that it possesses those properties actively. As opposed to possessing others passively. That is, the rock is not alive. But it can be the object of a living things.  Needs desires can be part of its nest. This can be the rock the seagull drops the  clams on to open them. It can be a tiny rock that a bird swallows and it goes into its gizzard and helps to grind its food it takes part in a life process without itself  being alive. So it's passively biotic. Similarly, the rock doesn't perceive. But it  can be perceived. It doesn't think. But we can form a concept of it. It doesn't. It  doesn't form artifacts, but it can be formed so as to become one we can take the rock and carve a statue out of it. That's the beginning of looking for a theory of  reality of looking for a way to get the natures of things. And our first step will be  to say that we're going to accept these, this list and which which people with  which people have worked for centuries, and we're going to look for the ways  that things are governed by the laws of those aspects, actively or passively. And  the first proposal was going to be that everything in creation, everything in  creation functions under the laws of all these aspects, and has properties of all  the kinds, either actively or passively. That's a stunning reversal of the history of  non Christian thought, which has always taken one or two of these, and says,  This is the divine and everything is either this or caused by this. And we're trace  all with causal efficacy to these two, this one or two things. No, this says, Oh,  they're all kinds of things. So they have all kinds of properties. And they're  governed by all kinds of laws. Does a rock, also function passively in the  juridical aspect? Oh sure, that rock can be part of my property I own it. That rock could be a murder weapon, a piece of evidence in court. What about ethical?  Well, the rock doesn't love or be kind and be merciful to other things. But the  rock could be something I hate. It could be the object of my love, or hate, I just  love the way this rock goes into the garden, it really makes things look great. Or  every time I walk, try to walk past that thing, I stumble over it, I'm gonna hit the  sledgehammer and bash it one, get really good at it. So I'm not tripping over it. It can be the object of my love or hate, it can also be an object that I trust in some  respects. I trust to stand up to the weather and continue to be part of that  garden and making it look good. Of course, it would be definitely positively  weird. If you trusted that rock above all other things, and thought that it was the  most real thing that generated everything else. In that case, it would be a divinity to you. And you would be regarding the rock is divine, and the source of  everything else. That's positively strange. People have done strange things,  when it comes to that. It's not too far from what some tribal religions have been  like. There are tribal religions that have deified very odd things. So we'll talk  about that as well, but can you see this as a way to start? That's the opposite  from what you want to do is some part of the cosmos. The world in which we 

live, was divine, had Divine Self existence, and generated everything else. So  here, we're saying no, the only thing that's divine and generates all of these is  God. And God doesn't come into the theory, God's not a postulate of the theory.  Because we believe in God, we're going to theorize we're going to philosophize  this way. And we're going to look for how things function with with respect to the  different kinds of properties and their laws. So let me just make a comparison  here quickly. A plant would have one additional aspect in which it functions  actively. It's actively alive, it carries on metabolic processes. Does it feel and  emote? I don't think so. I know some people suspect that may be true. But so far as we know, feelings and sensations are require a certain neural network to  exist, we don't know of anything that actually perceives, or feels without that kind of a nervous system. So I'm going to say it functions only passively in that  aspect. And logically, we can form a concept of it and we can form it into  something else, and we can give it a name, and so on. Now Dooyeweerd's  theory when it comes to animals, he says that the animal will be represented  this way. It has its functions in a sensory way, the plant does not the animal  perceives, feels, reacts. And then he says that the logical is true only of humans. But I've got to say that I'm convinced that at least some of the higher animals  have some logical function. I think you probably all know about Coco the gorilla,  who was taught the deaf sign language, and has carried on conversations with  her handlers. They asked Coco what she wanted for her birthday, she signed a  kitten. So they got her a kitten. And she signed my cat good. I think that certainly shows an abbreviated some vid. logical ability and linguistic ability. So I'm Not  willing to draw the line where Dooyeweerd did, I think you can go higher. We  notice, however, that Coco neither Coco nor the other apes that have been  taught this sign language, they're not able to ask questions. You ask them a  question they can they can answer it. And ultimately do. But they can't frame a  question. They can't understand the hypothetical. If this were this way would you want, they can't get that there are all kinds of very narrow limits to this. But it's  real. And I don't see that it hurts anything, we will go ahead and work with a  theory. We're going to find that this isn't the only sort of bridge that lets us zero  in on the nature of things around us. Dooyeweerd's going to propose at least  two more. And then we're going to see that this will give us an account of the  nature of artifacts as well as natural things. Something insofar as I know hasn't  even been tried since Aristotle tried it and gave up. Hope you're getting this.  Take a look at it again. Read the assignment. And we'll meet again and I'll  review it.