How Does One Know If They Understand Reality Correctly

I would like to present some quotes I have derived from much pondering and past experience and see if they can hold true against any criticisms or potentially develop them further to be more accurate and concise.

"The more nuanced a thought, while still remaining true, the more accurate the idea":

When I first put my thought into words, I thought it was self-evident that this was true, but I have never had as clear an understanding of what to strive for in my ideas to be accurate. I think that the more time one spends critiquing and detailing an idea with the more precise definition while it still remains true with reality the more accurate the idea aligns with the world and captivates its processes.

"If the given information is not enough to predict a situation, there are unknown variables":

Whenever I think of something that does not make sense, I think of the factors I am using to predict the outcomes that are insufficient, and I imagine what more variables could be at play that are influencing the change and unpredictability. I have found that when I take a step back and view the concept from a larger view, I find the missing variable that can then accurately predict the situation. For the circumstances I have not found the variable, I theorize that it is there, I just did not take enough steps back, and perhaps it is too many steps back to comprehend.

I believe that the present rests upon the past, and that the future is dependent on the present. I believe that if one understands the world correctly, they can properly navigate it in a way that they can predict outcomes and choose the best course of action towards success. I believe there is more than just properly navigating the world that leads to success such as circumstances. However, one who knows how to navigate the world correctly can align themselves in such a way that is most probable to succeed. I judge the accuracy of my knowledge based upon how well I can predict situations in the future. If someone tells me a story and I tell them the end beforehand and I am correct and I explained why that explanation seems to be relevant and for every story I can predict further the more certain I am my explanation holds true with the world. The reason for this is because there is an underlying concept that the world follows, and many variations of concepts may fit within the threshold of what has been examined as of yet. Similarly in math we can think of several data points on a graph, and we must figure out which equation draws the graph that matches the data points. Any mathematician would be aware that several if not then infinite different equations could create a graph that passes through the several data points specified. The more circumstances we have exposed ourselves to in the world the more data points we are aware of and if we create a hypothesis or a concept that matches the data points, and the more points we have, the more likely our equation will match that of the world. In essence, the more we know about the world the more predictable it can be and the more nuanced our concept of understanding must be in order to match the circumstances therefore it is closest in alignment with the world. I am never certain that I am correct, instead I acknowledge that what I believe to be true is merely best Interpretation I have, which makes it the most practical concept to be guided by until a better understanding is reached.

Easy, just place the reference frame on themselves, then it is always correct. We change our reference frame as opposed to reality whenever we are convinced something wrong.

What this means is that our understanding of reality is always correct in respect to now regardless of one's past or future.

We dont know, but at best we can choose the most likely option.

Debating and finding reasons. Usually, if one side has much more reasons to support it, that side is more likely to be right.

Forgot to tag.

One does not understand reality "correctly" whatever that means. One only ever experiences the best approximate of reality one's brain can conjure.

Let’s first ask: What is reality?
Reality is the unadulterated, absolute truth. But does such an absolute truth exist? That is kind of hard to answer…
Truth is what we want it to be. People can convince themselves about anything if they wish to do so. If you don’t believe me, then try talking to flat-Earthers and anti-vaxxers.
We observe what we are capable of, and it isn’t always correct.

What you're suggesting is correct, one aspect of truth is whether it aligns with one's perspective of the world and one's perspective of the world will always be in alignment with their perspective of the world in other words their perspective is always true with itself. However, the utility of this proof is not applicable for properly navigating the world and so this perspective does not seem to me as productive. Would you agree?

Do you then believe that the accuracy of an idea is highly consistent with consensus view, or do you choose what reasons are relevant?

If it is just you, how do you choose which reasons are relevant?

You claim that one cannot understand reality correctly but then you state that you do not understand what that means. How can you make this presumption without understanding what the claim is?

I believe what you're saying in the second sentence is that our mind can never fully experience reality, but rather our brain attempts to make its best representation of the world. If that is the case, can and how does one measure the accuracy of one's knowledge in predicting the future or outcomes?

Yes, it is true that many people can use denial to form and create a hypothetical world that fits to their values and what they want to believe. The largest problem with this is deciding whether we are one of those people or not. How can one tell if their knowledge is what they want the world to be or how the world really is? I believe the way to tell is whether you can predict the world. If you can predict the world accurately then you have an accurate belief model that aligns with the world, but if you fail to predict or claim Something does not make sense or is unbelievable then your belief structure fills to understand, and it means your model of the world is inaccurate and most probably molded in a direction of your bias. Where else would your model of the world bend to if not from reality towards your own liking.

Well, which reasons are relevant is an arbitrary choice, usually.

In decision making, humans have certain values and desires.

It is usually a case that certain side, when debated, greatly outweights the other side when being judged based on same requirements.

So I mostly make decisions by debating, by listing reasons and comparing them.

Reasons are divided in two parts:

1. Price

2. Fullfillment of goals

Sometimes certain action fullfills many goals, but the price you have to pay for it outweights the value of those goals.

People usually have similar goals. For example, most people want to avoid pain, want to be happy.

The debate allows figuring out the best path, as opposed to acting without thinking.

Outside of decision making, when dealing with causes in the external world, we usually confirm reasons by direct or indirect observation. These two are not always possible. When they are not possible, there is no way to know if certain reason is valid or we just assume its valid.

Do you find it concerning that the foundational components that comprise our answers are chosen arbitrarily? Perhaps there is a consistency within our choices, but we have yet to articulate them? In other words, we are unconsciously choosing what information is valid while consciously unaware of the pattern.

It has to start with the axiomatic acceptance that it is indeed a representation of reality.

Yes, I do find it concerning that one can reject conclusion by rejecting reasons, and do so not by proving reasons wrong, but by removing their status as reasons.

Well, I would wish to think there is absolute right decision, but sometimes it feels like two opposite decisions can be valid depending on perspectives.

It is quite possible that what we choose as valid unconsciously, may indeed be valid, and we might not be aware as to why is it valid and we might even mistakenly believe that it is invalid.

Perhaps it's less of a representation and more of an interpretation or perspective of reality.

I think it's important that we understand why we choose certain information as relevant and no other information so we are not arbitrarily choosing what we desire and creating a false understanding of the world like so many do as a coping mechanism. I believe that everyone does this to a degree, but I also believe by recognizing how to identify what information is chosen as a coping mechanism while other information is valid, we can reduce this to a minimal amount through conscious effort.

Whatever you want to call it.

I apologize if I'm coming across as to verbose. I'm trying to be a specific as possible so we have less room for miss communication of our thoughts.

Perhaps the information that should be considered as relevant to the equation is what plays a part in the outcome, no matter what perspective or lens it is being viewed.

Ok if you find any let me know.

Ok if you find any let me know.

I wasn't speaking about our conversation but about what information is relevant towards making a decision in general. Should someone consider the subjective, objective, or another view when making a decision? Perhaps it is the compilation of these views that builds the entire picture necessary to make it a competent decision?

Without some perspective it may be impossible to make any decisions. 

The brute fact is often meaningless. 

Yes, it is impossible to make a decision without a perspective because if you cannot perceive the situation there is no way to conclude a response.

What do you mean by the brute fact is often meaningless?

Well perspective is subjective. 

Quanta is the brute fact. It can be directly grasped and measured and there is nothing more beyond what calculation can provide. It is factually accurate and meaningless.

The sun's temperature as revealed by a spectrometer is an example of quanta. It is not subject to debate because it is imminently measurable.

Qualia is the experience. the nature, or content, of our subjective experiences. What we are aware of when we see, hear, taste, touch or smell. It is meaningful and visceral and absolutely subjective. 

That many think the sun looks beautiful is an example of qualia. It has meaning but not a universal meaning and if someone said the sun were actually an ugly star they would not be "wrong".

I find Quanta to be quite significant for scientific breakthroughs and a standard for people to agree upon. Perhaps more useful than the subjective world.

For those who are unfamiliar with the topic:

The idea expressed in the statement is similar to Immanuel Kant's distinction between phenomena and noumena.

1. Quanta (Phenomena): In the statement, quanta is described as the "brute fact" that can be directly measured and grasped, and it is factually accurate and objective. This aligns with Kant's concept of phenomena, which refers to the appearances or the things as they appear to us in our subjective experiences. Phenomena are the empirical data and objective aspects of the world that we can perceive and understand through our senses and rationality.

2. Qualia (Noumena): The statement describes qualia as the "experience" or the nature of our subjective experiences, and it is meaningful and visceral but entirely subjective. This is reminiscent of Kant's notion of noumena, which refers to the "things in themselves" or the objects as they exist independently of our perceptions. Kant argued that we can never have direct access to noumena since our knowledge is limited to the way things appear to us (phenomena).

Both the statement and Kant's theory highlight the distinction between the objective, measurable aspects of the world (quanta/phenomena) and the subjective, experiential aspects that depend on individual perceptions and consciousness (qualia/noumena). Kant's philosophy explores the limitations of human knowledge and understanding, emphasizing that we can only know the world through our subjective experiences (phenomena) and not as it exists independently of us (noumena).

We cannot learn without quanta but it doesn't matter what we learn without qualia. Neither is more or less important to our understanding of the universe. They simply have different utility.