Based on the sources, particularly the work of James Ladyman and Don Ross, Real Patterns differ from everyday common sense objects (often referred to as the “manifest image”) by shifting the criteria for existence from human intuition to information theory and scientific verification.
Here are the specific ways they differ:
1. Intuition vs. Information Efficiency
• Common Sense Objects: These are defined by “intuitions” and “everyday experience” (the manifest image)[1]. We believe a table or a person exists because our senses perceive them as discrete, solid “things.” Ladyman argues that relying on these “A-level chemistry” notions often leads to “pseudo-problems” because they do not reflect fundamental physics[1].
• Real Patterns: These are defined by Information Theory. A pattern is considered “real” only if it allows for “information compression more efficient than a bit-map of the data”[2]. If describing a system as a single entity (e.g., “a tiger”) is more efficient than tracking every individual atom, then that entity is a “Real Pattern.” Existence is a matter of data efficiency, not material intuition.
2. Absolute vs. Scale-Relative Existence
• Common Sense Objects: In everyday thought, we view objects as existing absolutely—either a thing exists, or it doesn’t.
• Real Patterns: Ladyman and Ross argue that the question “What exists?” cannot be answered absolutely, but “must be relative to a scale of resolution”[2]. For example, “intentional patterns” (like minds or agency) are Real Patterns at a macroscopic scale because they are useful for prediction, even if they disappear at the scale of fundamental physics[2].
3. Static Being vs. Projectibility
• Common Sense Objects: We often define objects by what they are (their static essence or materiality).
• Real Patterns: To be a Real Pattern, an entity must be “projectible”—meaning it must support predictions[2]. If grouping data into a pattern does not help you predict future states of the system, that pattern is not real. This aligns with the cybernetic view (Ashby) that focuses on “what it does” rather than “what it is”[3].
4. Conceptual Analysis vs. Scientific Unification
• Common Sense Objects: These are often defended through “conceptual analysis” or philosophical speculation about the nature of things[1].
• Real Patterns: These are filtered through the Principle of Naturalistic Closure (PNC). A pattern or entity is only considered valid if it unifies “two or more specific scientific hypotheses” to explain more than those hypotheses could separately[1]. If a common sense object cannot be traced back to the unification of scientific theories, it is rejected as a “pseudo-question”[1].
References
[1] James Ladyman.md [2] James Ladyman.md [3] Ross Ashby.md