The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

@G H,

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.
None empirical or of any other definition.

There is evidence of other universes.
But none of other realities.

A reality is everything. you cant have two.
A universe is a thing. and thus there are many .
There is never just one of any thing except reality.

or..

If reality is a BIG word.. leave now

1 Reply

@Hjarloprillar,

Quote:

Im having trouble.. i have no idea who is talking to whom [....] It just seems posts are so scattered and i cant seem to link one to the previous...

Okay. You were responding to wrong post, maybe. Happens to me on hectic days, too, sometimes.

0 Replies

Im having trouble.. i have no idea who is talking to whom

Maybe if we were civilised..
We would Put name
Hjarloprillar at top..
And thanks at bottom with parting words.
This may actually make us feel more human.
true im guilty as any

It just seems posts are so scattered and i cant seem to link one to the previous.. maybe im stupid

Prill

0 Replies

@igm,

Quote:

Can you prove that each observer is experiencing the exact same reality?

Is it necessary for different observers' experiences to be exactly the same? If 100 people walk into a brick wall, I'm sure their experiences would not be identical. Some would feel less pain than others and, for all I know, some might even enjoy it. But unless any of those people manage to walk through the wall, the collective experiences, while not exactly the same, seem similar enough to persuade me that the wall might exist independent of anyone's experience of it.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Wandeljw questioned what sort of evidence would convince you that he's right. That's a legitimate query. If you won't be convinced by anything, then there's really no point in attempting to convince you otherwise.

I am open to being convinced but I'm not as yet convinced that we even understand the exact concept we are discussing. I have an understanding of what I believe the concept means but if others here have another but it is not defined then we will discuss and even argue because we misunderstand each other.

igm wrote:

I'd say that if something is independent then it cannot be known because there is no interface or connection between the knower and the thing to be known. If there was then they would be dependent.

joefromchicago wrote:

How does an "interface" between an observer and a thing observed make them both "dependent?"

This is an example of what I mean... your definition of independence may allow for e.g. the apparent outside world, sight, light, nerve impulses and the visual cortex and the experience of phenomena to be independent. If that is correct then my definition of dependent is your definition of independent. But I and everyone else can only experience phenomena and not the other links in the chain. So I still maintain that it all has to be inferred from phenomena.

1 Reply

@Shapeless,

No, but that doesn't make reality independent. The appearance of the wall is a dependent phenomenon and that's all we have to infer everything else from. We can decide to go with this for practical purposes. Science just assumes or did before QM that there is 'a thing in itself' out there independent and then gets on with science based on that axiom (maybe not for much longer).

2 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

I am open to being convinced but I'm not as yet convinced that we even understand the exact concept we are discussing.

What do you mean "we?"

igm wrote:

I have an understanding of what I believe the concept means but if others here have another but it is not defined then we will discuss and even argue because we misunderstand each other.

If you think this is simply a definitional problem, then you should disclose your definition.

igm wrote:

This is an example of what I mean... your definition of independence may allow for e.g. the apparent outside world, sight, light, nerve impulses and the visual cortex and the experience of phenomena to be independent. If that is correct then my definition of dependent is your definition of independent. But I and everyone else can only experience phenomena and not the other links in the chain. So I still maintain that it all has to be inferred from phenomena.

How do you know that you and everyone else can only experience phenomena and not the other links in the chain?

1 Reply

@igm,

Quote:

We can decide to go with this for practical purposes.

That's the route I tend to take. I honestly can't think of a single person who, when push comes to shove, does not take this route.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

jfc: What do you mean "we?"

We, i.e. those discussing this thread.

Definition of dependent is something that depends on something else e.g. reality depends on the observer.

Independent is that which is not dependent. I can't find an example of anything that is truly independent. Everything is dependent.
+++++++++++++
jfc: How do you know that you and everyone else can only experience phenomena and not the other links in the chain?

igm: I believe it because the majority of those in science and philosophy and my own first-person experience tells me that that is the case.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Definition of dependent is something that depends on something else e.g. reality depends on the observer.

Independent is that which is not dependent. I can't find an example of anything that is truly independent. Everything is dependent.

Well, if you just define "independence" in such a way to foreclose the possibility of "independent reality," why would you even suggest that you would be open to being convinced by evidence to the contrary?

igm wrote:

I believe it because the majority of those in science and philosophy and my own experience tells me that that is the case.

Then why don't you believe in the reality of the brick wall that the majority of those in science and philosophy and your own experience (if you're being honest) tell you exists?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, if you just define "independence" in such a way to foreclose the possibility of "independent reality," why would you even suggest that you would be open to being convinced by evidence to the contrary?

That's the nature of discussions. I have a definition ready for you to refute.

joefromchicago wrote:

Then why don't you believe in the reality of the brick wall that the majority of those in science and philosophy and your own experience (if you're being honest) tell you exists?

I'm not denying the existence of the phenomena 'brick wall' neither is science or philosophy in most cases. I'm denying that 'Independent Reality' can be known to exist.

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

That's the nature of discussions. I have a definition ready for you to refute.

Where is it?

igm wrote:

I'm not denying the existence of the phenomena 'brick wall' neither is science or philosophy in most cases. I'm denying that 'Independent Reality' can be known to exist.

Are you saying that the brick wall only exists because it is observed?

1 Reply

@igm,

igm wrote:

Science just assumes or did before QM that there is 'a thing in itself' out there independent and then gets on with science based on that axiom (maybe not for much longer).

By "QM" do you mean Quantum Metaphysics?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

igm wrote:

That's the nature of discussions. I have a definition ready for you to refute.

joefromchicago wrote:

Where is it?

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, if you just define "independence" in such a way to foreclose the possibility of "independent reality," why would you even suggest that you would be open to being convinced by evidence to the contrary?

You've already said I've made a definition... so in answer to 'Where is it?' it must be the one you've previously referred to.

igm wrote:

I'm not denying the existence of the phenomena 'brick wall' neither is science or philosophy in most cases. I'm denying that 'Independent Reality' can be known to exist.

joefromchicago wrote:

Are you saying that the brick wall only exists because it is observed?

No I'm saying the phenomenon appears and the independent existence of a brick wall cannot be found only the phenomenon with the attached concept 'brick wall'. The dependent phenomenon can be used in every practical way but cannot be truly referred to as an independently existing object.

For practical purposes the world appears as it does but when examined it is impossible to know there is an independently existing reality and you haven't been able to show that I should doubt that it's impossible to know that there is one.

Can you convince me there is one?

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

wandeljw wrote:

igm wrote:
Science just assumes or did before QM that there is 'a thing in itself' out there independent and then gets on with science based on that axiom (maybe not for much longer).

By "QM" do you mean Quantum Metaphysics?

No, QM as part of the Standard Model:

Acronym Definition:
QM: Quantum Mechanics

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/quantum+mechanics

Even when an electron wave field changes it is said that all electrons everywhere must change so that none are identical... everything is dependent there is no independence whatsoever that can be found using deductive or inductive reasoning, empirical or otherwise.

0 Replies

@igm,

igm wrote:

You've already said I've made a definition... so in answer to 'Where is it?' it must be the one you've previously referred to.

Do you have an inability to see the word "if?" I said "if" that's your definition, I didn't say it was. Now stop playing these silly word games. If you have a definition, you should give it.

igm wrote:

No I'm saying the phenomenon appears and the independent existence of a brick wall cannot be found only the phenomenon with the attached concept 'brick wall'. The dependent phenomenon can be used in every practical way but cannot be truly referred to as an independently existing object.

So are you suggesting that the brick wall as noumenon cannot be known?

igm wrote:

For practical purposes the world appears as it does but when examined it is impossible to know there is an independently existing reality...

Examined? In what way?

igm wrote:

Can you convince me there is one?

I don't know. That's what I'm trying to find out.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Me "in here" and everything else (the world of objects) "out there." Do you feel it?

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Me "in here" and everything else (the world of objects) "out there." Do you feel it?

And of course one can go futher. One can see his own internal sensations as "objective" in relation to his (absolutely internal) "self".

0 Replies

@igm,

Joe, it seems that Igm wants to use half of Kant, the appearance/phenomena part but not the reality/noumena part. THIS is what Igm means by independent reality (correct me, Igm, if I'm wrong) . I mean by "independent reality" something that is fundamentally (even metaphysically) separate from a "me". I see everything as ulitmately united, at EVERY level not just at that of noumena (that would not be unity).
I guess the concept of a noumenal level of reality could be one of unity--and this may be Igm's position--if the world of phenomena is seen as illusory and reality exists only noumenally.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Is Fresco's "reference point"--culturally constituted, as that which we've jointly learned to accept as real? I have learned to see many things as "real" but not as "reality", the former has to do with conventional reality, as not being false in any practical sense and the latter as fundamentally or metaphysically part of my actual reality.

0 Replies

The Concept of Independent Reality in Discussions of Philosophy

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know