Definition of Reality

I'm not sure I understand the point being made here. Is a masked reality somehow different than an unmasked reality?

It is masked. Whatever that means. I guess it is like Batman, who is, as we all know, Bruce Wayne.

"Reality is what remains when you have stopped believing in it" (Several attributions).

Who in turn was Adam West, who in turn was William West Anderson.
Curses! No matter how we try to cover it up, reality is always there,
in some form or another, no matter how many layers we peel away.

My mind travels back, way back, to post #2 . . .







Optional Geek Link:
Adam West - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why, on earth, would that be a reason for its being possible?

For one last and final time I will also add that I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible.

7.Quantum physics is making our grasp on reality even more tenuous if you accept that sub-atomic particles, which make up everything in the known universe, don't seem to pass any test of existence due to the impossibilty of measuring them.

But this doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles can't exist, does it?
And as far as the impossibility of measuring and quantifying them,
wouldn't it be more accurate to tack a "yet" onto the end of that
particular declaration?

After all, at one time it was considered impossible to measure
and quantify light values and intensities, but now, every time
we take a picture, the light meter in our camera does just that.

I don't think that the number three can be measured (whatever that may mean). But the number three exists. Therefore, some things that cannot be measured (whatever that means) exist.

We do not know if we are in error, but not if we might be in error. We are not certain if we might be in error. But knowledge and certainty are different. So, what you say above is a non-sequitur since you are confusing knowledge with certainty. I really hope I need not explain this again. If you have an objection to my argument, please state it. But please refrain from simply saying that because you are fallible you cannot know, because that is, as I have pointed out, a non-sequitur.

I have read your first sentence here and cannot make any sense of it grammatically. I do know the distinction between kowledge and certainty and I have no objection to your argument, just your apparent closed mind to some ideas that don't seem to fit in with your view of the world. Fallibility is lack of certainty not lack of knowledge. Certainty is exactly what it says on the tin, knowledge is what may be fallible.

Yes. That isn't very clear. What I should have said it this:

If we are in error, we cannot know. But if we (just) might be in error, we can know. Being mistaken is incompatible with knowing. But the mere possibility of being mistaken is compatible with knowing. For example, it is possible that I am mistaken that the Nile is the longest river in Africa. But that does not mean that I am mistaken about that. If I were mistaken about that, then, of course, I would not know. But the mere possibility that I am mistaken is no reason to think that I do not know that the Nile is the longest river in Africa.

So, indeed, fallibility is the lack of certainty, not the lack of knowledge. Therefore, we may be mistaken about the nature and the existence of reality. But that does not mean that we do not know that there is a reality, and what its nature is, as you claimed. And I think you claimed that because it was possible that we are mistaken about it.

I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible.

You did write that, didn't you?

But this doesn't mean that sub-atomic particles can't exist, does it?
And as far as the impossibility of measuring and quantifying them,
wouldn't it be more accurate to tack a "yet" onto the end of that
particular declaration?

After all, at one time it was considered impossible to measure
and quantify light values and intensities, but now, every time
we take a picture, the light meter in our camera does just that.

Yes. That isn't very clear. What I should have said it this:

If we are in error, we cannot know. But if we (just) might be in error, we can know. Being mistaken is incompatible with knowing. But the mere possibility of being mistaken is compatible with knowing. For example, it is possible that I am mistaken that the Nile is the longest river in Africa. But that does not mean that I am mistaken about that. If I were mistaken about that, then, of course, I would not know. But the mere possibility that I am mistaken is no reason to think that I do not know that the Nile is the longest river in Africa.

So, indeed, fallibility is the lack of certainty, not the lack of knowledge. Therefore, we may be mistaken about the nature and the existence of reality. But that does not mean that we do not know that there is a reality, and what its nature is, as you claimed. And I think you claimed that because it was possible that we are mistaken about it.

I believe the world is real and not a dream but it can only ever be a belief because the evidence is given to us by that which could be fallible.

You did write that, didn't you?

...So, what your saying is that certainty is not needed to Know...and its well defended...

Still:

To Know there must four things: Someone, a medium, information and something to be known...

...Confirmation to the Agent is to my understanding a Necessary key for him to Conscientiously acquire the knowledge...without it he stays in a sort off limbo...Knowledge implies Conscience, therefore if in doubt, then something must be missing, something has to had failed in the process, consequently the knowledge is flawed even if it comes out by coincidence to be true afterwards...in my view Certainty is absolutely necessary...
Knowledge as to be a Positive affirmation and not a possibility !

I agree with you totally. As with all other things we can't say they don't exist because we can't measure them. I also agree with the "yet" factor. The only problem here is that everything I have read on this seems to point to the impossibility of ever measuring both the position and velocity of the particle. Most physicists seem to agree on this. I must say I'm probably more with you on this, on the basis of "never say never".

---------- Post added 02-09-2010 at 03:09 PM ----------



Absolutely, Kenneth. I think the main problem you and I have had in all this is a failure to understand what the other is saying. Guilty as charged on my part. I think a few hours together and a few drinks would be highly entertaining. Pity there's a small matter of about 5 thousand miles (real or otherwise).

If what is believed is well justified, it is not coincidence that it is true.

I know that is your view. But don't you have some reason to believe it is true. (What on earth does knowledge implies conscience mean? Or that knowledge is a positive affirmation, and not a possibility?

Well that depends on what one accepts as a good justification...Confirmation is good justification ! Possibility it is not...Conscience implies confirmation to where I stand...Do, I think I clearly understood what you have said.

It doesn't matter "where you stand". What matters is whether you are justified in standing where you stand. That something is possible is not good justification. That is right. But we have excellent confirmation for many of the things we believe. For example, I believe that I was born. I am not saying that since it is possible that I was born, I was born. I am saying that since I have excellent confirmation that I could not be alive unless I was born, that I was born.

In that case you might not be in error therefore you know...glad that we finally agree.

I doubt it, since I really don't know what you are saying. But it hardly matters.

If we are in error, we cannot know. But if we (just) might be in error, we can know

But the mere possibility that I am mistaken is no reason to think that I do not know that the Nile is the longest river in Africa.