What is Real?

“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one”
--Albert Einstein--

Yes, i am aware that part of that is a quote from The Matrix, but i extended that thought to see what others think.

Any thoughts?

Welcome to a2k.
If you examine the posting histories of me, JLNobody, Cyracuz and others you will find extensive discussion of that question.
e.g.
http://able2know.org/topic/1119-1

That thread has been dead for 2 and a half years... safe to assume the point of view of people may have changed.

So no harm done in re-iterating.

No harm at all. But my view on the nature of what is real--not quite the same as "reality"--requires the same interation. The "real" is whatever IS the case, whether or not I am aware of it. I have said that mirages are real, real mirages. But it is foolish to try to drink or swim in them.

One of the oldest could still be among the best: It is to have effectiveness or influence -- to be causal. Or at least the appearance of it, which is arguably all there ever is. But then that would make a psycho's hallucination of dead Aunt Martha into something that is responsible for affecting his behavior -- orders from the subjective phantom turned him into a killer, rather than scattered neurons firing or wayward biochemical levels. So one level having more privileged causal status than another creeps in.


Some of the wilder speculations tend to result from focus on what's possible from the standpoint of the individual (i.e., the standards for either "real" or "what's really going on" can be more lax). Incredibly, the individual has forbidden and immoral hopes available that cannot be seriously entertained publicly, though they be utterly absurd from the POV of the other half of the dichotomy that he/she is a card-carrying member of....

And in reference to that other half, the possibilities get more practical and restricted when considering what is tenable for a group or society. The latter (or those that are spokespersons for its "consensus") can presume by default or necessary prejudice that either the existence of community or that of a larger environment have complete independence from any particular member. (Unlike for the individual, solipsism [etc] here is not even a possibility, though providing amusing exercise, etc).

This lofty status might be considered a not always mentioned part of society's definition (or any environmental collective), and thus going against it would be to contradict an aspect of its very nature. As well, its institutional processes could be said to have "far less doubt" about its privileged position than what the individual does (due to the latter having been thoroughly conditioned by the former since birth).

There can be exceptions, though! A cult might accept that it existed only as a fantasy of Bob, if Bob was the cult's Leader. Yes, smaller groups may not always triumph over the individual, at least up to the time that they decide to hang a failed or exposed Leader.

The individual might also question if words like "society" and "community" refer to anything at all that could be considered a coherent entity. Unfortunately, similar criticisms could be reversed upon the individual. Regardless, each seems to have some degree of "effectiveness", depending on how a particular system is evaluating appearances according to its standards, methods, and biases.

Universe

Over the years we have analysed "reality" on this forum, the only change I have detected in my own views is that I have shifted from the statement "the only reality we have is concepts", to the position of Wittgenstein, who would say "it depends how you are using the word "reality". Wittgenstein would look at usage statements like...

"Immigration is a real problem"
"Santa Claus is real for children"
"Get real"
"The ether was considered real by scientists prior to 1890"

.....etc, and point out there was semantic drifting according to context with perhaps no common denominator.

Now it is possible that Einstein was alluding to the relativity of "reality" with respect to observational context, and we can explain his word "persistence" by pointing to common physiology and purpose between consenting observers in communicative contexts.

(I acknowledge that some of these issues have been touched on by the post above this one)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
~Philip K. Dick

There are so many views on "what is real" that it is hard to just pick one and go with it. None of the views are conclusive, though some go farther before they encounter serious problems to account for. Others have those problems accounted for, but face still other challenges. Some look promising, but they may yet fall apart in the face of some inexplicable mystery. To a large extent, what is real comes down to which paradigms we base our inquiry on. For all we know, reality as we commonly know it, is nothing more than a mass hallucination or illusion that we help each other sustain. What makes something real? The fact that is is what it is, or our belief that it is so?

How can we go beyond what we believe to be so, especially if our peers agree? Don't we consider those who disagree with their peers to be insane?
We all agree that the emperor is naked.

The above is pure free association. I'm typing whatever comes to mind. Fun--for me.

Yes, fun for me too
The way I think of it, all facts that science uncover are woven into a perception of what reality is like, and that perception, or rather the coherency of that perception, is a matter of belief. We have good reason for believing in it, it doesn't require a lot of faith on our part. But when someone challenges what we believe to be real, that does require faith, or at least trust.

How about "reality is what matters" ?

Never mind, no matter.
Who said that?

Never mind, no matter.
Who said that?

You did. Twice.

Gary Snyder did too, it turns out:



Makes it sound like the universe came to be what it is by inbreeding, which I guess it did, since there isn't anything else for it to interact with.

Doesn't this apply as well to the mythical family ofAdam and Eve? Either a daughter reproduced with her brother or father or a son reproduced with his sister or mother. Supposedly there was no one else! Either we are the children of incest or--let's hope--that's just fiction..