15
   

Reality is relative, not absolute.

 
 
Olivier5
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:21 am
Reality can only be relative to itself. Hence it's absolute, no?
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:24 am
@Olivier5,
If REALITY is relative...

...then the absolute, objective reality is that it is relative.

The notion that REALITY is relative is an absurdity...a self-contradicting absurdity.
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:26 am
@Frank Apisa,
Agreed.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:30 am
@Olivier5,
Yeah.

Initially, I was going to respond to your post by saying, "I agree, Olivier. Luckily, even you can be right once in a while."

But I resisted the impulse.
Wink
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:33 am
@fresco,
fresco wrote:
. . . This is my final comment on this thread. . .
Worth noting.
Olivier5
 
  3  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:53 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
But I resisted the impulse.

Not for very long...
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:54 am
@Olivier5,
Mr. Green Mr. Green Mr. Green Mr. Green
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:54 am
@neologist,
Fresco is a fake and a coward. He's got problem with accountability.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 11:58 am
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
But I resisted the impulse.

Not for very long...


Yeah, that's always been a problem with me. I can resist everything but temptation.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Wed 25 Mar, 2015 12:02 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Careful now.

I'm going into town Friday to meet Jonathan...who says he has some hats from you.

He, Steve, and I will probably be modeling them in a post Friday night or Saturday.

I'll save the thanks until after I see if they are specially designed to cut off blood circulation to my brain...such as it is.
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2015 01:03 pm
0 Replies
 
Krumple
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2015 01:40 pm
@fresco,
fresco wrote:

This thread is in response to a challenge by Frank Apisa
Quote:
I defy you to create a scenario in which there is no objective REALITY.

We already have such a scenario because "objectivity" amounts to agreement among scientists on the collection and interpretation of their data. But that "data" and that "interpretation" are always directed and embedded in paradigms (methods of working and communication) which are subject to either gradual or revolutionary shifts. Scientists work on coherence of paradigms rather than correspondence with "objective truth". In short they want to know WHAT WORKS to assist the human quest for prediction and control. not the nebulous question of WHAT "IS". (See theories of truth) Such a scenario constitutes a major attack on "naive realism".
The psychologist/philosopher Piaget could be said to have encapsulated interactions between paradigms and data in terms of the microcosm of an individual observer and its "world". In Piagets description of "adaptation",the intellectual development of a child underwent progressive states of cognitive structure (schemata) which determined what constituted "relevant" data or perceptual input. That input then gradually changed the observer from state 1 to state 2, with the corresponding changes of state of what constituted the world/reality for that observer, and by extrapolation to a potentially open number of successive observer-world states.
Now this continuous interaction of "observer" and "world" cannot itself constitute what we call "reality", because that usage of the word transgresses its normal usage as a context dependent state of social perceptual agreement among conscious observers as to "what is the case", irrespective of whether that agreement about "is-ness" is transient or subject to negotiation. The interactive scenario I have outline is based on a picture of separation of a "consciousness" from "its world". But that separation is problematic for various philosophical reasons. For example, both reductionism and idealism would take ontological issue with that separation.



The only thing you have pointed out here is when there are multiple pieces of data, that data can be interpreted in multiple ways resulting in a difference of conclusions. However; this is not always the case in single set data.

I can list multiple examples but I will give a few.

One, color. Colors are not subjective, they are objectively learned. The same with numbers, they are not subjective value sets, they are objective. Another is language, if language was subjective then NOTHING ever written or spoken could ever be understood.

The reason we can teach colors, is because there is a group consensus of what each color is. This can be verified through wave frequencies so there is no subjective bias where one person experiences the color red to be that of the other person's color blue. It doesn't happen.

Same for numbers, they are distinct value sets otherwise math would be completely arbitrary and irrational.

Language is the biggest sign that reality is NOT subjective. Being able to communicate a thought or concept would be impossible if language was subjective. Because the words being used are a shared conclusion data set. If I were to talk about a tree, you wouldn't be picturing a dog or something that was not a tree. Sure that picture could be of a particular type of tree that may differ than mine but there would be a common similarity that both pictures would be that of a tree.

Probably the most likely conclusion to come to is that there are bits of reality that are subjective and there are bits of reality that are objective. Specifically when you are referring to multiple connected data sets, then it becomes more complicated to reach a conclusion or consensus.

Two examples of this, are music and art. What one person experiences as pleasant or appealing, others may not come to that conclusion. It is because within art and music the data is not a single experienced piece but multiple connected data sets. This is why you can look at a piece of art or music and say you like certain aspects of it and not like other parts of it even when the subject is the same piece of art or music.

This is how people get confused. They try to assume that multiple data sets are the same as single data sets and come to a wrong conclusion about reality.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Jun, 2015 01:49 pm
@Krumple,
And my challenge stands.

REALITY has to be Objective...absolute.

If one could prove that REALITY is subjective and relative...

...THEN THAT WOULD BE THE OBJECTIVE REALITY.

By "proving" REALITY is subjective...one would be proving that it is not.

Fresco simply cannot perceive (or acknowledge) the difference between perceptions of REALITY...and REALITY. And he has a habit of declaring victory...fashioned out of whole cloth.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 09:52 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
REALITY has to be Objective...absolute.

Far out Frank.http://www.alien-earth.com/images/smileys/acid.gif
0 Replies
 
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:41 pm
One does not need to finish the sentence "reality is subjective" or "reality is objective" to get a clear picture of it. It suffices reality IS !
...from that moment on discussion has ended. The absurdity is exposed...
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Jul, 2015 10:46 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
...if anyone thinks X is not good for objectivity then I have to ask them what is it that reality IS, that is not ?
...ppl always keep mistaking ontology with epistemology...its like they are hungry and want to eat it up. Well guess what you have already eaten fool...
0 Replies
 
HesDeltanCaptain
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 08:12 am
@fresco,
"I defy you to create a scenario in which there is no objective REALITY."

That's not difficult.

Show me reality, and I'll show you a microscope which reveals that that reality is just empty space around a nucleus. Zooming in on the nucleus I"ll show you more empty space surrounding another nucleus, and repeat this process infinitely. Your reality then is empty space infinitely.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 11:00 am
@HesDeltanCaptain,
HesDeltanCaptain wrote:

"I defy you to create a scenario in which there is no objective REALITY."

That's not difficult.

Show me reality, and I'll show you a microscope which reveals that that reality is just empty space around a nucleus. Zooming in on the nucleus I"ll show you more empty space surrounding another nucleus, and repeat this process infinitely. Your reality then is empty space infinitely.


Be more careful with your reading.

The quote was not Fresco's.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 12:12 pm
@HesDeltanCaptain,
Even though you misquoted, what you posited sounds like objective reality.
Frank Apisa
 
  2  
Reply Fri 7 Aug, 2015 01:06 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Even though you misquoted, what you posited sounds like objective reality.


ABSOLUTELY.

And I would have gotten to that...as I am sure you realize.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/23/2022 at 04:15:47