Reality is relative, not absolute.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

to say that reality is relative amounts to say that what happens to others is not real

No. It means that "reality" is a word used describes a contextual state of mutual agreement about "what is the case". Nothing more and nothing less.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Whatever we happen to agree or not is irrelevant to mine or yours actual experiencing. This is not open to debate Fresco.

1 Reply

Slightly off track, but it relates:
Claiming ignorance is admitting the necessity of truth. If there is no truth there is nothing to be ignored either.
This is simple to grasp, but some people love to complicate it.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Poor old Sam !

Whatever IS, Fresco...IS what IS.

Your belief system seems to have a problem with that...and you apparently need to disparage people who call that to your attention.

Fine. Most of us are used to dealing with theists who often use that tactic.

And watching someone like you do it is amusing. Wink

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Go on then....define "actual" !

No wait a minute....I forgot ! Naive Realism is "not open to debate". Laughing

BTW. "Ignorance" can mean either "stupidity" or "willful avoidance of an pertinent issue". It has nothing to do with "truth" which like its bedfellow "reality" is open to social negotiation of functionality.

2 Replies

@fresco,

A point of any observation in time and space may be relative to the observer position but the observer position and the phenomena it experiences are relative to nothing.
Actual is what happens anywhere in space time as opposed to what will never happen. Twisted Evil

1 Reply

When I report that Reality is "unitary", I don't wish to say it is One; I wish to say that it is "Not two." "One" is too presumptuous.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, as always you're right on the money

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

So define "what happens". (Space-time is having its own problems of late Wink

)
Can't you see you are wandering round an infinite regress !
You have chosen an axiom of "independent reality" which most recent thinkers have argued is an epistemological dead end.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

If you took Monism to its last consequences you would come around on the relativity of reality...you see its not about mind vs body, as there is only "body" to start up with (attention by "body" I don't equate "materialism" which is vague coinage). The point is, no one is in control, there is no active "construct" going on, n this is the first conclusion a true Monist would reach upon close inspection.

0 Replies

@fresco,

Infinite regression it is only a problem if you don't consider a loop, which is finite but boundless. "Actual", out of its common sense naive usage, is not about time but about what there is at some point against what is not to be in any circumstances. (My previous post was more then sufficiently clear)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

...what there is...

So define "is" ! Laughing

(You really should read Derrida on arbitrary "privileging" of one pole of a dichotomy. It might stop you looping the loop before you crash from lack of fuel !)

1 Reply

Fresco always drones one about consensus and context. However, ask him from whence derive those who form the consensus and who describe the context, and he'll get down-right vicious. You can't have consensus and context without those who perceive and describe it. So where do they come from? Did they imagine themselves into existence? I have yet to see Fresco address this question.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Experiencing "is" ! Relative to time space location but not relative in regards to event happening ! There is nothing difficult on this, all I am saying is that you must consider a fourth coordinate which is time in relation to the 3 axis of space to define what "is" !

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Set ! You've woken up !
Unlike some here you actually appear like reading Confused

I suggest to go and research the philosophical and scientific status of "causality" with reference to your interest in the lay "question" of where they come from (sic). Come back and give us few of your paragraphs !

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You love that mathematical smoke and mirrors stuff don't you Fil ?
Why stop at 4 ? Why not go for the full 10 or 11 dimensions of current physics paradigms ? Laughing

......Looping the loop in 10 dimensions !...could catch on you never know !

0 Replies

@fresco,

It has to be both. Like our sexes our relative, but love, and perfection have to be absolute ideals.

1 Reply

@MWal,

A theist who believes that "God is Love" is likely to agree with your "ideals". It would indeed be called "reality" in your joint discourse. But then you would both be assuming an unstated absolutist axiom about "the status of God/Love" and all absolutist axioms are logically equivalent.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Go on then....define "actual" !

No wait a minute....I forgot ! Naive Realism is "not open to debate".

BTW. "Ignorance" can mean either "stupidity" or "willful avoidance of an pertinent issue". It has nothing to do with "truth" which like its bedfellow "reality" is open to social negotiation of functionality.

Actually...NO it is not.

The explanation of REALITY...and human ability to comprehend REALITY...MAY be open to social negotiation of functionality (whatever the hell that means today)...

...BUT REALITY IS WHATEVER IS.

Apparently your religion simply does not allow you to acknowledge that.

0 Replies

@Buttermilk,

Buttermilk wrote:

Frank, as always you're right on the money

Thank you, Buttermilk.

0 Replies

Reality is relative, not absolute.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know