Reality is...

James

If this discussion were about whether or not there is life elsewhere in the universe -- and I were saying "I do not know for certain" -- would you still ask these kinds of questions, James?

I have looked and looked -- and have not found any evidence that suggests the answer to "What is Reality?" is such and so.

ALL of the evidence I have looked at appears to be ambiguous -- in so far as I can offer at least a POSSIBILITY of any alternative to whatever that bit of evidence seems to point.

If you have something to offer -- please offer it rather than continuing what essentially is an interrogation.

In any case, even if I were to buy into the remarks you made to introduce this thread

Reality is, I should contend, no more than data, rules, or a combination of the two. Nothing that exists is or can be anything other than that

we would be no closer to understanding what the reality actually is. Your remarks really reduce to "Reality is what reality is!"

0 Replies

I do not agree that my remarks constitute a trueism.

Perhaps it would be easier for me to ask this question: can you identify anything that exists that is not either data, rules, or a combination thereof?

0 Replies

Let me go you one better James.

Can you identify any that exists that does not exist?

Your comment is a tautology.

You are saying that what exists is what exists.

But you sound like someone who might have trouble acknowledging that. So let me tackle this from another perspective.

Using your definition of reality (reality=data; rules; or a combination thereof) -- what more do we know about reality other than what we knew before considering your definition; e.g. reality is whatever the reality is?

0 Replies

What you seem to be suggesting is that to say that reality is a combniation of data and rules is to say nothing more than is inherent in the definition of reality itself.

I am not entirely sure that that is correct, but assuming for a moment that it is, then am I right in concluding that you agree with me and at the same time consider my point so obvious or basic that it does not warrant discussing?

The point that I am trying to make by suggesting that reality is simply data and rules is that that would in turn make the universe a sort of giant calculator and would make solidity and physicality somewhat of an illusion; it's all just numbers.

And to answer your question, no ;-)

0 Replies

James

I have to assume you were addressing me -- but it would be helpful if you addressed your remarks by name.

You answered a question with 'NO"

Any chance you can tell which question?

0 Replies

LOL Sorry if my reply wasn't clear... I'm a little new to this board, so please bear with me. Yes, Frank, I was addressing your response.

And the question to which I was answering "no" was:

"Can you identify any that exists that does not exist?"

I hope that that helps you in finding an answer :-)

0 Replies

I know you are new to the board, James.

I apologize. I've been a tiger with you from the start. EXCUSE OR RATIONALIZATION: I hurt my hip on Monday -- and the doctors have advised me not to play golf until sometime next week -- so we crossed paths at an unfortunate time. I am a bear when I cannot play golf.

However, I do want to pursue some of the interesting topics you have raised -- although you seem to be firing off topics in scattergun fashion.

Best, if I may be so bold, to suggest that you take one topic and see it through to the end before starting another. You dilute yourself doing it the way you are.

*****

BOTTOM LINE:

Reality is whatever it is.

It may be that reality is different for different people; it may be that reality transcends what anyone thinks about it; it may be any of a number of incomprehensible other things.

Saying that reality is whatever it is -- in no way helps us identify, describe, or decode reality. It is a tautology or a truism, if you prefer.

Saying that it is data and rules or a combination thereof, is of no more use in that regard than my example tautology -- and has the added negative of possibly being wrong. It is POSSIBLE that reality is more than data, rules, or a combination thereof -- and that the difference is simply beyond our current ability to discern.

We've only recently come down out of the trees, James-- and our knowledge of our planet and its place in the universe (and the universe itself) is almost non-existent.

0 Replies

Reality also has to do with our biology. It's not all external. c.i.

0 Replies

Frank - I'm sorry that you've hurt yourself - I do hope that you feel better soon and are able to play golf before long :-)

In this context, how do you define "reality"? Do you give it the same definition as "the universe" and "existance"? It may be that my contention is clearer when "the universe" is substituted for reality.

Of course uncertainty theory means that it is *possible* that I am wrong, in the same way as it is possible that we are both wrong about the world being round. Do you admit, however, that the possibilities are quantitatively similar?

0 Replies

jamespetts wrote:

In this context, how do you define "reality"? Do you give it the same definition as "the universe" and "existance"? It may be that my contention is clearer when "the universe" is substituted for reality.

To me, reality is a hell of a lot more than the universe. And my guess is "the universe" is a hell of a lot more than what scientists call "the universe."

Reality, James, is reality.

I have absolutely no idea of what it is -- and there is no way I will agree with anyone wanting to limit it to what we can see or sense.

Quote:

Of course uncertainty theory means that it is *possible* that I am wrong, in the same way as it is possible that we are both wrong about the world being round. Do you admit, however, that the possibilities are quantitatively similar?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here, James. Give it another try.

But (I hope you can take this as the ironic and humorous comment it was intended to be) if we get into one of those: My uncertainty is bigger than your uncertainty -- my uncertainty is gonna win.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

jamespetts wrote:
In this context, how do you define "reality"? Do you give it the same definition as "the universe" and "existance"? It may be that my contention is clearer when "the universe" is substituted for reality.

To me, reality is a hell of a lot more than the universe. And my guess is "the universe" is a hell of a lot more than what scientists call "the universe."

Reality, James, is reality.

I have absolutely no idea of what it is -- and there is no way I will agree with anyone wanting to limit it to what we can see or sense.

Quote:
Of course uncertainty theory means that it is *possible* that I am wrong, in the same way as it is possible that we are both wrong about the world being round. Do you admit, however, that the possibilities are quantitatively similar?

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here, James. Give it another try.

But (I hope you can take this as the ironic and humorous comment it was intended to be) if we get into one of those: My uncertainty is bigger than your uncertainty -- my uncertainty is gonna win.

You have no idea what reality is and yet you are in a position to disagree with a postulation as to what it might be?

You suggest that "reality" is more than "the universe" (and that "the universe" is quite possibly more than "the known universe", the latter of which propositions I shall not seek to contradict); exactly what is there in reality that there is not in the universe? If you say that you do not know what reality is, how can you rightly make this contention?

0 Replies

I thought I made myself clear that what we call "the universe" may not be THE UNIVERSE. I thought I made myself clear that I do not know what THE UNIVERSE is -- but I am willing to guess that it is more than what we now call the universe -- because I am willing to see that science is still in its infancy.

We discover new things all the time. If Hubbell discovered that what we use to call the universe is now much, much, much, much, much larger than we thought -- why should I suppose that no one will come along one day as science reaches new maturity and find that THE UNIVERSE is much, much, much, much large (and complex) than what we suppose today?

I'm not sure what your problem is with my skeptisim, but I suggest instead of trying to play around here -- you should make whatever points you want to make about reality using whatever science you want to use -- and if I find something with which I want to disagree, I will. We can discuss it specifically at that time -- rather than trying to do whatever it is your are trying to do here.

0 Replies

Reality is that which can be sensed. Now, the problem is, do we believe our sensors. Its a spectrum, with reality at one end, the theoretical in the middle somewhere , and then the mythical, and ending with the irrational.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Reality is that which can be sensed. Now, the problem is, do we believe our sensors. Its a spectrum, with reality at one end, the theoretical in the middle somewhere , and then the mythical, and ending with the irrational.

COMMENT:

I don't see how you come to that conclusion, Farmerman. Can you flesh out why you think "Reality" is that which can be sensed?

0 Replies

reality components can be measured , quantitated, the components affect their environments, etc. We assign the properties by virtue of their discovery
Im not a patient fan of philosophy, therefore I dont know of any components of reality that cannot be sensed..

0 Replies

Farmerman

We may be on different pages -- or we may even be using different books here.

There may be components of reality that we cannot even access -- let along sense.

For all we know, everything may owe its existence to a CREATOR that cannot be sensed.

To suppose that reality is only the stuff that can be sensed is to artificially and inappropriately define reality.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I thought I made myself clear that what we call "the universe" may not be THE UNIVERSE. I thought I made myself clear that I do not know what THE UNIVERSE is -- but I am willing to guess that it is more than what we now call the universe -- because I am willing to see that science is still in its infancy.

It is one thing not to know everything that comprises the universe, it is another to use the word and be unable to define it. Which of the two that you are doing is unclear, and I should be grateful for enlightenment :-)

Frank Apisa wrote:

We discover new things all the time. If Hubbell discovered that what we use to call the universe is now much, much, much, much, much larger than we thought -- why should I suppose that no one will come along one ay as science reaches new maturity and find that THE UNIVERSE is much, much, much, much large (and complex) than what we suppose today?

But there is a difference, do you appreciate, between knowing empirically what the universe contains and how big it is, and deducing, conceptually, the basis of what existance/the universe/reality *can be*? My initial statement in this thread is of the latter nature and limitations in respect of the former point, I suggest, do not impact on or undermine it.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm not sure what your problem is with my skeptisim, but I suggest instead of trying to play around here -- you should make whatever points you want to make about reality using whatever science you want to use -- and if I find something with which I want to disagree, I will. We can discuss it specifically at that time -- rather than trying to do whatever it is your are trying to do here.

I am not sure exactly what you mean by this: "playing around"? In what sense? I made my point in the first thread, and we have ever since been discussing the disagreements that you and others have. Is there an issue with that?

0 Replies

Frank-Remember my discussion of a spectrum? in which reality is on one side atop theory, atop myth, all of whichare atop the irrational. Whether there is or is not a Creator doesnt fit within this question., since it is either myth or irrational. There are not even any compelling theories that Im aware of.

All things in the reality mode can be sensed by direct means or indirectly by means of what effect that component of reality has on its surroundings.

Reality is open to detection by the senses, its quantifiable, and most importantly, its consistent and repeatable.

0 Replies

reality
Can we ask "what IS reality or THE universe?" Is there something we clearly see as reality, and is there a universe that we can step outside of and see "it" as an external object? Perhaps seeing galaxies outside of ours with telescopes is "seeing the universe." But I have trouble with a notion that refers to "all there is" and therefore cannot be bounded, such that we can, in principle at least, see what is not of it. Is the universe a thing like a cup? Does it have boundaries, even if only conceptually? Same with the notion of Reality. Can we see 'it" by stepping outside of it? Everything must be counted within Reality. Even a mirage is a real mirage. I like to point out to people whenever they get into debates about the "essential" nature of something, i.e., what is its correct/complete definition. When we ask what is the essential nature of "puppy" we should recall that at some historical moment somebody asked something like, "What shall we call a young dog?" But I don't think anyone ever asked a similar question regarding the words Reality and Universe.

0 Replies

JLNobody

My answer to almost all of the questions you asked is: "I do not know for certain -- and there doesn't seem to be enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

Which, of course, is what I have been saying right along.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know