Reality.

RealityRules · **#21** by **RealityRules** » Jan 10, 2012 6:41 am

Hi amkerman,
I think you are right to question my mostly glib post. I was thinking of a 21st century context - 2012 - where we have a lot of things defined as real or, if not, are being hypothesized about or even investigated.

I propose almost all would depend on what is being contended - quantum physicists if it is a difficult component of quantum mechanics;

Almost all might be defined differently for different scenarios
eg. >95% scientists and say 65% of the 21st C public if it is something more straight forward, like helicocentrism.

possibly even something similar if it was an abstract concept like God >x % scientist; >y% philosophers; >z% theologians; and >n% of the public.

byofrcs · **#22** by **byofrcs** » Jan 10, 2012 8:38 am

amkerman wrote:
amkerman wrote:
byofrcs wrote:The problem if reality is a larger set (of which we perceive a subset) then you start from something whereas from an infinity of possibilities you can start from nothing
.
- you may have lost me here. I don't believe reality is a set of anything. It both singular and infinite because it is the only "thing" that is necessarily real. I don't think we perceive a subset of reality because I don't think reality can be divisible. What we are perceiving are the possibilities of reality, which are infinite. perceptions themselves, humans, everything, are merely possibilities of infinite reality.

Hmmm... Must reality start from something? I argue that it mustn't, and that it doesn't, using the definition I gave earlier, "that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but exists necessarily." reality isn't derived from anything else. It isn't dependent on anything else. It necessarily exists. (the concept of "nothing" makes my head explode, I consider it an impossibility)

I'm trying to get my head around how possibility could exist outside of reality. If you could try to dumb it down for me and explain it to me I'd appreciate it. At the risk of sounding stupid I will try to respond using my limited understanding, so bear with me.

Things start as possibility (or they start as something beyond possibility? The power set?)

Then they become real (through some process we currently don't understand I'm assuming) and enter a state of reality?

And when this happen all other possibilities cease to exist within that particular state of reality?

But all other possibility might exist in some other state of reality?

- if this is what you are saying then I think we are talking about different things. I can see how this is possible, but I would argue then that when I am saying reality I am talking about the initial power structure. Is there a set where you think everything originates from, or is there something beyond the power set from which the power set is created, and another set after that ad-infinity?

If you are saying ......, power, possibility, reality, neutrinos, quarks, atoms, molocules, elements, etc I would say that from your view everything necessarily is derived from something else. But I don't want to put words in your mouth and I admit I maybe completely misunderstanding you.

Why ? because nothing is an infinity of possibilities
.

I would say an infinity of possibilities in an infinity of somethings, not nothing.

If it was not-nothing then it ceases to be an infinity of what is possible.

- I would say if an infinity of possibility was something it remains an infinity of possibilities, not ceases to be an infinity of possibilities. (I'm confused, are you saying a possibility is nothing?) If it's nothing it can't exist. I would argue that science agrees that something can't come from nothing. As I stated before I don't think "nothing" is possible. By definition. If it's not something, it doesn't exist.

Did I mention I was a reductionist ?.

I'm not familiar with the term. I briefly read the wikipedia page, haven't digested any of it because I wanted to respond to the rest of your post. I'm always intrigued.

In the end I'm not a philosopher but I'm after a coherent handle on things. I'm confident I haven't got the final answer but I think the approach of whittling away unnecessary entities is the right approach.

Humanity did that with Evolution - we found that God was not needed to create all these species. The process of evolution works not because species 'x' was explicitly selected for but because the alternatives failed and died off. The problem landscape in effect has implicit rules on what was possible though these rules on what can exist as a species are not explicitly defined.

This is what confuses many people about evolution in that they think that things were explicitly created when we now know the process is implicit with no guide. I (and others) think that similar processes happen everywhere in the natural world (though it's stretching the word "Evolution" if it gets used out of the biological context).

These rules of nature are implicit. There is no rule that says how many protons and neutrons mean a stable isotope for an element. It looks like there is a pattern and is predictable but it has these anomalies that suggest it was not designed as such. Whatever constrains elements to this pattern did not intend this but these implicit rules have an effect anyway on what can exist as stable matter.

If these implicit rules on what can be are constrains then our very universe will in a similar way be constrained to a set of possible states. Not explicitly constrained but implicitly constrained.

Thus what is before does not enable what can be but constrains it to a smaller subset of what could be. If there is a God then it did not create but constrained. Taking this idea of a reducing constraint to the extreme of cosmonogy I think nothing is the ultimate implicit rule that provides the least constraint and thus limits what can be to an infinity of possibilities.

The problem is that we have a very poor grasp about "nothing". It is impossible for us to create. All around us are something be it a magnetic field, gravity or trillions of solar neutrinos.

amkerman · **#23** by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 1:37 pm

Very interesting. Some of the posts have led me to wonder if a mathematical expression to represent reality as I have defined it exists. I'm going to attempt to take a crack at it although I am neither a trained mathamaticia nor philosopher and what follows is likely to be a conflation of both.

If reality is neither derivative nor dependent, but exists independently it would most likely be expressed as unity; as both a left and right multiplicative identity to itself. I believe 1 fits this description.

From this I derive: reality=1
That which isn't reality can not exist independently of realit. Through discourse I have come to understand this concept as , "nothing".

I have derived that "nothing" is not 1. I have given "nothing" the value "0".

So nothing = 0.

Next let us examine the nature of "what is real", or what exists within 1. That which exists independently of observation.

Through discourse I have come to understand that this may be what is called "possibility", or what is possible in 1.

I have also come to understand that "possibility" may be best understood as infinity. ∞.

From this I derive that what is real within 1, what is possible, is ∞.

Possibility = ∞

From there we can form equations to test the validity of my terms.

1= ∞(1/∞) - 0
reality equals possibility multiplied by (reality divided by possibility) minus nothing.

The lim. 1/∞ = 0.
- remember that in actuality the values of both ∞ and 1/∞ are unknowns. The limit of 1/∞, is 0.
The limit of reality divided by possibility is nothing.

That statement is intriguing in itself. Understood rhetorically, "there is no limit to the possibility of reality."

That's as far as I'm gonna go for now, so much to think about.

amkerman · **#24** by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 2:14 pm

"In the end I'm not a philosopher but I'm after a coherent handle on things. I'm confident I haven't got the final answer but I think the approach of whittling away unnecessary entities is the right approach."

- agreed. I just think that the answer can be found in the word "reality"; that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but which exists necessarily. It seems as though we are looking at the same world through very different glasses.

I strive to understand the nature of reality, whereas you are trying to discover reality within itself?

From my vantage point I can offer you only my own fallible words of wisdom (take it or leave it; I truely admire your quest for understanding), which is this:

in order to accomplish your goal you likely first need to accept that reality, as it is defined in meriam-webster, exists. If you refuse to accept that definition, I think you can safely assume you're never going to find what you are looking for.

Perhaps I am wrong.

Mister Agenda · **#25** by **Mister Agenda** » Jan 10, 2012 7:14 pm

amkerman wrote:
logical bob wrote:Blimey. Merriam Webster really is crap isn't it?

Funny. Over on atheistforums.org I was lambasted for not adhering strictly to dictionary definitions. Here, it seems, definitions are what we say they are.

I think being able to say what we mean is paramount to rational discourse.

I think being able to tell what you mean is paramount to rational discourse.

amkerman wrote:Over there they were trying to tell me what I meant whenever I said a word. One guy told me I couldn't use the word "in" to mean "about" or "of" to mean "from". That was the crux of almost every argument he made.

As on atheistforums.org, defintions are only helpful if we can agree on them, if we can't, they're merely a source of pages of argumentation over definitions. As I recall, you defined reality as God. This didn't seem to be based on anything other than you wanting to define reality as God. Philip K. Dick's definition is helpful because it enhances our understanding of what we mean when we say 'reality'. Your definition was unhelpful because it obfuscates our understanding of what we mean when we say 'reality'.

You might be thinking of me on your use of 'about' and 'in'. Although I never said you couldn't use them, I did repeatedly point out that 'no belief in God' and 'no belief about God' don't mean the same thing. I believe the context was that you kept telling us we couldn't lack belief in God once we were exposed to the concept, we either had to believe there is a God or believe there is not God, but in most of your arguments you more sensibly claimed we couldn't say we lack any beliefs about God, which was clearly a fallacy of equivocation. But you might be thinking of someone else, because I didn't note any significant misuse of 'of' versus 'from'.

amkerman · **#26** by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 7:48 pm

Mister Don't start. I say what I mean when I say, "that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but exists necessarily". If you still don't know (can't tell) what I mean I would suggest beginning with the definitions of all the words in the above quoted sentence. That is what I mean when I say reality. If you still don't understand I am afraid there is nothing left for us to discuss.

If you would like to define reality that's great. I will be happy to try to understand what you mean when you say "reality" and discuss it, but just know that your definition is probably not the same as mine, so we must be using the same word while talking about two distinct ideas. Unless your definition coincides with the definition found in Merriam Webster, in my eyes you cannot be talking about "reality" but must necessarily be talking about something else. I'm happy to call what you are talking about "reality" if you are the one talking about it. Words are just words. They have no inherent meaning beyond that which we ascribe them.

You are also misrepresenting what I said on the forum which will not be named, not that i care.

Mister Agenda · **#27** by **Mister Agenda** » Jan 11, 2012 8:03 pm

If you hadn't cared enough to claim I've misrepresented you in your last sentence, I wouldn't say anything more at this point. I don't consider that the rest of your post required a reply from me. However, I'm happy to afford anyone interested the opportunity to determine for themselves if I have misrepresented you:

http://atheistforums.org/thread-10176-page-13.html

http://atheistforums.org/thread-10176-page-23.html

amkerman · **#28** by **amkerman** » Jan 11, 2012 9:45 pm

Ugh... Thanks for reminding me of that worthless site.

Do you see any other reason besides my "want" to define God as "reality" for doing so?

Is it not evident to you that I consider reality to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and infallible, as well as unprovable and incomprehensible, as well as responsible for all creation and existing unto itself?

Or is the only reason still, "just because I 'want' to do it"?

Furthermore you miss represented the sentiment that i said i you had to believe in one or the other. I'm confident I made you aware of the fact that you could also not be sure about.

Furthermore you misrepresented that the beliefs were God dependent, on more than one occasion (your argument about believing, disbelieving, and not being sure whether Achilles was a real person comes to mind) i stated that it didn't matter if the concept was God or a toaster.

I stand by all statements I made, including the fact that people can't "lack belief" in things they are consciously aware of.

-God exists.

If you have ideas about what those words mean you aware of the concept of God existing... and on notice... again...

How can you "lack belief" in it Mister? Let's just settle the debate once and for all.

Mister Agenda · **#29** by **Mister Agenda** » Jan 11, 2012 10:44 pm

amkerman wrote: Ugh... Thanks for reminding me of that worthless site.

You are already missed there.

amkerman wrote:Do you see any other reason besides my "want" to define God as "reality" for doing so?

It seems more likely than any of the other reasons you've offered.

amkerman wrote:Is it not evident to you that I consider reality to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, and infallible, as well as unprovable and incomprehensible, as well as responsible for all creation and existing unto itself?

Yes, it is evident to me. What is not evident is why you consider reality to be omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent (okay, that one you get for free), and infallible; other than you want it to be so you can justify calling it God. You haven't established that reality has any awareness at all beyond some things in it being aware, let alone omniscience. You haven't established that reality can do anything it wants, or that it 'wants' to do anything. Components of reality (like me) are fallible, therefore reality is fallible.

amkerman wrote:Or is the only reason still, "just because I 'want' to do it"?

I'm afraid so, reluctantly. I can't fathom any other reason to ascribe to the universe the properties traditionally ascribed to the Abrahamic God when the fit is so loose. I'm willing to be educated, though.

amkerman wrote:Furthermore you miss represented the sentiment that i said i you had to believe in one or the other. I'm confident I made you aware of the fact that you could also not be sure about.

I'm not sure what you're saying, there, but I hold all my positions provisionally except for the rejection of what's logically impossible. You have nothing to teach me about not being sure. I'm still working on you.

amkerman wrote:Furthermore you misrepresented that the beliefs were God dependent, on more than one occasion (your argument about believing, disbelieving, and not being sure whether Achilles was a real person comes to mind) i stated that it didn't matter if the concept was God or a toaster.

You might bear in mind that I'm not the only one reading this and my memory isn't what it used to be. How does it not mattering if the concept is God or a toaster relate to me representing you?

amkerman wrote:I stand by all statements I made, including the fact that people can't "lack belief" in things they are consciously aware of.

Standing by your statements isn't a virtue in this case. Sometimes when a lot of people disagree with you it's not because you're so awesome and they're so lame.

amkerman wrote:

-God exists.

If you have ideas about what those words mean you aware of the concept of God existing... and on notice... again...

How can you "lack belief" in it Mister? Let's just settle the debate once and for all.

I am aware of the concept of God existing. I have beliefs/opinions about God existing. I don't believe it is true that God exists. I don't believe God exists. I don't have a belief that God exists. I lack belief in God existing. What am I not believing exists right now? God.

However, I also don't believe that no God exists. I don't have a belief in no God existing. I lack the requisite certainty to declare that no possible version of God exists anywhere (or everywhere) in reality. Maybe the deist God exists. Maybe a small god exists somewhere. I can't rule it out.

For some reason, it sticks in your craw that many atheists won't say they believe God doesn't exist. You think it's because we want to escape the burden of proof, but you're wrong. Skeptics know the null hypothesis has to be overcome before provisional acceptance of any other hypothesis is justified. You'd have just as hard a time with most of us trying to get us to say we believe there's no Bigfoot, although the vast majority of us don't believe in Bigfoot either. Rational skeptics try to be precise in our claims. We try not to claim more than is warranted by the evidence. I emphasize 'try' because we're only human. You can find people on this board who are atheists who think saying 'I believe there is no God' to be totally justified. I don't happen to be one of them, but note that very, very few strong atheists will say weak atheists aren't atheists.

You'll never get very far with atheists if you can't move past us not changing our definition of ourselves to suit you. If you can do that, you'll find that not having the burden of proof rarely stops us from trying to make more of a case that belief in God is unjustified than 'burden of proof on you, pwnd!'

Teuton · **#30** by **Teuton** » Jan 11, 2012 10:50 pm

amkerman wrote:Reality: that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but which exists necessarily- merriam webster.

It is not the case that real beings are by definition necessary beings. Both contingent beings and necessary beings can be said to be real.

REALISM: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/realism

zoot allures · **#31** by **zoot allures** » Mar 24, 2012 11:17 pm

Reality is simply everything that exists; the obtaining states of affairs.

I don't agree that everything "exists necessarily". I think it's possible that other things might have been the case.

Arjan Dirkse · **#32** by **Arjan Dirkse** » Mar 25, 2012 12:25 am

amkerman wrote:Reality: that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but which exists necessarily- merriam webster.

Do you believe in reality?

If so, does it contain everything within it?

If so, does it contain all thought, feeling, perceptions, knowledge, belief, consciousness, etc, within it? Does it contain all time, all space, all energy, all matter, etc, within it?

If so, is reality not omnipotent and omnipresent?

Like you say, reality is a container of sorts. It encompasses everything that is true about the universe.

I don't see how you get from container to omnipotence, omnipotence would mean that "all that is" can do everything it sets its mind to. The universe cannot change at will into a camper van or anything, it cannot decide to suddenly make me like Brussel sprouts or cure the common cold. It follows a course prescribed by the laws of nature.

Creation in the religious sense is a human concept, it requires sentience. So is fallibility or infallibity. Reality doesn't fail or succeed at anything, it just is. We made God in our own image, and so we describe him or her or it in terms of failing or succeeding or creating. But the universe is not a sentient being. Now if you want to define Nature or The Universe or Reality as a whole as God, then I guess that is fine. That's pretty much the way pantheism thinks. But it is a bit of wordplay. It is like me calling my coffeemug God and saying "God exists" because my coffeemug exists.

UndercoverElephant · **#33** by **UndercoverElephant** » Mar 28, 2012 4:06 pm

amkerman wrote:Reality: that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but which exists necessarily- merriam webster.

Do you believe in reality?

I don't agree with that definition of reality. Reality is made up of all sorts of things which exist contingently. Was the pancake I just ate not real because its existence wasn't necessary?

Necessary existence is for God(s), not what we usually mean when we talk about "reality." To say something exists necessarily usually means that it could not have failed to exist, and can't cease to exist, and as far as we know neither of those things applies to our cosmos, or at least not to any of its constituent parts.

Jeffersonian-marxist · **#34** by **Jeffersonian-marxist** » Apr 01, 2012 8:48 pm

What dorm are you living in bra?! I need a hit of whatever you're smokin!

SpeedOfSound · **#35** by **SpeedOfSound** » Apr 02, 2012 11:00 am

byofrcs wrote:
Thus what is before does not enable what can be but constrains it to a smaller subset of what could be. If there is a God then it did not create but constrained. Taking this idea of a reducing constraint to the extreme of cosmonogy I think nothing is the ultimate implicit rule that provides the least constraint and thus limits what can be to an infinity of possibilities.
.

The most interesting thing is that it isn't the possibility but rather the constraint that is the creative force.

SpeedOfSound · **#36** by **SpeedOfSound** » Apr 02, 2012 11:24 am

amkerman wrote:Reality: that which is neither derivative nor dependent, but which exists necessarily- merriam webster.

Do you believe in reality?

If so, does it contain everything within it?

If so, does it contain all thought, feeling, perceptions, knowledge, belief, consciousness, etc, within it? Does it contain all time, all space, all energy, all matter, etc, within it?

If so, is reality not omnipotent and omnipresent?

It is suspicious that you want to characterize reality as omnipotent, omnipresent, and later necessary. I can't fathom what I call reality as being characterized like this.

Reality contains all of the possible leaves that grow on trees too. Should I characterize reality as leafy? Could reality be a leafy vegetable? If god is reality; is god a leafy vegetable? :scratch:

I kind of like that.

Jeffersonian-marxist · **#37** by **Jeffersonian-marxist** » Apr 02, 2012 9:19 pm

Friedrich Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols wrote:HOW THE "TRUE WORLD" FINALLY BECAME A FABLE. The History of an Error
1. The true world — attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")
2. The true world — unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible — it becomes female, it becomes Christian. )
3. The true world — unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it — a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian.)
4. The true world — unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)
5. The "true" world — an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating — an idea which has become useless and superfluous — consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)
6. The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.

jamest · **#38** by **jamest** » Apr 02, 2012 11:08 pm

Jeffersonian-marxist wrote:
Friedrich Nietzsche in Twilight of the Idols wrote:HOW THE "TRUE WORLD" FINALLY BECAME A FABLE. The History of an Error
1. The true world — attainable for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man; he lives in it, he is it.
(The oldest form of the idea, relatively sensible, simple, and persuasive. A circumlocution for the sentence, "I, Plato, am the truth.")
2. The true world — unattainable for now, but promised for the sage, the pious, the virtuous man ("for the sinner who repents").
(Progress of the idea: it becomes more subtle, insidious, incomprehensible — it becomes female, it becomes Christian. )
3. The true world — unattainable, indemonstrable, unpromisable; but the very thought of it — a consolation, an obligation, an imperative.
(At bottom, the old sun, but seen through mist and skepticism. The idea has become elusive, pale, Nordic, Königsbergian.)
4. The true world — unattainable? At any rate, unattained. And being unattained, also unknown. Consequently, not consoling, redeeming, or obligating: how could something unknown obligate us?
(Gray morning. The first yawn of reason. The cockcrow of positivism.)
5. The "true" world — an idea which is no longer good for anything, not even obligating — an idea which has become useless and superfluous — consequently, a refuted idea: let us abolish it!
(Bright day; breakfast; return of bon sens and cheerfulness; Plato's embarrassed blush; pandemonium of all free spirits.)
6. The true world — we have abolished. What world has remained? The apparent one perhaps? But no! With the true world we have also abolished the apparent one.

This basically just asserts that the 'true world' (read 'reality') is unknowable to us (by reason, one presumes).

The trick is to see through the rhetoric and understand that, essentially, its prose does not deliver the conclusion sought in 6. That is, the trick is not to be seduced by style.

Jeffersonian-marxist · **#39** by **Jeffersonian-marxist** » Apr 10, 2012 6:18 am

jamest wrote:The trick is to see through the rhetoric and understand that, essentially, its prose does not deliver the conclusion sought in 6. That is, the trick is not to be seduced by style.

Actually james, the trick is to do a little reading. Once you've got around to reading the infamous old white men, from plato onwards, and have grasped their declarations on reality, you begin to see that the reason they are all talking past each other is because there is no referent for words like "reality" of "existence" beyond the text, beyond the greek intuitions from whence they came.

Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Re: Reality.

Who is online