Reality.

amkerman · #1 by **amkerman** » Jan 09, 2012 9:33 pm

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?

If reality is not derivative, it was not created by anything. It simply is reality.

Is everything real a derivative of reality?

If so, has reality created everything that exists within it, or all which is real?

If reality is not dependent on anything, nothing exists outside it.

If nothing exists outside of reality, is reality not infallible?

If nothing exists outside of reality to perceive or observe reality, can reality be proven?

If nothing exists outside of reality to perceive or observe reality, can reality be comprehended?

If all consciousness exists within reality, and reality can not be proven, can consciousness nevertheless believe in reality?

Would a belief in reality by consciousness within reality be logical, even though that consciousness exists within reality and can not extend beyond reality to perceive or observe it?

If all consciousness exists within reality, can consciousness nevertheless not believe in reality?

Would that belief be logical?

Is it that consciousness within reality could "lack belief" about the nature of reality?

Do you believe in reality?

What do people think?
Are these questions fair? If not, why/how are they not?

Do you believe in reality?

If so,

Calilasseia · #2 by **Calilasseia** » Jan 09, 2012 10:38 pm

The entire question "do you believe in reality?" is absurd. Allow me to demonstrate.

It doesn't matter how hard one engages in wishful thinking, to the effect that gravity is a myth, and that all you have to do is believe fervently enough that one can fly like Superman, any attempt to act upon this mental aberration will result in reality educating anyone acting upon this wishful thinking and jumping off the top of the Empire State Building. Unfortunately for whoever chooses to do this, the education will be of little value, because gravity will soon render that individual's ability to learn from this null and void, courtesy of a very messy and fatal impact upon the ground. This isn't a matter of "belief", because belief consists of accepting uncritically unsupported blind assertions, and treating said assertions unquestioningly as purportedly constituting established fact. Noting that human beings who jump off tall buildings, without some form of descent control assistance such as a parachute, have a habit of ending up splattered on the floor, isn't a matter of "belief", it's a matter of empirical observation. Here's an instance that was documented on film:

Now I don't enjoy watching some idiot go "splat", because he didn't think carefully enough about what he was doing, as happened in that film clip to Franz Reichelt, but even that grainy black and white silent footage should be enough to tell most people, that jumping off a tall building without a working parachute or other flight assistance device, is going to end very messily indeed.

epepke · #3 by **epepke** » Jan 09, 2012 10:49 pm

amkerman wrote:Do you believe in reality?

Well, these questions are kind of goofy.

Here's a better definition of reality, from a guy who spent his whole life writing about it.

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

amkerman · #4 by **amkerman** » Jan 09, 2012 11:00 pm

"It doesn't matter how hard one engages in wishful thinking, to the effect that 'gravity is a myth,' and that all you have to do is believe fervently enough that [gravity is a myth], any attempt to act upon this mental aberration will result in reality educating anyone acting upon this wishful thinking and jumping off the top of the Empire State Building."

I agree whole-heartedly.

You think Dick's definition is better than the one in merriam-webster?

Interesting. I think the dictionary's definition is more accurate. Potatoes potatoes, I agree with Dick's definition too. I certainly do not believe reality goes away when people stop believing in it. Don't even think it's possible not to believe in reality in fact, if we get right down to it.

amkerman · #5 by **amkerman** » Jan 09, 2012 11:16 pm

Calilasseia: I agree too with your initial statement, "the entire question of,'do you believe in reality' is absurd".

Of course people believe in reality.

A better initial question would probably be, "what do you believe about reality". It is still irrelevant, because there is only reality and it exists regardless of what anyone believes about it, but it is an interesting subject for discussion nevertheless.

byofrcs · #6 by **byofrcs** » Jan 09, 2012 11:58 pm

Reality is what is left when all other possibilities have failed to exist.

byofrcs · #7 by **byofrcs** » Jan 10, 2012 12:02 am

A good example is the table of known isotopes. There are many more possible combinations of proton and neutron counts but reality is the current table,

logical bob · #8 by **logical bob** » Jan 10, 2012 12:08 am

Blimey. Merriam Webster really is crap isn't it?

amkerman · #9 by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 12:22 am

byofrcs wrote:Reality is what is left when all other possibilities have failed to exist.

Interesting idea, but I think the definition ultimately fails to accurately convey reality. If something exists, it must exist within reality. If it exists in reality by definition, I think, it exists. It can't then fail to exist. If it failed to exist, it wouldn't be part of reality. It breaks the law of noncontradiction.

Maybe what you are talking about is existence in space-time?

I would argue that space-time itself exists within reality, but is not reality itself. As it stands now, I believe, science is under the impression that gravity acts on space-time, and that space-time is dependent on gravity, but is separate from it. By definition then spacetime can't be reality since gravity exists apart from space-time and is dependent on gravity, and according to the definition of reality, at least the definition in merriam-webster, reality is not dependent of anything.

amkerman · **#10** by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 12:35 am

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.

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.

amkerman · **#11** by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 12:43 am

byofrcs wrote:A good example is the table of known isotopes. There are many more possible combinations of proton and neutron counts but reality is the current table,

So even though there are more possible combinations only the current table is reality?

Before there was a table at all did the combinations then not exist?

Does reality change as human knowledge increased?

So reality is dependent on human knowledge?

If that is what you believe we may be at an impasse. I believe reality is not subject to the limits of human knowledge.

byofrcs · **#12** by **byofrcs** » Jan 10, 2012 12:55 am

amkerman wrote:
byofrcs wrote:Reality is what is left when all other possibilities have failed to exist.

Interesting idea, but I think the definition ultimately fails to accurately convey reality. If something exists, it must exist within reality. If it exists in reality by definition, I think, it exists. It can't then fail to exist. If it failed to exist, it wouldn't be part of reality. It breaks the law of noncontradiction.

Maybe what you are talking about is existence in space-time?

I would argue that space-time itself exists within reality, but is not reality itself. As it stands now, I believe, science is under the impression that gravity acts on space-time, and that space-time is dependent on gravity, but is separate from it. By definition then spacetime can't be reality since gravity exists apart from space-time and is dependent on gravity, and according to the definition of reality, at least the definition in merriam-webster, reality is not dependent of anything.

I don't see it that way - there is something that is far greater than reality and that is the set of what is possible. What is possible I think is also a member of an even larger powerset.

Thus it is not that " If something exists, it must exist within reality. If it exists in reality by definition,.."

....but that if something exists then it exits within what was possible and I do not think that we'll ever know the size of (i.e. all the elements of the set of) what is possible. When the big bang happened I think that both water and the properties of water became possible but water did not exist but what actually happened was that an far larger infinity (?) of other possible properties of things that could exist actually became impossible in this universe.

Look at that isotope table - there are many other possibilities which in a different universe with different constants could possibly exist (assuming that such a universe had "proton" and neutrons" at all anyway).. Nothing makes 12C exist per se but it is emergent based on these other constants. We can see in that table that there could be these other isotopes but I'm confident that they can never be part of this reality (though not certain).

The same applies to anything you see around you, even the fundamental constants that make up spacetime.

Thus to recap - What exists is a subset of a far larger set of what is possible which is a member of a far larger (infinite ?) powerset which all the other elements are impossible in this reality. The big bang was not one of creation but a constraint to this powerset of all possible realities.

byofrcs · **#13** by **byofrcs** » Jan 10, 2012 1:06 am

amkerman wrote:
byofrcs wrote:A good example is the table of known isotopes. There are many more possible combinations of proton and neutron counts but reality is the current table,

So even though there are more possible combinations only the current table is reality?

Before there was a table at all did the combinations then not exist?

Does reality change as human knowledge increased?

So reality is dependent on human knowledge?

If that is what you believe we may be at an impasse. I believe reality is not subject to the limits of human knowledge.

No, reality is independent of human knowledge. Much of this table existed before we knew how to stick it in a table. e.g. Gold. We know gold has existed from the very first human civilizations but when our universe formed then there was not only no gold but much of this table did not exist. It was just possible though.

As our knowledge increases we start to learn not only what exists but the boundaries of what is possible. We in effect play catchup to what has existed and what exists and predict what can exist (which is why the periodic table is interesting).

This is what makes science exciting because the "creation" is not actually over. This universe has countless trillions of years of possibilities.

amkerman · **#14** by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 1:14 am

I'm not going to quote you bc the wall of text is getting large but I think I understand what you are saying.

Reality is a subset of possibility, which is a subset of something larger?

Interesting idea. I hold the inverse belief. I believe that all possibility exists within reality, and that reality exists only unto itself; that even if there are other universes with laws governing them completely different from our own, those laws and universes exist within reality. If they don't exist within reality, then they can't exist somewhere else, because there is nowhere else. I believe reality is infinity.

Science is exciting!

byofrcs · **#15** by **byofrcs** » Jan 10, 2012 1:20 am

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.

Why ? because nothing is an infinity of possibilities.

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

Did I mention I was a reductionist ?.

amkerman · **#16** by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 2:33 am

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.

Calilasseia · **#17** by **Calilasseia** » Jan 10, 2012 2:38 am

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.

Actually, the position adopted here is that the limits of applicability of dictionaries is recognised. Mostly, because dictionaries are aimed at defining word usage in general language, as opposed to the usage within tightly controlled rigorous disciplines. If you look up the word 'manifold', for example, you might, if you're lucky, find a reference to the fact that the word is used in mathematics to define a particular entity, but you won't find the complete mathematical exposition of the definition of a manifold in Merriam-Webster or the OED, because that's not their remit.

No one here would take you seriously, if you wanted to argue that Merriam-Webster was a better authority on the definition of a manifold than Bernhard Riemann.

amkerman · **#18** by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 2:51 am

Actually, the position adopted here is that the limits of applicability of dictionaries is recognised. Mostly, because dictionaries are aimed at defining word usage in general language, as opposed to the usage within tightly controlled rigorous disciplines. If you look up the word 'manifold', for example, you might, if you're lucky, find a reference to the fact that the word is used in mathematics to define a particular entity, but you won't find the complete mathematical exposition of the definition of a manifold in Merriam-Webster or the OED, because that's not their remit.

No one here would take you seriously, if you wanted to argue that Merriam-Webster was a better authority on the definition of a manifold than Bernhard Riemann

.

Well I guess it's a good thing we are discussing the general concept of reality then, and not talking about a manifold. if you want to say you know what reality is that's fine, but I won't believe you, or anyone, who does.

RealityRules · **#19** by **RealityRules** » Jan 10, 2012 4:10 am

.
Reality is that which almost all agree exists and persists.
.
It can include things provided by cognition and universal definition & agreement, such as the field of psychology.
.

amkerman · **#20** by **amkerman** » Jan 10, 2012 4:27 am

RealityRules wrote:.
Reality is that which almost all agree exists and persists.
.
It can include things provided by cognition and universal definition & agreement, such as the field of psychology.
.

Hmmm... Do you believe the inverse of your definition also true?

Is that which almost all do not agree exists and persists is not reality?

If things people aren't in agreement on aren't part of reality, what are they part of?

Furthermore, what is "almost all"? Is it just a majority or is it more like 95%? Who is included in the all? Everyone, or only certain people?

Furthermore, is complete agreement necessary for it to be reality or will only partial agreement on it constitute it as reality?

I believe this particular definition is woefully incomplete. Before Galileo almost all agreed the earth was the center of the universe. Was that reality as long as the idea persisted?

I just don't see how reality is dependent on people agreeing. Before people, was there no reality?

Reality.

Reality.

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