What is Reality? Philosophers' Views

  • Thread starter oldman
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Reality
In summary, a group of people are discussing the concept of reality and how it is defined. They mention various examples, such as a bricklayer's view, a friend's Ferrari, a physicist's experiment, an engineer's work, and a general relativist's perspective. They also consider the role of mathematics and string theory in defining reality. One person suggests that reality is a collection of things that coexist and must support each other's existence. Another person believes that reality is simply what exists. They discuss the relationship between facts and causality, and question how to account for facts that may not be measured or known.
  • #1
oldman
633
5
I need some help from Philosophy-oriented folk in answering this question, which I've been sounding off about in the Relativity forum in the thread "Raindrops and Gravity". After having a few of my deviant ideas ironed out there by people who know much more than I do, I've arrived at the following understanding:

First, there is no need to doubt a bricklayer's view of "reality" in his immediate vicinity. He is likely to answer by hefting a brick, and tell you "that's what's real". And you'd better believe him.

Second, you may describe this definition to a friend, and ask him to give you a more sophisticated example of reality. He could describe the new Ferrari he has over at his house, and tell you that it is "really" there. If you doubt him, you could go over and drive it around, if he'd let you.

Third, if you ask a physicist whether a magnetic field is "real", he could try to convince you that it is by showing you iron filings sprinkled on paper above a magnet. You might then believe his claim.

Fourth, you could approach an engineer who is building a machine to accelerate particles. He will tell you that Special Relativity (SR) requires him to take into account an increase in mass of the particles as they are accelerated. If you ask him whether this is "really" so, he would assure you that his pay cheque depended on his accepting that SR describes an observer-dependent reality.

Fifth, you might ask a General Relativist if Spacetime, or the Riemann curvature tensor, were part of objective reality. He would insist that the latter is a geometric object in the former, that both are part of a four dimensional reality which is independent of any observer.

Sixth. I don't know how a mathematician or a string theorist would define reality.

I've arranged these "straw views" in increasing order of abstraction regarding a definition of reality. I don't which, if any of them are true. But my own conclusion is that in the end reality is nothing but a Platonic model in one's mind that matches, in as many ways as one can devise, the fullness of experience.

I'd like to know if philosophers consider such simple-minded views on the subject.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
oldman said:
I need some help from Philosophy-oriented folk in answering this question, ...

I've arranged these "straw views" in increasing order of abstraction regarding a definition of reality. I don't which, if any of them are true. But my own conclusion is that in the end reality is nothing but a Platonic model in one's mind that matches, in as many ways as one can devise, the fullness of experience.

I'd like to know if philosophers consider such simple-minded views on the subject.

Whatever reality is, it is a collection of things that coexist. You look around and say that thing over there exists AND that thing also exists AND this thing over here exist, etc, etc. These coexisting things must not contradict each other but must support each other's existence. I should think that this should be the start of any derivation of physics.

See the home page on my Public Profile page by clicking on Mike2 of this post.
 
  • #3
oldman said:
I've arranged these "straw views" in increasing order of abstraction regarding a definition of reality. I don't which, if any of them are true. But my own conclusion is that in the end reality is nothing but a Platonic model in one's mind that matches, in as many ways as one can devise, the fullness of experience.

I'd like to know if philosophers consider such simple-minded views on the subject.

There seem to be two realities: One inside your your conscious brain--your mind, and one that is external to your mind. In the final analysis, only you can decide what are the realties you accept. Note: Sometimes that external reality can be really brutal and unforgiving. Note 2: Why ask the philosophers? They really do not 'know' what reality is any more than you do.
 
  • #4
sd01g said:
Why ask the philosophers? They really do not 'know' what reality is any more than you do.
True, but comments like yours are interesting and help to alleviate my ignorance. Thanks.

The Comment Mike2 made:
... These coexisting things must not contradict each other but must support each other's existence...
is indeed an essential ingredient of any model formulated to represent "reality"--- thanks also for this.
 
  • #5
Reality is that which Exists--it really is that simple--there is nothing else it can be.
 
  • #6
Rade said:
Reality is that which Exists--it really is that simple--there is nothing else it can be.

Right... and we say this thing "exists" AND that thing exists AND those things exist AND... So all realtiy is a conjunction of facts. And this is equal to saying that no fact proves the nonexistence of any other fact. And this conjunction implies every fact implies every other fact. And this implication between facts has to be what is responsible for the laws of physics. For the laws of physics predict how one set of facts produces another set of facts. The resulting facts are caused by the initial facts. And cause and effect have the same relationship as premises implying the consequences. And there is no question that one set of facts implies another which imply a third which implies a forth, etc. And this is just like how dynamical laws of physics predict how facts propagate through time. So it must be that the dynamical laws of physics are derived from these paths of implication from one to the next to the next, etc.

The question is how do we account for facts that we have not measured and are not aware of? Is there an infinite number of facts to account for? And what is the relation between facts and spacetime?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Mike2 said:
...The question is how do we account for facts that we have not measured and are not aware of? Is there an infinite number of facts to account for? And what is the relation between facts and spacetime?
Interesting questions. Let us define a fact as a thing given to the mind. Perhaps then we can say there are two types of facts (1) those facts that are metaphysically given via perception and (2) facts of reason via imagination. The first let us say are real and independent of humans, the second are abstract only within imagination thus not real until by volition made real. So, by definition, it is only the metaphysical facts that we need to account for, and we account for them via continued experience of that which exists. As to second question, I think there are only a finite number of metaphysical facts, but an infinite number of abstract facts, for, like the number line, you can always add in your imagination yet another abstract fact to any set of previous such facts, but of reality, existence cannot yet add anymore than it was given at origin of universe. As to third question, spacetime can be thought to be that which is intermediate between moments spatially separated--if so, then perhaps moments are the facts (either metaphysical or abstract) and the spacetime is the relation between them. Let me know where I error in thinking.
 
  • #8
Rade said:
Interesting questions. Let us define a fact as a thing given to the mind. Perhaps then we can say there are two types of facts (1) those facts that are metaphysically given via perception and (2) facts of reason via imagination. The first let us say are real and independent of humans, the second are abstract only within imagination thus not real until by volition made real. So, by definition, it is only the metaphysical facts that we need to account for, and we account for them via continued experience of that which exists. As to second question, I think there are only a finite number of metaphysical facts, but an infinite number of abstract facts, for, like the number line, you can always add in your imagination yet another abstract fact to any set of previous such facts, but of reality, existence cannot yet add anymore than it was given at origin of universe. As to third question, spacetime can be thought to be that which is intermediate between moments spatially separated--if so, then perhaps moments are the facts (either metaphysical or abstract) and the spacetime is the relation between them. Let me know where I error in thinking.
I did not make a distinction between actual facts or what we humans preceive as facts when I said that facts much coexist in conjunction. I only meant to say if there were actual facts, then they must coexist in conjunction, not contradict each other, and in fact imply one another.

That of course brings up the question as to whether this logical relationship between facts is actually real or just a human contrivance for our psychological stability. After all, there are no actual facts that are false in reality. False is only a human consideration of possible descriptions of reality. So is all of logic just a human contrivance? Or is there an actually real relationship of cause and effect between facts which would seem to suggest that facts imply each other? Our perception of the passage of time tells us that events proceed form one to another. And this suggests a cause and effect relationship so that there is an actual implication between facts. Or is time an illusion? We also think there was a beginning to the universe, a time when the universe was not, so that we can say that there was a state of non-existence where we can label existence as "false".

General Relativity and Special Relativity designate each spacetime coordinate as an "event". This suggests that GR and SR labels each fact with spacetime parameters as you suggest. And perhaps separate spacetime coordinates are the only distinguishing thing between facts.
 
Last edited:
  • #9
Rade said:
Reality is that which Exists--it really is that simple--there is nothing else it can be.

Well, maybe. But it's a bit of a tautology, isn't it, since there is a temptation to then reply "that which exists is that which is real" ? However my dictionary agrees with you, so who am I to quibble...

The distinction you made in your most recent post:

Rade said:
...there are two types of facts (1) those facts that are metaphysically given via perception and (2) facts of reason via imagination. The first let us say are real and independent of humans, the second are abstract only within imagination thus not real until by volition made real.

looks at first sight pretty reasonable. But when one picks on specific examples in physics, the reasonableness seems to me to evaporate. Here is a chain of examples in which this becomes gradually more evident:

A stick poked into water appears to be bent. We know that it isn't "really" bent because we can pull it out and check, and we can explain the bending because we understand the laws of refraction. Bending is a Type 1 fact?

Hundreds of years ago Bradley discovered stellar aberration --- a small annually varying apparent angular displacement of stars of some seconds of arc . We understand how this is caused by our orbital motion. Another type 1 fact? But here a quite complex model of "reality", namely the Earth wheeling around the sun (distinct from our perception of the sun rising and setting), is imagined as part of "reality". It can of course be checked by other observations.

We now believe that we, together with the solar system and Milky way, are moving at several hundred Km per sec relative to the reference frame defined by the Cosmic Background Radiation. This must produce an aberration of several minutes of arc, according to our present model of the cosmos (a type 2 "fact?). Yet we will never be able to directly measure this aberration, since it is fixed forever as far as we are concerned. Our existence is ephemeral on a cosmic scale. Is the assumed aberration itself a type 1 or type 2 fact?

Then SR tells us that clocks on moving objects run slow. The observed extended lifetimes of relativistically moving radioactive particles confirms this as a fact. But is it of type1 or type 2? Again an imagined model of reality intrudes, but varies from observer to observer. Indeed, I believe that the essence of SR is this:
there is no unique reality for all observers. What we call “reality” is in fact a masquerade of observer-dependent perspectives on events in space and time
And then there is the "reality" of spacetime and the Riemann. Definitely your type 2 fact?
Or a very sophisticated and elaborate model in one's mind that is only a remote cousin of the bent stick in water.

My conclusion is that your two categories of facts blur into different aspcts of some sort of accepted model of "reality" that we believe in if it is holomorphic with experience.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Mike2 said:
The question is how do we account for facts that we have not measured and are not aware of?
By amplifying and extending our models of reality, which are very personal. For example , my model of reality doesn't include what you are doing at the moment, Mike2 (sleeping soundly, I hope).
Is there an infinite number of facts to account for?
Only if the universe is infinite or infinitely complex. Nobody knows, I think.
And what is the relation between facts and spacetime?
But is Spacetime real, or just a Platonic construct?
 
  • #11
Funny, I just started working on this:

http://z13.invisionfree.com/Stabber_Palace/index.php?showtopic=1954 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Plato thought that the 'idea of a thing' was more real than any kind of physical thing, which were only manifestations of their true essence. This is not quite the same as defining reality as being that which is in consciousness. For plato, the essences of things existed on a level separate from both the physical level and that of individual minds.

I think this sort of thinking is really backwards. Mathematicians sometimes think this way when they talk about mathematical truths, as if you don't need a mind to come up with them. But how would we know this?

The word "reality" has many definitions.

I think the most simple definition of reality is that of consciousness. We don't really have a direct knowledge of what can be called physical reality. Its really just a metaphysical theory that explains why things appear in our consciousness and where our consciousness itself comes from. The only way to get empirical evidence is with our senses... it is impossible to transcend ourselves. Even with the instruments of science, we ultimately experience them through our senses. And this is true of people we consider wise, they teach us through our senses.

If reality is more than we can experience, we don't know it.

And really whether its a physical experience or a rational thought process, or a dream, its all part of consciousness, even if we categorize these things as different parts, or aspects of consciousness. Reality is consciousness. The cause of reality is unknown, and probably unknowable with any real degree of certainty.
 
  • #13
JoeDawg said:
. Reality is consciousness. The cause of reality is unknown, and probably unknowable with any real degree of certainty.

However, when one realizes that one cannot voluntarily stop beathing for more than a few minutes, one begins to realizes that there is, lurking outside of one's consciousness, something much more powerful than mere consciousness. Whether we call it reality or something else, it is primary, and without it there is no consciouness.
 
  • #14
sd01g said:
However, when one realizes that one cannot voluntarily stop beathing for more than a few minutes,
No, all one needs for this is a gun a single bullet. And neither the gun, nor the bullet need be outside consciousness, assuming one does it oneself.
one begins to realizes that there is, lurking outside of one's consciousness, something much more powerful than mere consciousness.

One can certainly posit an external cause for consciousness, but that begs the infinite regression question, at what point is there a first cause. Consciousness could be its own first cause. We really have no way of knowing, although its a good assumption ontologically, its still an assumption in the epistemological sense.
 
  • #15
JoeDawg said:
No, all one needs for this is a gun a single bullet. And neither the gun, nor the bullet need be outside consciousness, assuming one does it oneself.


One can certainly posit an external cause for consciousness, but that begs the infinite regression question, at what point is there a first cause. Consciousness could be its own first cause. We really have no way of knowing, although its a good assumption ontologically, its still an assumption in the epistemological sense.

The breath holding example was used so one could remain alive to appreciate the experience of how easy it is for something to overcome the conscious human will.

The example of oxygen was to point out that human consciousness requires oxygen to sustain itself. I think that no reasonable person would assert that human consciousness predates the existence of oxygen

The real, primary reality, is the matter/energy that composes and supports human consciousness. Human consciousness is the secondary reality that allows us to experience the primary (because it must exist first) reality of matter/energy.

As always, the individual has the final say as to what they accept as real... at least as long as they keep breathing.
 
  • #16
sd01g said:
The example of oxygen was to point out that human consciousness requires oxygen to sustain itself. I think that no reasonable person would assert that human consciousness predates the existence of oxygen

You are missing the point entirely.

We don't experience oxygen. We experience breathing. If you don't understand that there is a difference here, then you are not understanding a very basic philosophical argument.

'Oxygen' is a conclusion based on observation, but the observation is a primary aspect of consciousness, whether its a dream, a thought or sensory experience.

What is primary, is that I sense things and I can relate those things together within my consciousness. An understanding of how atoms combine into oxygen and how the body uses oxygen is something you were told, or read about. That is, its something that you have in your consciousness, but you don't experience directly. Where did that understanding come from? Where did your consciousness come from? You can't even concieve of 'oxygen' until you are, and unless you are conscious, so consciousness is primary.

One can theorize about what happened before one is conscious as well as when one sleeps... but it requires assumptions and connecting dots. Its not part of our reality in any direct way.
 
  • #17
JoeDawg said:
You can't even concieve of 'oxygen' until you are, and unless you are conscious, so consciousness is primary.

You might consider that without oxygen, human consciousness is not even possible. But, then, we would not know this unless we were conscious. But if the oxygen was not there first, there would never be any human consciousness to be primary.

OK, you say human consciousness is primary and I'll say oxygen is primary (because I believe it was there first) and then at least one of us be might be right.
 
  • #18
sd01g said:
You might consider that without oxygen, human consciousness is not even possible. But, then, we would not know this unless we were conscious. But if the oxygen was not there first, there would never be any human consciousness to be primary.

OK, you say human consciousness is primary and I'll say oxygen is primary (because I believe it was there first) and then at least one of us be might be right.

Its not a matter of what you believe. I'm quite confident we need oxygen to exist. That is simply not the point. Consciousness is primary because we need to have it first before we can even think about oxygen. Oxygen may exist in the ontological sense, it surely does, but when discussing consciousness and reality, one has to address the epistemological as well.

Your oxygen example is ignoring the question of consciousness, not addressing.
 
  • #19
JoeDawg said:
Its not a matter of what you believe. I'm quite confident we need oxygen to exist. That is simply not the point. Consciousness is primary because we need to have it first before we can even think about oxygen. Oxygen may exist in the ontological sense, it surely does, but when discussing consciousness and reality, one has to address the epistemological as well.

Your oxygen example is ignoring the question of consciousness, not addressing.

My dictionary lists 19 definitions/usages of the word primary, so maybe we are not talking about the same 'primary'. Everytime someone drowns, it is obvious that lack of oxygen trumps human consciousness.

No one knows for sure exactly what is human consciousness, but there is compelling evidence that without matter/energy there are no humans or human consciousness.

Knowing what is reality is not an argument that anyone wins. So if I do not get your point, it does not matter at all. I have my own reality just as you have yours. Thanks for the discussion.
 
  • #20
oldman said:
Well, maybe. But it's a bit of a tautology, isn't it, since there is a temptation to then reply "that which exists is that which is real" ?
Yes, but I think it better to start a philosophy from a tautology than a contradiction, for if reality is that which does not exist, we spend lots of time thinking about nothing. But a way out is to follow this sequence from axiom (1) existence exists, (2) reality is "that" which exists, (3) how do I know if something is real ?...--thus your reply not needed, existence priori to reality by axiom.

Rade said:
Originally Posted by Rade
...there are two types of facts (1) those facts that are metaphysically given via perception and (2) facts of reason via imagination. The first let us say are real and independent of humans, the second are abstract only within imagination thus not real until by volition made real.

oldman said:
A stick poked into water appears to be bent. We know that it isn't "really" bent because we can pull it out and check, and we can explain the bending because we understand the laws of refraction. Bending is a Type 1 fact?
No, in this example bending no type of fact at all--bending perception an illusion.

oldman said:
Hundreds of years ago Bradley discovered stellar aberration --- a small annually varying apparent angular displacement of stars of some seconds of arc . We understand how this is caused by our orbital motion. Another type 1 fact?
Nice example, but the only type 1 fact I can find in what Bradley discovered is that the Earth moves.

oldman said:
We now believe that we, together with the solar system and Milky way, are moving at several hundred Km per sec relative to the reference frame defined by the Cosmic Background Radiation. This must produce an aberration of several minutes of arc, according to our present model of the cosmos (a type 2 "fact?). Yet we will never be able to directly measure this aberration, since it is fixed forever as far as we are concerned. Our existence is ephemeral on a cosmic scale. Is the assumed aberration itself a type 1 or type 2 fact?
I would argue that if in fact the mental assumption can never be tested, the best you would have is a type 2 fact. To move a type 2 to a type 1 fact the contents of the imagination must be transformed back into metaphysical reality, which is the source of the type 1 fact. But recall, that the ultimate source of content of the type 2 fact are sets of type 1 facts rearranged.

oldman said:
Then SR tells us that clocks on moving objects run slow. The observed extended lifetimes of relativistically moving radioactive particles confirms this as a fact. But is it of type1 or type 2? Again an imagined model of reality intrudes, but varies from observer to observer. Indeed, I believe that the essence of SR is this.
Clearly the experimental results from SR provide type 1 facts. All perception of the metaphysically given by definition varies from observer to observer, but this does not negate that each observer does not perceive a type 1 fact. Consider this example, let C = an event metaphysically given, that clock runs slow. Let A = observer 1, B = observer 2. Then the type 1 fact given via perception to the first observer is the set [C+A], and to the second observer [C+B]. But neither [C+A] nor [C+B] are developed within the imagination, they are presented to the imagination for it to use if it so wishes.

oldman said:
And then there is the "reality" of spacetime and the Riemann. Definitely your type 2 fact? Or a very sophisticated and elaborate model in one's mind that is only a remote cousin of the bent stick in water.
Both examples of type 2 facts.

oldman said:
My conclusion is that your two categories of facts blur into different aspects of some sort of accepted model of "reality" that we believe in if it is holomorphic with experience.
If by blur you mean they (the two types of facts) form a dialectic to assist the mind to provide explanations of reality that are consistent with experience, then I would agree with you. Again, I offered that reality is that which exists. To help the mind explain what is real and what is not one can use facts. But I suggest there are two pathways (1) use facts that are directly metaphysically given (2) use facts that recombine the first types of facts into new facts within imagination then back transform these new facts into metaphysical facts by testing the predictions the second type of facts hold to be true. So yes, there is a blur in my suggestion, but is not this "fact" blur the essence of Einstein method of deriving Theory of General Relativity ? The blur is the synthesis of the dialectic of the metaphysically given and the reason of imagination, which we call creativity. Thanks for a nice thread.
 
  • #21
Thanks for your clear analysis of my long and simple-minded post #9, Rade. Indeed your post #20 also answers post #3:
sd01g said:
Why ask the philosophers? They really do not 'know' what reality is any more than you do.

Ah yes, but you see, perhaps they can define what they don’t know so much more clearly than say, relativists!

The motivation for this thread was my unease that those who are employed in the interpretation of that arcane subject, GR, often seem to accept that its mathematical constructs, like spacetime and the Riemann curvature tensor, are some kind “reality”, not perceived, but nevertheless existing.

As you would (I now think) put it, this is to claim that these constructs are type (1) “facts” that are metaphysically given via perception ... and are real and independent of humans, rather than type (2) facts; those of reason via imagination. But the structure of GR is so wonderfully logical, and its created complex of ideas has such persuasive predictive aspects that I hesitate to deny that its very foundation, spacetime, and especially the “geometrical construct in spacetime”, the Riemann
is “real and independent of humans” in some way, as some relativists seem to think.

Then again I am reminded of the wonderful utility of, say, the set of counting numbers, and realize that commonplace as they and their algebraic operations may be, they are after all “only” type (2) facts of reason via imagination.

My unease and confusion then returns, despite agreeing that
Rade said:
a "fact" blur (between the types of fact you defined) is the essence of Einstein method of deriving Theory of General Relativity ? The blur is the synthesis of the dialectic of the metaphysically given and the reason of imagination, which we call creativity .
 
  • #22
oldman said:
Ah yes, but you see, perhaps they can define what they don’t know so much more clearly than say, relativists!

This statement should be enshrined in the Philosophy Hall of Fame.
 
  • #23
Oldman, good question for this section!

Reality has always been what you make it or what you make of it. This is because reality is a concept and a construct born of each relative human mind. There are no ducks, foxes, rocks or plants discerning whether or not there is a reality. These forms are simply making the best of what comes their way. We'd say "that's their reality" but its not. We're simply projecting our idea of what their reality is on their form.

Its only humans who are all caught up in determining what reality is, was or could be. And I think the great philosopher, Brian Ferry, put it well by saying...

"Life is what you make it, celebrate it."

The more convenient we made life for ourselves, the more we were able contemplate "life" and "reality". We we developed enough free time to look at certain conditions and compared them to others. In this way we began to form an awareness of different states.

But for the most part, those states are evoked by external conditions, inside our own heads. And that's why "life is what you make (of) it" makes sense to me. Because we are the vessel collecting the experiences and we have the spout that will pour out what we've made of all of the experiences, states and events we are aware of and able to contemplate by way of our perceptions.

A more economical way of saying... "life is what you make it"... is... "reality is relative".
 
Last edited:
  • #24
oldman said:
The motivation for this thread was my unease that those who are employed in the interpretation of that arcane subject, GR, often seem to accept that its mathematical constructs, like spacetime and the Riemann curvature tensor, are some kind “reality”, not perceived, but nevertheless existing.

Assuming that you accept the notion that everything that exists has a location, then all one has to do is to find that location. To qualify for 'empirical external existence', something has to actually be there in a three demensional spatial configuration and appear on the 'sensor screen'. Until it meets this test, it must be assumed that it, at least for now, it is only the product of the mind and exists or is located ONLY in human consciousness.
 
  • #25
sd01g said:
Assuming that you accept the notion that everything that exists has a location, then all one has to do is to find that location. To qualify for 'empirical external existence', something has to actually be there in a three demensional spatial configuration and appear on the 'sensor screen'. Until it meets this test, it must be assumed that it, at least for now, it is only the product of the mind and exists or is located ONLY in human consciousness.

The folly is that we use our human consciousness to determine everything including location, dimension and to view a sensor screen or VU metre. All our decisions concerning what a "reality" is are verified by nothing more than each individual's power of conscious awareness. With that in mind perhaps its easier to see how reality is uniquely subjective and relative to each individual's awareness.
 
  • #26
JoeDawg said:
Its not a matter of what you believe. I'm quite confident we need oxygen to exist. That is simply not the point. Consciousness is primary because we need to have it first before we can even think about oxygen. Oxygen may exist in the ontological sense, it surely does, but when discussing consciousness and reality, one has to address the epistemological as well.

Your oxygen example is ignoring the question of consciousness, not addressing.

And then, we're not even sure whether "oxygen" really exists, or whether it is a figment of our consciousness. Maybe we don't even have a body, but we only think we do.
The only thing we can really sure about, are our subjective sensations, in the sense of "I think therefor I am". All the rest is hypothesis, and as such, ontology is nothing else but hypothesis. That said, it is, especially for the guy who's making a wall, a very consistent and coherent hypothesis (in the sense that it is 100% in correspondence with his subjective sensations). As such, this is a strong argument for the working hypothesis of reality.

So to me, "reality" is a working hypothesis which helps us organize our subjective sensations, and in as much as this seems to be a very convincing and coherent hypothesis, we might "take it for real".
Our sensations are entirely in agreement with the hypothesis that we have a body. And then, it seems to be in agreement with the hypothesis that we live on a planet earth, and that there are other "beings" around and so on. All this fits entirely with our sensations. So it is a good hypothesis to make. Within that working hypothesis, indeed, bodies need oxygen, and so we are tempted to think that we need oxygen too. But we already made a lot of ontological hypotheses before arriving there.
 
  • #27
baywax said:
... reality is uniquely subjective and relative to each individual's awareness.

Yes, but situated as we all are in similar circumstances (crowded together in the thin atmospheric skin of this tiny planet and subject to its gravity, crawling around slowly at non-relativistic speeds) we do share common experience of "reality".

Earlier, you said that an economical way of defining reality as you see it is to say "reality is relative". I agree with this, and with your quote from Brian Ferry, that
"Life is what you make it, celebrate it." (Or, as Ethel Merman said pungently in the show "Mame': "Life is a banquet, but most suckers are starving to death".)

The ducks and foxes you mentioned probably have different and more immediate perceptions of their realities... which brings me to another perspective.

I believe that it is proper, when trying to define "reality", to keep in mind one reason for our evolutionary success (as measured in numbers, that is!). Apparently, we are the one species of African ape that evolved, somehow, the distinctive ability to chatter endlessly (as in this forum). Recently we have amplified this ability by developing a language that we use for chattering quantitatively about the "reality" we perceive, namely the language of mathematics. We have taken to building descriptive and predictive mathematical models of our perceived environment, and to regard them as abstract parts of “reality” ( if this is not an oxymoron). Such models, say in four-dimensional spacetime, are therefore only sophisticated descriptions of what human beings can perceive, given an individual observer's circumstances.

But are they "actually" part of "reality"?

sd01g said:
Assuming that you accept the notion that everything that exists has a location, then all one has to do is to find that location. To qualify for 'empirical external existence', something has to actually be there in a three-dimensional spatial configuration and appear on the 'sensor screen'. Until it meets this test, it must be assumed that it, at least for now, it is only the product of the mind and exists or is located ONLY in human consciousness.

Which means that the wheels of my bicycle exist and are real, but perfect circles don't and aren't, I guess. Agreed.
 
  • #28
oldman said:
Yes, but situated as we all are in similar circumstances (crowded together in the thin atmospheric skin of this tiny planet and subject to its gravity, crawling around slowly at non-relativistic speeds) we do share common experience of "reality".

Earlier, you said that an economical way of defining reality as you see it is to say "reality is relative". I agree with this, and with your quote from Brian Ferry, that
"Life is what you make it, celebrate it." (Or, as Ethel Merman said pungently in the show "Mame': "Life is a banquet, but most suckers are starving to death".)

?The ducks and foxes you mentioned probably have different and more immediate perceptions of their realities... which brings me to another perspective.

I believe that it is proper, when trying to define "reality", to keep in mind one reason for our evolutionary success (as measured in numbers, that is!). Apparently, we are the one species of African ape that evolved, somehow, the distinctive ability to chatter endlessly (as in this forum). Recently we have amplified this ability by developing a language that we use for chattering quantitatively about the "reality" we perceive, namely the language of mathematics. We have taken to building descriptive and predictive mathematical models of our perceived environment, and to regard them as abstract parts of “reality” ( if this is not an oxymoron). Such models, say in four-dimensional spacetime, are therefore only sophisticated descriptions of what human beings can perceive, given an individual observer's circumstances.

But are they "actually" part of "reality"?

We can go into this further at some point after my tequilla but my initial reaction is one of bemusement because we will agree upon certain specific details but the agreement only comes after one or the other makes an observation. Then, the observation is followed by a response such as... " that's what I'm seeing"... or... "I missed that part but now I see it"... or... "that's not what I'm reading here, in the least". And in every case there is a lead-in and/or an opposing view. As social animals we have genes that determine our cooperative nature. In fact, certain conditions are being discovered in all life that suggest life relies heavily on cooperation between individuals and between species. So, is this over-riding the individualized take on reality? Are we all seeing the same thing? If we were all quantum physicists would we all perceive matter, sound and light as em waves? Or is that just another illusion born of cooperation?
 
  • #29
oldman said:
Such models, say in four-dimensional spacetime, are therefore only sophisticated descriptions of what human beings can perceive, given an individual observer's circumstances.
But are they "actually" part of "reality"?

Which means that the wheels of my bicycle exist and are real, but perfect circles don't and aren't, I guess. Agreed.

Everything except empty, empty space is real. Even 'thought' or 'the imagination', or mental constructs of theories, models, and equations are composed of at least electrochemical energy. The question is only one of location. Does it exist only within the mind or does it exist in the mind AND in the external world?

One answer to the question--But are they "actually" part of "reality"?--is that they are actually part of the 'internal reality' but not necessarily part of the 'external reality'.


Isn't it great: Philosophers will speculate on anything.
 
  • #30
baywax said:
If we were all quantum physicists would we all perceive matter, sound and light as em waves? Or is that just another illusion born of cooperation?
Not even the few cooperating quantum physicists have such misguided perceptions. Their illusions are more along stringy lines!

sd01g said:
Everything except empty, empty space is real. Even 'thought' or 'the imagination', or mental constructs of theories, models, and equations are composed of at least electrochemical energy. The question is only one of location. Does it exist only within the mind or does it exist in the mind AND in the external world?

One answer to the question--But are they "actually" part of "reality"?--is that they are actually part of the 'internal reality' but not necessarily part of the 'external reality'.

You're now making the distinction between what many folk call hardware and software. Sure, software exists, but hardware is needed to endow it with the sort of reality that a brick has. Otherwise it's just patterns of bits or firing neurons.

As for "empty, empty space" --- nobody in these forums seems be able to handle this concept, especially if "space" is "expanding" (see several current cosmology and relativity threads).

My own definition --- empty space is what you can swing a cat in!
 
  • #31
vanesch said:
The only thing we can really sure about, are our subjective sensations, in the sense of "I think therefor I am".

If we go that far we can even question Descartes, by asking about the words he used, the concept of 'I' for instance and its relation to thinking. What we can say is self evident is that thinking exists, but localizing it with regards to some kind of self might be an illusion.

ontology is nothing else but hypothesis. That said, it is, especially for the guy who's making a wall, a very consistent and coherent hypothesis (in the sense that it is 100% in correspondence with his subjective sensations). As such, this is a strong argument for the working hypothesis of reality.

Yes, one has to remember that even Descartes was not denying physical things exist. What he was looking for was a first principle with which to start, so that errors could be avoided as much as possible. Its easy, and even useful to have ontological discussions, but recognizing the assumptions that are being made, assists us in seeing other assumptions that may lead to error.
 
  • #32
oldman said:
As for "empty, empty space" --- nobody in these forums seems be able to handle this concept, especially if "space" is "expanding" (see several current cosmology and relativity threads).

My own definition --- empty space is what you can swing a cat in!

There is a significant difference between empty space, which is determined empirically, and empty, empty space--absolute empty space--which is a mental concept construct.

One can swing a cat in empty space but in absolute empty space there is no cat and there is no swinger.

Empty space may contain something that we can not yet detect and that undetectable something can move and be moved. However, absolutely empty space contains nothing, does not move, can not be moved and can not be used to explain very rapid expansion of any kind.

When one uses one word 'space' to describe two different concepts, one invites error--the difference between something and nothing.

Are the The Big Bang cosmologists inflating something or nothing?
 
  • #33
sd01g said:
There is a significant difference between empty space, which is determined empirically, and empty, empty space--absolute empty space--which is a mental concept construct...

These are deep waters for a non-philosopher, so I'll wade ashore and leave this thread to those who can stay afloat ... but thanks for your helpful comments, all.
 
  • #34
sd01g said:
There is a significant difference between empty space, which is determined empirically, and empty, empty space--absolute empty space--which is a mental concept construct.

One can swing a cat in empty space but in absolute empty space there is no cat and there is no swinger.

Empty space may contain something that we can not yet detect and that undetectable something can move and be moved. However, absolutely empty space contains nothing, does not move, can not be moved and can not be used to explain very rapid expansion of any kind.

When one uses one word 'space' to describe two different concepts, one invites error--the difference between something and nothing.

Are the The Big Bang cosmologists inflating something or nothing?

Cats and swingers... are you a beatnick?!

If one is using a word like "space" one is filling it with that word.

There could be no substantiality to everything if there were nowhere to put it. This is the "empty vessel" philosophy from China that must be observed before imagining that emptiness cannot exist.
 
  • #35
Everything is part of reality, but we do not know how all the parts connect.

I don't think you are seeking reality, I think you're seeking how the processes within everything work, and asking what is reality will not give you the answer, because even the schizophrenic person, including their thoughts, are just as real as the next, within the context of the process that make the schizo and the thoughts. Asking how things work according to evidence is the most useful question.
 
<h2>1. What is the definition of reality according to philosophers?</h2><p>The definition of reality according to philosophers is the state or quality of being real or having actual existence. It is the existence of things as they are, independent of human perception or interpretation.</p><h2>2. How do philosophers view the concept of reality?</h2><p>Philosophers view reality as a complex and multifaceted concept that has been debated and explored for centuries. Some believe that reality is objective and exists independently of human perception, while others argue that reality is subjective and influenced by individual experiences and perceptions.</p><h2>3. Is reality a subjective or objective concept according to philosophers?</h2><p>This is a highly debated question among philosophers. Some argue that reality is objective and exists independently of human perception, while others believe that reality is subjective and influenced by individual experiences and perceptions. Ultimately, the answer may depend on one's personal beliefs and philosophical perspective.</p><h2>4. How do philosophers explain the relationship between perception and reality?</h2><p>Philosophers have different views on the relationship between perception and reality. Some argue that perception is the only way we can experience reality, while others believe that perception is limited and can distort our understanding of reality. Some philosophers also argue that reality is a combination of both objective and subjective elements.</p><h2>5. How does the concept of reality relate to our understanding of the world?</h2><p>The concept of reality is closely tied to our understanding of the world. It shapes our beliefs, perceptions, and experiences. Some philosophers argue that our understanding of reality is limited by our senses and cognitive abilities, while others believe that we can gain a deeper understanding of reality through philosophical inquiry and critical thinking.</p>

1. What is the definition of reality according to philosophers?

The definition of reality according to philosophers is the state or quality of being real or having actual existence. It is the existence of things as they are, independent of human perception or interpretation.

2. How do philosophers view the concept of reality?

Philosophers view reality as a complex and multifaceted concept that has been debated and explored for centuries. Some believe that reality is objective and exists independently of human perception, while others argue that reality is subjective and influenced by individual experiences and perceptions.

3. Is reality a subjective or objective concept according to philosophers?

This is a highly debated question among philosophers. Some argue that reality is objective and exists independently of human perception, while others believe that reality is subjective and influenced by individual experiences and perceptions. Ultimately, the answer may depend on one's personal beliefs and philosophical perspective.

4. How do philosophers explain the relationship between perception and reality?

Philosophers have different views on the relationship between perception and reality. Some argue that perception is the only way we can experience reality, while others believe that perception is limited and can distort our understanding of reality. Some philosophers also argue that reality is a combination of both objective and subjective elements.

5. How does the concept of reality relate to our understanding of the world?

The concept of reality is closely tied to our understanding of the world. It shapes our beliefs, perceptions, and experiences. Some philosophers argue that our understanding of reality is limited by our senses and cognitive abilities, while others believe that we can gain a deeper understanding of reality through philosophical inquiry and critical thinking.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Feedback and Announcements
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
22
Views
5K
Replies
11
Views
5K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Quantum Physics
2
Replies
43
Views
6K
  • General Discussion
Replies
18
Views
6K
Back
Top