Is our understanding of reality limited by our reliance on logic?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion explores the limitations of human understanding of reality, particularly in relation to the reliance on logic. Participants reflect on the nature of dreams and their inconsistencies, questioning whether similar inconsistencies exist in our waking reality. The conversation touches on philosophical implications of perception, reality, and the nature of knowledge.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that while dreaming, inconsistencies and paradoxes are not noticed, raising the question of whether similar unnoticed inconsistencies exist in waking reality.
  • Another participant references a movie about simulated realities, arguing that it is impossible to know for certain what is real, as our perception may be fundamentally flawed.
  • A third participant introduces the concept of Methodological Naturalism, stating that it does not rule out inconsistencies but acknowledges that the consistent logical reality is the only one experienced so far.
  • Further clarification is provided that logical impossibilities could be occurring in our experiences, similar to how they manifest in dreams, but may go unnoticed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of reality and the role of logic, with no consensus reached on whether our understanding is fundamentally limited or if inconsistencies are present in our experiences.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the potential for unnoticed logical inconsistencies in both dreams and waking life, but do not resolve the implications of these observations on the nature of reality.

Sikz
Messages
245
Reaction score
0
Dreams flow illogicly, odd and inconsistent things often occur within them. We only notice this, however, when we are awake; during sleep the inconsistencies and paradoxes merge together and remain undetected- which one might consider nonexistant.

We base our science and understanding on logic. We find a way for things to fit together without contradiction or paradox. But... What makes us so sure that things do fit together like that? There could be inconsistencies and impossibilities going on constantly. If we can be unaware of them in a dream (and in a dream, mind you, we are conscious; we experience and learn consciously, if not in the same way as we do when awake), why couldn't we be unaware of them in reality? There are many ideas which seem to have supporting evidence but are contradictory. Maybe we're reaching the point in our knowledge of the universe that we can no longer fit all of the complex truths into our "logic"- maybe it is our creation and it is flawed, or maybe it is not flawed at all yet doesn't always hold true... It seems possible, doesn't it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
This reminds me of the movie "The Thirteenth Floor" where there was a population living in a city. One member one day found out that his world is not real and he is just a computer simulation and that all of his environment were just computer simulations. He was told that the computer simulation was created by someone in the "real" world. Well, the person in the "real" world who made the original computer simulation soon found out that his world was not real also but was running on a higher level computer.

The point being, how can we ever know for sure what is real and what isn't? I don't think we can. When we asleep, we think our dream worlds are completely real, most of us have no idea it's a fake world (unless you can engage in lucent dreaming). So, for all we know, our current world can all be fake.

Carlos Hernandez
 
Originally posted by Sikz
But... What makes us so sure that things do fit together like that? There could be inconsistencies and impossibilities going on constantly.
Most people adopt Methodological Naturalism. It doesn't rule out anything inconsistant or impossible, it merely notes that this is the "consistent logical reality" is the only one we have experienced so far.
 
Most people adopt Methodological Naturalism. It doesn't rule out anything inconsistant or impossible, it merely notes that this is the "consistent logical reality" is the only one we have experienced so far.

I didn't mean to imply that logical impossiblities happen that we havn't experienced; what I was trying to say was that logical impossibilities could be happening that we DO experience but don't notice, just as in a dream there are numerous such things that make perfect sense while you are in the dream. The flow of the dream's "plot", the dream's "reality" is consistent and unbroken, but when you wake up and examine the dream objectively and from outside of its confines you find obvious and blatant impossibilities and paradoxes.
 

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
24K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
56
Views
12K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K