Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The most direct proof of reality

  1. Apr 5, 2003 #1
    1. Briefly define "reality."

    2. Is a "proof" of reality possible?

    3. Relate your most direct proof of reality.

    4. Does, or how does, that differ from a God-proof?
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 5, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !

    1. Everything I think about. Wether it is
    input from the senses or simply thoughts.

    2. No. No absolute proof is possible.

    3 - 4. Guess...:wink:

    Live long and prosper.
  4. Apr 5, 2003 #3
    1) Reality is defined by what we "perceive."

    2) The fact that I "perceive" reality will have to suffice.

    3) If I were to punch you in the nose would it hurt? Of course you may wish to "perceive" otherwise, but that's entirely up to you.

    4) If God is the reality then I should be able to "perceive" Him too.
  5. Apr 5, 2003 #4
    1) Reality is the Paradox of Existence.

    2) Yes.

    3) Reductio ad absurdum, that is, it is the height of absurdity to say "I do not exist, I am not real".

    4) It's more personal and does not require the supernatural.
  6. Apr 5, 2003 #5

    1. I define "reality" as matter in eternal motion, without begin or time. Matter and motion/change are indistinguishable. Motion does not exist without matter, matter doesn't exist without motion. Space and time are "modes of existence" of matter.

    2. This is like asking "why does something (anything at all) exist, rather then nothing". This is a peculiar question, and some ways of answering it is that the question itself is without meaning, or that it can not be answered (an question like "why is it the case that A" requires an answer of the type "because B is the case", but because of the nature of the question, we can absolutely assume nothing for any answer B, so it is unanswerable. The fact that material existence "is there" is a basic assumption, it can not be proofed. But there isn't any other viable assumption then that, other then that I assume only the existence of my own mind, and nothing else (=solipsism).

    3. See 2. And above that, I know that I exist (direct evidence), I ecperience the world, so I have to assume the existence of an outside world, which correlates to my experience of the world. When you are not caught up in circular reasoning (which redirect you that all the outside world is only established by your senses, and that the awareness of these senses is happening within my mind) you have to accept the reality of the material world.

    4. Since God is only a symbol, and may for some relate to 'mystical experience' we do not have normal perception of this higher being, it is only a construct of our mind, and not something real. God is not a normal being, in that it exist in time and space, something we can witness as material existence, it is a form of being out of time and space, so it belongs to a category of existence of the mind.
  7. Apr 5, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Greetings !
    I agree with that in this form.
    Provided I is defined as existence.
    I disagree. It's the difference between something that
    can not be disproved and something that requires

    Live long and prosper.
  8. Apr 5, 2003 #7
    (1) I am.
    if this isn't reality, then there is no reality at all.
    (2)it's originally obvious. no need to prove it.
    you could deny the validity of the words i use ("I" and "to be"), but that wouldn't prove me wrong. denying my words or even their content would cut the basis of reasonable argument.

    (x)from this own reality i can in terms of living in it, derive to a reality of world around me, our shared reality. this reality of world around me gets less obvious, the more the reality of this world around me differs from myself as a living beeing and organism. on this reality of world, i depend on a mixture of reason and experience.

    ..but i differenciate reality into
    our human reality, our world, we experience on the one hand, and
    properties or characteristics, world beyond this might have, unknown (part of ~) world. what is (not: seems) real to us needn't necessarily be essential to world as a whole.

    (4) (what's "God"? :) ) God, if ever, to me is =everything, =nature (of everything). it's a concept in my mind, a way of looking at world. i wouldn't see this as a matter of proof. (i wouldn't even call it "God". actually, i don't call anything "God"..).
  9. Apr 5, 2003 #8
    I don't define "I" as existence. However, I do conceed it may be ultimately indistinguishable from the paradox of existence.

    I don't know if the paradox of existence can be proven or disproven. However, it is self-evident and does constitute emperical evidence. Existence is the only miracle I need, and the one that makes all others possible in my life, including the possible existence of a creator. Thus, it is the most self-evident and personal and does not necessitate the supernatural, yet does not deny its possibility either.
  10. Apr 5, 2003 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member

    great thread Loren...

    1) Reality to me is what I am verify outside myself that is objective. Of course we are relying on our five senses to determine this objective reality, but what else do we as a human kindred have? Reality stretches as far as our senses allow to go. If a blind person is able to hear a dog barking, and I am able to see the dog barking but have a loss of hearing, most likely the dog is REALLY barking.

    As for pain, that is something felt, the degree of pain I experience is subjective depending on my own ability of handling it. Although it certainly feels real, when you take a pain killer, it is no longer there.

    2) Proof of reality is what more then 1 person can verify together as consistent outside of themselves. If you, me and Jill see a pink spotted pygmy goat chomping on the dandelions, (assuming that hallucinogenics and other medications are not involved), we can all three verify that it is real. The more people you have to verify reality, the more reliable the proof.

    3) My most direct proof of reality? Raising 2 young children.

    4) God-proof? I believe our intuition, intelligence, and instinct is equivalent to "God", and this is what we are relying upon to verify reality.

  11. Apr 5, 2003 #10
    Nice thread, Loren.

    "Reality" would be the state of existing. IOW, there is nothing that isn't real, because even if it doesn't physically exist, it can conceptually exist, and is thus real

    I think so. (Let's see who catches what I meant by this statement).

    Do you mean proof of their being a reality at all?

    I guess I'd have to understand question #3 better, before I can answer this question.
  12. Apr 5, 2003 #11
    What dog? What Universe?

    Some seek "God". Others ask "What PROOF that God exists."

    Others can't even bring themselves to say that the Universe Itself exists!

    Some people don't even think THEY exist!

    How does one hold a discussion with people who are chasing their tails?

    "Reality" can never be fully known by any one person (I think), but that doesn't mean that NOTHING EXISTS!

    From our (human) standpoint, reality is mostly PERCEPTION...the stories we tell ourselves about what is and what happens.

    It's, of course, ALL THEORY...but it's the Best Game In Town...short of evolution itself.

    Those who observe that we CAN'T KNOW are conversation-stoppers. Only the conscious Universe can know fully what It is...and It's "knowing" in part comes from thought and discourse among the sentient beings It has bothered to generate within Itself.
  13. Apr 5, 2003 #12
    Accurate definition requires reason. The definition of reality is a definition of reality's source - its absolute-source. Thus, any definitions of reality must be of absolute-reason.
    Absolute-logic is possible, yes.
    I abstain.
    It doesn't.
  14. Apr 5, 2003 #13
    Those who reject absurdity or anything else for that matter are conversation stoppers. Those who observe, such as scientists and philosophers, generate conversation.
  15. Apr 5, 2003 #14
    Touche' Wuli

    I reject absurdity, too...and so have stopped many a conversation myself.

    The only absurdities I don't seem to reject are my OWN.

    Will be back to see if you're including MY thoughts in that category.

    Meanwhile, I'm screamin' and shoutin' like mad!

    Gotta go.
  16. Apr 5, 2003 #15
    Re: What dog? What Universe?

    Abstain from using the word, "Theory", in this manner. I assume you meant "speculation", but the use of the word "theory" confuses the issue.
  17. Apr 5, 2003 #16

    I'm willing to do that if you will briefly offer the distinction speculation and theory (tho I could guess what you're about to say... and probably AGREE with you). Thanks.
  18. Apr 5, 2003 #17
    Re: Mentat...

    It's just a little pet peeve of mine, so I thank you for listening.

    "Theory" is the last step of the Scientific Method, after the hypothesis (or speculation) has been rigorously tested by experimentation.
  19. Apr 5, 2003 #18

    Any ideas how one might go about "proving" that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity? Give me a push.....
  20. Apr 5, 2003 #19
    Re: Mentat...

    Who said anything about it being living, or conscious?
  21. Apr 5, 2003 #20
    Re: Mentat...

    Start a thread then, I think this question is off-topic, as far as this thread goes.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook