What Is the Most Direct Proof of Reality?

[Loren Booda]

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?

 

[drag]

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...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Iacchus32]

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.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
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?

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.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by wuliheron
1) Reality is the Paradox of Existence.

2) Yes.

I agree with that in this form.

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

Provided I is defined as existence.

Originally posted by wuliheron
4) It's more personal and does not require the supernatural.

I disagree. It's the difference between something that
can not be disproved and something that requires
proof.

Live long and prosper.

 

[roeighty]

(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"..).

 

[wuliheron]

Provided I is defined as existence.

I don't define "I" as existence. However, I do conceed it may be ultimately indistinguishable from the paradox of existence.

I disagree. It's [#4] the difference between something that
can not be disproved and something that requires
proof.

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.

 

[Kerrie]

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.


3)

 

[Mentat]

Nice thread, Loren.

Originally posted by Loren Booda
1. Briefly define "reality."

"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

2. Is a "proof" of reality possible?

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

3. Relate your most direct proof of reality.

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

4. Does, or how does, that differ from a God-proof?

I guess I'd have to understand question #3 better, before I can answer this question.

 

[M. Gaspar]

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 anyone 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.

 

[Lifegazer]

1. Briefly define "reality."

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.

2. Is a "proof" of reality possible?

Absolute-logic is possible, yes.

3. Relate your most direct proof of reality.

I abstain.

4. Does, or how does, that differ from a God-proof?

It doesn't.

 

[wuliheron]

"Reality" can never be fully known by anyone 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.

Those who reject absurdity or anything else for that matter are conversation stoppers. Those who observe, such as scientists and philosophers, generate conversation.

 

[M. Gaspar]

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.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar

It's, of course, ALL THEORY...

Abstain from using the word, "Theory", in this manner. I assume you meant "speculation", but the use of the word "theory" confuses the issue.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

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.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
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.

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.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

Any ideas how one might go about "proving" that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity? Give me a push...

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Any ideas how one might go about "proving" that the Universe is a living, conscious Entity? Give me a push...

Who said anything about it being living, or conscious?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Me.

Start a thread then, I think this question is off-topic, as far as this thread goes.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Who said anything about it being living, or conscious?

'The Universe' is existant. And, at some levels at least, it is aware.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

Done.

 

[Loren Booda]

Mentat

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Relate your most direct proof of reality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

More like proof of there being a reality at all, derived from one's most pervasive experience with it.

 

[wuliheron]

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.

Don't forget to run in circles! That's half the fun. :0)

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
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.

The way we as humans can think and reason about existence does not provide for the ability for absolute reasons. We can and never will establish absolute reason, which doesn't mean our way of reasoning isn't any good or can't progress, just that it isn't and can't be absolute. It would require us to reason outside of our own existence, which is clearly impossible. Our form of reason is determined by our "human-ness".
The thinking about God is a form of absolute, and therefore absurd reasonings, and clearly a "proof of God" is not to be taken to reemble a proof of reality, cause there is nothing beyond or besides reality.

 

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
The way we as humans can think and reason about existence does not provide for the ability for absolute reasons.

I disagree. The Reason of the Whole is quite clearly gleaned from an analysis of its parts.
For example: All 'parts' of existence are caused by something-else within that existence. And since 'nothing' can be a cause for (nor an abode of) any future-state of existence, we can quite reasonably state that the Whole is itself without cause, and hence eternal.
... I see nothing to discredit such an example of absolute-reason. You may argue about the 'substance' of that whole. However, this does not detract from the fact that the whole is eternal, whatever it may be.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I disagree. The Reason of the Whole is quite clearly gleaned from an analysis of its parts.
For example: All 'parts' of existence are caused by something-else within that existence. And since 'nothing' can be a cause for (nor an abode of) any future-state of existence, we can quite reasonably state that the Whole is itself without cause, and hence eternal.
... I see nothing to discredit such an example of absolute-reason. You may argue about the 'substance' of that whole. However, this does not detract from the fact that the whole is eternal, whatever it may be.

This kind of reason I have presented you a number of times, but in other post you seem to argue against this, cause you don't accept the consequence of infinite time for example.

What you have pointed out though is that there is a contradiction in the way the world exists, and the world could not go without it.

So the only way we can reason about the world, is in terms of dialectical reasoning. But I would not call that "absolute" reasoning.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
'The Universe' is existant. And, at some levels at least, it is aware.

I don't like when people talk about the universe as though it were one entity (and, of course, I am doing so right now - for the purpose of making my point), "it" is, in fact, a collection of all entities. So, perhaps, you shouldn't speak of "it" (the collection of everything) as being aware at some levels, but many of the things in it are aware.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Done.

You are a scholar and a gentleman (except on the chance that you are female, in which case "... a lady").

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
MentatMore like proof of there being a reality at all, derived from one's most pervasive experience with it.

Well, proof of their being a reality is that I exist (see "I think therefore I am", before trying to prove that I don't exist), and I experience things, so obviously there is a reality. Whether that "reality" is just subjective, or whether there is actually something objective, is a subject of "lifegazer-ish" discussion. Whether it (reality/existence) is logical/rational, is the subject of many Wu Li-ish discussions.

 

[wuliheron]

Well, proof of their being a reality is that I exist (see "I think therefore I am", before trying to prove that I don't exist), and I experience things, so obviously there is a reality. Whether that "reality" is just subjective, or whether there is actually something objective, is a subject of "lifegazer-ish" discussion. Whether it (reality/existence) is logical/rational, is the subject of many Wu Li-ish discussions.

I stink, therefore I am.

A La Carte

Great behinds stink alike.

De Carte

Stink and be happy!

annonymous

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
I stink, therefore I am.

A La Carte

Great behinds stink alike.

De Carte

Stink and be happy!

annonymous

You sicken me (sometimes).

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

I'm a gentleman (or lady) on THIS thread...and a bum on another!

Let me become a bum here, too.

Mentat: We're you just arguing with me on another thread that the universe does NOT tend toward coherency...and then you say It's a collection of all entities. Don't you think the "collection" is sort of COHERENT?

Are your pieces flying off? Mine aren't. Oh, maybe some dead skin or some energy here and there, but mostly, I'm holding up pretty well.

So is the planet (so far). And the sun. And the galaxy. Etc.

They are look pretty COHERENT to me.

Just what about coherency troubles you?

Finally (I don't really mean that), I regret that you don't like it when people speak of the Universe as ONE ENTITY. But let's face it: If my definition of the Universe is (among other things) "Everything That IS ..then even other dimensions and so-called "other universes" would be part of the Entity that is Everything That IS.

 

[newton1]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
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?

no...briefly is not reality
i tell a story from the buddhism...
3 poor litter boy go to buy a oil...they undergo the same thing
when they take back the oil, they fall down
and the oil is flow out...
the first boy back home and cry...this call pessimistic
the second boy just laughing and feel nothing...this call optimistic
the last boy back home and tell her family the true and say he will go to working and earn a money to get back the oil...this call realistic...

 

[M. Gaspar]

Cute story, Newton, but...

"Realistic" is an adjective that might describe the boys attitude about what needs to be done to replace the oil.

"Reality" is a noun that refers to what is REAL or what actually EXISTS... as opposed to what may be "just in our heads."

English is tricky. Be careful. You may spill your oil.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
I'm a gentleman (or lady) on THIS thread...and a bum on another!

Let me become a bum here, too.

Mentat: We're you just arguing with me on another thread that the universe does NOT tend toward coherency...and then you say It's a collection of all entities. Don't you think the "collection" is sort of COHERENT?

First off, what I say in one thread, does not carry into another thread.

Besides, I said it was a collection of all entities. I didn't say that these entities didn't tend toward disorder.

Are your pieces flying off? Mine aren't. Oh, maybe some dead skin or some energy here and there, but mostly, I'm holding up pretty well.

When was the last time you used the bathroom (rhetorical question)?
You are constantly destroying Earthly resources, and using them as fuel for yourself. You will eventually die. All of this is in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

So is the planet (so far). And the sun. And the galaxy. Etc.

They are look pretty COHERENT to me.

Just what about coherency troubles you?

I'm not saying that there is not coherency, I'm saying that the level of disorder is increasing, not decreasing, as you seem to think.

Finally (I don't really mean that), I regret that you don't like it when people speak of the Universe as ONE ENTITY. But let's face it: If my definition of the Universe is (among other things) "Everything That IS ..then even other dimensions and so-called "other universes" would be part of the Entity that is Everything That IS.

There are no "other universes". Just put "everythings" in the place of "universes". "Universe" means "everything", and there cannot be more than one "everything".

 

[M. Gaspar]

Are you saying, Mentat...

that DISorder in the Universe is INCREASING overall?

Are you saying that all the relatively "stable" systems -- like atoms, and stars, and galaxies, and us...that these relatively stable and effectively coherent systems do NOT outway the disorder caused by whatever dynamics?

On one of these threads someone used an example of a broken cup and how it was highly unlikely that it would come together again. MY point is, however, that something ELSE will EVENTUALLY be made from the pieces (and I'm talking about atoms here) OVER TIME...and if that's not a tendency toward ORDER, I don't know what is.

As Carl Sagan once said "We are made of starstuff"...the debris from exploding stars! How likely is THAT?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
that DISorder in the Universe is INCREASING overall?

Are you saying that all the relatively "stable" systems -- like atoms, and stars, and galaxies, and us...that these relatively stable and effectively coherent systems do NOT outway the disorder caused by whatever dynamics?

That's exactly what I'm saying. Every time one of these is formed, an amount of heat (disorder) is given off that outweighs the amount of cooling (order) that originally emerged.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat...

So you're saying that more matter is turning into energy then visa versa. Does this mean that, eventually, all matter will turn into energy?

Does this, in any way, explain (or, at least, reflect on) the "fact" that there is thought to be more "Dark Energy" than "Dark Matter" in the Universe.

Did matter "freeze out" of the early energy of the Universe, and is now "heating back"?

AND EVEN IF WHAT YOU SAY IS CORRECT, doesn't that fact that there are BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of coherent chunks of matter suggest that it is a NATURAL TENDENCY of the Universe to bring things into ORDER...even if its only TEMPORARILLY?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
So you're saying that more matter is turning into energy then visa versa. Does this mean that, eventually, all matter will turn into energy?

Does this, in any way, explain (or, at least, reflect on) the "fact" that there is thought to be more "Dark Energy" than "Dark Matter" in the Universe.

Did matter "freeze out" of the early energy of the Universe, and is now "heating back"?

AND EVEN IF WHAT YOU SAY IS CORRECT, doesn't that fact that there are BILLIONS AND BILLIONS of coherent chunks of matter suggest that it is a NATURAL TENDENCY of the Universe to bring things into ORDER...even if its only TEMPORARILLY?

All of your questions are up to speculation, except for the last one - which I will now answer...

NO!

You keep asking/implying the same thing, but the answer is NO. It means that the universe's natural tendency is to disorder, which is why it brings things together (to cause more disorder altogether).

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat, how about this...

Let's say you have an oyster, and inside the oyster is a lot of "stuff"...sand, salt water, the slimey oyster itself, and the pearl.

Now, the pearl is, percentage wise, a small part of the contents of the oyster's shell...but does this mean that the oyster does not have a NATURAL TENDENCY to PRODUCE PEARLS!

Take a look around! Look into the mirror. That's a lot of COHERENCY for an "Entity" that doesn't tend toward ORDER.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
Let's say you have an oyster, and inside the oyster is a lot of "stuff"...sand, salt water, the slimey oyster itself, and the pearl.

Now, the pearl is, percentage wise, a small part of the contents of the oyster's shell...but does this mean that the oyster does not have a NATURAL TENDENCY to PRODUCE PEARLS!

Take a look around! Look into the mirror. That's a lot of COHERENCY for an "Entity" that doesn't tend toward ORDER.

Wow, you really are missing it, aren't you?

Let me spell it out for you here (no offense):

1) Every perceived "order" gives rise to even greater actual disorder.

2) The universe tends toward disorder.

3) In order to attain this disorder, it has to make "clumps" of perceived "order", because of point #1.

Now, honestly, what could be so confusing about that?

 

[M. Gaspar]

I'm astounded myself...

...that someone could look at the sheer number of extremely complex and dynamic COHESIVE systems that the Universe has given rise to...and focuses on the BY-PRODUCTS of producing them!

No offence taken.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
...that someone could look at the sheer number of extremely complex and dynamic COHESIVE systems that the Universe has given rise to...and focuses on the BY-PRODUCTS of producing them!

No offence taken.

Ah-ha! You have hit the crux of the matter. The "cohesive" systems are the by-products, not the disorder (which is what the universe is "trying" to attain)! It is you who are focusing on the by-product.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat..

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater...


The Universe goes through all this trouble to produce COHERENT CHUNKS OF MATTER -- from subatomic though galactic and beyond (and all the living and sentient, complex creatures in between) -- an someone finds THESE to be the "waste products" of a Universe that's really out to scramble itself up!

I think we've reached an impass here with that one.

And I suppose it's a bit "off topic"...as it doesn't seek prove or disprove "reality".

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
The Universe goes through all this trouble to produce COHERENT CHUNKS OF MATTER...

Is this what's keeping you from understanding my side of the argument? The path of least resistance is that which produces greater disorder. Thus, the production of disorder is "easy" (and thus inevitable) for the universe. These "COHERENT CHUNKS OF MATTER" are by-products, and there is no "effort" required to bring them together.

 

[M. Gaspar]

Mentat, please...!

The fact that a "manufacturer" EASILY produces a lot of garbage does not negate the fact that it tends to produce its product(s).

I DO somewhat agree with you -- although I wouldn't call it "effortless" -- that the Universe, through natural forces and inherent ingredients -- produces It's product(s) quite NATURALLY.

Still, the fact that an artist paints beautiful works with EASE is no reason to look away from the masterpiece(s) and focus on the paint on the floor...and then exclaim that the artist's natural tendency is to make a mess, rather than create something wonderful.

Are we there yet?

 

[M. Gaspar]

Originally posted by Mentat
Is this what's keeping you from understanding my side of the argument? The path of least resistance is that which produces greater disorder. Thus, the production of disorder is "easy" (and thus inevitable) for the universe. These "COHERENT CHUNKS OF MATTER" are by-products, and there is no "effort" required to bring them together.

When WATER takes the path of least resistance, doesn't it usually form a "coherent stream"?

 

[arivero]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
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?

1) Reality is a common consensus, or allucination if you prefer, derived from language.
2) Yes
3) I speak (actually, I am writting).
4) God is One and Above, all-pervading. Langauge could be One in a sense of universar grammar, but then there are specific grammars, and fundamentally there is the question of vocabulary: it is neither public nor private, it is neither common nor personal.

4') It relates to the esoteric interpretations of St John, where the "logos" incarnates. BUt it is no so pathetic as the evangelia are.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by M. Gaspar
The fact that a "manufacturer" EASILY produces a lot of garbage does not negate the fact that it tends to produce its product(s).

I DO somewhat agree with you -- although I wouldn't call it "effortless" -- that the Universe, through natural forces and inherent ingredients -- produces It's product(s) quite NATURALLY.

Still, the fact that an artist paints beautiful works with EASE is no reason to look away from the masterpiece(s) and focus on the paint on the floor...and then exclaim that the artist's natural tendency is to make a mess, rather than create something wonderful.

Are we there yet?

You are still missing the point. The fact that you use an artist as an illustration, to describe the universe, shows that you cannot seem to leave your conception of the universe as being a conscious entity. When I tell you about the Second Law of Thermodynamics, I'm not telling you that the universe "tries" to achieve levels of greater disorder. I'm telling you that the universe would have to "try", in order to get higher levels of order, and thus the fact that it is tending toward disorder shows that it isn't "trying".