- #31
wuliheron
- 2,149
- 0
I stink, therefore I am.
A La Carte
Great behinds stink alike.
De Carte
Stink and be happy!
annonymous
What Is the Most Direct Proof of Reality?
- Thread starter Loren Booda
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Direct proof Proof Reality
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion revolves around the concept of "reality," exploring its definition, the possibility of proving its existence, and how such proof might differ from proofs of a deity. Participants share personal interpretations and experiences related to reality, engaging in philosophical reasoning and subjective perspectives.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Conceptual clarification
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- Some participants define "reality" as what is perceived, suggesting that perception itself is sufficient to establish reality.
- Others argue that absolute proof of reality is impossible, with some suggesting that the question of existence itself may be unanswerable.
- A participant proposes that reality is a paradox of existence, asserting that denying one's existence is absurd.
- Another viewpoint suggests that reality is defined by objective verification through shared experiences, such as multiple observers confirming an event.
- Some participants differentiate between personal reality and a broader, possibly unknowable reality, indicating that what is real to individuals may not encompass the entirety of existence.
- There are discussions about the nature of God, with some suggesting that God is a construct of the mind and not subject to the same proofs as material reality.
- One participant mentions that the experience of pain is subjective, yet it is a part of their reality, highlighting the interplay between personal experience and objective reality.
- Several participants express uncertainty about the nature of existence and the limits of human understanding regarding reality.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a range of views on the definition and proof of reality, with no consensus reached. Multiple competing perspectives remain, particularly regarding the relationship between reality and the concept of God.
Contextual Notes
Some limitations in the discussion include differing definitions of "reality," the subjective nature of personal experiences, and unresolved philosophical questions about existence and perception.
Who May Find This Useful
This discussion may be of interest to those exploring philosophical questions about existence, perception, and the nature of reality, as well as individuals interested in the intersection of personal experience and objective verification.
I stink, therefore I am.
A La Carte
Great behinds stink alike.
De Carte
Stink and be happy!
annonymous
- #32
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
You sicken me (sometimes).
- #33
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
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.
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.
- #34
newton1
- 151
- 0
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...
- #35
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
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.
"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.
- #36
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
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.
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.
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.
There are no "other universes". Just put "everythings" in the place of "universes". "Universe" means "everything", and there cannot be more than one "everything".
- #37
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
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?
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?
- #38
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
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.
- #39
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
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?
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?
- #40
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
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).
- #41
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
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.
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.
- #42
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
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?
- #43
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
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.
...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.
- #44
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
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.
- #45
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
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".
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".
- #46
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
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.
- #47
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
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?
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?
- #48
M. Gaspar
- 679
- 1
When WATER takes the path of least resistance, doesn't it usually form a "coherent stream"?
- #49
arivero
Gold Member
- 3,481
- 187
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. language 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.
- #50
Mentat
- 3,935
- 3
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".
- #51
Alexander
1. Bunch of objectively observed facts (objectively = using independent from senses observers - like meter sticks, thermometers, stopwatchs, voltmeters, spectrometers, balances, etc).
2. Yes. Observe more and more facts.
3. See # 2.
4. Define God and use # 2 (observe facts). This immediately results in no Gods. (Unless you define God in non-orthodox manner: say, as "non-observable, never interacting with universe entity". But if you define God(s) this way, it then contradicts with all religions - thus such definition is NOT definition of God).