What Is the Most Direct Proof of Reality?

[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".

 

[Alexander]

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. 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).