Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Is reality eternal?

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 12:26:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Not sure on the definition of reality. Maybe the definition of the reality I mention is that it encompasses our universe plus any extras (the past, future, other universes, transcendent objects, transcendent beings, maybe even concepts, philosophical "nothingness", anything that could be and anything that couldn't be). Maybe just reality as in existence. In any case, it is at least as great as the universe, and greater than the universe if possible.

Is it eternal?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 2:58:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think your question can be answered without a Theory of Everything. Depending on which one you believe in reality could be eternal, but it also might not.

What we consider to be reality might not even exist too so the question might also be irrelevant if reality doesn't exist.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/7/2013 4:01:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 2:58:55 PM, medv4380 wrote:
I don't think your question can be answered without a Theory of Everything. Depending on which one you believe in reality could be eternal, but it also might not.

What we consider to be reality might not even exist too so the question might also be irrelevant if reality doesn't exist.

If reality doesn't exist, doesn't that mean that your thoughts don't exist?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
toolpot462
Posts: 289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 3:18:43 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 4:01:47 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/7/2013 2:58:55 PM, medv4380 wrote:
I don't think your question can be answered without a Theory of Everything. Depending on which one you believe in reality could be eternal, but it also might not.

What we consider to be reality might not even exist too so the question might also be irrelevant if reality doesn't exist.

If reality doesn't exist, doesn't that mean that your thoughts don't exist?

And what exactly is problematic about that?
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and all your demons.
I'll be the one to protect you from
A will to survive and a voice of reason.
I'll be the one to protect you from
Your enemies and your choices, son.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 6:58:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/7/2013 4:01:47 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/7/2013 2:58:55 PM, medv4380 wrote:
I don't think your question can be answered without a Theory of Everything. Depending on which one you believe in reality could be eternal, but it also might not.

What we consider to be reality might not even exist too so the question might also be irrelevant if reality doesn't exist.

If reality doesn't exist, doesn't that mean that your thoughts don't exist?

Depends on your definition of reality. Reality as we define it could easily be non-existent, but your thoughts are only provably real to yourself. That doesn't mean that your thoughts couldn't be influenced by something unreal.

It comes down to an argument of Plato's Cave. What we call reality could just be shadows on the cave wall. There is a catch though. If you ever find out you're actually in a cave and Reality is something else. Can you ever be sure you've determined what reality is? Unless you actually know what reality is drawing conclusion on it could be problematic.

The solution is the Realism Assumption, and to just accept what we see and hear must be real. But it's only an assumption to make things easier to work with.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 8:10:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 3:18:43 AM, toolpot462 wrote:
At 6/7/2013 4:01:47 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/7/2013 2:58:55 PM, medv4380 wrote:
I don't think your question can be answered without a Theory of Everything. Depending on which one you believe in reality could be eternal, but it also might not.

What we consider to be reality might not even exist too so the question might also be irrelevant if reality doesn't exist.

If reality doesn't exist, doesn't that mean that your thoughts don't exist?

And what exactly is problematic about that?

It seems self-evident to me that my thoughts exist, so it is problematic to me. Doesn't it seem self-evident to you that your thoughts exist? And if something exists, so does reality. Problem? Yes, it appears so.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 8:15:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 6:58:33 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 6/7/2013 4:01:47 PM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
At 6/7/2013 2:58:55 PM, medv4380 wrote:
I don't think your question can be answered without a Theory of Everything. Depending on which one you believe in reality could be eternal, but it also might not.

What we consider to be reality might not even exist too so the question might also be irrelevant if reality doesn't exist.

If reality doesn't exist, doesn't that mean that your thoughts don't exist?

Depends on your definition of reality. Reality as we define it could easily be non-existent, but your thoughts are only provably real to yourself. That doesn't mean that your thoughts couldn't be influenced by something unreal.

It comes down to an argument of Plato's Cave. What we call reality could just be shadows on the cave wall. There is a catch though. If you ever find out you're actually in a cave and Reality is something else. Can you ever be sure you've determined what reality is? Unless you actually know what reality is drawing conclusion on it could be problematic.

The solution is the Realism Assumption, and to just accept what we see and hear must be real. But it's only an assumption to make things easier to work with.

Who's we? To me if anything exists, then it is encompassed as a sub-set of reality. The shadows themselves are evidence of existence. Just because we might not know the nature of reality doesn't mean we can't believe that it exists.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Zach5714
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 8:35:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Please correct me if this is off topic, but isn't " reality" simply based on shared experience. The only reason we know something is what it is because our sensory system allows us to perceive things nearly universally. Though there are always exceptions to that as a result of sensory and psychological barriers that prevent some from perceiving things the way the majority perceives it.
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 9:32:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 8:35:48 PM, Zach5714 wrote:
Please correct me if this is off topic, but isn't " reality" simply based on shared experience. The only reason we know something is what it is because our sensory system allows us to perceive things nearly universally. Though there are always exceptions to that as a result of sensory and psychological barriers that prevent some from perceiving things the way the majority perceives it.

That's one way of defining reality, but that would mean that reality is different for someone who is color blind, or blind. That also excludes things that our senses can't detect, but we consider to be real. Is infer red and ultra violet any less real just because we cannot sense them ourselves?

One way of looking at it is that reality can be subjective for each participant. For example, QM allows for the possibility that each and ever particle can have its own individual reality. If particles are permitted to have different realities what are we?

Most realism definitions of reality require that reality for each and every participant is the same even if they do not have the senses to experience it the same. However, that might not be the case.
Zach5714
Posts: 34
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/8/2013 10:33:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 9:32:23 PM, medv4380 wrote:
At 6/8/2013 8:35:48 PM, Zach5714 wrote:
Please correct me if this is off topic, but isn't " reality" simply based on shared experience. The only reason we know something is what it is because our sensory system allows us to perceive things nearly universally. Though there are always exceptions to that as a result of sensory and psychological barriers that prevent some from perceiving things the way the majority perceives it.

That's one way of defining reality, but that would mean that reality is different for someone who is color blind, or blind. That also excludes things that our senses can't detect, but we consider to be real. Is infer red and ultra violet any less real just because we cannot sense them ourselves?

One way of looking at it is that reality can be subjective for each participant. For example, QM allows for the possibility that each and ever particle can have its own individual reality. If particles are permitted to have different realities what are we?

Most realism definitions of reality require that reality for each and every participant is the same even if they do not have the senses to experience it the same. However, that might not be the case.

Perhaps saying that a combination of both is a more accurate representation. In a sense we make up what is real around us based on both environmental and our own perception on the world around us. I am fine with also saying that simply perhaps we are incapable of say with certainty what reality is.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 7:57:44 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
So out of everyone who talks about B-time and quantum theories, no one has anything to say about whether reality may or may not be eternal?
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
medv4380
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/9/2013 11:13:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/8/2013 10:33:31 PM, Zach5714 wrote:
Perhaps saying that a combination of both is a more accurate representation. In a sense we make up what is real around us based on both environmental and our own perception on the world around us. I am fine with also saying that simply perhaps we are incapable of say with certainty what reality is.

I'd agree that some combination is the more likely answer, and that everyone is, at this point in time, incapable of clearly stating what reality is without certain assumptions. It makes answering questions about reality fairly difficult.