Total Posts:11|Showing Posts:1-11
Jump to topic:

Is there an absolute reality?

Phaio
Posts: 1
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 1:56:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The reality one experiences is created in one's mind. So everything one assumes to be reality is just the real world filtered by one's senses. This is what Charles Sanders Peirce calls the "phaneron" (greek for visible).
The question now is what reality would look like if it wasn't filtered. Is there an absolute reality?
If so, there must also be an absolute creature being able to experience this reality. Otherwise no one or nothing would see it and therefore it wouldn't exist, or would it?

What do you guys think?
"Cogito ergo sum" - Descartes
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 3:02:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It seems evident that time and space, as well as matter (and probably energy) are abstracts of our mind. It's hard to say how reality actually exists (if it does exist) if for no other reason than we are only able to think of things in terms of 4-dimensional space-time. Unconsciously, I would wager that the most distant quasars are no farther than the palm of my hand.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Such
Posts: 1,110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 4:17:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 1:56:20 PM, Phaio wrote:
The reality one experiences is created in one's mind. So everything one assumes to be reality is just the real world filtered by one's senses. This is what Charles Sanders Peirce calls the "phaneron" (greek for visible).
The question now is what reality would look like if it wasn't filtered. Is there an absolute reality?
If so, there must also be an absolute creature being able to experience this reality. Otherwise no one or nothing would see it and therefore it wouldn't exist, or would it?


What do you guys think?

If reality weren't filtered, how would it look? That actually doesn't make sense, if you think about it -- to imagine how it would look, you would have to imagine seeing it, and to imagine seeing it, it would have to be filtered.

I think your question is, to some degree, the overarching question of the physical sciences. We wouldn't have an actual visual representation (well, not a meaningful one, anyway, but perhaps an analogous one to help conceptualize what we've discovered), but we would have some general conception of what the Universe is really like.

On the other hand, I disagree that there must be some creature that is able to detect "absolute reality." But, would that mean that it doesn't exist?

No, I would say that it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In other words, that "absolute reality" exists, whether or not its perceived in its entirety, inasmuch as colors for ultraviolet and infrared exist even though humans can't detect them (as we eventually discovered that animals like the rainbow shrimp can).

That relates to the thought experiment, "If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound?"

Koans are framed the same way.

They're basically unfalsifiable questions, but logically, you know that yes, it does. Of course a tree falling in an empty forest makes a sound, although you, nor I, will never know for sure.
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,730
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 5:41:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 4:17:45 PM, Such wrote:

If reality weren't filtered, how would it look? That actually doesn't make sense, if you think about it -- to imagine how it would look, you would have to imagine seeing it, and to imagine seeing it, it would have to be filtered.

Agreed.

I think your question is, to some degree, the overarching question of the physical sciences. We wouldn't have an actual visual representation (well, not a meaningful one, anyway, but perhaps an analogous one to help conceptualize what we've discovered), but we would have some general conception of what the Universe is really like.

On the other hand, I disagree that there must be some creature that is able to detect "absolute reality." But, would that mean that it doesn't exist?

No, I would say that it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In other words, that "absolute reality" exists, whether or not its perceived in its entirety, inasmuch as colors for ultraviolet and infrared exist even though humans can't detect them (as we eventually discovered that animals like the rainbow shrimp can).

That relates to the thought experiment, "If a tree falls in an empty forest, does it make a sound?"

Koans are framed the same way.

They're basically unfalsifiable questions, but logically, you know that yes, it does. Of course a tree falling in an empty forest makes a sound, although you, nor I, will never know for sure.

Well we actually do know, in the metaphorical sense at least. The laws of physics are designed that if something is inherently unobservable, then its state remains undefined.

I read about an experiment years back, where they took this particle and fed it into a tube, which fed into a chamber at the middle of the machine, and out another tube to exit. The particle was measured upon exit, because there was something about them that let them exist with 50% certainty in one of two states (the chamber did something to them to potentially change the state of them). They then did something to the chamber to seal it off from being observed, and then measured the particles coming out again. Because they weren't able to be observed in the chamber, they essentially existed as both states inside the chamber, which in turn led to all the particles coming out existing as 100% of the unchanged state as opposed to the 50% rate they were at before.

Sorry that is explained with such poor technical detail, but it was a while back, way over my head, and I haven't been able to find the study since. But in theory, it is in the same category as the double-slit experiment. Light, when passing through multiple sources, actually passes through all of them.

What I think most people don't get, is that these phenomena are not a function of our inability to measure accurate enough. They are a fundamental aspect of the universe, that information is to be censored and matter exist as probabilistic distributions. There is no actual position and velocity for particles that we could suddenly determine if we found a new smaller particle to bounce off of atoms and the like to get a more precise reading.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2014 9:14:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 1:56:20 PM, Phaio wrote:
The reality one experiences is created in one's mind. So everything one assumes to be reality is just the real world filtered by one's senses. This is what Charles Sanders Peirce calls the "phaneron" (greek for visible).
The question now is what reality would look like if it wasn't filtered. Is there an absolute reality?
If so, there must also be an absolute creature being able to experience this reality. Otherwise no one or nothing would see it and therefore it wouldn't exist, or would it?


What do you guys think?

Did natural objects exists before you were born and understand what they were or do you think all you see are not real objects but just something you created and experience in your own mind ?
If you were born blind and never saw any natural objects would they still exist and could you still experience them without actually seeing them?
Just because you cannot see something does not mean it does not exist.
PeacefulChaos
Posts: 2,610
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2014 5:19:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/26/2014 1:56:20 PM, Phaio wrote:

The question now is what reality would look like if it wasn't filtered. Is there an absolute reality?
If so, there must also be an absolute creature being able to experience this reality. Otherwise no one or nothing would see it and therefore it wouldn't exist, or would it?

If it wouldn't exist just because no one was observing it, then it wouldn't be absolute, as it would be dependent upon perception.

I think.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2014 5:51:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What would the alternate to an absolute reality be? There may be one, but I can't conceive it.
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!
sadolite
Posts: 8,836
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2014 4:24:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ya, the time clock at work.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
nicraM
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 8:18:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If we were able to perceive reality without our physical filters. I would imagine it being something like microscopic macro-globs vibrating in and out of each other. For some reason the oxymoron "infinitely finite" keeps popping up in my head, when I try to think about the concept of solidity, color, touch, sight... like I said "infinitely finite".
nicraM
Posts: 21
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/1/2014 2:59:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, when you/I die reality stops in an all encompassing sense?

What about when I go to sleep? Does it take a break?

I have a sneaking suspicion there is something there but we will never truly know because we are not evolved enough perceive it.