Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

There is only one reality

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 2:46:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 2:44:01 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Otherwise known as A=A

Well yes, the fact that there is only one reality is implicit in the definition of "reality".
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 9:19:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 2:46:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/19/2014 2:44:01 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Otherwise known as A=A

Well yes, the fact that there is only one reality is implicit in the definition of "reality".

So, I see you're saying there is a difference in reality and then saying there is no difference. Am I correct?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 9:24:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 9:19:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/19/2014 2:46:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/19/2014 2:44:01 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Otherwise known as A=A

Well yes, the fact that there is only one reality is implicit in the definition of "reality".

So, I see you're saying there is a difference in reality and then saying there is no difference. Am I correct?

Can you clarify what you mean?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2014 9:44:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 9:24:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/19/2014 9:19:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/19/2014 2:46:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/19/2014 2:44:01 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Otherwise known as A=A

Well yes, the fact that there is only one reality is implicit in the definition of "reality".

So, I see you're saying there is a difference in reality and then saying there is no difference. Am I correct?

Can you clarify what you mean?

In the diagram, it says real object one does not equal real object two, which is equivalent to a real difference, or difference in reality. Then, you go on to agree with the fact (A = A), which is equivalent to no difference.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 10:54:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 9:44:10 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/19/2014 9:24:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/19/2014 9:19:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/19/2014 2:46:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/19/2014 2:44:01 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Otherwise known as A=A

Well yes, the fact that there is only one reality is implicit in the definition of "reality".

So, I see you're saying there is a difference in reality and then saying there is no difference. Am I correct?

Can you clarify what you mean?

In the diagram, it says real object one does not equal real object two, which is equivalent to a real difference, or difference in reality. Then, you go on to agree with the fact (A = A), which is equivalent to no difference.

Only in the sense that reality is not different from reality.
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Posts: 2,744
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:08:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

You won't be wondering unknowing if you repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, you will be saved from Hell.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:39:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Only in the sense that reality is not different from reality.

Real object one is real; it is reality; real object two is real; it is reality. Yet, they are both really different; they are different realities.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 11:56:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 11:39:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Only in the sense that reality is not different from reality.

Real object one is real; it is reality; real object two is real; it is reality. Yet, they are both really different; they are different realities.

Reality means "everything that exists". Since neither object is the other object, they are not "reality". They are merely different aspects of one and the same reality.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:44:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 11:56:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:39:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Only in the sense that reality is not different from reality.

Real object one is real; it is reality; real object two is real; it is reality. Yet, they are both really different; they are different realities.

Reality means "everything that exists". Since neither object is the other object, they are not "reality". They are merely different aspects of one and the same reality.

According to Wiktionary, reality is, "(t)he state of being actual or real."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 12:47:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 12:44:50 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:56:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:39:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Only in the sense that reality is not different from reality.

Real object one is real; it is reality; real object two is real; it is reality. Yet, they are both really different; they are different realities.

Reality means "everything that exists". Since neither object is the other object, they are not "reality". They are merely different aspects of one and the same reality.

According to Wiktionary, reality is, "(t)he state of being actual or real."

And? That's not how I'm using the term, and my statements are what you're referring to. One of reality's definitions is " the totality of real things and events".
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 1:37:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 12:47:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:44:50 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:56:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:39:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Only in the sense that reality is not different from reality.

Real object one is real; it is reality; real object two is real; it is reality. Yet, they are both really different; they are different realities.

Reality means "everything that exists". Since neither object is the other object, they are not "reality". They are merely different aspects of one and the same reality.

According to Wiktionary, reality is, "(t)he state of being actual or real."

And? That's not how I'm using the term, and my statements are what you're referring to. One of reality's definitions is " the totality of real things and events".

The fact its meaning is relative is proof positive it has different meanings. If you say reality is not different and then describe it in different terms, that's a contradiction.
Lukas8
Posts: 31
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 1:40:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hmmm, the question depends a lot on facts. Lets say that we have an A in an A, than the only reality is A'=A. But the reality gets more fetched in the farest distance lets say this like this:
A' in A near
A' with b. in A
A' with b. in A
A' with B b. in A and
A" with "-or more? in A. far.
But what if the infinite reality is in a infinite illusion of 4D space like the multiverse theory and the over-reality with having no reality pi=? and the smaller realities inside it,with different properties (pi=0.11112,pi=3,14...).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 1:47:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 1:37:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:47:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:44:50 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:56:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:39:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Only in the sense that reality is not different from reality.

Real object one is real; it is reality; real object two is real; it is reality. Yet, they are both really different; they are different realities.

Reality means "everything that exists". Since neither object is the other object, they are not "reality". They are merely different aspects of one and the same reality.

According to Wiktionary, reality is, "(t)he state of being actual or real."

And? That's not how I'm using the term, and my statements are what you're referring to. One of reality's definitions is " the totality of real things and events".

The fact its meaning is relative is proof positive it has different meanings. If you say reality is not different and then describe it in different terms, that's a contradiction.

I'm not describing it in different terms...
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:07:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 1:47:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:37:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:47:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:44:50 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:56:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:39:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Only in the sense that reality is not different from reality.

Real object one is real; it is reality; real object two is real; it is reality. Yet, they are both really different; they are different realities.

Reality means "everything that exists". Since neither object is the other object, they are not "reality". They are merely different aspects of one and the same reality.

According to Wiktionary, reality is, "(t)he state of being actual or real."

And? That's not how I'm using the term, and my statements are what you're referring to. One of reality's definitions is " the totality of real things and events".

The fact its meaning is relative is proof positive it has different meanings. If you say reality is not different and then describe it in different terms, that's a contradiction.

I'm not describing it in different terms...

No, but we are; and, the dictionary does; therefore difference in meaning equals contradiction.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 2:56:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 2:07:18 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:47:12 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 1:37:23 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:47:44 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 12:44:50 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:56:45 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/20/2014 11:39:48 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Only in the sense that reality is not different from reality.

Real object one is real; it is reality; real object two is real; it is reality. Yet, they are both really different; they are different realities.

Reality means "everything that exists". Since neither object is the other object, they are not "reality". They are merely different aspects of one and the same reality.

According to Wiktionary, reality is, "(t)he state of being actual or real."

And? That's not how I'm using the term, and my statements are what you're referring to. One of reality's definitions is " the totality of real things and events".

The fact its meaning is relative is proof positive it has different meanings. If you say reality is not different and then describe it in different terms, that's a contradiction.

I'm not describing it in different terms...

No, but we are; and, the dictionary does; therefore difference in meaning equals contradiction.

I hope you're not being serious. The word "reality" can have more than one meaning, since meaning is not inherent to the word itself. The term merely stands for concepts, and each concept has a single meaning.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 3:24:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I hope you're not being serious. The word "reality" can have more than one meaning, since meaning is not inherent to the word itself. The term merely stands for concepts, and each concept has a single meaning.

I never said it couldn't. However, I did say, saying reality is both the same and different is a contradiction.

So, each word represents a concept and each concept represents a meaning? So, if each word represents a single concept and each concept represents a single meaning is that the same as saying each word can only represent a single meaning?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 3:27:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 3:24:54 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I hope you're not being serious. The word "reality" can have more than one meaning, since meaning is not inherent to the word itself. The term merely stands for concepts, and each concept has a single meaning.

I never said it couldn't. However, I did say, saying reality is both the same and different is a contradiction.

When did I say this?


So, each word represents a concept and each concept represents a meaning? So, if each word represents a single concept and each concept represents a single meaning is that the same as saying each word can only represent a single meaning?

I never said that a word can only represent a single concept. Are you trolling or something?
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 3:54:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I never said it couldn't. However, I did say, saying reality is both the same and different is a contradiction.

When did I say this?

"The word 'reality' can have more than one meaning...,"

So, each word represents a concept and each concept represents a meaning? So, if each word represents a single concept and each concept represents a single meaning is that the same as saying each word can only represent a single meaning?

I never said that a word can only represent a single concept. Are you trolling or something?

Please forgive me; I misunderstood that which you were saying. You said reality represents many concepts, and each concept has its own meaning. Correct? So, would it be safe to say reality has many different concepts and meanings?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 6:05:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/20/2014 3:54:31 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I never said it couldn't. However, I did say, saying reality is both the same and different is a contradiction.

When did I say this?

"The word 'reality' can have more than one meaning...,"

So, each word represents a concept and each concept represents a meaning? So, if each word represents a single concept and each concept represents a single meaning is that the same as saying each word can only represent a single meaning?

I never said that a word can only represent a single concept. Are you trolling or something?

Please forgive me; I misunderstood that which you were saying. You said reality represents many concepts, and each concept has its own meaning. Correct? So, would it be safe to say reality has many different concepts and meanings?

The word "reality" can have different meanings, yes. However, the concept I'm talking about cannot.
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/20/2014 7:42:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The word "reality" can have different meanings, yes. However, the concept I'm talking about cannot.

Ok. Reality has different meanings, but you're only talking about one of its meanings. So, in the particular sense you're talking about, it's not different. Ok. I see.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 1:29:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Why would you apply boundaries of mathematics to one of many realities only this one running the exact set of mathematical laws that we have deduced must be true?
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:16:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 1:29:09 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Why would you apply boundaries of mathematics to one of many realities only this one running the exact set of mathematical laws that we have deduced must be true?

That was barely coherent. Since reality is "everything that exists", there can't be "another reality" (i.e., one which is real), since then it would already be part of this reality by definition.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:17:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:16:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:29:09 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Why would you apply boundaries of mathematics to one of many realities only this one running the exact set of mathematical laws that we have deduced must be true?

That was barely coherent. Since reality is "everything that exists", there can't be "another reality" (i.e., one which is real), since then it would already be part of this reality by definition.

False. That is like saying Bobby is a boy, so no other boys are boys.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:24:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:17:39 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:16:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:29:09 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Why would you apply boundaries of mathematics to one of many realities only this one running the exact set of mathematical laws that we have deduced must be true?

That was barely coherent. Since reality is "everything that exists", there can't be "another reality" (i.e., one which is real), since then it would already be part of this reality by definition.

False. That is like saying Bobby is a boy, so no other boys are boys.

lol no it's not. The predicate "boy" is defined in such a way that it can apply to more than just one boy.

How can there be another reality if reality, by definition, includes "everything that is real" (including any so-called "other reality").
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:29:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:24:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:17:39 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:16:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:29:09 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Why would you apply boundaries of mathematics to one of many realities only this one running the exact set of mathematical laws that we have deduced must be true?

That was barely coherent. Since reality is "everything that exists", there can't be "another reality" (i.e., one which is real), since then it would already be part of this reality by definition.

False. That is like saying Bobby is a boy, so no other boys are boys.

lol no it's not. The predicate "boy" is defined in such a way that it can apply to more than just one boy.

'Reality' is singular too, the last time I checked.

How can there be another reality if reality, by definition, includes "everything that is real" (including any so-called "other reality").

The definition of real is relative to which reality you are referring to.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:32:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:29:33 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:24:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:17:39 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:16:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:29:09 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Why would you apply boundaries of mathematics to one of many realities only this one running the exact set of mathematical laws that we have deduced must be true?

That was barely coherent. Since reality is "everything that exists", there can't be "another reality" (i.e., one which is real), since then it would already be part of this reality by definition.

False. That is like saying Bobby is a boy, so no other boys are boys.

lol no it's not. The predicate "boy" is defined in such a way that it can apply to more than just one boy.

'Reality' is singular too, the last time I checked.

How can there be another reality if reality, by definition, includes "everything that is real" (including any so-called "other reality").

The definition of real is relative to which reality you are referring to.

The only "real" reality is this reality. To wit, if another "reality" were real enough to make this false, it would already be included in this reality by definition.
user_name
Posts: 120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:33:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:32:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:29:33 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:24:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:17:39 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:16:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:29:09 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Why would you apply boundaries of mathematics to one of many realities only this one running the exact set of mathematical laws that we have deduced must be true?

That was barely coherent. Since reality is "everything that exists", there can't be "another reality" (i.e., one which is real), since then it would already be part of this reality by definition.

False. That is like saying Bobby is a boy, so no other boys are boys.

lol no it's not. The predicate "boy" is defined in such a way that it can apply to more than just one boy.

'Reality' is singular too, the last time I checked.

How can there be another reality if reality, by definition, includes "everything that is real" (including any so-called "other reality").

The definition of real is relative to which reality you are referring to.

The only "real" reality is this reality. To wit, if another "reality" were real enough to make this false, it would already be included in this reality by definition.

The entire problem with your assumption is that there is only one set of real vs unreal entities.
Best wishes,
user-name.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2014 2:36:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 10/21/2014 2:33:48 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:32:29 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:29:33 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:24:35 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:17:39 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/21/2014 2:16:53 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 10/21/2014 1:29:09 PM, user_name wrote:
At 10/19/2014 11:04:09 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://i.imgur.com...

Why would you apply boundaries of mathematics to one of many realities only this one running the exact set of mathematical laws that we have deduced must be true?

That was barely coherent. Since reality is "everything that exists", there can't be "another reality" (i.e., one which is real), since then it would already be part of this reality by definition.

False. That is like saying Bobby is a boy, so no other boys are boys.

lol no it's not. The predicate "boy" is defined in such a way that it can apply to more than just one boy.

'Reality' is singular too, the last time I checked.

How can there be another reality if reality, by definition, includes "everything that is real" (including any so-called "other reality").

The definition of real is relative to which reality you are referring to.

The only "real" reality is this reality. To wit, if another "reality" were real enough to make this false, it would already be included in this reality by definition.

The entire problem with your assumption is that there is only one set of real vs unreal entities.

Do you mean to say "The entire problem is that you are assuming there is only one set of real vs unreal entities"? There is only one real set, yes.