Definition of "a reality"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-06-2017, 02:42 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2017 02:46 AM by Robvalue.)
Definition of "a reality"
Theists are often quick to indicate the existence of things "outside the universe", which immediately results in nonsense contradictions. So I prefer to call whatever we inhabit "our reality". Maybe our reality is all that exists, and so it is equal to the universe. Maybe not. But this at least allows "somewhere" for things to exist without being part of what we generally think of as our universe.

So how do we define a reality?

It seems to me that the only sensible definition is that a reality is something that is entirely self-contained. Anything you like can (in theory) happen within the confines of the reality, but nothing can ever move from one reality to another or directly affect another.

What do people make of this? If instead we have two realities which have some sort of overlap, or special "things" that can exist in/influence both, then surely this is just one reality arbitrarily split into two parts based on the popularity of things which stick in one part or the other.

By this definition, nothing in any reality can ever be aware of anything in any other reality, it would seem. If they can, then there is some kind of link between them. This includes God. So God (whatever in blazes that is) can create an area which it knows about and can influence, within its own reality, but it's never truly another reality.

If we are a "computer simulation", then what would this mean? I would postulate that this reality is a manifestation of a process in another reality. Would this mean that the two realities are really just one, or not? By definition it should be impossible to "know" your program has manifested in this extra reality. I'm leaning towards saying our reality is really part of the parent, because of the implicit link.

Of course, theists will just say that God can "know" things that can't be known, because he's special and such. But if we define a word, we have to at least use it consistently. So what would you say is a useful way of defining the borders of one reality? Note that any reality may still be infinite in scope, yet self-contained with respect to other realities.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Robvalue's post
17-06-2017, 03:04 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
Realities are malleable. Our reality was the Milky Way, until our tools got better and we could observe that reality stretched far beyond the borders of our galaxy. As our understanding expands, so does our reality. Reality can expand further than you know, but what you know is limited by evidence. Until you have the evidence to justify expanding the horizons of your reality, you reasonably cannot.

To take the most famous artificial reality, The Matrix, the simulation is the limit of the observable reality for those trapped within it. There is no way to detect from within the simulation that you are in a simulation, unless you are already privy to information simply not obtainable from within that simulation. Neo could not be told what the Matrix was, he had to be taken out and beyond the limits of that reality for him to understand. Even then he at first rejected that knowledge, so much so that he had physical reactions to it. Even to those who know the true nature of the simulation are still bound by it. Some can bend the rules to a greater or less extent, but even with the knowledge that the Matrix is a simulated reality, none of them can muster the will and determination to actually break with that reality. Fellow hackers and crew members plugged into the Matrix and who are killed within the simulation, die outside of it, because they are so subconsciously tied into the rules of that reality. Indeed the very climax of the film, Neo becoming the One and seeing the code of the Matrix for what it truly is, is in effect Neo breaking free of the subconscious limits of the reality of the Matrix and embracing the knowledge of the reality outside of it. Even when supplied with the evidence and the knowledge as to the nature of the simulation, acting upon that information and subsuming it is a herculean effort.

Plus, it's a damn good movie.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-06-2017, 05:45 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2017 05:48 AM by TheInquisition.)
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(17-06-2017 02:42 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Theists are often quick to indicate the existence of things "outside the universe", which immediately results in nonsense contradictions. So I prefer to call whatever we inhabit "our reality". Maybe our reality is all that exists, and so it is equal to the universe. Maybe not. But this at least allows "somewhere" for things to exist without being part of what we generally think of as our universe.

So how do we define a reality?

It seems to me that the only sensible definition is that a reality is something that is entirely self-contained. Anything you like can (in theory) happen within the confines of the reality, but nothing can ever move from one reality to another or directly affect another.

What do people make of this? If instead we have two realities which have some sort of overlap, or special "things" that can exist in/influence both, then surely this is just one reality arbitrarily split into two parts based on the popularity of things which stick in one part or the other.

By this definition, nothing in any reality can ever be aware of anything in any other reality, it would seem. If they can, then there is some kind of link between them. This includes God. So God (whatever in blazes that is) can create an area which it knows about and can influence, within its own reality, but it's never truly another reality.

If we are a "computer simulation", then what would this mean? I would postulate that this reality is a manifestation of a process in another reality. Would this mean that the two realities are really just one, or not? By definition it should be impossible to "know" your program has manifested in this extra reality. I'm leaning towards saying our reality is really part of the parent, because of the implicit link.

Of course, theists will just say that God can "know" things that can't be known, because he's special and such. But if we define a word, we have to at least use it consistently. So what would you say is a useful way of defining the borders of one reality? Note that any reality may still be infinite in scope, yet self-contained with respect to other realities.

Outside of space and time means that a thing that is "outside" of space does not exist in any real location. A thing that is "beyond" time means that there is no time in which this thing existed.

So you can rephrase it to say that something that is "beyond space and time" is something that never existed anywhere or at anytime. Beyond space and time is a meaningless rhetorical description of an imaginary concept.

The problem of hard solipsism is simply a way to equivocate reality with the imagination so a person can say things in their imagination are real. Faith propositions can be put on an equal level to things that are part of reality in this way.

It's been termed as viciously circular to assert that you can know reality through external revelation not derived through your senses, because you have no way of knowing the source of this alleged revelation if it is sneaking around in your mind refusing to participate in the normal sensory process that other mundane things reveal themselves by.

Matt Dillahunty asked Sye Ten Bruggencate how he could distinguish what the source of this revelation was several times in their debate, his answer was because bible says. How do you determine the bible is a pure revelation? Because it was revealed by god.

Even if Sye's wackadoo world was reality, you would always be constrained by imperfect humans imperfectly conveying any revelation from an alleged god.
That is a fundamental limitation, you can never surpass human limitations to reveal a perfect revelation. Especially since this alleged god refuses to participate in reality.

[Image: circular-reasoning-in-creationism.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like TheInquisition's post
17-06-2017, 05:48 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(17-06-2017 02:42 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  ...
So how do we define a reality?
...
So what would you say is a useful way of defining the borders of one reality? Note that any reality may still be infinite in scope, yet self-contained with respect to other realities.

Reality: The sum of all 'real' things; the entirety of existence
Internal reality: Subjective perceptions (memory, vision, emotional states etc.)
External reality: Everything beyond my immediate sensory perceptions.

Which means that we can say that reality is that which is scientifically measurable.

This also implies that scope and integrity (accuracy & completeness) of reality/existence will increase with our increased capability to detect and measure it.

Unsure

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like DLJ's post
17-06-2017, 08:42 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(17-06-2017 02:42 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  Theists are often quick to indicate the existence of things "outside the universe", which immediately results in nonsense contradictions. So I prefer to call whatever we inhabit "our reality". Maybe our reality is all that exists, and so it is equal to the universe. Maybe not. But this at least allows "somewhere" for things to exist without being part of what we generally think of as our universe.

So how do we define a reality?

It seems to me that the only sensible definition is that a reality is something that is entirely self-contained. Anything you like can (in theory) happen within the confines of the reality, but nothing can ever move from one reality to another or directly affect another.

What do people make of this? If instead we have two realities which have some sort of overlap, or special "things" that can exist in/influence both, then surely this is just one reality arbitrarily split into two parts based on the popularity of things which stick in one part or the other.

By this definition, nothing in any reality can ever be aware of anything in any other reality, it would seem. If they can, then there is some kind of link between them. This includes God. So God (whatever in blazes that is) can create an area which it knows about and can influence, within its own reality, but it's never truly another reality.

If we are a "computer simulation", then what would this mean? I would postulate that this reality is a manifestation of a process in another reality. Would this mean that the two realities are really just one, or not? By definition it should be impossible to "know" your program has manifested in this extra reality. I'm leaning towards saying our reality is really part of the parent, because of the implicit link.

Of course, theists will just say that God can "know" things that can't be known, because he's special and such. But if we define a word, we have to at least use it consistently. So what would you say is a useful way of defining the borders of one reality? Note that any reality may still be infinite in scope, yet self-contained with respect to other realities.

The realm of things that are real or the realm of existence. That's my definition.

The universe is reality seen from the perspective of the whole. Theists define the universe in such a way that it is not the whole. I define universe as the sum total of what exists or the totality of existence.

So I looked up the etymology of universe. It comes from the Latin uni, meaning one and versus, meaning turn. The Latin universus means turning into one, whole.

So it is the case as I've always suspected, that the theists have arbitrarily redifined the concept universe in order to make room for their god.

As to whether there are other universes or overlapping universes I'll leave it to the scientists to figure out.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like true scotsman's post
17-06-2017, 09:11 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
And this is exactly why I mostly find philosophy an exercise in futility.

"The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence" is good enough for me and I still do not understand how and why *our* perceiving of reality, the cosmos, the universe has any bearing whatsoever on its existence, realness or however you might want to put.

I thought sloppisism solipsism had long since become a joke or is this the sequel - Solipsism: The Quantum Era and the Observer's Effect Dodgy

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Vera's post
17-06-2017, 09:30 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
I see the Brit's been eating the moldy ergot bread again this morning. Smile

(17-06-2017 05:48 AM)DLJ Wrote:  Which means that we can say that reality is that which is scientifically measurable.

Which would mean that we have discovered the boundaries of reality since we have discovered the inherent limitations of measurement.

(17-06-2017 08:42 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  The realm of things that are real or the realm of existence. That's my definition. ... I define universe as the sum total of what exists or the totality of existence.

So why stop at "what exists" instead of including "what could exist" since we're talking about the realm of existence. I think that's what the whacko fuzzycysts are getting at with the multiverse.

(17-06-2017 09:11 AM)Vera Wrote:  "The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence" is good enough for me and I still do not understand how and why *our* perceiving of reality, the cosmos, the universe has any bearing whatsoever on its existence, realness or however you might want to put.

Because Copenhagen.

(17-06-2017 09:11 AM)Vera Wrote:  I thought sloppisism solipsism had long since become a joke or is this the sequel - Solipsism: The Quantum Era and the Observer's Effect Dodgy

The problem with solipsism is that it still assumes too much.

(17-06-2017 09:11 AM)Vera Wrote:  And this is exactly why I mostly find philosophy an exercise in futility.

It's all an exercise in futility. I owe that knowledge to philosophy.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
17-06-2017, 09:43 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(17-06-2017 09:30 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's all an exercise in futility. I owe that knowledge to philosophy.

See, and *I* didn't need mental mastrubation for this Angel

[Image: quote-metaphysics-is-a-restaurant-where-...146130.jpg]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Vera's post
17-06-2017, 09:52 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2017 09:56 AM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Definition of "a reality"
(17-06-2017 09:43 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(17-06-2017 09:30 AM)GirlyMan Wrote:  It's all an exercise in futility. I owe that knowledge to philosophy.

See, and *I* didn't need mental mastrubation for this Angel

Masturbation's prophylactic properties are not limited to just the prostate. Tongue

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
17-06-2017, 10:00 AM
RE: Definition of "a reality"
Not the mental variety, though Dodgy

(and that was such a male-centric post, Girly Big Grin )

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderĂ²."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: