I have had some great convos about “what is reality”?  It is my core believe that reality is not mass, waves or light, its simply information – from information all things can be discerned.  Once we “know/learn” something it becomes a mutual reality.  For example, in 1920 there were no “jets”, but they became a reality and there is now a set of rules and mathematics that govern flight.  The reality of flying is not the airplane, as that IS what IS but, it’s the information used to govern its operation in another form of reality (the sky).  There are different hierarchies to reality and subsets to each existence.

For example, in order for flight to have been a created reality, we have to create the reality of exhaust, propulsion, lift  etc…of course this can still be argued b/c it is noted that reality is non-dependent upon our existence or observation within its parameter.  Meaning that regardless to our existence, the planets, stars and moon would all “behave” the same.  It said that those realities are governed by a set of rules and mathematics non contingent upon our observation or understanding of them.

Now, between you and I, what is it really real out there? Do objects, you, me, and the cat really exist outside our minds? Are objects, or even our thoughts an illusion?

We are sometimes deceived, therefore we could always be deceived!
Have you ever thought you heard something, but there was nothing there? Have you ever thought you saw someone in the corner of your eye, and when you looked there was no person there? Have you ever looked at an illusion and been deceived that one line was longer than the other, but really it wasn’t? When you look down from a high building on people, do they appear small like ants? Aren’t there thousands of occasions when we do mis-perceive?

If we are wrong on some occasions, for example, from a height people look the size of ants, is it not possible that we are always deceived? Logical necessity requires the answer: Yes, to this question. It is possible that things as we perceive them are not that way at all!

If we are concerned with:
The purpose of life.
What we should be doing on Earth.
The meaning of  life and death.
then the issue of reality and the true nature of our existence is crucial. If things are different from how they are presented to us conventionally, then this is very basic to our quest.

Let’s say they do, and let’s be scientific. How do you know something is really out there?

Now …

We know things are there because
Light hits the retina of the eye.
And this changes the chemical composition of the eye. Right?
And this makes electricity travel along a nerve, the Optic Nerve.
And this goes to a part of the brain.
And then something happens and we see the thing.
That’s what happens according to science.

So, do we really respond to a thing?  Don’t we respond’ only the electrical and chemical events that occur in the brain and nerves, and not to the alleged real object? Therefore, it is not things we are experiencing but chemical and electrical reactions. We don’t see things directly. We see via chemical and electrical reactions in eyes, nerves and bits of brain. This appears to be true because:

Without eyes, we don’t see.
Without Optic Nerves we don’t see.
Without certain bits of the brain, we don’t see.

So we never directly see what is out there, according to science.

How do we know that what we see is real?
Suppose someone were to put electrodes in our brains and stimulate the visual part of our brains mimicking the impulses we normally receive. Would we see? Definitely we would. But we wouldn’t be seeing what is there outside. We wouldn’t be seeing what is real. We’d be seeing because some electricity was put in our brain, and it would look the same as our real objects!

How do we know the science is true? Of course we can observe, but science tells us that we don’t directly experience objects .. and just as we could be deceived by a wicked scientist putting electrodes in our brains, we could be deceived, in the same way, into thinking that science was ‘real.’

Is science self contradictory?
Therefore, isn’t it true that if we accept this scientific account then we cannot be certain that anything exists out there because we can never directly perceive it. Strangely, if this scientific theory is true we cannot prove it, because we can never perceive anything directly, so we do not know how and from where the experience came into our minds. Even our knowledge of eyes, nerves, bits of brain, is not direct but via electrical and chemical events in our brain!

How much is in the mind?
In the olden days, we thought that there were objects, material things, such as bricks, trees, mountains and goats, which were themselves real and constant in a way independent of our looking and otherwise perceiving them. These were things that had primary qualities which did not change and other qualities, sometimes called secondary qualities, which   were our reaction to the primary object, and which did change depending on. These secondary qualities were color, shape, etc. No thinker suggested that the actual object had these qualities. They were qualities we gave to objects.

For example, a rose might look red to us, but if no one was looking at it, we couldn’t really say it was red. We might have said it had the power to elicit the color red in our minds, but this primary quality of being able to elicit the red sensation was not ‘red.’ The color was our reaction to the object. So we assume there was something out there, say next door’s cat, which was a real object. However our experience of it, blackness, meowing, shape, etc, were largely our reaction to the real object and not the real object itself.

Have you ever been in a shop to buy something, say curtains, where the color is very important? Have you heard these stories of people getting home only to find the color looked different? The curtains were the same curtains in the shop. Their primary qualities hadn’t changed, but our experience of them, the secondary qualities, changed when we viewed them under different lighting conditions. Because the length and weight, for example, remain the same, we may be tempted to think these are the primary qualities, and color is just subjective.

What does a thing look like when no one is looking at it?
Science rushed off to discover these primary qualities and developed concepts like mass which were supposed to describe the real object. However, pretty soon, we realized that the so called primary qualities were just as much secondary as colour and the rest! Although we can specify conditions and measuring instruments which largely give us consistent results, it is a human being who is perceiving the measuring instruments and their reaction on him or her. We cannot know the real object apart from our perception of it. A question like, ‘What does something look like when no one is looking at it?’ is clearly nonsense, and unanswerable.

Interesting huh…?


10 thoughts on “REALity

  1. Eh not quite. Because even having presence within the 3rd dimension suggest that you inherently are subject to its rules and mathematics if fact, other forces are inherently ruled by laws non-dependent upon our existence or mental awareness of such events.

    From there, subsequent realities are form and born from the observers perception.

    I look forward to you supporting argument…

  2. I agree there are things that exist beyound our sensory perception, but act of obtaining that knowlege comes from emprical observation.

  3. If “very rules that govern those objects exts and are in action regarldes of our observation”, but without the “proper knowlege” to get closer to these “rules”, then who cares.

  4. The point is that if items can be governed by forces outside of our observation, meaning they do what they do whether we know/see them or not then, that means there is a “reality” that’s parent to ours. It also emphasizes that reality is information and not matter, waves, etc.

    In addition it perpetuates what’s “beyond” our reality?

  5. But until there is an observer to colapse the wave function, who knows …Schrödinger’s Cat. Then when the cat is alive, one reality is created and the other reality is created if the cat is dead.

  6. That’s assuming that reality is based on the function of collapsible “wave” its self. It’s also a dependent function of the instruments impedance and absoluteness in respect to the observers perception. For example: the cat is ”dead” because of the information we have observed to conclude its death and the instruments defined to observe based on OUR percepts of “reality”. What we observe is nothing more than reflections and reverberations of our sensory input.

    To throw another wrench at you, if in fact the cat ceases to live here in THIS dimension its energy will be reassigned in a alternate universes at the same point in time. This is support by the theory of Einstein-Rosenberg bridge

  7. If there is no observer to participate in the experiment, then it did not happen. For example, when was your car a sentient being? A telescope is just a telescope until the information it gathers is interpreted, thus the observer collapses the wave function.

    What does ripping the fabric of space and time that to do with what we are talking about, Einstein-Rosenberg bridge. Plus I thought Einstein hated quantum mechanics.

  8. So you are saying that that objects and events do not happen outside our observation? Your saying that they do not have a set of rules and laws that govern their operation non-dependent of our observation?…

    Also the Einstein-Rosenberg bridge is not about ripping space. Its theorizes the bridge that would link parallel universes.

  9. No observer,No event. The event represents information…no observer to grasp the info, no event. Until the observer turns the quantum chaos into structure,the event has not occured.

    Either way Einstein-Rosenberg bridge, you have to tear or “rip” a hole inorder to make a bridge.

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data, ability to repeat discredited memes, and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Also, be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor even implied. Any irrelevancies you can mention will also be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous :)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s