• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

What is the best definition of "unreal" you can come up with?

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
Please explain your definition if you wish, also for contrast, if anyone is capable of defining "unreal" in terms of science/math that would be pretty interesting to me... Any good Teachers assistants around :p ?

Please may your definition be able cover [through explaining the answer to] the following inspirational query:
What is unreal love?

Bonus points for using your creativity to the maximum that your understanding will allow.
 
Last edited:

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
Unreal - imaginary or fantastical.

Mathematics: Unreal would apply to any number that is not in the set of real numbers.
Science: Unreal would apply to any theorem that has been disproved by concrete, objective, evidence.

Unreal love - false idealization of a partner that is based primarily in fantasy rather than the person at hand.
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
Ima take a crack at my own challenge!

Unreal: That which is without substance (or also known as spirit)

Math/Science: I'm unsure, would like someone like [MENTION=825]ygolo[/MENTION] to has a crack at explaining this...

Unreal love: love not based in the reality of material experience: but offering love in accord with what one projects gives true order to the unreal (or spiritual) realm.

By tacit implication:
Unreal love: only made possible and reasonable to rely on, through the subscription of truth (through an understanding of how to discern truth).

There is a lot more expounding that was buzzing around in my head about the concept "unreal love" earlier, but it isn't coming to me at this time XD; and I'd rather not just make random comments that aren't at least in part inspired through my inclination to respond... Thanks for your intriguing input Alea!
 
Last edited:

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,996
[MENTION=20790]Zangetshumody[/MENTION] , I am not sure I am really an authority on this. But since you asked for my opinion directly...

In math, "real" numbers have a particular meaning (as [MENTION=20385]Alea_iacta_est[/MENTION] mentioned), usually, in contrast to "complex" numbers, which have both a "real" and an an "imaginary" component.

In computer science, in the "universal modeling language" objects could be real or virtual. Sometimes, transforming a design often involves "reifying" virtual objects to real objects and vice versa. Making an object "real" in a design means you expect it to be coded into a software artifact. Virtual objects only exist in the design as an abstraction to aid with thinking about the design.

In computer engineering, every layer of abstraction (sometimes with a requirement to be Turing complete), including the hardware abstraction used to be called a virtual machine (these days what used to be called "hypervisors" are called virtual machines).

Continuing on this theme, a simulated world that you can interact with is called "virtual reality"...to contrast this with the corporeal reality we are familiar with.

This brings me to another version of reality in the materialist sense (an attitude scientists adopt to do science, whether or not it is their actual philosophical view). Here, there are "objects" in the world we believe are measurable/detectable in many different (perhaps very indirect) ways.
 

RaptorWizard

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
5,895
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Unreal is the most real thing in existence, because it can become anything. What's there in the void is nothing to what will be.
 

Qlip

Post Human Post
Joined
Jul 30, 2010
Messages
8,464
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
My most favorite author, Philip K. Dick said, 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.' So I suppose that unreality is that which you only see when you believe in it. Like, umm.. the goodness of others?
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
Unreal is the most real thing in existence, because it can become anything. What's there in the void is nothing to what will be.

Perhaps nothing at the before the works of creation; but after the work is complete, surely it will not be experienced as nothing, but as what is indefinit (or [stated expressly as] "In; def[-nut-lee] in it" (it= the world as the earth)).
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
My most favorite author, Philip K. Dick said, 'Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.' So I suppose that unreality is that which you only see when you believe in it. Like, umm.. the goodness of others?

Hey Qlip, I know you didn't ask for it, but I feel like giving you a biblical response!

1Co 1:6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:
1Co 1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:
1Co 1:8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.
1Co 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
1Co 1:11 For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you.

Christ today is the gift of the Christ in all bothers willingly to sacrifice (let go) of all works of the flesh [this willingness allows the spirit to fully possess the blood]: this is how the blood of the lamb lays claim to the true blood of a man that shall enter the kingdom (after all his debts have been put to rest: which is also why the World will pay death to those who don't believe in the goodness of forgiveness [forgiveness must be unblemished by vanity, lest the vanity be covered by Grace--- this can only be covered by a true Priest, whose mind is your Grave, where you lay your troubles to rest in his hands- managing those consequences over and out to cause the perfection of you as a saint is his gift in the body of Christ: this is what the communities tithes should be enabling: of course you can offset this cost by asking the Priest to tell you to do things depending on your particular commitments/circumstances---). (Yus)Time might have something interest to comment about how time fits into my last point; I can't formulate an opinion as I'm having trouble remembering the last thing he said to me on the subject of time...

Back to my first theme: the biggest problem in the division of mind, can be expressed quite naturally--- Men are not all bisizual when it comes to woman's bodies (I think these are the divisions which are by the house of Chloe): which probably has something to do with the fact that not everyone believe's they understand the perfect formula for what produces the best sexual relations one can accordingly partake in: and because of their vanity they do not see [further addition: and assist with executing] the significance that each and every woman has for the world; and their true importance which lies beyond that significance, because that significance was secretly held by the mind.
 
Last edited:

Typh0n

clever fool
Joined
Feb 13, 2013
Messages
3,497
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Depending on your definition of what "real" is to begin with, we cannot know if something is unreal because it would require being able to disprove the existence of a thing. And we cant disprove anything, simply prove things. If we proved the non existence of a thing, we would imply it is falsifiable then prove it is actually real.

You dig?
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
Depending on your definition of what "real" is to begin with, we cannot know if something is unreal because it would require being able to disprove the existence of a thing. And we cant disprove anything, simply prove things. If we proved the non existence of a thing, we would imply it is falsifiable then prove it is actually real.

You dig?

I take real to mean corporeal.

A corporeal example of a square circle is something that I think can be disproved, but I'm not sure if that was relevant to your point, which I'm not sure I quite understand. Because a square circle is impossible (does that qualify as falsifiable in your schema?); and I don't think it can ever be proved to be real. But that is how the logically impossible operates.
 

Zangetshumody

Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
458
MBTI Type
INTJ
Then, by that very definition, is non-existence real?

The most basic root of what I take "non-existence" to mean, is something that leaves no record of itself upon anything. With no corporeal repository to bear the experience, some non-existent thing will have no real expression of any kind.

In this way spirit is real, because we have an experience of truth; even if later some may declare to have lost this experience as they tie themselves into some peculiar linguistic cul de sac.
 
Last edited:

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
The most basic root of what I take "non-existence" to mean, is something that leaves no record of itself upon anything. With no corporeal repository to bear the experience, some non-existent thing will have no real expression of any kind.

It's interesting, isn't it?
 

Cygnus

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
1,594
Then, by that very definition, is non-existence real?

My guess: non-existence exists, but is not real?

Non-existence would by definition need to exist as a boundary to curb that which does exist, even though it isn't technically "real." What's your stance on this?
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
My guess: non-existence exists, but is not real?

Non-existence would by definition need to exist as a boundary to curb that which does exist, even though it isn't technically "real." What's your stance on this?

To begin, I'm going to ask you what you recall before you were born. The obvious answer to this question is that you recall absolutely nothing, which actually provides more insight than one might think. Before we were born, we, the consciousness that occupies our vessel, simply weren't there. We didn't exist before we were born, but then we existed, a testament to a very antiquated paradox. How does something come from nothing? Something isn't made of nothing, because it would still be nothing, so how is this possible? The very fact that you are sitting here reading this very post definitely states that your consciousness, indeed, came from nothing and then became something, so what else has come from nothing? One may conclude that all of existence has simply arisen out of this abyss we call "nonexistence". Well, as it so happens, nonexistence doesn't exist, nor does it not exist, and the very fact that we are here illustrates this concept. If we exist, then that means that things that aren't here now have the possibility to exist (as evidence to the fact that we had the possibility to exist and then we existed). But, nothing can't have potential, for if nothing has potential, it adopts a property of something; therefore, anything that has potential exists, and anything that doesn't have potential or properties doesn't exist. But, as we just mentioned, we came out of nonexistence; we had potential, so anything else that could possibly exist must indeed exist along with us. If nothing has the possibility to exist, then nothing, quite paradoxically, isn't nothing. This means that nonexistence must not be nonexistence, for everything in nonexistence has the potential to exist.

Reintegration
 

Cygnus

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
1,594
Reintegration

How does the intrinsic value of non-existence mean it doesn't exist? Within existence there is lack of information as to what exists; if hypothetically all information in the universe were known, that of which you have no information of existence does not exist, but you have information that it does not exist, so its non-existence exists in the world of existence; therefore, non-existence exists.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
How does the intrinsic value of non-existence mean it doesn't exist? Within existence there is lack of information as to what exists; if hypothetically all information in the universe were known, that of which you have no information of existence does not exist, but you have information that it does not exist, so its non-existence exists in the world of existence; therefore, non-existence exists.

Because non-existence would be a domain of existence still. Your hypothesis assumes that it is possible to know everything in the universe, which is implausible due to the immense possibility and expansion of existence and its intrinsic data. You are arguing informational non-existence, the state of information not being present, I am arguing situational non-existence, the actual state of non-existence being an actual domain that we reach when we die, from an atheistic standpoint (often referred to as the abyss or oblivion).
 

fghw

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
118
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Unreal-
Science: cannot be proven
Math: A multiple of i
 

Cygnus

New member
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
1,594
Because non-existence would be a domain of existence still. Your hypothesis assumes that it is possible to know everything in the universe, which is implausible due to the immense possibility and expansion of existence and its intrinsic data. You are arguing informational non-existence, the state of information not being present, I am arguing situational non-existence, the actual state of non-existence being an actual domain that we reach when we die, from an atheistic standpoint (often referred to as the abyss or oblivion).

True, but to analyze everything no undue assumptions must be made and the analysis must be as objective as possible (ikr look who's talking to the INTJ). To make sure the analysis is flawless, all relevant information must be known. To analyze existence itself, all information of existence must be known. It can't really be known, but it can be hypothetically known. If you hypothetically knew all information in existence, the very lack of information on what didn't exist would actually be hypothetical information about non-existence, so non-existence would exist.

I see what you mean tho, but even if I imagined I hypothetically didn't exist that state would be a state of existence because I just identified it in the hypothetical. While in this state I couldn't know anything and so I couldn't prove it existed, but I can disconnect from trying to imagine the experience and I can identify that it does exist.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
True, but to analyze everything no undue assumptions must be made and the analysis must be as objective as possible (ikr look who's talking to the INTJ). To make sure the analysis is flawless, all relevant information must be known. To analyze existence itself, all information of existence must be known. It can't really be known, but it can be hypothetically known. If you hypothetically knew all information in existence, the very lack of information on what didn't exist would actually be hypothetical information about non-existence, so non-existence would exist.

I see what you mean tho, but even if I imagined I hypothetically didn't exist that state would be a state of existence because I just identified it in the hypothetical. While in this state I couldn't know anything and so I couldn't prove it existed, but I can disconnect from trying to imagine the experience and I can identify that it does exist.

I built this as a subjective construct, so it is the child of Ni, not Te. It is one interpretation of events among a slew of others, but interesting nonetheless. I have used this subjective construct to explain occurrences after death under specific assumptions that might be through a process called "Reintegration" that is essentially the changing of the point of view from one particular mind, body, and consciousness to the other. (It's reincarnation without the spiritual bullshit).
 
Top