What defines reality?

[ajblaise]

 

[yenom]

Really?

What do you mean by objective reality?

Do you mean a mind independent realm of objects? That there is at least one object the existence and properties of which do not depend on any perceivers' perceiving them?

If so, then what justification can you give for your belief that such an objective reality exists? (This position is commonly known as "realism").

You assert that without this type of objective reality, the laws of physics would not exist, but what are the laws of physics other than the mind's abstract interpretation of other mental deliverances?

That is, the discipline of physics is a cognitive, and therefore mind dependent, way to explain why our perceptions of physical objects change--but perception is usually conceived of as being representational; i.e., the chair you see is not a physical chair, but a mental object which, according to our best science, is an interpretation of electro-chemical firings in the brain that are not chair-shaped. (Where is the chair that you see? In your brain? Outside your brain? Nowhere at all?)

But if both the (supposed) physical objects that you see and the physics used to explain why these "physical objects" change are both mind-dependent, how do you know that your mind is simply not creating both the objects that you see and their physics?

How do you know there is an objective reality?

What about the perception of time. The perception of time is common in everyone's reality. Perception and Reality is not possible without time. There is a difference between subjective information (which is like an opinion based onf feeling) and objective information (like touch, senses ewtc).

There are irrefutable truths in reality like the sky is blue, or a solid object exists because you can touch it.

You cannot say that you can touch something yet it does not exist.

What I mean is that reality is not entirely defined based on our perceptions.

Sure, we have a grasp of objectivity, sure we can measure things such as physics. But who is to say that physics is a result from an entirely different dimension we are oblivious too. We can see the objectivity within our limited senses. But we are incapable of doing so when talking about existance as a whole. We can merely sample that part of existance in which we are capable of functioning.

?

Mind explaining what you mean by energy?

Energy and time are one of the most undefinable qualities in this universe. I do not know how to define it.

Information aries from language. Without language , the existence of information is not possible. Yet information itself is not language.

 

[Amalgam]

God's Holy Fart, also known as the Big Bang, helped start life as we know it.

 

[Owl]

What about the perception of time. The perception of time is common in everyone's reality. Perception and Reality is not possible without time. There is a difference between subjective information (which is like an opinion based onf feeling) and objective information (like touch, senses ewtc).

Is Perception and Reality dependent upon time? God is often thought to be outside of time, and that there was no time before the act of creation.

As in my response to Kai, absolute time is not the only way to conceive of time. Time could be conceived as a relational property that holds between, and is dependent upon, changing objects, (just as something's being colored is dependent upon its being extended). Time could be similar to the property 'x is to the left of y'. It is not said that 'to-the-left-of-ness' exists independently; it obtains only when there are two objects, and when one of those objects is, indeed, to the left of the other; in a world with only one object, nothing is 'to-the-left-of'; similarly, in a world without change, there are no temporal relations; nothing is before or after, earlier or later; and to say a world is without temporal relations is to say that world is without time.

Imagine a world with an eternal, changeless rock, just hovering in space. Any 'timeline' you made for this rock would be superfluous; every point on the line would be identical to every other point in every way, and by adding to any statement about the rock that it was at such and such a point of time would add no new information about the rock, or the world the rock was in. You'd be using language, but you'd be talking about nothing. (<--and I think this plays in nicely to what you say below about language and information.)

There are irrefutable truths in reality like the sky is blue, or a solid object exists because you can touch it.

You cannot say that you can touch something yet it does not exist.

What I mean is that reality is not entirely defined based on our perceptions.

That's what I thought you meant.

What color is the ocean? If you jump out of a plane, the ocean will appear blue at first; as you get closer, it will appear green; just before you hit it could appear brown or grey. As you fall, does the color of the ocean change because the ocean is changing, or does the color of the ocean change because the conditions under which you perceive the ocean are changing?

Is the sky really blue? The sky appears to be blue to you, no doubt, but, from that, may you infer that the sky is blue?

The earth appears flat. Is the earth really flat?

When dreaming, do you dream of touching solid objects? If so, does that mean there actually is a solid object? Can you distinguish between when you are dreaming and when you are not? Even if you could tell if and when you were dreaming, how do you know the appearances of the waking life are any more reliable than the appearances given you in a dream?

Information aries from language. Without language , the existence of information is not possible. Yet information itself is not language.

I like this. Not sure it's true, but is sounds cool. I have to do some stuff, but I might comment on this later.

 

[rank]

Simply, what the brain tells us. When we are asleep we cannot tell the difference. Every other attempt to trick ourselves is just the result of some desire for control/exploration of the unknown (that doesn't exist); and a good way towards self-induced mental problems.

Now, the brains of different people do not process information in the same way, so that leads to very subjective perceptions of objective reality. It gets THE WORST when it is about group communication of all kinds of people - and the input is the other people, not something, well, really objective. Then the dissonance of perceptions gets FREAKISH, absolutely no one is perfectly correct, everyone has wrong self-image, cannot calculate the effect he has on other people while communicating, cannot compute the way they influence their opinions, small group formations, tactics of deceit, the physical/sexual attractions or hatred; the motivations for control and leadership, for empathy, for education... etc. In the end, the mighty ENTJ wins, by pushing most people against each other and smashing the rest as entertainment, and gaining the approval of the crowd (who are too scared not to cheer him up). During this process there are 928164049 errors of judgement from ALL types, and no, NTs are not more objective than the others; they are simply feared more, so the others are forced to agree with them more often. So that's it - in group psychology what is reality is completely lost. Even if the whole process is recorded on tape, there will be so many subtle details missing that again there's no way to get the right conclusions. I compare this social mix as pressing a human body until all inner organs collapse - first the most life-supporting are gone, and then ... the very last left "winning" are the most "dead" ones - like hair, nails, teeth etc. Then they can claim they are the most life-supporting (because they survived), but it's the other way around.

When, however, people are dealing with objective reality, then ST types (and their shadows NFs) are the most accurate - because they sense reality (S) in a very precise (T) way. However, then there comes society, with strong opinions, dogmas, prejudice, influences; battles for leadership. And objectivity is gone again. The last image that remains among people is usually completely fabricated and wrong; and that is because someone's interests motivate the conclusions. That's why, if one is interested in objective reality, the best way to understand it is to get away from society; but then again, if the results are too far from mainstream, there's no way to communicate it back properly.

 

[Snow Turtle]

I like this. Not sure it's true, but is sounds cool. I have to do some stuff, but I might comment on this later.

I'm sure thought and information can exist without language. It depends on the definition of language, would imagery count as language? I'm sure a baby does contain information and thought however basic it may be. Otherwise I'd imagine similar to my ICT lesson would say: Perception would be the raw data, language would be the information/knowledge part. The attachment, processing and combining of data to form meaning in order to express itself.

Back to the OP: The dream example was pretty good. It feels real, but is it real? It's also where the laws of physics fly completely out of the window yet there doesn't seem to be any problems. Any problems we can imagine is only because of the comparison we make to our current reality where it doesn't make much sense.

It helps to define what subjective and objective is. Subjective information is opinion based on feeling, and that's the entire point. All the information that comes from our senses has to go through this filter, and therefore become subjective interpretations subconscious or conscious. We can be fairly certain that it exists, but we can never be 100% as mentioned by other posters on this thread. It's the reason that positions such as solipsism and ideas like brain in a vat exist, because there's no hard objective proof.

Most people believe that reality isn't based on our perceptions, that it exists without human observers but there's no proof.

 

[Journey]

Either God does as the maker of all that is real or you begin to believe lies like man does which leaves you open to the belief that there are no absolute truths.

 

[erm]

Most questions about reality itself are redundant. Terms like "truth", "reality", "existence" etcetera all refer to the same thing.

In this way, existence/reality seems fundamental, meaning we can only point to it, not describe (analyze) it. It is essentially the same as observation (which is not the same as perception).

Although I lack proof, I sense time and energy as the same. I want this proven as ia law of physics.

They are not the same thing. They are necessarily dependant on one another, however.

Without energy one cannot observe time, and vice versa. Without one, the other vanishes. However, the same is true of distance/displacement. Without that, one could not measure energy or time either.

All physical traits of particles are necessarily dependant on each other, in such a way.

In physics, however, they are seperate mathematical constructs. They measure different things. One can change without the other doing so.

How do you know there is an objective reality?

I am experiencing, therefore something is existing.

Something is existing, therefore an objective reality exists.

An entirely subjective reality is a contradiction. Anything subjective is objective, not necessarily vice versa.

It helps to define what subjective and objective is. Subjective information is opinion based on feeling, and that's the entire point. All the information that comes from our senses has to go through this filter, and therefore become subjective interpretations subconscious or conscious.

That is a strange definition of subjective. Subjective means "for the subject". In this sense, a subject is merely a specific part of reality (the whole object). It is close to the term "relative".

A subject does not necessarily experience the entire object, but it must experience some of the object, as it is part of the object (truth/reality).

Either God does as the maker of all that is real or you begin to believe lies like man does which leaves you open to the belief that there are no absolute truths.

Go away Descartes!

------------------------

Two more points at the general discussion:-

1. Science can be seen as describing purely subjective experience. Whether we experience objective reality or not does not affect the truths put forth by science. None of which are claimed to be certain.

2. Broad definitions of language allow one to view all of existence as a language and vice versa. Same with information. At least, as long as reality stays consistent.

 

[Mayflow]

I am that I am. It's not really all that complicated. It may be when you ID with a specific form and or a specific time, because then you are creating artificial limitations - BUT as long as you know you are doing this, you still are what you are. Didn't Descartes imply this?

 

[nightning]

Subjective perception. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Agree. Objective reality doesn't matter if subjective reality is always consistent. Who cares if we're deluding ourselves? Truth only matters if it affects us.

1. Science can be seen as describing purely subjective experience. Whether we experience objective reality or not does not affect the truths put forth by science. None of which are claimed to be certain.

2. Broad definitions of language allow one to view all of existence as a language and vice versa. Same with information. At least, as long as reality stays consistent.

A fundamental in science that's the general public is largely ignorant about. It's always about hypothesis testing. Theories aren't necessarily "truths". We attempt to describe objective reality through our subjective filters. If we get it right, good for us. If we get it wrong, *shrugs* either it comes out later or we'll be none the wiser.

I guess you can say the difference between objective and subjective reality is only an philosophical exercise. The only truth that matters practically is what you know. Short of a time machine or foresight into the future, subjective perception doesn't impair decision making. And really that's all that matters.

 

[Journey]

Go away Descartes!

The name is Journey.:hi: You can say, "Go away, Journey!" and be correct in your reference, but I will not go away. What I said was a personal observation of Truth, not something I read from some philosopher somewhere. And I stand by what I said as it being God's own Truth.

 

[yenom]

Is Perception and Reality dependent upon time? God is often thought to be outside of time, and that there was no time before the act of creation.

As in my response to Kai, absolute time is not the only way to conceive of time. Time could be conceived as a relational property that holds between, and is dependent upon, changing objects, (just as something's being colored is dependent upon its being extended). Time could be similar to the property 'x is to the left of y'. It is not said that 'to-the-left-of-ness' exists independently; it obtains only when there are two objects, and when one of those objects is, indeed, to the left of the other; in a world with only one object, nothing is 'to-the-left-of'; similarly, in a world without change, there are no temporal relations; nothing is before or after, earlier or later; and to say a world is without temporal relations is to say that world is without time.

Imagine a world with an eternal, changeless rock, just hovering in space. Any 'timeline' you made for this rock would be superfluous; every point on the line would be identical to every other point in every way, and by adding to any statement about the rock that it was at such and such a point of time would add no new information about the rock, or the world the rock was in. You'd be using language, but you'd be talking about nothing. (<--and I think this plays in nicely to what you say below about language and information.)
.

Good point, you will still sense time even if the world is a lifeless clock, but you do not know how much time has paseed and changed.

COuld it be true that there is no time when only one object exists in the universe? then again, is there such a thing as a colorless color?

I don't know if this is related to what you said, but these are the intangible properties we use to define reality:

time
information
energy

Tangible properties:

light
touch

Inagine a reality without either 1 or these 5 properties, what will reality be like?


You can say reality and time is defined by subjective experience, but a reality without any of these 5 properties would be unthinkable.

 

[Mole]

Either God does as the maker of all that is real or you begin to believe lies like man does which leaves you open to the belief that there are no absolute truths.

There may well be absolute truths but as contingent beings we can't know them.

 

[erm]

A fundamental in science that's the general public is largely ignorant about. It's always about hypothesis testing. Theories aren't necessarily "truths". We attempt to describe objective reality through our subjective filters. If we get it right, good for us. If we get it wrong, *shrugs* either it comes out later or we'll be none the wiser.

Hence, they are not certain. But science does make truth claims about probabilities of a theory being true, specifically which theory is more likely to be so than another. Not that they are quantified too much, but it certainly seems descriptive of reality to me.

I guess you can say the difference between objective and subjective reality is only an philosophical exercise. The only truth that matters practically is what you know. Short of a time machine or foresight into the future, subjective perception doesn't impair decision making. And really that's all that matters.

A time machine and foresight into the future would all fit into subjective perception.

The name is Journey.:hi: You can say, "Go away, Journey!" and be correct in your reference, but I will not go away. What I said was a personal observation of Truth, not something I read from some philosopher somewhere. And I stand by what I said as it being God's own Truth.

I wasn't talking to you silly! I was telling Descartes to go away, he's been pestering me a lot lately.

 

[Clownmaster]

to the OP: Discourse on the Method, by René Descartes. Thats the most basic way I can think to define reality, though it ignores your sensibile/insensible original question.