REALITY

[warmonger1981]

Reality. What makes it? Is it controllable?

Everyone sees the world with different corrective lenses seeing our own realities through a series of life experiences. Is it possible to get a vast majority to all see things in a certain way weather it be true or false. Global warming or religion as an example. Can a person/institute/corporation create a false reality specifically geared towards their personal views or needs? A new global awakening?

[Army of GOD]

Reality is whatever each individual perceives it to be. They define their own reality.

Thus, I have a problem when you say "false reality". How do you know another reality is false and yours is true.

Inb4 proponents of objective reality

[AndyDufresne]

I feel like this is a topic we should bump in a couple of years.


--Andy

[DaGip]

Reality is a matter of personal perspective. These perspectives can be shared with others, therefor, creating shared realities within groups. For the ConquerClub group the shared reality is that DaGip is the Angel Gabriel and is here to warn you of impending doom. Those that believe will survive...those who don't will perish along with all their children and family. Wiped out from the Book of Life. Don't be that guy. Follow DaGip...he is your only hope!

Anyway, as true reality is perceived by an observer; does the observer create the reality or does that reality already exist, predestined to appear in many patterns of events depending on the observers choices. The answer is quite convoluted, but both are correct.

As we exist in this universe, there are countless universes where infinite realities have come into being. In an instant of being. Time to us exists as this or that, or here and there, or point A to point B. It is entirely a human construct...it is what we base our shallow realities upon, but once we start to delve into higher dimensions (apart from our paltry three) we would begin to notice that time exists both as an instant of every reality frozen in a 10 dimensional space and a point of absolute void.

Each frozen 10D reality is in itself not real. More like just a "thought" or a "dream". The observer (considering himself as a 3D contruct) thinks between 10D and Void. If you think of the Universe as a giant super duper computer, the Observer uses 10D and Void much like the computer uses 0's and 1's. As the Observer is given a choice to make, his brain "thinks"...that is it processes information through the dimensions of an entire Multiverse and manifests all the actions and events that would make said choice possible in the Observer's reality.

Do not think that you move through this life three dimensionally, or even four dimensionally. You (the Observer) are a Fifth Dimensional creature. Time and space give our three dimensional bodies an infinite array of possibilities to choose from. We can "see" these choices before we make them. What things in your life have you made a choice about? Did you choose to be born? Do we choose to die? Did you choose to go to college? Or to waste your time partying?

Some of these choices are Fifth Dimensional, but when we delve into things of which we had no choice, we are actually realizing a Sixth Dimension and so on. All these dimensions exist at once, and we all belong to them.

If you see your sister drowning...what are your choices in that instant of realization? You probably don't have to think long, but yet the probable choices are there to be made. You can "see" Fourth Dimensionally all the choices and their possible outcomes if your sister is drowning in a future array of probabilities. Fifth Dimensionally we choose one of those many probable outcomes to become our reality. Do we jump in and save her? Do we call for help? Do we ignore her all together? When you choose an outcome you choose a reality for yourself, the Observer. You are a Fifth Dimensional creature. That is the reality that the Angel DaGabriel is bringing to this Earth!

[mrswdk]

I like a play called Making History. One of the things it talks about is the process of writing historical records, and the question of whether a distorted recording of history in fact becomes reality if it is the only version future generations know and base their progress on.

inb4 Bildeberg

[rdsrds2120]

I read a thread like this once, and several many different times in the past.

Andy, I'll set a reminder on my Google Calendar for 3 years from today.
--Gomez

[rdsrds2120]

I read a thread like this once, and several many different times in the past.

Andy, I'll set a reminder on my Google Calendar for 3 years from today.

--Gomez

[Phatscotty]

[nietzsche]

Reality is whatever each individual perceives it to be. They define their own reality.

Thus, I have a problem when you say "false reality". How do you know another reality is false and yours is true.

Inb4 proponents of objective reality

Didn't know you were that deep (intellectually).

[macbone]

There's a difference in perception and reality. Someone could perhaps convince everyone that the world isn't growing warmer, but we can measure temperature objectively and say yes, it is.

People used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Just because someone believes something to be true doesn't make it true.

Unless you're githzerai, of course. =)

[nietzsche]

There's a difference in perception and reality. Someone could perhaps convince everyone that the world isn't growing warmer, but we can measure temperature objectively and say yes, it is.

People used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Just because someone believes something to be true doesn't make it true.

Unless you're githzerai, of course. =)

Except, even for those calculations, you are using your senses. There's an unbridgeable gap that will always exist between what you experience and "reality".

[DaGip]

There's a difference in perception and reality. Someone could perhaps convince everyone that the world isn't growing warmer, but we can measure temperature objectively and say yes, it is.

People used to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. Just because someone believes something to be true doesn't make it true.

Unless you're githzerai, of course. =)

Except, even for those calculations, you are using your senses. There's an unbridgeable gap that will always exist between what you experience and "reality".

Perceptions become reality. Reality that you perceive is malleable, but that is the nature of higher dimensional existence. The temperature is an "observed" reality within 6th dimensional being. As the fifth dimensional choice of probabilities is left to each individual system, the 6th dimension is the whole sum of each system. These are the choices of which we do not make as 5th dimensional creatures, just as my post in this forum was not your choice to write. However, it was indeed your choice to read, and in so reading you must realize the 6th dimensional existence of the universe. You, the human being, are a Fifth dimensionally aware creature; but as a member of humanity as a whole you are 6th dimensional.

Can we not say that on some miniscule level that each temperature thermometer may be off by some miniscule amount? That each thermometer might have a subatomically different reading? Also, the temperature beside me is not the same as that by you, no matter the distance between our systems. Fluctuations exist, they exist in reality. This does not make the fluctuation untrue, does it not? If we do not "choose" the reality of global warming, then why are we driving cars or eating meat? If you are doing these things, you are then contributing and therefor choosing the reality of global warming. Reality can change. There exists many earths in the Multiverse that are without global warming, and there exists many earths that are parched and dead to life. Don't fall into the trap that is your three dimensional prison! Free yourself and follow the Angel DaGipriel (there, had to change my name three times before I got it right).

If the Githzerai can create things out of the ethereal chaos, can't you also do the same? If a Githzerai can meditate on an apple appearing and it suddenly appears before him, can you not do the same? I say to you that your Mother of the Multiverse loves you more than many Githzerai! You see the apple, but you choose to get it. There is no difference between you and Githzerai (unless of course you are Githyanki).

[macbone]

There cannot be two skies!

I take the stairs! And public transport! And even then, I walk from the MTR to my office rather than ride the minibus! I fight global warming as much as I can! (Except for today. Today I'm dog-tired and actually took the elevator and the minibus. Yes, it's my fault all the ice is melting in Antarctica.)

OK, that's another lie. I'm far too fond of my air-con, at least in the office. But I only turn it on at home when I'm sleeping, because body and beats, I stain my sheets, I don't even know why. My girlfriend, she's at the end, she is starting to cry.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

[Army of GOD]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

Actually, no. If I'm traveling at near speed of light, I perceive time and space differently than someone who's observing me. The theory of relativity pretty much disproves any sort of objective physical reality in my opinion.

[nietzsche]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

How can you ever be sure of that? How can you be sure your mind isn't playing tricks on you and you are imagining it all?

At some point you have to make a leap of faith.

[Army of GOD]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

How can you ever be sure of that? How can you be sure your mind isn't playing tricks on you and you are imagining it all?

At some point you have to make a leap of faith.

Also this.

Is the crazy guy truly crazy or is he sane and we're all crazy? If someone 100% believes the US gov't was behind 9/11, does that make their reality wrong?

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

Actually, no. If I'm traveling at near speed of light, I perceive time and space differently than someone who's observing me. The theory of relativity pretty much disproves any sort of objective physical reality in my opinion.

No, the laws of physics are still local. You may disagree about what causes, say, the movement of electrons (electrical field or magnetic field depending on your frame of reference), but again, you have zero effect on the outcome. Laws operate independently of the mind. Your rationalization of the event does not change the event.

How can you ever be sure of that? How can you be sure your mind isn't playing tricks on you and you are imagining it all?

At some point you have to make a leap of faith.

And at some point you have to realize that a solipsistic argument is absurd and ridiculous. If your perception of reality was, in fact, reality, then you are god, as you can run infinitely complex system of probabilities and events that tricks you into believing in this reality.

Take gravity, for example. I have no inkling why gravity works the way it does. If my perception of reality had any effect on reality, wouldn't gravity cease to function? So which is more likely? I am either a lonely entity capable of deceiving myself with improbable scenarios or I am a flesh-and-blood human among 7 billion others.

-TG

[Army of GOD]

Pretty sure were arguing two different things

[nietzsche]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

Actually, no. If I'm traveling at near speed of light, I perceive time and space differently than someone who's observing me. The theory of relativity pretty much disproves any sort of objective physical reality in my opinion.

No, the laws of physics are still local. You may disagree about what causes, say, the movement of electrons (electrical field or magnetic field depending on your frame of reference), but again, you have zero effect on the outcome. Laws operate independently of the mind. Your rationalization of the event does not change the event.

How can you ever be sure of that? How can you be sure your mind isn't playing tricks on you and you are imagining it all?

At some point you have to make a leap of faith.

And at some point you have to realize that a solipsistic argument is absurd and ridiculous. If your perception of reality was, in fact, reality, then you are god, as you can run infinitely complex system of probabilities and events that tricks you into believing in this reality.

Take gravity, for example. I have no inkling why gravity works the way it does. If my perception of reality had any effect on reality, wouldn't gravity cease to function? So which is more likely? I am either a lonely entity capable of deceiving myself with improbable scenarios or I am a flesh-and-blood human among 7 billion others.


-TG

You are making a leap of faith mate, whether we like to accept it or not. You may want to start from there, and it's ok, we all do somehow, but the truth is there's a leap of fate, you depend on your senses to observe "reality". There's a gap.

Just give it a thought.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

Actually, no. If I'm traveling at near speed of light, I perceive time and space differently than someone who's observing me. The theory of relativity pretty much disproves any sort of objective physical reality in my opinion.

No, the laws of physics are still local. You may disagree about what causes, say, the movement of electrons (electrical field or magnetic field depending on your frame of reference), but again, you have zero effect on the outcome. Laws operate independently of the mind. Your rationalization of the event does not change the event.

How can you ever be sure of that? How can you be sure your mind isn't playing tricks on you and you are imagining it all?

At some point you have to make a leap of faith.

And at some point you have to realize that a solipsistic argument is absurd and ridiculous. If your perception of reality was, in fact, reality, then you are god, as you can run infinitely complex system of probabilities and events that tricks you into believing in this reality.

Take gravity, for example. I have no inkling why gravity works the way it does. If my perception of reality had any effect on reality, wouldn't gravity cease to function? So which is more likely? I am either a lonely entity capable of deceiving myself with improbable scenarios or I am a flesh-and-blood human among 7 billion others.


-TG

You are making a leap of faith mate, whether we like to accept it or not. You may want to start from there, and it's ok, we all do somehow, but the truth is there's a leap of fate, you depend on your senses to observe "reality". There's a gap.

Just give it a thought.

The "gap" is not what you think it is. You are saying that in between sensory reception and understanding, what we perceive can be any multitude of things and may be different depending on the person. For example, the "does chicken taste like chicken" argument a la The Matrix. Whether it does or not is unimportant. Both parties perceive a food which they know as chicken and so the outcome is the same-- they eat what they believe is chicken. However, since both parties observe the same effect, does this not imply that the experience was the same?

Pretty sure were arguing two different things

Re: your 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Of course it's wrong (or rather, incorrect) and he is insane. Again, what is more likely? One person is unstable or 300 million? If you're arguing that two competing events can be concurrently valid, then there's not much I can say. Can two degenerate electrons have the same spin? No.

-TG

[AndyDufresne]

Is this the real life?
Is this just fantasy?
Caught in a landslide
No escape from reality


--Andy

[Army of GOD]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

Actually, no. If I'm traveling at near speed of light, I perceive time and space differently than someone who's observing me. The theory of relativity pretty much disproves any sort of objective physical reality in my opinion.

No, the laws of physics are still local. You may disagree about what causes, say, the movement of electrons (electrical field or magnetic field depending on your frame of reference), but again, you have zero effect on the outcome. Laws operate independently of the mind. Your rationalization of the event does not change the event.

How can you ever be sure of that? How can you be sure your mind isn't playing tricks on you and you are imagining it all?

At some point you have to make a leap of faith.

And at some point you have to realize that a solipsistic argument is absurd and ridiculous. If your perception of reality was, in fact, reality, then you are god, as you can run infinitely complex system of probabilities and events that tricks you into believing in this reality.

Take gravity, for example. I have no inkling why gravity works the way it does. If my perception of reality had any effect on reality, wouldn't gravity cease to function? So which is more likely? I am either a lonely entity capable of deceiving myself with improbable scenarios or I am a flesh-and-blood human among 7 billion others.


-TG

You are making a leap of faith mate, whether we like to accept it or not. You may want to start from there, and it's ok, we all do somehow, but the truth is there's a leap of fate, you depend on your senses to observe "reality". There's a gap.

Just give it a thought.

The "gap" is not what you think it is. You are saying that in between sensory reception and understanding, what we perceive can be any multitude of things and may be different depending on the person. For example, the "does chicken taste like chicken" argument a la The Matrix. Whether it does or not is unimportant. Both parties perceive a food which they know as chicken and so the outcome is the same-- they eat what they believe is chicken. However, since both parties observe the same effect, does this not imply that the experience was the same?

Pretty sure were arguing two different things

Re: your 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Of course it's wrong (or rather, incorrect) and he is insane. Again, what is more likely? One person is unstable or 300 million? If you're arguing that two competing events can be concurrently valid, then there's not much I can say. Can two degenerate electrons have the same spin? No.

-TG

Just because its more likely hardly means it is.

Also, I don't think you're getting what nietzsche is saying.

[nietzsche]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

Actually, no. If I'm traveling at near speed of light, I perceive time and space differently than someone who's observing me. The theory of relativity pretty much disproves any sort of objective physical reality in my opinion.

No, the laws of physics are still local. You may disagree about what causes, say, the movement of electrons (electrical field or magnetic field depending on your frame of reference), but again, you have zero effect on the outcome. Laws operate independently of the mind. Your rationalization of the event does not change the event.

How can you ever be sure of that? How can you be sure your mind isn't playing tricks on you and you are imagining it all?

At some point you have to make a leap of faith.

And at some point you have to realize that a solipsistic argument is absurd and ridiculous. If your perception of reality was, in fact, reality, then you are god, as you can run infinitely complex system of probabilities and events that tricks you into believing in this reality.

Take gravity, for example. I have no inkling why gravity works the way it does. If my perception of reality had any effect on reality, wouldn't gravity cease to function? So which is more likely? I am either a lonely entity capable of deceiving myself with improbable scenarios or I am a flesh-and-blood human among 7 billion others.


-TG

You are making a leap of faith mate, whether we like to accept it or not. You may want to start from there, and it's ok, we all do somehow, but the truth is there's a leap of fate, you depend on your senses to observe "reality". There's a gap.

Just give it a thought.

The "gap" is not what you think it is. You are saying that in between sensory reception and understanding, what we perceive can be any multitude of things and may be different depending on the person. For example, the "does chicken taste like chicken" argument a la The Matrix. Whether it does or not is unimportant. Both parties perceive a food which they know as chicken and so the outcome is the same-- they eat what they believe is chicken. However, since both parties observe the same effect, does this not imply that the experience was the same?

Pretty sure were arguing two different things

Re: your 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Of course it's wrong (or rather, incorrect) and he is insane. Again, what is more likely? One person is unstable or 300 million? If you're arguing that two competing events can be concurrently valid, then there's not much I can say. Can two degenerate electrons have the same spin? No.

-TG

This is an explanation of Descartes First Meditation, one that I found quickly on the web. It would explain something of my point.

Descartes' Methodic Doubt

René Descartes (1596-1650) is an example of a rationalist. According to Descartes, before we can describe the nature of reality (as is done in metaphysics) or say what it means for something to be or exist (which is the focus of ontology), we must first consider what we mean when we say we know what reality, being, or existence is. He suggests that it is pointless to claim that something is real or exists unless we first know how such a claim could be known as a justified true belief. But to say that our beliefs are justified, we have to be able to base them ultimately on a belief that is itself indubitable. Such a belief could then provide a firm foundation on which all subsequent beliefs are grounded and could thus be known as true. This way of thinking about knowledge is called foundationalism.

In his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), Descartes indicates how we are able to guarantee our beliefs about reality by limiting what we believe to what is indubitable or is based on what is indubitable. That involves him in a series of six "meditations" (of which we will focus on only the first two) about the proper method of philosophical reflection and the conclusions that can be drawn from using that method. Throughout these Meditations Descartes insists that (1) we should claim to know only that for which we have justification, (2) we cannot appeal to anything outside of our ideas for such justification, and (3) we judge our ideas using a method that guarantees that our ideas are correct.

In the first Meditation Descartes argues that our ordinary experience of the world cannot provide the kind of guaranteed foundation on which all other knowledge can be based. We are often disappointed to learn that what we have been taught are merely prejudices, or that what our senses tell us is incorrect. That should make us wonder about whether all the other things that we think are obvious might likewise be mistaken. In order to test whether what we think we know is truly correct, Descartes suggests that we adopt a method that will avoid error by tracing what we know back to a firm foundation of indubitable beliefs.

Of course, it is possible that there are no absolutely unshakeable truths. It is also possible that we might discover that our prejudices cannot be removed or that beliefs we think are ultimate foundations for all our other beliefs are not really ultimate at all. The point of our meditations is to challenge those beliefs, even if we have held them for a long time. And that self-critique will take a real effort.

In order to determine whether there is anything we can know with certainty, Descartes says that we first have to doubt everything we know. Such a radical doubt might not seem reasonable, and Descartes certainly does not mean that we really should doubt everything. What he suggests, though, is that in order to see if there is some belief that cannot be doubted, we should temporarily pretend that everything we know is questionable. This pretence is what is called a hypothetical doubt. To make sure that we take the pretence seriously, Descartes suggests that there might be good arguments to think that such doubting is justified (and thus more than simply something we should pretend to do). His arguments fall into two categories: those aimed against our sense experiences and our supposition that we can distinguish between being awake and dreaming, and those aimed against our reasoning abilities themselves.

Since sense experience is sometimes deceiving, it is obvious to Descartes that a posteriori claims (e.g., that this milk tastes sour or that suit is dark blue) cannot be the basis for claims of knowledge. We do not know that what we experience through our senses is true; at least, we are not certain of it. And we cannot tell when our senses are correctly reporting the way things really are and when they are not. So the best thing to do is to doubt whether any knowledge can be based on our sense experiences.

Furthermore, how do we know that we are not dreaming some particular experience we have, or that we are not dreaming all of our experience of the world? When we dream we imagine things happening often with the same sense of reality as we do when we are supposedly awake. Just as a person who has an amputated limb has real sensations and feels real pains in a hand or a foot that no longer exists, we sense that we have a body and interact with other bodies. But isn't it possible that we are dreaming that there are things that exist apart from our thinking or dreaming about them?

Note, in his dreaming argument, Descartes is not saying that we are merely dreaming all that we experience; nor is he saying that we cannot distinguish dreaming from being awake. His point is that we cannot be sure that what we experience as being real in the world is actually real.

Of course Descartes isn't the only one you can read about this idea, but it's the first that came to mind. There are many current philosophers of consciousness that consider the point, and of course it is an idea that's been there forever.

That we decide to forget all about it it's another matter.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Nope, pretty sure atoms interact with atoms, regardless of how one "perceives" the outcome. Reality is fixed. Your brain interprets it as it does, but that has no effect on the outcome.

-TG

Actually, no. If I'm traveling at near speed of light, I perceive time and space differently than someone who's observing me. The theory of relativity pretty much disproves any sort of objective physical reality in my opinion.

No, the laws of physics are still local. You may disagree about what causes, say, the movement of electrons (electrical field or magnetic field depending on your frame of reference), but again, you have zero effect on the outcome. Laws operate independently of the mind. Your rationalization of the event does not change the event.

How can you ever be sure of that? How can you be sure your mind isn't playing tricks on you and you are imagining it all?

At some point you have to make a leap of faith.

And at some point you have to realize that a solipsistic argument is absurd and ridiculous. If your perception of reality was, in fact, reality, then you are god, as you can run infinitely complex system of probabilities and events that tricks you into believing in this reality.

Take gravity, for example. I have no inkling why gravity works the way it does. If my perception of reality had any effect on reality, wouldn't gravity cease to function? So which is more likely? I am either a lonely entity capable of deceiving myself with improbable scenarios or I am a flesh-and-blood human among 7 billion others.


-TG

You are making a leap of faith mate, whether we like to accept it or not. You may want to start from there, and it's ok, we all do somehow, but the truth is there's a leap of fate, you depend on your senses to observe "reality". There's a gap.

Just give it a thought.

The "gap" is not what you think it is. You are saying that in between sensory reception and understanding, what we perceive can be any multitude of things and may be different depending on the person. For example, the "does chicken taste like chicken" argument a la The Matrix. Whether it does or not is unimportant. Both parties perceive a food which they know as chicken and so the outcome is the same-- they eat what they believe is chicken. However, since both parties observe the same effect, does this not imply that the experience was the same?

Pretty sure were arguing two different things

Re: your 9/11 conspiracy theorist.

Of course it's wrong (or rather, incorrect) and he is insane. Again, what is more likely? One person is unstable or 300 million? If you're arguing that two competing events can be concurrently valid, then there's not much I can say. Can two degenerate electrons have the same spin? No.

-TG

Just because its more likely hardly means it is.

Also, I don't think you're getting what nietzsche is saying.

That does not follow. Consider heat and entropy. The possibility of spontaneous transmission of energy from a cooler to warmer system exists, yet has never occurred because of the overwhelming amount of microstates of the opposite, or what we know as diffusion and heat transfer. The probabilities are too staggering. This is similar to our 9/11 conspiracist.

Nietzsche replied to my first post about the fixity of reality, therefore I think know what he is attempting to say. He specifically said, "imagining it all," implying that reality is a construct of my mind. Or, I'm a crazy person in a padded cell.

-TG