StarGateWars Forums

is reality infinite, or is it simply nothing more than what we see with our eyes??





let the discussions begin

I've changed my terminology a bit, but my argument is ultimately the same as before.

There is one reality that can have these attributes:

-subjective (subject to bias)
-objective (capable of being perceived, ideally without bias)
-observable
-perceived
-believed

Basically, this reality is what you ultimately believe and/or perceive reality to be. There's not much more to it.

The second reality is what actually is, that is, what actually exists. You can't know this one, because you have no way of knowing what is. If you perceive something, you only know that you perceived it, but you don't know what you've perceived. You may very well have perceived it into existence within your perceived reality, or something that actually exists may very well have been perceived, either completely and accurately, which cannot be proven, or with a lesser degree of completeness and/or accuracy. Even then, it is possible to project attributes upon the perceived and ultimately have an understanding of it that does not reflect actual reality.

When you perceive something, regardless of whether or how it actually exists, you have created that which you perceived within your own reality. The mirror image is never the true version and will usually differ considerably in its attributes; that is, your understanding of what it is will likely not reflect what it truly is. In the mirror analogy, the mind can also draw on the mirror.

Science operates completely within perceived reality, as it comes to conclusions based on observations. It can't step out of observable reality because its very purpose is to observe and create hypotheses. Where something cannot be observed, science is useless.

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

Therefore, English has words such as supernatural and inexplicable.

As far as I'm concerned, there is no supernatural. What is supernatural? Is it beyond natural? Fine. What is natural? I choose to define natural as "That which is." My understanding is that many define natural as "That which can be explained through observation."

This being said, there is no supernatural if I use my definition of natural. I will say this, though: there is no evidence that the sum of all that is necessarily is limited to that which can be perceived. The popular question: "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody was there to hear it, did it make a sound?" is a question of perceived reality and nothing more. The answer certainly is "no" within the perceived realities of those who perceived no sound. However, if our admittedly scientific understanding of sound has any merit whatsoever, the answer may very well be yes within actual reality.

Furthermore, the flaw of the tree falling in the forest question is that it does not consider the fact that in the perceived realities of those who never perceived the tree fall, the tree never fell. In the perceived realities of those who never perceived the tree, it never existed. In the perceived realities of those who only discovered the tree after it fell, they would base their understanding that the tree fell upon past experience that a tree does not grow horizontally with its roots out of the ground. They are projecting other experiences upon one that they never experienced. Because they believe it, however, it is very much part of their perceived realities.

I will have more to say when I have people to contradict or anything to add or clarify. Cheerios.

i was holding back my thoughts until there was a few more replies, seems no one wants to discuss it

Maybe they need more time, or maybe not enough people visit this dark corner of the forum... OR MAYBE nobody cares about reality. That would explain a lot, actually...

your probably correct on all fronts

WAIT...maybe i drove/scared everyone away because my discussions/subjects/posts force people to actually think and question things for a change?!


i REALLY hope that's not the case

I enjoy reading what you guys come up with while debating, I just don't show my face here because I usually have nothing of use to add

I love the tree thought experiment, I luse it as a metaphor when people beleive they know everything. Because there is just so much out they we have not experienced or just don't have the inability right now to perceive. Thoughts and ideas never touched upon, calling us to advance through the forest, to one day be able to hear that tree of knowledge fall.

Reality may or may not be corporeally inifnite but it can be perceived in a infinite number of ways. The deviation coupled with the ability to share our perceptions is essential to advancement of the human condition.

that's a bit of a sweeping statement, dont you think?

poets and philosophers have spent centuries trying to explain reality but you did it in under 10 words...WOW!

Well, Mister Sandman, where does the human mind exist, then?

Perceived reality certainly exists within the human mind, or should I say, through the perception of everything that is capable of perceiving.

For there to be a mind in which a perceived reality can exist, that mind must actually exist, that is, in actual reality. To imply that it necessarily stops at the mind, however, is logically unsupported by your argument, although it certainly is a possibility.

You gave a possibility in about ten words. Can you explain how you came to that conclusion? The reason why philosophers usually wrote longer texts is because they went through a methodological process of showing their rationale and how it, in their minds, led them to their conclusion.

I find it impossible to make a grand claim without explaining it thoroughly. I want others to understand my claim and see the logic that supports it.

No, it depends on what you mean by "mind". You stated that reality only exists in the mind. Using the same meaning of mind, I asked you where the mind exists, implying that it cannot only exist within itself, as without its existence, it can neither contain nor conceive its existence. In other words, the mind must actually exist, as opposed to subjectively exist.

I've already concluded that not all reality is subjective. There are two realities.

To reformulate what I said before: one reality is subject to perception and belief: subjective/perceived reality.

The other one is what actually exists, but this one is unknowable, except to a very limited extent through reason. I call this second reality "actual reality". I can prove that it exists by stating that I am thinking and therefore my thoughts actually exist. My thoughts, however, must also be conceived, and that which conceived them must also actually exist.

The universe as we know it is simply a construct of my own mind. You are all figments of my imagination, and therefore all of your arguments are, by proxy of my subconscious, my ideas.

If you disagree I'll find out what part of my brain is creating you, and I'll bang it against my desk until you turn into a Ferret or one of your arms falls off.

Ahhh.... good ole solipsism.

I find it unlikely that, of all beings in the universe, the rest is only subject to your particular imagination. If we are thus linked, then we may indeed only be parts of a greater whole, mental creations, if you will, of a divine consciousness/spirit, whom some have come to call "God".