100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The nature of reality | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
This thread is intended to follow on the tails of the “observer/agreement created reality” debates.
Here's the question: Is there “only one true reality” or are there “multiple realities”? As far as I can tell, the “scientific” camp says that there can only be one reality whereas the “philosophical” camp says that there can be multiple realities. So what exactly is the “nature of reality”? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you say science says there can be only one reality, it depends on the nature of the reality as you describe it. Science believes there are multiple dimensions, which could easy each be it's own unique reality. Science doesn't yet understand the way in which these dimensions interact with each other.
If you take any given event and all participants in said event and ask each person to describe the event exactly as it occurred, all descriptions will be different, at least slightly. So the issue becomes, does each person remember it differently or did it happen slightly differently for each person. Secondly, which person is right if it in fact happens the same for all of them. Finally. What is "real". I'm not going to go matrix logic on you, but I used to freak people out in high school by proving mathematically that they didn't exist. I don't remember off the top of my head how, but it can be done. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reality is what it is
it is the perception of reality that is ever changing ------------- example reality is what actually happened perception is what those that were witness to it believe happened an event happens in front of 20 people yous isolate each of them and then interview them individually you will most likely get twenty different accounts of the event look at a football play for example ----------- thus they each perceived the reality in a different manner it did not change what happened the reality is what really happened |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The philosophical question would still ask is reality affected by perception.
My question still begs an answer, what is real. Did the football play even happen? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 11/13/08 06:09 PM
|
|
reality is what it is
it is the perception of reality that is ever changing ------------- example reality is what actually happened perception is what those that were witness to it believe happened an event happens in front of 20 people yous isolate each of them and then interview them individually you will most likely get twenty different accounts of the event look at a football play for example ----------- thus they each perceived the reality in a different manner it did not change what happened the reality is what really happened Don't stop there. You've presented a hypothesis and set up an experiment. Now show the experimental results that support your hypothesis. Your hypothesis: "reality is what actually happened" Your experiment: 20 people observed the same event and each person gave a different account of said event. Now you must show two things: 1) What "actually happened"? 2) How you determined what "actually happened"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you say science says there can be only one reality, it depends on the nature of the reality as you describe it. Science believes there are multiple dimensions, which could easy each be it's own unique reality. Science doesn't yet understand the way in which these dimensions interact with each other.
You’ve done a masterful job of outlining some of the thornier issues regarding the nature of reality.
If you take any given event and all participants in said event and ask each person to describe the event exactly as it occurred, all descriptions will be different, at least slightly. So the issue becomes, does each person remember it differently or did it happen slightly differently for each person. Secondly, which person is right if it in fact happens the same for all of them. Finally. What is "real". I'm not going to go matrix logic on you, but I used to freak people out in high school by proving mathematically that they didn't exist. I don't remember off the top of my head how, but it can be done. But the OP was a question intended to be answered by each individual as to their personal viewpoint. So what is your personal opinion about the nature of reality? You’ve outlined a few different possibilities. Which one do you subscribe to, if any? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reality is what it is
it is the perception of reality that is ever changing ------------- example reality is what actually happened perception is what those that were witness to it believe happened an event happens in front of 20 people yous isolate each of them and then interview them individually you will most likely get twenty different accounts of the event look at a football play for example ----------- thus they each perceived the reality in a different manner it did not change what happened the reality is what really happened Don't stop there. You've presented a hypothesis and set up an experiment. Now show the experimental results that support your hypothesis. Your hypothesis: "reality is what actually happened" Your experiment: 20 people observed the same event and each person gave a different account of said event. Now you must show two things: 1) What "actually happened"? 2) How you determined what "actually happened"? look at any trail where a convicted murderer was set free with dna evidence after being convicted with eyewitness testimony |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread is intended to follow on the tails of the “observer/agreement created reality” debates. Here's the question: Is there “only one true reality” or are there “multiple realities”? As far as I can tell, the “scientific” camp says that there can only be one reality whereas the “philosophical” camp says that there can be multiple realities. So what exactly is the “nature of reality”? by the way what class is this for hehehhe 
my bad |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The philosophical question would still ask is reality affected by perception. My question still begs an answer, what is real. Did the football play even happen? ""The philosophical question would still ask is reality affected by perception."" it is the perception that is affected by the reality not the other way around take the blind men and the elephant example |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Thu 11/13/08 07:13 PM
|
|
reality is what it is
it is the perception of reality that is ever changing ------------- example reality is what actually happened perception is what those that were witness to it believe happened an event happens in front of 20 people yous isolate each of them and then interview them individually you will most likely get twenty different accounts of the event look at a football play for example ----------- thus they each perceived the reality in a different manner it did not change what happened the reality is what really happened Don't stop there. You've presented a hypothesis and set up an experiment. Now show the experimental results that support your hypothesis. Your hypothesis: "reality is what actually happened" Your experiment: 20 people observed the same event and each person gave a different account of said event. Now you must show two things: 1) What "actually happened"? 2) How you determined what "actually happened"? after being convicted with eyewitness testimony Now if you would, please stick with one scenario until it is resolved. So here’s the hypothesis: “reality is what actually occurred” The parameters of the experiment are: - An unspecified number (assumed to be more than one) of observers (eyewitnesses) observed an event (the crime). - The observers testified to what they observed - The jury agreed with them - Some other observer observed something about DNA - The courts agreed with this other observer So you’re saying that “what actually occurred” is what the “DNA observer” observed. Is that correct? (You’ll have to forgive me if I assumed a lot there, but you were pretty vague in describing your parameters. If I made any incorrect assumptions in that regard, please correct them for me.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
reality is what it is
it is the perception of reality that is ever changing ------------- example reality is what actually happened perception is what those that were witness to it believe happened an event happens in front of 20 people yous isolate each of them and then interview them individually you will most likely get twenty different accounts of the event look at a football play for example ----------- thus they each perceived the reality in a different manner it did not change what happened the reality is what really happened Don't stop there. You've presented a hypothesis and set up an experiment. Now show the experimental results that support your hypothesis. Your hypothesis: "reality is what actually happened" Your experiment: 20 people observed the same event and each person gave a different account of said event. Now you must show two things: 1) What "actually happened"? 2) How you determined what "actually happened"? after being convicted with eyewitness testimony Now if you would, please stick with one scenario until it is resolved. So here’s the hypothesis: “reality is what actually occurred” The parameters of the experiment are: - An unspecified number (assumed to be more than one) of observers (eyewitnesses) observed an event (the crime). - The observers testified to what they observed - The jury agreed with them (and thus the conviction) - Some other observer observed something about DNA - The courts agreed with this other observer So you’re saying that “what actually occurred” is what the “DNA observer” observed. Is that correct? (You’ll have to forgive me if I assumed a lot there, but you were pretty vague in describing your parameters. If I made any incorrect assumptions in that regard, please correct them for me.) but that would be my perception to the reality to answer your question in a real manner you must do the follow thru not me because if i do it it is not real to your perception it is only me saying it is so if you must know the reality of it you must follow thru on the suggestions no matter what i say or research would not truly be real to you because you did not perceive it first hand |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
adj4u
on
Thu 11/13/08 07:18 PM
|
|
The parameters of the experiment are:
- An unspecified number (assumed to be more than one) of observers (eyewitnesses) observed an event (the crime). - The observers testified to what they observed - The jury agreed with them (and thus the conviction) - Some other observer observed something about DNA - The courts agreed with this other observer do the research on any of them it is open to the public record i am not holding your hand if you need a detailed account go get you one did i really say that or is it your perception |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The philosophical question would still ask is reality affected by perception. it is the perception that is affected by the reality not the other way aroundOf course, that is the core of the debate: Did the chicken observer lay the reality egg, or did the reality egg give birth to the chicken observer? Which gives rise to another question: Can either exist without the other? Can reality exist without an observer observing it? Can an observer exist without a reality to observe? The simple fact that there can be no proof either way would seem to indicate that the two may be inexorably intertwined. Kinda like space and time? An interesting thought. Comments? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The parameters of the experiment are: - An unspecified number (assumed to be more than one) of observers (eyewitnesses) observed an event (the crime). - The observers testified to what they observed - The jury agreed with them (and thus the conviction) - Some other observer observed something about DNA - The courts agreed with this other observer do the research on any of them it is open to the public record i am not holding your hand if you need a detailed account go get you one did i really say that are is it your perception |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you can have no reality without perception
like if a tree falls in the woods and no one is ther to hear does it make any noise ---------------------- does it really matter if you do not know the tree feel in the first place once you know the tree feel yes you know it made noise (if you ever heard a tree fall) so in reality does a tree make noise when it falls if nobody knows it fell would be a more appropriate question |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The parameters of the experiment are: - An unspecified number (assumed to be more than one) of observers (eyewitnesses) observed an event (the crime). - The observers testified to what they observed - The jury agreed with them (and thus the conviction) - Some other observer observed something about DNA - The courts agreed with this other observer do the research on any of them it is open to the public record i am not holding your hand if you need a detailed account go get you one did i really say that are is it your perception if that is how you perceive it does that make it the reality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The parameters of the experiment are:
Well now all you're saying is for me to reach my own conclusion about it. So thank you, I will.- An unspecified number (assumed to be more than one) of observers (eyewitnesses) observed an event (the crime). - The observers testified to what they observed - The jury agreed with them (and thus the conviction) - Some other observer observed something about DNA - The courts agreed with this other observer do the research on any of them it is open to the public record i am not holding your hand if you need a detailed account go get you one did i really say that are is it your perception does that make it the reality My purpose is to understand how others view the nature of reality. What they think it is and how it works. If you wish to assist me in understanding, then I would appreciate it. Now all I'm saying is that, from what you've said so far, I don’t fully understand what your viewpoint is. You made a couple statements that appear to me to be contradictory: “you can have no reality without perception” and “it is the perception that is affected by the reality not the other way around” I’m just trying to clarify that apparent contradiction is all. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“you can have no reality without perception”
and “it is the perception that is affected by the reality not the other way around” exactly --------- if no one percieves it it is unknown there for it is not a true reality it may be a fact but is not reality till it is perceived ---------- now once that fact become known (percieved) it becomes a reality ---------- it is a fact there are and was microorganisms before they were discovered no doubt in my mind but until they were discovered by man they were not a reality to man yes they were real but not to man thus man could not perceive they existence but once man figured it out they went from real to reality ------------ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I think I got it now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I think I got it now. yes but what is your opinion |
|
|
|
|
