Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Magical Realist, Sep 21, 2015.
A tree is a tree.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
...But is it the same tree to each of us...? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Two people can not see the same tree from the same place.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Say we gathered a group of people, with one person representing each spoken language. There are currently about 6500 languages. In the middle of these 6500 people, all with different languages, we will place a unique peach tree. Although they can all see the same tree, each will make a different set of sounds, describing what they see, with only them understanding what they are trying to say.
On the one hand, our sense of sight provide a universal language, where all 6500 see the same reality. But we can't transfer this directly to another via ESP; not any longer. On the other hand, all these language allow us to make this information transfer, but the need for 6500 cultural languages to create different sounds for the same things, suggests language is subjective and arbitrary, while reality is not.
There are universal languages, such as sight that uses colors, shades and textures, instead of letters, words and sentences. But to go from there to verbal language, there is information loss, making it harder to agree upon the same reality.
The irony is many believe language allows us to perceive reality, but this is not the case. One has to get beyond the limits of language to be able to see reality. Reality is a personal journey using our collective natures, which we can't easily transfer.
But mathematics is a universal language. Each of the 6500 people will agree there is only 1 tree!
"...and he know's it."-Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.
Why not; what changes ?
The appearance of the tree.
We each see an "external" reality and an internal reality. When both merge one begins to live in the Quantum existence. Only one is real. Eliminating the Cartesian mind/body dualism.
Both the observer AND the tree change!
The observer changes ; agreed ; the tree does not change
By truth you could mean the position and nature of a particle in relation to another or others at a specific point in their path-related existence and observed from another specified point, or, you could mean is it a truth for Billy that taking someone else’s money from the counter is a bad thing (is it true according to him that he committed what is known as a crime).
I would say truth in the humanities and socially is always the better option, one way or another. Perverted truth is always the destructive option, one way or another. (I specify the humanities but I can’t imagine a scenario or science where truth is to be avoided. It can appear to hurt amongst people but in the final analysis only improves matters – of course I don't include being ill-intentioned with it.)
Reality is a different subject I think. Though the two might cross here and there it isn’t necessarily the same as truth.
By reality you could mean the nature, properties and whatever of something material as far as you can measure it, or you could mean a possible unknown existence that might be currently beyond the grasp of humans for whatever reason, which, when it comes to it, needn’t then be restricted to the material, I suppose.
With either, truth or reality, you run into the problem of perception – one way or another it is always going to come down to being human. Things only exist or not in relation to us. If some object had a specific quality that was perceived by us in one manner and by some animals in another and so on and so on, surely the “actuality” of it has little value outside of its agreed-upon perception to each species. So while there might be more to that object to explore, well, as more of it is revealed so it is perceived and so it develops in “reality”.
The degree of accuracy or comprehensiveness of measurement of a thing can theoretically be eternally challenged without hope of satisfaction. It doesn’t mean there is no value in it, obviously.
And then it further boils down to the individual; when you are doing well in life generally the world and all its contents as perceived by you are a very different thing altogether than when you are doing poorly. It might as well be a different planet made up of different colours. A modified perception but no less real or true.
We see reality as is.
Tech. Expands our reality .
I have no problem with seeing a narrow of spectroscopy ; could we handle more info. Of this band .
We do not see physical reality as it really is for two reasons. Firstly everything we do see is in the past as
it takes time for light to travel between the object / objects in question and our eyes. This is not actually
realised given the actual speed of light and the relative proximity of any object to us. Secondly our eyes
which are our dominant sense can only see a fraction of the entire electromagnetic light spectrum. For
there is much they do not see like x rays and gamma rays and radio waves and microwaves and atoms
and particles. Since all of that constitutes physical reality although it is entirely invisible to us as such
Have you got a temperature River? Of course we can handle more:
...however the maximum can never be reached. But we can handle it.
Your point ....?
What of things that are 10000 kilometers from you
My argument is that two of the same will never reach full capacity.
Well, you can start by saying that two people cannot occupy the same place at the same time.
But two people standing side by side both can see the tree, however, each sees the tree from a slightly different angle and each will see the tree differently as it appears from their *frame of reference*. That's the whole point of GR.
But through discussion ; the circumference of the tree is the same. For both .
Yes, indeed. We accept reality by agreement (learning).
This is why optical illusions are so powerful. An interesting example is the spinning dancer.
Hint, watch the heel touching the floor and follow the turn direction of the foot.
You know sooner or later this " optical illusion " argument has just got to stop.
Separate names with a comma.