Reality is...

Doesn't quantum physics imply that we can never have a complete understanding of reality? We can never measure anything completely without altering it. Our models may be predictive, but they can only be a representation of reality, we can only understand it symbolically. And personally, we don't perceive reality, we perceive our brain's interpretation of reality.
 
spidergoat said:
Doesn't quantum physics imply that we can never have a complete understanding of reality? We can never measure anything completely without altering it. Our models may be predictive, but they can only be a representation of reality, we can only understand it symbolically. And personally, we don't perceive reality, we perceive our brain's interpretation of reality.
Click to expand...

When you say that "we can only understand it symbolically" you would be correct. Translating reality and responding to it successfully requires a concept of symbolism and metaphor. As to "we don't perceive reality, we perceive our brain's interpretation of reality", this would be wrong. If we did not perceive reality, then we could not convert it into an interpretation in the first place, and thus our science and mathematical models would correspond to nothing. Which they clearly do not, hence perception must have something to perceive, namely reality, and thus absurdity and deception could only then be eliminated and destroyed.
 
As far as our senses, the interpretation happens at the interaction between reality and the nerves, which must have some sample rate, however fine. And then each nerve has spacing between itself and other nerves. Our instruments can sample at a much finer scale, giving relatively reliable data. But it's still like comparing live music to an mp3 file. Reality must always be an abstraction, assumed to exist but very elusive. Our models will always be approximations.
 
James R said:
Spellbound is now banned for 1 day for continuing to spam sciforums with "Reality is..." threads. If warning points continue to accumulate, subsequent bans will be for longer periods, as per our published policy.
Click to expand...

So how do YOU define Reality James R? Assuming ofcourse you DO define it. CAN it be defined?
 
Spellbound said:
This actually says a lot about your delusional self-importance than fact and reality.
Click to expand...
Not really.

otherwise you would be posting them.
Click to expand...
What makes you think that?
Perhaps I don't suffer from the same "Hey guys you have to listen to what I've just thought of (read: made up)!" syndrome that you do.

Reality encompasses all areas of science, that is why I make insights (which you clearly deny) into it.
Click to expand...
You make insights? Could you give examples of an "insight" you've had that's scientifically valid? That provides actual, discernible, verifiable help to science? (You know, per your statement "understanding reality is incredibly important to science").
 
The great thing about reality is be virtue of it being real, doesn't care what definitions mere human beings invent. That's the objective property of objective reality.

That's why there's just one body of knowledge about reality, science, instead of a bunch of national offshoots.
 
Spellbound said:
My thought processes are almost always dedicated to making insights into reality. Can the mods create a new Philosophy subforum and I promise I will restrict all discussions of reality to it?
Click to expand...
No need, since all your discussions on that topic are already restricted to the current thread.

You seem to have mistaken sciforums for your personal blog. Please be aware that this is a discussion forum. In particular, it is a discussion forum where science is discussed.

You are free to create your own website, pay for a domain if you want it, start an associated discussion forum, dedicate yourself to the worship of Langan etc.
 
rpenner said:
The great thing about reality is be virtue of it being real, doesn't care what definitions mere human beings invent. That's the objective property of objective reality.

That's why there's just one body of knowledge about reality, science, instead of a bunch of national offshoots.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
James R said:
No need, since all your discussions on that topic are already restricted to the current thread.

You seem to have mistaken sciforums for your personal blog. Please be aware that this is a discussion forum. In particular, it is a discussion forum where science is discussed.

You are free to create your own website, pay for a domain if you want it, start an associated discussion forum, dedicate yourself to the worship of Langan etc.
Click to expand...

Why are you labeling me a worshipper of Langan? Most of my reality threads aren't dedicated to CTMU unless CTMU provides me with a novel insight. I would place myself as more of a teacher of CTMU and reality. When sarkus wrote in this thread earlier that "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it belongs in the same pond" was off the mark. Reality is all-encompassing, so all areas of science fall under it. It is inevitable to talk about it when and if you see the whole picture. There is no separating science from reality. If you do not see this then you would be missing something great.
 
Spellbound said:
My thought processes are almost always dedicated to making insights into reality. Can the mods create a new Philosophy subforum and I promise I will restrict all discussions of reality to it?
Click to expand...

Philosophy isn't just a matter of addressing the biggest and most general questions, and announcing grand conclusions about them that sound all cosmic. Ancient mythology had that down long before philosophy appeared. What philosophy added was rational argument in support of whatever conclusions were drawn. That's where the essence of philosophy is to be found, in philosophical argument.

This is because understanding reality is incredibly important to science.
The "Reality is..." thread doesn't stimulate discussion of any kind.
Click to expand...

Your posts rarely do.

Announcing that "reality is XYZ" doesn't stimulate any discussion. When people ask why you are saying that and what in the world you mean, replying "XYZ is real" doesn't clarify anything. On the surface that's just a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. You never provide us with any reason to think there may be something interesting or valuable in those "reality is..." posts.

Posting cut-and-pastes of incomprehensible Langan-rhetoric with the tone of 'here, this settles everything' settles nothing when nobody (including you) can explain how he's arriving at his conclusions. Remember that philosophy is a matter of arguments that make sense, not just conclusions that seem cosmic.

And ultimately justifying everything in terms of your own peculiar subjective experience may be convincing to you, but it doesn't offer anything for anyone else to discuss and it certainly isn't philosophy.
 
Last edited:
Yazata said:
Announcing that "reality is XYZ" doesn't stimulate any discussion. When people ask what in the world you mean, replying "XYZ is real" doesn't clarify anything. On the surface that's just a textbook example of the fallacy of composition. You never provide us with any reason to think there may be something interesting or valuable in those "reality is..." posts.
Click to expand...

Can you substantiate this claim by using my vacuum state post above as an example? Just so I have a better understanding of what you mean.
 
Btw Yazata, anything real is reality, hence no fallacy of composition on my part. I am absolutely 100% trustworthy on this.
 
Dywyddyr said:
You make insights? Could you give examples of an "insight" you've had that's scientifically valid? That provides actual, discernible, verifiable help to science? (You know, per your statement "understanding reality is incredibly important to science").
Click to expand...

My last thoughts on reality is an example. The fact that "Reality binds itself", or how bout "Reality finds itself", or "Reality is Matrix Mathematics", or "Reality is Reduced to Axioms", or "Reality is logic, therefore logic is indeed real" to name a few.

I suppose you're going to attempt to deride these now. Just because of the fact that you're riddled with bias and delusion.
 
Could you point where anything you claimed in those helps science?
Which particular parts do you consider to be "actual, discernible, verifiable"?
 
Spellbound said:
When sarkus wrote in this thread earlier that "if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it belongs in the same pond" was off the mark. Reality is all-encompassing, so all areas of science fall under it.
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to reality, but to your specific operating method - the manner in which you raise threads about reality, in which you merely post something akin to "Reality is...", copy some text from somewhere else as if that is all that is required. My comment was not off the mark - which is why all your threads are housed under one roof or, to continue the analogy, all your ducks are now in the same pond.

Seriously, spellbound, find a site that allows you to have a blog, where you can write all the insights into reality that you think you have, and do so to your heart's content. You have no apparent interest in discussion but rather are here just to shout about your latest Langan-fuelled insight before moving on to your next one. And the absence of discussion is what blogs are very good for.
 
Perhaps reality is the ability to Discuss thoughts?

the Universe; Brain and Mind; the gathering of data; seen and unseen ; the known and unknown; the ability to Discuss ; the biology and macro and subatomics; movement and measured movement; physical dynamics of anything in any state, hot, cold and anything between these extremes ; interaction dynamics between things; emotion and non-emotion; living beings and their dynamics with other living beings ; growth of living things , genetically and maturity ; the investigations into the parts of the whole and the investigations into whole, the holistic ; reality is.
 
I have now, as of this week, counted ~14 times that the light in the living room related back to me. I vomited out some bad water and felt extremely healthy due to having better stomach contents and this universal mind responded with light. Its timing was perfect.

Now it seems the CTMU is testable.
 
Spellbound said:
I have now, as of this week, counted ~14 times that the light in the living room related back to me. I vomited out some bad water and felt extremely healthy due to having better stomach contents and this universal mind responded with light. Its timing was perfect.

Now it seems the CTMU is testable.
Click to expand...

I think you need (more?) medical treatment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top