Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Tom_The_Dank_Engine

a brief thought about reality

Recommended Posts

a small pet theory ive developed is: there are two kinds of reality that exist as equal yet opposites, objective reality and subjective reality.

 

objective reality is physical/purely logical truths that can be theorized, riggerously tested, proven, disproven, and used to further a greater undertanding of a tangable, physical universe with logistical laws. Mathematics, and sciences are closely related because the universe can be broken down and understood on a imaginative level that makes sense, every area of abstract math connects with each area of applied science in deep fundamental ways that you can only really understand and appreciate through years of dedicated study and education. This is 'Truth' in tangible, universally provable form that every sentient species who has ever lived in and studies our universe will agree on and eventually discover to some degree. ofcorse this makes the assumption that the universe *does* make sense on some logistical level, which ultimately makes logic just another belief system philosophically. the universe may not be truly understandable from a human perspective hence a billion theories as to what gravity even is all being equally unlikely, but that assumption is the best bet we've made in thousands of years and has paid off with advancement in tech.

The other aspect is Subjective reality A.K.A how you view and interpret the world through your own limited, incomplete, and sometimes warped human context that youve built from a lifetime of spontaneous experience and mental contemplation. You literally make up and decide what you allow and disallow to exist in your own personal bubble of how the universe should 'operate'. Any untestable, unverifiable belief you have about the universe works on a philosophical, spiritual, and psudo-scientific level, The existance of god, the existance of ghost, the belief that physical matter is made of 'emotions' or 'vibrational energy', the existence of 'chakra life energy', the existance of extra 'Dimensions' in which abstract things like thoughts, mathematical laws, and ghost/spoopy paranormal beings exist, the philosophical questioning of if anyone is actually 'real' except you, because you literally cant prove the existence of any observable consciousness except your own, and for all you know you could be a brain in a jar being fed electrical signals to hallucinate reality.
all of these things are literally unprovable by any current scientific means . They arent questions based around physical testable concepts that can be broken down and dissected, but rather they are deep fundamental questions about the state of our own existence and meaning in a unknowable, spontaneous, complex universe with no clear cut answers besides what we choose to believe is correct. That doesnt mean these concepts dont exist, or that they aren't objectively *real* but rather they are unconfirmable through the lense of scientific scrutiny or provable reality, leaving it up for raw faith and intellectual philosophical debating, nothing more.

 

Some people claim to see/sense ghost, some people claim that they can hear voices in their head, others claim to see certain colors with numbers. Is it the subjective mind imagining these things, or do some people have access to a special unknown part of objective reality that science cannot touch with its current tools of logic, whether through a genetic disorder or some kind of offshoot evolution to consciousness itself? and further, is it more beneficial for a population to believe that those few with *subjective gifts* (lack of a better term) are crazy and making up hallucinations in their own mind, rather than experiencing some new part of objective reality only accessible to the few abnormal? My money is that 99% most hallucinations people experience are internally made up because of mental illness like schizophrenia with well documented studies, and then like 1% of people are actually experiencing real objective yet unscientific stuff through a slightly evolved consciousness out of sheer genetic chance.

 

Okay, im done. Philosophical d*** swinging over, Solipsism is nothing new but i thought my take was slightly different from the core concept. please let me know what you think of my little idea!

Edited by Tom_The_Dank_Engine

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Tom_The_Dank_Engine said:

all of these things are literally unprovable by any current scientific means . They arent questions based around physical testable concepts that can be broken down and dissected, but rather they are deep fundamental questions about the state of our own existence and meaning in a unknowable, spontaneous, complex universe with no clear cut answers besides what we choose to believe is correct. That doesnt mean these concepts dont exist, or that they aren't objectively *real* but rather they are unconfirmable through the lense of scientific scrutiny or provable reality, leaving it up for raw faith and intellectual philosophical debating, nothing more.

I don't know why you're giving these things credence that they don't deserve. Fact is, sometimes people believe things that aren't true, and they're just wrong. 

 

6 minutes ago, Tom_The_Dank_Engine said:

and further, is it more beneficial for a population to believe that those few with *subjective gifts* (lack of a better term) are crazy and making up hallucinations in their own mind, rather than experiencing some new part of objective reality only accessible to the few abnormal? My money is that 99% most hallucinations people experience are internally made up because of mental illness like schizophrenia with well documented studies, and then like 1% of people are actually experiencing real objective yet unscientific stuff through a slightly evolved consciousness out of sheer genetic chance.

I think you're presenting a false dichotomy between two extremes where either we have to give these ideas credence, or we have to treat the people who believe them as crazy or suffering from a mental illness. 

 

Rather the fact is that a lot of people are just mistaken about things and have convinced themselves of things that just aren't true. As humans we aren't perfectly logical analytical machines and there are a number of traps that we can fall into that lead us to false conclusions. Ask an antivaxxer about the basis of their beliefs for example, and they'll probably happily explain their carefully reasoned rationale about why they think vaccines are harmful, but they'll still be wrong.

 

It's the same with everything else you mention - gods, ghosts, chakra energy. Nobody can look at the millions of pages of text people have written on these subjects in the past and conclude that the writers weren't sincere and probably mostly sane. The sad thing to realise is that they probably devoted thousands of hours of their lives to the study of something that they thought was real, and isn't.

Share this post


Link to post

if you write 80085 on a calculator, it looks like BooBs.

Share this post


Link to post
48 minutes ago, fraggle said:

I don't know why you're giving these things credence that they don't deserve. Fact is, sometimes people believe things that aren't true, and they're just wrong. 

Yes many beliefs are blatantly wrong because they actively deny established objective truths and statistical laws that most who know what their talking about can agree on. many wrong beliefs come from people who dont have the desire or mental capacity to conform to conventional reasoning/science and actively make up their own subjective falsehoods3 to claim as objective reality instead of taking and incorporating objective truths to supplement their personal reality. Flat earthers, anti vaxxers, and the like fall under being objectively wrong because they oppose objective reality that most sane people agree with. You can prove theyre wrong scientifically like with medical case studies showing survival rate statistics, or showing a flat earther sattalite photos. whether they have the mental capacity to accept these pieces of evidence and rewrite their blatantly wrong understanding of objective reality is another thing entirely(spoilers, most dont). BUUT not all unprovable ideas should be treated as 'wrong' because they cant instantly be proven 'right'. If the psudoscientific belief doesnt actively hinder or conflict with a persons understanding of objective logical reality but instead enriches it with valid but nonsceintific-conforming possibilities then its honestly fair game. If you cant rigorously prove or disprove the existence of gods, ghost, extra dimensions, and life energy, then they are just that. Unprovable concepts that dont fall into the 'right' or 'wrong' catagory. or atleast if they do, its not our call as limited non-omnipotent human beings to say one way or the other what unprovable belief is really right or wrong. subatomic particles, neutrinos, radio frequencies and other ranges of non-visible light go through us all the time, we cant feel them with our sensory organs and couldnt prove they exist until the furthering of physics and mathematics that allowed for the invention of tools to test, interact with, and filter them out for our sensory convenience. hence why telling people about light waves and neutrinos 200 years ago would be treated much like any other 'Wrong' crazy talk. Anti vaxxing on the other hand is provably incorrect bullshit from people who dont understand the first thing about established biology and have no desire to.

Quote

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Its really good for you to have an understandable concept of how reality work and how it is divided. Not much people could claaim the same as you, and even less explain it so good as you already did.
You are intelligent, pal! Just let the people have the pleasure to ''understand'' whatever they arses want.

That the sole thruth about it all. Freedom of choice.

 

10 minutes ago, Dark Pulse said:

55378008.

BooBless?

 

Edited by P41R47

Share this post


Link to post

Subjective reality is just another part of objective reality.

It's just encoded in a virtual medium, your mind.

 

Also everything can and will eventually be proven/disproven. Just a matter of making better measuring tools. There are no unprovable concepts. Just things we haven't imagined the right experiment for.

Share this post


Link to post

Your concept of objective reality is filtered through senses and interpreted through the mind, both of which you have defined as subjective and potentially unreliable.

 

I think you need to define how to use what you've defined as an unreliable instrument to measure anything objective with certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
44 minutes ago, FractalBeast said:

Subjective reality is just another part of objective reality.

It's just encoded in a virtual medium, your mind.

 

Also everything can and will eventually be proven/disproven. Just a matter of making better measuring tools. There are no unprovable concepts. Just things we haven't imagined the right experiment for.

Experiments don't "prove/disprove" things. They provide evidence for claims/beliefs. Just because something has always been observed to happen a certain way in the past, doesn't mean it necessarily must happen that way each time in the future. All it means is we ought to believe it will happen that way in the future.

 

Also how do you know there "there are no unprovable concepts"?

Share this post


Link to post

Time to bust out one of my favorite quotes from a game.

 

Quote

We are all aware that the senses can be deceived, the eyes fooled. But how can we be sure our senses are not being deceived at any particular time, or even all the time? Might I just be a brain in a tank somewhere, tricked all my life into believing in the events of this world by some insane computer? And does my life gain or lose meaning based on my reaction to such solipsism?

-- Project PYRRHO, Specimen 46, Vat 7
Activity recorded M.Y. 2302.22467
TERMINATION OF SPECIMEN ADVISED

 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, fraggle said:

...aren't true, and they're just wrong...

 

...just aren't true...

 

...false conclusions...

 

...but they'll still be wrong...

 

...they thought was real, and isn't.

This response didn't include any actual argument against the OP, just mere disagreement. It presupposes that the whole matter of objective vs. subjective reality has already been settled, once and for all, with no room for doubt, and people who don't share your view are "just wrong".

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Zeddy Ryan said:

This response didn't include any actual argument against the OP, just mere disagreement. It presupposes that the whole matter of objective vs. subjective reality has already been settled, once and for all, with no room for doubt, and people who don't share your view are "just wrong".

I'm not sure what you want me to say - I do disagree with the OP and I've explained why. Based on what you've quoted, you seem to be taking exception with the very fact that I'm saying people are sometimes wrong about things. That seems self-evident to me - for example, if you say ghosts exist and I say they don't, one of us must be wrong. We can't both be right because the two are mutually exclusive.

 

Conversely, if I do believe ghosts don't exist, I must necessarily believe you're wrong. That doesn't mean we can't have a civilised and respectful discussion about the subject. I actually think that on some level I'd be doing you a disservice by not being upfront about what I believe and why. If I was wrong I'd want someone to tell me, and it would feel infantilising if others felt like they had to pretend to agree with me and pay lip service to things they secretly thought were nonsense.

 

2 hours ago, Tom_The_Dank_Engine said:

BUUT not all unprovable ideas should be treated as 'wrong' because they cant instantly be proven 'right'. If the psudoscientific belief doesnt actively hinder or conflict with a persons understanding of objective logical reality but instead enriches it with valid but nonsceintific-conforming possibilities then its honestly fair game. If you cant rigorously prove or disprove the existence of gods, ghost, extra dimensions, and life energy, then they are just that. Unprovable concepts that dont fall into the 'right' or 'wrong' catagory.

I don't agree and I'd encourage you to question this conclusion. When you say that something can't be disproven you're saying it's unfalsifiable, and you can literally imagine an infinite number of unfalsifiable things that will never exist.

 

For example, suppose I tell you that there's a ninja hiding in your garage. You can never disprove the claim because if you can't find him, it's because he's a ninja and an expert in concealing himself. Yet at a certain point, if you've searched the entire garage, taken the entire contents out, set up motion cameras and floodlights and found nothing, you have to conclude that there is no ninja. Any sane and reasonable person can see that it would be ridiculous to keep paying lip service to the idea - "well, maybe there is or there isn't, maybe we just haven't found him yet, I guess we'll never know".

 

That's kind of what it's like when people talk about gods, ghosts, paranormal beings, etc. People have literally been searching for centuries and never found any conclusive evidence for them, and it's reasonable at this point to say "these things do not exist". I'll go one step further and say that when you can't disprove something like this exists, it's another mental trap that we as humans can fall into, and we should instead probably conclude it doesn't exist. There aren't any things in the real world that are unfalsifiable.

Share this post


Link to post

Everyone is wrong and everyone is right

We are Schrödinger's cat all the time!

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, fraggle said:

I'm not sure what you want me to say - I do disagree with the OP and I've explained why. Based on what you've quoted, you seem to be taking exception with the very fact that I'm saying people are sometimes wrong about things. That seems self-evident to me - for example, if you say ghosts exist and I say they don't, one of us must be wrong. We can't both be right because the two are mutually exclusive.

 

Conversely, if I do believe ghosts don't exist, I must necessarily believe you're wrong. That doesn't mean we can't have a civilised and respectful discussion about the subject. I actually think that on some level I'd be doing you a disservice by not being upfront about what I believe and why. If I was wrong I'd want someone to tell me, and it would feel infantilising if others felt like they had to pretend to agree with me and pay lip service to things they secretly thought were nonsense.

 

If two people have logically-contradictory beliefs, then yes, I'd agree that at least one of them has to be wrong. But which one is it? We can perform experiments and measurements all day long and come up with a best guess, and I'd be convinced by that under normal circumstances (I can't imagine life otherwise). But I don't believe that is the same as truly knowing the answer, full stop. I guess what I'm saying is that while I do believe in objective truth, I'm not convinced that me or anyone else knows what is objectively true. We just have our beliefs that are supported (or not) by evidence that comes to us through the filter of our subjective experience.

 

If I'm not mistaken, your original post that I responded to wasn't merely claiming that wrongness exists, but was also specifically about some actual beliefs that are wrong. "I don't know why you're giving these things credence that they don't deserve". This is actually taking a stance one way or another. Which is fine, but that's all you're doing. You're just saying what you believe, not why anybody else should believe it. My criticism might seem ridiculous. But the OP is questioning the very nature of truth and falsity, and your response to this questioning assumes that an answer has already been established.

 

To be fair, I don't know how to talk about reality/truth/falisty without some kind of logical circularity, but it sure is fun to talk about it anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Zeddy Ryan said:

Experiments don't "prove/disprove" things. They provide evidence for claims/beliefs. Just because something has always been observed to happen a certain way in the past, doesn't mean it necessarily must happen that way each time in the future. All it means is we ought to believe it will happen that way in the future.

 

Also how do you know there "there are no unprovable concepts"?

If something is real, it exists. If it exists, it can be measured.

Reality is nothing but information measuring itself, in a way.

Share this post


Link to post

"Reality isn't what it used to be." - from a horror movie of which I don't know the name.

Share this post


Link to post

Reality can be summarized by the following dialogue:

k5glWSs.png

 

(So incredibly underrated. The dialogue is essentially a sci-fi novel and its darn good for what is essentially just a video game story.)

Share this post


Link to post

When I first heard of the quantum suicide and immortality thought experiment, I wondered if we all exist in nearly identical universes wherein we ourselves never die since we are the protagonists of our own story, if that makes any sense. I know it's probably not true, but I realized, hey, I haven't died yet, and a lot of other people have, so maybe this holds some credence. Of course, this is useless in any sort of objective consideration of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, Zeddy Ryan said:

How could you possibly know that?

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that whatever we cannot interact with in this universe simply doesn't exist?

Measuring isn't science, measuring is a function of the universe. We humans simply ascribe scientific value to measuring one part of the universe with another part of the universe.

If something cannot be measured, it means it cannot interact with the universe. If something cannot interact with the universe, it's not real, not from reality, and therefore doesn't exist, right?

 

Mind you, just because something cannot be measured now, doesn't mean it cannot be measured later in time, when science has advanced further.

Share this post


Link to post
21 hours ago, FractalBeast said:

Wouldn't it be logical to assume that whatever we cannot interact with in this universe simply doesn't exist?

Measuring isn't science, measuring is a function of the universe. We humans simply ascribe scientific value to measuring one part of the universe with another part of the universe.

If something cannot be measured, it means it cannot interact with the universe. If something cannot interact with the universe, it's not real, not from reality, and therefore doesn't exist, right?

 

Mind you, just because something cannot be measured now, doesn't mean it cannot be measured later in time, when science has advanced further.

Assuming that whatever can't be interacted with simply doesn't exist might be pragmatic, but there's nothing logical about it. Why couldn't there exist things that cannot interact with the universe? Maybe there are other universes, completely separated off from ours. What about the parts of our own universe that exist outside the observable universe because they are too far away? Most galaxies we can observe right now will eventually become so distant that we can't, even in principle, ever detect any sign of their existence. Do things cease to exist simply because they get too far away?

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/14/2020 at 6:04 PM, Zeddy Ryan said:

Assuming that whatever can't be interacted with simply doesn't exist might be pragmatic, but there's nothing logical about it. Why couldn't there exist things that cannot interact with the universe? Maybe there are other universes, completely separated off from ours. What about the parts of our own universe that exist outside the observable universe because they are too far away? Most galaxies we can observe right now will eventually become so distant that we can't, even in principle, ever detect any sign of their existence. Do things cease to exist simply because they get too far away? 

Do things cease to exist simply because they get too far away? 

Yes.

Remember, when the last galaxy disappears out of the observable universe, that also marks the moment that galaxy is unable to interact with anything in the Milky Way.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/15/2020 at 5:45 PM, FractalBeast said:

Do things cease to exist simply because they get too far away? 

Yes.

Remember, when the last galaxy disappears out of the observable universe, that also marks the moment that galaxy is unable to interact with anything in the Milky Way.

What galaxy will be unable to interact with the Milky Way? According to your definition of "exist", that galaxy won't exist, and by the symmetry of the situation, neither will the Milky Way. Unless you only allow for things to exist relative to some observer, which is not at all what I mean when I talk about things existing or not.

Share this post


Link to post

"And all the things exist except for the things that didn't." - John 4:20

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Zeddy Ryan said:

What galaxy will be unable to interact with the Milky Way? According to your definition of "exist", that galaxy won't exist, and by the symmetry of the situation, neither will the Milky Way. Unless you only allow for things to exist relative to some observer, which is not at all what I mean when I talk about things existing or not. 

Well, good luck finding some kind of meta-perspective on reality.

 

You can't, because there are no meta-perspectives.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×