Community > Science & Philosophy

Topic: The nature of reality
adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Thu 11/13/08 11:30 PM
and are you going to the college of marin lol

invisible Joined Mon 04/09/07 Posts: 7692	Thu 11/13/08 11:47 PM
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”? I see reality as variable, depending on the obeserver/s We might see the same thing, but our interpretation of it would vary.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Fri 11/14/08 12:02 AM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Fri 11/14/08 12:05 AM
OK, I think I got it now. yes but what is your opinion My opinion, in a nutshell, is that agreement is what constitutes reality and thus there can be multiple realities and that each of us can and does perceive multiple realities.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Fri 11/14/08 12:04 AM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Fri 11/14/08 12:07 AM
and are you going to the college of marin lol No, but I do live directly across the street from it and have a couple relatives that work there.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Fri 11/14/08 12:07 AM Edited by adj4u on Fri 11/14/08 12:08 AM
OK, I think I got it now. yes but what is your opinion My opinion, in a nutshell, is that agreement is what constitutes reality and thus there can be multiple realities and that each of us can and does perceive multiple realities. everyone has their own reality but that does not make their reality real

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Fri 11/14/08 12:09 AM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Fri 11/14/08 12:10 AM
OK, I think I got it now. yes but what is your opinion My opinion, in a nutshell, is that agreement is what constitutes reality and thus there can be multiple realities and that each of us can and does perceive multiple realities. everyone has their own reality but that does not make their reality fact So then what, in your opinion, is the difference between reality and fact?

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Fri 11/14/08 05:12 AM Edited by adj4u on Fri 11/14/08 05:50 AM
i already answered that in the microorganism post but if this makes it easier in reality of the people in general the earth was considered flat did the perception of that reality make it real no it did not because we now perceive the would as round is it round not exactly but it is perceived as round by many that is their reality to others they say it is pear shaped that is there reality

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Fri 11/14/08 05:51 AM
OK, I think I got it now. yes but what is your opinion My opinion, in a nutshell, is that agreement is what constitutes reality and thus there can be multiple realities and that each of us can and does perceive multiple realities. but are they real

TheLonelyWalker Joined Sat 04/07/07 Posts: 11870	Fri 11/14/08 08:10 AM
Reality is what every individual makes of it. We are situated in this reality under given circumstances upon which we need to work. Based on the work done by the individual, his/her reality is built. Ergo, it follows by necessity that each one of us has his/her own reality.

adj4u Joined Sun 04/08/07 Posts: 21254	Fri 11/14/08 09:56 AM
Reality is what every individual makes of it. We are situated in this reality under given circumstances upon which we need to work. Based on the work done by the individual, his/her reality is built. Ergo, it follows by necessity that each one of us has his/her own reality. pretty much did you read the thread miquel (is that correct) intend no disrespect)

Jess642 Joined Sat 03/31/07 Posts: 22732	Fri 11/14/08 01:06 PM
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”? Four people witness a car accident, as they walk down the street.... police interview all four, and have four different versions.... the only common denominater was a car had an accident. Four different realities....(perceptions) Does that help a little, Skyhook?

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Fri 11/14/08 01:59 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Fri 11/14/08 02:00 PM
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”? Four people witness a car accident, as they walk down the street.... police interview all four, and have four different versions.... the only common denominater was a car had an accident. Four different realities....(perceptions) Does that help a little, Skyhook? Pretty much that exact same scenario has been put forth many many times in the past few weeks. And yes, it does seem to help in supporting the idea that there are multiple realities. But it also implies that reality is entirely subjective, which scientists tend to balk at. The problem seems to be in drawing a line. On one end, there are things that only one person perceives and at the other end, there are things that virtually everyone perceives. So it seems that there are "degrees" of reality. The more people who agree with something, the more "real" it is. And the corollary to that is, there is no "absolute" reality because there is nothing that everyone agrees on.

Jess642 Joined Sat 03/31/07 Posts: 22732	Fri 11/14/08 02:11 PM
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”? Four people witness a car accident, as they walk down the street.... police interview all four, and have four different versions.... the only common denominater was a car had an accident. Four different realities....(perceptions) Does that help a little, Skyhook? Pretty much that exact same scenario has been put forth many many times in the past few weeks. And yes, it does seem to help in supporting the idea that there are multiple realities. But it also implies that reality is entirely subjective, which scientists tend to balk at. The problem seems to be in drawing a line. On one end, there are things that only one person perceives and at the other end, there are things that virtually everyone perceives. So it seems that there are "degrees" of reality. The more people who agree with something, the more "real" it is. And the corollary to that is, there is no "absolute" reality because there is nothing that everyone agrees on. I am far from a scientist....dissecting green tree frogs was the clincher for me And yes.... if I had to describe it, what you wrote would be it...pretty much.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 11/14/08 03:19 PM
I don't know that the scientific camp as a whole says there is no alternate realities. In certain interpretations of QM each time an event can go more then one way, the branches that break off into each possible direction happen in another (I guess you could say parallel) universe. This seriously goes against the notion of occums razor making a seemingly infinite expanse of realities. But occums razor is not a law as much as a guideline.

Bushidobillyclub Joined Fri 05/11/07 Posts: 5689	Fri 11/14/08 03:23 PM
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”? Four people witness a car accident, as they walk down the street.... police interview all four, and have four different versions.... the only common denominater was a car had an accident. Four different realities....(perceptions) Does that help a little, Skyhook? Pretty much that exact same scenario has been put forth many many times in the past few weeks. And yes, it does seem to help in supporting the idea that there are multiple realities. But it also implies that reality is entirely subjective, which scientists tend to balk at. The problem seems to be in drawing a line. On one end, there are things that only one person perceives and at the other end, there are things that virtually everyone perceives. So it seems that there are "degrees" of reality. The more people who agree with something, the more "real" it is. And the corollary to that is, there is no "absolute" reality because there is nothing that everyone agrees on. Then there is a video camera that captures it all on tape showing exactly what happened. If everyone remembers it different then the camera shows, what does that say about the persons reality?

NinjasNeedLoveToo Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 302	Fri 11/14/08 07:29 PM
“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 ------------ If nothing is reality until it is perceived, then that would imply that reality is in fact affected by perception. If reality becomes such when someone perceives it, then that persons perception of it would affect what reality it became, if a different person perceived it, it would have been a different reality. Now we have the difference of real vs reality. To respond to bushido's last post. Is it possible that cameras are unable to capture reality? There could be a difference between reality and what shows on video. What if when people have a different view of an incident, it is because it happened slightly different to each of them. Maybe a camera can only capture the average of the versions, or something along those lines. To answer skyhook's question to me a while ago.. I don't have a version I believe yet. I have a bunch of theories that I cannot test anymore fully yet. So, all I have are discussion topics and not something I would try to claim as fact.

s1owhand Joined Fri 05/18/07 Posts: 29437	Fri 11/14/08 07:54 PM Edited by s1owhand on Fri 11/14/08 07:57 PM
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”? Four people witness a car accident, as they walk down the street.... police interview all four, and have four different versions.... the only common denominater was a car had an accident. Four different realities....(perceptions) Does that help a little, Skyhook? Pretty much that exact same scenario has been put forth many many times in the past few weeks. And yes, it does seem to help in supporting the idea that there are multiple realities. But it also implies that reality is entirely subjective, which scientists tend to balk at. The problem seems to be in drawing a line. On one end, there are things that only one person perceives and at the other end, there are things that virtually everyone perceives. So it seems that there are "degrees" of reality. The more people who agree with something, the more "real" it is. And the corollary to that is, there is no "absolute" reality because there is nothing that everyone agrees on. "you can never be right...just be sure you're wrong..." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1ZtRN-iGdQ&feature=related

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Fri 11/14/08 07:57 PM
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”? Four people witness a car accident, as they walk down the street.... police interview all four, and have four different versions.... the only common denominater was a car had an accident. Four different realities....(perceptions) Does that help a little, Skyhook? Pretty much that exact same scenario has been put forth many many times in the past few weeks. And yes, it does seem to help in supporting the idea that there are multiple realities. But it also implies that reality is entirely subjective, which scientists tend to balk at. The problem seems to be in drawing a line. On one end, there are things that only one person perceives and at the other end, there are things that virtually everyone perceives. So it seems that there are "degrees" of reality. The more people who agree with something, the more "real" it is. And the corollary to that is, there is no "absolute" reality because there is nothing that everyone agrees on. Then there is a video camera that captures it all on tape showing exactly what happened. If everyone remembers it different then the camera shows, what does that say about the persons reality? That it's different from what the camera shows. Not trying to be sarcastic at all. It's just that that's all it says to me. I guess you could also interpret it to say that each person was experiencing a different reality. And one could extrapolate that some one or more person's reality changed when they viewed the tape.

NinjasNeedLoveToo Joined Fri 11/07/08 Posts: 302	Fri 11/14/08 08:23 PM
The last point is also appropriate. If perception affected reality then the viewing of the tape would affect what the tape showed.

SkyHook5652 Joined Sat 08/23/08 Posts: 4063	Fri 11/14/08 09:15 PM Edited by SkyHook5652 on Fri 11/14/08 09:17 PM
The last point is also appropriate. If perception affected reality then the viewing of the tape would affect what the tape showed. Interesting angle that never occurred to me. It leads directly to the "unexpected observation" problem: If observation is what creates reality, how is it that a reality can be created that is completely different from, or even the total opposite of, what the observer expected? The only explanation I can come up with for that one is that "the rules of observation/creation" contain a randomity factor something like that which is found in quantum mechanics.