AgnosticWeb.com

Back to the forum index

Linear

TONY (under Why is there something rather than nothing?): Sorry for the late reply. I am trying to work within the boundaries of our language DHW. We can measure photons, we can measure the spectrum of light and how they break down into colors. Black is not a color, it is an absence of color. Darkness is simply the absence of light. Time is human construct to help us deal with an extremely rapid sequence of static states. The sense of touch is illusory as you will never actually touch anything. All I was trying to point out is that 'Nothing' is only useful as defining the absence of something. Which is basically a state that can not exist.-Thank you for replying. I had actually asked you for a definition of reality, and for three examples of things that are "real", because you had said that nothing, time, darkness etc. were intellectual constructs which had "no place in reality" (other than as abstracts) and did not "really exist". However, this ties in with the point you have raised about the boundaries of language, which is so important that I think it deserves a separate thread. Ideally, it would have formed part of the epistemology discussion, but that seems to have been abandoned.-All language is a human construct, symbolizing aspects of what we believe to be reality. The problem in our discussions is to determine what level we are going to work on, and I am 100% in agreement with David in objecting to the "philosophizing that goes nowhere". You and I know what we mean when we talk of "black" and of "darkness". My commonsense response to your definitions of these two terms is that the absence of colour/light is REAL (i.e. has a place in reality), and we call it black/darkness. I'm not too sure about your definition of time, but the same argument applies: the rapid sequence of static states is REAL, and we call it time. The absence of something is REAL, and we call it nothing. (I'll ignore touch, as I don't understand why that is illusory, and I don't want us to be distracted from the theme of language and reality.) -On the epistemological thread, Matt and I finally agreed on a definition of knowledge as "information accepted as being true by general consensus among those who are aware of it". This information (concerning which the general consensus may change ... knowledge is not fixed for ever) will always be subject to "the boundaries of our language", and we can never capture the totality of things with our words, but I think the above definition also gives us a workable, commonsense basis for a definition of "reality". Once you move to the philosophical level, however, there is no such thing as reality. (I could say here "nothing is real", and crack two nuts with one stone!) And so at this level, where human constructs are deemed to have no place in reality, discussion comes to an end.

3875 views

In my original post, I was using real in the commonsense context. A photon exists. It is real. It can be measured. The absence of a photon, is not real, it is the absence of something real. Darkness, which is the absence of photons, therefore is not real in the sense that 'Darkness' isn't a thing, it is the absence of a 'thing'.-I agree that once you get into a philosophical arena, the definitions of reality and existence and all become very hazy. Normally I chalk this up to people not being able to express an idea in a manner that is easily comprehensible due to the limitations of language. -Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.[1] In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.-This is the sense that I generally regard the word reality. Notice that it would either have to be observable or comprehensible. That is important as it allows for the discussion of things not observed to be included into discussions of reality. -Unfortunately, this also leads to ambiguity in language. In general conversation, you may make a reference to the color black, even though by definition black is not a color, but rather the absence of color. Most people understand black as a color, and darkness as an entity just the same as light. They see the state of ignorance as they do the state of being knowledge able. I am trying to make a clear distinction between something that is real, that exists, and a state that is only the absence of something. If time is a reality (which was the one you said you disagreed with), then provide me with a measurable quanta of time that can exist outside of the frame of reference, or definition, of the observer. -Real things, such as photons, we can assume exist independent of the observer because a single photon can be measured and observed.

3857 views

TONY: In my original post, I was using real in the commonsense context. A photon exists. It is real. It can be measured. The absence of a photon, is not real, it is the absence of something real. Darkness, which is the absence of photons, therefore is not real in the sense that 'Darkness' isn't a thing, it is the absence of a 'thing'.-I would not regard this as common sense. If you ask even highly intelligent people (I've just tried it out on my wife and daughter!) whether they have observed darkness/black, or if darkness/black really exists, they will say yes, even though they know that darkness/black = absence of light/colour. Your argument is correct, but I see it as a specialized view, not as common sense.-TONY: Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be.[1] In its widest definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible.-If your definition of reality is things "as they actually exist", as opposed to their appearance and to what we think them to be, how is it possible for us to know what is and isn't real? That is the philosophical level that takes us nowhere. Only on a commonsense level, where there is a general consensus, can things be regarded as "real", i.e. as we observe and comprehend them.
 
TONY: This is the sense that I generally regard the word reality. Notice that it would either have to be observable or comprehensible. That is important as it allows for the discussion of things not observed to be included into discussions of reality.-I and many others have no difficulty comprehending darkness, blackness, nothing and time on what I call the commonsense level, and I believe I have observed all of them on countless occasions, so they all fit in with your general view of reality.
 
TONY: If time is a reality (which was the one you said you disagreed with), then provide me with a measurable quanta of time that can exist outside of the frame of reference, or definition, of the observer.
 
On a philosophical level, nothing can be called real if it depends on observation, because no observer can guarantee the objectivity of his perception. The best we can offer, I repeat, is a consensus. My commonsense view that a rapid sequence of static states (your definition of time) exists independently of an observer is unprovable, but then so is your next point: "Real things, such as photons, we can assume exist independent of the observer because a single photon can be measured and observed." How can our measurement and observation of a photon prove that it exists independently of the measurer and observer? We measure time, we observe and comprehend the sequence of cause and effect, the changes that take place in the course of the movement from present to past. Common sense therefore enables me to "assume" (your word) that the sequence of states is real, and we call that sequence time. But on the philosophical level it is not real. NOTHING is real. Not even your photons.

3818 views


> On a philosophical level, nothing can be called real if it depends on observation, because no observer can guarantee the objectivity of his perception. The best we can offer, I repeat, is a consensus. My commonsense view that a rapid sequence of static states (your definition of time) exists independently of an observer is unprovable, but then so is your next point: "Real things, such as photons, we can assume exist independent of the observer because a single photon can be measured and observed." How can our measurement and observation of a photon prove that it exists independently of the measurer and observer? We measure time, we observe and comprehend the sequence of cause and effect, the changes that take place in the course of the movement from present to past. Common sense therefore enables me to "assume" (your word) that the sequence of states is real, and we call that sequence time. But on the philosophical level it is not real. NOTHING is real. Not even your photons.-
I was pretty good with everything that you said up to the statement in bold. The key difference between time and a photon, is that a photon is a photon is a photon. If you define a second as 1000ms and I define it as 1200ms, then our observation of the same time will produce different results. I.E. you will observe 1 second while I observe a fraction of a second. When we each observe a single photon, will each see the same photon, and that photon will not change its attributes to suit.

3859 views

TONY: I was pretty good with everything that you said up to the statement in bold. [How can our measurement and observation of a photon prove that it exists independently of the measurer and observer?] The key difference between time and a photon, is that a photon is a photon is a photon. If you define a second as 1000ms and I define it as 1200ms, then our observation of the same time will produce different results. I.E. you will observe 1 second while I observe a fraction of a second. When we each observe a single photon, will each see the same photon, and that photon will not change its attributes to suit.-Time is relative. That doesn't make it unreal. And your comment doesn't answer my question. But I'm happy that you're "pretty good" with the rest!

3906 views

Philosophy v. Common Sense-CUSTOMER: I'm looking for a dress.
SHOP ASSISTANT: Certainly, madam. What colour?
CUSTOMER: Black.
SHOP ASSISTANT: Black is not a colour.
Exit customer.
****************-WIFE (during power cut): It's so dark ... I can't see a thing!
HUSBAND: Don't be silly, darling. There's no such thing as darkness. Darkness is simply an absence of....Aaaaargh!
Falls down stairs and breaks his neck.
****************-BANK MANAGER: You have nothing in your account.
CUSTOMER: Nothing is not real. It's merely an absence of something.
BANK MANAGER: We're taking your house and all your possessions.
CUSTOMER: You can't do that! I'll be left with nothing!
BANK MANAGER: Don't worry. Nothing is not real. It's merely an absence of something.
****************-FAUSTUS: Now hast thou but one bare hour to live,
And then thou must be damned perpetually;
Stand still, you ever-moving spheres of heaven,
That time may cease, and midnight never come.
PHILOSOPHER: Don't worry, old boy. Time is not real. It's just a human construct.
FAUSTUS: Then am I saved?
PHILOSOPHER: Ah, well, um...
*****************

3893 views

Philosophy v. Common Sense
> SHOP ASSISTANT: Black is not a colour.
> Exit customer.
> ****************
> HUSBAND: Don't be silly, darling. There's no such thing as darkness. Darkness is simply an absence of....Aaaaargh!
> Falls down stairs and breaks his neck.
> ****************
> BANK MANAGER: Don't worry. Nothing is not real. It's merely an absence of something.
> ****************
> 
> PHILOSOPHER: Don't worry, old boy. Time is not real. It's just a human construct.
> FAUSTUS: Then am I saved?
> PHILOSOPHER: Ah, well, um...-
Companion: We're on a hike in a dangerous area. Watch for crevices.
Avid hiker: A crevise is an absence of safe ground. It is ground that doesn't exist, therefore I am safe.
Companion: (on his cell phone) "911? I need to warn you of a future accident!"
911: Sir, time does not exist, but let me know when we can be of help.-Some way to run the life on Earth! -Please tell me when I am allowed to take my tongue from cheek, without time? We all live by agreed to constructs. And some philosophers like Kuhn and Popper give us reasonable guidance. That's it! I'm a proponent of practical philosophy.

3846 views

I never said that language and reality were compatible, especially since language has such an impact on our thought processes and states things as existing that do not exist without any differentiation.

3895 views

TONY: I never said that language and reality were compatible, especially since language has such an impact on our thought processes and states things as existing that do not exist without any differentiation.-But that, as I see it, is precisely the problem. We don't KNOW what is and isn't reality. We have words to describe all aspects of life and the universe, and we use more words in order to differentiate. The word "darkness" does not "state things as existing that do not exist". Darkness simply means an absence of light. It is you who state that it doesn't exist/is not real. That is why I asked you to define what you meant by "reality".-You listed certain attributes which you considered essential to your concept of reality: "it would either have to be observable or comprehensible", and you then named photons as something "real", with the added attribute that they can be measured. Matt argues on the philosophical level that "everything is subjective", because objective reality is unknowable and our only access to it is through subjective perception. Since observation, comprehension and measurement are dependent on our human perception, presumably then you do not accept this argument. When I suggested that time fulfilled all three of your criteria, you objected that the measurement of time may vary (I can't see the relevance of that as a criterion for reality), and although I thought we'd reached agreement on the rest, your comment above suggests that my observation and comprehension of darkness, blackness, nothingness are still not acceptable to you even on the commonsense level.-I'd now like to take this discussion one step further to the point which I'm sure you've been expecting me to raise. First, though, let me state yet again that I accept the philosophical argument that ultimately we cannot know what reality is. However, while acknowledging its vital importance in keeping us aware of the subjectivity of all our perceptions, I favour the commonsense argument that allows for the possibility that our perceptions are not wrong (despite their obvious limitations), and that the words we use may describe things that do exist and are real (the approaching bus being an obvious example).
 
So here comes the crunch. We have many words for a possible conscious power that may have created life. One such word is "God". You argue that reality has to be observable, comprehensible, or measurable, and the measurements must be unchanging (like your photons). How is God observable, comprehensible, measurable? Since you exclude whatever fails to match up to your own rigid interpretation of your criteria, by your standards God is not real and does not exist. I'm an agnostic, but I reject your rigid criteria, and despite all my doubts I still acknowledge the possibility of God's existence. If you were an atheist I might be able to understand your insistence on these strict boundaries ... though on a commonsense level I wouldn't agree ... but you are a theist. I'm anxious not to cause offence, and I'm genuinely trying only to straighten out arguments that seem to me highly confusing, but if this is not too personal, may I therefore ask you a direct question: by what criteria do you adjudge God to be real?

3896 views

I'd like to inject a thought on this discussion at this point, altho I know we all know this and have even been stated here and there in the discussion, yet still may or not be useful said from a slightly different perspective.-There is a part of reality that exist on the unmeasurable spiritual or ethereal level that can only be comprehended and observed by that same level of reality that exists within us; the mind. -Then there is the part of reality that exist on the physical plane that our physical aspect can explore (along with the mind) and measure and know in a physical, concrete sense, if only for language or communication sake. -Of course both realities are one reality yet have a dualistic nature and does intertwine just like the human (mind & matter) and all that is in nature. There is that which we can see and touch and that which we can't see and touch, yet there is evidence that both exist in reality. One can be observed or weighed and measured while the other cannot. How much influence each has on the other or where their boundaries begin and end we cannot know. -Each of us have the ability (because of the ability to focus the mind) to observe different boundaries within reality or in extraordinary times to even bring our physical aspect past the accepted boundaries and limitations. So for each human mind the boundary and limitations of reality is movable, foggy and always different.-So to respect our inability to measure where the beginning and end of the different aspects of reality is, it would seem that a line would have to be drawn in the sand as an arbitrary agreement between two people to have a simple discussion about reality. -One example of a simple but near useless boundary (unless agreed upon) might be an agreement of that which can be touched and that which can't be. Or that which can be seen by the eye (including microscope) and that which can't be, etc. Other than boundaries agreed upon like this, it would seem to me discussion's about reality and language can go nowhere but round and round.-Just a thought.

3912 views


> One example of a simple but near useless boundary (unless agreed upon) might be an agreement of that which can be touched and that which can't be. Or that which can be seen by the eye (including microscope) and that which can't be, etc. Other than boundaries agreed upon like this, it would seem to me discussion's about reality and language can go nowhere but round and round.
> 
> Just a thought.-Thank you, BB. My mind can picture nothingness, even if nothing is there to see. I also can imagine 'something', whether it is there to see or not. Let the merry-go-round begin. The something/nothing question is perfectly reasonable at a mental level.

3928 views

BBELLA: There is a part of reality that exists on the unmeasurable spiritual or ethereal level that can only be comprehended and observed by that same level of reality that exists within us: the mind. [...]-So to respect our inability to measure where the beginning and end of the different aspects of reality is, it would seem that a line would have to be drawn in the sand as an arbitrary agreement between two people to have a simple discussion about reality.
 
One example of a simple but near useless boundary (unless agreed upon) might be an agreement of that which can be touched and that which can't be. Or that which can be seen by the eye (including microscope) and that which can't be, etc. Other than boundaries agreed upon like this, it would seem to me discussion's about reality and language can go nowhere but round and round.-I couldn't agree more, and many of our discussions are indeed about drawing boundaries and finding definitions. On the epistemological thread, we established right from the start that on one level "it could be argued that there is no such thing as knowledge", and if we took that approach, there would be no further discussion. One can say, in similar vein, that although we may assume there is such a thing as objective reality, we subjective humans can never know it. Once more, end of discussion. In both cases, my plea is for a commonsense approach. As you say, we have to draw lines in the sand. So let me make a tentative beginning:-1)	No discussion of "reality" can take place without the parties agreeing beforehand to a definition of their terms.
 
2)	Whatever is perceived by our senses and expressed by our language may or may not be objectively true. The likelihood of its being true will increase according to the breadth of consensus among those who are aware of it, but absolute truth is unknowable.-3)	Whatever is formulated by our non-sensual faculties (e.g. intellect, emotions, intuition) varies in kind from extreme subjectivity (e.g. love) to aspiring objectivity (e.g. philosophy). In most cases, no consensus is possible, and the degree of "truth" can only be assessed by each individual, often depending on that individual's definition of reality.-Bearing in mind all the above, plus the need to combine the philosophical and the commonsense approaches to the question, let me offer my own individual (and tentative) definition: -What is believed by each individual to exist (a) independently of humans and (b) because of humans.-N.B. According to this definition, reality (subjective)is not synonymous with truth (objective). It can therefore solve the puzzle I set Tony: God is real for a theist (see 3). It can also remove commonsense anomalies and linguistic confusion over philosophical questions such as the existence/non-existence of "nothing", "time", "darkness", the discussion of which will then centre on whether this form of reality is type (a) or type (b).
 
But I'm feeling my way here! The idea is to avoid BBella's merry-go-round. Or is it unavoidable?

3916 views

MATT (under "Why is there something..."?): Have you ever studied the roots of the word "exist?"
Ex, meaning "outside of," and sistere meaning "to stand."
"To stand outside of." If I declare I exist, that I am not "nothing," what do I "stand outside of?" Do we have any accurate terms even [f]or existence?-Oxford, Encarta, Chambers plus David's Collegiate: exist: from ex(s)istere, meaning to emerge, appear, come into being, become visible (ex = from/out of, not outside). He who knoweth not his adjective from his noun from his pronoun messeth at his peril with etymology.-In any case, derivation does not = definition, and I really don't know what your derivation is meant to prove. Perhaps you're referring to my gallant attempt to bridge the gap between philosophy and common sense in the debate over the 'reality' of nothing/time/darkness. I defined reality (now slightly revised) as "whatever is believed by each individual to exist (a) independently of humans or (b) because of humans". So when you ask about "accurate terms", are you actually asking for a definition of "exist", and when you get that, will you go on asking for definitions of definitions ad infinitum? Incidentally, no-one has yet responded to my suggestion, but I suppose one can always ignore definitions "to avoid hard questions", as you put it.-You ask: "how different is this from cosmology?" I don't understand the question, but I don't want to be accused of avoiding it, so I'll make the effort. The Encarta definition of existence is "the state of being real, actual, or current, rather than imagined, invented, or obsolete", which I would settle for. I believe I exist (am real), I emerged from the fusion of an egg and a sperm which I believe existed (were real back in the past, during the flow of what I believe is the reality of time), but if Mummy and Daddy had looked for me under a gooseberry bush I believe they would have found nothing ... a pronoun in this case meaning no dhw ... and my absence would have been painfully real for them. I also believe the cosmos exists (is real), I have no idea what reality it emerged from in the past (during the flow...etc.), but some people say that all its matter sprang from nothing, a pronoun which I take to mean an absence of matter ... a state which I believe would be just as real as a presence of matter. And so I see no difference between my state of existence and that of the cosmos.-MATT (to David): I think I'm going to start posting Koans for you and dhw... all my attempts at a frame shift have been futile...-Matt, in all seriousness they are far from futile. You have introduced us to some fascinating ideas, we have discussed them at length, and I for one will be grateful if you continue to provide us with insights from the East. None of it is "claptrap", and much of it strikes an answering chord when it comes to the spiritual experiences that many of us have in common. But I think it's unfair of you to expect me (I can't speak for David) to totally abandon commonsense realities in favour of philosophical mysticism without at least putting up a fight. In any case, it takes two to stage a conflict!

3906 views

I apologize for the late reply, but I have been out of town since last Friday and no where near a computer. -DHW, -Let me try once more to clarify my position, as I am apparently making little sense. The concept in my head is crystal clear, but I am having a hard time explaining it. -When you 'see' light, you are actually seeing light in the form of photons that are bouncing around and being detected by your eyes. When you 'see' darkness, you are not 'seeing' anything at all, but since we perceive that nothingness(i.e. our brain does not stop searching for light thus it remains conscious of the absence of light), we have labeled it with the term 'darkness', which has the unfortunate side-effect. This to me is my common sense approach to reality. I can not explain it any better, and if you are still confused by my rationalization than I apologize. -There are numerous unseen forces that we can measure by their affect on the world around us, i.e. Gravity, Magnetism, Centrifugal Force. We do not visually see them, we can not touch, taste, hear, or smell them. Yet, we know that they exist, even if our understanding of them is incomplete. -I view God in much the same way. I see the inherent order in the universe, it's physical laws, as the measurable proof of the existence of an intelligence. Much they way your bathroom scale will take into account the overall impact of gravity on your body mass, I look at the overall impact and organization throughout existence to be my scale that gauges my belief in a UI.

3878 views


> I view God in much the same way. I see the inherent order in the universe, it's physical laws, as the measurable proof of the existence of an intelligence. Much they way your bathroom scale will take into account the overall impact of gravity on your body mass, I look at the overall impact and organization throughout existence to be my scale that gauges my belief in a UI.-This is the same way I 'know' there is a UI. It is in part an Islamic way. They view Allah through his works. I use several arguments: First cause; Design; Evolution and coded genetics; and Consciousness. There is no way this happened by chance. Further under evolution is the origin of life, again something that cannot happen by chance.

3881 views

TONY: I apologize for the late reply, but I have been out of town since last Friday and nowhere near a computer.-Apology reciprocated, as I've just returned from a magnificent holiday in Cornwall (see dhw away, 15 April at 15.15...I wonder what's so special about 15?!).-TONY: Let me try once more to clarify my position, as I am apparently making little sense. The concept in my head is crystal clear, but I am having a hard time explaining it.-We all have a hard time explaining things, largely because we all use language so subjectively. This is perfectly illustrated by the following:
 
TONY: When you 'see' light, you are actually seeing light in the form of photons that are bouncing around and being detected by your eyes. When you 'see' darkness, you are not 'seeing' anything at all, but since we perceive that nothingness (i.e. our brain does not stop searching for light thus it remains conscious of the absence of light), we have labeled it with the term 'darkness', which has the unfortunate side-effect. This to me is my common sense approach to reality. I can not explain it any better, and if you are still confused by my rationalization then I apologize.-What is the "unfortunate side effect"? My objection to your argument all the way along has been your insistence that the absence of light is not something "real", so I presume this is what you're referring to. I'm not confused by your rationalization, but by your concept of reality, and that alone is what I'm trying to clarify. See below.
 
TONY: There are numerous unseen forces that we can measure by their affect on the world around us, i.e. Gravity, Magnetism, Centrifugal Force. We do not visually see them, we can not touch, taste, hear, or smell them. Yet, we know that they exist, even if our understanding of them is incomplete.-I agree absolutely that the effect of the imperceptible can be just as real as that of the perceptible, but I also argue that the effect of the absent can be just as real as that of the present. Darkness, nothingness, blackness, famine, drought, blindness, unconsciousness, grief are all striking examples of the effects of absence. The claim that words indicating the non-presence of light, substance, colour ... and by extension food, rain, vision, consciousness, a loved one ... do not describe a reality seems to me to be taking language to a philosophical extreme which goes against all common sense, but that is why I asked you for your definition of reality.
 
I have already offered my own: "Whatever is believed by each individual to exist (a) independently of humans or (b) because of humans." My argument here is that while the phenomena themselves may not/no longer exist, the state of their not/no longer-existing does exist (i.e. is real to us as individuals). So when we grieve for someone we loved, their non-presence is as real to us as the non-presence of light, which we call darkness. But I'm having just as hard a time as you, and I'm not insisting that my definition is right! It's tentative, and perhaps you or someone else can offer a better one.-TONY: I view God in much the same way. I see the inherent order in the universe, its physical laws, as the measurable proof of the existence of an intelligence. Much the way your bathroom scale will take into account the overall impact of gravity on your body mass, I look at the overall impact and organization throughout existence to be my scale that gauges my belief in a UI.-An atheist would of course argue that expressions like God and a Universal Intelligence attribute reality to something non-existent. I am not an atheist, however, and I would suggest that the above fits in neatly with my definition of reality as a matter of individual belief - in contrast to objective truth, which is unknowable.

3823 views

What is the "unfortunate side effect"? My objection to your argument all the way along has been your insistence that the absence of light is not something "real", so I presume this is what you're referring to. I'm not confused by your rationalization, but by your concept of reality, and that alone is what I'm trying to clarify. See below.
> -You touch on the 'unfortunate side effect' below, and you also nicely state my case for me. Thanks.-
> I agree absolutely that the effect of the imperceptible can be just as real as that of the perceptible, but I also argue that the effect of the absent can be just as real as that of the present. Darkness, nothingness, blackness, famine, drought, blindness, unconsciousness, grief are all striking examples of the effects of absence. The claim that words indicating the non-presence of light, substance, colour ... and by extension food, rain, vision, consciousness, a loved one ... do not describe a reality seems to me to be taking language to a philosophical extreme which goes against all common sense, but that is why I asked you for your definition of reality.
> -
> I have already offered my own: "Whatever is believed by each individual to exist (a) independently of humans or (b) because of humans." My argument here is that while the phenomena themselves may not/no longer exist, the state of their not/no longer-existing does exist (i.e. is real to us as individuals). So when we grieve for someone we loved, their non-presence is as real to us as the non-presence of light, which we call darkness. But I'm having just as hard a time as you, and I'm not insisting that my definition is right! It's tentative, and perhaps you or someone else can offer a better one.
> -You hit the proverbial nail on the head. Darkness is a state of absence, the absence of light. Darkness as a state, I do not disagree with. Darkness as a thing, object, piece of existence, I disagree with. The unfortunate side effect that I mentioned is the confusion that we are experience even trying to differentiate between a state, and an object. --
> TONY: I view God in much the same way. I see the inherent order in the universe, its physical laws, as the measurable proof of the existence of an intelligence. Much the way your bathroom scale will take into account the overall impact of gravity on your body mass, I look at the overall impact and organization throughout existence to be my scale that gauges my belief in a UI.
> 
> An atheist would of course argue that expressions like God and a Universal Intelligence attribute reality to something non-existent. I am not an atheist, however, and I would suggest that the above fits in neatly with my definition of reality as a matter of individual belief - in contrast to objective truth, which is unknowable.

3851 views

I have argued that the non-presence of such things as light, colour, food, a loved one, is as real to us as their presence.-TONY: You hit the proverbial nail on the head. Darkness is a state of absence, the absence of light. Darkness as a state, I do not disagree with. Darkness as a thing, object, piece of existence, I disagree with. The unfortunate side effect that I mentioned is the confusion that we experience even trying to differentiate between a state, and an object.-TONY: "Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it." That is precisely what I have been trying to say the entire time. It is a measurement assigned an arbitrary, agreed upon value.-I'm combining these two observations, because they both illustrate the same problem, though I'll also deal with time separately on the other thread. Everything we express through language can be called an "arbitrary agreed upon value", since language is a man-made system of symbols that attempts to capture whatever we think is real. It only makes sense if we have some kind of consensus (= agreed upon values). You have made several statements to the effect that time, darkness etc. are not in themselves realities ... e.g. '"Nothing', much like 'Time', 'Darkness', and the 'color black', is an intellectual construct that has no place in reality other than as an abstract to help us understand 'something'." This is the sole point at issue between us. WHAT DO YOU UNDERSTAND BY "REALITY"? Your (still undefined) concept seems to imply that in these contexts we use language to create something that is not real, whereas I argue that we use language to describe something that is real to us. And so I don't think the problem lies in distinguishing between a state and an object; it's whether you do or do not accept that a state can be real ... in other words, distinguishing between different understandings of the word "reality". If you mean that which exists independently of our observation or measurement, then we have absolutely no way of knowing that ANYTHING is real. That is the philosophical approach which I accept, but which leads us nowhere. The commonsense concept incorporates all those phenomena which we observe or experience and believe to exist ... including the absence of light, substance etc., as well as the passage from future to present to past (regardless of the systems we use for measurement) which is real to us every moment of our lives.
 
However, although these discussions generally seem to go round in circles, your posts have reminded me that there is a third, very important option, which is the materialist approach. This argues that only things or objects are "real", i.e. whatever can be observed, measured, tested by science. This concept would therefore either deny "reality" or, alternatively, attribute a solely material cause to every phenomenon, emotion and experience that does not have known physical substance (including God).
 
Three possible approaches, then ... the philosophical (nothing can be known to be real), the materialist (only the physical world is real), or the common-sense as I tried to define it in earlier posts. May I ask which of these three concepts of reality you subscribe to?

3830 views

RSS Feed of thread

powered by my little forum