What is Reality?

[Zac]

I think it was bostrum who had the idea that a system couldn’t describe itself. That it would need to be larger than itself somehow.

I’ve not read this, a friend explained it to me. But if it’s accurate, we may never be able to fully understand the universe. We’d need a system larger than the universe in order to process it.

Interesting idea anyway.

This is exactly the issue that I mentioned Lee Smolin arguing that physicists start addressing with how time is referenced in most theories. He sees time as emergent and the laws of physics evolvable rather than static as all theories have them now.

[plaamook]

I think it was bostrum who had the idea that a system couldn’t describe itself. That it would need to be larger than itself somehow.

I’ve not read this, a friend explained it to me. But if it’s accurate, we may never be able to fully understand the universe. We’d need a system larger than the universe in order to process it.

Interesting idea anyway.

This is exactly the issue that I mentioned Lee Smolin arguing that physicists start addressing with how time is referenced in most theories. He sees time as emergent and the laws of physics evolvable rather than static as all theories have them now.

I’m not sure how our two statements interact. Could you clarify?

[Zac]

This is exactly the issue that I mentioned Lee Smolin arguing that physicists start addressing with how time is referenced in most theories. He sees time as emergent and the laws of physics evolvable rather than static as all theories have them now.

I’m not sure how our two statements interact. Could you clarify?

Current theories place time outside of the system/universe. It is treated as an axis outside of the interaction/observation experiment. I. E. non evolvable. I related this to your quote in that you said a system may never be able to know itself without being larger than itself; I'm saying all our current theories already have a presumption based on time being larger than the system. I'll get my coat.

[plaamook]

I’m not sure how our two statements interact. Could you clarify?

Current theories place time outside of the system/universe. It is treated as an axis outside of the interaction/observation experiment. I. E. non evolvable. I related this to your quote in that you said a system may never be able to know itself without being larger than itself; I'm saying all our current theories already have a presumption based on time being larger than the system. I'll get my coat.

Not so fast w that coat.
Let me think about this one a bit.

[Zac]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Reborn

I'm only mimicking what I read, the page gives a short overview.

[bxbrkrz]

Rupert Sheldrake, PhD, is a biologist and author best known for his hypothesis of morphic resonance. At Cambridge University he worked in developmental biology as a Fellow of Clare College. He was Principal Plant Physiologist at the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics in Hyderabad, India. From 2005 to 2010 he was Director of the Perrott-Warrick project for research on unexplained human and animal abilities, funded by Trinity College, Cambridge.


https://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert- ... /biography

[teddymcw]

Ok, but what are your feature requests?

[motuscott]

Plant based REs

[Noplan]

Our brain is only a tiny part of the same reality, which tries to reproduce the limited experience of reality through countless attempts and to store it in a simplified and functional but faulty form. At least it is enough to operate synthesizers.

[Rising Night Wave]

OP's question: What Is Reality?

my simple answer: when you are not under any drug substance you can see bunch of idiots walking on the surface of the planet doing stupid things. that is main reality and main casue of this planes.

[plaamook]

I guess the short answer is, everything is reality.
It’s like talking about what’s ‘natural’.
What isn’t?
But trying to nail it all down in the usual way is tricky.
The void between subjective and objective is enough to keep the hard line materialist humans busy for many moons to come I should think.

[stratatonic]

Plant based REs

The new Reality. Let's RE-brand.
Old is New. Bad is Good.
Margarine is now Plant Based Spread.
Mmmmmmmm......sooooo good!

[Lov2sing]

Truth is reality regardless if you believe it or not. Science, philosophy, or self esteem cannot stop truth or explain it in mankind’s understanding; therefore we go to GOD which has given His answer to your question which is we begin and we end, where you remain after one ends is the issue of reality. So if one can answer that reality is easy to understand. The answer GOD has given is Himself through his Son Jesus Christ. That being said, one has freewill to believe that or not, yet if one does it will make a great difference in one reality. It has in mine.

[plaamook]

[bxbrkrz]

[Chizmata]

I've been pondering this question all my life and I'm sure you have too. I've been down many avenues philosophically, psychologically, spiritually and scientifically and of course the answer still alludes me.
When I look around and observe I perceive that whatever it is and no matter how messed up the universe seems there is a simple perfection and beauty to it that is beyond my comprehension.
For the last 5 years I have been diving into quantum physics which has led me to this video the other day,

I think this is a very interesting if disturbing theory yet it is being shunned by the scientific establishment.
If you have the notion to watch the video I'd love to see your thoughts on the universe and everything, that is if you are actually real at all

the question you are asking is not "what is reality". but "how is the word reality defined" (it took philosophers over 2000 years do dismantle metaphysics as a semantic delusion, so no blame here). the answer is: definitions are made by humans and technically no human has a superior access to an absolute reality over any other human. there are parts of the world for which a common definition is useful though, like the the laws of physics, which every known being can experience first hand and which none can escape (that includes abstract concepts like quantum physics, which are still described in relatable terms like "wave", "point" or "unit" to be conceivable at all). there are parts of the world for which a common definition isnt practicable like everyones daily life or mental condition. even though humans share a lot of experiences, which then can by concensus be defined as "reality", reality is ultimately a very individual thing and where there is no force by natural law, the world is what you make of it. so sorry, there is no definite answer to the question "what is reality?", but there might be one to "what is my reality?".

[plaamook]

Thing is if you say reality is what you make if it or what you think it is you can’t really have a conversation about what it actually is or might be. You turn it into a semantic argument that goes nowhere.
I could say reality is my dog or my mind is all of reality and no one could tell me otherwise. It’s just my truth. Whatever the hell that means.

[bxbrkrz]

[avasopht]

It seems the most we can know about reality is not what it is, but what it is not, and how to question our assumptions about it to develop better theories of it (or figure out the cheat codes).

[plaamook]

It seems the most we can know about reality is not what it is, but what it is not, and how to question our assumptions about it to develop better theories of it (or figure out the cheat codes).

Yeah it’s basically a big hack job innit
Who are we
Why are we here
What’s ‘here’ mean?...
Roll up your sleeves folks

[plaamook]

Let’s try n define it a bit.
Let’s say that reality isn’t just the observable physical universe. Those guys aren’t getting anywhere fast.
Let’s say that reality is subjective. Everyone has a version of it and those versions are all interrelated. Hence the fact that we can communicate and agree on things and perceive each other. Unless you’re a solipsist, but no one is really a solipsist.
So there’s more than one discrete reality but there may be an over arching meta reality.
So what’s that.
To my mind the best way of describing it is like communal dream with rules and laws etc but with an infinity of pockets or eddies where each discrete reality can both join in and pair off at the same time.
But if that’s accurate then we don’t live in a strict materialist universe or reality. We live in and are made up of something way more dynamic.

[plaamook]

Admittedly I’m pointing to a different kind of physical universe perhaps but what physical means at that point, when the experience of ‘physical’ itself is an emergent feature, anyone can say.
It’s also a possible semantic argument about ‘physical’ but perhaps it’s more conceptual than semantic.

[avasopht]

What's interesting is that no matter what holds true about reality, we are always experiencing it through a lens that is highly subject to huge distortions and illusions we have no means to gauge.

We know that there are people who are out of touch with reality.

We know that we have an ego that can distort our perceptions in many ways to protect our sense of self.

So, even before we confront reality, we have to account for the additional uncertainty presented by our own psyche.

For all that I know reality is a stream of text and my visual perception of reality is the world that my ego constructed to help make sense of the world I really interact with.

Maybe what I know of science and logic and everything else is a story I tell myself to make my beliefs more resilient to its contradiction.

Taking a step back, let's cut our psyche a little slack as it's a massive rabbit hole to question our own perceptions so aggressively. And still, we know how much change a person can make by simply changing their perspective and challenging their core beliefs.

The many jobs we could have had or partners we could have shared a life with if only we'd asked and not let our path be limited by our false assumptions should remind us to still remain sceptical of the things we are certain of about the world.

And then we have uncertainty, the one thing we are most certain about. The irony of rational inquiry and the principles of science we use to best understand reality is that the most predictable behaviour in the universe is based on a model of uncertainty.

This brings me to the 'physical' reality you mention.

QM, as I understand it, could allow for remarkably different experienced and reachable realities that could emerge through a meeting of an uncertain universe with an uncertain perceiver.

IIRC there is a paper discussing a theory suggesting the same 'physical' universe we measure could be modelled with an infinite number of different theories and interpretations while yielding the same underlying behaviour in such a way that the same 'physical' universe could be traversed and navigated by agents following completely different rules whereby one viewed by the other may appear to be capable of magic or could appear to us anything, like a system of planets and stars, or particles of dust (or something). I need to dig that up, but the Wolfram Physics Project and the related publication do demonstrate how things like gravity can arise from a completely different model (which I found uber interesting).

Perhaps it is through the uncertainty of perception (and the underlying machinery that enables it) that each individual mind may be able to disentangle itself from what once was a certain physical reality and entangle itself with a more convenient or favourable universe that leaves prior forgotten truths open to reinterpretation.

[littlejam]

hello,

found this about reality from avasopht's post above

reality? take your pick...

https://www.wolframphysics.org/visual-g ... index.html

the images are fascinating and you can click on an image and then zoom in like hi-res stuff

cheers and eat well,

j

[plaamook]

Sure. That’s why I started talking about it from the subjective out rather than the objective in. So to speak. That flexibility might be a key to something larger than just some self help shenanigans. It might be crucial not just for understanding reality but for navigating it.

I’ve come to think over time w this stuff that we’re constantly trying to describe reality by getting rid of subjectivity but that makes up most of what we experience. Defining things in terms of hard materialism is like a lowest common denominator game that trims off 90% of reality in order to fit it all into a tidy little box. And sure it’s very accurate at explaining things on a certain scale or resolution but we’re coming up against its limits. Not in terms of how detailed we can model the physical universe but in terms of its ability to encompass that which is not actually physical in a way.
And while is clear that we have to look past our distorted view of it all taking the stance that subjectivity is kind of all distortion and therefor irrelevant or even obstructive...again, it’s throwing babies out with bath water imo.

We need a model that encompasses it, subjective reality, and deals with it on its own terms rather than trying to explain it away.