-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are We Real?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Why place limitations on reality? Why can't it all be real? Perhaps reality is relative.
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
I know of none of my relatives who's name is reality. So reality and I are not related
ellenjanuary
Well-Known Member
How well can one know another? What would we know as a mass the scale of mountain? What would it be to breed a stellar nursery, breathing plasma, the vibrations of children cry... plenty of reality before one gets to god, I'd think.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Even if there was a God that existed in one reality and created another that humans lived in it would still be a reality. Think of the human reality as a subset existing wholly in the greater set of God's reality. This has always been my argument against debates on the argument of evil. If we posit that there is a being which created us in a subset of reality in a greater reality which we cannot observe for we are deep within a smaller pocket of the greater whole than how can we begin to comprehend terms defined by us in our own set of reality without ever knowing what those terms mean in the greater set. Mixture of set theory and theology, I know, but a practical way of looking at it in my opinion.
More importantly, even if you state that this reality is not real and set yourself on fire.......you'll get burned.
On a more serious note, take everything you know about this reality, share this reality with others, and then observe schizophrenics.
bain-druie
Tree-Hugger!
Well, I think that since basic subatomic theory tells us everything is composed of mostly empty space, reality is a sketchy concept to begin with. :sarcastic So the context is what becomes important to us, who are for whatever reasons interacting with this set of scientific laws.
Therefore, if a given thing does not change the context of space and time as we know it, it does not fundamentally change our reality.
Therefore, if a given thing does not change the context of space and time as we know it, it does not fundamentally change our reality.
gnomon
Well-Known Member
bain-druie
Tree-Hugger!
So then the reality is we all are for the most part empty inside.
YES! And therefore we Druids say, DRINK MORE MEAD!
Proper-Gander
Member
We're all players and life's the game?
Rakhel
Well-Known Member
You cheating!! Stop changing the rules, man!
Proper-Gander
Member
We could all use a little change.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
doppelganger
Through the Looking Glass
We could all use a little change.
But only if it's a cool change.
[youtube]9bKwRW0l-Qk[/youtube]
YouTube - ‪Cool Change Little River Band‬‏
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Huh, deja vu...-Glitches-
As far as I'm concerned, any being that can think, have emotions, and identify as a self is by definition "real". "I think, therefore I am."
But acknowledging that people are real (or at least, one's own self is real), doesn't mean that the world is exactly how it is perceived. We have adapted to interpret our surroundings in such a way that is conductive towards our survival, so we have a filter between us and everything else.
The Sum of Awe
Brought to you by the moment that spacetime began.
Hmm, interesting. So do you think we could ever make self-conscious avatars in a video game, if so would they be considered real?
It might be possible to create continuous self-conscious programs. If they existed, I'd consider them as real as us. They perceive and identify as a self. They would be made of the same stuff as us- quarks, electrons, etc. Just in a different way.
A harder part would be proving whether a conscious entity is indeed conscious. It may not even be possible. Humans take for granted the assumption that other humans are conscious, because we all have the same basic biological structure and it's a probable scenario. But we never have to really "prove" that other humans are conscious.
If we ever had a scenario with robots or programs that were designed to be truly self-aware, and an issue of ethics and rights came into it, it would create a problem if people disagree on whether a given entity is even truly conscious or not.
Would this universe be in any meaningful sense less real to us if it were discovered tomorrow that it originated in another universe's black hole? If so, in what sense would it be less meaningful?