What is 'Real'?

[Treasure Hunter]

Yikes! I see it *exactly* the opposite way. Desire is a huge *barrier* to understanding: we tend to fall into confirmation bias and ignore contrary evidence. Whenever I really *want* something to be true, I try extra hard to be skeptical of it for exactly this reason.

As I see it, desire is the path to self-delusion, not to 'ultimate reality'.

All this is saying is the path through desire is harder. Just because it’s more difficult doesn’t make it false.

Further, through the path of least resistance it’s impossible to get to ultimate reality.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In which case, the term 'real' seems to be meaningless.

Often, 'real' is used as a counter to 'imaginary'. So 'real' things are those that don't exist purely in our imaginations. They aren't just 'in our heads'.

The difficulty comes when we realize that our ideas have physical (and real) correlates. So, it may very well be possible to say 'that person is thinking of a unicorn' by looking at a very detailed brain scan over time.

In a similar way, a virtual reality program has 'real' physical correlates in the electronics even though the 'world' it relates is not real at all.

It's why I find the most fantastical delusion has its own actual reality because it can't escape the reality that brought it about and enables it to flourish and be sustainable for periods of time.

It's why I find God to be very real for instance in people's individual minds and imaginations, yet still point out that it exists nowhere at all in the waking real world by which people's imaginations and fantasies can only come about because of the reality involving the waking world, by which people enter into fantasy and delusion which in turn carries on the reality and experiences of being within a particular fantasy and delusional world.

It's why I find reality as a descriptor to be inescapable, whether it's something involving the fantastical or set in actuality where the fantastical ceases to be because of the relationship reality plays as a role in both.

It's quite literally a paradox as I see it.

 

[setarcos]

From the future, we can see the fluid nature of glass, and one may not understand how they ever thought it was solid.

Not quite true. The force of gravity as is currently known, alone is not strong enough to break the lattice network of molecular bonds and repulsive forces that define glass as a solid no matter how long its given. There are other forces that can turn that solid glass into a viscus liquid such as thermal energy but gravity just cannot do it alone.
I may be nitpicking here but this goes to show how its important to agree on defining terms. What constitutes a solid, a liquid, a gas, and what it means to change those states and how that change redefines what is changing. Objects change. The state of an object - excepting the idea of and idealized version of that object which generally qualifies the object as belonging to a particular class of things - is defined by the state the object is currently in, not eternally in. A glass drinking glass is solid. Not a misidentified version of a liquid state over time since how we define the two terms solid and liquid are derived from the same experience in time at the time the experience was defined.

it was never a solid, but a very dense fluid. From the future

And it was never a fluid but a very dense gas from the future further along in time. But only if external forces are applied and definitely forces beyond gravity. Yet if that drinking glass is liquified it is no longer the object it was defined as, and if that liquid is made to be boiled away into its constituent atoms its no longer a liquid, and if that gas disperses we might say it never was a drinking glass to be solid or liquid or gas by your logic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

what do you mean by "in" time?

To exist means to exist in time, which means to be found somewhere and able to interact with other existing things during a series of consecutive instants (duration).

As apposed to what?

As opposed to not being those things. To be real is to exist in space and time and to interact with other real things. Everything that can be said to exist meets all three criteria. Nonexistent things meet none of them, and there is no middle ground where something possesses only one or two of those qualities.

And how are you defining that "what"?

I didn't use the word in the post you quoted.

What do you mean by outside of time? Is that your phrase for non-existence?

Existing "outside of time" is a claim made by many about things like gods. For me, nothing that exists does so outside of time. The verb exist implies existence through a series of consecutive instants. All verbs imply time. And yes, if you tell me that something exists outside of time, you are telling me that it doesn't exist.

If so then wouldn't you agree that some things which don't currently exist in time but will eventually have been born out of nothing?

No. Before you were made, you didn't exist. Now you do, but you are not made of nothing. The materials that made you predate your birth. Note the use of the words process and relationship in the section below. The matter comprising you predates your existence, but by "you" I mean the configuration those elements and the processes they undergo that define life and mind assume and perform now while you live.

Are you saying ideas are not real? That they don't exist in time?

I said the opposite - explicitly: "My definition for real is that which exists some place at some time and which is able to interact with other things also existing somewhere at some time. This applies not just to objects, processes, and relationships, but also includes ideas whether these ideas have an associated real referent or are just creations of the imagination."

Can a fictitious character really exist apart from the idea that birthed it? Are either of these things not capable of effecting reality?

No. Fictitious means nonexistent. The idea of the character can exist and impact reality through the actions of one who thinks it, but if there is no external referent corresponding to the idea, then the idea, which is real, is about something that is not.

Is there anything about any of these ideas you find fault with? If so, which and why?

 

[Bthoth]

Define 'real'.

What IS REAL is the promised land.

Mankind is conscious life within existence (the universe) that is aware of itself.

Mankind created words and with words, math and symbols, has been recording information to learn and pass onto the next generations. Eventually, the comprehension of how existence works to the letter will unfold (the unveiling), to define what "IS REAL" will enable conscious life, the ability to live for ever and know it.

 

[Polymath257]

All this is saying is the path through desire is harder. Just because it’s more difficult doesn’t make it false.

Further, through the path of least resistance it’s impossible to get to ultimate reality.

And it seems to me that the path of least resistance *is* the path that gives undue weight to desires. And, like I said, the reason is is problematic isn't *just* its ease. It is that this path leads to confirmation bias and self-delusion.

On the other hand, skepticism and doubt is far harder, but also more apt to give the truth.

 

[Treasure Hunter]

And it seems to me that the path of least resistance *is* the path that gives undue weight to desires. And, like I said, the reason is is problematic isn't *just* its ease. It is that this path leads to confirmation bias and self-delusion.

On the other hand, skepticism and doubt is far harder, but also more apt to give the truth.

Desire and skepticism are not mutually exclusive. The opposite of desire is not skepticism. The opposite of desire is impotent, risk-aversion.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Define 'real'.

Real: that which is consistent with past experience.

 

[PureX]

It’s interesting reading how different all these responses are.

Makes me think of how different the responses are to the question “what is God?”

 

[Yerda]

Define 'real'.

Have you offered a definition?

 

[Balthazzar]

Define real? Experience

 

[Link]

Good question. Sufism and Shia Irfan holds only God is real, and we are partially real only. We imagine we exist, but have not fully actualized to real.

Rumi would say "we are non-existence showing existence".

Other Sufism and Irfan terminology says God is Necessary and everything else is possible existence, and that possible existence relies on the necessary existence.

And the following is something to think about, if our value is numbered, and numbered are abstractions, they are relative, and relative to what? The real on one hand and the non-existence on the other.

 

[libre]

Define 'real'.

A real idea is an idea that which accurately abstracts material phenomena.
An unreal idea is an idea which falsely abstracts material phenomena.

 

[Polymath257]

Desire and skepticism are not mutually exclusive. The opposite of desire is not skepticism. The opposite of desire is impotent, risk-aversion.

Hmmm....I don't see it like that. Impotence and risk-aversion are a form of desire: a desire not to get involved. I seer their opposite as being the search for power as opposed to having desire.

On the other hand, the opposite of skepticism is belief without or in spite of evidence, or willful self-delusion.

So, you are right. Desire and skepticism are not mutually exclusive. But their overlap is to desire the truth, even if it isn't to your liking.

 

[Quintessence]

Define 'real'.

Everything.

I keep it simple like that.

Everything that is experienced or known in any way is real.

Which is why I never ask the question "is that real" or "does that exist" because the answer is already "yes" if we're even asking the question. Dumb questions to me. Better questions - "how do I experience or know this with my limited human faculties?"

 

[chinu]

Define 'real'.

Real: that sounds real to real is real.

 

[Ponder This]

Define 'real'.

Is 'real' definable? Or is it axiomatic? When something is so fundamental that it can't be defined, then we have to simply say that it is what it is.

You either know what it is or you don't. In our common usage, we distinguish what is real from what is not real. In other words, what is real is not merely imagined or supposed to be, but rather it exists or occurs in fact. It is real because it is not not real. If you don't know what is real, then you have a fundamental problem at an axiomatic level that you can't distinguish between things that are not real and things that are real.

How can anyone help you with this? Hmm. Perhaps, you could go to a local library and ask to be shown the fiction and non-fiction sections respectively and use the information therein to assist you in constructing a fundamental notion of the difference between things which are imagined and things which are not merely imagined. Of course, I question how you could manage to get to the library in the first place without being able to distinguish reality from fantasy.
A conundrum: how can we define what is real to you, without you already knowing what is real and what is not?

 

[setarcos]

To exist means to exist in time

Not necessarily. Hawking showed that time actually had a beginning. That beginning was at the moment of the Big Bang.
Prior to the Big Bang there was an existent singularity, "outside" of time.

which means to be found somewhere and able to interact with other existing things during a series of consecutive instants (duration).

Found somewhere perhaps, though even that somewhere cam be hard to make meaningful to us, but a moment of no duration does not define what time is. An infinite multitude of moments of no duration will do no better in defining time. Add any number of moments of no duration together and all's you'll get is a moment of no duration.
"Consecutive instants"? Consecutive to what? Cause and effect get a bit tricky at the quantum level. Physics is having a very hard time determining why we seem to perceive an "arrow of time" in which things can be defined as consecutively related phenomena. Physics has yet to answer the mysteries of the directionality of entropy. This so called flow to time breaks down at the quantum level. From the point of view of physics, the future is as real and existent as the past and present. It is only the "flow of our awareness" that delineates the past, present, and future.
It should also be noted that change can be of no duration. It can be instantaneous, as when an electron jumps from one state to another for instance.
We are equipped to perceive macroscopically. At this level we are deluded into believing we are experiencing causes in reality instead of merely the effects of realistic causes. We perceive the pictures movement. We don't perceive the flipping pages giving us the delusion of that movement.
Realistically it may be that past, present, and future are collectively a moment of no duration having simultaneous existence.

To be real is to exist in space and time and to interact with other real things.

Not exactly. The singularity was real yet was the originator of space and time not a subject of those things.

Everything that can be said to exist meets all three criteria. Nonexistent things meet none of them, and there is no middle ground where something possesses only one or two of those qualities.

I don't think this is correct. As presented above. Nothing in science bars a real singularly unique entity's existence which has no interaction with other real things since none exist other than itself. Science indicates that Space and time as we know them in our universe both had beginnings -or at least the phenomena we've labeled with those terms - whereas there is no indication that their originator did. The singularity existed in neither space nor time as we define them.
What space is, is not so easily described. What space does is a little easier to define with such tools as Einstein and the quantum crew developed. And so it is with time.

Existing "outside of time" is a claim made by many about things like gods. For me, nothing that exists does so outside of time.

Since you mentioned gods, let me attempt to explain what is meant by the Christian God being outside of time...
All created creatures in this universe experience time sequentially as their sentience becomes aware of moments of no deration which that sentience passes through. The "direction" of that passage is dictated and sustained by God. That would be defined as being within and subject to a sensory flow of time.
This would be in contrast to God's sentient awareness of all of time at once - past, present, future - as a single instantaneous realistic moment. Yet...in comparison to the singularity of the Big Bang we say that God while aware of and simultaneous experiencing all of existence is not itself subject to its restrictions - that is restrictions of awareness of or ability within time and space but is instead the originator of those things.
Nothing in science precludes God from being able to exist prior to the beginnings of time or space as we have come to define those things.
We don't so much exist "in" time but instead we become aware of reality in a dictated sequence.

 

[The Hammer]

Define 'real'.

Real is what is experienced.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I see real as an attributed quality that revolves around interactions with matter and energy.