What is "Reality"?

[Sunstone]

Ask ten people what reality is, expect at least 11 answers. Seems everyone has their own definition -- at least to some extent. That's one reason I personally tend to avoid the word, although I sometimes use it.

When I do use the word, I usually define it as "anything that can be empirically observed and/or detected plus anything that can be logically or rationally demonstrated."

The "logically or rationally demonstrated" allows for the possibility of something to be real -- not physically (and hence, subject to empirical observation and/or detection) -- but rather, to be metaphysically real. I am, however, agnostic about whether anything at all is metaphysically real, including any deity or deities.

To me, the status of such things as pure logic (i.e. deduction) and mathematics is open to debate. Is 2 x 2 = 4 real in the sense that a tree, if it were empirically observable and/or detectable, would be real? Is it real in the sense that a god, if it were logically or rationally demonstrated, would be real? I don't entirely know. What do you think?


This being RF -- home to both fools and sages -- someone is bound assert that "reality = that which exists". Naturally, such an assertion leads to an infinite regression of questions:

What do you mean by "exists"?

I mean "is the case".

What do you mean by "is the case"?

I mean "a state of affairs".

And so on. If you yourself are tempted to define "reality" as equivalent to "that which exists", go right ahead. But I most likely won't bother to respond to you out of boredom with your answer. Just in case it matters to you.



So what does "reality" mean to you?

Are empirically observable and/or detectable things real? Why or why not?

Are things that can be logically or rationally demonstrated real? Why or why not?

Are pure logic and mathematics real? Why or why not?




BONUS QUESTION: If you think pure logic and mathematics are real, are they real in any sense distinguishable from a daydream being called "real"? If so, in what way or ways?

NOTE FOR NERDS LIKE ME: You'll notice my definition of "reality" cleverly sidesteps the issue of whether empirical reality exists in some metaphysical sense. That is, exists "objectively".

 

[Rival]

My reality is whatever I say it is at the time.

I know that sounds kind of delusional, but it is the best and most honest answer I have.

 

[Brickjectivity]

To me, the status of such things as pure logic (i.e. deduction) and mathematics is open to debate. Is 2 x 2 = 4 real in the sense that a tree, if it were empirically observable and/or detectable, would be real? Is it real in the sense that a god, if it were logically or rationally demonstrated, would be real? I don't entirely know. What do you think?

2 x 2 = 4 is more real than physical existence, because it does not need physics to be true. It is in no need of a context. It is not even information. You do not have to send 2 x 2 = 4 to another galaxy to know that it is true there.

BONUS QUESTION: If you think pure logic and mathematics are real, are they real in any sense distinguishable from a daydream being called "real"? If so, in what way or ways?

They are orderly. Two things cannot take up the same space. Anything that is not orderly is somehow absent from pure logic and Mathematics and from our usual experience of reality. In daydreams that is not so.

 

[sun rise]

This being RF -- home to both fools and sages -- someone is bound assert that "reality = that which exists". Naturally, such an assertion leads to an infinite regression of questions:

So what does "reality" mean to you?

Are empirically observable and/or detectable things real? Why or why not?

Are things that can be logically or rationally demonstrated real? Why or why not?

Are pure logic and mathematics real? Why or why not?

Being a fool, or perhaps aspiring to true foolhood, I will rush in to the OP.

I align (that's a good word sometimes) myself with those who assert that every thing and every thought are part of the great illusion of reality. This illusion is so complete that we, while dreaming the dream of reality, think it is really real until we finally "wake up".

So I, as a fool who would someday wake up, can only assert foolishly that I aspire to being awake and thus able to answer the OP from experience not from accepting the formulations of others.

 

[Sunstone]

My reality is whatever I say it is at the time.

I know that sounds kind of delusional, but it is the best and most honest answer I have.

Just out of curiosity, would you say you've given much thought or study to the issue?

 

[Rival]

Just out of curiosity, would you say you've given much thought or study to the issue?

Yes, especially in my philosophy classes. I eventually came to the conclusion that trying to define it in a more human, meaningful way (i.e., a way that didn't exclude emotions, feelings, experiences, etc. in favour of pure logic, science and so on) was futile. As well as this, to me the characters in my head are as real to me as I am. And I still have no way to prove that I'm real, and that I'm not just in someone's head, laboratory or otherwise. So if Archie mistakes me for a kid, I'm a kid in that moment because that's what I am to Archie and myself.

So it is whatever I say it is to me. I have no other way to define it.

 

[WalterTrull]

There is one, and of course, navel lint.

 

[Sunstone]

2 x 2 = 4 is more real than physical existence, because it does not need physics to be true. It is in no need of a context. It is not even information. You do not have to send 2 x 2 = 4 to another galaxy to know that it is true there.

So, if I understand you correctly, Brick, you are saying that x is "more real" than y, if x can be known with certainty to be universally true, while y cannot be known with certainty to be universally true?

If that is indeed what you are saying, then I believe you are using the word "real" in an offbeat way. Of course, you have every right to do so, but your usage is uncommon, I think. To me, to speak of something as being "more real" than something else based on whether or not it can be known to be universally true is a wee bit bizarre.

 

[Sunstone]

And I still have no way to prove that I'm real, and that I'm not just in someone's head, laboratory or otherwise.

It would seem to me that the above statement implies you are defining "real" as having an objective or ontological existence. If so, I can see how you would come to your views about what is real -- for such a definition inevitably leads to metaphysical speculations about whether empirical reality is real or not that cannot be resolved. At least so far as I can see.

 

[Rival]

It would seem to me that the above statement implies you are defining "real" as having an objective or ontological existence.

Yes, which I suppose I've come to do because usually when people ask this is the basis they start with. I'm not of the opinion that a thing must have an objective existence to be real, or have its own reality, or however we want to put it. This seems far too limited a perspective to me.

 

[Nakosis]

BONUS QUESTION: If you think pure logic and mathematics are real, are they real in any sense distinguishable from a daydream being called "real"? If so, in what way or ways?

.

I seen math as a language. It's information about reality. It's abstract reality. By itself, it has no reality. It's just a concept but we use it to convey information about reality. A tree can be mathematically described but the description itself is not the reality of the tree. It is information which allows us to conceptualize the tree.

Does information possess existence?

Wheeler proposed that physics be recast in terms of information theory, an idea that he summarized in a koan-like phrase: "the it from bit." In a paper that he delivered at the Santa Fe Institute in 1989, he postulated that "every it--every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits."
Why information can't be the basis of reality

I don't know. If every conscious mind disappeared from the universe, would information still exist? Do we create information or does information create us? IMO information is a fundamental part of the mind. If all the information in the universe disappeared would we, our mind still exist?

One of those philosophical questions that can probably be endlessly debated over.

 

[Sunstone]

I align (that's a good word sometimes) myself with those who assert that every thing and every thought are part of the great illusion of reality. This illusion is so complete that we, while dreaming the dream of reality, think it is really real until we finally "wake up".

The OP can be taken to suggest that there are three kinds of reality:

Physical -- that which can be empirically observed and/or detected.

Metaphysical -- that which cannot be empirically observed and/or detected, but which can be logically or rationally demonstrated.

Thought -- that which cannot be empirically observed and/or detected, but which can nevertheless become conscious of.​

I may be wrong about this, but it seems to me that the mystical traditions which speak of "waking up from an illusion" are referring to conscious thought as in some way illusionary. Some might even be referring to physical reality as also illusionary, but I'm pretty sure not all of the traditions are.

If that is so, it would seem to me a curious question precisely what about conscious thought is illusionary? Put differently, how would we know that something about conscious thought was illusionary? I have my own ideas about those questions, by the way.

So I, as a fool who would someday wake up, can only assert foolishly that I aspire to being awake and thus able to answer the OP from experience not from accepting the formulations of others.

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[Quintessence]

My reality is whatever I say it is at the time.

I know that sounds kind of delusional, but it is the best and most honest answer I have.

Doesn't strike me as delusional at all given it's humans who are defining what reality is (which basically means reality is whatever a human says it is at the time, albeit with the understanding that these maps are not the territory).

Personally, I don't so much define reality as accept everything is real (no exceptions). The ways in which other humans call things "not real" in spite of them being obviously impactful and part of their experiences is just absurd to me. "In what way do I experience and know this" is a useful question to me; "is that real" is never a useful question to me.

 

[Sunstone]

I seen math as a language. It's information about reality. It's abstract reality. By itself, it has no reality. It's just a concept but we use it to convey information about reality. A tree can be mathematically described but the description itself is not the reality of the tree. It is information which allows us to conceptualize the tree.

Does information possess existence?

Wheeler proposed that physics be recast in terms of information theory, an idea that he summarized in a koan-like phrase: "the it from bit." In a paper that he delivered at the Santa Fe Institute in 1989, he postulated that "every it--every particle, every field of force, even the spacetime continuum itself--derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely--even if in some contexts indirectly--from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits."
Why information can't be the basis of reality

I don't know. If every conscious mind disappeared from the universe, would information still exist? Do we create information or does information create us? IMO information is a fundamental part of the mind. If all the information in the universe disappeared would we, our mind still exist?

One of those philosophical questions that can probably be endlessly debated over.

This is just a downright thought-provoking post. Thank you so much for it, Nakosis!

 

[Sunstone]

Doesn't strike me as delusional at all given it's humans who are defining what reality is (which basically means reality is whatever a human says it is at the time, albeit with the understanding that these maps are not the territory).

Personally, I don't so much define reality as accept everything is real (no exceptions). The ways in which other humans call things "not real" in spite of them being obviously impactful and part of their experiences is just absurd to me. "In what way do I experience and know this" is a useful question to me; "is that real" is never a useful question to me.

Do you distinguish between different kinds of reality? Or is biking headlong into a tree the same to you as multiplying six by twelve?

 

[nPeace]

Ask ten people what reality is, expect at least 11 answers. Seems everyone has their own definition -- at least to some extent. That's one reason I personally tend to avoid the word, although I sometimes use it.

When I do use the word, I usually define it as "anything that can be empirically observed and/or detected plus anything that can be logically or rationally demonstrated."

The "logically or rationally demonstrated" allows for the possibility of something to be real -- not physically (and hence, subject to empirical observation and/or detection) -- but rather, to be metaphysically real. I am, however, agnostic about whether anything at all is metaphysically real, including any deity or deities.

To me, the status of such things as pure logic (i.e. deduction) and mathematics is open to debate. Is 2 x 2 = 4 real in the sense that a tree, if it were empirically observable and/or detectable, would be real? Is it real in the sense that a god, if it were logically or rationally demonstrated, would be real? I don't entirely know. What do you think?


This being RF -- home to both fools and sages -- someone is bound assert that "reality = that which exists". Naturally, such an assertion leads to an infinite regression of questions:

What do you mean by "exists"?

I mean "is the case".

What do you mean by "is the case"?

I mean "a state of affairs".

And so on. If you yourself are tempted to define "reality" as equivalent to "that which exists", go right ahead. But I most likely won't bother to respond to you out of boredom with your answer. Just in case it matters to you.



So what does "reality" mean to you?

Are empirically observable and/or detectable things real? Why or why not?

Are things that can be logically or rationally demonstrated real? Why or why not?

Are pure logic and mathematics real? Why or why not?




BONUS QUESTION: If you think pure logic and mathematics are real, are they real in any sense distinguishable from a daydream being called "real"? If so, in what way or ways?

NOTE FOR NERDS LIKE ME: You'll notice my definition of "reality" cleverly sidesteps the issue of whether empirical reality exists in some metaphysical sense. That is, exists "objectively".

Reality to me is what is. Sounds funny, I know, but that's reality.
So reality does not depend upon whether someone knows, understands, or believes that reality, but one can get to realize the reality.

For example, I might say, the reality is A, whether you believe A, or not. However, you may later come to realize A, and say, "Ah. The reality is A." The same goes for all of us.

Reality usually is considered what we determine to be reality, and we live with that, provided it is universally accepted as truth - that is, it is proven beyond doubt, or accepted without reason to question.

For example, no one will question that a dog is in reality a dog, because there was a stating point where the name dog was given to the animal.
The same applies to human.
So when people of this modern age say a human is an animal - there is no universal acceptance without reason to question, and it is not proven beyond doubt,
The reality is we are human, whether a person believes it or not.

The idea that humans are animals is just an idea - not reality as was determined.

 

[Skwim]

What is reality?

The following is adequate enough for me.

re·al·i·ty
/rēˈalədē/
noun
noun: reality
1.the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

BONUS QUESTION: If you think pure logic and mathematics are real, are they real in any sense distinguishable from a daydream being called "real"? If so, in what way or ways?

Gotta say yes because for the daydream to have any kind of actuality it would have to take place, where as 2 + 2 will always = 4 even if if there wasn't any kind of actual referent behind it.

.

​

 

[Rival]

2 + 2 will always = 4

This is also only in one's head. There is no such thing as an objective 4. Find me a 4. You cannot. One can have 4 of a thing, but not a 4. This is a human construct.

 

[Sunstone]

This is also only in one's head. There is no such thing as an objective 4. Find me a 4. You cannot. One can have 4 of a thing, but not a 4. This is a human construct that may not exist without us.

Very perceptive, Rival. "Thing" is what makes 4 a human construct.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So, if I understand you correctly, Brick, you are saying that x is "more real" than y, if x can be known with certainty to be universally true, while y cannot be known with certainty to be universally true?

No, sir; and I am sorry if I give that impression. I am saying 2 x 2 = 4 does not need context to be true. It is real. We, who are only true in a particular context, are not real. We are real, for example, if the universe is real; but 2 x 2 = 4 is real with or without the universe.