MiguelBladesman

I realize what you show me, which isn't much. For that matter, I don't see you showing anybody much of anything. Good luck to you though.

Daisy, No good deed goes unpunished; nor any point of view, either! (((grin)))

Jakiri, are you kidding me? You're criticizing my insistence upon empiricism?

Ah.....I see this more clearly now; you want me to accept "on faith" your rhetorical generalizations. Hmm....and "twit" I suppose, is a reflection of a deeply studied consideration of the facts: a specificied reality, articulated by Richard Feynman. Gee, that's okay; I was just hoping to read it chapter and verse is all. I'm suspicious when the disciplined adherence to empirical principle erodes.

I cannot accept your ..."clarification" because your logic is hazy, especially because we are not discussing minutiae or particulars, but sweeping generalizations, offered wholesale, like "physical reality". I do find it regrettable that you are bored with this. I'm fascinated with the clear and obvious boundaries and it's a disappointment to me that you are so satisfied with articulating glittering generalities . Now if you sourced something specific from Richard Feynman, that would be interesting. Feynman is straightforward and honest.

You are correct RE...

Good then Giles. Source those properties of reality in Feynman for us will you? The last thing we want is for people to be obscure on what reality is, eh?

Daisy, That's stuff we have little control over. Hope you work through it okay.

Giles, with the exception of your claim that it's tautological that "reality must be everything that exists"... ...because you are arguing (like me ) simultaneously philosophically AND scientifically; but since you are arguing, like Tom, "reality" can you source this in science? For example, did Richard Feynman, in his field of work, develop a theory of REALITY? I'm not denying that the physical exists. I'm just stopping short of attributing to the physical [which we all share ] the qualification, REALITY. It's a critical distinction.

Radical Edward: "The majority of experimentation does not rely on the human optical or for that matter, sensory system." -Radical Edward EXACTLY! That is what I want to point out when I suggest that terms like "Reality" or "physical reality" are bereft of scientific meaning. Particularly, RE, is your statement that "sensory" perception is not relied upon. Visual proof is the least reliable. Moreover, and far deeper in its implications for science, is the simple fact that observed results are never accepted as "proofs". They are probabililites.

Time is ___________?

Tom: Pardon me, but you neatly sidestepped the necessary definition of REALITY. Equating reality with externals that are perceived by sense, falls categorically under the notion of proof by appearance. Any study of optical illusion will demonstrate that senses are unreliable. You introduced REALITY into the dialogue here Tom. Just define it will you, so that we aren't perennially committed to fallacy by 'glittering generality' or 'slippery slope' argumentation?

Mr. L. Jakiri: But if I'm using the same avatar as someone else, it's the counterfeit that's causing the confusion. Surely you're not suggesting that "I" am causing confusion, I, am a ....uhmmmm...[how do you spell, "weilder"?]....of the secret fire of Anor?....um....or was it Anor....oh heck... Why is everyone so confused....Must have been the ride around the cyclotron!

Radical Edward: Don't misunderstand me; there's not much Intelligent Design to me. I'm different; but I daresay there's other parts of humanity that suggest elements of ID. I draw my inference for ID from the beauty, both the Light and the Dark beauty. Then there's the entire notion of Intelligences, that seem to indicate design. Nearly everything experienced has one designation or other.

Radical Edward, I agree with you completely concerning the discipline of science. But I believe the original question here, was posted not with a requirement that we answer within the strict confines of science. It's rather a philosophical question also as I see it. Anyway, I've got 4 hats. One is my "science" hat. One is my "philosophy" hat. One is my "religion" hat. Last, but not least is my FILSON bowhunting hat.