geckopelli Posted October 19, 2003 Posted October 19, 2003 For a project I'm working on I need a rigid verbal definition of "what is real?". This is what I've come up with: Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner. Can anyone refute this? In any context (science, religion, meta-physics, magic, etc.)? Is my logic faulty or perhaps inadequate? All comments will be greatly appreciated.
NavajoEverclear Posted October 19, 2003 Posted October 19, 2003 I wish i had something valuable to say, but i would just be babbling. What is the purpose of defining real? Its a near impossible thing to do anyway. If you've had a healthy dose of matrix i'm sure you understand that. What if the universe is made of one particle moving at infininate speed to simulate everything that exists? Things could suddenly dissapear, appear, multiply, any laws of physics could be broken. I've realized its really pointless to say. But as i said i felt i should reply something. So thats the best i can think up--- i think this project is barren and profitless. The best thing you can do is to get married to a wife you love, and have children you love. Of coarse many other things will put structure to your life but those should be your greatest joy, which you would give everything else for. I know that seemed off the subject, i thought if i was going to tell you the project was useless, that i should tell you something that isn't useless, toward which means may replace uselessness.
NavajoEverclear Posted October 19, 2003 Posted October 19, 2003 but better yet advice---- if you actually do think my last was good advice, don't use me as any model of mentality you could use to make those things possible. I need to learn to stop labelling myself, but i am not really in position to be giving other people advice. I have lots of work to do with my life and me, and yet i know certain things that i do not understand. But thats not to say i don't see why these things are good, i have a way i feel i can imagine understanding, though the actuallity of the understanding is not manifestly set into my personality. Oh, now i've got the best advice--- meet someone (perhaps a lovely lady(thats who gives me most of my good advice)) who can help you. A woman who has mastered herself, who is comfortable with herself, who has it together. Well i hope you can figure out who that is. And an advice about my advice--- dont follow it all to the letter, do what's right (which likely does not follow my ideals to the letter, but includes them somehow).
Skye Posted October 19, 2003 Posted October 19, 2003 Is the definition the reality you shall assume for whatever else you are doing in the project, or a general philosophical argument? Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner It's ok, but the person doing the observing could just be dreaming.
MishMish Posted October 19, 2003 Posted October 19, 2003 What is the context? I don't see much point in brain in the vat speculations, but best I can tell there are certain propositions accepted by definition or as axiomatic, and everything else is built from those I see no way to get to an absolute reality, and am quite happy dealing with the world using a models based approach The better the explanatory & esp predictive value of the model, the better the model, but there is no way to prove in an absolute sense that it is the "true" state of affairs. Silly question, you're having to answer, to my mind
YT2095 Posted October 19, 2003 Posted October 19, 2003 I define real as that which can be quantified mathematicly/scientificly. it may not be the right answer, but it works for me
blike Posted October 19, 2003 Posted October 19, 2003 geckopelli said in post #1 :For a project I'm working on I need a rigid verbal definition of "what is real?". This is what I've come up with: Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner. Can anyone refute this? In any context (science, religion, meta-physics, magic, etc.)? Is my logic faulty or perhaps inadequate? All comments will be greatly appreciated. Like skye said, you could have a dream in which all the components adhere to your definition. Yet this is not something we would commonly define as 'real'. You might also want to expand your definition to try and include ideas. Ideas do influence things, but the influence may not be observable by any means. Without ideas, we could not sit here and discuss how to know if something is real. Thus, the definition of real is dependant on the fact that ideas are real.
geckopelli Posted October 20, 2003 Author Posted October 20, 2003 This is a quasi-scientific question. I'm a writer, not a resercher. The "quantified" definition is too narrow because it doesn't account for the possibility of the undiscovered or as yet unquantified. A dream would have to have "influence" on a self-qualifying componet of existence as well as being observed by the dreamer in order to qualify. Events within the same dream do not qualify. Or how am I logically wrong? Side to NavajoEverclear: Spare me the life advice. I have a daughter your age. I hardly need a kid to tell me how to live. And would you mind if I made a living?
blike Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 A bit philosophical for me, so bear with me. What you're saying is that the dream would have to influence another component of existence besides things in the dream itself? What do you mean by self-qualifying? Your statement seems fairly accurate, now that dreams are out of the question. I'll try to think of some loopholes, though I'm not much of a philosopher
geckopelli Posted October 20, 2003 Author Posted October 20, 2003 One other thing. It is possible for an idea to qualify as "real" under the definition -- provided it manifest itself in a way that can be objectively observed. Perhaps "Components of Existence influence one another in a manner which is subject to objective observation". Better?
geckopelli Posted October 20, 2003 Author Posted October 20, 2003 By self qualifying I mean that each component must meet the criteria seperately. I'm really looking for loopholes- the more subtle the better.
MishMish Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 geckopelli said in post #11 :By self qualifying I mean that each component must meet the criteria seperately. I'm really looking for loopholes- the more subtle the better. And it is this which can't be done, if I read you right We can't get outside the system or identify some independent variable, all we can do is accept some propositions as axiomatic or definitional, the rest is dependent on everything else and the aceptance of those axioms & definitions I agree YT's is too narrow because it does not allow for the as yet unquantified, but that's minor, and agree "it works." I just like my models model better... Gecko: "Perhaps "Components of Existence influence one another in a manner which is subject to objective observation". Better?" No. You're going to have to define "objective" instead of "reality" is all.
Skye Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 Defining reality is impossible using logic, as logic is based on drawing inferences from assumptions which are agreed to be true. To define what is true you need to know what is real, and round and round it goes.
bigjnorman Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 Descarte argues in one of his books.... 1) If you have ever been fooled into thinking a dream was real then waking up to find otherwise ( I have ) then you can never be sure your aren't dreaming this moment. 2) he rejects this by arguing that it is obvious he is not dreaming because he ponders the question of 'am I dreaming or awake' and such things do not occur while dreaming. The book is "Meditations on First Philosophy" check it out if you've never read it. Short Summary: Descartes begins by rejecting everything that could ever be questionable (eg. awake or dreaming). Through the corse of 6 or 7 'meditations' he goes on in an inductive manner, ultimately proving god's existence. (not really though)
geckopelli Posted October 20, 2003 Author Posted October 20, 2003 Thank you all. "We can't get outside the system or identify some independent variable, all we can do is accept some propositions as axiomatic or definitional, the rest is dependent on everything else and the aceptance of those axioms & definitions" In a way, this is "Universal Solipsism". Existence is functional becasue it IS. This leads to the basic assumption (truism?) that the term "reality" labels a concept which is valid. This assumption is basic to science, philosophy, relogion and our motivation to get out of (or stay in) bed in the morning. No components of the Universe are observable from outside the universe, since no "outside" can be shown to exist. I do. however feel compelled to drop the word "objective". Logic is a great servant but a lousy master. I use it as a structural framework only, fully realizing is limitations. I discount Descarte. He is clearly a solipsist. Besides, practitioners of "lucid dreaming" are quite capable of asking such question while in the dream state.
aman Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 When I think of real I think of Hellen Keller to find a simple definition. Something that is consistantly and repeatably counted on to exhibit the same effect or experience. That's the reality she would live in. Just aman
ugochukwu Posted October 20, 2003 Posted October 20, 2003 what is real? well i will tell you what i understand by real. what you see and can touch, something deadly and painful is real. Something seen from full prespective is real and something axiomatic can be real. To feel pain makes you realise how alive you really are, and that the body is real and it takes pain very seriously. I seriously do not know what been real is, but it is definately not in the matrix, that's for sure.
MishMish Posted October 21, 2003 Posted October 21, 2003 geckopelli said in post #15 :In a way, this is "Universal Solipsism". Existence is functional becasue it IS. This leads to the basic assumption (truism?) that the term "reality" labels a concept which is valid. I've no idea about philosophy, will accept "practical" instead of "valid," however, for my position And not to quibble.... Gecko: "I do. however feel compelled to drop the word "objective"." Glad to hear that
Skye Posted October 21, 2003 Posted October 21, 2003 This assumption is basic to science Not necessarily. Most philosophies of science don't rely on having a defined reality. Instead, science is essentially a methodology for describing observations, the sum of which is the observable universe. The descriptions are considered valid if they are able to make verifiable predictions of the observable universe.
geckopelli Posted October 21, 2003 Author Posted October 21, 2003 Agreed. Nevertheless, the existence of "reality" is the most basic of unstated assumptions, else there would be nothing to observe. Besides, it's essential for literary reason! Thank you all.
ugochukwu Posted October 21, 2003 Posted October 21, 2003 Skye said in post #19 : Not necessarily. Most philosophies of science don't rely on having a defined reality. Instead, science is essentially a methodology for describing observations, the sum of which is the observable universe. The descriptions are considered valid if they are able to make verifiable predictions of the observable universe. you guys are Sophisticated and really too smart for my liking. Tell me what it means. I understood what you mean't by science not focusing on reality and also understood most of your points as aforementioned above. But why, don't scientist focus on reality than they do on observation? Scientists seem to be playing gods than they do un realising the true existant of reality. that's if my you get my point.
MishMish Posted October 21, 2003 Posted October 21, 2003 geckopelli said in post #20 :Agreed. Nevertheless, the existence of "reality" is the most basic of unstated assumptions, else there would be nothing to observe. Besides, it's essential for literary reason! Thank you all. If there's a reason science should be important to the humanities instead of the other way around maybe that's it right there
Sayonara Posted October 21, 2003 Posted October 21, 2003 ugochukwu said in post #21 : Scientists seem to be playing gods than they do un realising the true existant of reality. that's if my you get my point. Whut?
KHinfcube22 Posted October 21, 2003 Posted October 21, 2003 You are not real...You do not even think your real...I just think you think your real...Only I exist...You are all just images in my mind created by the induced schyzophrenia given to me by the goverment...that is whats real......
Sayonara Posted October 21, 2003 Posted October 21, 2003 The irony of the solopsist who cannot distinguish between your and you're is quite tragic.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now