Is the universe real.

[Jwolffe]

The universe could be real or an illusion created in our minds.Our level of perceiving things is limited and much lower than Gods.Like a small child cant easily understand some concepts so cant we.Then so it would be acceptable to say that the universe is a fantastic illusion.

[Rajnish Kaushik]

The universe could be real or an illusion created in our minds.Our level of perceiving things is limited and much lower than Gods.Like a small child cant easily understand some concepts so cant we.Then so it would be acceptable to say that the universe is a fantastic illusion.

we are not illusion for our self at least so leave it and live it

[namespace]

It can't be an illusion. Although some universal aspects are abstract and an illusion is an abstract feel, the universe does exist, in its vast, infinite shape, it's true, but it is there.

Use the Argumentum ad absurdum principle: If the universe wouldn't be real, then you wouldn't be real either, because you are part of this infinite set, more exactly, the subset of living forms. But you think, you are governed by ration and you use your senses to explore the world, a physical world, described by scientific laws. Therefore you ARE real; but wait, this is a contradiction, which means that the hypothesis is false, thus, the universe exists.

 

This is the simplest form the argument can be stated. Of course that the problem is more complicated than this, because you can think more abstractly and ask questions about space and time dimensions, living forms / conditions and equations of the universe.

Edited January 28, 2014 by namespace

[cladking]

The universe could be real or an illusion created in our minds.Our level of perceiving things is limited and much lower than Gods.Like a small child cant easily understand some concepts so cant we.Then so it would be acceptable to say that the universe is a fantastic illusion.

 

The reality of the universe is an imponderable exactly as the existence of (g)God(s) is an imponderable. Both appear to exist but no more can be said about them. While we can't even begin to understand the nature of (g)God(s) we can study the universe we percieve as real. We can study that universe only when we accept it as real or postulate its reality.

 

You can't design an experiment with current knowledge to show that reality or (g)God(s) exist. It seems one has the option of hiding in one's cave or keep on keeping on (until it warms up I've opted for the cave).

[SamBridge]

It's not an illusion, but it's not what we think it is either. Based on any given average individual's evidence, there are others who can observe and respond to the same environment they perceive in such a manner that the chances that it's a coincidence are beyond astronomical. No one can really say "yes it 100% exists", but we can say we have a 99% certainty that it does according to our observations.

[Implicate Order]

I half suspect the final verdict of quantum gravity will be a further single unifying symmetry stemming from the fact that our reality can only be described from within this universe and not outside it. Namely that the reality can either be expressed from the mind of an observer or observers (eg. many minds interpretation) from a reality projected from the mind or alternatively that the reality is the information state of that external context viewed from the reference frame of an observer and an analysis of that information (a purely relational viewpoint). In a nutshell a symmetry from a multi-verse perspective where each observer occupies his own universe - eg. an observer dependent holographic universe with an infinite array of intersecting hubble volumes each governed by classical information causality.

 

Underneath this symmetry lies the quantum domain in abstract space (our classical world being embedded in this complex mathematical space) from which our classical world and Boolean logic emerges at the planck boundary attributed to the ability to undertake discreet measurements (as opposed to dealing with observer dependant probability distributions) for single seperated 'things' emerging from this boundary upwards (enter the world of local distributed information processing and our classical universe). Beneath this boundary lies a universal timeless quantum wavefunction that we will never (using classical measuring instruments) be able to plumb due to it's non-local AND counterfactually indefinite nature.

 

In my opinion John Wheeler and Susskind in their interpretations may just about have it right.

Edited February 6, 2014 by Implicate Order

[Trumptor]

Saying that the reality in the universe is only real within the given universe is like saying that the stuff of dreams is real while we're dreaming and not outside of the dream, when we wake up. I think this kind of thinking would further strengthen the thought that the world we see is not all that there is.

[ZVBXRPL]

The universe could be real or an illusion created in our minds.Our level of perceiving things is limited and much lower than Gods.Like a small child cant easily understand some concepts so cant we.Then so it would be acceptable to say that the universe is a fantastic illusion.

If the Universe is an illusion and all in our minds, why would "god", that came out of the same mind, not also be part of the illusion?

[Trumptor]

Well, I would think that something would have to be responsible for creating that illusion, and that thing would be coined with the word "God". If it's, as you said, all in our minds, then who created our minds, and who gave each of us a separate consciousness where we are separate from each other? Or did anyone? Did we just evolve that way?

Edited February 9, 2014 by Trumptor

[Greg H.]

Here's my question - if there's no discernable difference between an illusionary world and the "real" world from the point of view of the questioner, what difference does it make? For all intents and purposes, it is real.

[cladking]

Here's my question - if there's no discernable difference between an illusionary world and the "real" world from the point of view of the questioner, what difference does it make? For all intents and purposes, it is real.

 

Indeed. This is just further reason to treat reality as a given. If and when we can design an experiment to test this then we can begin to get relevant data. In the meantime it seems a very dead end.

 

We should always question our postulates, axioms, definitions, assumptions, etc and see if a different paradigm might work better in light of new knowledge but I doubt it's a good idea for most individuals to dwell on it or in it.

 

Any new bit of knowledge can upset any paradigm including this one.

[Implicate Order]

Provided that we understand how the things that we describe as 'real' to us as individuals are constructed, then I have no problem dealing with a possible perspective that the foundation stones of this construction are illusory.

 

Once long ago when we looked at the moon, we may have thought that what we were seeing was 'real' but as we delved deeper we found that the 'apparent solidity of form out there in space' we referred to as real needed to be amended to take into account the form's construction which comprised atoms and then peering deeper those 'solid bricks in space' became more illusory. As we progressed with our reductionism the foundation stones of the construction became more and more abstract and took a variety of forms dependent on what we individually as observers were seeking to achieve.

 

I think we can all sleep at night knowing that the structure of the moon to all intents and purposes is real to us. It is really of no concern to me whether the fundamental commencement points of this structure are real or not. Science has progressivey delivered blows to our notions of intuition. Just accept that fact, move on and keep investigating.

 

The construction is 'real enough to me' to give me piece of mind despite the fact that the foundations may be illusory. Such a notion may be a problem for those with a religious or philosophical conviction seeking peace of mind that they are part of a bigger picture but not for me. If I ultimately find that the reality is simply a point of view from my reference frame which is self-referential in nature (as I am getting closer and closer to accepting) then I don't need anyone else's god to fill any gaps in my reference frame as this universe from my perspective is all there is. While I acknowledge that I can never step outside my self-referential system to peer into my system from outside, I leave that job to what I would define as my very personal god.

Edited February 11, 2014 by Implicate Order

[PeterJ]

I think it would be a good idea to define 'real'.

[StringJunky]

I think it would be a good idea to define 'real'.

That which can exist extant from an observer and can also be shared experientially, by whatever common means, between observers - if an object or phenomenon has a multiplicity of observers that agree about it's properties it can be said to be 'real'.

[PeterJ]

I don't think that works. It would mean that two things have to exist in order for one to exist. It would also mean that an observer has to exist before an observer can exist. Or would self-observation count as a proof of the existence of self?

 

It's actually quite difficult to define existence, or what it means to say that something is 'real, without .a lot of messiness around the edges.

[StringJunky]

I don't think that works. It would mean that two things have to exist in order for one to exist. It would also mean that an observer has to exist before an observer can exist. Or would self-observation count as a proof of the existence of self?

 

It's actually quite difficult to define existence, or what it means to say that something is 'real, without .a lot of messiness around the edges.

No I didn't mean that. A thing must be able to exist outside an observer and can be measured agreeably by two or more observers to be defined as real ...there's two conditions. A single observer cannot. suffice. It is difficult and that was my stab at it. I think something exists if two people can share it in real time or measure it independently.

[Villain]

No I didn't mean that. A thing must be able to exist outside an observer and can be measured agreeably by two or more observers to be defined as real ...there's two conditions. A single observer cannot. suffice. It is difficult and that was my stab at it. I think something exists if two people can share it in real time or measure it independently.

 

Who could possibly say things exist outside them and how would that make them any more or less real?

Edited February 21, 2014 by Villain

[imatfaal]

 

Who could possibly say things exist outside them and how would that make them any more or less real?

 

"I refute it thus"

[Villain]

 

"I refute it thus"

 

Which of my multiple personalities are you again ?

[imatfaal]

 

Which of my multiple personalities are you again ?

 

The scrofulitic fetter-philic lexicographer.

[StringJunky]

 

Who could possibly say things exist outside them and how would that make them any more or less real?

If two or more people agree you have two or more data points which will increase the likelihood of something actually existing.

[pears]

If two or more people agree you have two or more data points which will increase the likelihood of something actually existing.

 

Provided those two or more people themselves exist

[imatfaal]

If two or more people agree you have two or more data points which will increase the likelihood of something actually existing.

 

The problem with refuting Bishop Berkeley's ideas is that any empirical exploration of surroundings or comparison with another (objective) observer can just as easily be explained as the interaction of internal ideas.

[StringJunky]

 

The problem with refuting Bishop Berkeley's ideas is that any empirical exploration of surroundings or comparison with another (objective) observer can just as easily be explained as the interaction of internal ideas.

We can only define something as existing if we set minimum conditions, hence the minimum of two observers, to help negate that what is observed is not some personal cognitive artefact generated internally as the source. The chances of an object existing increase the more observers there are. We have to start from some assumption, like our fellow observers exist extant to ourselves of course.

Edited February 21, 2014 by StringJunky

[imatfaal]

We can only define something as existing if we set minimum conditions, hence the minimum of two observers, to help negate that what is observed is not some personal cognitive artefact generated internally as the source. The chances of an object existing increase the more observers there are. We have to start from some assumption, like our fellow observers exist extant to ourselves of course.

 

Well exactly. But the response is why are your axiomata better than the idealist stance? Berkeley's notion is not so much that there is no external reality - but that we cannot form arguments based on external reality but only on our internal ideas. There is an impenetrable barrier between our internal sensorium and any external reality