Prove to me reality is real

Done.

/thread

"

The theory of gravity is no more "real" than say, a figment of my imagination.

You and I live in two different frames of existence then. You just suggested that gravity is a part of our imagination. Gravity is very real and it governs our existence. To think otherwise would require an insanity plea or proof to the contrary. When you defy/manipulate gravity naturally, come visit me please. teach me how to be illogical?

"

But it's not a "real" thing. A theory, or a constant, does not physically exist - they are abstractions that the human brain creates (assumptions, essentially)

More? Haha! I did not create gravity, but I am sure subjected to it's laws. Again , when you can fly like superman you can prove that gravity and all it's "abstract understanding" is a belief rather than a law of existence.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

"

The theory of gravity is no more "real" than say, a figment of my imagination.

You and I live in two different frames of existence then. You just suggested that gravity is a part of our imagination.

No. I said the theory of gravity is part of our imagination. We created a theoretical model for measured behaviors.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

Gravity is very real and it governs our existence. To think otherwise would require an insanity plea or proof to the contrary.When you defy/manipulate gravity naturally, come visit me please. teach me how to be illogical?

Actually, with respect to the original versions of "gravity" - it has already been defied and is defied on a daily basis.

Turns out, the original version was wrong, and so was the one after that, and most likely the current version as well.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that you would basically have to be insane to believe any scientific theory is completely "real" or "true." Every single one so far has eventually been proven wrong and some other, new theory has to take it's place.

That doesn't mean physical theories aren't of use. Just becaue they are imaginary, they can line up with reality good enough to accomplish many things.

What we are capable of accomplishing as humans is roughly correlated to how close our physical theories line up with measurements/observations of reality.

This process humans do of continuously adjusting and re-creating theories is called "science."

Is it possible to ever have a "perfect" theory of reality, in which your theory actually encapsulated all behaviors of it? Who knows, but we're certainly not even remotely close to that.

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

Again , when you can fly like superman you can prove that gravity and all it's "abstract understanding" is a belief rather than a law of existence.

Compared to the people of the past, we basically can fly like superman. Thank, you technology!

And given enough time, the people of the future will make us look equally silly.

There are two ways of understanding reality:

- It is each persons perception of his collective experiences (right)

- It is the real ultimate truth, the reality is the pure essence in something, and most people dont know reality (wrong)

i'll admit that our perception on constants are abstractions, but gravity is a very real thing as are other constants in the universe. Which are the foundation of reality.

"

Compared to the people of the past, we basically can fly like superman. Thank, you technology!

And given enough time, the people of the future will make us look equally silly.

The only thing that looks silly right now is you. You are suggesting that comparatively we can fly because we have a greater understanding of natural laws than what we did previously as humans. I am saying we literally are incapable of flight on our own because we are bound to the laws of constants regardless of our understanding. I am suggesting that we are bound to natural laws of reality and you are saying that the only law is that there is no laws. That is at best silly.

I usually don't use an argument that is contrary to plausibility but you are suggesting that if I wanted to believe reality was filled with sentient potatoes that it is actually plausible that reality is just that. This is asinine. Ever heard of "K-Pax?" The movie where Kevin Spacey plays a deranged lunatic and formulates an alternate reality in his head... i'm seeing a subtle correlation here...

"

Magnetic_n0rth wrote:

you are saying that the only law is that there is no laws.

i don't recall saying this

"

Crackmonster wrote:

There are two ways of understanding reality:

- It is each persons perception of his collective experiences (right)

- It is the real ultimate truth, the reality is the pure essence in something, and most people dont know reality (wrong)

I have a third. However, I am having trouble defining it. (Seriously, I've been thinking on it since a page ago.)

Reality is definitely something beyond experience. I mean, that's the whole point of the term: if you think you saw something for an instant which then disappeared, but you're not quite sure, and then you investigate where you think you saw it, you're confirming whether it's real or just an experience. There is a certain contrast between perception and reality.

On the other hand, the only way in which we know reality is through perception.* And we do know reality through perception, which means we know it through experience.

Thus the tricky part is that we learn about reality through experience, yet the defining characteristic of reality is that it does not require experience to exist, and would continue even if all consciousness ended. Essentially, the dichotomy Crackmonster gives is false, and it actually has elements of both, simultaneously. This makes it very difficult to define properly; I haven't come across a single definition yet which has pleased me.


* Not the strict epistemological meaning of "know;" I mean as in "knowing a person."

Imo each persons reality is like a diamond. All different ones.

The light comes in, passes the diamond, and gets fractured the end result a different color set for every human being. These colors u could call humors of nature, the spice of life.

"

Kid wrote:

Is this real life?

"

Nightmare90 wrote:

There is no point in proving axioms.

I don't really believe in axioms, and thus I see a lot of value in proving or disproving the statements which people label as axioms.

edit: To be fair, I guess I have two axioms:
1. I think, meaning I can form concepts.
2. I perceive, meaning I can use the five senses.
Nothing past that. In my view, you can do a hell of a lot with that (using what one perceives, of course); I'm not advocating philosophical skepticism here.