Nature of Reality? - Exchange of Views, Thoughts and Ideas

**Volcanic** · February 07, 2011, 04:40 PM

Bumping into something and feeling pain, I don't doubt that reality is real. And I don't actually believe that reality isn't real (althought sometimes it might be favourable), but taking a more philosophical or sceptical look at things, I'm not that sure; and have come to argue - for philosophical exercise - against that "feeling of reality".

One quick example for instance...

Distance:
What we see is never distant, as what is distant can't be seen yet. Looking through a teleskop e.g. we don't see into space and to distant stars, but receive information that is - when received -, not distant anymore. The same goes for seeing our own feet for example... And if things aren't distant, there isn't much chance of them being real, I guess - as they aren't distant and thus also without depth.

Anyhow... Hi! - Bon discussion @ bon voyage!

PS: I'm hoping for a NON-RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION here!

**Volcanic** · February 07, 2011, 06:21 PM

Nobody interested?

**cardnals100** · February 07, 2011, 07:11 PM

Someone once told me reality is consent amongst everyone however I didn't really buy it. I personally don't have any view on what 'reality' is,besides everything real.

**Volcanic** · February 07, 2011, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by cardnals100

Someone once told me it consent amongst everyone however I didn't really buy it. I personally don't have any view on what 'reality' is,besides everything real.

You could have spared us from this blurred comment. This is supposed to be an exchange on reasonable and constructive (if forgot to mention that) views, thoughts and ideas. Well.. I might have got you wrong though. If that's the case - sorry; and please explain your view a little more.

**Col. Tartleton** · February 07, 2011, 07:19 PM

I've been thinking about numbers and I realized Zero is an infinite value. Just like -∞ and ∞ it's basically crazy.

You take infinity and multiply it by infinity and you get infinity. Okay that's reasonable.
You take infinity and divide it by infinity you may get one or zero. Obviously if they were the same amount of infinite they'd cancel out and be one, but I also feel that any number divided by infinity is infinitely approaching zero.
From there I reason that one divided by infinity is zero. Which makes zero infinite.

Any number by zero is zero. Nothing can be divided by zero. Zero is halfway between -∞ and ∞ and would therefore be the sum of the two. If you divide one by the other you'd also reasonably get zero.

Not moving is moving infinitely slowly. So how does infinite speed compare to infinite slowness. If I could theoretically bring an object to zero point would it cease to exist? What about negative energy or would negative energy be regular energy? There's anti matter, why not negative energy?

It's these questions that keep me up at night... I know I don't have the education or currently the faculties to figure this stuff out without a fatal brain aneurysm...

**Volcanic** · February 07, 2011, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Col. Tartleton

I've been thinking about numbers and I realized Zero is an infinite value. Just like -∞ and ∞ it's basically crazy.

You take infinity and multiply it by infinity and you get infinity. Okay that's reasonable.
You take infinity and divide it by infinity you may get one or zero. Obviously if they were the same amount of infinite they'd cancel out and be one, but I also feel that any number divided by infinity is infinitely approaching zero.
From there I reason that one divided by infinity is zero. Which makes zero infinite.

Any number by zero is zero. Nothing can be divided by zero. Zero is halfway between -∞ and ∞ and would therefore be the sum of the two. If you divide one by the other you'd also reasonably get zero.

Not moving is moving infinitely slowly. So how does infinite speed compare to infinite slowness. If I could theoretically bring an object to zero point would it cease to exist? What about negative energy or would negative energy be regular energy? There's anti matter, why not negative energy?

It's these questions that keep me up at night... I know I don't have the education or currently the faculties to figure this stuff out without a fatal brain aneurysm...

I guess that's sacrasm?

**Col. Tartleton** · February 07, 2011, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Volcanic

I guess that's sacrasm?

I dunno, you were talking about perception of distance and values and all that "reality" stuff and I figured it was on a similar wavelength.

What is zero? What is nothing? What are finite values? What are things? What is infinite? When does something or anything because everything?

**Volcanic** · February 07, 2011, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Col. Tartleton

I dunno, you were talking about perception of distance and values and all that "reality" stuff and I figured it was on a similar wavelength.

What is zero? What is nothing? What are finite values? What are things? What is infinite? When does something or anything because everything?

I clearify: I am hoping for an non-religious discussion here. Your questions are reasonable, but they only questions. And regarding wavelength... a length assumes a distance. But if the presence is time=0, the wavelength is 0.... I thought it might be possible to take such a discussion away from physics (for a start) into everyday life; as a first step, to have a look as how such ideas rely to our own experience. E.g.: I see my door is for example 7 feet away, but I see it now - so if it is 7 feet away (particles have to travel space, which takes time) how can I see it now. So if I see it now, it can't be the door 7 feet away, which is impossilbe.

Again - thx for your post. And as said before I am non-religious. I'm only hoping for a (more kind of philosophical) discussion here.

**Gordon Freynman** · February 07, 2011, 10:34 PM

@Volcanic

I think you're digging a little too deep into the matter. I'll allow one of the smartest people to ever exist elaborate:

Appeal to authority FTW.

**Gordon Freynman** · February 07, 2011, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by Volcanic

Bumping into something and feeling pain, I don't doubt that reality is real. And I don't actually believe that reality isn't real (althought sometimes it might be favourable), but taking a more philosophical or sceptical look at things, I'm not that sure; and have come to argue - for philosophical exercise - against that "feeling of reality".

One quick example for instance...

Distance:
What we see is never distant, as what is distant can't be seen yet. Looking through a teleskop e.g. we don't see into space and to distant stars, but receive information that is - when received -, not distant anymore. The same goes for seeing our own feet for example... And if things aren't distant, there isn't much chance of them being real, I guess - as they aren't distant and thus also without depth.

Anyhow... Hi! - Bon discussion @ bon voyage!

Nothing in your example seems to follow. If things aren't distant then they aren't real? Wat?

Anyways, my thoughts on the nature of reality basically follow a naturalistic materialist point of view.

**Volcanic** · February 07, 2011, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Comrade Wiggum

Nothing in your example seems to follow. If things aren't distant then they aren't real? Wat?

Anyways, my thoughts on the nature of reality basically follow a naturalistic materialist point of view.

What I thought was, that if something is distant then it must also have depth. And because the presence (time = 0) implies that nothing is afar (otherwise it would be afar, but therefore not present), their can't be depth. And if there is no depth there can't be much "being" of reality.

Just show, where my above reasonig is faulty.

Hey! - I don't really believe in non-reality, but I also don't believe in anything else that contradicts reason. Good arguments will prevail.

And anyway.. I did'nt want to be the single "Not-Reality"-poster vs. all others. I thought we might simply get an (NON RELGIOUS) discussion with pro and contras.

**Whatacad** · February 08, 2011, 12:39 AM

Also, I'm a bit confused about your use of "depth" and "present." When you say present, do you mean not only present in time but also in space (at NO distance)?

**Volcanic** · February 08, 2011, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Whatacad

I'm not really sure, either. It seems like he's saying that since what we're seeing now isn't the thing as it is now (assuming it is now), and that somehow what we're getting (perceiving) isn't really real because of the distance?

Could you help us out a bit more, Volcano?

I am not neglecting that the possible source of what we are seeing is real. What I am saying is, that what we see isn't distant. Objects reflect particles, which then travel before being seen. So what is seen isn't distant and if what is seen has no distance it can hardly have depth either.

Originally Posted by Whatacad

Also, I'm a bit confused about your use of "depth" and "present." When you say present, do you mean not only present in time but also in space (at NO distance)?

With depth I mean e.g. volume = an actuall expansion (of an entity) in space. And with presence I simply mean presence (not past or future; even if that past/future has past/will be in smalest timescale imaginable).. well presence - not before and not after?!!

**Whatacad** · February 08, 2011, 01:15 AM

Ok, now let's see if I got your clarifications correct.

What we're seeing isn't really the object, but merely the reflection of it. But given that what we're seeing is both HERE and NOW (sorry for that cliche), it isn't really a distant object. What we perceive as a distant object is merely our interpretation of the information (reflection) that we're receiving at time/place 0. So since travel takes time, a true perception of of right now could almost be said be 2 dimensional, since true depth can't be perceived in a point of time in which no time has elapsed.

Am I close?

**Volcanic** · February 08, 2011, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Whatacad

Ok, now let's see if I got your clarifications correct.

What we're seeing isn't really the object, but merely the reflection of it. But given that what we're seeing is both HERE and NOW (sorry for that cliche), it isn't really a distant object. What we perceive as a distant object is merely our interpretation of the information (reflection) that we're receiving at time/place 0.

Close? Right on the spot. EDIT: Sry, forgot. The source of that reflection is not provable, as seeing beond HERE and NOW is impossible.

Originally Posted by Whatacad

So since travel takes time, a true perception of of right now could almost be said be 2 dimensional, since true depth can't be perceived in a point of time in which no time has elapsed.

Could you clearify that. The sense might you right, but I am not exactly sure what you are saying.

**Whatacad** · February 08, 2011, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by Volcanic

Could you clearify that. The sense might you right, but I am not exactly sure what you are saying.

Actually, I'm not sure my last sentence really got to the point. Basically, it seems that your saying that, since what we're seeing isn't the object itself, it doesn't have the properties of a 3d object in space. It is merely a "flat" reflection (kinda like a movie screen or the wall in Plato's cave).

**Volcanic** · February 08, 2011, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Whatacad

Actually, I'm not sure my last sentence really got to the point. Basically, it seems that your saying that, since what we're seeing isn't the object itself, it doesn't have the properties of a 3d object in space. It is merely a "flat" reflection (kinda like a movie screen or the wall in Plato's cave).

Hey! your taking this thread to a new level. I hadn't really thought that someone would go into the issue of the perceptive subject (opposed to an reflecting object). Hmm...

Well the shadows in Plato's cave are a symbolism I really like! The whole allegory of the cave is one of my favorite ideas I like to think about.

Well?... the reflection (and this territory is more than unsure for me - regarding my own ideas/thinkings) can only hit a cognitive ability to really be seen. And what we know about particles doesn't imply that they have - or can have as conglomerates - a sense of cognition. Can't really say anything about that at the moment. Out of boundaries for now... Will think about it again though...

Distance though seems to be a reality (at least for me), but in theory I can't really see any evidence for it and it's consequences to be real.