Where does reality reside ?

[Thunderbird]

So far you have failed to prove anything or even given the appearence of wanting to do anything but argue back and forth. And yes I do understand where you are coming from.

Your not addressing anything I have said... so why dont you do that first instead dragging the thread down to insults.

[Moontanman]

Your not addressing anything I have said... so why dont you do that first instead dragging the thread down to insults.

 

T-Bird if I really wanted to insult you you would have to spend hour on google to figure out what I meant. You are arguing that something is absolutely true that cannot be investegated in anyway. Like angels dancing on the head of a pin, it's not a real probelm and has no real resolution.

[Thunderbird]

This is the solution.

 

 

 

 

 

Utilizing a metaphor,

The best way I can describe it is having an infinite amount of letters with no contextual relationship to one another.

 

Only when the observer is present in a particular space-time can the letters be used to create vowels, consonants, words, sentences, etc.. We construct our particular spectrum-world from this infinity.

 

What exists without the observer point are just probabilities, no point has any contextual relationship with any other point.

 

No starting point to give anything, any kind of order of coordinates in space/time.

 

Without the observer starting point there is no initial context, therefore nothing in space and time can be divided from anything else in space or time.

 

There are no coordinates with which to start a hierarchal-contextual pattern that we experience as an observer point.

If every point in the universe has no value over any other point then the sum of the qualities in the Universe has a 'null' value.

From this omnipresent view, all points at all times equals infinity. Nothing exists , no size, no relative locations .

 

It is only from a particular starting point x,of the observer perspective can we give the universe its existences as dimension in space time, and objects that relate to one to another. If you have no specific point in which to start then you have infinity. In this context, or more precisely lack of context, the quantitative, qualitative and dimensional values of the universe truly vanish to ZERO .

[Moontanman]

This is the solution.

 

T-Bird, I'm going to throw in the towel, either I'm an idiot or you just want to stir up the pot. Sadly I can't figure out which is true.

[Thunderbird]

T-Bird, I'm going to throw in the towel, either I'm an idiot or you just want to stir up the pot. Sadly I can't figure out which is true.

Must be the former, if your only giving two options...

[Moontanman]

Must be the former, if your only giving two options...

 

Since you are the man with the plan I must be an idiot, be gentle, I'm obviously brain damaged.

[HydrogenBond]

Let us assume we need an observer, for the sake of argument. After the tree has been observed, it has reality. If we take away the observer, after the tree has been observed, does it still exist? One option is since the observer has memory of that observation, to confirm it did exist, the tree will continue to exist, as long as the memory exists. If we trust the observer's judgement, we can then use their memory to confirm it is real, even if we do not observe it ourself. If we average this over a culture and pass on the best of the memories with education, collective reality appears, evolving as new observations adds to collective memory.

 

But historically this doesn't always work when it comes to reality. As a modern example, the ozone layer was in dire straights twenty years ago. We were all ready to fry. This was the collective reality for many people causing social changes. More recently new data appeared, that says the old reality was not fully real, so it has been downgraded. Reality was revised, so now it is definitely reality this time. The new ozone reality is now boring by comparison to the old reality. Luckily, we now have the really scary global warming reality. This reality is exciting again, like in the old days.

 

Maybe we can combine these two realities, i.e., ozone and global warming, to make one huge reality that is even scarier. That may not work since the ozone reality has been downgraded. This could water down the global warming reality stepping on someone's reality toes. We need fresh reality. I am sort of partial to an asteroid as part of this bigger and better scarier reality. We can have it punch a hole in the ozone layer, while releasing deadly virus just before it kicks up a lot of dust.

 

That may not do. The dust might counter the global warming reality with nuclear winter reality thereby diluting the most in vogue reality. We can improve this grand daddy of all scary reality if it crashes into the ocean, after punching a hole in the ozone layer. This will put global warming flooding reality over the top while also putting the deadly virus reality in the ocean, so it can spread better. This covers all the bases without stepping on anyone's reality toes. In fact, we help out other realities, even bringing back the old ozone reality so that crowd gets to relive the past.

 

I am just playing, but once we add emotion to reality, we are adding an irrational wild card to reality perception. One knows it can't be full reality but has blurry glasses on. Reality can't fully depend on statistics, either since this is not a fully rational reality. It allows any lottery ticket reality to remain the hopeful reality winner, right up the final drawing. The only thing that appears to get closer to reality is rational reality backed with observation.

[Buffy]

Mr. Bird: To quote Dick Cheney, "So?"

 

Several people told me they liked my question both here and in PMs, so I'll repeat it:

 

What problem are you trying to solve?

 

Counting the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin can be fun, but it always begs the question, "why?"

 

Everything's got 'em, everything needs one, wouldn't be without one, everything has one, ;)

Buffy

[Thunderbird]

Mr. Bird: To quote Dick Cheney, "So?"

 

Several people told me they liked my question both here and in PMs, so I'll repeat it:

 

What problem are you trying to solve?

 

Counting the number of angels that dance on the head of a pin can be fun, but it always begs the question, "why?"

 

Everything's got 'em, everything needs one, wouldn't be without one, everything has one,

Buffy

 

Its a epistemological question firstly, and a cosmological one secondly. What is reality? Were does it reside ? Out side of us, or is it strictly a phenomenon of the mind? My query is to challenge my assumptions, that it is assembled only when there is an observer, while challenging the consensus, that the particular components of our world exist independent of an observer. The misunderstanding is that by asserting that the universe is affected by simply observing it. This is not my contention any more than a radio frequencies transmitions are effected by listening to a radio broadcast.

 

My contention is however, keeping with the same analogy is that there are in essence infinite bands of reality. Given the fact you have 0 points of reference without an observer.

 

 

 

It seems to me when considering the vastness of space time without an observer you only have probabilities, without a division that accompanies an “observer coordinate” in a specific point in space time, what we call “Here and now“, or a memory of a path though space time, your only other view would logically be the one of infinity which has no divisions between all of time all, at once, all space with no center or centers.

 

 

 

Once you have this concept, you can move to the next contention or query, which I haven't gotten to yet, but since you ask The “Universe“, or “one verse” to exist or manifest has to be in conjunction with an observer.

This is an important fact if true in that life is then a inherent function of the universe rather than merely another part in it. It would be in essence a contextual duality as crucial as the positive and negative charges in an atom. our universe is in fact set within the parameters of equal but opposite sets of forces.

[Galapagos]

Solipsism is unfalsifiable garbage, and thinking about it too much is a silly way to spend your time.

Interesting that some people seem to start with explaining consciousness, then trying to explain the physical world. Seeing as how our minds(consciousness) have evolved within the boundaries of the world it would seem like an obviously flawed position to take to me.

 

We live in The Matrix. You are actually in a coma like in the film Vanilla Sky. This is a dream, from which you may never awake. Reality is much different than your subjective, you are being deceived by a demon. You are on a surgery table, brains out, being prodded and stimulated by surgeons.

 

So what? What if this is The Matrix? What if you are actually just a brain in a vat, in The Matrix, dreaming about a reality in which you are deceived by a demon to believe that your mind is the only thing to exist?

 

 

Here is a relevant quote by Bertrand Russell:

 

"As against solipsism it is to be said, in the first place, that it is psychologically impossible to believe, and is rejected in fact even by those who mean to accept it. I once received a letter from an eminent logician, Mrs. Christine Ladd Franklin, saying that she was a solipsist, and was surprised that there were no others. Coming from a logician and a solipsist, her surprise surprised me."

[Boerseun]

An "observer" is not necessarily a human being.

 

It can be anything upon which natural laws can have an influence.

 

For instance, if the entire universe consisted of only two atoms, the second atom would be influenced by the first atom - either through being attracted to the other one if they have different charges (Look! The other atom is getting bigger!) or repelled if they have the same charge (look! the other atom is getting smaller!)

 

In a universe with only two atoms, there are two equally valid observers, with a perfectly satisfactory frame of reference for each.

 

In other words, reality comes into being in any universe with more than one atom (or the fundamental particle of your choice - the argument stays the same).

 

Apart from that, I see the struggle of understanding "where reality resides" as a bit of a non-issue, really.

[nutronjon]

Let us assume we need an observer, for the sake of argument. After the tree has been observed, it has reality. If we take away the observer, after the tree has been observed, does it still exist? One option is since the observer has memory of that observation, to confirm it did exist, the tree will continue to exist, as long as the memory exists. If we trust the observer's judgement, we can then use their memory to confirm it is real, even if we do not observe it ourself. If we average this over a culture and pass on the best of the memories with education, collective reality appears, evolving as new observations adds to collective memory.

 

But historically this doesn't always work when it comes to reality. As a modern example, the ozone layer was in dire straights twenty years ago. We were all ready to fry. This was the collective reality for many people causing social changes. More recently new data appeared, that says the old reality was not fully real, so it has been downgraded. Reality was revised, so now it is definitely reality this time. The new ozone reality is now boring by comparison to the old reality. Luckily, we now have the really scary global warming reality. This reality is exciting again, like in the old days.

 

Maybe we can combine these two realities, i.e., ozone and global warming, to make one huge reality that is even scarier. That may not work since the ozone reality has been downgraded. This could water down the global warming reality stepping on someone's reality toes. We need fresh reality. I am sort of partial to an asteroid as part of this bigger and better scarier reality. We can have it punch a hole in the ozone layer, while releasing deadly virus just before it kicks up a lot of dust.

 

That may not do. The dust might counter the global warming reality with nuclear winter reality thereby diluting the most in vogue reality. We can improve this grand daddy of all scary reality if it crashes into the ocean, after punching a hole in the ozone layer. This will put global warming flooding reality over the top while also putting the deadly virus reality in the ocean, so it can spread better. This covers all the bases without stepping on anyone's reality toes. In fact, we help out other realities, even bringing back the old ozone reality so that crowd gets to relive the past.

 

I am just playing, but once we add emotion to reality, we are adding an irrational wild card to reality perception. One knows it can't be full reality but has blurry glasses on. Reality can't fully depend on statistics, either since this is not a fully rational reality. It allows any lottery ticket reality to remain the hopeful reality winner, right up the final drawing. The only thing that appears to get closer to reality is rational reality backed with observation.

 

God is the observer and if God dies nothing exist? There is no reality without God to observe it? This is a possibility. However, reality does not depend on the human, or squirrels, observation of it, nor human or squirrels memory of it, unless by "reality" we mean our consciousness, and not the material manifestation of the universe. If reality is our consciousness of it, then gods and demons, and unicorms and aliens exist. If we think it, it is so. :shade: better be careful what we are thinking, huh?

 

As long as everyone believes the US has plenty of gas, it is so, right? I don't think so. It is not our observation, nor our memory, that determines the existence of the manifest universe and things like the supply of oil, or purity of the water we drink. In fact, the American sense of reality, is grossly in error! Our planet can not sustain our standard of living around the world, and our wealth is not just about having better systems, but was built on finite resources that are being exhausted. If we don't get a grasp on reality, and dramatical change our life style, we are sooo screwed! Reality is about to slap us in the face really hard, and we not going to like it.

[Moontanman]

God is the observer and if God dies nothing exist? There is no reality without God to observe it? This is a possibility. However, reality does not depend on the human, or squirrels, observation of it, nor human or squirrels memory of it, unless by "reality" we mean our consciousness, and not the material manifestation of the universe. If reality is our consciousness of it, then gods and demons, and unicorms and aliens exist. If we think it, it is so. :shade: better be careful what we are thinking, huh? As long as everyone believes the US has plenty of gas, it is so, right? I don't think so.

 

Wait a minute, I like this idea that we can believe something into existance:hyper: I don't know about unicorns but let try this:evil:Lets all stand up a pre appointed time close our eys and click our heels to gether and "Believe" the Star Ship Enterprise into existance, maybe in orbit about 500 miles high. All we have to is agrre on a world wide time:hihi:

[nutronjon]

An "observer" is not necessarily a human being.

 

It can be anything upon which natural laws can have an influence.

 

For instance, if the entire universe consisted of only two atoms, the second atom would be influenced by the first atom - either through being attracted to the other one if they have different charges (Look! The other atom is getting bigger!) or repelled if they have the same charge (look! the other atom is getting smaller!)

 

In a universe with only two atoms, there are two equally valid observers, with a perfectly satisfactory frame of reference for each.

 

In other words, reality comes into being in any universe with more than one atom (or the fundamental particle of your choice - the argument stays the same).

 

Apart from that, I see the struggle of understanding "where reality resides" as a bit of a non-issue, really.

 

I love your argument. Monad, the whole. Dyad, otherness. The Dyad is a reflection of the Monad.

 

If we could see with the eyes of the ancients, we would see a reality that is harmonious and awaiting our cooperation, instead of a reality that is dangerous, accidently, and choatic. We would see enteracting forces, instead of opposing forces. Shalam

[nutronjon]

Moontanman, don't jump so fast to the conclusion that our thoughts do not effect our reality. When we believe something is scarce it becomes very valuable, and we change the planet as we remove this scarce thing, horde it or consume it. We to a very large degree do manifest our own reality. We obviously do this on the gross level, but perhaps also on the quantum level.

 

I had to return with this site, because of the question of our thoughts effecting reality. This is fun when done with the concept of Monad being reflected in the Dyad, and the resulting endless hall of mirrors- the evolution of manifest reality. A sprinkling of eastern philosophy here is kind of yeast added to the mix of this dough of thought.

 

Observer-Created Reality

Observer-Created Reality

What is the relationship between the body, brain, mind and the Observer as you create your intended reality? The process starts with the Awareness that you want more, you want to Change and experience more in your life. Once you make a Choice of what it is you want (an ideal) you begin by focusing on your desired outcome. You move that thought to words which describe in detail the ideal, then create a picture, with all the details, and feel the ideal as though you already posses it. Then you move your state of mind to absolute intent and will that this ideal is your reality, already in the now.

[HydrogenBond]

Reality is a philosophical concept that originated in the mind. That makes the mind the foundation of reality. Being constructed in the mind, we have diversity of opinions for each mind. If reality was one thing, everyone would agree what it is. But it is not a thing but an abstraction to explain the sensory stimulus entering the brain. For example, say I asked everyone to describe a tree from memory. The number and variety of reality images that appear in the imagination will be large. Each person will remember a tree based on the workings of their own mind. We may agree on the tree concept, since they all look like tree, but not its actual expression. When culture says the reality of a tree, it is not a sharp point but a large fuzzy sphere.

 

We can tighten up the fuzzy sphere is we set a standard, based on an expert's perception of reality. We all agree the same picture of a tree, will be taught through education, so we can all agree this is reality. But even if we all accept that picture of a tree, the memory can play tricks as time pass, with people remembering the same tree picture in various ways. But it will still tighten up the fuzzy reality sphere.

[modest]

Reality is a philosophical concept that originated in the mind. That makes the mind the foundation of reality. Being constructed in the mind, we have diversity of opinions for each mind.

 

The mind exists in reality or in the realm of real. If the mind is part of reality then reality can’t be part of the mind. Here’s an image conveying what I mean:

 

 

If reality was one thing, everyone would agree what it is.

 

This is untrue because the interpretation is separate from the thing. If two people see a tree then there is one tree and two interpretations of that tree:

 

 

There is really no reason to make the interpretation the thing or say the tree exists only in the mind. Doing so causes problems such as why both people would see the tree.

 

-modest