Where does reality reside ?

[Galapagos]

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.

Interesting--but for some reason not surprising at all-- that you challenge your assumptions in a way that would lead you to some pantheistic, dualistic, spiritual conclusions about the universe.

This isn't at all cogent, and I could just as reasonably suggest that we are actually part of a giant operating system, and that when you die you will end up in a recycling bin on someone's desktop.

[nutronjon]

Interesting--but for some reason not surprising at all-- that you challenge your assumptions in a way that would lead you to some pantheistic, dualistic, spiritual conclusions about the universe.

This isn't at all cogent, and I could just as reasonably suggest that we are actually part of a giant operating system, and that when you die you will end up in a recycling bin on someone's desktop.

 

I understand Thunderbird's arugment, but can not follow the logic of your argument. In fact you appear to be attacking Thunderbird, and not actually making an argument with facts yourself.

[nutronjon]

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:

 

 

 

 

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

 

Perhaps I should just go to bed, and try again after being rested.

If the mind is part of reality then reality can’t be part of the mind.

 

How can the mind be a part of reality without reality being part of the mind? Lets try this, if water is part of the mud, than mud can't be part of the water? :shrug: Does that logic work?

 

However, I will agree we should not confuse interpretation of the tree with the tree. A picture is not the object of the picture. But if there were no tree, there would be no picture of one. But darn, humans can be deluded and they can think they see something that isn't there. They can be sure of what unicorns are, even though there is no such thing. What goes on in the mind is not exactly reality. Thank goodness, just think of those babies that would be born if those sex dreams were real. good night :lol:

[Boerseun]

How can the mind be a part of reality without reality being part of the mind? Lets try this, if water is part of the mud, than mud can't be part of the water? :shrug: Does that logic work?

Yes. The logic works perfectly well. Water is a constituent ingredient in mud, but mud is NOT an ingredient in water. Found any mud in your tapwater recently?

 

I think a clearer analogy would be a piston.

 

A piston is clearly a part of a car, but a car is NOT a part of a piston.

 

Or a whale. A whale lives in the sea, but the sea does not live in the whale.

 

Or... uh... well, yeah. Plenty analogies afoot...

[modest]

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.

 

How can the mind be a part of reality without reality being part of the mind? Lets try this, if water is part of the mud, than mud can't be part of the water? ;) Does that logic work?

 

Yeah, what Boerseun said.

 

The sphere of real contains the mind therefore the sphere of the mind can't very well contain the sphere of reality. It is simply rationally true. If A is a subset of B then B isn't a subset of A.

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

Yeah, what Boerseun said.

 

The sphere of real contains the mind therefore the sphere of the mind can't very well contain the sphere of reality. It is simply rationally true. If A is a subset of B then B isn't a subset of A.

 

-modest

 

This is nice logic. Something has to be referring to something, now lets try actually applying this to my contention, which is where does “reality reside” as I’ve said the observer resides in an infinity, but since there is a first point in space time, "An observer", then all other points become manifested as a product of this first duality, a first cause of reality, an initial point of reference leads exponentially to more points of reflected references .

 

Just as a crystal grows by aligning the same geometry, and life creates cycle of the self same pattern over. this alignments that are created outward from this first point of Past Present, up down light dark, good bad, real unreal, expands into infinity like an ice crystal in water.

 

We then see the same reference points but not just like the water crystal, in that infinity is allway's fluid and contains no center, outside the observer. The reason we see infinity as structure in because we have a memory of structure.

 

Does this something reside outside of us, that is independent of us? I will tell you..... yes, but understand that it is the same as saying Shakespeare's “Hamlet” resides in the alphabet independent of Shakespeare.

 

 

This is the gap between the finite. and The Infinite.

[nutronjon]

Yes. The logic works perfectly well. Water is a constituent ingredient in mud, but mud is NOT an ingredient in water. Found any mud in your tapwater recently?

 

I think a clearer analogy would be a piston.

 

A piston is clearly a part of a car, but a car is NOT a part of a piston.

 

Or a whale. A whale lives in the sea, but the sea does not live in the whale.

 

Or... uh... well, yeah. Plenty analogies afoot...

 

I gave this a lot of thought, and yes, there are muddy waters. I lived in a place where the water tinted all the clothes red in the washer. I look into the creek that flows past my home, and sometimes it is clear and other times muddy.

 

Is a piston actualized as a piston when not in the engine? We are in the philosophy forum, so I guess I can ask such a question. A brain without a universe would be rather pointless. Perhaps too, a universe without a brain would be rather pointless. As I understand it, everything interacts, and it is this enaction that makes things what they are. It seems materialistic thinking, does not include the action as part of the being, and I think without consideration of action, something is lacking in the concept of truth. The whale, most certianly internalizes the ocean in which it swims. Hum,;) Reminds me of the question "What is life". How does the living get separated from what it lives in? And back to that piston, I knew it came out of a car, but I didn't know what part it was. However, it makes a very interesting ash tray.

 

By the way, this is a legitimate philosophical argument, but I forget who made it. Is a table a table, if we turn it upside down and use it to hold a stack of wood? Is that chip of rock actually a scrapper? Who determines what something is and how? There are a few shows that show a group of people an object, and ask them to quess what it is. The answers can be very funny.

[modest]

The sphere of real contains the mind therefore the sphere of the mind can't very well contain the sphere of reality. It is simply rationally true. If A is a subset of B then B isn't a subset of A.

This is nice logic. Something has to be referring to something, now lets try actually applying this to my contention

 

Boerseun already did that. He basically says what you said without all the fanfare:

 

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).

 

It's interesting (in the context of different interpretations of one reality) to look at your post and his post. They relay the same idea but look how differently they're stated. Very interesting.

 

-modest

[modest]

Is a piston actualized as a piston when not in the engine? We are in the philosophy forum, so I guess I can ask such a question. A brain without a universe would be rather pointless. Perhaps too, a universe without a brain would be rather pointless. As I understand it, everything interacts, and it is this enaction that makes things what they are. It seems materialistic thinking, does not include the action as part of the being, and I think without consideration of action, something is lacking in the concept of truth. The whale, most certianly internalizes the ocean in which it swims. Hum,;) Reminds me of the question "What is life". How does the living get separated from what it lives in? And back to that piston, I knew it came out of a car, but I didn't know what part it was. However, it makes a very interesting ash tray.

 

Yes, but HydrogenBond wasn't saying the engine actualizes the piston. He was saying the engine is IN the piston. He was saying the ocean is in the whale. He didn't say the whale makes the ocean what it is or expresses the ocean or anything like that. He said reality is in the brain.

 

Either the brain is in reality or

reality is in the brain.

 

They are mutually exclusive - they both can't be right.

 

-modest

[nutronjon]

This is nice logic. Something has to be referring to something, now lets try actually applying this to my contention, which is where does “reality reside” as I’ve said the observer resides in an infinity, but since there is a first point in space time, "An observer", then all other points become manifested as a product of this first duality, a first cause of reality, an initial point of reference leads exponentially to more points of reflected references .

 

Just as a crystal grows by aligning the same geometry, and life creates cycle of the self same pattern over. this alignments that are created outward from this first point of Past Present, up down light dark, good bad, real unreal, expands into infinity like an ice crystal in water.

 

We then see the same reference points but not just like the water crystal, in that infinity is allway's fluid and contains no center, outside the observer. The reason we see infinity as structure in because we have a memory of structure.

 

Does this something reside outside of us, that is independent of us? I will tell you..... yes, but understand that it is the same as saying Shakespeare's “Hamlet” resides in the alphabet independent of Shakespeare.

 

 

This is the gap between the finite. and The Infinite.

 

And so are A and B part of the alphabet.

 

While working on this reply, it occurred to me our concept of reality is of gross reality- a concept of matter, and isolated reality, such as holding A is not B; it is not the reality of that reality. Reality is not our observation of it, but that which we can not observe. ;)

 

Hexad, the function of order.

 

Hexagons contain a message that efficient structure, function, and order are occuring. But these three separate words represent unity; the qualities they name are always integreated, never separate, and must exist simultaneously or integrated, never separate, and must exist simultaneously or not at all, like Borromean rings....

 

While pentagonal symmetry is only found in living structures, the Hexad manifests naturally in both living and non living forms. All natural forms are forces made visible. When we encouter six-sided, six-angled, or six pointed crystals, plants, and animals we know that the Hexad is underlying an efficeint structure-function-order. Its three corner 120-degree joints are close-packing arrangements ensure an efficiency of materials, time, and energy, and strength....

 

A knowledge of archetypal geometric patterns is the basis for the modern science of crystal engineering, the fabrication of molecular crystals with unusual optical, electronic, and magnetic properties. from A Beginner's Guide to Constructing the Universe.

[Moontanman]

Perhaps I should just go to bed, and try again after being rested.

 

How can the mind be a part of reality without reality being part of the mind? Lets try this, if water is part of the mud, than mud can't be part of the water? ;) Does that logic work?

 

However, I will agree we should not confuse interpretation of the tree with the tree. A picture is not the object of the picture. But if there were no tree, there would be no picture of one. But darn, humans can be deluded and they can think they see something that isn't there. They can be sure of what unicorns are, even though there is no such thing. What goes on in the mind is not exactly reality. Thank goodness, just think of those babies that would be born if those sex dreams were real. good night

 

I've seen a real unicorn, in a circus, very disapointing drol little creature:hihi: But do we really need to see a tree to know what one looks like? Are we preprogrammed to know a tree? Not by name of course but by form? The only example for this I can think of was a show on one of the science channels years ago that was discussing Near death experiences and a man who was blind from birth had an OBE and he saw trees and birds and dicribbed them even to the color fo the birds and tree leaves. I can pick this apart very easily but the man seemed to be genuine in his sight in the near death OBE.

[modest]

Reality is not our observation of it, but that which we can not observe. ;)

 

Can't both be a part of reality? - our observation of the thing and the thing itself? Without getting into exactly what the observation is and what the thing is we can at least say they are both part of reality.

 

-modest

[Moontanman]

I want to ask this question about reality, if I understand much of this argument correctly some of you think that reality is formed by our minds or at least our perception of reality is formed that way. So we see a reality that is only what our minds allow us to see. My question is, would an intellegence different from ours see a different reality? What if the intellegnce could percive more than we do or even less. Would their reality be simply more complex than ours or less complex or would their reality be completly different. It seems to me that being able to discuss reality with a being different than us would be a profound experience.

[nutronjon]

Yes, but HydrogenBond wasn't saying the engine actualizes the piston. He was saying the engine is IN the piston. He was saying the ocean is in the whale. He didn't say the whale makes the ocean what it is or expresses the ocean or anything like that. He said reality is in the brain.

 

Either the brain is in reality or

reality is in the brain.

 

They are mutually exclusive - they both can't be right.

 

-modest

 

Sorry, I do not see this as either/ or. I see it as this and that. This point of view could be explained as the Intelligent Design point of view, except that the Intelliegent Design point of view is too snarled up with the mythical God of Abraham. What we percieve is in the brain, regardless of how distorted our perception may be, it is external and internalized. And in reality the brain exist. This is not either/or, but this and that.

[modest]

What we percieve is in the brain, regardless of how distorted our perception may be, it is external and internalized. And in reality the brain exist. This is not either/or, but this and that.

 

Yes, nutronjon. The brain is in reality and our perception of reality is in the brain. Why do you think you are disagreeing with me? Isn’t it clear in the image I did at the start of all this?

 

 

This is all I’m saying:

[math]A \in B \Rightarrow B \notin A[/math]

where A can be the mind and B can be the realm of real. That’s it. There are no grand implications here. There’s none of this:

 

This point of view could be explained as the Intelligent Design point of view

 

What you are talking about here is a complete mystery. It’s a 200 page epilogue that in no way follows a one sentence story. Baffling.

 

-modest

[Thunderbird]

Can't both be a part of reality? - our observation of the thing and the thing itself? Without getting into exactly what the observation is and what the thing is we can at least say they are both part of reality.

 

-modest

They are mutually exclusive - they both can't be right.

 

-modest

 

 

 

 

Reality is a contexual duality. A thing... and an observer of a thing.

[REASON]

Reality is a contexual duality. A thing... and an observer of a thing.

 

That's right. And so the question remains:

 

Does a thing require an observer to continue to be a thing?

 

The evidence says NO.

 

Things can be without anyone there to see.