The "One Reality" Illusion

[The Helmetmaker]

All things real must necessarily fall into the category of 'one reality' purely on basis of existing as opposed to non existing.

I take it from the other comments that this topic has played out before. Do you mean that existence = realness? Do you mean that the many = one? Do you mean that non-existent things are not real? What does it mean to exist? And what of those things that are existent at some point and non-existent at others?

 

[DBT]

All things real must necessarily fall into the category of 'one reality' purely on basis of existing as opposed to non existing.

I take it from the other comments that this topic has played out before. Do you mean that existence = realness? Do you mean that the many = one? Do you mean that non-existent things are not real? What does it mean to exist? And what of those things that are existent at some point and non-existent at others?

If something exists, it may be said to be a part of reality, the object is real. If something falls into the category of existing as opposed to being an abstract idea, it is a part of reality, something that actually exists. Something that has substance or is physically detectable even if we have yet to discover it.

What does it mean to exist?

As we happen to exist in a physical universe with physical properties, features and attributes, something that exists should have physical properties, therefore be detectable in some way, collider, microscope, telescope, light may have no mass but can be detected with our eyes and brain. Of course, there may be things that we have no access to so cannot know whether they exist or not, which does not matter in relation to their own existence.

 

[PyramidHead]

I take it from the other comments that this topic has played out before. Do you mean that existence = realness? Do you mean that the many = one? Do you mean that non-existent things are not real? What does it mean to exist? And what of those things that are existent at some point and non-existent at others?

If something exists, it may be said to be a part of reality, the object is real. If something falls into the category of existing as opposed to being an abstract idea, it is a part of reality, something that actually exists. Something that has substance or is physically detectable even if we have yet to discover it.

What does it mean to exist?

As we happen to exist in a physical universe with physical properties, features and attributes, something that exists should have physical properties, therefore be detectable in some way, collider, microscope, telescope, light may have no mass but can be detected with our eyes and brain. Of course, there may be things that we have no access to so cannot know whether they exist or not, which does not matter in relation to their own existence.

I wouldn't even bother with the physical and substance stuff. If something exists, it has an effect on something else that can be observed in some way, and its existence is defined by all of the effects it has.

 

[The Helmetmaker]

I take it then, DBT, that you take a materialistic point of view. Do ideas not exist, then? Are they somehow unreal?

 

[The Helmetmaker]

But PH's view allows ideas to exist.

 

[Juma]

If something exists, it may be said to be a part of reality, the object is real. If something falls into the category of existing as opposed to being an abstract idea, it is a part of reality, something that actually exists. Something that has substance or is physically detectable even if we have yet to discover it.

What does it mean to exist?

As we happen to exist in a physical universe with physical properties, features and attributes, something that exists should have physical properties, therefore be detectable in some way, collider, microscope, telescope, light may have no mass but can be detected with our eyes and brain. Of course, there may be things that we have no access to so cannot know whether they exist or not, which does not matter in relation to their own existence.

I wouldn't even bother with the physical and substance stuff. If something exists, it has an effect on something else that can be observed in some way, and its existence is defined by all of the effects it has.

Yeah. Goes well with the idea to replace "is true" with "it works".

 

[PyramidHead]

If something exists, it may be said to be a part of reality, the object is real. If something falls into the category of existing as opposed to being an abstract idea, it is a part of reality, something that actually exists. Something that has substance or is physically detectable even if we have yet to discover it.

What does it mean to exist?

As we happen to exist in a physical universe with physical properties, features and attributes, something that exists should have physical properties, therefore be detectable in some way, collider, microscope, telescope, light may have no mass but can be detected with our eyes and brain. Of course, there may be things that we have no access to so cannot know whether they exist or not, which does not matter in relation to their own existence.

I wouldn't even bother with the physical and substance stuff. If something exists, it has an effect on something else that can be observed in some way, and its existence is defined by all of the effects it has.

Yeah. Goes well with the idea to replace "is true" with "it works".

Eh, I go either way on that one. I'm still committed to there being a difference between truth and practicality. I'm not ready to give up the idea of a truth independent of what works: a state of affairs, a way things just are. Whether or not that state of affairs corresponds to the concepts we use to navigate it (like the concept of existence versus nonexistence) is where we have to settle for what works.

 

[DBT]

I take it then, DBT, that you take a materialistic point of view. Do ideas not exist, then? Are they somehow unreal?

Ideas certainly exist in the form of information encoded in brains, literature and electronic storage and retrieval devices. If you are able to access and interpret (language, written, spoken, encoded in computers, etc) the information that represents an idea, you are able to understand the terms and references and relationships that the idea is composed of and represents in your brain/mind.

 

[The Helmetmaker]

I take it then, DBT, that you take a materialistic point of view. Do ideas not exist, then? Are they somehow unreal?

Ideas certainly exist in the form of information encoded in brains, literature and electronic storage and retrieval devices. If you are able to access and interpret (language, written, spoken, encoded in computers, etc) the information that represents an idea, you are able to understand the terms and references and relationships that the idea is composed of and represents in your brain/mind.

But what of ideas that don't require a brain or device of some kind? The complex ballistic paths of objects moving in the universe, both in the past and projected into the future, are real whether a thinker conceives them or not. The very idea of place does not require a thinker, but is none the less real - things are where they are with no two occupying the same place, though everything is someplace. These immaterial things are things as much as the tips of your fingers. They exist without need of a conceiver. Aren't they real, too?

 

[DBT]

Ideas certainly exist in the form of information encoded in brains, literature and electronic storage and retrieval devices. If you are able to access and interpret (language, written, spoken, encoded in computers, etc) the information that represents an idea, you are able to understand the terms and references and relationships that the idea is composed of and represents in your brain/mind.

But what of ideas that don't require a brain or device of some kind? The complex ballistic paths of objects moving in the universe, both in the past and projected into the future, are real whether a thinker conceives them or not. The very idea of place does not require a thinker, but is none the less real - things are where they are with no two occupying the same place, though everything is someplace. These immaterial things are things as much as the tips of your fingers. They exist without need of a conceiver. Aren't they real, too?

The object and their relationships related to ideas are real, they exist as definable objects doing whatever they do. An idea to rearrange a collection of objects to form a new mechanism with a different set behaviours is an idea born of a brain with the pattern recognition capability to do that, to recognize possibilities that may have not been considered before, which is a new idea.

 

[The Helmetmaker]

But what of ideas that don't require a brain or device of some kind? The complex ballistic paths of objects moving in the universe, both in the past and projected into the future, are real whether a thinker conceives them or not. The very idea of place does not require a thinker, but is none the less real - things are where they are with no two occupying the same place, though everything is someplace. These immaterial things are things as much as the tips of your fingers. They exist without need of a conceiver. Aren't they real, too?

The object and their relationships related to ideas are real, they exist as definable objects doing whatever they do. An idea to rearrange a collection of objects to form a new mechanism with a different set behaviours is an idea born of a brain with the pattern recognition capability to do that, to recognize possibilities that may have not been considered before, which is a new idea.

I have been trying to comprehend these last two sentences but with no luck. Perhaps that's because of my statement that you're responding to, so I'll try to be more clear. For example: as the moon orbits the earth it not only traces a path, but the path that it will occupy in the next second or the next hundred years is already traced out. We could write this as an equation or draw it on a piece of paper, but these are only after-the-fact approximations. The reality is that this orbital path is an immaterial thing and yet it exists whether or not anything thinks about it. But, to use your words, it is an abstract idea, therefore not real, not part of the universe. Can you say that this very real abstract idea has no existence in the universe?

 

[DBT]

The object and their relationships related to ideas are real, they exist as definable objects doing whatever they do. An idea to rearrange a collection of objects to form a new mechanism with a different set behaviours is an idea born of a brain with the pattern recognition capability to do that, to recognize possibilities that may have not been considered before, which is a new idea.

I have been trying to comprehend these last two sentences but with no luck. Perhaps that's because of my statement that you're responding to, so I'll try to be more clear. For example: as the moon orbits the earth it not only traces a path, but the path that it will occupy in the next second or the next hundred years is already traced out. We could write this as an equation or draw it on a piece of paper, but these are only after-the-fact approximations. The reality is that this orbital path is an immaterial thing and yet it exists whether or not anything thinks about it. But, to use your words, it is an abstract idea, therefore not real, not part of the universe. Can you say that this very real abstract idea has no existence in the universe?

The last two sentences simply refer to the brains capacity for recognizing patterns and its ability to conceptualize new and different arrangements, which is defined as an idea. An idea for software, apps, motor, fashionable clothes, shoes or whatever.

The point being that ideas originate in the brain, are conceptualized and if possible/practical may be manufactured or realized in some way.

Quote:
''Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.''

''Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.''

 

[The Helmetmaker]

So you're saying that without thinkers reality is chaotic?

 

[DBT]

So you're saying that without thinkers reality is chaotic?

It is what it is. We are what we are. How we perceive and experience the external world/reality is a matter of our own condition.

 

[The Helmetmaker]

So you're saying that without thinkers reality is chaotic?

It is what it is. We are what we are. How we perceive and experience the external world/reality is a matter of our own condition.

That's all well and good, but I'm not talking about our perceptions or our condition. I am talking about ". . . what it is." You said that abstract ideas aren't real and don't exist. I have given a simple example of an abstract and ask you: does it exist?

 

[DBT]

It is what it is. We are what we are. How we perceive and experience the external world/reality is a matter of our own condition.

That's all well and good, but I'm not talking about our perceptions or our condition. I am talking about ". . . what it is." You said that abstract ideas aren't real and don't exist. I have given a simple example of an abstract and ask you: does it exist?

But I didn't say that abstract ideas are not real and don't exist. I said that abstract ideas do exist as bodies of information within the brains and minds of humans, and perhaps some other species.

 

[PyramidHead]

That's all well and good, but I'm not talking about our perceptions or our condition. I am talking about ". . . what it is." You said that abstract ideas aren't real and don't exist. I have given a simple example of an abstract and ask you: does it exist?

But I didn't say that abstract ideas are not real and don't exist. I said that abstract ideas do exist as bodies of information within the brains and minds of humans, and perhaps some other species.

That's kind of replacing one abstract notion with another (information). Does information exist, apart from the arrangements of smaller parts that intelligent beings may find informative?

 

[bilby]

But I didn't say that abstract ideas are not real and don't exist. I said that abstract ideas do exist as bodies of information within the brains and minds of humans, and perhaps some other species.

That's kind of replacing one abstract notion with another (information). Does information exist, apart from the arrangements of smaller parts that intelligent beings may find informative?

There are only three kinds of things* - the fundamental particles of the Standard Model; the four forces that influence them; and patterns of interaction between the first two.

It is the patterns that most people care about, most of the time - a chair is a very complex pattern of subatomic particles interacting with one another; a brain is a different complex pattern; a notion, idea or thought is one of many ways of describing a particular subset of dynamic interactions that form part of the pattern we call a brain.

Information is just another word for pattern.

This description of the world is not very useful for actually getting things done; so we instead discuss big sets of particles, forces, and patterns as though they were discrete objects in their own right. That makes it a lot easier to talk usefully about stuff. But it unfortunately makes it easy to forget that the patterns are all there is - and people start to think that patterns are somehow less important than 'real' objects, such as chairs, despite the fact that 'chair' is, fundamentally, just a label we apply to a particular set of patterns. Woo usually ensues.

So, to answer your question: No. information does NOT exist apart from the arrangements of smaller parts. Nor does anything else. But don't make the error of thinking that this makes everything simple - the particle interactions in a single isolated Hydrogen atom are vastly complex, and trying to understand much about reality from this perspective is therefore completely futile. Nobody is ever going to isolate the set of particle interactions that produces the thought 'I wonder whether information exists?' in a given brain. Particularly as these interactions are dynamic and recursive on a number of levels.

Fortunately, one of the other things we know from quantum physics is that it is not necessary to understand the universe at scales below that which we are examining, in order to understand it at that scale. We can get away with treating sets of particle interactions as though they were single unitary objects, in most cases. So you can catch a ball without having to have a fully developed theory of quantum gravity, and without doing the math for every single quark in the ball, the Earth, and your body.





*The first two may, in fact, be different aspects of the same thing; it's not yet clear. Indeed, these three things may all be different aspects of one thing. We have our best people working on it, but don't hold your breath.

 

[The Helmetmaker]

But I didn't say that abstract ideas are not real and don't exist. I said that abstract ideas do exist as bodies of information within the brains and minds of humans, and perhaps some other species.

From post #42

If something exists, it may be said to be a part of reality, the object is real. If something falls into the category of existing as opposed to being an abstract idea, it is a part of reality, something that actually exists. Something that has substance or is physically detectable even if we have yet to discover it.


As we happen to exist in a physical universe with physical properties, features and attributes, something that exists should have physical properties, therefore be detectable in some way, collider, microscope, telescope, light may have no mass but can be detected with our eyes and brain. Of course, there may be things that we have no access to so cannot know whether they exist or not, which does not matter in relation to their own existence.

 

[DBT]

From post #42

If something exists, it may be said to be a part of reality, the object is real. If something falls into the category of existing as opposed to being an abstract idea, it is a part of reality, something that actually exists. Something that has substance or is physically detectable even if we have yet to discover it.


As we happen to exist in a physical universe with physical properties, features and attributes, something that exists should have physical properties, therefore be detectable in some way, collider, microscope, telescope, light may have no mass but can be detected with our eyes and brain. Of course, there may be things that we have no access to so cannot know whether they exist or not, which does not matter in relation to their own existence.

If you are specifically referring to the part where I said - ''As we happen to exist in a physical universe with physical properties, features and attributes, something that exists should have physical properties, therefore be detectable in some way'' - this in no way contradicts what I said about ideas existing as bodies of information within brains. The brain is a physical organ, a physical information processor with memory retention, storage and retrieval ability. Ideas are a part of memory, they can be retrieved, they can be manipulated, extended, extrapolated just like any body of information stored in the brain, encoded in cells, synaptic clefts, etc.