What is reality?

[steve_bank]

I picked up a term from Popper, instramentalist. It means the only thing we can reasnably caled obhective knowledge is an experiment. Wevknow from QM there is no such thing as an isolated observer, the experimental setup and that which is being observed form a system. A glass thermometer in a cup of water changes the thermal equilibrium, T is water + cup + thermometer. Does an electron exist as we model it when we are not measuring it?

Relativity is a better model than Newtonian, but still just a model. It is not reality, the map is not the countryside.

We liberaly use the word field. Put a battery across two parallel plates, the electric field is defined by the force vector moving a theoretical unit charge around the volume. Same with gravity, the force on a small mass relative to the larger mass around in a volume.

Catver Meade said in an interview he did not know if an electron exists, but he could do useful things with the concept. Does an electron exists? Does our atomic model mirroe reality? The map is not the coubtryside..

The slit difraction experiment leads to the particle wave duality. Model fits observation. We do practical things with the model.. Who knows what really is happening. From that perspective science is all an illlusion. All science is based on measurements relative to a standard, the SI. Arbitrar.

I walked through the RHIC experiment chamber in the 90s.. A swarm of particles. Assigning meaning is as much art as science. It is the basis of experimental particle physics.

https://www.bnl.gov/rhic/STAR.asp
https://www.star.bnl.gov/public/comp/vis/StarEvent.html


So, what is reality?

 

[untermensche]

"Reality" is a ceremonial term we give to anything we can observe in some way, or observe it's effects.

If we saw Jesus coming back then that would be part of "reality".

If pigs for some reason began to fly that would be "reality" to.

"Reality" is merely what we find upon observation.

 

[skepticalbip]

It seems that you may be conflating two different things.

.. "What is reality" would be a philosophical question. (so rightly belongs in the philosophy forum)

.. "What can we predict from observations" would be a science question.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I think the question can also be read as a statement, and that's how I like to think about reality.

 

[fast]

1) There is one sense in which we use the term to explicitly deny its opposite. For instance, this gold isn't fake; it's real! This isn't counterfeit money; it's real! Is that your real hair? No, it's a wig.

2) There is one sense in which we use the term to explicitly deny that something is imaginary. Did you hear that noise? It may have been a ghost. Sally hun, ghosts aren't real... <bang, click, clang>, But that sound sure is; let's get out of here! That which is truly apart of our world is real in this sense...and apart of much philosophical discussion.

3) There is another sense that's crept into play through the likes of continental philosophers that speak of what's real as perceptions of mind. Flowery talk like "I've lived like this for quite some time and it's apart of my reality." Anytime the "my" is inserted, that's a good wake up call to be on your defenses. I subscribe to a more analytical approach that distinguishes between that which is real (the sun, the ground, and scary noises in the night) and sensations of & perceptions of & awareness of ... that which (on the other hand) is real.

Going with number 2, we can drill down a bit and feel relieved to make some progress by using your very own get out of science class pass. Feel free for a short time to allow yourself the wonder of accepting a human biased perspective. We're always so worried that we'll miss the target and not see things as they really are, as if we're stricken through a cloudy lens of human evolution. Embrace language and use terms to discuss what you see in ways only we can understand.

After feeling refreshed, venture back into the halls of science and remember that what we think we know is better than what science taught us in yesteryear when we were magnitudes off. We're getting closer to the target and becoming better at understanding reality for what it is, so feel ever so inclined to mimick the words of those in science that has spoke before us, but be flexible enough to adapt as we continue to learn.

I think I've watched every YouTube video there is on particle physics and the like. Don't forsake what you see through one lens as you alternate through others. The coalescing of fields and strings and the smallest of the small is merely a universal more fundamental or foundational for things that can later be detected by precision and understood by us beings composed of the same.

Whether reality is that which is out there or something from within, and whether we focus on the smallest of things, the great expanse of the cosmos, or humbly somewhere in between, remember #4

4) keep it real

 

[untermensche]

1) There is one sense in which we use the term to explicitly deny its opposite. For instance, this gold isn't fake; it's real! This isn't counterfeit money; it's real! Is that your real hair? No, it's a wig.

2) There is one sense in which we use the term to explicitly deny that something is imaginary. Did you hear that noise? It may have been a ghost. Sally hun, ghosts aren't real... <bang, click, clang>, But that sound sure is; let's get out of here! That which is truly apart of our world is real in this sense...and apart of much philosophical discussion.

3) There is another sense that's crept into play through the likes of continental philosophers that speak of what's real as perceptions of mind. Flowery talk like "I've lived like this for quite some time and it's apart of my reality." Anytime the "my" is inserted, that's a good wake up call to be on your defenses. I subscribe to a more analytical approach that distinguishes between that which is real (the sun, the ground, and scary noises in the night) and sensations of & perceptions of & awareness of ... that which (on the other hand) is real.

The first is not "reality". It is the word "real" which in that case means genuine. "Reality" does not mean genuine. Only "real" does.

Reality means it can be observed in some way. Or the effects of it can be observed in some way.

Like in your second example. And third. They are both the same usage.

 

[fast]

1) There is one sense in which we use the term to explicitly deny its opposite. For instance, this gold isn't fake; it's real! This isn't counterfeit money; it's real! Is that your real hair? No, it's a wig.

2) There is one sense in which we use the term to explicitly deny that something is imaginary. Did you hear that noise? It may have been a ghost. Sally hun, ghosts aren't real... <bang, click, clang>, But that sound sure is; let's get out of here! That which is truly apart of our world is real in this sense...and apart of much philosophical discussion.

3) There is another sense that's crept into play through the likes of continental philosophers that speak of what's real as perceptions of mind. Flowery talk like "I've lived like this for quite some time and it's apart of my reality." Anytime the "my" is inserted, that's a good wake up call to be on your defenses. I subscribe to a more analytical approach that distinguishes between that which is real (the sun, the ground, and scary noises in the night) and sensations of & perceptions of & awareness of ... that which (on the other hand) is real.

The first is not "reality". It is the word "real" which in that case means genuine. "Reality" does not mean genuine. Only "real" does.

I agree with your assessment completely.

The word "real" is ambiguous. One means 1) "not fake" and the other means 2) "not imaginary."

The second meaning is important in how it relates to the word, "reality". Everything that exists, for instance, is real; even fake things are real in that sense. If it's apart of reality, it's real.

If I were to say, all real and fake things are apart of reality, I would be either correct or incorrect depending on which usage of the term that was being employed.

If I said imaginary things are apart of reality (not to be confused with imagination), I'd be incorrect; after all, what one might call imaginary is not a real thing in fact.

Reality means it can be observed in some way. Or the effects of it can be observed in some way.

I don't want to come across as argumentative because I think you're in the right ballpark. One thing I would do is drop the word, "means." Saying something about something is a bit different than saying what a word that refers to something means. You know, law of identity and all that jazz.

The last point, maybe even a more important point is something that (well, to be honest) I'm not sure it's worth mentioning because I just may be misunderstanding, but it's something that crosses my mind. Let's suppose there is something that does in fact exist (a physical substance of some kind, let's say) BUT it CANNOT be observed. Oh, I don't know, it might be a few hundred light years just beyond the observable universe and it's not a light-emitting star. Yeah, we don't know that it exists, but then again many things that we've come to know that exists did long before we discovered they did. So, maybe a tweaking of word choice is in order. Potentially observable?

Like in your second example. And third. They are both the same usage.

And now for why I'm engaging this post. I can live with everything you've said up to this point. Maybe it's because you've been away and wanted to cut you some slack. Welcome back.

The 3rd? Really? No! With everything else, I can go with. Might clinch my teeth a tad and throw in some leeway, but at this juncture, I can't give you a pass. I know what it is. I bet I did a miserable job of explaining what I meant.

Living an engaging experience of an activity/event and being aware of an actual material physical solid object requires a mind bearing entity. For instance, going out on a boat and being aware that there is a boat. Are you with me here? Let's drop the activity part and focus in on the object for demonstration purposes.

Some might weirdly say that my boat is apart of my reality. Ooookay. Let me ask you this, if out of the blue while you're not home, I deliver a brand new bass boat to your residence and park it in your backyard, and you're on vacation. Is it true that the boat is real? Yes. Is it true that you know the boat is there. No--because you're on vacation, no one told you, it was an unexpected surprise. Not no because we supposedly can't ever know things.

Here's the thing, there are those that will say it's not apart of their reality because they havn't experienced or sensed or became consciously aware of it. Awe, but notice the "my" variant in "their." They speak as if there is no mind independent reality, as if they have merged reality with their perceptions of reality.

So, my imaginary friend , no no no, nope, nope, nope, number 3 is not not not--the same.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes everything that exists us real. The question is our whter or not our science is a true representation of reality. On a macro scale we see the sun and moon in motion. On a macro scale we see the plants go round the sun.

Do particles exists? For me a particle is a label for the results of a collider experiment. From measurements a particle is identified by mass and energy.

Some take the BB as truth instead of a good extrapolation.

 

[atrib]

Reality is the emergent universe that is developed and perceived by our senses. At the highest level of abstraction, it is the cumulative sum of the responses developed in our brains to stimuli received by our senses, and how these stimuli are interpreted by our nervous system.

At a deeper level of abstraction, reality is the product of the interaction of fields that permeate our universe. Some or many of these interactions can be quantified in predictable ways using the laws of nature, which are models we have developed to describe how the universe works.

 

[untermensche]

Let's suppose there is something that does in fact exist (a physical substance of some kind, let's say) BUT it CANNOT be observed. Oh, I don't know, it might be a few hundred light years just beyond the observable universe and it's not a light-emitting star. Yeah, we don't know that it exists, but then again many things that we've come to know that exists did long before we discovered they did. So, maybe a tweaking of word choice is in order. Potentially observable?

If we can't observe something there is nothing to talk about.

No.

Only that which can be observed or it's effects observed can be labeled "real".

If it can't be observed in some way as far as we are concerned it does not exist nor could it ever be shown to exist.

Saying something can be observed is to say it is potentially observable.

The 3rd? Really? No!

Yes. The distinction between something in the imagination and something real is the thing that is real can be observed.

To imagine is not to observe.

 

[fast]

If we can't observe something there is nothing to talk about.

Tell that to the people who waited on the space shuttle that circled the far side of the moon out of radio contact.

Only that which can be observed or it's effects observed can be labeled "real".

Everything non-imaginary is real. There are some very real things that are simply beyond our ability to observe; that doesn't make them any less real.

If it can't be observed in some way as far as we are concerned it does not exist nor could it ever be shown to exist.
Neither physical impairment nor technological weakness alters the existence of things that are very much real. Not observing nor an inability to observe things changes the status of an object that exists to nonexistent. Dinosaurs vs meteor.

Saying something can be observed is to say it is potentially observable.

Yeah, well, on that note, there is an ambiguity of sorts (even in common usage) that has me yearning for clarification. It's one of those things that I notice when I see it. I'm still trying to find the correct way to verbally discern between observation and an observation. The seeing vs the written description of what was seen.

The 3rd? Really? No!

Yes. The distinction between something in the imagination and something real is the thing that is real can be observed.

To imagine is not to observe.

I know what you mean, but that's not what I was talking about. If I stepped into a river (at a very specific coordinate) yesterday, and if you step into a river (at the very same coordinate) today, I think or hold the belief that, we stepped into the same river. There are those that argue (and it's such a silly argument) that we did not step in the same river because the river I stepped in yesterday is not precisely identical to how it is today. What I stepped into (they would say) is apart of my reality, and what you stepped in was apart of your reality--as if to say reality itself is dependent on a mind bearing creature. They conflate reality with perception--or something internal to the mind.

As to your "something in the imagination," be wary not to allow language to lead you astray. I'm not saying you are allowing it or that it's happened. I'm just saying be careful. I can smell it in the air. If I say nothing is in the drawer, feel free to go and check to see if what I'm saying is true, but if you don't see anything in the drawer after my telling you nothing is in there, don't think I was in error. Yes, people have tried to treat the word, "nothing" as if it referred to something. I said nothing was in there to only be met with further interrogation: "where in the drawer exactly is this nothing to which you speak of as being here?"

There is no 'something in the imagination' just as there is no 'nothing in the drawer.'

 

[steve_bank]

Reality is the emergent universe that is developed and perceived by our senses. At the highest level of abstraction, it is the cumulative sum of the responses developed in our brains to stimuli received by our senses, and how these stimuli are interpreted by our nervous system.

At a deeper level of abstraction, reality is the product of the interaction of fields that permeate our universe. Some or many of these interactions can be quantified in predictable ways using the laws of nature, which are models we have developed to describe how the universe works.

Nice.

 

[steve_bank]

Part of my point in the OP is a lot of what we derive in science is imagination based on experiment and observation.

Particle physics is the best example. We do not observe particles we interpret experiment using the concept of particles. It is not directly observed. The models are validated by predicting outcomes of macro scale experiments.

If we limited discussion to observation we'd still be rubbing sticks together to make fire.

 

[steve_bank]

Let's suppose there is something that does in fact exist (a physical substance of some kind, let's say) BUT it CANNOT be observed. Oh, I don't know, it might be a few hundred light years just beyond the observable universe and it's not a light-emitting star. Yeah, we don't know that it exists, but then again many things that we've come to know that exists did long before we discovered they did. So, maybe a tweaking of word choice is in order. Potentially observable?

If we can't observe something there is nothing to talk about.

No.

Only that which can be observed or it's effects observed can be labeled "real".

If it can't be observed in some way as far as we are concerned it does not exist nor could it ever be shown to exist.

Saying something can be observed is to say it is potentially observable.

The 3rd? Really? No!

Yes. The distinction between something in the imagination and something real is the thing that is real can be observed.

To imagine is not to observe.

How do you know observation is real? The observation is real as opposed to imagined if I toss a rock up and it always comes down. I put a glass thermometer in a cup of cold water. Is the indicated temperature of the water just the water ot the temperature of the cup, water, and thermometer? It is not always easy to b to determine what result of an experiment is and means.

Ancient Zog observed the motion of the sun and stars and concludes the universe revolves around the Earth. Observation does not equal reality.

Our thoughts are real as products of physical processes in the brain. Our thoughts are sometimes hallucinatory and not reflective of reality, but that is not what I am talking about.

How closely does our science maps reflect reality?

 

[fast]

Part of my point in the OP is a lot of what we derive in science is imagination based on experiment and observation.

Particle physics is the best example. We do not observe particles we interpret experiment using the concept of particles. It is not directly observed. The models are validated by predicting outcomes of macro scale experiments.

If we limited discussion to observation we'd still be rubbing sticks together to make fire.

But an indirect observation is an observation, and as such, it's a not a product of imagination.

Now, we are an imaginative bunch. That might explain how we ever figured out how to observe things (real things) without actual visual observation. We do experiments, build technological detection devices, and use deductive reasoning, so still, in the end, we do observe what might have once thought unobservable.

Where we go wrong is in incorporating vocabularic inaccuracies in the reporting of our interpretations.

 

[bilby]

Tell that to the people who waited on the space shuttle that circled the far side of the moon out of radio contact.

No space shuttle has ever made it as far as 0.15% of the way to the Moon.

The only crewed spacecraft that was capable of reaching the Moon was the Apollo Saturn V stack; 25 people have been as far as the moon, of whom 22 have entered lunar orbit, and 12 have landed - all of them on Apollo missions 8 through 17 (Apollo 9 didn't go to the Moon as that mission was to test docking and other procedures in Earth orbit, and 13 went once around without entering lunar orbit after an on board explosion rendered the planned landing impossible). Two astronauts (John Young and Gene Cernan, both on Apollo 10) were aboard two missions each (Young's second mission was Apollo 16, Cernan's was Apollo 17, making Cernan the last person ever to walk on the Moon), so despite nine missions with three crew per mission, the total is only 25.

No human has traveled further than Low Earth Orbit since the return to Earth of the Apollo 17 astronauts in December 1972.

 

[untermensche]

If we can't observe something there is nothing to talk about.

No.

Only that which can be observed or it's effects observed can be labeled "real".

If it can't be observed in some way as far as we are concerned it does not exist nor could it ever be shown to exist.

Saying something can be observed is to say it is potentially observable.



Yes. The distinction between something in the imagination and something real is the thing that is real can be observed.

To imagine is not to observe.

How do you know observation is real?

Because that is the definition of "real".

"Real" means: It can be observed in some way or it's effects can be observed in some way.

 

[untermensche]

If we can't observe something there is nothing to talk about.

Tell that to the people who waited on the space shuttle that circled the far side of the moon out of radio contact.

We can observe space shuttles.

Only that which can be observed or it's effects observed can be labeled "real".

Everything non-imaginary is real. There are some very real things that are simply beyond our ability to observe; that doesn't make them any less real.

What exactly are you saying is real?

What planet, what life form, what television show, what demon beyond our abilities to observe is real?

Please be specific.

If it can't be observed nothing can be said of it. There is nothing to say anything about.

If it can't be observed in some way as far as we are concerned it does not exist nor could it ever be shown to exist.

Neither physical impairment nor technological weakness alters the existence of things that are very much real. Not observing nor an inability to observe things changes the status of an object that exists to nonexistent. Dinosaurs vs meteor.

Not even having something to claim is real stops you from claiming something is real.

 

[fast]

"We can observe space shuttles"

Nice. But, not at every moment.

When the space shuttle <shut up Bilby--you and your damn facts! > starting again, when the space shuttle is not within an area that it can be observed, it cannot be observed. Yet, it exists; moreover, it's real. Theoretically, sure; if we could by (oh say) having something to detect it situated such that it successfully functioned to do so, yeah, but theoretically being able to observe something is not the same as being able to.

 

[fast]

How about this? If something does not have even the potential to be observed, it may or may not exist--for instance, a moon residing somewhere outdside the observable universe cannot be observed. That is not to say it's potentially possible to observe nonexistent objects.

Don't be scared into thinking I'm trying to open the door that allows for the observing of imaginary objects. I am not. I just don't think observability alone ends the discussion. If something exists, it's real. Not being able to observe it doesn't change that. We're not so advanced that everything that exists is within our ability to observe it.