What is reality?

[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.

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.

Yes. In a collider experiment a shower of particles are detected by instruments and we categorize by mass and energy. We can call the detection process an observation, but the question is if a particle is as we imagine it, hence what is reality?

Atrib's post while poetic says a lot. We perceive reality through a process of interactions including our brains. Never looked at it that way before.

Looks like we can end up debating what constitutes an observation.

 

[steve_bank]

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.

What is real and what is reality are not exactly the same question. Reality like most words is contextual. We might say Trump is out of touch with reality.

We can say Newtonian models do not provide a complete model for gravity, it does not always match observation.

 

[fast]

Reality includes all that is real--the small things, its placement, and its movement, yet the large things from which they are comprised are no less real, for they are culminations or composites of them. Reality--that which is.

 

[DBT]

Reality; something that is fundamentally detectable by means of sensors (natural or manufactured), etc.

 

[bilby]

"Reality is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it". - Philip K Dick.

 

[untermensche]

"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.

Who ever said you have to be able to observe something at every waking moment for it to be real?

You just have to be able to observe it in some way, which includes any form of detection, or it's effects.

That is what "real" means. It is a ceremonial word.

 

[Juma]

Reality includes all that is real--the small things, its placement, and its movement, yet the large things from which they are comprised are no less real, for they are culminations or composites of them. Reality--that which is.

Circular.

 

[steve_bank]

'Nothing unreal exists', Vulcan proverb. 'Never give a sucker an even break', WC Fields.

 

[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.

Who ever said you have to be able to observe something at every waking moment for it to be real?

You just have to be able to observe it in some way, which includes any form of detection, or it's effects.

That is what "real" means. It is a ceremonial word.

In what way can you observe a space shuttle on the far side of the moon? It's like you're wanting to say one thing and it's opposite when it suits you. "I can't hit the ball with a bat" doesn't exclude other ways of hitting the ball, "I can't hit the ball" does. If something is "not observable at the moment", that leaves open the possibility that something might be observable later. But, what if we can't observe something now or later, that could be because of our limitations--not because something is not real. I don't foresee that we'll ever be able to measure rocks on far side of moons on distant planets in far away galaxies, but why in earth would we be closed minded to the possibility of their existence? Because we cannot observe them?

 

[fast]

Reality includes all that is real--the small things, its placement, and its movement, yet the large things from which they are comprised are no less real, for they are culminations or composites of them. Reality--that which is.

Circular.

Whatcha mean? I'm not arguing. What it means to say of something that it's real is to deny that it's imaginary. Large things are no more imaginary than are small things.

 

[fast]

'Nothing unreal exists', Vulcan proverb. 'Never give a sucker an even break', WC Fields.

I'm still battling the reality vs existence issue. It's like different sides of the same coin. To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties, yet reality is like a state of existence that excludes anything imaginary, so (I wonder) if something exists, it's real, while also, if something is real, it exists? This gets tricky when talking about dinosaurs. They are not imaginary. Let's not say what they were but what they are. I've heard it argued that dinosaurs (though extinct) do exist-- since not that they had (but have) properties. All very convoluted to put together.

 

[steve_bank]

'Nothing unreal exists', Vulcan proverb. 'Never give a sucker an even break', WC Fields.

I'm still battling the reality vs existence issue. It's like different sides of the same coin. To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties, yet reality is like a state of existence that excludes anything imaginary, so (I wonder) if something exists, it's real, while also, if something is real, it exists? This gets tricky when talking about dinosaurs. They are not imaginary. Let's not say what they were but what they are. I've heard it argued that dinosaurs (though extinct) do exist-- since not that they had (but have) properties. All very convoluted to put together.

If you work at it you can reaklly screw up your head.....

 

[untermensche]

"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.

Who ever said you have to be able to observe something at every waking moment for it to be real?

You just have to be able to observe it in some way, which includes any form of detection, or it's effects.

That is what "real" means. It is a ceremonial word.

In what way can you observe a space shuttle on the far side of the moon?

A space shuttle is something that can be observed.

Like all objects it is also something that can be obscured.

So what?

That doesn't change the fact it can be observed.

You have no point.

If it can be observed in some way, which includes all forms of detection, or it's effects can be observed we call it "real".

 

[Juma]

To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties.

That is bullshit: unicorns have properties.

 

[Juma]

Reality includes all that is real--the small things, its placement, and its movement, yet the large things from which they are comprised are no less real, for they are culminations or composites of them. Reality--that which is.

Circular.

Whatcha mean? I'm not arguing. What it means to say of something that it's real is to deny that it's imaginary. Large things are no more imaginary than are small things.

Its doesnt say that. Just that ”what is real is real”.
But ”composite” is something of our mind. So something you only think of as a composite isnt real. (Depending on what definition of real you use)

 

[fast]

To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties.

That is bullshit: unicorns have properties.

We can describe what the properties of unicorns would be had they had them. If a property cannot be instantiated, it cannot be demonstrated to exist.

 

[fast]

Whatcha mean? I'm not arguing. What it means to say of something that it's real is to deny that it's imaginary. Large things are no more imaginary than are small things.

Its doesnt say that. Just that ”what is real is real”.
But ”composite” is something of our mind. So something you only think of as a composite isnt real. (Depending on what definition of real you use)

I was thinking more along the lines of string density. The number of strings (of all the strings in all the atoms of where there is a tree) is higher than where there is oh say (all the strings in all the atoms where there is a blade of grass).

A baseball vs a baseball mit: a difference in the alignment and configuration of smaller things.

 

[atrib]

'Nothing unreal exists', Vulcan proverb. 'Never give a sucker an even break', WC Fields.

I'm still battling the reality vs existence issue. It's like different sides of the same coin. To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties, yet reality is like a state of existence that excludes anything imaginary, so (I wonder) if something exists, it's real, while also, if something is real, it exists? This gets tricky when talking about dinosaurs. They are not imaginary. Let's not say what they were but what they are. I've heard it argued that dinosaurs (though extinct) do exist-- since not that they had (but have) properties. All very convoluted to put together.

I think you are making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

In the everyday, ordinary sense, reality is whatever we can perceive with our sense. This would include anything we can detect with our nervous system, and anything that we can detect with instruments, which are extensions of our nervous system.

While dinosaurs do not currently exist on this planet that we know of, unless you consider their descendants, modern birds, to be dinosaurs, we have found fossilized remains that we can see and touch and measure, from which we infer that dinosaurs existed in the past. If an observer from a distant point more than 65 million light years away were able to look through a magical telescope at planet Earth, they would be seeing the light from our planet before the K-T Extinction event, and they would see dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are as real as you and I, they simply exist at different coordinates in spacetime, coordinates that you or I cannot reach.

 

[Juma]

To say of something that it exists is to say of something that it has properties.

That is bullshit: unicorns have properties.

We can describe what the properties of unicorns would be had they had them. If a property cannot be instantiated, it cannot be demonstrated to exist.

So that is really your criteria? If an instance can be shown, then it exists? That was not what you said. You said it had to have properties.
But gravity exists on the moon. Can you provide an instance of the moon gravity?

 

[atrib]

Yes. In a collider experiment a shower of particles are detected by instruments and we categorize by mass and energy. We can call the detection process an observation, but the question is if a particle is as we imagine it, hence what is reality?

Atrib's post while poetic says a lot. We perceive reality through a process of interactions including our brains. Never looked at it that way before.

Looks like we can end up debating what constitutes an observation.

An observation is an interaction between reality and one or more of our senses. A photon interacting with the rhodopsin in a rod or cone cell in your eye and triggering a change in the electrical potential of your optic nerve would be considered an observation. Or sound waves impinging on your tympanic membrane and triggering a change in the electrical potential of your auditory nerve. Instruments that we use to enhance our senses, like microscopes, telescopes, and particle accelerators, can be considered as extensions of our senses.

Reality is subjective. At a fundamental level there is no such thing as a tree, a human, a car, a protein or even a particle. There is only energy oscillating in predictable patterns (that we can tell). How these waves interact together determines what we observe with our senses at the macroscopic level, where reality takes on certain emergent patterns (like trees and humans and particles). And even then, reality varies from observer to observer, because the interactions between our senses and reality are not identical for every person. There is no color, taste, smell or touch that is absolute, there are only interactions; and how our nervous system interprets these interactions shapes and defines our reality.

Also, particles are what we see when we look closely at reality. They are solutions to the waveform probability functions at the time the observation is made. And the process of observation alters the interaction, but that is a different topic.