Philosophy Now Forum

os wrote:
non locality struck me as something emanating from an omnipresent non physical reality
two particles instantly affected by one another regardless of distance

This is a God Of The Gaps type argument which you are employing here. And is based upon a false premise. The
particles are not actually affected by each other. As nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in vacuum

uwot wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 2:48 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 11:56 amHow exactly does one demonstrate the existence of a physical reality?

By observation. Physical reality is not what people think. For example, the phenomena all confirm that the 'physical reality' is that if you drop something, it falls. You can make up any story you like to explain the phenomena, none of which are as 'real' as the phenomena. Don't confuse 'physical' with 'material'.

What is observed is real in the very act of observation. Who is making that observation cannot be demonstrated to exist, the very act of observation is taken on belief and faith only...since the observer is this unseen seer.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 10:07 am

uwot wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 2:48 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 11:56 amHow exactly does one demonstrate the existence of a physical reality?

By observation. Physical reality is not what people think. For example, the phenomena all confirm that the 'physical reality' is that if you drop something, it falls. You can make up any story you like to explain the phenomena, none of which are as 'real' as the phenomena. Don't confuse 'physical' with 'material'.

What is observed is real in the very act of observation. Who is making that observation cannot be demonstrated to exist, the very act of observation is taken on belief and faith only...since the observer is this unseen seer.

Exactly. Even what appears to be physical and universal is subject to differentiation based on the observer. If there is any fluctuation in the way that two observers interpret an object, then the idea of a consistent physical reality is already one that cannot be truly grasped by humans.

Vendetta wrote:
Even what appears to be physical and universal is subject to differentiation based on the observer. If there is a fluctuation in the way
two observers interpret an object then the idea of a consistent physical reality is already one that cannot be truly grasped by humans

No two observers can interpret an object in exactly the same way and at exactly the same time because they
will have different frames of reference. All interpretations of reality are subjective. Only reality is objective

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 11:46 am

Vendetta wrote:
Even what appears to be physical and universal is subject to differentiation based on the observer. If there is a fluctuation in the way
two observers interpret an object then the idea of a consistent physical reality is already one that cannot be truly grasped by humans

No two observers can interpret an object in exactly the same way and at exactly the same time because they
will have different frames of reference. All interpretations of reality are subjective. Only reality is objective

How do you define reality then?

Vendetta wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 3:18 pm
How do you define reality then?

It's been defined wryly by some as, "That which pushes back against me."

In other words, "reality" is that thing that won't do your will every time you want it to: the rock your foot strikes in stepping, the rain that falls on your head and ruins your hairdo, the encroachments of age, the person who pushes you on the escalator, and the clock that won't reverse even though you're late or absent for a vital appointment....you know.

It's the stuff you can't always control. It does its own thing, indifferent to your perspective. Does that give you something to work with?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 3:33 pm

Vendetta wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 3:18 pm
How do you define reality then?

It's been defined wryly by some as, "That which pushes back against me."

In other words, "reality" is that thing that won't do your will every time you want it to: the rock your foot strikes in stepping, the rain that falls on your head and ruins your hairdo, the encroachments of age, the person who pushes you on the escalator, and the clock that won't reverse even though you're late or absent for a vital appointment....you know.

It's the stuff you can't always control. It does its own thing, indifferent to your perspective. Does that give you something to work with?

Okay, does that mean that it is metaphysical in nature then? Would "physical reality" be an oxymoron?
Is it perhaps like some sort of force?

So then the argument is that since we are capable of interpreting reality, there must be a reality to interpret. There is a transcendent objective reality, and we just cannot determine whose understanding of it is most correct as there is fluctuation in each individual's interpretation.

Vendetta wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 3:51 pmOkay, does that mean that it is metaphysical in nature then? Would "physical reality" be an oxymoron?
Like some sort of force?

Nope. That wouldn't be enough.

Wait... So then the argument is that since we are capable of interpreting reality, there must be a reality to interpret?

Now you're closer to it.

When we say we have a "perspective of reality," and even if we say, "we each have our own perspective on reality," perhaps the best retort for the skeptic is to say, "a perspective on what?"

If reality doesn't exist, how can you and I discuss things at all? We wouldn't "perceive" the same things, so we couldn't even co-ordinate our statements in a way that made sense to each other. Something "out there" has to be feeding us both some information, or being perceived by both of us in a way that is so similar as to permit two people with their own "perspectives" to discuss it intelligibly.

How does that work, if there's no reality?

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 3:50 pm
The simplest and most accurate definition of reality is all that exists

Not bad in a preliminary way. But do thoughts "exist"? If they do, how do they differ in their "existing" from the out-there stuff like chairs, rocks and emus?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 4:00 pm

Vendetta wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 3:51 pmOkay, does that mean that it is metaphysical in nature then? Would "physical reality" be an oxymoron?
Like some sort of force?

Nope. That wouldn't be enough.

Wait... So then the argument is that since we are capable of interpreting reality, there must be a reality to interpret?

Now you're closer to it.

When we say we have a "perspective of reality," and even if we say, "we each have our own perspective on reality," perhaps the best retort for the skeptic is to say, "a perspective on what?"

If reality doesn't exist, how can you and I discuss things at all? We wouldn't "perceive" the same things, so we couldn't even co-ordinate our statements in a way that made sense to each other. Something "out there" has to be feeding us both some information, or being perceived by both of us in a way that is so similar as to permit two people with their own "perspectives" to discuss it intelligibly.

How does that work, if there's no reality?

From this we can extrapolate that there is an objective reality that exists, it is just out of reach as we cannot ascertain the human understanding that is most truthful to it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 4:02 pm

surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 3:50 pm
The simplest and most accurate definition of reality is all that exists

Not bad in a preliminary way. But do thoughts "exist"? If they do, how do they differ in their "existing" from the out-there stuff like chairs, rocks and emus?

Emus

Is there perhaps both metaphysical and physical realities?

Vendetta wrote: ↑Fri May 19, 2017 4:07 pm Is there perhaps both metaphysical and physical realities?

That's the point of contention, really. Most people, I think, have rationally to concede the existence of some kind of physical externality or "reality." But if we stop there, then a bunch of unsavoury things like strict Determinism, amorality, selfhood-as-illusion and so on immediately follow. So not everybody's happy with that, and we go looking for a better explanation...like at the minimum, an explanation that can explain to us why we're not happy with it.

So then we arrive at the idea of "metaphysical realities." But to accept that such can exist, we're going to have to admit that physical science won't hand them to us. That galls some people. Then we're going to have to figure out how to judge our perception of such things, since physical science isn't going to help us.

How do we open the door to metaphysical realities without opening the door to superstition and confusion? That's a good question. But since it took us thousands of years (until the 17th Century) to come up with the right method for judging our physical perceptions (i.e. the scientific method), then we can hardly complain if we're finding metaphysics difficult to judge. It might take us a while to solve that one, if it can be solved.

Meanwhile, we would have either to reject metaphysics without sufficient reason, or continue to entertain its existence but without sufficient proof or a singular method for judging it definitively. Not an easy quandary, that.

Immanuel Can wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:
The simplest and most accurate definition of reality is all that exists

But do thoughts exist? If they do how do they differ in their existing from the out there stuff like chairs and rocks and emus

This is why I said it was the simplest definition. Because saying reality is all that exists avoids splitting it into its constituent parts
such as mental or physical or metaphysical or physical. One can debate whether the mental is entirely separate from the physical
or whether the metaphysical actually exists. But that distracts from the simplicity of the definition. But to answer your questions
yes thoughts do exist and they differ from physical things because they are mental

Immanuel Can wrote:
How do we open the door to metaphysical realities without opening the door to superstition and confusion

Begging the question there by assuming that there are such things as metaphysical realities. I only accept as true that which
can actually be demonstrated to be so. And truth claims that cannot be demonstrated [ either way ] I regard with neutrality
or scepticism. I cannot accept anything as true without evidence. Not even if it is true. Since for me it is entirely necessary