Is there an Ultimate Reality?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

Whatever phenomena that is not known yet [if claimed to be possibly real] must at least be empirically and philosophically possible to be verified and justified within a FSK.
E.g. a square-circle is not empirically and philosophically possible.
A thing-in-itself is not empirically and philosophically to be real within reality - all-there-is.
Human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away is an empirical and philosophically possibility.

Thus what is real within reality cannot be independent of a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR/FSK].

However there are many [philosophical realists] who claimed there is "something prior" i.e. real objective reality for reality - all-there-is and all phenomena that is beyond what are perceived or appeared.

• What is that "something prior?"
  
  Let say you saw [perception 1] a mirage of water in the middle of a desert.
  
  But you think this is based on perception [2] of "something prior" i.e. the replication of actual water.
  
  On more closer perception[3] the truth is the actual water is something of a liquid.
  
  On more closer perception[4] the liquid is wet.
  
  On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the wet liquid is make H20 molecules.
  
  On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [H20] are comprised of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.
  
  On more closer perception[7], those molecules are a bundle of generic atoms
  
  On more closer perception[8], those atoms are a bundle of generic electrons and proton,
  
  On more closer perception[9], there are various types quarks
  
  On more closer perception[10], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived. So, what is seemingly ultimate is not something objectively real but rather subjectively [observer's based] real.
  
  Thereafter, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the water we perceived[2] earlier.

From the above, there is a reducing range of something prior and no one has discovered what the ultimate prior something is.

As far as science is concern, it merely ASSUMEs there is an ultimate something prior, thus for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically.

So there is no other credible way we can ever find what is the real ultimate something prior that is independent of human-based framework and system of reality..

Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists as real and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

Views?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note Wittgenstein's statement is relevant here,

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
(Tractatus 7)

The "Whereof one cannot speak" is that ultimate objective reality that which is independent of human conception that philosophical realists are postulating as the most real.
According to Wittgenstein we should just 'shut up' as far as its independent objective reality is concern.

[Eodnhoj7]

Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

Whatever phenomena that is not known yet [if claimed to be possibly real] must at least be empirically and philosophically possible to be verified and justified within a FSK.
E.g. a square-circle is not empirically and philosophically possible.
A thing-in-itself is not empirically and philosophically to be real within reality - all-there-is.
Human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away is an empirical and philosophically possibility.

Thus what is real within reality cannot be independent of a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR/FSK].

However there are many [philosophical realists] who claimed there is "something prior" i.e. real objective reality for reality - all-there-is and all phenomena that is beyond what are perceived or appeared.

• What is that "something prior?"
  
  Let say you saw [perception 1] a mirage of water in the middle of a desert.
  
  But you think this is based on perception [2] of "something prior" i.e. the replication of actual water.
  
  On more closer perception[3] the truth is the actual water is something of a liquid.
  
  On more closer perception[4] the liquid is wet.
  
  On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the wet liquid is make H20 molecules.
  
  On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [H20] are comprised of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.
  
  On more closer perception[7], those molecules are a bundle of generic atoms
  
  On more closer perception[8], those atoms are a bundle of generic electrons and proton,
  
  On more closer perception[9], there are various types quarks
  
  On more closer perception[10], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived. So, what is seemingly ultimate is not something objectively real but rather subjectively [observer's based] real.
  
  Thereafter, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the water we perceived[2] earlier.

From the above, there is a reducing range of something prior and no one has discovered what the ultimate prior something is.

As far as science is concern, it merely ASSUMEs there is an ultimate something prior, thus for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically.

So there is no other credible way we can ever find what is the real ultimate something prior that is independent of human-based framework and system of reality..

Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists as real and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

^^^this is an ad hominum thus taking away from the argument. The concept of God can equally cause an existential crisis.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

Views?

Human observation in itself is empty, as all phenomena in themselves are empty, thus necessitating a consciousness beyond it.

[Age]

Reality is all-there-is.

All-there-is is represented by real phenomena which can be verified and justified empirically and philosophically within a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR] or knowledge [FSK].

Whatever phenomena that is not known yet [if claimed to be possibly real] must at least be empirically and philosophically possible to be verified and justified within a FSK.
E.g. a square-circle is not empirically and philosophically possible.
A thing-in-itself is not empirically and philosophically to be real within reality - all-there-is.
Human-liked aliens in a planet 100 light years away is an empirical and philosophically possibility.

Thus what is real within reality cannot be independent of a human-based framework and system of reality [FSR/FSK].

However there are many [philosophical realists] who claimed there is "something prior" i.e. real objective reality for reality - all-there-is and all phenomena that is beyond what are perceived or appeared.

• What is that "something prior?"
  
  Let say you saw [perception 1] a mirage of water in the middle of a desert.
  
  But you think this is based on perception [2] of "something prior" i.e. the replication of actual water.
  
  On more closer perception[3] the truth is the actual water is something of a liquid.
  
  On more closer perception[4] the liquid is wet.
  
  On more closer perception[5] using a microscope, the wet liquid is make H20 molecules.
  
  On more closer perception[6] using an electron microscope, the cellulose molecules [H20] are comprised of 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms.
  
  On more closer perception[7], those molecules are a bundle of generic atoms
  
  On more closer perception[8], those atoms are a bundle of generic electrons and proton,
  
  On more closer perception[9], there are various types quarks
  
  On more closer perception[10], it is bundle of either wave or particle depending on how it is perceived. So, what is seemingly ultimate is not something objectively real but rather subjectively [observer's based] real.
  
  Thereafter, we are lost and do what know what is the ultimate substance - the Objective Reality of the water we perceived[2] earlier.

From the above, there is a reducing range of something prior and no one has discovered what the ultimate prior something is.

I would NOT be so SURE of your claim here, if 'I' was 'you'.

What are you basing this ASSUMPTION and CLAIM here 'on', EXACTLY?

If you EVER answered this CLARIFYING question Honestly, then you will SEE and KNOW that 'you' can NOT be SURE of YOUR CLAIM here.

As far as science is concern, it merely ASSUMEs there is an ultimate something prior, thus for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically.

WHAT?

1. 'Science', itself, does NOT ASSUME 'things'. ONLY 'you' human beings ASSUME 'things'.
2. What does saying, "ASSUMES there is an ultimate something prior", even ACTUALLY MEAN? 'Prior' to 'what', EXACTLY?
3. Saying, "for science that something prior is an impossibility to be real scientifically" is ABSURD, ILLOGICAL, and NONSENSICAL in the EXTREME, for at least three reasons:
a) You just got through telling 'us' that "science" ASSUMES there IS an 'ultimate something prior', but now say, "for science",, 'that' what itself ASSUMES IS, is actually now an impossibility'.
b) How would "science" ALREADY KNOW what IS an "impossibility to be real", (absurdly) "scientifically" if 'it' has NOT YET even been discovered?
c) How would "science" EVEN KNOW what IS or what IS NOT, BEFORE "science" has even got to LOOKING INTO that part of some 'thing'?

The more 'you' talk "veritas aequitas" the more 'you' CONTRADICT "your" OWN 'self'.

So there is no other credible way we can ever find what is the real ultimate something prior that is independent of human-based framework and system of reality..

AND, you KNOW this based on 'what' EXACTLY other than your OWN currently held ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.

Science being the standard bearer of truth [the most credible] deny such 'other reality beyond it' exists as real and that it is impossible to be scientifically real, thus merely ASSUMES it exists.

Why philosophical realists are so desperate to reach for the 'other reality beyond it' -the impossible to be real - is due to subliminal psychological existential crisis and cognitive dissonance, else they will feel suspended and very uneasy.

I asked,
Btw, what do you gain for yourself or for humanity in insisting,
"there is an other objective reality beyond phenomena independent of humans"
Answers??

What do you gain for "yourself" or for humanity in insisting the 'things' that 'you' do, which to "others" are OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect?

What 'you' gain is roughly the EXACT SAME thing 'they' gain. The answer is 'you' and 'them' gain NOTHING, REALLY.

Views?

'you' are BLINDED by your very OWN made up ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS about what is true in Life.

[Age]

Note Wittgenstein's statement is relevant here,

"Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
(Tractatus 7)

The "Whereof one cannot speak" is that ultimate objective reality that which is independent of human conception that philosophical realists are postulating as the most real.
According to Wittgenstein we should just 'shut up' as far as its independent objective reality is concern.

Is there a poster in this forum who claims that there is a 'reality', which is "independent of human conception"?

If no, then who are 'you' CLAIMING makes this CLAIM here?

If yes, then will 'you' name them?

[Age]

Human observation in itself is empty, as all phenomena in themselves are empty, thus necessitating a consciousness beyond it.

And, who or what, EXACTLY, is this Consciousness, which is Observing, Noticing, and is thus AWARE of human observations, to 'you'?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Human observation in itself is empty, as all phenomena in themselves are empty, thus necessitating a consciousness beyond it.

The fact is what is real is what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable in terms of representing reality.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

[Eodnhoj7]

Human observation in itself is empty, as all phenomena in themselves are empty, thus necessitating a consciousness beyond it.

And, who or what, EXACTLY, is this Consciousness, which is Observing, Noticing, and is thus AWARE of human observations, to 'you'?

It would be a consciousness beyond man's, any label can be applied.

[Eodnhoj7]

Human observation in itself is empty, as all phenomena in themselves are empty, thus necessitating a consciousness beyond it.

The fact is what is real is what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable in terms of representing reality.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

And what is verifiable and justifiable empirically is all phenomenon are empty in themselves, this includes consciousness.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Human observation in itself is empty, as all phenomena in themselves are empty, thus necessitating a consciousness beyond it.

The fact is what is real is what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable in terms of representing reality.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

And what is verifiable and justifiable empirically is all phenomenon are empty in themselves, this includes consciousness.

You have not answered my question.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

Note this,

• For a scientist who claim 'Water is H2O' he will refer to the Scientific Framework and System [FSK] and the Chemistry FSK with its constitution and processes and requirements.
  An astronomer will claim the Earth revolves round the Sun and not otherwise, he will refer to the Astronomical FSK.
  For legal claims, one will refer to the legal FSK.
  For geographical claims, one will refer to the geographical FSK.
  Generally, all claims of facts are specific to their respective FSK.

You claimed "there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena"
What framework and system are you relying upon to arrive at the above conclusion?

Don't waste time thinking.
You are merely speculating the above conclusion without any FSK and grounds as driven by some terrible psychology.
The resultant conclusion therefrom is merely an illusion.

[Eodnhoj7]

The fact is what is real is what is verifiable and justifiable empirically and philosophically within a framework and system of knowledge [FSK].
The scientific FSK is the most credible and reliable in terms of representing reality.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

And what is verifiable and justifiable empirically is all phenomenon are empty in themselves, this includes consciousness.

You have not answered my question.

What framework and system of knowledge are you relying on to verify and justify your conclusion, i.e. there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena?

Note this,

• For a scientist who claim 'Water is H2O' he will refer to the Scientific Framework and System [FSK] and the Chemistry FSK with its constitution and processes and requirements.
  An astronomer will claim the Earth revolves round the Sun and not otherwise, he will refer to the Astronomical FSK.
  For legal claims, one will refer to the legal FSK.
  For geographical claims, one will refer to the geographical FSK.
  Generally, all claims of facts are specific to their respective FSK.

You claimed "there is a real consciousness beyond all phenomena"
What framework and system are you relying upon to arrive at the above conclusion?

Don't waste time thinking.
You are merely speculating the above conclusion without any FSK and grounds as driven by some terrible psychology.
The resultant conclusion therefrom is merely an illusion.

If I provide a system and framework of knowledge that in itself would be empty and dependent upon another system and framework of knowledge, which would continually regress, until one is left with a system and framework which is entirely assumed. Considering all systems and frameworks are means of observation the system and framework presented is strictly pure observation itself where the emptiness of a phenomenon is accepted as is. This is not psychology as psychology is a subset of observation.

You contradict yourself by limiting knowledge to a system and framework of knowledge as the FSK is in itself a subset of another FSK. In simpler terms there is a FSK that creates FSKs.

[Age]

Human observation in itself is empty, as all phenomena in themselves are empty, thus necessitating a consciousness beyond it.

And, who or what, EXACTLY, is this Consciousness, which is Observing, Noticing, and is thus AWARE of human observations, to 'you'?

It would be a consciousness beyond man's, any label can be applied.

ANY label?

Can the 'woman's consciousness' label be applied, accurately?

By the way, that label, which has a definition that fits in PERFECTLY with the other definitions and their label, which UNIFIES thee Universe, Itself, has ALREADY been FOUND.

[Eodnhoj7]

And, who or what, EXACTLY, is this Consciousness, which is Observing, Noticing, and is thus AWARE of human observations, to 'you'?

It would be a consciousness beyond man's, any label can be applied.

ANY label?

Can the 'woman's consciousness' label be applied, accurately?

By the way, that label, which has a definition that fits in PERFECTLY with the other definitions and their label, which UNIFIES thee Universe, Itself, has ALREADY been FOUND.

It would be beyond woman's consciousness as woman's consciousness is a subset of human.

As to the name what is it?

[Age]

It would be a consciousness beyond man's, any label can be applied.

ANY label?

Can the 'woman's consciousness' label be applied, accurately?

By the way, that label, which has a definition that fits in PERFECTLY with the other definitions and their label, which UNIFIES thee Universe, Itself, has ALREADY been FOUND.

It would be beyond woman's consciousness as woman's consciousness is a subset of human.

As to the name what is it?

Just as you said; 'Any label can be applied'.

[Skepdick]

The limits of my language are the limits of my world. --Wittgenstein

To overcome those limits you need more expressive languages.