Is there an Ultimate Reality?

[psycho]

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?

How do you justify that Reason, that tool with which you estimate that a circle cannot be simultaneously a square, is true?

[Veritas Aequitas]

How do you justify that Reason, that tool with which you estimate that a circle cannot be simultaneously a square, is true?

Note same sense at the same time,

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,
  e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

If you don't agree with the above law,
then produce the empirical evidence to support your claim a square-circle exists.

[Eodnhoj7]

X

[Eodnhoj7]

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'.

"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."

You said "that label" as in a specific label not "any label".

[Age]

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'.

"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."

You said "that label" as in a specific label not "any label".

Yes I did. That is EXACTLY what I said here, and which is EXACTLY what I meant here.

ANY 'label' CAN BE 'applied to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. BUT, ONLY 'those' 'labels', which have a definition that fits in PERFECTLY with the other definitions and their labels, which UNIFIES thee Universe, Itself, are the 'ones' that REALLY do SHOW and REVEAL thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and thus are the 'ones' that REALLY 'matter' here. That is; in regards to the, so called, 'Ultimate Reality'.

[psycho]

How do you justify that Reason, that tool with which you estimate that a circle cannot be simultaneously a square, is true?

Note same sense at the same time,

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,
  e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

If you don't agree with the above law,
then produce the empirical evidence to support your claim a square-circle exists.

The rules of logic are inductively inferred. They are never of absolute certainty. These rules are provisionally valid until a case is found that seriously contradicts them. The rest of the infinite time remains to see what results from its possible certainty.

One problem in trying to extract certainty from reality is confusing deduction with induction.

When one defines the structure of a system, then one can be sure that the relationships of that system will be coherent and true to the system and that what does not agree with it, will be outside that system. (in principle and without spin very fine!)

But reality does not have that restriction because we do not define its structure. We only seek to understand it.

For example, the concept "half" does not have its counterpart in reality. That we consider it that way is just a convention.

[RCSaunders]

Yes!

The material reality we perceive and know is the ultimate reality. There is nothing, "more real," or behind it and it is not contingent on anything else.

[RCSaunders]

The rules of logic are inductively inferred. They are never of absolute certainty. These rules are provisionally valid until a case is found that seriously contradicts them.

Your're absolutely certain of that?

Why would the rules of logic be invalid if a contradiction were found? It is only logic that says something and it's contradictory cannot both be true. If logic is not certain, you cannot be certain a contradiction invalidates it. Of course, logically it would, but, according to you, logic is never absolutely certain.

By the way, there is no such thing as, "inductive," logic. Logic is nothing more than the recognition of the fact that nothing can both be and not be. For example, the validity of logic cannot both be and not be.

[psycho]

The rules of logic are inductively inferred. They are never of absolute certainty. These rules are provisionally valid until a case is found that seriously contradicts them.

Your're absolutely certain of that?

Why would the rules of logic be invalid if a contradiction were found. It is only logic that says something and it's contradictory cannot both be true. If logic is not certain, you cannot be certain a contradiction invalidates it. Of course, logically it would, but, according to you, logic is never absolutely certain.

By the way, there is no such thing as, "inductive," logic. Logic is nothing more than the recognition of the fact that nothing can both be and not be. For example, the validity of logic cannot both be and not be.

For example, if an element of reality can have two characteristics that are mutually exclusive, then we should review our logical rules.

When one infers deductively, one proceeds from the general to the particular, and when one does so inductively, one proceeds from the particular to the general.

There is no way to determine a general characteristic in any element of nature.

The general characteristics are obtained by induction. I mean, by probability.

[Eodnhoj7]

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

"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."

You said "that label" as in a specific label not "any label".

Yes I did. That is EXACTLY what I said here, and which is EXACTLY what I meant here.

ANY 'label' CAN BE 'applied to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. BUT, ONLY 'those' 'labels', which have a definition that fits in PERFECTLY with the other definitions and their labels, which UNIFIES thee Universe, Itself, are the 'ones' that REALLY do SHOW and REVEAL thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and thus are the 'ones' that REALLY 'matter' here. That is; in regards to the, so called, 'Ultimate Reality'.

Then what is this label that has already been found? Is it "ultimate reality"?

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes!

The material reality we perceive and know is the ultimate reality. There is nothing, "more real," or behind it and it is not contingent on anything else.

Yet the material reality results in a progression to abstractions. If all is material then materiality progresses to abstractions therefore materiality divides and contradicts itself.

[Eodnhoj7]

How do you justify that Reason, that tool with which you estimate that a circle cannot be simultaneously a square, is true?

Note same sense at the same time,

• In logic, the law of non-contradiction (LNC) (also known as the law of contradiction, principle of non-contradiction (PNC), or the principle of contradiction) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time,
  e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. Formally this is expressed as the tautology ¬(p ∧ ¬p).
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction

If you don't agree with the above law,
then produce the empirical evidence to support your claim a square-circle exists.

The square is a loop given it has the same beginning and end points when traced.

Dually a square and circle, both inside eachother, results in the singular form of a square circle.

These points aside, you cannot argue against pure reason when relying on the law of non contradiction which is pure reason. The law is not justified empirically given one thing may be two phenomena at the same time. A lemon as grades of yellow, thus both yellow and non yellow, comes to mind.

[Age]

"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."

You said "that label" as in a specific label not "any label".

Yes I did. That is EXACTLY what I said here, and which is EXACTLY what I meant here.

ANY 'label' CAN BE 'applied to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. BUT, ONLY 'those' 'labels', which have a definition that fits in PERFECTLY with the other definitions and their labels, which UNIFIES thee Universe, Itself, are the 'ones' that REALLY do SHOW and REVEAL thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and thus are the 'ones' that REALLY 'matter' here. That is; in regards to the, so called, 'Ultimate Reality'.

Then what is this label that has already been found? Is it "ultimate reality"?

Considering we were talking about Consciousness, Itself, then in regards to 'that', then what 'that' or 'this' label is, is 'Consciousness'.

Also, it does NOT matter one iota what 'labels' are used. What Truly matters is what the 'label' refers to EXACTLY, and how the 'label' is being defined.

[Eodnhoj7]

Yes I did. That is EXACTLY what I said here, and which is EXACTLY what I meant here.

ANY 'label' CAN BE 'applied to ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'. BUT, ONLY 'those' 'labels', which have a definition that fits in PERFECTLY with the other definitions and their labels, which UNIFIES thee Universe, Itself, are the 'ones' that REALLY do SHOW and REVEAL thee ACTUAL Truth of 'things', and thus are the 'ones' that REALLY 'matter' here. That is; in regards to the, so called, 'Ultimate Reality'.

Then what is this label that has already been found? Is it "ultimate reality"?

Considering we were talking about Consciousness, Itself, then in regards to 'that', then what 'that' or 'this' label is, is 'Consciousness'.

Also, it does NOT matter one iota what 'labels' are used. What Truly matters is what the 'label' refers to EXACTLY, and how the 'label' is being defined.

Yet use is defined through the subjective angle it is applied, one label can have many meanings.

[Age]

Then what is this label that has already been found? Is it "ultimate reality"?

Considering we were talking about Consciousness, Itself, then in regards to 'that', then what 'that' or 'this' label is, is 'Consciousness'.

Also, it does NOT matter one iota what 'labels' are used. What Truly matters is what the 'label' refers to EXACTLY, and how the 'label' is being defined.

Yet use is defined through the subjective angle it is applied, one label can have many meanings.

Which was what I was POINTING OUT and SHOWING.

So, what you wrote here "eodnhoj7" is VERY, VERY True.