jump to last post 1-13 of 13 discussions (34 posts)

The Nature of Reality

  1. A.Villarasa profile image78
    A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago

    There is no observer  independent concept of Reality. Reality must always be interpreted from the vantage point  or through the prism of whoever/whatever is observing it. Thus Reality on its own  CAN NOT exist without it being perceived and interpreted by an observer,

    A case in point...if one goldfish swims inside a curved fishbowl, and another swims in a linear/rectangular fishbowl, their view of  "the reality" of the immediate world outside of their respective fishbowl would be substantially different. Could one goldfish "say" that its view of the immediate world outside of  its spherical fishbowl is TRUER or more FACTUAL(realistic?) than the view of his cohort inside the linear fishbowl?

    Physicists like to talk about the concept of "model dependent realism", i.e. a physical theory or world picture IS a model that  follows is  a set of rules that connect the elements of the model to observation.

    Physicists further posit that in the sub-atomic realm (quantum physics), a particle has neither a definite position nor a definite velocity UNLESS and UNTIL those quantities are measured by an observer.

    It is not entirely illogical to assume that  the physical laws that operates in the sub-atomic world also operates in the much larger  cosmic world.

    1. quicksand profile image84
      quicksandposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's all in your mind. Relative observation, "simultaneous" assessments ... etc. Kill your mind and nothing will exist from there onwards.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Nihilism is not going to get you closer to understanding what it is that makes you tick.

    2. couturepopcafe profile image60
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      A particle has a definite position and a definite velocity whether or not those quantities are measured by an outside observer. Nature is not moved into action or being by observation. Past and future existence is in the objects themselves and are not governed by observation. Things assume reality because of the unity maintained within a particular modification.

      Observation is within the domain of the mind. It's not possible to be both perceived and perceiver at the same time and though variegated by innumerable tendencies, the mind acts for itself. I exist because I perceive myself. If I do not perceive myself, I do not exist to myself. "I think therefore I am."

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Could you please explain what you mean by the statement:"Things assume reality because of the unity maintained within a particular modification."

      2. serroro profile image61
        serroroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Regarding the first point, I would have to disagree. Though physicists simply say that we have no way of knowing the definite position or definite velocity of a particle, they have not said that they do in fact have a definite position or definite velocity. From this, one cannot be certain that these things are definite whether or not one measures it or not. That is similar to saying "God DOES exist whether or not He has been observed/experienced/met by an outsider". We cannot say that Schrodinger's cat is in fact dead whether or not the outside observer was able to measure it or not. To come to a conclusion is illogical with things that are uncertain.

        The second argument needs clarification as well. It seems inconclusive.

      3. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this


        The second paragraph of your post is so contradictory... on one hand you said it is impossible to be both the perceived and perceiver (simultaneously).. then the next statement contradicts the first one when you said, "I exist because I perceive myself"...which from my  naive  perspective is the closest to  saying that  you are  both the perceiver and the perceived (simultaneously).

    3. kess profile image60
      kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The concept of reality needs to be clarified and separated from existence.

      When that is done, then the reality/existence relationship can be properly determined as related too personal perspective.

      Reality is ones personal perspective of existence. This reality can also be the collective perspectives of individuals.
      This start from the combination of any two and layered one on top the other with families, communities, countries until we have what is called the world.

      Existence on the other hand is the sum total of all things, coexisting as one....perfect in it's entirety, thus it it's known as Truth.

      If existence isnot seen in it's entirety, one perspective will be flawed. And to him existence is divided against itself. Now with this false he seeks to operate and coexist with those of the same mindset, thus he fears.

      From this comes everything which we consider as evil, though we try to escape, our efforts merely gets us deeper into the quagmire, because we seek to adjust the things around us rather than our individual perspective.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It is undoubtedly difficult to clarify and separate Reality  from Existence. To some, if not most folks ( who are neither naive nor clueless), Reality and Existence are one and the same thing, sp much like what Einstein said about Mass and Energy.

        To exist means to be actual, factual, and True. All of these are the same parameters that we define and measure physical reality.

        It is true of course that on the purely individual basis, what might be real to one may not necessarily be real to another. From that perspective, reality is subjective.

        Existence on the other hand is always observably objective. You either exist or you don't in so far as you and all the other material entities in the universe (or
        multiverse for that matter) are affected by the laws of physics that govern the cosmos.

        I would posit that despite the subjective/objective nature of reality/existence respectively, there is obvious Unity in that Duality, because they infer/comfer TRUTH to each other.

        1. kess profile image60
          kessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Without a common stable point of reference, which must be  absolute, there cannot be any progressive discussion.

          Now the goal is actually to work out that point of reference, now men has established certain truths in order to establish their quest...but....those truths are not absolut, thus the battle continue to rage.

          The only absolute that can be used as a point of reference is the fact that you are and you ask the question.

          Then one should realise that for existence to exist it must be completely unified, any breach of that unity will cause it to dissolve.

          Now all that is left for the questioner is to unify himself with little consideration of the perspective outwardly except how to be unified with them...for the goal is to continue with existence.

          If I man ignore these things he will continue to be tossed to and fro, seeking to learn of and from every wind of doctrine, whether it be religious or scientific.
          And he would be part and parcell of the blind leading the blind all falling into the abyss of non existance called death.

          Now while these things might sound overly technical is it all summarize in the one law of Life, if one observe it all of existence will be fulfillled in them...

          For it only need the one absolut point of reference...You.

          And your are the Truthful observation of that law for you will Live and know all of Life...

          If you do not, that man's hupocrisy is shown in his death....For ths time is come that men shall die no more.

  2. againsttheodds profile image84
    againsttheoddsposted 4 years ago

    You're getting closer.

  3. janesix profile image72
    janesixposted 4 years ago

    Not really.

  4. Cagsil profile image82
    Cagsilposted 4 years ago

    Okay, I will not agree. It doesn't mean I'm going to discuss why I disagree, so don't ask.

  5. cydro profile image95
    cydroposted 4 years ago

    That post could inspire a physicist to write a whole book about subatomic particles.  In fact, a couple of Ph.D.s got together and did just that.

    I would recommend The Quantum Challenge by Greenstein and Zajonc.  It skips a lot of the math and talks about some implications of recent experiments.  I might be wrong, but that seems to be what you're interested in.

    Also, you bring up an interesting point.  As you might know, gravity and velocity change time.  That is, a person on top of Mt Everest ages ever so slightly differently than a person on the ground.  Also, a person who travels near light speed for awhile will age slower than a person sitting on the ground.  So when observation plays such an important role with subatomic particles (google Quantum Zeno effect), some serious "nature of reality" questions come into play. 

    The latest I've seen is that you can change measurements of the past:   

    http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/04/ … eforehand/

    You guys might call bullshit, but I've read a few things on the subject and I'm a firm believer.  That's the same reasoning a person who watches a few episodes of ghosthunters has to believe in ghosts, but owell.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I am assuming that everyone agrees that  any and every event  that led to the formation of entities ( animate  and sentient) that now populate  the reality that is the universe had meaning and purpose.... purposeful entities(Observers)  that  are able to perceive and interpret Reality (be it the sub-atomic or the cosmic)  thus emparting Reality to a universe that otherwise would not have been real were it not for the perception and interpretation by  those entities.

      If one assumes this view, then would it not make logical sense to think that the creation/evolution of those  entities were pre-ordained by the laws that govern ( mathematical, chemical or a combination of both) the physical universe. Laws that from their inception, to formulation, to effectuation could not have, on their own,  produced what  those sentient/animate entities now perceive as the reality of the universe.

      Physicists, in arguing that there are no miracles, states that those laws were selected (by whoever... call him GOD...) because they were the only ones that made "sense". Since miracles are non-sensical events from the point of view of these laws... the whoever selected these laws can not possibly go against  his own Laws.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Your assumptions about sentient observation of something for it to be real are out of line.

        Did the stars that cannot be seen without a telescope not exist prior to Galileo?  Were there no bacteria prior to the microscope?  If a dog sees a tree falling on it is the tree not real because the dog isn't sentient?

        The macro world does not need any viewer to be real and it is possible that viewing the quantum world, with the interaction of sentience being a part of it, determines the reality of that world. 

        And no, there is no indication at the creation of entities had any purpose or meaning defined by any sentient being.  Any "purpose" or "meaning" is described only by the natural laws that brought them into existence and that is a far different definition of those two words than that given by a thinking entity.

        1. A.Villarasa profile image78
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Dogs are not sentient¿  Now that is stunning news to my Chinese Crest.

        2. A.Villarasa profile image78
          A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Are you suggesting that the laws of nature, meaningfully and purpusely, acting on their own, led to the creation of all that is in the universe? In ascribing meaning and purpose to the "creation" of all things in the universe( including man and othet sentient beings) by the Laws of nature, can you formulate for me what those meaning and purpose are?

      2. recommend1 profile image72
        recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The issues of what constitutes reality and qantum physics are on the front end of knowledge and so are dealing with many unknowns - this just means that as more knowledge accrues we will get a better handle on what drives the Universe,  and it will still not turn out to be some stone age myth with a wind up universal law making machine.

    2. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this


      Kindly elucidate what you are referring to when you said".... some serious 'nature of reality' questions come into play ". It would interest me no end if  these have something to do with  the "uncertainty principle".

  6. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    That's how I got to where I am in my own reality. I used a tree and three different observers of said tree. Each sees the tree from their own perspective. No one perspective is true or false. Ialso use the idea that 'I', the individual, perceive myself totally different from the perceptions that others hold concerning 'I'.  Microcosm to macrocosm.

  7. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    So...are we assuming that man is the only perceiver in the universe?

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely not.... since man is not the only sentient being on earth...and for that matter...maybe in our universe ...and other universes as well (what physicists call as the multiverse.

  8. prettydarkhorse profile image64
    prettydarkhorseposted 4 years ago

    Are you saying there is no absolute?

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      of course there are absolutes, but one must modify this statement by saying...in relation to what?

  9. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Dogs dream. They anticipate the future. They know when you are ill, they empathize ansd sympathize. The really amazing creatures are dolphins. Read a fascinating article a few months back in Discover about recent dolphin self-awareness experiments. I, as others do, believe that everything is connected. In all creation theories, none excluded, everything came to be in a step by step process. Mathematics demonstrates that, not only is everything 'Good' (Perfect), that I find it highly coincidental that Moses and math agree; and that everything is predictable. (With enough data at your disposal).  As a Medico, you know that electricity courses through our bodies, our hearts, our brains. Moving down, layer by layer to sub-atomics, we are creatures of energy. The rocks, the trees, the planets, stars and galaxies. Even thought waves themselves are energetic emanations....and they don't stay locked up. In some spectrums all humans look like flames walking around. Can't tell one from another. I see the being as , well, like an onion. People deny aura. Everything glows, we glow, the core of this glowing onion is virtually non-existant by our terms, but, it increases in size, layer by layer, right up to emcompass the entire universe. Beyond string theory, there is Brane theory, whereby all of the separate strings, each one being a variant of this reality are connected to a membrane. This isn't my theory. I simply understand it. What is a membrane. Some kind of skin? The separate strings vibrate, and now we are into quantum harmonics. This place is so strange, I think that to cross any possibility of  a Prime lifeform off is not only premature, but very imprudent. Everything is connected. E=MC2. Everything is a manifestation of energy...including consciousness. Why are we here? To become more than we are. Stop doing that, and we will no longer be who we are, for had we lacked that, we'd still be sitting in the garden, hangin' w/ the cousins and eatin' bananas all day.

    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this


      Your posts are, as usual, very perceptive. I just hope other folks on HubPages takes to them with open minds.

  10. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    Al, we live in a very strange place. The average Joe hasn't a clue how strange it really is. If there isn't something way beyond us, exerting some kind of influence, directing...then this universe is stranger yet. I have personally experienced things which defy explanation, until I began to understand, because that same understanding is coming on a world wide basis. Once that 'revelation' happens....there will no longer be any reserve to understand anything else...because, on this plane, everything will be understood. The key is in negative and positive polarity. Everything is charged, from the microcosm to the macrocosm. Even the circumstances concerning what lies beyond this mortal shell.

  11. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    I have commitment. Not everyone is as commited as I am. Sometimes my wife thinks I should be commited!smile

    Side note. Open mind=1 of the keys to heaven

  12. Druid Dude profile image60
    Druid Dudeposted 4 years ago

    The reality of our existence is this...we have more in common with Dr. Seuss' Who's (As in Horton Heard a Who) than we are willing to admit. The matter of our focus on more immediate survival is our local existence, but, on the grander scheme of things on a universal scale, we are infitismally unimportant. Standing outside and looking back, so to speak, it is easier to understand that it is all connected. I don't know what you would call this 'ability', but, it isn't exclusive. It is a fact of mankind's existence, no matter how or why it began, that our species has survived because we strive to rise above what we were, to become something more. In this context, and with the consideration in mind that, although interstellar or intergalactic civilizations have not yet been detected (and not saying that they won't be) we have to consider the idea that we will, if we stay true to form, solve the problems that are the barriers to traveling, or at least spreading our 'seed' to other worlds. Certainly couldn't do it sitting in trees. Then, we will understand what God really is...because we will be God, then. We need to conduct ourselves in a cautiously benevolent way, or instead of creators, we will be destroyers.

  13. jacharless profile image81
    jacharlessposted 4 years ago

    Captains Log: Experimental
    The subatomic realm carries no known visible definitive position, velocity, mass. However a position is based on the points between observation (i.e. the fishbowl, sphere, viewing area). A simply increase of velocity beyond the optic and one could say there is an infinite.
    The operators at the sub-atomic view are precisely those same operators of the supra-atomic world, regardless of size/magnitude of observational scope. It is those subatomic frequencies collectively that form, enable and sustain the supra atomic. Going further, the ultra-subatomic world is possibly the only realm where those parameters might change, if +1 0 -1 is applied. Are those units moving at such a velocity and weightlessness (atomic/star dust) that the are going in reverse, creating a spacial gravity that suspends those subatomic units or do they simple melt into each other and form temporary visible sub-atomic units? In short, is the universe breathing?



    1. A.Villarasa profile image78
      A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this


      In your elegant formulation, what is the role of "dark matter"  if at all? Physicist believe that most of what we perceive as empty space  inter-galactically is dark matter that is responsible for everything in the universe that could not be explained by the M-theory.

      1. A.Villarasa profile image78
        A.Villarasaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I meant to say dark energy.

        1. Robert pires profile image59
          Robert piresposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I like your question.