PDA

View Full Version : reality is in material



Pages : [1] 2 3

Aran
05-15-2002, 08:02 PM
is it, or is it not?

you decide.

jdinger
05-15-2002, 08:20 PM
Don't you mean "immaterial"?

:confused:

Or are you trying to make a pun?

ygfperson
05-15-2002, 08:21 PM
uhh....
sure.

Prelude
05-15-2002, 08:35 PM
Reality is in perception, it doesn't matter what something is, only what you believe it to be.

-Prelude

Aran
05-15-2002, 08:54 PM
i agree with prelude 98.72%.

your personally reality is dependant upon the environment of the first perception of the object.

Imperito
05-15-2002, 09:57 PM
But then if reality is perspective, then none of you really exist. Ah far as I am concerned everyone I have met here could be a fancy ASP on the cprog server.

I believe in an incomplete understanding/perception of a constant and absolute reality. At some level, there is truth.

Prelude
05-15-2002, 10:04 PM
>Ah far as I am concerned everyone I have met here could be a fancy ASP on the cprog server.
All of the regulars are. Salem, quzah (duh), myself, and various others. In reality, the creators of Cprogramming are raking in big bucks for writing these incredible AI programs which can interact in unique and amusing ways while still being able to create convincing answers to various programming questions. You would be facinated by the algorithms which define our behavior.

-Prelude

Imperito
05-15-2002, 10:08 PM
Uh oh, Skynet has become self-aware.

doubleanti
05-15-2002, 11:35 PM
>.fancy ASP on the cprog server.

Carl Voice: shut up..........

about that... you should [pro]bably know that i was a glitch in the program... and stop agr[eeing] in percentages which don't make much for decimals... don't you know that according to that one post back on the board that something approximately 82 percent of all statistics are made up on the [sphot]? c'mon now...

-mod[erat]or...
-ask aran for a proof of my existance...

napkin111
05-16-2002, 12:42 PM
Have you guys seen the Matrix? Reality is in perception of reality. What you think is real is real.

napKIN
Philosopher of sorts:p

maes
05-16-2002, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by Imperito
Uh oh, Skynet has become self-aware.
My ISP (http://www.skynet.be) ?
Better watch out because hey can be nasty sometimes

dbaryl
05-16-2002, 01:43 PM
>>I believe in an incomplete understanding/perception of a constant and absolute reality. At some level, there is truth.

I agree with this view of reality. I think that there is one reality, while OUR reality varies with our understanding/perception of it.

Whether or not you believe that I have a cup that says "I love my grandma" on my desk, that does not change it's existance... ughh, whatever.

D - Not a philosopher.

Aran
05-16-2002, 02:08 PM
i'm a relativist and you are an absolutist.

I think that what someone thinks of something is their personal truth about it, although that personal truth may be changed by a social truth's influence.

Clyde
05-16-2002, 03:01 PM
"I think that what someone thinks of something is their personal truth about it"

Well quite, but it is not the objective truth.

Unregistered
05-16-2002, 03:10 PM
Is there always a 100% objectiv truth that will always stand? I don't think so

Imperito
05-16-2002, 03:13 PM
I try to avoid discussing religion, unregged, but yes, there is truth that exists outside of perception.

Hillbillie
05-16-2002, 03:25 PM
>I try to avoid discussing religion, unregged, but yes, there is truth that exists outside of perception.<

I agree. For instance, "I exist." is true when you read that statement, is it not? It cannot be disproved, and it is surely proven by itself.

From that, you can say that "I perceive." and "I think." All of these are absolute truths which exist outside of perception. That is, if you agree thinking and the likes is not the same as perception, but that's an argument in itself...

Clyde
05-16-2002, 04:07 PM
"Is there always a 100% objectiv truth that will always stand? I don't think so"

What? Stand?

Is every percieved situation neccesarily real? No.

Is there an objective truth? Yes.

Do we "percieve" the objective truth? No.

Hillbillie
05-16-2002, 05:31 PM
Interesting answers, Clyde. Now, how did you come to those conclusions?

>Is every percieved situation neccesarily real? No.<

This really depends on your definition of real. I go with the notion that real is everything that we experience, both external and internal.

Clyde
05-16-2002, 05:34 PM
"Interesting answers, Clyde. Now, how did you come to those conclusions? "

Basic reasoning.

"This really depends on your definition of real. I go with the notion that real is everything that we experience, both external and internal."

By real i was refering to based on some external truth, IE. halucinations are not "real", but non-halucinations are.

Both may seem equally vivid to us, but one is based on reality (hence real), and the other is not.

Hillbillie
05-16-2002, 05:42 PM
>Basic reasoning.<

Not fair enough. :p Share your reasoning with us.

>By real i was refering to based on some external truth, IE. halucinations are not "real", but non-halucinations are.<

Well, see, this is where I would argue otherwise. I would say that what I perceived during this hypothetical hallucination was in fact real (to me, the perceiver, anyway - and that's all that really matters), but whether or not it [what was perceived] truly existed is something of a different sort. :)

Clyde
05-16-2002, 05:54 PM
"Not fair enough. Share your reasoning with us. "

ok....

"Is every percieved situation neccesarily real? No. "

- People can halucinate.

"Is there an objective truth? Yes. "

- Since different people in different places can measure a given propertiy and get the exact same result, there must be an objective reality (the idea that there isn't is ludicrous anyway).

"Do we "percieve" the objective truth? No."

- What we percieve with our 5 senses, is not in any-way an accurate description of the universe around us. How i see a table and how the table "is" are two very different things; all i "see" is an image made up by the brain based on how light of 400-700 nm bounces off the table.

"Well, see, this is where I would argue otherwise. I would say that what I perceived during this hypothetical hallucination was in fact real (to me, the perceiver, anyway - and that's all that really matters), but whether or not it [what was perceived] truly existed is something of a different sort."

Fair enough, though we are only differing in our definition of real. That's just semantics, my point was merely that some percieved scenarios are based on an external reality and others are not.

doubleanti
05-16-2002, 10:27 PM
about that... what's interesting to note is that physics is strickly only based on what we can observe... there is no true, only that of what we observe... and some old greek guy said that too, i forget who he was, but that our only reality is what we percieve... so... about that... it's funny you should mention about the wavelengths, since that fact is something we've reached, you guessed it, through observance... :)

Aran
05-16-2002, 10:31 PM
you don't know what is happening behind your back. You have blind faith that everything didn't turn into a ham behind you while you weren't look just to turn back into what was there last time you checked when you turn around.


no one knows what's happening when there's no one there to say what is.

Clyde
05-17-2002, 04:16 AM
"you don't know what is happening behind your back. You have blind faith that everything didn't turn into a ham behind you while you weren't look just to turn back into what was there last time you checked when you turn around. "

What drivel. Faith? Faith!? For heavens sake do you people actually THINK before speaking? Eh?

Faith is an irrational belief in the improbable.

Belief that the universe does not suddenly change when i turn my back is BASIC LOGIC; everyone elses observations do not change when i turn 90 degrees.

There is no logical reason to believe that anything magical happens when we are not directly observing a situation, everything we know about the universe points to the opposite.

It would be faith to believe that everything turned to ham, not the other way round.

Clyde
05-17-2002, 04:19 AM
"about that... what's interesting to note is that physics is strickly only based on what we can observe... "

Our observations are not limited, by our senses, so that does not pose a problem.

"and some old greek guy said that too, i forget who he was, but that our only reality is what we percieve"

We create reality in our heads, based on external stimuli. Those stimuli are based on real phenomenon, objective phonomenon.

" it's funny you should mention about the wavelengths, since that fact is something we've reached, you guessed it, through observance... "

Maybe so but there are plenty of conclusions we have reached by derivation.

Aran
05-17-2002, 05:30 AM
Clyde:

Do YOU speak before thinking? you have no idea what is happening behind your back. You have faith that the laws of physics don't change when you aren't watching. it's blind faith, there's no other words that are appropriate for it.



i think the reason why we get nowhere when we talk of reality is because we have drastically different reference frames on the matter. It's not worth argueing, because niether side will get anywhere.

Clyde
05-17-2002, 05:46 AM
"Do YOU speak before thinking? "

No....

"You have faith that the laws of physics don't change when you aren't watching. it's blind faith, there's no other words that are appropriate for it. "

No... I have EVIDENCE, and Theory supported by EVIDENCE. Hence LOGIC. Faith is an irrational belief in the improbable, believing the laws of physics do not change when i turn around is neither irrational nor improbable, it is not faith. Believeing they DO change would be faith (and utterly rediculous).

" think the reason why we get nowhere when we talk of reality is because we have drastically different reference frames on the matter. It's not worth argueing, because niether side will get anywhere."

We get nowhere because you are fundamentally ignorant of how and why the universe works, hence you imagine that there is no basis for believeing the laws of physics are consistant when in-fact nothing could be further from the truth.

There are lots of stupid questions, or rather questions that are stupid in-light of what we know today:

What sound does a 1 handed man clapping make? - 1 handed men cannot clap.

Does a tree falling in the forrest make a sound, if no one is around to hear it? - the mechanism by which sound is created has nothing whatsoever to do with the person hearing it, so yes.

doubleanti
05-17-2002, 08:24 AM
>believeing the laws of physics are consistant when in-fact nothing could be further from the truth.

touche... clyde one... aran, still questioning the number system... :)

Hillbillie
05-17-2002, 11:05 AM
>It's not worth argueing, because niether side will get anywhere.<

Why is this so? It's so because neither side out-wieghs the other. When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away. Is the idea of "life" logical? No way...

>We get nowhere because you are fundamentally ignorant of how and why the universe works<

I don't see how you know how the universe works. None of us can possibly comprehend how the universe works, or at least I see no way.

>Does a tree falling in the forrest make a sound, if no one is around to hear it? - the mechanism by which sound is created has nothing whatsoever to do with the person hearing it, so yes.<

I understand completely where you're coming from, but understand that you're not the one to say that because you aren't there to hear it. Sure, your reasoning is logical, but it cannot be proved if you are not there to hear it. Forget that, it cannot be proved anyway as it has been established it's impossible to prove anything, unless you are the person to whom you are trying to prove something to.

Clyde
05-17-2002, 11:29 AM
"When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away"

Wrong.

"I don't see how you know how the universe works"

The wonders of science.

"Sure, your reasoning is logical, but it cannot be proved if you are not there to hear it"

Irrelevant, the mechanism can be proved. My presence does not alter it.

"Forget that, it cannot be proved anyway as it has been established it's impossible to prove anything"

It is impossible to "prove" anything absolutely, Decarte pointed that one out. So we are faced with a choice, do we believe that our sense's are based on reality or are they being "faked" ala the Matrix. Given the improbability of the later, most people choose the former.

Given that choice everything I have said holds true.

Aran
05-17-2002, 01:51 PM
clyde, regarding faith, go here http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=faith

regarding other things:

this EVIDENCE was percieved by humans. You are missing the point that i am making. when no HUMAN is watching, the laws of physics might not hold true because there is to human there to percieve the things following those laws.

Aran
05-17-2002, 01:53 PM
probability of this life being real or this life just being manufactured by some machine!?!? that's ridiculous! tell me how you can calculate the probability of something like that! what numbers do you use?

Aran
05-17-2002, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Clyde
"When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away"

Wrong.


um... how do you know that it's wrong? i want to see proof, proof, and a third proof to prove the first two.

Clyde
05-17-2002, 02:27 PM
"clyde, regarding faith, go here http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=faith "

I have seen it defined in the way I stated it. Either way the key point is: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".

"this EVIDENCE was percieved by humans."

Yes....

"You are missing the point that i am making. when no HUMAN is watching, the laws of physics might not hold true because there is to human there to percieve the things following those laws"

No i'm not missing it, there is no basis for the claim you make. The laws of physics are a property of space, there is absolutely no basis for claiming they would suddenly change if human beings were not around, human beings do not in anyway influence the laws of physics.

The idea that the laws of physics change when everyone's back is turned is as rediculous as the claim that there is an invisable untouchable immutable pink fluffy dragon floating 3.67 metres above your head.

"probability of this life being real or this life just being manufactured by some machine!?!?"

No, not in anyway manufactured by a machine, manufactured by COMMON SENSE, something you seem to be lacking in.

"tell me how you can calculate the probability of something like that! what numbers do you use?"

If there are an infite number of possiblible characteristic in the universe the probability of any one taken at random being correct is one over infinity. Since you have no basis, evidence, nor theory supporting your "universe turns to ham" the probability of it being correct is an infinitely small number, in much the same way that the probability of my pink dragon is also infinitely small.

"um... how do you know that it's wrong? i want to see proof, proof, and a third proof to prove the first two."

See above.

Hillbillie
05-17-2002, 04:49 PM
>It is impossible to "prove" anything absolutely, Decarte pointed that one out. So we are faced with a choice, do we believe that our sense's are based on reality or are they being "faked" ala the Matrix. Given the improbability of the later, most people choose the former.<

Descartes also pointed out that sometimes our senses do mislead us. What's your point? It doesn't matter what most people think.

>um... how do you know that it's wrong? i want to see proof, proof, and a third proof to prove the first two.<

Echo that. Why is it wrong?

Clyde, before I go any further I'd like to state that I have the most respect for you. I just wanted to clear that before anyone starts getting their head bitten off (how most of these types of debates usually end).

>The idea that the laws of physics change when everyone's back is turned is as rediculous as the claim that there is an invisable untouchable immutable pink fluffy dragon floating 3.67 metres above your head.<

Why? You're not showing us anything solid here.

>If there are an infite number of possiblible characteristic in the universe the probability of any one taken at random being correct is one over infinity. Since you have no basis, evidence, nor theory supporting your "universe turns to ham" the probability of it being correct is an infinitely small number, in much the same way that the probability of my pink dragon is also infinitely small.<

Good point, but what you're lacking to understand here is that you're not basing any of your arguments on anything but your arguments. (I'm reminded of circular logic here.) What we are trying to say is that that 1 over infinity has the possibility to change (or lose it's "constant" value) "when we turn our back on it" (just as the "absurd" ham world) so that it can equal 1 over 8.

Chances are, I'm looking at a monitor. I seriously doubt that I am constantly being deceived by a malicious entity as Descartes put it, but there is always that possibility and that's what we are trying to say.

IMO it's damn hard (I won't say impossible) to prove an idea that is "independent" of our reality using methods that we hold true and use in our reality.

It's an opinion to say that the idea of a pink dragon floating above your head is absurd. It's your opinion.

Clyde
05-17-2002, 05:13 PM
"Descartes also pointed out that sometimes our senses do mislead us."

Yes... thats called halucination.

"Clyde, before I go any further I'd like to state that I have the most respect for you. I just wanted to clear that before anyone starts getting their head bitten off (how most of these types of debates usually end)."

I will attempt to refrain from head-biting. :)

Ok.

"Echo that. Why is it wrong? "

The reason this is wrong:

"When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away"

Is because of the way we work out reality. As i said before the universe has an infinite number of different possible characteristics, hence choosing to believe in any single characteristic without evidence or supporting theory is rediculous, because you will be wrong (we are talking an infinitely small probability, the human brain cannot concieve of such a value so people are tempted to say "well maybe" or some such, but we talking about a probabililty that puts winning the lottery every day of your 900 year life to shame!).

There is no evidence nor theory to support the "universe turns to ham" scenario, hence it is irrational to believe in it.

Now I know whats coming, you're going to say: "But there is no evidence that universe doesn't turn to ham!"

True, but we work out reality based on evidence FOR a phenomenon NOT lack of evidence disproving a phenomenon. My dragon is a perfect example of this, we have neither evidence for not against a floating fluffy dragon hovering 3.whatever metres above Aron's head, hence we do not believe in it, likewise we have neither evidence for nor against the "universe turns to ham" scenario hence we do not believe in it. In each case the probability of the dragon/ham scenario being correct is 1/infinity, thats a pretty small number, in fact an infitely small number, which can be considered to be zero.

"Good point, but what you're lacking to understand here is that you're not basing any of your arguments on anything but your arguments"

I don't think I am...

"Chances are, I'm looking at a monitor. I seriously doubt that I am constantly being deceived by a malicious entity as Descartes put it, but there is always that possibility and that's what we are trying to say. "

Well indeed there is that possiblity but its an infinitely small one. As likely as santa claus, or my fluffy dragon.

"IMO it's damn hard (I won't say impossible) to prove an idea that is "independent" of our reality using methods that we hold true and use in our reality. "

We can over-come our perceptional inaccuracies with experimentation, the only thing we assume is that our senses are not being "faked", which giving the probability is a pretty safe bet.

"It's an opinion to say that the idea of a pink dragon floating above your head is absurd. It's your opinion."

It is indeed an opinion, but one founded on logic.

Hillbillie
05-18-2002, 11:57 AM
Fair enough.

You didn't change my opinions, but you made some pretty fair arguments, so I'll give you that.

*returns to FD debating whether 1.9[repeating] is the same as 2 or not* :D

maes
05-18-2002, 12:00 PM
>>*returns to FD debating whether 1.9[repeating] is the same as 2 or not*
Everyone knows 1.9999999 is the same a 2 :D :p

Clyde
05-18-2002, 02:26 PM
"You didn't change my opinions, but you made some pretty fair arguments"

Could you tell me why I didn't change your opinions?

Aran
05-18-2002, 04:42 PM
Clyde, the laws of physics exist because people say that the laws of physics exist. The laws of physics are just a general average that the universe is percieved to flow around, there is not where in the laws of physics that it says that the laws can't be broken. When there aren't any humans around the universe will still be there and exist, but it won't follow any laws of physics.

Hillbillie
05-18-2002, 05:15 PM
>Could you tell me why I didn't change your opinions?<

Well, I can try. :)

See, you agreed that both of our arguments are simply opinions. The difference is that yours have more (a lot more) probability to be true. For me, that isn't good enough. I see it as black and white. If it's not proven, then it's simply an opinion. To me, it doesn't really matter that your opinion has more probability - it's still just an opinion to me.

For me, it doesn't matter how much you back up your opinion concerning things like the ham world or the floating dragons. Nothing (that I can think of right now) can really prove to me that the ham world or the dragon theories aren't true [or for that matter, false]. You just can't prove it with our petty scientific and reasoning methods we use in our reality.

Sorensen
05-18-2002, 05:40 PM
I'd agree that you cannot have absolute proof, so anything could be possible, but by the same token you cannot prove anything beyond our human senses so the universe is me and it's all I'll ever know (which means relying on lack of disproof to support proof pointless).

Clyde
05-18-2002, 06:55 PM
"See, you agreed that both of our arguments are simply opinions. The difference is that yours have more (a lot more) probability to be true."

You accet that my opinion is infintely more likely to be true than your own...... yet you stick to your own.

That my friend is irrational.

stevey
05-18-2002, 07:33 PM
""Why is this so? It's so because neither side out-wieghs the other. When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away. ""

:D :D :D :D :D :D

speaking of ham, we have a saying in England that you can't educate pork....why do you bother trying Clyde ???? actually i suppose it is amusing.........

""Nothing (that I can think of right now) can really prove to me that the ham world or the dragon theories aren't true [or for that matter, false]. You just can't prove it with our petty scientific and reasoning methods we use in our reality.""

get a friend to stand where he can see behind you, then when u turn away he can verify that the whole world didn't turn to ham when you turned your back on it. or look in a ****ing mirror, or set up a ****ing camcorder, or just stop being so ****ing stupid....

Hillbillie
05-18-2002, 07:58 PM
>I'd agree that you cannot have absolute proof, so anything could be possible, but by the same token you cannot prove anything beyond our human senses so the universe is me and it's all I'll ever know (which means relying on lack of disproof to support proof pointless).<

Okay. :)

>You accet that my opinion is infintely more likely to be true than your own...... yet you stick to your own.<

I never said I think your opinion is infinitely mroe likely to be true, just that I think it is more probable. By how much, means nothing (to me).

>That my friend is irrational.<

I suppose it is.

>speaking of ham, we have a saying in England that you can't educate pork....why do you bother trying Clyde ???? actually i suppose it is amusing.........<

I take offense to that. (Just so you know. I'm sure you don't care, but at least you know.)

[removed previous comment because some people can actually show respect on this thread]

fyodor
05-18-2002, 08:50 PM
If there are an infite number of possiblible characteristic in the universe the probability of any one taken at random being correct is one over infinity. Since you have no basis, evidence, nor theory supporting your "universe turns to ham" the probability of it being correct is an infinitely small number

It is absurd to make a judgment about physical reality (not dealing with alephs, etc) based on this argument, I think. To my knowledge, probabilities are not defined over the infinite set (see restrictions above), and thus your statement is completely invalid. And disregarding that, if treated in your fashion, every theory/statement/hypothesis has the 'same' probability of being true, considering 10^10^10/infinity is 'equivalent' to 1/infinity ( they are both nonsense, as is pretty much everything 'real' when infinity is treated as a number, instead of a limit)
Just my two cents worth.

stevey
05-18-2002, 09:15 PM
i'm more than capable of debating things as rationally and as carefully in sheer logic terms like Clyde does, but when there are complete idiots stating crap like this ->

""Why is this so? It's so because neither side out-wieghs the other. When you get down to it, thinking everything turns to ham when you turn away from it is no more absurd than thinking everything doesn't turn into ham when you turn away. Is the idea of "life" logical? No way... ""

and this

""you don't know what is happening behind your back. You have blind faith that everything didn't turn into a ham behind you while you weren't look just to turn back into what was there last time you checked when you turn around.

no one knows what's happening when there's no one there to say what is. ""

and the rest of the baloney.....

i see no point in wasting my fingers typing. if you can't see that you are a complete dicks then its far easier to just be rude. you deserve it. you are being complete jerks and you can't even see it. its unavoidable not to be amused by your idiotic debates about ham !!! any sensible person would be :D :D

its completely risible....

fyodor
05-18-2002, 09:41 PM
Show a little maturity, stevey. Your most recent post appears to be the one that looks like it was written by a "complete dick" and a "complete idiot" and a "complete jerk." I'd have to say it is the most rude post in this thread so far, as a matter of fact.

stevey
05-18-2002, 09:46 PM
it was meant to be.....i see no other responce to idiocy...

maturity?? whats that got to do with it???

yeah i must be the one who is a complete jerk, how silly of me to not realise the ham thing is perfectly plausible...

if you think its worthwhile trying to be reasonable about lumps of ham materialising behind you then i suppose we live in different worlds

ok i'll just go away and turn unto a piece of ham.....

aren't there ANY sane people on here ???????