What is Reality?
I was thinking the other day that most people have no idea what reality is. Why not? because they don't understand what "not reality" is. I thought for a while what "not reality" meant to me and came to a conclusion. I believe that being able to tell the difference between reality and "not reality" is to be able to tell the realize that our perceptions/senses are in fact unrelated to what is real and what is not. Most of the time i assume that all my surroundings, the things i see/hear/feel/etc. are in fact there. In fact I do this subconsciously, i don't think about how everything around me is real but i just "go with the flow". However there are times when i realize that the things around me may or may not be real, for various reasons. No I'm not talking about hallucinations, delusions, or imaginary things but rather an understanding that there is no way to prove that anything i perceive is in fact real.
Reality of Logic (Logic vs. Realtiy)
While almost everyone believes they know things the truth of the matter is that no one knows very much. People believe that they can prove things. Take for example the logic sequence: A. All dogs are mammals, B. My pet, Lily, is a dog, therefor C. Lily is a mammal. At first this may seem logical but further examination shows that this kind of proof is invalid. There are two main problems. The first being that You must first prove that "All dogs are mammals" and "My pet, Lily, is a dog" independently and secondly must prove that the two are in fact related and can produce the C "value".
Take "My pet, Lily, is a dog", before we can use this in the original statement we must first prove this. Now if you took a look at Lily you would say "What are you talking about, of course she is a dog." But the reality (and my point) of this situation is that our perceptions convince us that Lily is a dog. What if Lily really is a cat in a really good dog costume, maybe Lily is imaginary, or maybe Lily is robot. There are an infinite number possibilities were Lily isn't a dog but just seems that way. Since there is an infinite number of possibilities then there is no single piece of evidence that can cover all scenarios because there will always be the "what if this ...".
Hypothetically you have evidence so strong that there is no doubt that "A. All dogs are mammals, B. My pet, Lily, is a dog" now you must prove that these do in fact result in the C. Now this may be confusing because most people are stuck in a logic built world but consider What if A. was instead "All mammals are dogs" would C. still hold true? No and this is the similar to "all squares are rectangles but rectangles are not all squares" except that squares and rectangles are abstract ideas/objects.
First examining a statement that seems obviously true may be confusing for some so lets look at a statement that should be false. "A. President bush has a bushy tale, B. All squirrels have busy tales, therefor C. President bush must be a squirrel." Consider that one day your watching some TV and there GWB is and on top of that he has a bushy tale. Now you could use the logic statement above but consider first that you have to prove it. Could this TV image be doctored, or maybe it is part of a costume, maybe he surgically got it implanted, or maybe he really is a squirrel in a human disguised and his tale is accidentally popping out. Secondly and most importantly does the logic statement hold true if both A and B are found to be true (which is impossible but for sake of argument) ? "Logically" this would prove that bush is squirrel but only because the relation between A and B were not proven. Truthfully it is possibly for this to fail. Considering that other animals have bushy tales it is possibly that GWB could be a raccoon, a chipmunk, a dog. Just because A and B are true does not make C true and worse yet there is no way to prove that A and B will ever equal C no matter how things seem.
It is important to remember two things. the first is that this applies only to "real" things and not to abstracted things. For example Mathematical logic statements are provable because they are abstractions and we can make it true or false if we so choose because we created math rules. Secondly remember that these are ideas about realty and not abstraction which is why this only applies to the real and not abstractions.
Take "My pet, Lily, is a dog", before we can use this in the original statement we must first prove this. Now if you took a look at Lily you would say "What are you talking about, of course she is a dog." But the reality (and my point) of this situation is that our perceptions convince us that Lily is a dog. What if Lily really is a cat in a really good dog costume, maybe Lily is imaginary, or maybe Lily is robot. There are an infinite number possibilities were Lily isn't a dog but just seems that way. Since there is an infinite number of possibilities then there is no single piece of evidence that can cover all scenarios because there will always be the "what if this ...".
Hypothetically you have evidence so strong that there is no doubt that "A. All dogs are mammals, B. My pet, Lily, is a dog" now you must prove that these do in fact result in the C. Now this may be confusing because most people are stuck in a logic built world but consider What if A. was instead "All mammals are dogs" would C. still hold true? No and this is the similar to "all squares are rectangles but rectangles are not all squares" except that squares and rectangles are abstract ideas/objects.
First examining a statement that seems obviously true may be confusing for some so lets look at a statement that should be false. "A. President bush has a bushy tale, B. All squirrels have busy tales, therefor C. President bush must be a squirrel." Consider that one day your watching some TV and there GWB is and on top of that he has a bushy tale. Now you could use the logic statement above but consider first that you have to prove it. Could this TV image be doctored, or maybe it is part of a costume, maybe he surgically got it implanted, or maybe he really is a squirrel in a human disguised and his tale is accidentally popping out. Secondly and most importantly does the logic statement hold true if both A and B are found to be true (which is impossible but for sake of argument) ? "Logically" this would prove that bush is squirrel but only because the relation between A and B were not proven. Truthfully it is possibly for this to fail. Considering that other animals have bushy tales it is possibly that GWB could be a raccoon, a chipmunk, a dog. Just because A and B are true does not make C true and worse yet there is no way to prove that A and B will ever equal C no matter how things seem.
It is important to remember two things. the first is that this applies only to "real" things and not to abstracted things. For example Mathematical logic statements are provable because they are abstractions and we can make it true or false if we so choose because we created math rules. Secondly remember that these are ideas about realty and not abstraction which is why this only applies to the real and not abstractions.
Realty of Perceptions (Perceptions vs. Realty)
Considering the previous post that you can prove anything a discussion of our perceptions is in order. It is necessary because perceptions (sight, hearing, taste, touch, smell) are considered to be evidence that to most is not questionable. For example in my previous post a gave the statement, "My pet, Lily, is a dog" and if you saw Lily you may have no doubt in your mind that she is. Unfortunately this, as I stated, must be proved and our perceptions of Lily is not sufficient evidence. Just because all your senses are giving you evidence that Lily is in fact a dog does not prove that she is. It has been shown over and over again that this is the unfortunate the truth. Consider that a really good robot dog was made were all the in sides were robot but it was covered with fur (that smelled and tasted of real fur), it used a recording of a dog bark, and its actions imitated that of a dog. In this situation (which is not unrealistic considering the animatronics of today) all of your senses would tell you Lily was a dog but truthfully she was not. If that example went over your head consider perhaps Lily is a hallucination then it should be obvious that your perceptions are in fact not strong enough evidence to prove something.
Now lets consider what our perceptions really are. For me (and hopefully most of you) my perceptions are sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. while I will never know if these are things that are actually real i do know that i am experiencing them. Keep in mind that experience of a sense does not correlate with it actually existing. I know that I remember my perceptions. Also keep in mind that memory of something does not mean you actually experienced that sense (memory is another discussion though). Lastly i want to add that i experience emotions. There are times were i feel angry, happy, or at piece. I have put some thought into it and have concluded that emotions are an additional sense. Consider that dogs sense of smell is much greater than ours. It is also theorized that dogs can sense peoples emotions. For those lucky enough to own a great dog they will understand what i am talking about. In addition you remember emotions exactly as you remember how something smells. You may recall having a discussing in which you felt angry but may not remember exactly what was said. Experience of these things (not accuracy) of these things are the only earthly thing one can be sure of (and still cannot prove to another).
Now lets consider what our perceptions really are. For me (and hopefully most of you) my perceptions are sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. while I will never know if these are things that are actually real i do know that i am experiencing them. Keep in mind that experience of a sense does not correlate with it actually existing. I know that I remember my perceptions. Also keep in mind that memory of something does not mean you actually experienced that sense (memory is another discussion though). Lastly i want to add that i experience emotions. There are times were i feel angry, happy, or at piece. I have put some thought into it and have concluded that emotions are an additional sense. Consider that dogs sense of smell is much greater than ours. It is also theorized that dogs can sense peoples emotions. For those lucky enough to own a great dog they will understand what i am talking about. In addition you remember emotions exactly as you remember how something smells. You may recall having a discussing in which you felt angry but may not remember exactly what was said. Experience of these things (not accuracy) of these things are the only earthly thing one can be sure of (and still cannot prove to another).
Property Vs. Reality
Property. A great, great mystery to me. While it is ingrained in most of us that either we own something or we don't this is far from the truth. You see everything has properties, like color, smell, and texture. For example an apple has a red color, it has a weight of 10 grams, and dimensions 3 x 4 X 3 inches, etc. It is important to note that these properties are subject to change. While i have not thought through all the possible properties or whether there is a common set of properties for all objects it seems that most properties are related to our senses, not completely but at least retaliated.
Now consider ownership; is ownership a property of an object? Before i scream no lets consider that all objects have some property of ownership. When we look at an object can is there a general/common way to see who it belongs to? Is there any common way to tell the owner through smell or touch? Using our senses there is no way to tell who it belongs to... if it is in an isolated environment. In a non-isolated environment the ownership of an object could be deduced by its surroundings... but i think this cannot be considered a method of finding an objects property.
Now we are still considering that there is a property that shows ownership but lets dive deeper to see if we can find it. What about our emotions. Now i claim that emotions are just another sense, in this case the argument above would show that our senses cannot lead us to finding the ownership property, but lets consider that its not. if you look at an object is there any way to "feel" that it belongs to a certain person? It could be argued that yes, you can "feel" who something belongs to but it is important to consider why this may be true. In this case any "feeling" would be there result of a memory, that this emotion is being dredged up because of some memory. Meaning that it would really be the result of memory and not emotions.
So last on the list... memory. Do our memories hold the property of ownership for objects? before answering lets review... our senses cannot tell us about ownership, our emotions cannot tell us about ownership and if memory cant either then this would mean that nothing belongs to anybody. Memory is complicated because no one remembers everything. Additionally are we considering an individuals memory or the collective memory of everyone? However the answer is simple because how would one remember that an object belongs to one person? Through an initial experiences where they used there senses. thus if our sense and our senses give us no information out ownership then there is no way to initially remember what belongs to whom.
So now I've shown that there is no way for any person to know what belongs to who. that includes the things they think they own. For example, one person my think they own a car, but why? because they mislead themselfs and now because of there memories they conclude that a priticular car belongs to them. What does this mean? Can we all just go take anything we want because it doesn't belong to anybody. Well this all depends on what else you believe. I believe that there is only one god, allah. because of this my take on ownership extends into my relgion. thus i believe that all objects belong to god. also this conclusion works well with my belief because god holds the ownership property; god knows what belongs to who. Now i believe that everything belongs to god because he created it and everything i "own" has really just been lent to me, but there is no way for any human to know what belongs to another human. this is also interesting because my relgion believes that if you find something (say for example you find a quareter on the ground) you are to just leave it because as a human we have no knowledge of who it belongs to and what will happen to it in the future.
Now consider ownership; is ownership a property of an object? Before i scream no lets consider that all objects have some property of ownership. When we look at an object can is there a general/common way to see who it belongs to? Is there any common way to tell the owner through smell or touch? Using our senses there is no way to tell who it belongs to... if it is in an isolated environment. In a non-isolated environment the ownership of an object could be deduced by its surroundings... but i think this cannot be considered a method of finding an objects property.
Now we are still considering that there is a property that shows ownership but lets dive deeper to see if we can find it. What about our emotions. Now i claim that emotions are just another sense, in this case the argument above would show that our senses cannot lead us to finding the ownership property, but lets consider that its not. if you look at an object is there any way to "feel" that it belongs to a certain person? It could be argued that yes, you can "feel" who something belongs to but it is important to consider why this may be true. In this case any "feeling" would be there result of a memory, that this emotion is being dredged up because of some memory. Meaning that it would really be the result of memory and not emotions.
So last on the list... memory. Do our memories hold the property of ownership for objects? before answering lets review... our senses cannot tell us about ownership, our emotions cannot tell us about ownership and if memory cant either then this would mean that nothing belongs to anybody. Memory is complicated because no one remembers everything. Additionally are we considering an individuals memory or the collective memory of everyone? However the answer is simple because how would one remember that an object belongs to one person? Through an initial experiences where they used there senses. thus if our sense and our senses give us no information out ownership then there is no way to initially remember what belongs to whom.
So now I've shown that there is no way for any person to know what belongs to who. that includes the things they think they own. For example, one person my think they own a car, but why? because they mislead themselfs and now because of there memories they conclude that a priticular car belongs to them. What does this mean? Can we all just go take anything we want because it doesn't belong to anybody. Well this all depends on what else you believe. I believe that there is only one god, allah. because of this my take on ownership extends into my relgion. thus i believe that all objects belong to god. also this conclusion works well with my belief because god holds the ownership property; god knows what belongs to who. Now i believe that everything belongs to god because he created it and everything i "own" has really just been lent to me, but there is no way for any human to know what belongs to another human. this is also interesting because my relgion believes that if you find something (say for example you find a quareter on the ground) you are to just leave it because as a human we have no knowledge of who it belongs to and what will happen to it in the future.
More On the Reality of Our Perception
I think in my original post about perceptions i suggested that most people haven't experienced many times when there perceptions were misleading them so i would like to present some examples to those who haven't.
The other day i was reading my physics text book and they gave a brilliant example for me to share. Consider it is a very cold day. you are out side and you aren't wearing anything... would you rather sit on a metal bench or on a wooden bench? While the metal bench feels colder then the wooden bench in reality they are the same temperature.
Now lets say your driving down the road very, very slowly, almost not moving at all (i.e. 2 miles an hour). Now a car zooms past you going 200 miles an hour. Now you are in a car going 200 miles an hour and a car passes you at 201 miles per hour... which car seemed to be going faster? If your honest with yourself you know that the 200 mile an hour car passing the 2 mile an hour car was perceived as going much faster. what is also important to note that if you are in a completely isolated environment (i.e. a completely white room with only just the cars) the 201 mile will literally look as if it is going slower.
Now these are two different types of examples, but why? in the second our perceptions mislead us because of a comparison but in the first our perceptions mislead us because... well i'll leave that for you to figure out.
The other day i was reading my physics text book and they gave a brilliant example for me to share. Consider it is a very cold day. you are out side and you aren't wearing anything... would you rather sit on a metal bench or on a wooden bench? While the metal bench feels colder then the wooden bench in reality they are the same temperature.
Now lets say your driving down the road very, very slowly, almost not moving at all (i.e. 2 miles an hour). Now a car zooms past you going 200 miles an hour. Now you are in a car going 200 miles an hour and a car passes you at 201 miles per hour... which car seemed to be going faster? If your honest with yourself you know that the 200 mile an hour car passing the 2 mile an hour car was perceived as going much faster. what is also important to note that if you are in a completely isolated environment (i.e. a completely white room with only just the cars) the 201 mile will literally look as if it is going slower.
Now these are two different types of examples, but why? in the second our perceptions mislead us because of a comparison but in the first our perceptions mislead us because... well i'll leave that for you to figure out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)