First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
What is the nature of reality?
Banned
31569 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / The Void.
Offline
Posted 1/31/13
What do you think the nature of reality is?

The holographic universe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpU&list=HL1359679701
65283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 1/31/13
"The quantum mind–body problem refers to the philosophical discussions of the mind–body problem in the context of quantum mechanics. Since quantum mechanics involves quantum superpositions, which are not perceived by observers, some interpretations of quantum mechanics place conscious observers in a special position".

"The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others".

I for one believe time is not linear but that we as humans are limited in our ability to perceive it as anything but linear do to our biological limitations (4th dimensional brain). I am also a firm believer in the Multiverse theory. Every action creates an alternate time line which can be considered an alternate reality or universe. This is due to the nature of observation on reality and that every choice has an infinite amount of outcomes. For those interested in these topics I highly suggest reading Greg Bears "The City at the End of Time". While fiction I believe it to be one of the finest works regarding timelines and the nature of the universe. It's also kick ass hard sci-fi with a dose of Clive Barker-ish dark fantasy thrown in for good measure. If that book doesn't tweak your melon well then I don't know what will....
23483 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Delaware
Offline
Posted 1/31/13

moneygrip3030 wrote:


tehstud wrote:

WTF? ^


That's the whole point man, WTF is really going on up in this piece?


That's some deep shit coming from Ashley Schaeffer.
65283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 1/31/13

turborobo wrote:


moneygrip3030 wrote:

"The quantum mind–body problem refers to the philosophical discussions of the mind–body problem in the context of quantum mechanics. Since quantum mechanics involves quantum superpositions, which are not perceived by observers, some interpretations of quantum mechanics place conscious observers in a special position".

"The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes," among others".

I for one believe time is not linear but that we as humans are limited in our ability to perceive it as anything but linear do to our biological limitations (4th dimensional brain). I am also a firm believer in the Multiverse theory. Every action creates an alternate time line which can be considered an alternate reality or universe. This is due to the nature of observation on reality and that every choice has an infinite amount of outcomes. For those interested in these topics I highly suggest reading Greg Bears "The City at the End of Time". While fiction I believe it to be one of the finest works regarding timelines and the nature of the universe. It's also kick ass hard sci-fi with a dose of Clive Barker-ish dark fantasy thrown in for good measure. If that book doesn't tweak your melon well then I don't know what will....


Sounds real smarty pants so you might have to believe it.

How about we chalk it all up to different perspectives on reality coming from each conscious mind? Makes more sense than multiverses theories and other clever, but utterly useless, ideas.


Well there's no such thing as a useless idea. That's just arrogance, but yes everyone take on reality is different because it's filtered through your mind and experience. The point of the thread was to examine reality in a bit more esoteric and theoretical manner....
65283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 1/31/13

tehstud wrote:


moneygrip3030 wrote:


tehstud wrote:

WTF? ^


That's the whole point man, WTF is really going on up in this piece?


That's some deep shit coming from Ashley Schaeffer.


Whooo!
65283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 1/31/13

turborobo wrote:




If we are assholes for being right, then we are in the highest echelon of assholes.

I have no interpretation reality, as all I stated was the simple and irrefutable definition of reality.

Philosophy is meant to teach wisdom, but what is so wise about taking a philosopher's word for what is true? The only real wisdom is gained from experience. Philosophy often trails off into the bedwetting of self-denial in order to appear upright. When the hallucinatory religious part creeps into it, that's a cue for the people who are "meant to be in control" to stop listening, i.e. blue bloods and "upper crust" people.

As for mine or anyone's beliefs, where does belief, besides justifiable true belief, defined by believing what can be proven, have any place in reality? Why even use the term belief, since it will likely be confused for holding a religious perspective as being true over all others with the possible willingness to die for that idea called fanaticism?


Props, That was a very insightful and well thought out argument. I find no faults with your logic as it is yours and thus true to you. Well played sir!
a619ko 
18192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M
Offline
Posted 1/31/13
I wana build a spaceship that goes zoooooommmmm and just travel through space. and stuff.
45051 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
55 / M / Hawaii
Offline
Posted 1/31/13
My version of the nature of reality is that we all see only a fraction with our senses and our mind and our soul. I'm content with that.
65283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 1/31/13

turborobo wrote:


moneygrip3030 wrote:


turborobo wrote:




If we are assholes for being right, then we are in the highest echelon of assholes.

I have no interpretation reality, as all I stated was the simple and irrefutable definition of reality.

Philosophy is meant to teach wisdom, but what is so wise about taking a philosopher's word for what is true? The only real wisdom is gained from experience. Philosophy often trails off into the bedwetting of self-denial in order to appear upright. When the hallucinatory religious part creeps into it, that's a cue for the people who are "meant to be in control" to stop listening, i.e. blue bloods and "upper crust" people.

As for mine or anyone's beliefs, where does belief, besides justifiable true belief, defined by believing what can be proven, have any place in reality? Why even use the term belief, since it will likely be confused for holding a religious perspective as being true over all others with the possible willingness to die for that idea called fanaticism?


Props, That was a very insightful and well thought out argument. I find no faults with your logic as it is yours and thus true to you. Well played sir!


You can argue with anything, so why not try finding the faults? They are there if you chose to root them out, but what did you do instead just a moment ago? Sarcasm in place of any real effort. If that's the way you see the reality of debate, then I won't try to alter it.


Why So Serious?. I'm not here to argue and nitpick every little detail of what you think constitutes reality, and contrary to what you may believe everything you said was your own personal opinion. BTW I was not being sarcastic I was being sincere. I was really complimenting what I thought was a well thought out statement. Relax it's not an MMA fight....
65283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 1/31/13

a619ko wrote:

I wana build a spaceship that goes zoooooommmmm and just travel through space. and stuff.


So do I. I really really do!
Posted 1/31/13

moneygrip3030 wrote:


turborobo wrote:


moneygrip3030 wrote:


turborobo wrote:




If we are assholes for being right, then we are in the highest echelon of assholes.

I have no interpretation reality, as all I stated was the simple and irrefutable definition of reality.

Philosophy is meant to teach wisdom, but what is so wise about taking a philosopher's word for what is true? The only real wisdom is gained from experience. Philosophy often trails off into the bedwetting of self-denial in order to appear upright. When the hallucinatory religious part creeps into it, that's a cue for the people who are "meant to be in control" to stop listening, i.e. blue bloods and "upper crust" people.

As for mine or anyone's beliefs, where does belief, besides justifiable true belief, defined by believing what can be proven, have any place in reality? Why even use the term belief, since it will likely be confused for holding a religious perspective as being true over all others with the possible willingness to die for that idea called fanaticism?


Props, That was a very insightful and well thought out argument. I find no faults with your logic as it is yours and thus true to you. Well played sir!


You can argue with anything, so why not try finding the faults? They are there if you chose to root them out, but what did you do instead just a moment ago? Sarcasm in place of any real effort. If that's the way you see the reality of debate, then I won't try to alter it.


Why So Serious?. I'm not here to argue and nitpick every little detail of what you think constitutes reality, and contrary to what you may believe everything you said was your own personal opinion. BTW I was not being sarcastic I was being sincere. I was really complimenting what I thought was a well thought out statement. Relax it's not an MMA fight....


65283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 1/31/13
Why hasn't the all knowing cosmic being known as Vega said nary a peep since he started this thread. Come on dude you were on my ass about the all knowing all seeing nature of reality on a totally unrelated post. Come at me bro!
Posted 1/31/13

-Vega- wrote:

What do you think the nature of reality is?

The holographic universe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBt_yfGKpU&list=HL1359679701


506 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / Bakersfield
Offline
Posted 2/2/13
Correct me if I am wrong and if this has been said already I do apologize. However, if we are really trying to discuss the nature of reality there are a few things that need to be established. The first thing that I would like to know is what we mean by reality. Yes I gather that there may be multiple universes in this realm of existence, by existence I mean the tangible world that we are in currently, but this does not necessarily confirm nor deny our reality.

This is where I could be wrong but, I will argue that the nature of reality, whatever that may be, will reside in purpose and how and if it develops. What I mean is that if we are to think about reality we will need to consider our position within the cosmos. That is the only way that we will be able to consider the nature of reality.

We might not even be able to comprehend the idea of reality, all we can do is make our best guess as to what it is. I will also argue that in order for us to understand our reality we would first need to be outside our own reality looking at it from an objective point of view, rather than a subjective point of view; but again, this will all depend on purpose.
65283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / N.C.
Offline
Posted 2/2/13
First question: Is your cat alive or dead, or both... get back to me and then we'll talk...
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.