Any physical theory of reality seems a long way off from consciousness, no matter how wavey it is.
And terrible editing.
Yes, how great it would be to have a Cmd-Z (undo),
2 Likes
So it seems, but the solution could be shockingly simple once it’s discovered or understood how experiences arise of what things are like.
They said the same thing about string theory.
Consciousness is a hard problem.
Once we come to grips with the cold hard truth that we have absolutely no understanding of the nature of time, and if we then consider some basic brute facts about our relationship with time, it becomes very evident that reality is not at all as it seems to be.
No man steps into the same river twice. The river is not the same river and the man is not the same man.
What ‘we’ are aware of has already happened, and thus gone. By the time ‘we’ perceive something, it has already happened and disappeared.
Now, some people call what ‘is happening’ ‘reality’, but this is not Correct. For ‘the reason’ I said above, and for the fact that even ‘we’ are living in the time when “witches” were being killed, because they were “witches”, then ‘this’ would be ‘reality’, and if ‘this’ is ‘reality’, then ‘we’ should still be killing “witches”.
Some people might be thinking, ‘now’, but there are no “witches”, and for those who are, ‘this current world’ that ‘you’ are living in ‘now’, when this is being written, has children being abused by parents and adults, and has children killed, by bombs and starvation, again by adults. So, if the word ‘reality’ refers to what ‘is happening’ ‘now’, then ‘reality’ is children will ‘have to’ be abused and killed by adults forever more. Unless, of course, ‘reality’ is something that change.
Is the ‘Nature of Reality’ changeable?
Now, I have explained what ‘reality’ is NOT. But, if anyone would like to know what ‘Reality’ is, exactly, precisely, or concretely then let ‘us’ have a Truly open and honest logically reasoned, peaceful discussion.
Perhaps. I personally think it is possible to figure it out. Not sure how likely we’d be to do so though.
What I mean by reality is the entirety of everything that exists. And things that exist are just things that leave a trace of themselves.
I like to think my idea of time is pretty close to how it works in reality by virtue of it being not only internally coherent (with as few assumptions as possible), but also consistent with everything we know. I can’t prove anything though so sure I suppose we “have no idea.”
Well, one can witness an event while it is happening. But even when we can’t, there is always a trace of an event happening.
Both the points in time you mentioned are part of broader reality. Just at different times.
Exactly. For any given point in time t, local reality is the current state of everything at t.
You can combine this with my definition of reality:
Now, time can be included in reality, since time exists. But time cannot exist at a point in time, so including time in reality suggests that such reality would lose its ability to change, leading it to be something like a still image of everything at every given point in time. That’s the fullest reality. The widest angle if you will. The broader reality I am talking about.
Still when taking a chunk of that reality, we get local reality again and thus time, which is basically just change of state.
That’s my view on this. What do you think?
It.makes no difference to physics wherher Time exists or not.
What is your idea of time?
Then physicists are not interested in the nature of reality.
you missed ‘the point’.
This is further proof that you missed my point.
So, to you, there is a lesser or narrower reality, and a so-called ‘broader reality’.
Now to “jkem33” there is another reality, with this one being called and known as ‘local reality’.
What happens if we do not like ‘reality’, should we then change reality?
What do you mean by ‘time’, exactly?
And, if ‘time’ exists, then, of course, under your own personal definition of ‘reality’ here, the ‘time’ would also have to be included in ‘your reality’.
All you are essentially saying and meaning is Everything is reality.
‘your view’ does not fit in with the G.U.T.O.E.
Time is simply sequencing. Or a change of state. The speed at which this change takes place is more so related to space and its particular state.
What is your quandary on time?
Okay, can you restate your point for me please?
Lesser is the wrong word here. I used the word local. Just like a slice of cake is still cake… yes.
They are not different realities. One is a part of the other. It’s like changing viewpoint. Or better yet, the cake and its slice example fits well.
I am not sure what is the point of this question. It seems based on a misunderstanding of the distinction above.
Right.
No, “Everything is reality” is not accurate. Rather, “Reality is everything that exists.” You may prefer the following phrasing: “reality is the set of everything that exists.”
First, it seems you misunderstood me. But either way, you’d have to explain how it doesn’t fit under that.
Actually, I’d like to understand what exactly G.U.T.O.E is. If it is considered factual or theoretical (or which parts of it are and what they claim). If my understanding of things is inconsistent with a known fact, I’d love to update my beliefs based on the evidence. But I must be careful that the inconsistency isn’t just a perceived one from you, but rather an actual issue.
At the moment when what was being observed/experiecend is actually grasped what was being observed/experienced has already disappeared and changed.
It takes a while for information from the eyes, and the other senses, to reach the brain, where it is processed, analysed and ultimately integrated into consciousness. Due to this delay, the information available to conscious experience is always outdated.
What I replied to was you actually saying and using the words “broader reality”. So, if ‘lesser’ is the wrong word here, then ‘narrower’ would be the right word or suffice, correct?
Okay. So it is just ‘you’ who has three different words for the ONE reality.
And what about the other one?
Only if and when ‘you’ inform ‘us’ of how large and/or small ‘local’ and ‘broader’ are, exactly.
Could it not be ‘you’ misunderstanding?
At ‘what moment’, exactly?
When?
Do dinosaurs exist, for example?
Could it be a possibility that ‘I’ have understood ‘you’, and maybe understood a bit more here as well?
But you have already decided and concluded what ‘reality’ is, right?
What ‘inconsistency’ are you talking about and referring to here, exactly?
You know “sequencing” is an act of putting things into an order, whereas “change of state” is free of any necessary order. So the two are very different. So which do you think time is, the act by which one state becomes another, or the act by which things are placed into a specific order?
I think time is very complicated.
If I am to phrase things the way you proposed, I’d say time is “the event by which one state becomes another.” The order doesn’t matter so much to the core concept of time, since time is change to me. But it’ll still follow a certain sequence by virtue of the rules that govern the change. At least that is what we observe in the real world.
Okay, well I can’t really add much to that haha
The truth value of your claim rests on what you define an event as. It is all contextual and relative to the viewpoint you adopt. Here is why:
- Approach 1: If you define an event in reality as the smallest unit of change conceivable (an infinitely small time window), then of course what you are saying is true. It always takes time for information to be processed, at least for us living beings. So in that sense, what is being observed is always observed with a delay relative to when it happened. True.
- Approach 2: One could refer to an event as the occurrence of some change across the full time window required for said change to complete itself. Consider the even: jumping in the air. I can experience that event while it is happening because the event is not over until I have reached the ground again. And the processing speed of me leaving the ground is much faster than the speed at which I will make contact with it again. So from that viewpoint, I am experiencing jumping while it is happening, even if the first wave of input I get when initiating the jump is delayed.
You are reasoning under approach 1. And under that approach, I agree. The reason why I originally objected is because one could reason under approach 2 as well. Well, I don’t care either way, but I am curious how does this insight play into the topic at hand, which is the nature of reality?
I think the cake example makes the idea fairly clear. But sure, the word narrower works I guess.
I care more about ideas than words. There is one specific idea I am trying to explain here. I am using words that I find appropriate to hammer down a specific meaning. My hope is that one would take the average common meaning of these words to strengthen their understanding of the concept.
If you find it confusing, that is fine. I will try to do better. But broader reality is just a way to refer to the whole cake, while local or narrower reality if you want, refers to a slice. These aren’t two different realities, just like they would not be two different cakes.
The other one is the whole that the smaller part came out of. I am having trouble believing that you did not understand that the first time. This question sounds a lot more confrontational than anything else. Your tone as well…
Tell me how big the slices of the cake you have not cut yet are. A slice could be a year, a month, a second, a nano-second, or a century. There is no objective slice to a cake until someone comes around and arbitrarily slices it.
And no one would ask “how big is the whole cake relative to itself?” Broader reality is 100% of reality, just like the whole cake is 100% of the cake.
You tell me.
At all moments. That’s why it is 100% of everything.
You can take a slice of that and say that the slice represents everything that exists between whatever time t1 and whatever other time t2. Or you could decide not to take a slice, and then again, it would be the set of everything that exists at all times.
Sure.
So now you are trying to frame me as closed-minded for absolutely 0 reason? I have an opinion. Just like you do. That’s about it.
But I like to think my opinion on this particular topic is grounded in honest and rational truth seeking endeavor.
Just tell me what G.U.T.O.E is and why you think my take on reality does not align with that.