Can you prove Reality, exists (without refering to reality)?

[Gottservant]

This is just a simple twist on the "prove God exists" argument.

Can you prove that Reality exists? Can you prove it, without referring to reality, as this would be considered cheating...

Theoretically, you should be able to prove there is such a thing as Reality, that people live in it, that it has meaning, all without depending on the thing you are talking about ("Reality") to justify what you believe, right?

It's just a simple twist, on the old idea, but I think you'll find it is quite hard.

EDIT: For the sake of clarity, I put here the "important" (according to posters) point that the definition I am using is that "reality is something which refers to itself" - this definition I see evidenced in the fact that almost everyone in this thread at some point attempts to define reality as their experience of it (ie. it is reality, because "I experienced it" as reality).

In other words, I am saying "can you define reality, as something other than that which refers to itself?". Needless to say, objectors will rebutt that saying "reality is what they experience" in no way suggests that (this) "experience" is self-referentially _invalid_. To this I reply that I am not attempting to invalidate "experience" but rather broaden the functional definition of the sphere in which that experience operates: as a thought experiment, if nothing else.

EDIT #2: I do apologize that I began to call into question people's definition of God, in light of what may or may not be problematic attitudes to reality, but my motive was being unduly questioned and I thought being plain about the fact that standards of proof for God should be consistent with reality was the best alternative. You may choose to disagree.

EDIT #3: I point out, since I have this opportunity, the useful Wisdom that "no definition of reality that does not refer to itself, is easily remembered".

As I said at some point in the thread, I was asking the impossible, but as this Wisdom shows, even the impossible is definable.

 

[quatona]

This is just a simple twist on the "prove God exists" argument.

Can you prove that Reality exists? Can you prove it, without referring to reality, as this would be considered cheating...

You´d first have to give me the meaning of "reality" in which you use it in your question (and also tell whether the capitalization is of any signficance - IOW is there a difference between "reality" and "Reality", in your terminology).

Personally, I understand the word "reality" as the sum of "all that exists" - so "reality exists" would be word salad if applying my use of the term.

Now maybe what you mean to ask is "Can you prove that anything at all exists?"?

For all practical purposes, there´s a litmus test to check out whether someone´s proposal that there exists nothing at all has any credibility:
I´ll punch you on the nose. When you complain, you apparently aren´t too serious about your claim that nothing at all exists.

Or, IOW, the mere fact that you post here, ask a question and expect an answer is a demonstration that you are presupposing there to be some sort of reality. You may, however, propose that this event is just an illusion on my part (or part of the general illusion that there is a reality) in which case the fact that this question has been asked would be an illusion, in the first place. So, strangely enough, you´d posit that nothing exists at all, but in the same step ask me to take this illusion seriously.

In again other words, the statement "Nothing exists at all (there is no reality)" is cancelling itself out. Hence the idea that something exists (i.e. there is a reality) has become axiomatic.

Thus, if you are determined to chop off the very branch you are sitting on, by all means go ahead and do it.


On another note, of course the statement "Does reality exist?" is a completely different category than "Does God exist?", since the latter actually asks "Is God part of reality?" (i.e. in oder for to contemplate on this question you already have accepted that there is a reality), while "Is reality part of reality?" would be, again, word salad.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Can you prove that Reality exists? Can you prove it, without referring to reality, as this would be considered cheating...

Why would that be cheating? I don't see any vicious circularity there. If you wanted to prove the existence of a fire-breathing dragon, showing me one would be the best way to do so.

I think that quatona has hit the nail on the head that the existence of reality (that is, of something) is axiomatic. Any attempt to deny that implicitly asserts the truth of the statement that something exists, since the denial (and, presumably, a denier) exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

Hmmm... reality is axiomatic because denial is self-referential. That works on someone who is too weak-willed to pose an alternative, but I can easily do that: only something other than reality exists - true or false?

 

[quatona]

Hmmm... reality is axiomatic because denial is self-referential. That works on someone who is too weak-willed to pose an alternative, but I can easily do that: only something other than reality exists - true or false?

Not only is it not right, it is not even wrong. (Pauli)
You postulate that that which exists is not real, and that what is real doesn´t exist - i.e. that being real and existing are mutually exclusive?
By any definition of "real" and "existing" that I am familiar with this is plain nonsense.
I think it´s time for you to provide the definition of your terms by which your postulate might become intelligible.

 

[juvenissun]

For all practical purposes, there´s a litmus test to check out whether someone´s proposal that there exists nothing at all has any credibility:
I´ll punch you on the nose. When you complain, you apparently aren´t too serious about your claim that nothing at all exists.

I believe you have been physically hurt one way or another in your life. Now, does that hurt still exist? Or was it only a memory which is no longer real?

When you consider TIME as a factor, then how do you argue that anything really "exists"?

 

[Eudaimonist]

I believe you have been physically hurt one way or another in your life. Now, does that hurt still exist? Or was it only a memory which is no longer real?

When you consider TIME as a factor, then how do you argue that anything really "exists"?

This is a bizarre argument.

A memory exists, even if one remembers something that no longer exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[KCfromNC]

Hmmm... reality is axiomatic because denial is self-referential. That works on someone who is too weak-willed to pose an alternative, but I can easily do that: only something other than reality exists - true or false?

Neither. If something other exists, then it is reality.

What you're really asking here is "how accurate is our understanding of reality?". And then that gets back into the previous responses of relating our description of reality with observation.

 

[quatona]

I believe you have been physically hurt one way or another in your life.

As of know, both my achilles heels hurt.
What do you mean - "you", "I", "life", "physical"? Are you talking about some sort of reality, or is this just non-existent babble in the absence of anything?

Now, does that hurt still exist? Or was it only a memory which is no longer real?

I´m either not understanding your question, or I am completely clueless what it has to do with anything.
Are you suggesting that it was a memory back then? What was being memorized, who memorized it? What is a memory, in your understanding?
Are you suggesting that the fact that something is memorized there never was anything?
Are you, by any chance, making the argument that just because everything is in permanent change and transformation there is nothing at all? If so, I fail to see how that follows. For there to be change and transformation there would have to be something.

Please clarify.

When you consider TIME as a factor, then how do you argue that anything really "exists"?

Apparently you make a distinction between "existing" and "really existing" (with "really existing" coming with additional standards). Care to clarify?
And what´s next? "Really real existence?" "Truly really real existence?"

And when you ask me to consider "TIME" (no idea if the all-caps is supposed to distinguish it from ordinary "time"), are you arguing from something non-existing?

And just to make sure you are not barking up the wrong tree: I am not arguing that our concepts of reality are necessarily accurate. I am merely arguing against the non-concept that there is nothing at all.

 

[quatona]

I believe you have been physically hurt one way or another in your life. Now, does that hurt still exist? Or was it only a memory which is no longer real?

When you consider TIME as a factor, then how do you argue that anything really "exists"?

Actually, I find this view particularly surprising coming from a theist.
So, what do we make of the bible? Doesn´t exist (because there exists nothing, anyway)? Um, ok.
What do we make of stories told in the bible? We can forget about them because they never happened (because nothing ever exists, anyway)? Ok.
What do we make of the laws and command given in the bible? Non-existent by default, and pointing to something non-existing, by default?
How could we possibly abstain from doing this or that when nothing exists at all, anyway?
And reiterating your initial example of harm/pain: What is it with all the advice not to inflict harm on others? Completely absurd, obsolete and misleading - because nothing exists anyway?

Walk me through this. Let´s take the sin of theft. What is theft, in the absence of anything existing?

 

[Stoneghost]

Other had hit on this so all I can do is lend my support to this statement, but it all depends on how you define reality. But I will offer this counter argument to the concept that reality cannot be "proven".

Science relies on the principle, it assumes, that there is an ordered universe. That if I perform a controlled action it will yield the same result every time. Science extends the assumption that because of this I can make predictive theories. The facts that it appears I get the same result by repeated action, and that other people get he same result by repeated action, and that I can predict what results should be and then demonstrate those results, lead me to believe that I exist, that others exists, and that we exist in some of ordered construct of universe. I call this universe reality.

 

[Paradoxum]

I assume the question means to ask whether we can prove the physical world exists outside of our minds. Eg: Do we live in the Matrix, a dream, an illusion?

My answer is that I don't think we can prove it.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

We are talikung about propositional knowledge right (statements being shown to be true). How can I demonstrate "x exists" without being able to use the term "x"? Is that what I am being asked to do?

 

[variant]

This is just a simple twist on the "prove God exists" argument.

Can you prove that Reality exists? Can you prove it, without referring to reality, as this would be considered cheating...

Theoretically, you should be able to prove there is such a thing as Reality, that people live in it, that it has meaning, all without depending on the thing you are talking about ("Reality") to justify what you believe, right?

It's just a simple twist, on the old idea, but I think you'll find it is quite hard.

An absurd twist.

Reality is proven through undeniable experience, if God could be held to that standard there would be no reason to prove it existed.

 

[Gottservant]

We are talikung about propositional knowledge right (statements being shown to be true). How can I demonstrate "x exists" without being able to use the term "x"? Is that what I am being asked to do?

That's it, yes. The important difference between this "x" and other "x"s is that it encompasses everything to which you may refer, under the umbrella term "reality".

The point is to mirror the case of the believer, with reference to God.

 

[Gottservant]

An absurd twist.

Reality is proven through undeniable experience, if God could be held to that standard there would be no reason to prove it existed.

Yes, but that experience itself is "of" that which you are now trying to prove. So of course, you have evidence, but it is only evidence that would exist in a suspect way, as a fabrication designed to mislead - because the incentive of possessing said "reality" is already there.

If you could show you had no reason to mislead with evidence of reality, coming from this "so called" reality, that would help - but it would by no means be the necessary condition of proof, that does not derive in some way from that which is already assumed to be.

 

[variant]

Yes, but that experience itself is "of" that which you are now trying to prove. So of course, you have evidence, but it is only evidence that would exist in a suspect way, as a fabrication designed to mislead - because the incentive of possessing said "reality" is already there.

No it is empirical evidence, which is only ever "not disproved" or "consistent".

Proof is for deduction which is not how we evidence reality.

"reality" is a description we attach to our consistent experience, and we can not disprove our consistent experience.

If you could show you had no reason to mislead with evidence of reality, coming from this "so called" reality, that would help - but it would by no means be the necessary condition of proof, that does not derive in some way from that which is already assumed to be.

No, as I said, reality it is experienced. Shown to be true empirically. My saying it was "proven" earlier is actually a mis-statement.

No amount of word games mean reality is un-evidenced, to say such is absurd in and of itself, as the thought itself would be unreal.

God, the idea, doesn't share this quality so drawing an analogy in argument is also problematic at it's core.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, but that experience itself is "of" that which you are now trying to prove.

That's precisely the way it should be done.

So of course, you have evidence, but it is only evidence that would exist in a suspect way, as a fabrication designed to mislead - because the incentive of possessing said "reality" is already there.

Huh?

How could direct experience of something be a "fabrication"? One may question the interpretation of what that something is, but why the experience of that something?

Besides, even if one does misinterpret the proper nature of what exists, we may still know that it exists, meaning that reality-as-such is very easy to prove. The reason that it gets more difficult with God is that there is a serious issue of the possibility of misinterpretation of experience.

And why be bothered about "incentives"? This sort of question assumes honest thinkers, but I don't see any advantage to assuming that everyone is dishonest.

If you could show you had no reason to mislead with evidence of reality

This is absurd reasoning. "Prove that you are honest!" This is why we talk about argments and evidence, so that the honesty of any individual is irrelevant. We can all examine the arguments and evidence for ourselves.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

This is a bizarre argument.

A memory exists, even if one remembers something that no longer exists.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What is memory physically?

If memory can be physically identified, then God exists without any question.

 

[quatona]

What is memory physically?

I don´t know. You brought it up in defense of the notion that there is absolutely nothing existing. This certainly needs explaining.
And how did the qualifier "physically" suddenly come here?

If memory can be physically identified, then God exists without any question.

Huh?