What is Real?

[akaDaScribe]

I wonder what the best way to describe the opposite would be, and how would we describe or conceive of it if it were undetectable?

This is why I am inclined to break down what is real into 4 categories.

What is tangible/physically detectable

What is intangible/ not physically detectable

What is unknown: what is tangible or intangible that we do not know

What is possible: All things including those outside of our realm/universe or any other realm.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I wanted to put this under philosophy, but it no longer exists and I’m not sure where else to put it that would allow everyone to express their views.

I don’t want to limit the responses to just my initial question but, rather to understand different perspectives of reality, what is real, how it works, what it means, etc.

First questions:

What is real?
Does something have to be tangible to be real?

No. There's basically two categories of "real" imo. There's "objective reality"....and includes all which exist independently of perceptions. For example, the sun is a part of objective reality...it existed before anything was capable of perceiving it....and it will exist if everything that's capable of perceiving it were to suddenly die.

The second category is "conceptual reality"....and that includes ideas, concepts, beliefs, and the like. It's a bit harder to explain...but to try and put it simply, your concept of a plant and the actual plant you're conceptualizing are not the same thing. They are both real...the concept and the plant....but they are not the same.

Concepts only exist in the mind of the lifeform which can think of them. They don't exist independently of the mind.

I hope that's a fairly easy summary of my understanding of what is "real".

 

[akaDaScribe]

No. There's basically two categories of "real" imo. There's "objective reality"....and includes all which exist independently of perceptions. For example, the sun is a part of objective reality...it existed before anything was capable of perceiving it....and it will exist if everything that's capable of perceiving it were to suddenly die.

The second category is "conceptual reality"....and that includes ideas, concepts, beliefs, and the like. It's a bit harder to explain...but to try and put it simply, your concept of a plant and the actual plant you're conceptualizing are not the same thing. They are both real...the concept and the plant....but they are not the same.

Concepts only exist in the mind of the lifeform which can think of them. They don't exist independently of the mind.

I hope that's a fairly easy summary of my understanding of what is "real".

Do you think math conceptual or objective? Not the method, but the system behind it?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you think math conceptual or objective? Not the method, but the system behind it?

Not the method but the "system behind the method"?

Could you give an example of what you mean?

 

[akaDaScribe]

like not 1+1+1=3 the numbers and the mathematical method, but the truth behind it that we use math to describe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

like not 1+1+1=3 the numbers and the mathematical method, but the truth behind it that we use math to describe.

Not sure what you're talking about still...

It's a concept, like logic, used to describe reality. There can be 1 brick plus 1 brick plus 1 brick equals 3 bricks....but it's still conceptual. The bricks themselves are not math.

The fact that it's accurate at describing reality isn't an aspect of reality...it's an aspect of mathematics.

I think this often ends up being a point of misunderstanding for believers. It's as if they think that math, physics, or logic are "things" that exist "out there" and we've slowly discovered them over time. That's not really how it works though....they're just conceptual frameworks for understanding and describing reality. I think it's partly because if you go back fae enough into history...religion/mythology were the only conceptual methods for describing reality. A "sun god" riding on a flaming chariot pulls the sun across the sky, the harvest makes crops grow, the water god determines the ocean currents and saves pious sailors from a watery grave....and so on.

In those times, mankind made progress at a very slow rate....as there was no need to ask questions about how reality works when ypu have yourself a religion that gives you a bunch of emotionally satisfying answers.

Of course, as science and the scientific method came to be....and it slowly began to provide real answers to age old questions, there was a lot of condemnation from religion. They realized that science could not only provide explanations...it could improve things like harvest yields. The farmers no longer needed to make a sacrifices to the harvest god for a good harvest.

Many years later....gods have been reduced to an explanation for very few things....which are mostly scientific concepts that non-scientists tend to struggle with or misunderstand. Things like evolution, the beginning of the universe, the human mind....and so on.

I'm rambling, but your answer is concept....mathematics is entirely conceptual.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

My breakfast is real. Philosophy comes later.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Not sure what you're talking about still...

It's a concept, like logic, used to describe reality. There can be 1 brick plus 1 brick plus 1 brick equals 3 bricks....but it's still conceptual. The bricks themselves are not math.

The fact that it's accurate at describing reality isn't an aspect of reality...it's an aspect of mathematics.

I think this often ends up being a point of misunderstanding for believers. It's as if they think that math, physics, or logic are "things" that exist "out there" and we've slowly discovered them over time. That's not really how it works though....they're just conceptual frameworks for understanding and describing reality. I think it's partly because if you go back fae enough into history...religion/mythology were the only conceptual methods for describing reality. A "sun god" riding on a flaming chariot pulls the sun across the sky, the harvest makes crops grow, the water god determines the ocean currents and saves pious sailors from a watery grave....and so on.

In those times, mankind made progress at a very slow rate....as there was no need to ask questions about how reality works when ypu have yourself a religion that gives you a bunch of emotionally satisfying answers.

Of course, as science and the scientific method came to be....and it slowly began to provide real answers to age old questions, there was a lot of condemnation from religion. They realized that science could not only provide explanations...it could improve things like harvest yields. The farmers no longer needed to make a sacrifices to the harvest god for a good harvest.

Many years later....gods have been reduced to an explanation for very few things....which are mostly scientific concepts that non-scientists tend to struggle with or misunderstand. Things like evolution, the beginning of the universe, the human mind....and so on.

I'm rambling, but your answer is concept....mathematics is entirely conceptual.

Not sure what you're talking about still...

It's a concept, like logic, used to describe reality. There can be 1 brick plus 1 brick plus 1 brick equals 3 bricks....but it's still conceptual. The bricks themselves are not math.
The fact that it's accurate at describing reality isn't an aspect of reality...it's an aspect of mathematics.

I think this often ends up being a point of misunderstanding for believers. It's as if they think that math, physics, or logic are "things" that exist "out there" and we've slowly discovered them over time. That's not really how it works though....they're just conceptual frameworks for understanding and describing reality.

It’s always tricky to talk about math without using elements of math, so let me put it this way. Within our universe, systems exist. That we can tap into those systems does not mean we invented them. Yes, we discovered ways and developed methods to do this, but those ways and methods would not work if there was no system.

These systems are not material like an apple, but they do not require us to exist. So there are things intangible things that are “objectively real.”

 

[akaDaScribe]

My breakfast is real. Philosophy comes later.

Thanks for the intel

 

[Neogaia777]

It’s always tricky to talk about math without using elements of math, so let me put it this way. Within our universe, systems exist. That we can tap into those systems does not mean we invented them. Yes, we discovered ways and developed methods to do this, but those ways and methods would not work if there was no system.

These systems are not material like an apple, but they do not require us to exist. So there are things intangible things that are “objectively real.”

How we choose to count and value things and assign numbers to things, is a system, that may not necessarily be made up of numbers...?

God Bless!

 

[durangodawood]

....What is real?.....

The word "real" does a lot of different jobs for us.

Could you be more specific?

 

[durangodawood]

Math is something we do.

Everything we do is 'real'.

 

[akaDaScribe]

How we choose to count and value things and assign numbers to things, is a system, that may not necessarily be made up of numbers...?

God Bless!

No, I'm saying that there are systems to the universe that are independent of math and that math is our way of making sense out of it, but with or without math the systems exist.

 

[mama2one]

sometimes people say "are you for real?"

maybe none of us are real until we become our "authentic selves"
who we are meant to be, who God wants us to be?

I like the story about the rabbit who becomes real after being loved "Velveteen Rabbit"

 

[Neogaia777]

No, I'm saying that there are systems to the universe that are independent of math and that math is our way of making sense out of it, but with or without math the systems exist.

What do you mean by "systems of the universe", what systems...? And "independent of math", yet we use math to say, in the case of other dimensions, even prove they are there, or are real, or do exist, and are and actual they say real thing... We use math to figure that stuff out, but, my point was, we don't have a mathematical system purely of or due to the ability to come up with numbers...

For example, what would a civilization of people who had six fingers and six toes, and their number system happened to be based off multiplications of six and twelve, and another race or civilization elsewhere had five fingers and five toes, what would their math have in common...? (Not to mention those totally unreasonable mathematical systems, like the Standard or American numerical systems of measurement)...

What do all systems of math have in common...?

Or had just had six toes, or just six fingers, it's not the numbers that are important, it's the system...

God Bless!

 

[akaDaScribe]

What do you mean by "systems of the universe", what systems...? And "independent of math", yet we use math to say, in the case of other dimensions, even prove they are there, or are real, or do exist, and are and actual they say real thing... We use math to figure that stuff out, but, my point was, we don't have a mathematical system purely of or due to the ability to come up with numbers...

For example, what would a civilization of people who had six fingers and six toes, and their number system happened to be based off multiplications of six and twelve, and another race or civilization elsewhere had five fingers and five toes, what would their math have in common...? (Not to mention those totally unreasonable mathematical systems, like the Standard or American numerical systems of measurement)...

What do all systems of math have in common...?

Or had just had six toes, or just six fingers, it's not the numbers that are important, it's the system...

God Bless!

I think we might be saying the same thing or something similar. lol
I'm saying that math helps us to see patterns, structures, connections, etc. that exist, but they do not exist because of math, math just helps us to see/understand/utilize what is already there.

 

[Neogaia777]

I think we might be saying the same thing or something similar. lol
I'm saying that math helps us to see patterns, structures, connections, etc. that exist, but they do not exist because of math, math just helps us to see/understand/utilize what is already there.

Chicken and the egg, if you ask me... Some wonder if they do or do not exist independent of our input...? (the things that exist)...

But, I like to wonder about what I pointed out about math and the mathematical systems, not being all about numbers, what they are based on, what different ones have in common, what rings true about all of them, that kind of thing...

God Bless!

 

[akaDaScribe]

Chicken and the egg, if you ask me... Some wonder if they do or do not exist independent of our input...? (the things that exist)...

But, I like to wonder about what I pointed out about math and the mathematical systems, not being all about numbers, what they are based on, what different ones have in common, what rings true about all of them, that kind of thing...

God Bless!

btw, don't get me started about why we should be base 12 instead of base 10.
I know, i know, there really isn't much to say because it's so obvious.

 

[Serving Zion]

I think we might be saying the same thing or something similar. lol
I'm saying that math helps us to see patterns, structures, connections, etc. that exist, but they do not exist because of math, math just helps us to see/understand/utilize what is already there.

btw, don't get me started about why we should be base 12 instead of base 10.
I know, i know, there really isn't much to say because it's so obvious.

This complicates the premise of "conceptual reality" - if the concept itself is valid in different forms, because it is a different way of describing the objective reality, then how can it be called reality? Of course the numbers on the chalkboard and the words we speak, they are manifest into objective reality as a physical transformation of matter..

Again, I think we should establish the opposite, antonym of "real" .. as I would suggest "fake" for starters.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I am wondering about the correspondence theory of truth. Does correspondence need statements (Id say yes), and therefore language using intelligence - to exist. Is truth a dependent phenomenon, like something idealist, rather than something universal and sentience neutral?