What is Real?

[akaDaScribe]

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?

I think reality is probably like computer programming.

There are are things that are defined
(or in our case things that are what they are)

There are commands and conditional statements
(laws of the universe)

There is processing
(changes in variables based on conditions that produce outcomes)

I guess what was trying to get at earlier is that there is a "computer language" that is behind making the "program" do what it does. You don't see it on the screen and you might not even be able to access it from within the program while the program is running, but without it there is no program.

So, to say that intelligence (say players in an mmo or npcs with ai) within the running program is required for something to be true, would not be true. And to say that the language making the program possible is less real than the program would also be false.

Within the program itself, what was defined and not subject to change, would be true and what is subject to change, is conditionally true.

 

[durangodawood]

....There are commands and conditional statements
(laws of the universe)...

Not sure that those are real.

Are the laws our descriptions of how things naturally behave?

Or are they sort of 'commands', with their own existence, that things follow?

I go with the former.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Not sure that those are real.

Are the laws our descriptions of how things naturally behave?

Or are they sort of 'commands', with their own existence, that things follow?

I go with the former.

What is the cause of those natural behaviors? They are getting closer and closer to figuring out that everything is probably 1 substance with different configurations. Maybe they will even figure out everything simply consists of parameters. Those parameters cannot exist without having definitions. This would mean that the abstract/intangible is what makes everything physical, possible. It may very well be that the abstract is the cause of the concrete.

 

[durangodawood]

...Those parameters cannot exist without having definitions.....

No offense, but that sounds like just an unsupportable assumption.

Definitions are conveniences for us and our way of knowing things. We make them.

I can just as confidently say things behave as they are, without recourse to the idea of definitions or any 'outside' reference point.

Of course I cant demonstrate I'm correct in my assertion, just as you cannot in yours. Its a matter of intuition or faith.

 

[akaDaScribe]

No offense, but that sounds like just an unsupportable assumption.

Definitions are conveniences for us and our way of knowing things. We make them.

I can just as confidently say things behave as they are, without recourse to the idea of definitions or any 'outside' reference point.

Of course I cant demonstrate I'm correct in my assertion, just as you cannot in yours. Its a matter of intuition or faith.

No offense taken.

I'm actually interested in exploring possibilities and wrestling with articulating ideas, clarifying ideas, approaching ideas from different perspectives, and increasing my understanding of what I will probably never fully understand.

I can see how Decarte ended up at "i think therefore i am" as a starting point because it seems like one has to start with what cannot be disputed.

So, do you think it is accurate to say at least one thing exists and that thing has always existed? Does anyone disagree with that statement?

 

[akaDaScribe]

So, do you think it is accurate to say at least one thing exists and that thing has always existed? Does anyone disagree with that statement?

Ok,

So if we accept that there is at least one thing that always existed, that leaves us with 3 possibilities:

scenario 1: One thing always existed
scenario 2: More than one thing always existed
scenario 3: Infinite things always existed

That would mean there is at least one thing that has no cause, which means nothing caused it.

That would also mean that the term “nothing” can only be relative. It cannot be absolute because there is at least one thing that always existed.

Does anyone disagree with these statements?

 

[Ana the Ist]

So, do you think it is accurate to say at least one thing exists and that thing has always existed? Does anyone disagree with that statement?

I'd say that's an assumption. I have no idea how you arrived at it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

I don't see the problem you're speaking about.

If I say the word "math" you can think of a corresponding concept. That concept, as it exists in your mind, is a part of reality.

The fact that you can write 2+2=4 on a sheet of paper doesn't change the concept. If someone doesn't know the concept of math...all the have are some weird shapes in ink on a sheet of paper (objective reality). The concept isn't a part of objective reality though....if no one understood the concept of math, it would not exist.

 

[akaDaScribe]

I'd say that's an assumption. I have no idea how you arrived at it.

What did not have a cause would have to simply exist.
At the most basic level, we know at least 1 thing simply exists, otherwise nothing would exist.

I also wrote this:
Ok,

So if we accept that there is at least one thing that always existed, that leaves us with 3 possibilities:

scenario 1: One thing always existed
scenario 2: More than one thing always existed
scenario 3: Infinite things always existed

That would mean there is at least one thing that has no cause, which means nothing caused it.

That would also mean that the term “nothing” can only be relative. It cannot be absolute because there is at least one thing that always existed.

Does anyone disagree with these statements?


If you were still looking at my previous points, and thought these points were related to it, I can see why it would confuse you. I decided to step back to a most fundamental point and build out from there to see how far it could go before opinions had room to vary.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What did not have a cause would have to simply exist.
At the most basic level, we know at least 1 thing simply exists, otherwise nothing would exist.

Or it began uncaused.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Or it began uncaused.

How would that work?
How would something begin if there was nothing in existence?

 

[Dave-W]

lol

Isn't it funny how the most basic words are the hardest to define?

"It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

That actually was legitimate. The definition varied across different legal dictionaries.

 

[Serving Zion]

I don't see the problem you're speaking about.

If I say the word "math" you can think of a corresponding concept. That concept, as it exists in your mind, is a part of reality.

The fact that you can write 2+2=4 on a sheet of paper doesn't change the concept. If someone doesn't know the concept of math...all the have are some weird shapes in ink on a sheet of paper (objective reality). The concept isn't a part of objective reality though....if no one understood the concept of math, it would not exist.

Ok, let's use another example than math because math is math whether base 10 or 12.

Say the origin of man. There is concepts of evolution, creation, genetic engineering (alien), all which exist alongside objective reality. Yet of those three, only one could be true while the other two fake. But that doesn't mean the fake concepts are any less real as a concept.. so I am saying that if the antonym of reality is fake or illusion, then conceptual reality isn't necessarily reality or it is possible for conceptual reality to be a fallacy (that is a paradox, by the definition of the word "real").

 

[durangodawood]

...That would mean there is at least one thing that has no cause, which means nothing caused it.....

I'm skeptical of absolute statements like this where we simply assume our time-based notions of cause/effect apply.

 

[akaDaScribe]

I'm skeptical of absolute statements like this where we simply assume our time-based notions of cause/effect apply.

The statement that there has to be at least one thing that has no beginning, the statement that something cannot simply appear without a cause, is indisputable.

I did not stipulate any limits on what it could be up this point. Honestly, I figured this would be an obvious starting point that everyone could agree on. Kind of like "I think therefore I am."

No matter how many dimensions, there are or what that something is or those somethings are, whether material or immaterial, there has to be at least one thing, that always existed. I could have said "that simply exists", but that assumes it still exists.

 

[durangodawood]

....the statement that something cannot simply appear without a cause, is indisputable....

I do understand how deeply intuitive that feels.

But I cannot absolutely prove it.

Can you?

 

[Serving Zion]

I do understand how deeply intuitive that feels.

But I cannot absolutely prove it.

Can you?

It is a normal pattern. Is it even possible for the opposite to occur? Ie, has anything ever appeared without a cause?

 

[durangodawood]

It is a normal pattern. Is it even possible for the opposite to occur? Ie, has anything ever appeared without a cause?

Its impossible for us to know at this point.

I mean, what can we say with confidence about what can or cannot happen 'beyond' our universe?

 

[Ana the Ist]

How would that work?
How would something begin if there was nothing in existence?

Like this...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/

 

[Serving Zion]

Its impossible for us to know at this point.

I mean, what can we say with confidence about what can or cannot happen 'beyond' our universe?

You need to depart from reality into speculation for that, so it isn't really useful and the question remains.

You are right that such a constraint makes it impossible for us to know, but to suggest an otherwise universal principle might be capable of failing in a different world, is not a thing I am comfortable with.