What is Real?

[Ana the Ist]

"Or began without a cause."

From galaxies to atoms everything is action and reaction, cause and effect.

Did you read the last link I provided?

Virtual particles are beginning uncaused, all throughout empty space, all the time. So the very first premise you're starting with here...is incorrect.

Do you not understand that? Or do you just disagree, and think all these scientists and their scientific evidence is wrong?

Given that, what is the probability that something simply appeared, created space in which to appear, and had properties to multiply into the entire universe that functions on the level that our universe functions
vs
What appears and disappears on the sub-atomic level is coming from somewhere else or it has states that are not detectable?

immaterial = what does not of itself exhibit physically measurable properties on any level.

I kinda need to figure out where you stand on my question above before I can answer your question.

With regards to the immaterial? How do you know it exists?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Or began without a cause.".

I think you quoted me in the wrong thread...

What makes you conclude that they are uncaused? Because they don’t know the source of their appearance/disappearance? Because they don't know how it is happening?

I'm really entirely upon the knowledge of experts. The fact is, I don't have the prerequisite knowledge to conclude such things on my own. I simply have the words of experts, and I judge the value of those words on their record.

I understand that isn't very satisfying, but there's a lot about quantum physics which seems to contradict what most people would call "common sense".

All that means is that reality doesn't necessarily work according to the "rules" as we currently understand them.

 

[akaDaScribe]

Did you read the last link I provided?

Virtual particles are beginning uncaused, all throughout empty space, all the time. So the very first premise you're starting with here...is incorrect.

Do you not understand that? Or do you just disagree, and think all these scientists and their scientific evidence is wrong?

What makes you conclude that they are uncaused? Because we don’t know the source of their appearance/disappearance, or what is causing them?

Don't you see the pattern? When I was a kid, the atom was the smallest thing in the universe, before that it was probably a cell, before that it was probably dust. So when they get to the bottom of what can be detected, no matter how much it contradicts everything we know, are they going to assume that is it? Or recognize that it's probably caused by something outside of our universe.

 

[akaDaScribe]

I think you quoted me in the wrong thread...



I'm really entirely upon the knowledge of experts. The fact is, I don't have the prerequisite knowledge to conclude such things on my own. I simply have the words of experts, and I judge the value of those words on their record.

I understand that isn't very satisfying, but there's a lot about quantum physics which seems to contradict what most people would call "common sense".

All that means is that reality doesn't necessarily work according to the "rules" as we currently understand them.

It is quite unsatisfying. lol Mainly because it's an awkward state of limbo to be left in; like a really bad cliff hanger at the end of a season.

It seems the closer they get to the immaterial, intangible, whatever you want to call it, the less it behaves like the material.

It would be nice at this point if they could just get there already.

but even in the immaterial, there would still have to be at least one thing that simply exists.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Don't you see the pattern? When I was a kid, the atom was the smallest thing in the universe, before that it was probably a cell, before that it was probably dust. So when they get to the bottom of what can be detected, no matter how much it contradicts everything we know, are they going to assume that is it? Or recognize that it's probably caused by something outside of our universe.

I think you'd have to be pretty old for the atom to be the "smallest thing" when you were a kid...

Regardless though lol I do see a pattern. I see science getting more accurate, and continually getting better at understanding the universe. There's steps backward sometimes, sure...but those seem to happen less and less as long as the science is only influenced by science.

I just don't know how you leap to the assumption of "caused by something outside the universe". I don't even know how you're coming up with the idea of "outside the universe"? Do you imagine it's like a place where if you kept going in a straight line....you'd reach the edge?

 

[Ana the Ist]

It is quite unsatisfying. lol Mainly because it's an awkward state of limbo to be left in; like a really bad cliff hanger at the end of a season.

This, I think, is perhaps the issue here worth considering most carefully. Are you looking for emotionally satisfying answers? Or do you want to know the truth....no matter how unsatisfactory or even awful it may be?

If you want emotionally satisfying answers, then there's no reason to question anything you find appealing. Is there life after death? Sure...and it's a wonderful place where you get reunited with all those you loved. Is the universe created by something? Yup...and that something is personally interested in you and your life and has a "plan" for it. What about moral right and wrong? They're clearly defined and everyone knows it deep down inside....

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people gravitate towards emotionally satisfying answers...but that doesn't make them true. Truth, in my experience, is rarely satisfying or disappointing...it simply is.

It seems the closer they get to the immaterial, intangible, whatever you want to call it, the less it behaves like the material.

It would be nice at this point if they could just get there already.

but even in the immaterial, there would still have to be at least one thing that simply exists.

You keep mentioning the immaterial...but you still haven't explained what it is. You told me what it isn't...but that's like me explaining what vegetables are by telling you they aren't meat. Telling me what the "immaterial" isn't doesn't help much in understanding what it is.

What's more confusing is that you say it's undetectable...so how can you know it exists?

 

[akaDaScribe]

This, I think, is perhaps the issue here worth considering most carefully. Are you looking for emotionally satisfying answers? Or do you want to know the truth....no matter how unsatisfactory or even awful it may be?

If you want emotionally satisfying answers, then there's no reason to question anything you find appealing. Is there life after death? Sure...and it's a wonderful place where you get reunited with all those you loved. Is the universe created by something? Yup...and that something is personally interested in you and your life and has a "plan" for it. What about moral right and wrong? They're clearly defined and everyone knows it deep down inside....

Don't get me wrong, I understand why people gravitate towards emotionally satisfying answers...but that doesn't make them true. Truth, in my experience, is rarely satisfying or disappointing...it simply is.



You keep mentioning the immaterial...but you still haven't explained what it is. You told me what it isn't...but that's like me explaining what vegetables are by telling you they aren't meat. Telling me what the "immaterial" isn't doesn't help much in understanding what it is.

What's more confusing is that you say it's undetectable...so how can you know it exists?

Because I admit that I find new discoveries exciting and getting closer to the bottom of the barrel exciting and because the point that they are at right now is in a less resolved state is unsatisfying to me, does not mean I'm interested in acceptable answers over the truth. I have to go to work so I'll respond to the rest later.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because I admit that I find new discoveries exciting and getting closer to the bottom of the barrel exciting and because the point that they are at right now is in a less resolved state is unsatisfying to me, does not mean I'm interested in acceptable answers over the truth. I have to go to work so I'll respond to the rest later.

That's great...since we're both interested in truth and not just emotional satisfaction...I think the next thing worth considering is how we approach the truth? How does one discover it?

 

[akaDaScribe]

That's great...since we're both interested in truth and not just emotional satisfaction...I think the next thing worth considering is how we approach the truth? How does one discover it?

I think science does a wonderful job of understanding the mechanics of how things work. I also think that limiting reality to what is physically detectable by our 5 senses of touch makes 2 assumptions. The first assumption is that we have all of the senses needed to detect everything that is. The second assumption is that only what is detectable can, as you put it, “objectively exist.”

I realize that it may not be that they are unaware of these things. It may just be a matter of choosing to focus on finding answers to things that they can physically substantiate rather than focusing on what they cannot.

I have a great deal of respect for science and the progress that has been made through science. I also think there is a limit to what science can reveal.

In the area of computers specifically, I think our progress has opened up the thinking of scientifically minded people. As progress in the virtual worlds particularly becomes more and more advanced, people are realizing that it is possible to create what is physical within a “place” but is actually driven by a language underneath it. Or in other words, we know that worlds can be built on a language because we are already doing it ourselves, albeit on a very micro scale.

So, what does all that mean? I don’t think it is possible for us to know everything let alone understand everything, but I think taking the roads to different disciplines as far as they go will give us a better picture of the truth than only going down one road. From time to time those roads even cross each other. I could go on about the roads analogy, but you probably already get the picture of what I’m saying.

 

[Neogaia777]

That's great...since we're both interested in truth and not just emotional satisfaction...I think the next thing worth considering is how we approach the truth? How does one discover it?

You do know emotional satisfaction is not the reasons the majority of people believe, don't you...?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You do know emotional satisfaction is not the reasons the majority of people believe, don't you...?

How could I possibly know that? How can anyone know that?

I've had discussions before that gave me reason to suspect it...but I don't think it's something that I or anyone else can "know".

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think science does a wonderful job of understanding the mechanics of how things work.

On that, we agree.

I also think that limiting reality to what is physically detectable by our 5 senses of touch makes 2 assumptions. The first assumption is that we have all of the senses needed to detect everything that is. The second assumption is that only what is detectable can, as you put it, “objectively exist.”

Let's clear a couple things up. If you're talking about the "immaterial" as you called it....you said this...

"immaterial = what does not of itself exhibit physically measurable properties on any level"

You may notice that you didn't say anything about "detectable by our senses". If you want to discuss a particular "thing" you're going to need to be consistent about what that thing is. I already mentioned that I don't understand what you meant by "immaterial"...and before we've even gotten to your explanation, you changed the description of it pretty dramatically. That said...

Of course there are things which we cannot detect through our senses. Atoms, for example, cannot be seen with the naked eye...but that doesn't mean they are not detectable. That should clear up the first assumption you mentioned.

As for the second assumption, I do believe that it's possible that there are things which exist which I cannot detect either with my senses, or any other means available. It's possible that such things exist...and they'll never be detectable.

That mere possibility alone isn't a reason to believe that such things do exist. As for talking about reality and existence, there's no real reason to even discuss such things. I cannot describe them, I cannot explain what they are or what they do, and they add nothing to my understanding of reality. Until such a time as when they are detected...they simply remain one of an infinite number of mere possibilities without any reason to believe in them.

I realize that it may not be that they are unaware of these things.

I'm guessing that by "they"...you mean scientists. How can they possibly be aware of something undetectable? How can anyone?

It may just be a matter of choosing to focus on finding answers to things that they can physically substantiate rather than focusing on what they cannot.

How can anyone "focus" on something they cannot detect?

I have a great deal of respect for science and the progress that has been made through science. I also think there is a limit to what science can reveal.

I agree.

In the area of computers specifically, I think our progress has opened up the thinking of scientifically minded people. As progress in the virtual worlds particularly becomes more and more advanced, people are realizing that it is possible to create what is physical within a “place” but is actually driven by a language underneath it. Or in other words, we know that worlds can be built on a language because we are already doing it ourselves, albeit on a very micro scale.

I'm not sure what you mean by this...

I don't want this to come off as insulting...but you do realize that video games/simulations/etc are just images on a screen....right? They aren't actual "places" or "worlds" (unless you're counting the screen itself as a place....I don't). Words/language express concepts....those concepts may or may not correlate with reality....but one cannot create an actual world with words or language.

So, what does all that mean? I don’t think it is possible for us to know everything let alone understand everything, but I think taking the roads to different disciplines as far as they go will give us a better picture of the truth than only going down one road. From time to time those roads even cross each other. I could go on about the roads analogy, but you probably already get the picture of what I’m saying.

I tend to look at other approaches to understanding "truth" as relics from a time before science existed. That's not to say they never produced anything of value...logic obviously turned out to be useful, but it's also very limited. It works better at eliminating false conclusions than it is at finding correct ones. Philosophy has it's uses...but I'm not sure truth is necessarily one of them. In general, they're more about different perspectives of reality.

Is that more or less what you're talking about? I personally can't come up with any other methods which we could say for certain that have given mankind any "truths" throughout history. There is religion, of course, but with there being so many and so contradictory...one could study them endlessly and never cross a single provable "truth" which they are indisputably the source of. Again, I'm not trying to be mean here...I literally can't think of any truths revealed by religion.

Science has the best record of all...we're literally surrounded by the truths it revealed. I would have to be alone in a desert somewhere to be able to throw a rock and not hit something that science had a hand in. When it comes to revealing truth, science doesn't even have a close competitor. One could spend a lifetime studying just one field...biology for example....and by the time they learned and understood all that science has revealed just in that field of knowledge, there would be even more that has been revealed. In fact, it's typically not until one studies a particular scientific field that they realize just how little they know and how much more can be known (in my experience anyway).

If you want to suggest another "road" to truth....lay it out there....make a case for it. Please though, keep in mind it's going to have to be a really strong case before I choose it over science.

 

[akaDaScribe]

On that, we agree.



Let's clear a couple things up. If you're talking about the "immaterial" as you called it....you said this...

"immaterial = what does not of itself exhibit physically measurable properties on any level"

You may notice that you didn't say anything about "detectable by our senses". If you want to discuss a particular "thing" you're going to need to be consistent about what that thing is. I already mentioned that I don't understand what you meant by "immaterial"...and before we've even gotten to your explanation, you changed the description of it pretty dramatically. That said...

Of course there are things which we cannot detect through our senses. Atoms, for example, cannot be seen with the naked eye...but that doesn't mean they are not detectable. That should clear up the first assumption you mentioned.

As for the second assumption, I do believe that it's possible that there are things which exist which I cannot detect either with my senses, or any other means available. It's possible that such things exist...and they'll never be detectable.

That mere possibility alone isn't a reason to believe that such things do exist. As for talking about reality and existence, there's no real reason to even discuss such things. I cannot describe them, I cannot explain what they are or what they do, and they add nothing to my understanding of reality. Until such a time as when they are detected...they simply remain one of an infinite number of mere possibilities without any reason to believe in them.



I'm guessing that by "they"...you mean scientists. How can they possibly be aware of something undetectable? How can anyone?



How can anyone "focus" on something they cannot detect?



I agree.



I'm not sure what you mean by this...

I don't want this to come off as insulting...but you do realize that video games/simulations/etc are just images on a screen....right? They aren't actual "places" or "worlds" (unless you're counting the screen itself as a place....I don't). Words/language express concepts....those concepts may or may not correlate with reality....but one cannot create an actual world with words or language.



I tend to look at other approaches to understanding "truth" as relics from a time before science existed. That's not to say they never produced anything of value...logic obviously turned out to be useful, but it's also very limited. It works better at eliminating false conclusions than it is at finding correct ones. Philosophy has it's uses...but I'm not sure truth is necessarily one of them. In general, they're more about different perspectives of reality.

Is that more or less what you're talking about? I personally can't come up with any other methods which we could say for certain that have given mankind any "truths" throughout history. There is religion, of course, but with there being so many and so contradictory...one could study them endlessly and never cross a single provable "truth" which they are indisputably the source of. Again, I'm not trying to be mean here...I literally can't think of any truths revealed by religion.

Science has the best record of all...we're literally surrounded by the truths it revealed. I would have to be alone in a desert somewhere to be able to throw a rock and not hit something that science had a hand in. When it comes to revealing truth, science doesn't even have a close competitor. One could spend a lifetime studying just one field...biology for example....and by the time they learned and understood all that science has revealed just in that field of knowledge, there would be even more that has been revealed. In fact, it's typically not until one studies a particular scientific field that they realize just how little they know and how much more can be known (in my experience anyway).

If you want to suggest another "road" to truth....lay it out there....make a case for it. Please though, keep in mind it's going to have to be a really strong case before I choose it over science.

Let's clear a couple things up. If you're talking about the "immaterial" as you called it....you said this...

"immaterial = what does not of itself exhibit physically measurable properties on any level"

You may notice that you didn't say anything about "detectable by our senses". If you want to discuss a particular "thing" you're going to need to be consistent about what that thing is. I already mentioned that I don't understand what you meant by "immaterial"...and before we've even gotten to your explanation, you changed the description of it pretty dramatically. That said...

Of course there are things which we cannot detect through our senses. Atoms, for example, cannot be seen with the naked eye...but that doesn't mean they are not detectable. That should clear up the first assumption you mentioned.

As for the second assumption, I do believe that it's possible that there are things which exist which I cannot detect either with my senses, or any other means available. It's possible that such things exist...and they'll never be detectable.

I think you bring up a fair point. I’m trying to grapple with how to accurately articulate things that are hard to define and they do seem all over the place now that you mentioned it.

So let’s try to get some solid definitions:

Undetected= not detected based on our current abilities to detect through direct or indirect use of the physical senses.

Undetectable=What is not detectable by use of the physical senses we possess, but may be detectable by senses we don’t possess and senses we may not be aware of.

Immaterial=what does not possess any physical properties in our universe.

Material=what is physically detectable

That mere possibility alone isn't a reason to believe that such things do exist. As for talking about reality and existence, there's no real reason to even discuss such things. I cannot describe them, I cannot explain what they are or what they do, and they add nothing to my understanding of reality. Until such a time as when they are detected...they simply remain one of an infinite number of mere possibilities without any reason to believe in them.

I don't want this to come off as insulting...but you do realize that video games/simulations/etc are just images on a screen....right? They aren't actual "places" or "worlds" (unless you're counting the screen itself as a place....I don't). Words/language express concepts....those concepts may or may not correlate with reality....but one cannot create an actual world with words or language.

No offense taken. I’m not sure to what degree you are familiar with video games, simulators, etc. But the “objects” within the worlds have properties. Many of those properties are borrowed from physics. Many of the NPCs (non-player characters) are interactive with their environments, are subject to those laws of physics, and have primitive AI. So, to a player it is just a screen, but to the NPC is an environment.

Now, I realize it’s not even remotely equal to our world, but as the technology continues to advance, it will become more and more like our world. The Simms has some pretty remarkable AI, btw. These simulated environments are moving closer and closer to the atomic level and the NPCs are becoming more and more advanced.

In fact, it's typically not until one studies a particular scientific field that they realize just how little they know and how much more can be known (in my experience anyway).

I find this to be the case in most things, including life in general. Lol

If you want to suggest another "road" to truth....lay it out there....make a case for it. Please though, keep in mind it's going to have to be a really strong case before I choose it over science.

I don’t think that one has to choose between science and religion as if either was without truth. It has been my experience that science is based only on what can be proven and religion is based on things that can only be known. Science is about the mechanics of how things are put together and religion is about them being more than the sum of their parts. In both instances, the more we know, the more perspective we should have on just how small we are; and yet how magnificent.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I think you bring up a fair point. I’m trying to grapple with how to accurately articulate things that are hard to define and they do seem all over the place now that you mentioned it.

So let’s try to get some solid definitions:

Undetected= not detected based on our current abilities to detect through direct or indirect use of the physical senses.

Undetectable=What is not detectable by use of the physical senses we possess, but may be detectable by senses we don’t possess and senses we may not be aware of.

Immaterial=what does not possess any physical properties in our universe.

Material=what is physically detectable

So what category would an "atom" fall under? The material? Because we "indirectly" use our senses to detect it?

You do realize that you're still trying to describe something by telling me "what it isn't"? I would really need to know what it is before we can discuss it. You do understand why telling me "what it isn't" doesn't exactly help me understand it any better? Here's an example...

You don't know what a "shambo" is, but I do....and I tell you they exist in reality. You ask me, "Well...what is a shambo?"

I reply by telling you that it isn't a plant, but it isn't an animal, concrete, an emotion, and it isn't immobile.

Now...I want to talk to you about "shambos"...but that's going to be pretty tough, isn't it? Even though I told you four different things that it isn't...that still leaves a lot of things that it could be, right? Even though I've explained several things it isn't... you still have no idea what it is.

Now, imagine that after you asked me what a "shambo" is....I told you this instead....

"It's nothing that you've ever seen, heard of, experienced, or thought of in your entire life!"

That's what it's like when you tell me that the immaterial is "what does not possess any physical properties in our universe" lol. I've still got zero idea what you're talking about.

Let's try this instead, what kind of properties does the immaterial possess?

No offense taken. I’m not sure to what degree you are familiar with video games, simulators, etc. But the “objects” within the worlds have properties.

I'm pretty familiar. By "objects" within the "world"....you mean "figures" on the "screen"....right?

Many of those properties are borrowed from physics.

Right...I'm old enough to remember when it seemed like half of all games were using the Unreal physics engine.

Many of the NPCs (non-player characters) are interactive with their environments, are subject to those laws of physics, and have primitive AI. So, to a player it is just a screen, but to the NPC is an environment.

The NPC doesn't have a mind though. It doesn't think...so it doesn't perceive an environment, or anything for that matter.

Now, I realize it’s not even remotely equal to our world, but as the technology continues to advance, it will become more and more like our world. The Simms has some pretty remarkable AI, btw. These simulated environments are moving closer and closer to the atomic level and the NPCs are becoming more and more advanced.

Closer and closer is the point, right? It's a simulation after all.

I find this to be the case in most things, including life in general. Lol

I can still remember thinking about how smart I thought I was before college lol.

I don’t think that one has to choose between science and religion as if either was without truth. It has been my experience that science is based only on what can be proven and religion is based on things that can only be known. Science is about the mechanics of how things are put together and religion is about them being more than the sum of their parts. In both instances, the more we know, the more perspective we should have on just how small we are; and yet how magnificent.

What's an example of something "true" that was "revealed" by religion and might have never been revealed as true without religion?

Basically, I'm asking for a truth we could directly attribute to religion.

Edit- I forgot to ask what you meant by "senses we aren't aware of"? I get that something like "echolocation" is a sense qe don't possess...but I'm not sure what a sense that we aren't aware of would be?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Really all I'm saying is whether you believe in God or not and whether or not there is a God, we can all agree that there had to be something or somethings that always existed, or there would be nothing. There has to be something that was not caused.

What about "all somethings are caused" and the eternal existent was neither something and also not a nothing?


I mean to say, a "something" in that sense would be a measured and therefore finite thing. Or at least something indicated to a finite mind. And therefore limited and subject to causation.

The logic says nothings aren't productive..



So, a why or why not entertain the idea of a three valued metaphysical logic. Something / nothing / and "?".... the great ineffable mystery.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Three-ValuedLogic.html

Three values. That's also similar the take I have on truth as you know. Truth is sentient or language depenedent. For the absolute or noumenal reality, there is neither truth nor falsehood. No people, no minds, then no truth basically speaking. No falsehood either. Just...."?".

All else is the folly of projection.

 

[akaDaScribe]

So what category would an "atom" fall under? The material? Because we "indirectly" use our senses to detect it?

You do realize that you're still trying to describe something by telling me "what it isn't"? I would really need to know what it is before we can discuss it. You do understand why telling me "what it isn't" doesn't exactly help me understand it any better? Here's an example...

You don't know what a "shambo" is, but I do....and I tell you they exist in reality. You ask me, "Well...what is a shambo?"

I reply by telling you that it isn't a plant, but it isn't an animal, concrete, an emotion, and it isn't immobile.

Now...I want to talk to you about "shambos"...but that's going to be pretty tough, isn't it? Even though I told you four different things that it isn't...that still leaves a lot of things that it could be, right? Even though I've explained several things it isn't... you still have no idea what it is.

Now, imagine that after you asked me what a "shambo" is....I told you this instead....

"It's nothing that you've ever seen, heard of, experienced, or thought of in your entire life!"

That's what it's like when you tell me that the immaterial is "what does not possess any physical properties in our universe" lol. I've still got zero idea what you're talking about.

Let's try this instead, what kind of properties does the immaterial possess?



I'm pretty familiar. By "objects" within the "world"....you mean "figures" on the "screen"....right?




Right...I'm old enough to remember when it seemed like half of all games were using the Unreal physics engine.




The NPC doesn't have a mind though. It doesn't think...so it doesn't perceive an environment, or anything for that matter.



Closer and closer is the point, right? It's a simulation after all.




I can still remember thinking about how smart I thought I was before college lol.




What's an example of something "true" that was "revealed" by religion and might have never been revealed as true without religion?

Basically, I'm asking for a truth we could directly attribute to religion.

Edit- I forgot to ask what you meant by "senses we aren't aware of"? I get that something like "echolocation" is a sense qe don't possess...but I'm not sure what a sense that we aren't aware of would be?

So what category would an "atom" fall under? The material? Because we "indirectly" use our senses to detect it?

Yes

You do realize that you're still trying to describe something by telling me "what it isn't"? I would really need to know what it is before we can discuss it. You do understand why telling me "what it isn't" doesn't exactly help me understand it any better? Here's an example...

That's what it's like when you tell me that the immaterial is "what does not possess any physical properties in our universe" lol. I've still got zero idea what you're talking about. [/quote]

I know what you mean. Imagine trying to be the one trying to be the one explaining what is immaterial in material terms. XD. Every time you give a physical example, the person clings to the physical aspects of what you say.

In simplest terms, many of the things you would qualify as “conceptual reality” exist independent of physical organisms.

Closer and closer is the point, right? It's a simulation after all.

My point is, barring some great chaotic event, we will be able to build higher and higher level “virtual realities” Given enough time, we will be able to create “virtual realities” that are realities for the NPCs in the virtual environment. So from our perspective as people, it is still a virtual reality, but from the NPC’s perspective, it is reality because it is part of the virtual reality.

My point is that it can all be done with a language and a source running the language. The NPC might experience the world based on the laws of the virtual world, but the bigger truth is that it’s actually a brilliantly written language.

In addition, we may choose to use the physics that we experience, but we may also choose to create completely different laws than we experience for the virtual world.

What's an example of something "true" that was "revealed" by religion and might have never been revealed as true without religion?

Affirmation of the fact that many if not all people have a nagging belief/know that there is something more even if we can’t quite know what it is.


Documentation of methods to try to connect in different ways to the immaterial and experiences that took place.


Science could tell you the mechanics of what happens with the car and physiologically, as well that the variables contributing to the situation when you are driving a high performance car with a given music in a low traffic situation. But it is not the same as knowing what it is to ride with the right machine and perfect song on an open road.

 

[akaDaScribe]

What about "all somethings are caused" and the eternal existent was neither something and also not a nothing?

I mean to say, a "something" in that sense would be a measured and therefore finite thing. Or at least something indicated to a finite mind. And therefore limited and subject to causation.

The logic says nothings aren't productive..

So, a why or why not entertain the idea of a three valued metaphysical logic. Something / nothing / and "?".... the great ineffable mystery.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Three-ValuedLogic.html

Three values. That's also similar the take I have on truth as you know. Truth is sentient or language depenedent. For the absolute or noumenal reality, there is neither truth nor falsehood. No people, no minds, then no truth basically speaking. No falsehood either. Just...."?".

All else is the folly of projection.

"Three values. That's also similar the take I have on truth as you know. Truth is sentient or language depenedent. For the absolute or noumenal reality, there is neither truth nor falsehood. No people, no minds, then no truth basically speaking. No falsehood either. Just...."?"."

I think that puts more value on what we believe than is warranted. Some things can be true, false, or both in relative terms, but there are still things that simply are or are not true. What we believe may or may not by true, but it doesn't make it untrue be virtue of the fact that we believe it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I know what you mean. Imagine trying to be the one trying to be the one explaining what is immaterial in material terms. XD. Every time you give a physical example, the person clings to the physical aspects of what you say.

In simplest terms, many of the things you would qualify as “conceptual reality” exist independent of physical organisms.

I'm not asking you to describe it in "material terms"...whatever that means...I'd be happy if you could describe the "immaterial" in any terms that you see fit. Just don't describe what it isn't...that doesn't help me understand what it is.

As for it being like my explanation of "conceptual reality"...you may be correct, just not in the way that you think. I'll address this at the end of the post though...

My point is, barring some great chaotic event, we will be able to build higher and higher level “virtual realities” Given enough time, we will be able to create “virtual realities” that are realities for the NPCs in the virtual environment. So from our perspective as people, it is still a virtual reality, but from the NPC’s perspective, it is reality because it is part of the virtual reality.

NPC's don't have a "perspective" though...they would need to be able to think first. You're anthropomorphizing them.

Now, it may be that one day AI will become sophisticated enough to think...but it seems to me that if it does, it's "reality" and ours would be one and the same, even if it did not realize this at first.

That's all speculation though...it's a bit difficult to talk about the perspectives of things which do not yet exist.

My point is that it can all be done with a language and a source running the language. The NPC might experience the world based on the laws of the virtual world, but the bigger truth is that it’s actually a brilliantly written language.

In addition, we may choose to use the physics that we experience, but we may also choose to create completely different laws than we experience for the virtual world.

I think you're misunderstanding what is actually happening. A physics engine doesn't actually create physics...not even in the "virtual world" that it's a part of. Computer code doesn't create physics...it doesn't create actual worlds. It literally just determines the way pixels move...or more accurately, the sequence in which they light up (pixels don't actually move). Take a look...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What computer code for graphics software does (to simplify it a lot) is determine the sequence in which these pixels light up. That's all.

To further explain, I sometimes play a game called Overwatch. If you haven't heard of it, it's a team based competitive shooter. There's a roster of characters, different maps and game types for each map, and each character has different "abilities" that are unique to them. Teams of six characters compete against each other to complete objectives.

When you say that computer language creates physics in a virtual world, you make it sound like you think that the computer programmers write some code about gravity, enters it into the software....and presto! The characters and objects in Overwatch have gravity in their virtual world!

That's what it sounds like you're trying to say...and if it's not, you need to try and explain what you're saying differently. If it is what you're saying though...then you're very wrong. Gravity is force...and there's no force pulling the characters downwards. All that it is are pixels being lit up in a sequence (like Christmas lights) that mimics the appearance of gravity on a character. It's not even a consistent mimicry. Hanzo shoots arrows with his bow....and depending on how long you drew back on his bow his arrow flies further and "drops" (as if from gravity) less. Yet Mei shoots a large icicle (something that would be several pounds heavier than the arrows) in a completely straight line...as if gravity has no hold on it. There's even a ninja named Genji who can 'double jump"...that's a jump into the air, then another jump while he's still in the air...even though he jumps off of nothing the second time.

There's no gravitational force involved, no actual characters involved (not apart from the player anyway), and there's no real movement involved. It's just a series of still pictures flashed before your eyes to trick your mind into "seeing" movement. The speed at which this is done is called the "framerate" and it's typically measured in "frames per second". A lot of shooters used to do 60fps...but I've got no idea what's normal now. 60fps may not seem like a lot...but it's more than enough to fool the mind.

So I think the terminology is partly to blame....physics engines, artificial intelligence, virtual worlds....these terms plus the relative sophistication of the trickery involved seem to have sent your imagination down a path to some false conclusions.

Take a look at this...

Do you think 1. "the computer language involved actually created a form of physics...forces that act on mario when he jumps and bumps into stuff"...or would it be more accurate to say that 2. "the language determines which pixels light up and when they light up to make it look like a little person is running around and jumping on stuff?"

If you still think it's #1...I'm not sure how else to help you.

Affirmation of the fact that many if not all people have a nagging belief/know that there is something more even if we can’t quite know what it is.

I'm sorry man, I should've been clearer in my request. When I said "truth", I really meant "a truth you can demonstrate"....otherwise, how would you know it's true? I don't know how you would demonstrate that with religion...it seems like the sort of thing you'd need psychology, maybe sociology, and a lot of mathematics to be able to demonstrate.

Keep in mind, I'm not even asking you to demonstrate it...as long as we both know it can be/has been demonstrated. For example, the truth that water evaporates when it's boiled. That's a truth that science has revealed.

Documentation of methods to try to connect in different ways to the immaterial and experiences that took place.

Are you saying the documents are true? Or the methods? Or the experiences? Or some combination of these?

Science could tell you the mechanics of what happens with the car and physiologically, as well that the variables contributing to the situation when you are driving a high performance car with a given music in a low traffic situation. But it is not the same as knowing what it is to ride with the right machine and perfect song on an open road.

You're right that it isn't the "same"....after all the "right car" and "perfect song" are both completely subjective concepts...they are opinions.

I was originally going to spend this part talking about what I thought your "immaterial" term might be....but I spent so much space talking about virtual worlds and video games that I think I'll wait till I see your answers to this post, then talk about it.

I will ask this though, did you decide that immaterial things exist....and then come up with the concept of immaterial to describe them? Or did you decide that it's possible that immaterial things exist....then you somehow experienced something which confirmed to you that immaterial things exist?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that puts more value on what we believe than is warranted. Some things can be true, false, or both in relative terms, but there are still things that simply are or are not true. What we believe may or may not by true, but it doesn't make it untrue be virtue of the fact that we believe it.

Not sure I understand you.

Lets say humanity disappeared. And all life in the universe. Lets assume God doesn't exist. No sentience whatsoever. Now, if truth is "correspondence between statement and fact" where would the statements come from?

Truth, as defined, needs statements. And apprehension of them in a relationship to the facts. No statements, no truth. No minds, no apprehension.

For me, imagining that situation, there would be neither truth nor falsehood. Only what we project from our armchairs whilst we envisage what things would be "like" if we could experience them.

I'm not saying there would be no facts, only no truths about them. Truth is part of a 'dialect' of language using sentience, not an absolute independent event. Truth. Like a Lockean secondary quality.

The only other option seems to be positing the existence every last possible group of statements from "the moon is real" to "the water is filled with bacterium" and even silly ones like "the sun is made of Shakespeare's toenails..." somehow existing - in a self verifying fashion - ad infinitum, on their own in a conveniently constructed Platonic realm.

 

[akaDaScribe]

I'm not asking you to describe it in "material terms"...whatever that means...I'd be happy if you could describe the "immaterial" in any terms that you see fit. Just don't describe what it isn't...that doesn't help me understand what it is.

As for it being like my explanation of "conceptual reality"...you may be correct, just not in the way that you think. I'll address this at the end of the post though...



NPC's don't have a "perspective" though...they would need to be able to think first. You're anthropomorphizing them.

Now, it may be that one day AI will become sophisticated enough to think...but it seems to me that if it does, it's "reality" and ours would be one and the same, even if it did not realize this at first.

That's all speculation though...it's a bit difficult to talk about the perspectives of things which do not yet exist.



I think you're misunderstanding what is actually happening. A physics engine doesn't actually create physics...not even in the "virtual world" that it's a part of. Computer code doesn't create physics...it doesn't create actual worlds. It literally just determines the way pixels move...or more accurately, the sequence in which they light up (pixels don't actually move). Take a look...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel

What computer code for graphics software does (to simplify it a lot) is determine the sequence in which these pixels light up. That's all.

To further explain, I sometimes play a game called Overwatch. If you haven't heard of it, it's a team based competitive shooter. There's a roster of characters, different maps and game types for each map, and each character has different "abilities" that are unique to them. Teams of six characters compete against each other to complete objectives.

When you say that computer language creates physics in a virtual world, you make it sound like you think that the computer programmers write some code about gravity, enters it into the software....and presto! The characters and objects in Overwatch have gravity in their virtual world!

That's what it sounds like you're trying to say...and if it's not, you need to try and explain what you're saying differently. If it is what you're saying though...then you're very wrong. Gravity is force...and there's no force pulling the characters downwards. All that it is are pixels being lit up in a sequence (like Christmas lights) that mimics the appearance of gravity on a character. It's not even a consistent mimicry. Hanzo shoots arrows with his bow....and depending on how long you drew back on his bow his arrow flies further and "drops" (as if from gravity) less. Yet Mei shoots a large icicle (something that would be several pounds heavier than the arrows) in a completely straight line...as if gravity has no hold on it. There's even a ninja named Genji who can 'double jump"...that's a jump into the air, then another jump while he's still in the air...even though he jumps off of nothing the second time.

There's no gravitational force involved, no actual characters involved (not apart from the player anyway), and there's no real movement involved. It's just a series of still pictures flashed before your eyes to trick your mind into "seeing" movement. The speed at which this is done is called the "framerate" and it's typically measured in "frames per second". A lot of shooters used to do 60fps...but I've got no idea what's normal now. 60fps may not seem like a lot...but it's more than enough to fool the mind.

So I think the terminology is partly to blame....physics engines, artificial intelligence, virtual worlds....these terms plus the relative sophistication of the trickery involved seem to have sent your imagination down a path to some false conclusions.

Take a look at this...

View attachment 239737

Do you think 1. "the computer language involved actually created a form of physics...forces that act on mario when he jumps and bumps into stuff"...or would it be more accurate to say that 2. "the language determines which pixels light up and when they light up to make it look like a little person is running around and jumping on stuff?"

If you still think it's #1...I'm not sure how else to help you.



I'm sorry man, I should've been clearer in my request. When I said "truth", I really meant "a truth you can demonstrate"....otherwise, how would you know it's true? I don't know how you would demonstrate that with religion...it seems like the sort of thing you'd need psychology, maybe sociology, and a lot of mathematics to be able to demonstrate.

Keep in mind, I'm not even asking you to demonstrate it...as long as we both know it can be/has been demonstrated. For example, the truth that water evaporates when it's boiled. That's a truth that science has revealed.



Are you saying the documents are true? Or the methods? Or the experiences? Or some combination of these?



You're right that it isn't the "same"....after all the "right car" and "perfect song" are both completely subjective concepts...they are opinions.

I was originally going to spend this part talking about what I thought your "immaterial" term might be....but I spent so much space talking about virtual worlds and video games that I think I'll wait till I see your answers to this post, then talk about it.

I will ask this though, did you decide that immaterial things exist....and then come up with the concept of immaterial to describe them? Or did you decide that it's possible that immaterial things exist....then you somehow experienced something which confirmed to you that immaterial things exist?

Sorry about the delay in responding.



I’ll address the “virtual world” first and will probably have to post responses to the other stuff in another post.

I actually build games. I’m not the best at it because it takes a lot of time to do, but I am coming from a game maker’s perspective. I’ve also been an avid game player since the days of pong. lol

The point is not how close we can build a virtual world to our own. The point is not whether or not the NPCs (non-player characters) are alive, or how advanced they are, or if they are self-aware. The point is that we can make an environment. We can determine how that environment works. We can determine what is possible within that environment. We can make a system for how what is in or part of the environment functions within that environment. The environment has laws, however primitive, that govern what can and cannot happen within that environment. So, the environment has “laws” and anything that is part of that environment is subject to those laws, unless of course loopholes to the laws were made.

Even though the environment consists of laws that govern how everything functions within it, what is behind that environment is a programming language that makes that environment possible. The language and the code written in the language is what is really driving the environment. The laws of the environment pertain to the environment. This does not change what the environment is. It just means that a language is behind it.