What is Reality?

Thomas

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
14,900
Reaction score
4,620
Points
108
Location
London UK
New Scientist strikes again with a really interesting report ... have a look, buy the mag if you're interested, or I can endeavour to offer a summary of the articles — promise I won't be polemical, but I do get inspired by this kind of stuff!

I do like the idea of existence being a soup of possibilities that collapses into actuality when it's observed ...

An analogy popped up again — if you make the nucleus of the atom as big as the planet, then the nearest electron is out there, some 2.5 times the distance of our earth from the sun ... or, if you imagine a nucleus sitting on the altar of St Paul's cathedral, then the electron is akin to a butterfly, somewhere in the building, sometimes here, up in the roof, sometimes there ...

... the deeper you get into the stuff, the bigger the 'space' in between becomes.

Food for thought,

Thomas
 
Particle or wave ... or ...

As a layman I have some grip on the idea that sub-atomic elements act like particles, and yet also like waves — and yet we continue to talk about this wave/particle thing — but particles are not waves, and waves are not particles.

Is there not, or should there be, a term to describe something that is not quite either, but has the qualities of both?

Just a thought,

Tom
 
I've only a moment.

I've long thought it intriguing that light could maintain itself for multiple billions of years, let alone that we could chance catch a glimpse. For something to travel that far and that long even in a vacuum, and still maintain its properties just seems to go against all empirical knowledge concerning loss and friction and entropy.

More important...if a source of light even a scant hundred million light years away can emit some form of radiation we perceive as light in a manner that is consistent, if light were particles there would of necessity be "blind spots," and yet it appears there are no blind spots...we can consistently return our gaze to the same star night after night.

Perhaps there is something to the nature of the underlying fabric of the universe that performs the function of a "wave," or at least makes particles behave as waves. I don't know, but it is an interesting study. The more I look at the whole space/time concept, the more difficult it is to wrap my mind around.
 
Thomas said:
New Scientist strikes again with a really interesting report ... have a look, buy the mag if you're interested, or I can endeavour to offer a summary of the articles — promise I won't be polemical, but I do get inspired by this kind of stuff!

I do like the idea of existence being a soup of possibilities that collapses into actuality when it's observed ...

An analogy popped up again — if you make the nucleus of the atom as big as the planet, then the nearest electron is out there, some 2.5 times the distance of our earth from the sun ... or, if you imagine a nucleus sitting on the altar of St Paul's cathedral, then the electron is akin to a butterfly, somewhere in the building, sometimes here, up in the roof, sometimes there ...

... the deeper you get into the stuff, the bigger the 'space' in between becomes.

Food for thought,

Thomas
Click to expand...

I remember Liv Ullman's character making this analogy in the film Mindlwalk.
 
Thomas said:
Is there not, or should there be, a term to describe something that is not quite either, but has the qualities of both?
Click to expand...
How about using the word 'Viator' (I believe its the Latin for the word 'Traveler')?
 
slightly off on a tangent

"I AM" that is reality, is there anyting else ?
 
Yes there is more nothing than something....

more no stance than substance...

the wall we see, the chair we sit on, the earth we stand on is mostly space....

we never touch....in the middle of making love, flesh to flesh....we never touch, our electrons simply repel each other...
 
Sometimes I think that I'll never know exactly what reality is, and to be honest, after a lifetime of study and practice, I'm okay with that. :)
 
Yea, lately I've been thinking that our perception is just speculation of what reality is. It's hard to believe anyone could know anyway.
 
For human beings reality is defined by our relationships. Families are usually the first reality, then school, then adult life. Our sense of reality comes from the accumulation of realities that we experience. (This is not a reply to the opening post, but because so much time has passed and such broad subjects have been broached that I mention it.) An example is that people who are incarcerated form a community within the limits which they are given. Even cut off from the 'Outside', people create a new reality where they are.

The only trouble is when you cannot get a stable reality long enough to feel it. An example is someone who hates math yet is required to take lots of math. For whatever reason math classes move at the wrong pace for them or they don't relate to the numbers. So they have moments of understanding but nothing continuous. The subject therefore cannot hold their interest for it is unreal to them, but this sense of non-reality will affect more than only that class. It contributes to their overall sense of reality or unreality.
 
juantoo3 said:
The more I look at the whole space/time concept, the more difficult it is to wrap my mind around.
Click to expand...
Oooh ... very Augustinian!

Especially when you factor the subjective experience of time into the equation.

God bless,

Thomas
 
wil said:
Yes there is more nothing than something....
more no stance than substance...
the wall we see, the chair we sit on, the earth we stand on is mostly space....
we never touch....in the middle of making love, flesh to flesh....we never touch, our electrons simply repel each other...
Click to expand...
Indeed the Cosmos is, mostly, nothing ...
... and yet it is everything.

God bless

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Especially when you factor the subjective experience of time into the equation.
Click to expand...

Subjective experience of time is, of course, very Einstein-like as well :) He spent a lifetime trying to wrap his head around the whole space/time concept, which makes me feel more comfortable in accepting our human limitations to grasp the concept...
 
Joedjr said:
Is there a common reality for all human beings, more of a macro reality than micro reality?
Click to expand...

I don't know, either; but I have thought of an analogy that you might like:

Imagine that reality is like air. You keep taking it in, experiencing it, then exhaling it. You can try to breath the same air twice, but it quickly grows stale. You rarely breath the same air twice, just like you rarely wish to have exactly the same experiences twice. Air must be cleaned just like reality has to be constantly renewed. You can breath the same air as another person momentarily, but then the shared air becomes stale even faster. Imagine sharing air is as sharing the same reality. To share the same space the air has to be renewed constantly. It can happen, but sometimes it doesn't, such as when you are both in close quarters or when there aren't enough plants in your area. The more people you have sharing the same air, the faster it has to be cleaned.

Would you rather have the air all to yourself or would you rather share slightly stale air? If you answer this question it may give you as much or more satisfaction than if I had been able to answer your question. I think the reality is that you don't care to have the question answered as much as you care to think about it in new ways and to move on to the next question.
 
Dream said:
Air must be cleaned just like reality has to be constantly renewed.
Click to expand...
I will agree with you that air is a reality. It is a macro reality, you can't do without it. Back in the day, when there was smoking in public places, if you were unfortunate to work in an office of smokers you breathed poor quality air. For the people who worked there, a shared micro reality was unhealthy air.
 
The air is beyond our control, but we rely upon it and we change it. I never know what aspect of my comments you are going to respond to or whether you will respond at all. I've no control of the conversation, and therefore it seems real to me.

I remember when there was smoking in public places, and I remember my grandparents smoking in their houses. (One died of lung cancer.) I also remember doing a job for a man who would not allow anyone to smoke in sight of his home. That's how much he hated smoking.

One might say that the stale air is like when conversations start to get boring, and the smoke is like when they are a little too exciting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top