Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Let’s be honest reality is based purely on our perspective. What we define as reality (such as the sky is blue) is different to say a colour blind persons reality. Or if an Apple is universally crunchy because to something with razor sharp teeth it wouldn’t be.
Outside maybe mathematics I don’t think there is a universal reality. Everything varies depending on who is perceiving it.
Thoughts?
That's a big episomological (sub field of philosophy) question.
And I'm *really* rusty here...
So, you could go with René Descartes approach, that we can't know anything about the world outside our mind.
All we know for sure is that *something* is thinking given that we're able to ask the question to begin with.
"I think, therefore I am" or something to that effect.
Still we could have a demon on our shoulder tricking our mind with everything going on out there.
Or for a more modern example, we could be a brain in a vat, getting all the inputs for our senses from a super computer and our nutrients from the machinery attached to the vat and we'd have no way of knowing that what we sense isn't representing a "real" world out there.
If that's the case we really don't have the faintest idea if reality is universal or not.
I like the approach of David Humes.
The things inside our minds are things we have power of definition over.
We can know those for certain because *we* define them and can reason about them.
On the other hand, we can sense, and we can bundle combinations of senses into ideas about things.
Like softness, whiteness, etc and define the combination of senses that corelate to be a pillow, as a example.
Or redness, hardness, roundness, sweet sourness, and the smell, into what we define as a apple.
We *assume* that those senses belong together and will always corelate.
Like we assume that the sun will rise tomorrow and that things will continue to fall to the ground tomorrow, just like they do today.
But we can't prove it without circular logic.
Modern science is largely based on the axiom that there *is* a "real world" out there and that causation exists.
And I personally believe that there *is* a objective world out there independent of observation that *is* universal.
But that our *perception* of it isn't.
Granted, the leading theories in quantum physics currently is based around a world where the act of observation changes the world, not just through our interactions impact, but in ways that seems to even challenge causality.
I prefer different interpretations however.
The pilot wave interpretation is rather interesting for instance.
But to be quite frank, given our observations so far the jury is still out on that question of yours.
And we need more observations and quite frankly probably more, and more refined theories too know that for sure.
@StormMistress
Sorry for the @
But you don't seem to notice the pm I send, probably because you haven't accepted my follow request landing them in the "other" tab.
And I would like to talk with you about the feminism question and male anger question in pm if you're willing, because what I have to say just wouldn't fit into a answer...
So, if you're willing, may we pm and talk about it, please?
> Let’s be honest reality is based purely on our perspective.
What? No, of course not. Reality doesn't care about your perspective. Reality doesn't care if you live or die. Reality is that which is, not that which you think is.
> What we define as reality (such as the sky is blue) is different to say a colour blind persons reality.
The sky is blue because its electromagnetic radiation falls on the blue part of the spectrum. That's just reality. If you're colorblind, reality isn't for no damn reason changing, your perception of it is. Similar story with the crunchy apple. Color/crunchiness can be quantified and observed. Even the blind person can quantify aspects of radiation emitted by a wave, check how waves are categorized based on their qualities and come to the conclusion that the wave is blue even if he doesn't see the radiation at all.
> Everything varies depending on who is perceiving it.
How the hell does this make sense? There are two people looking at a card. Guy 1 measures the card at 2x2 inches. Guy 2 measures the card at 4x4 inches. Either they are going by different definitions and lengths of 'inch', or one of them is measuring incorrectly. Are you saying that the card is magically adjusting size for these two and both are correct?
I believe that by definition, reality is the universe. A cognitive system's capacity to perceive, organize, remember, or manipulate any portion of the universe/reality, does not effect the laws of the physical universe. Reality existed before life, and it will exist after life has been extinguished.
Social life forms, particularly cognitive self-aware systems, have created more complex issues to ponder, where "truth" within the universe/reality has been mixed with morality. Complex social issues often have multiple truths, partial truths, or confounded meanings. So finding the reality within social contexts is often extremely complex, and requires a nuanced and patient investigatory process.
Socrates developed a method for navigating towards an accurate measure of what is reality within social issues, and was killed for his conclusions. In modern history, philosophical pragmatists, particularly classical pragmatists like William James (specifically his works on Pragmatism) and John Dewey, have developed this Socratic method into a flushed out branch of philosophy.
Alfred Schütz also has several famous works on this exact issue, on reality and the social world. There are other phenomenologists, but his works are amazingly well done.
Other than that, the entirety of philosophy has been concerned with your question, particularly in a social context, for untold generations.
I think it's dangerous to allow for interpretation of reality, as if it is subjective and interchangeable. What we experience as individuals (and often groups) does change, is often unique. But it's more about the totality of our experiences make us into the person we become, and we are informed, influenced, by them. But that doesn't mean that we can/should question or challenge fact. The sky is blue. Apples are crunchy (relatively.) I'd rather say, "Everything is relative," because it is, compared to something else. But this trend (devolution) of questioning facts... well, it's destructive. More than deconstructive; destructive.
Opinion
30Opinion
Oh, it goes far deeper than you even think. Ever heard of the theory of relativity? There is not really an objective constant in this world. Even math is subject to the perspective of the observer where things such as time and space is not the same for everyone.
A good example of this is the Ladder paradox. The premise is simple, you have a shed with a door on each side and a ladder that is longer than the shed so if it enters the shed you are unable to close both doors because the ladder is in the war.
However, physics tells us that the faster something moves the "shorter" it becomes. In other words, if you move the ladder at a certain speed into and through the shed then it will appear the ladder will fit inside it with both doors closed. From your point of view that would be your reality, of the ladders going inside the shed and both doors closing without the ladders sticking out anywhere until the door opens and the ladder moves out again.
From the perspective of the ladder however, there was actually never a time where both doors was closed. It simply opened one of the door, moved across the shed, opened the other door, moved a bit more, closed the first door and moved the rest of the way out.
The mindbending truth of the matter is that both of these are true from their own perspective. This is not an illusion or anything like that, it is an example two things can be true at the same time.
Actually, I've heard of relativity, both special and general, and without meaning to sound as though I'm bragging, I know more about it than most. For example, your first claim here, the claim that "there is not really an objective constant in this world" is hilariously wrong. Mr. Einstein himself (you know, the guy who first formulated these ideas) must be rolling in his grave at that comment; or maybe he's just laughing his head off.
Anyway, SR is based around the notion that the speed of light itself remains constant within any and all inertial reference frames. That is, it's approx. 300,000 kilometres per second in vacuo. It of course changes when it enters a medium of greater density (ex. glass, water), and that is how we have refraction, the bending of light rays at the boundary between substances that differ in their refractive indices, but the point holds.
Claim No. 2: "Even maths is subject to the perspective of the observer where things such as time and space is not the same for everyone."
Oh dear. No. Just no. Maths isn't relative, even if other things are (ex. your position on the Earth or in space, your velocity, etc.).
@Snsl153
Well, use a few examples then. It is true that the speed of light is constant through all reference frames. It does not matter if I stand "still" or if I am moving at a certain speed, I will still measure the speed of light as the same.
But this only really works from one observer. The moment you add another observer things gets wonky. There is a fairly common thought experiment, can't remember if it has a name. Its about time dilation and has two observers. One on a space ship going at a certain speed as relative to another observer outside.
On the ship you have two mirrors and a photon of light bouncing between them. From the point of view of the person outside the spaceship the photon of light travels alongside the ship to keep up and be able to reach each of the mirrors but from the point of view of the person inside the light is only moving left and right between the mirrors.
Both are correct but light must travel much longer from the point of view of one observer thus taking more time to do so thus extending time. Both of these observers can record data regarding the photon such as the time it takes for it to reach one mirror from the other or the distance it travels but both observers will record different numbers and still be correct, from their point of view. Hence, math can very much be relative to the observer.
Furthermore, if there was an "objective constant" in this world.. what is it? How long did the photon travel in REALITY, how long did it ACTUALLY take?
No, all - ALL - observers will measure the speed of light at 300,000 kps. I doesn't change, no matter how fast you go, no matter what you do.
Time dilation is something else, it's what occurs as you approach the speed of light limit, but even then EM waves will still have the same velocity.
Perspective just doesn't matter, at all, except insofar as the perception of reality is altered (but not reality as it actually is).
Answering your last question, photons are of course just "packets" of light. Light travels at the same speed as every other type of EM wave (ex. gamma, X-ray, infrared, radio) and to determine, the time it took to travel a given distance, just use the formula t = d/c x 2.
@Snsl153
No, no, no. You are missing so many things.
First of all, light is what we call a "particle-wave duality". It behaves both as a wave AND a particle. For example, it only travels one path and lands in one place but yet travels through all paths and can even interact with itself. Yes, a photon is just a particle that carries a packet of light but in this case I am using it as a teaching aid to visualize a specific point of light rather than an unambiguous field of energy.
Time dilation also happens at all velocities but the results are exponential thus more evident in relativistic speeds.
The observer is also VERY important because otherwise I could just ask one of the observers how long it took for the light to go between the mirrors and the other how long the photon traveled, both are correct answers but when I combine them to calculate the "speed of light" you get the completely wrong answer. There is also a lot of other problems such as relativistic simultaneity I discussed with the ladder paradox where two conflicting "realities" can both be correct which really complicates things.
In my view you're *both* wrong.
On one hand light speed is measured as being the same regardless of direction when on a planet that's spinning around its own axis as well as around the sun as well as following the motion of our star around the Milkyway galaxy around the central black hole as well as following our Galaxy towards the great attractor.
So something is obviously weird about our observations here.
Since the result doesn't change if we measure in the direction of the spin or away from it or in the direction of travel or not etc...
However there's more then one interpretation of the quantum physics observations we've done, the particle/wave duality isn't required for all interpretations, the pilot wave interpretation for instance does not require that duality.
“Reality” and “truth” are omniscient concepts just slightly out of our perception. There is certainly a reality and a truth that encompasses us all, but it would take a god-like mind to perceive and understand it. For most of us, those things are extremely subjective and based largely on personal perspective. This is why we can ask 10 people what they observed at the scene of an accident, and we would likely get 10 stories that might differ slightly or completely. Everyone could pass a polygraph test on their story too.
Unfortunately, it’s also why eyewitness testimony is far and away statistically the worst evidence that can be used in investigations and trials.
"Perception is reality" has been the intellectual buzz phrase for many millennia, as I believe it to be true in many cases, but with a caveat: it's "your subjective reality" until it's shown that it isn't. Does that make sense?
It's pretty much the same thing as you saying there are certain mathematical realities that are constant and universal, but even those are based on the current limits of our knowledge, and even abilities. When I hear the term "universal", I also hear in my mind "the universe as we currently understand it".
There are certain realities that are universal, and others that are not.
It's one of the reasons why making laws about offending people makes no sense at all. You cannot possibly know everything about the upbringing, culture, religion, education, etc of everyone you'll ever talk to. People just need to understand that being offended is your business, no one else needs to know or care.
u Errr, no. Reality is what is real, for 99% of the people. That some individuals, physically or mentally impaired, are unable to experience it the same way, doesn’t change the scientific facts. Otherwise you would open the door for nutjobs peddling their Flat Earth, Lizard People and Intelligent Design nonsense.
Slap yourself in the face hard and tell yourself it doesn't hurt. If it stops hurting, then you know you're right.
But of course you are wrong as reality, like time, is something intangible but fundamental. Regardless of gender, perspective, education, age and whatever, you have a stake in it no different to any other.
It's not just with color blind people. Everyone who can see colors sees them a bit differently. That one yellow dress is many different shades of yellow, depending on who is looking.
So when shopping for clothes, don't ask your partner's opinion on the color, they will see a different shade compared to you.
False, even if a person is blind, it can be calculated that the particles in the air are on similar wavelengths as the colour blue; thus making the sky appear blue. How he perceives the world does not mean the world is different. Reality is not dictated by perception.
It kind of is though because all of our current reality is viewed purely from our perspective and biases. Without perception reality can’t exist to us.
Reality is that which, even when you don't believe in it, doesn't go away. Reality just is. It's there, it exists. To deny it is the height of idiocy.
Look into epistomology.
It's anything other than "idiocy".
Indeed it's the fundament of the very principles of science.
As for observational science.
There's some genuinely *weird* observations that have been done using variations of the double slit experiment that's really hard to explain while including everything from causality to the universality of reality.
Trust me, this is *not* a stupid question, far from it.
@Losalt Okay, evidence. What kind of evidence would actually convince you it was an idea worth accepting?
Isn't the fact that we're interacting here something to consider? If objective reality didn't exist, we wouldn't even be here to discuss it.
If reality were completely subjective, each and every one of us would inhabit his or her own little world, and never interact with anyone else, because they'd have nothing in common, they wouldn't even be able to communicate.
@Snsl153
Do you actually have any proof that I even exist?
That the thoughts that you're interacting with is actually from a outside world?
Or even if it is do you have any proof that it's different from any other entity you're interacting with?
Every single living being you've ever interacted with could originate in the same source, just a computer program for instance or the fantasy of some being etc.
And your mind and mine could conceivably belong to the same entity.
There's no real way of proving otherwise.
There *is* no evidence out there for the existence of the world.
At best we can try to operate with probabilities given the sensory inputs we do have.
But we don't know if we can rely on our senses.
Indeed if we make the assumption that the world *is* real and all of the scientific principles and their findings then those tells us that we really can't rely on our senses.
We *learn* to sense everything with signals that's essentially just pure chaos to begin with.
We have a huge black spot in the middle of our field of view in each of our eyes, but our brain filters it out by making educated guesses about what's actually there and presenting us with a reality including that.
We learn how to feel a touch, smell, hear, taste and touch, sense damage/pain and see patterns, including some that just never existed to begin with.
We are easily fooled according to our experiments.
Meaning that the very foundation of our science actually has issues and relies on assumptions that we treat as axioms.
And some of those axioms seems to contradict our observations.
Like with the double slit experiment.
Where we seem to get effects *prior* to the cause for instance.
Something I'm sure you can see is... Problematic...
I agree with your assumption that a universal reality exists.
I *believe* that it does.
But given the current experiments and data it's not proved beyond doubt.
Not even close...
And it's a open question if it ever *can* be proven.
And no, even with subjective worlds we can't assume that we'd be unable to interact.
Imagine two brains in a vat.
Each running inside their own simulations.
Their simulations could be programmed to interact with each other.
But you can't necessarily predict how said interaction is recieved in the other end.
Or really what inputs they are recieving from the simulation.
The two simulations could have vastly different parameters.
Yet because of the interaction there might be communication because we're searching for patterns all the time.
Thete are other absolutes, but I get your train of though.
We all view things based on our beliefs and experiences. It's why no 2 people are exactly the same. It's what makes people so interesting to the right people. And completely dull to others.
Gravity is pretty real and so is temperature, inertia and mass. Statistics can be manipulated to come out with any outcome we want. Biden just said the inflation rate for July was Zero.
Lol. Ah yes, inflation percentages are always factored year over year, but they don’t HAVE to be. Month over month makes it look better for headline readers.
The twisting of facts and changing of definitions is truly frightening.
Look up observer effect and blow your mind some more... Not only is the universe defined for you by your perception, but your perception is theorized to have an effect upon the universe. Interesting conundrum, no?
u reality is beyond our perception... and it defines itself, it is not defined by us
perception yes, that's still ours and undefined
Or a truly blind person there reality is bound to be different compared to the others you mention. They say everyone creates there version of reality, I think that's pretty much the way of things. Good question, so my answer has to be no😉
As Einstein put it, everything is relative... depends on the observer. Other than the speed of light, there are no absolutes.
What about the arrow of time? Not the speed, but the direction of the flow from past, through present, and into the future? What about the conservation principles? What about the overall increase in entropy for the universe as a whole? What about the gravitational constant? The charge on the electron. The neutrality of the neutron. Snell's Law. Galileo's Law of falling bodies. Kepler's laws of planetary motion.
Everything is not relative, and Einstein never claimed it was. People hear the expression "Theory of Relativity" and think it means there are no absolutes. That could not be further from the truth.
Star Trek TNG did an episode on this. Picard was told there were five lights in the torture chamber when there were only four.
By the end he saw the fifth light.
Power changes reality.
reality is what GOD Christ said
but society does not want GOD
so they live in delusions and believe in fairy tales
most of society does not even know about the snake circling the earth
https://www.youtube.com/embed/oC8zjMtTjJUYou talk about God and Christ... Then mention Jörmungandr, the Midgard Serpent (also World Serpent) in Norse mythology who encircles the realm of Midgard (this planet). Are you under the influence of something?
@TheoPfeifle
the body of jormag is in the video
and Jesus Christ never lies
he killed jormag
Perception is reality, which is an artifact of your nervous system.
Because reality exists whether you perceive it or not. It's always there, that's why we call it "reality", because it doesn't matter who believes what about it, it is what it is. You could say that it's the stage upon which all our dramas, comedies and tragedies are played out. It's the background, the foundation, that which always has and always will be. That's the best way to explain it, but maybe I'm not making much sense here right now.
Reality is universal. Things are, or are not.
What isn't universal is our perception of it. Perception that can be right or wrong.
But if we say lost all 5 senses of perception does reality exist to us anymore?
It doesn't matter if you can see or feel reality, it's still there. Just because you can't see the sun doesn't mean it disappeared.
That's the difference between reality and the perception of it. How you perceive reality is different, but that perception is either right or wrong, as reality is something that exist no matter if you see it or not.
So basically there is universal fixed reality but not all perceived reality is universal or correct? Like just because we see the sky as blue doesn’t mean it is universally blue. It is blue because of the way we perceive colour.
Yes, that's what I was saying, you perceive it blue, but it's not.
You can see something that is real, like you go out and see a flower, it's there, you don't just perceive it, it's really here. Now it's color, that's how you perceive it, and other animals might see it differently, like ultraviolet or infrared. Or simply no color.
It's weird because it's a simple concept yet it's kinda hard to explain ^^
Exactly. That's why everyone is beautiful. Some people just can't perceive the beauty there.
This has been a kong philosophical debate. But like all science we go by what the fast majority agree upon. Color blind people wouldn't know theyre color blind unless we had a standard of color.
Most people who wave their hands over a naked flame, are going to feel heat, then pain, then pull their hand away from the fire hazard.
This is true. We see the world through concepts i. e. the sky is blue. In reality, blue isn't a word, it is an experience. And experiences vary
The sky is still blue even if a color blind person can't perceive it.
No. Its universal. We're part of it not separate from
Wait let me send the screenshot of your question to Albert Einstein because I'm not able to understand... I hope he can help me to understand.
blind people don't exist
reality IS universal
i know what ur saying, i think saying that consciousness is subjective is more accurate
Very poignant and profound
Reality is: it is what it is
no it isn't
You can also add your opinion below!
