Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the float Name#Password
Comment
[*]Italic Text[/*]
[**]Bold Text[/**]
[~]Taimapedia Article[/~]
[%]Spoiler Text[/%]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace text[/pre]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Reality by Albert Bronningstone - Tue, 25 Dec 2018 07:49:27 EST ID:Bucl4KP/ No.209612 Ignore Report Quick Reply
File: 1545742167839.gif -(2039057B / 1.94MB, 500x500) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. 2039057
What is reality at its core? If you look beyond perception and try to see the very essence of reality, rather than seeing it through a point of view or lense, then what even is it?

I know this question has a few issues. You need to consider the near certain probability no human on earth even knows what reality is since your species sees the world through limited perception, sensory constraints and cognitive biases that constantly obscure the true nature of reality. It would be nice to at least try to get somewhere with these questions and see what you could do to arrive at some concept of how to go about understanding or measuring reality however.
>>
Beatrice Brocklenag - Tue, 25 Dec 2018 20:05:48 EST ID:caq8D8A1 No.209614 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209612
This seems to be
Ver y
VERY
Interesting
>>
Lillian Femmershit - Wed, 26 Dec 2018 13:50:25 EST ID:LdHLS4vG No.209615 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209612
Some call it the Void, some call it the Real, some call it Chaos
The first and third words convey a sense that we can't really grasp it as such. All 'understanding' that we can have is intrinsically a human understanding. The real question is what do we DO about this? Do we continue down the path of the Enlightenment, instrumental rationality and abstraction or do we resist and build a new system of ethics where man is no longer the measure of all things but rather the measurer? A world of human values and not technical values, made with an existential comportment toward our own finitude? One more thing, note the "Ten Bulls" of Chan/Zen tradition. What happens? Once you see the Nature of Reality, which is Ineffable ("how can a snowflake exist in a raging inferno?") you might later conclude that "it would be better to have been deaf and blind from the beginning!" and in the end the only world we have is this human world ("I go to the marketplace among men")
>>
Hugh Puttingtutch - Fri, 28 Dec 2018 17:45:06 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.209618 Ignore Report Quick Reply
Realitty is that which is possible.

Imagine any possibility that could have happened and ask yourself why didn't it happen? All answers will basically boil down to because reality.
>>
David Bebberstock - Fri, 28 Dec 2018 21:19:07 EST ID:qNw22QEr No.209619 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209612
This is reality, right here.
It is this.
>>
Beatrice Blottingnore - Sat, 29 Dec 2018 07:48:40 EST ID:Bucl4KP/ No.209620 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209615
Are you suggesting that trying to grasp reality might be too much of a baggage for the human psyche to handle? I don't want to avert my curiosity which seems to drive me towards wanting to understand it, even if it is somehow too much for my mind. My sense of curiosity towards to true nature of reality is too interesting for me to pursue some alternative.

>>209618
I think that you are on track and reality is a sequence of events that happened, not the things that didn't happen. The ultimate question i am seeking is what is the truth behind what we see? What is the essence and mechanisms of the possibilities that we witness?

>>209619
Yes but what is 'this'? 'This' in the instance you described could be an infinite regression into an expression of reality. What is the substance of 'this'?
>>
Martin Moshstone - Sat, 29 Dec 2018 16:45:15 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.209621 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209620

>The ultimate question i am seeking is what is the truth behind what we see? What is the essence and mechanisms of the possibilities that we witness?

Well that is an impossible question to answer. I don't fucking know.

I like the Incompleteness Theorem; it basically shows that a viewer within a system will never properly understand the system in its entirety because the viewer is a part of the system. We're smart monkeys living in a reality much more complex than our own brains. Of course there's no ultimate 'truth' in such a world.
>>
Martha Hemblemene - Tue, 01 Jan 2019 08:28:11 EST ID:Bucl4KP/ No.209622 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209621
>We're smart monkeys living in a reality much more complex than our own brains. Of course there's no ultimate 'truth' in such a world.

Our understanding of reality is indeed incomplete, but I don't think it is impossible to make it more complete through effort.

Most things in the universe leave a data trail. Dinosaur bones can be fossilized. Molecules can undergo radioactive decay and that can get used to date things based on decay percentages. Scientists are busy gathering data all the time and people are slowly learning to fill in the blanks. Maybe we never find out everything but complex questions become more simple once you have enough data. So suppose we had eventually had all the data in the universe, wouldn't we also gain the capacity to make perfect sense of everything?
>>
Ebenezer Mondergold - Thu, 03 Jan 2019 09:08:39 EST ID:YXMsMuFM No.209623 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209622

Even if we had perfect omniscience, meaning having access to all possible data of the universe, we would still not be able to make sense of it I think.

We can see the limits of human intelligence even now, in Big Data. No human can collate and abstract the mass personal data ad-companies have access to. They need specialized 'AI's to make sense of it all as well as to act on the results. The same is true with machine learning based on neuronal networks. They are notorious to be "inexplicable", a black box that once trained will do what you intended, but no living human can explain exactly how one instance achieves this. The complexity involved is often too great for us to grasp, even with abstractions.

Within a lot of fields we're already relying on the collective intelligence of the group to build even common household things. Not one person can in detail explain how an iPhone works; you need computer engineers, coders, material engineers, physicists, mathematicians etc.

For me these are sure signs that reality itself cannot be understood within a single mind, unless we transcend the limit of human consciousness. The complexity of the world around us require so much abstraction that the true nuance and meaning is more or less lost unless you devote your life in a specialized field. Hell most of what science is about is overcoming our mental, physical and perceptional limits in order to produce knowledge.
>>
Angus Closhbirk - Fri, 04 Jan 2019 13:57:55 EST ID:2LwLwSlz No.209624 Ignore Report Quick Reply
>>209623
I don't think there is a highest level 'sense' from an objective viewpoint though. Meaning that, you take two advanced civilizations, both having access to all possible data points of the universe, and they would come up with wildly different meanings for the 'sense' of it all. So at the same time none of their 'senses' are absolute, they still make tons of 'sense' in the conventional meaning; explanations that are fit for a purpose, and used to make life more convenient. The error is assuming they are true, or accurate representations in themselves. It's allegory of the cave type stuff, folks.

So the problem isn't really the amount of information or the limits of human cognition (significant factors though they are.) It's that the whole notion of 'sense' is inherently at odds with the notion of 'truth' taken to mean empirical, objective reality. Sense is something that only exists within and for a mind, so of course its impossible to ever find it outside of the context of a given mind. This is the ultimate problem of the limit of cognition (which doesn't have to do with our human information processing limit per se, but with the limit of concepts and information as such) which Kant, Godel, etc. allude to.

So back to OP, the most we can say about reality is by speaking about it negatively; the universe is an apophatic god in that sense. Reality is not what it seems to be to us, no matter how much we abstractify that sense. The most we can say about it is that it is the substrate in which all other transformations take place, but which is itself inherently unknowable [its the set which contains all sets, even itself, as well as the null set, if you want to be technical.]

Even if you internalize that understanding, you are still limited by the feebleness of your concepts; that all cognition is by analogy, and thus it has no power to pierce the root of things, so you've just bracketed out a larger set for yourself, which is still eternally a subset of the universal set. No matter how much you try to reason around the incompleteness theorem, it will always catch up with you.


Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.