It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does it matter if 'reality' is real?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 01:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Nice thread. I believe strongly in how one treats another human being absolutely. Common decency and good will towards man and all that.

I don't however believe this place, in which we temporarily exist is real. Nothing in effect actually matters here, because all these things we see and experience are like what the Maori called 'Dream Time', and have no bearing on 'reality itself'. Like a Dream we wake up from, we think is real for but a moment in time, and then it is gone. That would be this place here right now.

I won't get into it too deeply here, as there are some who would turn it into a duel or a contest, which it is not.


edit on 6/19/2016 by awareness10 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Asking if reality is real is like asking if falsity is false.

Really?
Is it?


Really. It is.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 07:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Profusion
My conclusion:

If the consequences of one's actions are real, it doesn't matter if 'reality' is real.

The illusion is that they are 'your' actions!!

Everything is happening - what is happening is real. But nothing is happening to you - because there is nothing separate - there is only what is happening.
'You' never did anything.

Reality only matters if there appears to be someone separate from it!
edit on 19-6-2016 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Good post. Star and flag for you on this one.

As for the game of Chess with AI, I took it a step further in my teenage years a long long time ago. I would play against myself. It involved blanking my mind when I "switched" to the "opponent" and looking at the chessboard from the opponents point of view, with no recollection of my previous mindset and thought process. Then I would switch back to myself and remember and resume my thought processes. Then back to the opponent and remember and resume thought his thought processes.

Coming back to your point of view, I agree that reality is somewhat irrelevant. The consequence bounce back to you anyway, whether the outside world exists or not.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: crowdedskies

Yes I and a few others i know often used to play games against ourselves - normally a Risk type game, also you have the whole solo rpg games and books and back a bit further it was just text based adventures which were great fun - mainly figuring out the correct words to use



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Your entire premise is built on the fallacy of defining 'reality'.

You cannot define 'real' as you have no frame of reference.

To cut a long story short:
We simply have to accept the fact that we will never know 'real'.... this is why religions refer to god as truth, because we are not god we cannot know what is really 'real'. It is just a matter of acceptance!



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: combatmaster

We simply have to accept the fact that we will never know 'real'.... this is why religions refer to god as truth, because we are not god we cannot know what is really 'real'. It is just a matter of acceptance!

God is seeing and knowing what there is to see and know - all that appears is appearing within the seeing of it.
The seer and seen are not two separate things - they arise as one seamless happening.



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 09:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics: Nothing unreal exists



posted on Jun, 19 2016 @ 11:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Reality does not need to be proven, if so, to whom?

You can know reality, but do you need to prove it to yourself, or can you have self acceptance as to what you really experience?

Knowledge of the true self (not the ego kind) is the ultimate reality.

Then you can just be and not have to think about whether 2B or not 2B

Meditation taught by true teachers can be helpful there.

Or perhaps you prefer discursive dualistic discourse.
It is up to you.

edit on 19-6-2016 by cryptic0void because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-6-2016 by cryptic0void because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Reality, by definition, is real.

To say that reality is merely a projection of your own mind does nothing to lessen its complexity or its realness.

At the very least, your experience of reality is unaffected.

And all these people we have relationships with -- they are real to us, even if we later learn they were all just projections of our own mind.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers
Reality is relative to the frame of reference of the observer?
That sounds vaguely familiar.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 12:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Greggers
Reality is relative to the frame of reference of the observer?
That sounds vaguely familiar.




Well if we changed the world 'reality' to 'time,' we'd be talking about something I have a much surer footing on. I've always been better with science than philosophy.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Time is just a human concept a way of labeling, so what else could be of value in looking in to time? a reply to: Greggers



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ancientthunder

Do you want everything to happen at once?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:23 AM
link   


Do you want everything to happen at once?
a reply to: Phage
Phage its not really a question of that, everyting unfolds in its own particular ratio. The sun comes out, then the moon and the stars, one flower unfolds in one manner another in its own ratio. Even people minds work at different speeds. But in direct answer to your question, I dont want everything to happen at once and what I want makes little difference to everything. Im not even saying that labeling should be banned, only that is all it is. A system we have created. Best not to think any system we have created is eternal and the only way of doing things. At least that is the current scientific approach that is generaly upheld.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 04:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ancientthunder

I dont want everything to happen at once and what I want makes little difference to everything.
But isn't it time which prevents everything from happening at once?



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
I sympathize with OP and others who share similar perceptions. I sometimes wonder if one day I'll manage to think myself out of existence lol; a loud 'pop' and I'm gone into the ether! Through all the possible scenarios I've played out, and my healthy knack for second-guessing and playing devil's advocate to myself, I've never once doubted that I should try to leave this realm a better place than it was before I got here.


I highly recommend the writings of Robert Anton Wilson if you guys haven't been down that road.



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 06:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ancientthunder

I dont want everything to happen at once and what I want makes little difference to everything.
But isn't it time which prevents everything from happening at once?
[/quote perhaps time and space, more importantly space allows objects not to knock in to each other!



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 08:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: ancientthunder
Time is just a human concept a way of labeling, so what else could be of value in looking in to time? a reply to: Greggers


What I meant was that if we changed the word to 'time,' we would be talking specifically about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity, which is something I know a fair amount about.

However, since you ask the question, from a physics perspective, time is generally defined as the ticking of a clock, often extended to a subatomic level so it applies to all traditional matter within a given inertial frame of reference. Einstein's GR has successfully combined space and time into space-time, and we know from observation that effects such as time dilation are real. So no, time is not merely a human tool of measurement. It appears to be part of the basic fabric of the universe.

Also on topic is the concept of a block universe, which some would argue is validated by GR, which asserts that everything that has ever happened has already happened, that the past and future are a persistent illusion, and that our experience of time is merely the result of our consciousness sliding along our predefined tracks.

Per this view, all of time manifested at once, but we experience it one moment at a time.

edit on 20-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2016 @ 09:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Greggers
Thanks for the reply and understand where your finger is pointing. but can that fabric not be stretched or shrunk? If so time is only a current way of measuring that fabric and I am not saying that its a bad system. Once we go in to relativity, which unlike you I do not know much about it. But what I would say, is that going by the word what is relative is only relative to what we know and hold as a fact. Its a bit like gravity, we just havent got it right yet. Me may be getting closer, but..... who knows.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join