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.

 

What about pure reality?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Have you ever thought about government conspiracy stuff considering UFO's/ET's? Guess what folks, government is protecting us from THE reality, the truth about our existence, about our role, about life, because reality is far more complicated than this - study,work,death.. there is no point, pure reality is as dramatic as it can be. Im 100% sure that government knows only 1% of the whole deal. We will never know, our brains are too simple to understand the meaning of all. We cannot give a simple answer to many things, as we are not supposed to understand them. Reality could kill.




posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:43 AM
link   
I see the "protect us" angle, but I don't buy it. Less developed or educated peoples might not adjust too well to such news, but teaching and helping out in such respects is OUR responsibilty and a global resposibility. It THEY were here to cause harm it would still be our right to know. How "friendly" do humans seem to animals that are tranqued, tagged, sampled, and released? (if we could know that.) The aliens, if doing these things, might not be bent on the subjegation of the human race.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   
The thing about the human race is that even though we are all brothers and sisters, every single one of us handles the same situations differently. We comprehend and assess in different ways, we have our own philosiphies. I agree with you that perhaps it's too protect us, but never underestimate the human mind.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:56 AM
link   
We .. friendly? Yeah right .. it has been discussed before, we are the most warlike creatures, we destroy ourselves



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:32 PM
link   
not all! etmedical.com...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealityBites

Why do you beleive that?



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   


We .. friendly? Yeah right .. it has been discussed before, we are the most warlike creatures, we destroy ourselves



I really can't argue that point but surely we can move beyond that. I still believe that it is a relative minority of peoples in the world that cause the problems: terrorists, dictators, CEOs, Presidents. Extremists at both ends stir up the crap, we have to clean up after them.

[edit on 3-9-2004 by Der Kapitan]



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Provoking thought.....


The Government is not protecting us from Reality. It is protecting themselves from US once we understand the reality. The government has their tunnels and underground cities. Once the sh*t hits the fan, we all are not going to fit down there. Just like Corporate America. Do you think that divisions of corporations are dismantled and thousands let go based on an overnight decision? NO. A lot of thought goes into it. But are the people affected told about the plans. NO. You just show up one day, and you get notice that your job will be eliminated in 6 weeks. Seen happen to too many co-workers. Just like the Government, the Corporations are protecting themselves until Reality hits.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 06:53 PM
link   
The thing is, there is no "true reality". Every person not only has completeley different experiences in life (what is real to them), but also percieves every event differently. Even simple things like colours are seen slightly differently by every single one of us.


So even people at the top of the "line" don't see and interperet things the same.

Reality does not exsist, perception is the only thing truly real to any of us.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 06:57 PM
link   
What exactly is pure ?

What exactly is reality ?

The goverment is not hiding anything from us, when it comes to the qualms of reality, it is observable in a myriad of ways, sensory, or extra-sensory.

Deep



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:15 PM
link   
to know pure reality: close your eyes, plug your ears, cover your mouth and nose, then numb your body with horse tranquilizers.... umm, actually no. reality is how you define it, or so choose to.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:18 PM
link   
Isn't the only pure reality mathematical? Everything else is perception? I suppose a personal conception of math is really a series of concepts, but outside of everything, there exists numbers.

Didn't plato have somethign to say about this too? Anyone care to refresh my memory...



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 07:26 PM
link   
ktprktpr, are you referring to platos allegory of the cave by chance???



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:56 PM
link   


Posted by Kriz_4 The thing is, there is no "true reality". Every person not only has completeley different experiences in life (what is real to them), but also percieves every event differently. Even simple things like colours are seen slightly differently by every single one of us.


Well said. I can buy into that........



posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 12:58 AM
link   
"Isn't the only pure reality mathematical? Everything else is perception? I suppose a personal conception of math is really a series of concepts, but outside of everything, there exists numbers."

I’ll try to respond to you, Ktprktpr. Although my degree was in math, I make no claims as an authority. Forgive me if this seems like a dissertation, but your questions are not easily answered with only a few words. Perhaps this should be a thread all on it’s own for those who might be interested. As it relates to “reality”, though, I’ll continue on.

The content of "pure" mathematics is ultimately derived from the material world. The idea that “mathematical truths” are the result of some special kind of knowledge, or divine inspiration, simply doesn’t bear out under serious examination. The notion that “pure” mathematics is absolute thought is far from the truth. In the final analysis, mathematics deals with the quantitative relationships observed in the “real world”. For instance, the decimal system is not the result of logical deduction or "free will," but instead came about because we have ten fingers. The word "digital" is a derivative of “fingers” in Latin. To this day, we often count our “material” fingers beneath a “material” desk to arrive at the answer to an “abstract” mathematical problem. In doing this, we unconsciously are demonstrating the same behavior used by early humans when they learned to count. If humans had evolved with 12 fingers instead of ten, then we would no doubt have a duo-decimal number system, based on 12 digits, instead of 10. A base 12 number system is perfectly valid. In fact, computers commonly implement logic using base 2, base 8 and base 16 number systems. And so, from the very beginning, the development, and very foundation, of mathematics is based upon human observations of the material world; our 10 fingers to be specific.

Mathematics has always been riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions and paradoxes. For example, Galileo pointed out that every integer (whole number) has only one perfect square, and every perfect square is the square of only one positive integer. Thus, in a sense, there are just as many perfect squares as there are positive integers. This may seem to make sense, but upon further consideration it immediately leads to a logical contradiction. It contradicts the axiom that the whole is greater than any of its parts, in that not all positive integers are perfect squares, and all perfect squares form only a subset of all positive integers. I hope that made sense.

At any rate, that’s only one of many paradoxes which have plagued mathematics ever since the Renaissance.

Mathematical systems developed in the 19th century forced mathematicians to realize, reluctantly, that mathematics proper and the mathematical “laws” were indeed not “truths”. It was discovered that several different geometries apparently fit spatial experience equally well. So, the question arose, “Which geometry was the truth?”. They couldn’t all be the truth. It would seem that mathematical design, in and of itself, was not inherent in nature, or if it was, the mathematics created by human beings was not necessarily of that same design. Therefore, the key to “reality” was lost. Mathematics, in other words, has no objective basis, but is purely the product of the human mind!

In recent years, the limitations of mathematical models to represent “reality” has come under intense scrutiny. Differential equations, for example, one of the jewels in the bag of Isaac Newton’s astonishing discoveries, represents “reality” as a continuum, where changes in time and position occur smoothly and without discontinuity. It offers no room for sudden breaks or interruptions. In nature, however, discontinuity takes place all the time. Chaos theory “attempts” to address the issues involving breaks in continuity. Euclidean geometry reduces “reality” to planes, spheres, lines, cones and points. However, the shapes defined in Euclidean geometry are totally inadequate to express the complexity and irregularity of surfaces found in nature. Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones and lightning does not travel in a straight line.

Despite the advances of the 20th century, it’s noteable that such a large number of what seems to be simple phenomena are still not clearly understood and do not lend themselves to expression through mathematical formulation. And so, despite exaggerated claims, mathematics remains only a rough approximation to the real world. Even the most advanced mathematical system cannot describe “reality”, and has no validity outside certain bounds.

Frankly, I doubt seriously if human beings will ever be in a position to understand “reality” on an objective level. I’m not even sure there is such a thing as an objective level or an objective "reality". In the meantime, though, it can’t hurt to try …

PS: Sorry that was so long-winded. It was the only way I could think of to answer the questions. I hope it at least made a small bit of sense, though.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join