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.
A Rationalist may study science, but he will know that science cannot tell him about the true nature of reality, only about the nature of physical reality. In the pursuit of true knowledge, Rationalism is more compatible with Eastern methods of thought which focus on introspection and contemplation.
Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
It could be more-or-less improbable that this reality is merely a dream, but it is still a possibility. Even the solipsistic view of life could be wrong. It is true that I think, and because I think, surely my I must exist, but this is only using the rationality of my limited mind. There could be other rules that apply to the Universe that I cannot fathom. Trying to imagine the size the Universe. Looking at 3 sides of 3-dimensional object. There are many things we cannot do or comprehend. And the ability to not exist, yet think, could be one of them.
I don't know anything, and I don't even know that.
Originally posted by Openeye
For the sake of argument.
Would you not have to prove that a non physical reality exists to imply that one can only know the nature of physical reality?
Originally posted by Wang Tang
Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
It could be more-or-less improbable that this reality is merely a dream, but it is still a possibility. Even the solipsistic view of life could be wrong. It is true that I think, and because I think, surely my I must exist, but this is only using the rationality of my limited mind. There could be other rules that apply to the Universe that I cannot fathom. Trying to imagine the size the Universe. Looking at 3 sides of 3-dimensional object. There are many things we cannot do or comprehend. And the ability to not exist, yet think, could be one of them.
I don't know anything, and I don't even know that.
There are some rules that could apply to the universe that are beyond our understanding, that is true. But there are some rules about the universe that we can know, and that have to be true. This is the stance of Rationalism.
One rule is it is impossible for something to not exist. Something can be an illusion of reality, but this illusion still exists. We could be living in a computer program, and what we perceive as reality could just be the codes of the computer program. In that case, this pencil is an illusion. I perceive this pencil as a writing instrument, while in reality it is just a set of computer codes. But just because the pencil is an illusion that does not mean it doesn't exist.
The concept of existence is an a priori concept. This makes it very difficult for me to explain to you why it is impossible for something to not exist, but if you think about it enough hopefully you will realize the full meaning of the word existence.
There is no possible world where a bachelor can be married. Similarly, there is no possible world where something can not exist. That's the best I can do. It's logically impossible for something to not exist.
It is impossible for us to prove the existence of a non-physical reality using science, because science uses empirical data.
Originally posted by Openeye
reply to post by Wang Tang
Well you see that's the conundrum. All things in reality are able to be observed, so if a "non physical" reality existed it would able to be observed as well. One could argue we do not have the capability to observe it but that is not a very strong argument
Science (while not infallible) is by far the most accurate measuring stick for reality. So asserting that a non-physical reality cannot be observed by using science simply begs the question. How does one observe non-physical reality?edit on 7-3-2013 by Openeye because: (no reason given)
It is possible that everything we observe is an illusion, and we can observe none of reality.
That we do not have the capability to observe reality is a very strong argument, we are confined to observing what is here on this earth. What is beyond our earth is largely beyond our perception.
Science is a measuring stick for understanding our perception of our physical universe.
We, as humans, can't conclusively determine if a non-physical reality exists. Since we can't conclusively determine this, the possibility of a non-physical reality always hangs over our heads, and we are left to wonder if it does in fact exist, and if it did, how? But all we can do is speculate, and acknowledge that the possibility exists.
Originally posted by Openeye
Sure I can concede that it "may" exist. However, such a proposition can really not be taken seriously until objective evidence becomes available. Its the same as me saying that "Santa Clause may exist".