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.
In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe. Tao is thus "eternally nameless” (Dao De Jing-32. Laozi) and to be distinguished from the countless 'named' things which are considered to be its manifestations.
neoholographic
So we can never know the true nature of reality, just the subjective nature of our local universe.
neoholographic
It seems to me we might never know the true nature of reality because there isn't a true nature of reality that can be measured.
We may look at the laws of physics and theories about the universe but it will not explain anything because these things only apply to our local universe.
Maybe there's this wave function of everything that can't be measured.
It's like when you flip a coin. When it lands on heads or tails uncertainty is reduced to zero and 1 bit of information is known. Maybe this wave function of everything is in a constant state of uncertainty or it's constantly flipping and never landing on heads or tails. This is because there's nothing outside of this wave function of everything to measure it.
So the most we can say is everything is just vibrations. Constant motion or constant flipping that we can never measure so it can never be defined as this or that because it's this, that and everything else at the same moment.
Our local realities are just a combination of eigenstates of this wave function of everything. When a measurement occurs, an eigenstate becomes a measured state of our local reality. So our reality could be made of one combination of eigenstates and another reality could be made up of a different combination of eigenstates and also have a laws of physics that's different than ours.
So local universes are just different aspects of this wave function of everything that's constantly flipping and can't be measured. So the most we can say is reality is subjective to the local environment. There's subjective local reality and an undefined reality that can never be defined that gives birth to these local experiences that can be defined by local observers.
I guess Taoism explains it best:
In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe. Tao is thus "eternally nameless” (Dao De Jing-32. Laozi) and to be distinguished from the countless 'named' things which are considered to be its manifestations.
So we can never know the true nature of reality, just the subjective nature of our local universe.
So we can never know the true nature of reality, just the subjective nature of our local universe.
Bleeeeep
reply to post by neoholographic
Focusing on the reality we can sense, what have you figured out so far?
Anything?
neoholographic
It seems to me we might never know the true nature of reality because there isn't a true nature of reality that can be measured.
We may look at the laws of physics and theories about the universe but it will not explain anything because these things only apply to our local universe.
In the foundational text of Taoism, the Tao Te Ching, Laozi explains that Tao is not a 'name' for a 'thing' but the underlying natural order of the universe whose ultimate essence is difficult to circumscribe. Tao is thus "eternally nameless” (Dao De Jing-32. Laozi) and to be distinguished from the countless 'named' things which are considered to be its manifestations.
Itisnowagain
reply to post by TheNewSense
Is there an 'inside' and 'outside'?
Bleeeeep
reply to post by TheNewSense
If there weren't, we would already have it all figured out by now.
I think.
TheNewSense
Bleeeeep
reply to post by TheNewSense
If there weren't, we would already have it all figured out by now.
I think.
But that would mean that we would understand everything we perceive, which is obviously not the case.
TheNewSense
reply to post by Itisnowagain
Please take my comments in the proper context, namely as a response to an earlier post, which you obviously didn't.