Fhbradley wrote:Sure, we may be able to prove both an observer independent reality and so on, but you disregard that you can't prove an observer dependent reality either. "Reality is observer dependent" and "Reality is not observer dependent" are both hypothesis. That is to say, they both need to be justified by argumentation and/or evidence. It's a false belief that solipsism is the default position.

Secondly, you claim we cannot make proofs about reality since it's dynamic, but how do you know reality is dynamic? You just said we can't prove anything about it. So you accuse people for making unprovable assumptions about reality by assuming things about reality.

Socratic220 wrote:Reality cannot be proven because it relies on the observer. We must start from the standpoint of where we are now in order to doubt reality. In order to doubt reality we must first question our reality. I must wonder whether I am sitting on this chair typing my response. However on what foundation or on what basis can one undermine reality. The very criticisms presuppose a reality concepts can be doubted. The existence of doubt confirms that at least something is existent. Furthermore doubt presumes certainty. Therefore certainty must exist. In order to doubt reality one must have a basis for their doubt. This is not possible for the absolute doubter.

EricHerboso wrote:While I will not comment on the specific points brought up, I would like to point out that statements like "if you can not show a reality existing independently of time then any definition of reality would be tenuous" are taking the wrong side of the burden of proof. Just because we might be unable to come up with a definition does not mean you can use a god of the gaps (or, in this case, unprovability of the gaps) argument to say that this means that there is no provable reality.

In other words: Even if no one here can prove a reality of any kind does not mean that all possible realities are unprovable in principle. The gaps of our knowledge cannot be filled with unprovability claims; they are only gaps, and nothing more.

Steve wrote:One small point. According to relativity, space and time are not separate entities, instead, there is a 4-dimensional space-time continuum, so anything that exists, exists in all 4 dimensions (and it make no sense to say it exists in 4 dimensions simultaneously because time is one of the dimensions!).

Concerning the question of the provability of reality: Who or what is asking, or imagining it is asking, the question?

Steve wrote:

no provable reality exists except for one person at one time

I think you are begging the question. If you assume that other people exist, you are implicitly accepting the existence of an external reality.

Forswanked wrote:The question at what is 'dynamic' guides us to the immediate experience, which is an activity of changing (no change, no experience). In relating to this activity we create the ideas of time, self and object, but the activity is ongoing unrelated to our own relation to this activity. Disregarding our ideas of time, self and object, we can consider the activity and relate to this activity, describing aspects necessary for the activity's occurrence. For example, since the activity is occurring, it is occurring to be what it is, which is changing, perhaps better described as creating. It must be what it is, so it is not random. It must intend to be what it is, because it occurs. It must recognize its own occurrence in order to have its intent. To recognize its occurrence, it must both sense and respond to sensing by valuing the potential of action within that sensing (sensing and responding occurs as the activity, not as separate activities). Our 'occurrence' is the activation of the possibility associated with self and is the value of potential activity we describe as the the sensation of our body. So on and so forth would go an investigation of the activity that is the dynamic of changing.

Time is only the measurement against a standard - no self reflection, no time. This does not demean time or self, but puts them relative to the activity, rather than relating what is occurring to self and time. We have moved the earth from the center of the universe (referring to Copernicus/Ptolemy), but we have put the self into its place.

Nicholas wrote:Good discussion. U.A. I am not sure how the existence of the observer is questionable? U.A. Are you saying that we can't prove anything to exist at all or that we can't know exactly how that existence is? U.A. Lets say we only posit a "perceived reality." Lets also say that most diverse rational entities perceive a similar reality, as in basic stuff like, it is finite which implies distinction and number. We also perceive that it has an order to the way it is and how its distinct parts interact with each other. Thus, this order which we perceive has a certain explanatory power. What it tells us, by it very own nature any one unified finite entity perceiving another unified finite entity, naturally has to perceive it through its own finite unified structure. This is also to include perceiving its own parts, which make up its whole. Its very existence, as perceived, is necessary to act as a kind of medium through which it will perceive other finite reality. By all that it tells us, there cannot be anything existing in finite reality that does not require a medium through which to perceive other finite reality.

So, yes as distinct and separate entities, by the very nature of how we perceive distinct and separate entities to be, we require a medium through which to perceive other things, but so what. To correlate needing a medium to perceive, with what we perceive not having "being," is not very tenable. Its like asking "how tall is red"? and then saying "look, you can't answer it." By the very nature of how "red," and "tall," are, they can't be put in the same category in that way.

Jackwhitlocke_005 wrote:It's a bit difficult to respond to this since you seem to be switching your stance. In your first few posts, it appeared that you were criticizing the existence of an external world on philosophical grounds- perhaps the idea of "physical" is meaningless, etc. Now, it appears you are criticizing the external world on more practical grounds- simulation argument, etc. The fact is, if we are in a simulation, then that simulation is at least in a "real physical world". While it is logically possible that we are in a simulation, there is no reason to assume we are until we have proof.

Jackwhitlocke_005 wrote:Okay, if we are in a simulation then that simulation is in a "physical world". In this situation, a physical world is assumed to exist. If a physical world is assumed to exist, we do not assume we are in a simulation for the same reason we do not assume that God exists- lack of proof. If there is no external world, then we cannot be in a simulation because nothing outisde of our consciousness exists. If the physical world does exist, it should not assumed that we are in a simulation until proof has been attained.

Forswanked wrote:UA - Assuming what is occurring is illusory, nothing changes. The assumed illusion is still an activity and would have the same requirements of any activity. Ultimately, the idea of illusion becomes meaningless, much like ideas of random and plurality, to the necessity of activity occurring.

Wooden shoe wrote:Hi U.A.

A suggestion I often make to my spouse is "don't manufacture problems, life serves up enough" and on that thought I would ask you, what difference would it make, when we cannot really prove reality, to our existence? So does it matter or is this just an exercise in words?

Regards, John.

Nicholas wrote:Good points UA. A computer program and its simulation is predicated upon some kind of three/four-dimensional existence. In this case we would not know what that existence is like except that it consists in some kind of spacial dimensions. This argument implies some kind of real-time tangible reality.

If you are seeking an absolute provable reality apart from perception of a finite being, you would have to exist "other than," that finite being. You would have to exist outside yourself(a contradiction) or prior to yourself(a contradiction). So when you say "there is no provable reality," you are essentially saying "that we don't have the ability to exist outside or prior to ourselves." Not only that, even if we were able to "be," outside ourselves and the whole universe as we know it, we would still be observing from the standpoint of "ourselves," thus still requiring that medium. The only possible way would be if we were the creators of this reality, and even then we still have an infinite regress of "ourselves," which "we," could never transcend.

Leonid wrote:The concept of proof is based on the concept of reality and consciousness..........

"An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness."

“Axiomatic Concepts,” Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 55

"

Leonid wrote:That is true. Nothing could transcend existence. Nothing could exist outside of existence. By definition existence is everything that exists-including all dimensions and all possible universes.