Rewriting reality

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
User avatar
chaos_mora
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: May 24th, 2018, 4:26 pm

Rewriting reality

Post by chaos_mora » May 24th, 2018, 5:08 pm

I'm going to present an idea here. It is not an argument so much as it is a thought experiment, so just roll with me.

Imagine that reality can be changed. By this, I mean the laws that govern the universe, as well as the contents of the universe itself, are not fixed and fundamental but rather fluid and subjective. In other words, you might say that by some agency (a god, advanced technology, conditional changes, whatnot), the universe is able to change itself. There are no limitations to this: anything is possible.

Consider this to be possibly true. If it is, then what value is there in searching for "fundamental" laws? If our universe is the product of rules and fundamentals whose axioms are absolute and lie at the very groundwork of everything, then of course these words have no meaning. But if we do perchance live in a fluid, subjective universe, is it not at least worth considering?

I guess I'm just curious that in spite of all of the philosophy I have read, I have seen very few perspectives which allow for the possibility that the rules could change. Like a sports game, the laws of reality may be arbitrary conditions, yielding patterns but never unchangeable. A player could always decide to change the game.

Food for thought.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by ThomasHobbes » May 24th, 2018, 5:38 pm

To change cards you still need a deck.

User avatar
chaos_mora
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: May 24th, 2018, 4:26 pm

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by chaos_mora » May 24th, 2018, 6:18 pm

You seem to be all over my posts today, ThomasHobbes.

I'm not saying reality is unreal. I'm suggesting it can be altered. You can change the cards all you want. You can also burn them, I suppose. But the rules of a card game are nothing but a construct, a whim. The cards don't have to follow the rules of the game.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by Spectrum » May 24th, 2018, 9:39 pm

Here is one story regarding the Sixth Patriarch of Zen, Huineng:
One day after the Master had finished a lecture, Huineng overheard two monks arguing over whether the temple flag or the wind was moving. Huineng abruptly injected himself into this discussion, declaring that in fact it was mind that was moving.
Similarly, it is not that we need to rewrite 'reality' but rather we need to rewrite [continually] what is in one's mind or the consensus of the collective mind.
In the first place 'reality' is not something of an external substance that can be acted upon.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chaos_mora
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: May 24th, 2018, 4:26 pm

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by chaos_mora » May 24th, 2018, 11:53 pm

I see what you mean. I'm presuming you're an idealist then from that standpoint, since (if I'm correct in my interpretation) you profess no external "reality" beyond our minds or consciousness. In that case, it essentially equates to what I'm saying, since "mind" would be nothing but the canvas and its contents would change continually. In the language of dreams, if one was "lucid," it's conceivable they could manipulate "reality" as we know it. What I meant by "reality" is the apparent world of laws, constants, and physics that we know and accept. I believe there aren't fundamental "laws" at all and thus anything is possible, whether or not that's in the landscape of mind.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by -1- » May 25th, 2018, 12:25 am

chaos_mora wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 5:08 pm
I
Consider this to be possibly true. If it is, then what value is there in searching for "fundamental" laws? If our universe is the product of rules and fundamentals whose axioms are absolute and lie at the very groundwork of everything, then of course these words have no meaning. But if we do perchance live in a fluid, subjective universe, is it not at least worth considering?
Chaos Mora, the one universal fundamental law still exists in such a universe as you described. The universal law is that all laws can be changed and will be changed.

If a sentient being exists in such a universe, it is to its advantage to realize that one basic fundamental never-changing law.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
chaos_mora
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: May 24th, 2018, 4:26 pm

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by chaos_mora » May 25th, 2018, 1:14 am

-1- wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 12:25 am
chaos_mora wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 5:08 pm
I
Consider this to be possibly true. If it is, then what value is there in searching for "fundamental" laws? If our universe is the product of rules and fundamentals whose axioms are absolute and lie at the very groundwork of everything, then of course these words have no meaning. But if we do perchance live in a fluid, subjective universe, is it not at least worth considering?
Chaos Mora, the one universal fundamental law still exists in such a universe as you described. The universal law is that all laws can be changed and will be changed.

If a sentient being exists in such a universe, it is to its advantage to realize that one basic fundamental never-changing law.
Okay, I can see where you're coming from, so if you want to call that a "law," I wholly agree with you. In this sense, I guess the reality I'm describing is not so much one where there are "no fundamentals," but one where the fundamental - whatever that may be (mind if you're an idealist) - is one that allows for infinite degrees of freedom. In such a universe I'm describing, "laws" are not laws but rather patterns or arbitrary rules, perhaps limitations of perspective.

I picture it a bit like it's described in this article: http://enthea.org/writing/the-sans-ceiling-hypothesis/

In this sense, if there is a "fundamental law," then it's quite simply that there are no limitations to what reality can do, and (most likely) that any set of arbitrary "laws" is perhaps inevitably subject to change. Perhaps that would be the definition of a cosmos of pure chaos, and if that's the case, so be it. My perspective is simply that there aren't any limitations.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by Spectrum » May 25th, 2018, 4:45 am

chaos_mora wrote:
May 24th, 2018, 11:53 pm
I see what you mean. I'm presuming you're an idealist then from that standpoint, since (if I'm correct in my interpretation) you profess no external "reality" beyond our minds or consciousness. In that case, it essentially equates to what I'm saying, since "mind" would be nothing but the canvas and its contents would change continually. In the language of dreams, if one was "lucid," it's conceivable they could manipulate "reality" as we know it. What I meant by "reality" is the apparent world of laws, constants, and physics that we know and accept. I believe there aren't fundamental "laws" at all and thus anything is possible, whether or not that's in the landscape of mind.
There is a wide range of 'idealism.'
Note: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism

Specifically I am a transcendental idealist and at the same time an empirical realist where both entangle and interact in complementarity as in Ying and Yang.

I do not agree with an external world that is absolutely independent of human conditions.

I agree with an external world that is interdependent and is conditioned upon the conditions of the mind[s] within a body within an external World which is,
is conditioned upon the conditions of the mind[s] within a body within an external World which is,
is conditioned upon the conditions of the mind[s] within a body within an external World which is,
......

Image

Note how the Ying [with an embedded Yang] entangles and complements with the Yang [with an embedded Ying]. There is no way the Ying can exist absolutely independent from the Yang and vice-versa.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
chaos_mora
New Trial Member
Posts: 14
Joined: May 24th, 2018, 4:26 pm

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by chaos_mora » May 25th, 2018, 12:57 pm

Spectrum wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 4:45 am
Note how the Ying [with an embedded Yang] entangles and complements with the Yang [with an embedded Ying]. There is no way the Ying can exist absolutely independent from the Yang and vice-versa.
Okay, that's interesting. What you seem to be suggesting, then, is a form of dualism - that there is mind and matter, in the broadest sense (correct me if I'm wrong). The only issue I have with that viewpoint is simply that I don't really think there's any valid empirical or epistemological justification for an "external world." Bernardo Kastrup put it well; to believe in an external reality is to add additional degrees of ontological primitives onto consciousness, even though Occam's razor suggests that mind is the sole fundamental. I suppose there still could be a semi-"external" reality which exists, in some sense, in areas of consciousness not presently accessed by one mind within consciousness. But I think the notion of a completely mind-independent external reality, while logically feasible, is empirically unverifiable.

Eduk
Posts: 1936
Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
Favorite Philosopher: Socrates

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by Eduk » May 25th, 2018, 1:32 pm

If I lived in a universe where I knew the 'rules' could be changed at anytime but I knew of no way to change said 'rules' then I would do exactly as I did now. The best I could while hoping that any changes to reality weren't too disasterous. Much like those who live on flood plains or fault lines etc.
Unknown means unknown.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by -1- » May 25th, 2018, 2:42 pm

chaos_mora wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 1:14 am
In this sense, if there is a "fundamental law," then it's quite simply that there are no limitations to what reality can do, and (most likely) that any set of arbitrary "laws" is perhaps inevitably subject to change. Perhaps that would be the definition of a cosmos of pure chaos, and if that's the case, so be it. My perspective is simply that there aren't any limitations.
You say in chaos there are no limitations, in they type of chaos you describe.

But that is not true, either.

There is the limitation that there be no limitations. This you can't get away from in your absolutely chaotic universe.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by -1- » May 25th, 2018, 2:46 pm

-1- wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 2:42 pm
There is the limitation that there be no limitations. This you can't get away from in your absolutely chaotic universe.
Oops. Better change it to "there is the one limitation that there be no other limitations but this very underlying fundamental limitation".

Because if you stipulate "there be just the limitation that there be no limitations" then the statement becomes a true paradox.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 879
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by -1- » May 25th, 2018, 2:48 pm

Eduk wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 1:32 pm
If I lived in a universe where I knew the 'rules' could be changed at anytime but I knew of no way to change said 'rules' then I would do exactly as I did now. The best I could while hoping that any changes to reality weren't too disasterous. Much like those who live on flood plains or fault lines etc.
Relax. There are no limitations. So nobody and nothing can limit you from knowing ahead of time of the changes. That forced ignorance would be a limitation, and by definition there ain't any in that universe.

You can safely breathe again.

Power, brother. Or sister. Don't let anyone limit your thoughts or imagination.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by Spectrum » May 26th, 2018, 12:38 am

chaos_mora wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 12:57 pm
Spectrum wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 4:45 am
Note how the Ying [with an embedded Yang] entangles and complements with the Yang [with an embedded Ying]. There is no way the Ying can exist absolutely independent from the Yang and vice-versa.
Okay, that's interesting. What you seem to be suggesting, then, is a form of dualism - that there is mind and matter, in the broadest sense (correct me if I'm wrong). The only issue I have with that viewpoint is simply that I don't really think there's any valid empirical or epistemological justification for an "external world." Bernardo Kastrup put it well; to believe in an external reality is to add additional degrees of ontological primitives onto consciousness, even though Occam's razor suggests that mind is the sole fundamental. I suppose there still could be a semi-"external" reality which exists, in some sense, in areas of consciousness not presently accessed by one mind within consciousness. But I think the notion of a completely mind-independent external reality, while logically feasible, is empirically unverifiable.
My point do not imply there is only dualism.
My point is there is dualism but it must be complemented with non-dualism, i.e. emptiness, nothingness as in Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies.

For survival sake one has to believe in an 'external world' but not believing such concepts to the extreme that there is an absolutely independent 'external world' e.g. as in Philosophical Realism.

However in a higher philosophical perspective one must not cling to an absolutely independent 'external world' but engage in nothingness or emptiness, i.e. the external world is an illusion. Again one should not cling to this view as the only view.

So we hold two realities, i.e. 'reality is real' and 'reality is an illusion' at the same time but in different senses [perspectives], so no contradiction.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

Erribert
Posts: 35
Joined: April 30th, 2018, 11:37 pm

Re: Rewriting reality

Post by Erribert » May 27th, 2018, 9:48 pm

There is the sentiment that our reality is only that which is conveyed by our five senses, and compiled by our brain. Even then, more than 99% of information is first filtered out. Each heartbeat or breath, the muscles involved in walking, our fantastic immune system. All too much information for our active take on reality.

Thus, our reality is subjective, being produced by the brain. Our agreement about reality makes it appear objective. However, such agreements are trained into us. From personal experiences with such, I can say that the reality of an autistic child is nothing like my own. Which one is right? One such example is the living squarely in the moment, no past or future. Every minute comes with”what happens next?”. Many on the spiritual path try to reach this reality as if it is some panacea. Perhaps they want a form of autism.

Science continuously changes its mind, so we cannot trust what it claims. We have faith in our own thoughts, although we have no control over them.

I am all for an everchanging reality. Maybe it changes all the time and we simply take it as our normal reality. Consistency may be rapid change.

All very interesting when it comes to reality. While I do not condone drugs, DMT may be a doorway to another reality. This would make sense if reality is subjective.

Thanks for your musing.

Cheers

Post Reply