Does Science Discover or Create Reality?

Reality via our senses, which is science when scientific seculations and calcuations are confirmed as "concrete" ( verified by supporting data or diect sensory observation), is not ACTUAL reality. Reality via our senses and science is a relative reality, or, Relativity.

Reality via our senses, which is science when scientific seculations and calcuations are confirmed as "concrete" ( verified by supporting data or diect sensory observation), is not ACTUAL reality. Reality via our senses and science is a relative reality, or, Relativity.

Reality
Noun: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

This excludes our perception, the model science has of the universe, and our idealised version of it. Whilst science attempts to come as close as possible to represent reality, and we all hope to understand the world we live in, we will never completely achieve this. But reality is static, and is the object of our perception, but not the idea we have of it.

Anything else is an abuse of language.

Then reality with this description can never truly exist because we are never certain of what we believe is true or what we observe to be, is what it actually is. I doubt if even the sun is what we so easily assume it to be. Reality has to be what we are led to believe or we would live in constant confusion and delusion. Reality constantly changes and science constantly recreates that reality.We are part of that process, we constantly question our reality.

5. Philosophy

a) Something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.

b) Something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality?s=t&ld=1087"

5. Philosophy

a) Something that exists independently of ideas concerning it.

b) Something that exists independently of all other things and from which all other things derive.

"http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality?s=t&ld=1087"

Well done, you can reference a dictionary.

Well done, you can reference a dictionary.

It's a shame that you cannot.

BaruchSpinoza {can I call you BS for short?}, I believe you may be suffering from a condition. I will create a word for this condition and call it 'Philisopholossis' {defined as that state on mind where philosophy taken too seriously leads to a state of contradictory existence in the mind of the philosopher so as to cause the philosopher to espouse contradictory concepts on the same idea].

For example in your reply in the current thread you said:

..... But reality is static, and is the object of our perception, but not the idea we have of it.

Anything else is an abuse of language.

But a few days earlier you had said:

In which case there is no surprise that reality changes. It changes every minute of every day in every person.

Correct me if I am wrong but it would seem to me that a reality that is static can not be changing 'every minute of every day in every person' and still be referred to as realty.

You see what i mean? You are existing in a contradictory state of existence in a conflicting state of realities.

And if some day in the far future if I prove by a more advanced theory that the entire solar system does indeed revolve around the Earth. I will claim that I did indeed create a new reality and you and all of your rhetoric will not change it. The fact that the new theory may allow for intergalactic space travel in a faster than light speed, currently impossible in Einstein's Universe, is the reason I had for posting this question in the first place. I do not accept any limits to so-called realty and its possibilities and know that a mind that discovers also creates; And that includes reality!

But a few days earlier you had said:



Correct me if I am wrong but it would seem to me that a reality that is static can not be changing 'every minute of every day in every person' and still be referred to as realty.

You see what i mean? You are existing in a contradictory state of existence in a conflicting state of realities.

No, you need to read it fully. The whole context. Try again! You have ignored "In which case.". I was demonstration you false position by talking ironically.

Reality
Noun: The world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

This excludes our perception, the model science has of the universe, and our idealised version of it. Whilst science attempts to come as close as possible to represent reality, and we all hope to understand the world we live in, we will never completely achieve this. But reality is static, and is the object of our perception, but not the idea we have of it.

Anything else is an abuse of language.

However, the object of our perception IS an idea rather than anything static or real (as in Reality). Because our perceptions are always relative, not actual. Actuality is presumed to be something fixed, correct?

Some cultures believe they are looking at a tree. Another culture or individual knows, due to their particular (therefore relative) perception, that the "tree" the former culture is looking at is much more than what the former culture determines as "tree" (because the latter observer may understand that the whole phenomena of "tree" extends far beyond it's visible root system and visible outline of it's outermost leaves). So is a tree real? If the tree is real (as in Reality) and reality, according to the meaning you have provided, is Static, then is a tree static?

A simple answer to the original question:

Science makes discoveries as to the nature of reality. Scientific discoveries have led and continue to lead to inventions. Inventions change the paradigm of reality. For example 200 years ago man could not travel faster than the speed of a horse, but today he can travel several times faster than the speed of sound. Scientific discoveries led to inventions and the creation of planes that can travel several times the speed of sound. Therefor it can be said that science both discovers and creates reality.

It would be nice to think that science creates reality - much more acceptable than faith that some sort of supreme being does it. But I had always been under the impression that I create my own reality. Your reality is rarely the same as mine, so I can't pretend to be God, but the reality I have created is my very own.

Science creates a scientific reality. A relative reality (which is not reality).

Science creates a scientific reality. A relative reality (which is not reality).

Still the question remains, what is reality? How you define reality is at the core of the question. Even though I started this thread, after giving my own answers and reflecting on those of others I have come to the conclusion that the question can only have a relative answer depending what definition of reality we use.

Another words Granth I more or less agree with your opinion that if science creates reality it is relative.

Reality isn't relative. Only our perceptions of reality tends to be relative. Science is a measuring process. Our brains (our perception device) is a measuring process or processor. And so Reality is THE PROCESS and not what is measured. Measurement separates one experience, event or thing from another experience, event or thing in order to make a comparison between the two. This is relativity in process. Therefore relativity is IN (within) Process. Everything arises WITHIN process. Brains and science arises WITHIN process. Process IS reality. Everything, therefore, arises WITHIN reality. There is no such thing as a relative reality. There is either reality or relativity. Everything within reality is changing constantly. Everything is always on the move. It cannot be fixed. It cannot be made concrete. Reality cannot be fixed or made concrete. It is always moving. Nailing down reality, which is what you are asking me to do, is impossible. Reality is everything you think it is not (because thinking is only the process of comparison, the process of measuring). So that is what reality is. It isn't. Reality is isn't and reality isn't is. Reality, therefore, is the Whole Process of ISNESS.

Reality isn't relative. Only our perceptions of reality tends to be relative. Science is a measuring process. Our brains (our perception device) is a measuring process or processor. And so Reality is THE PROCESS and not what is measured. Measurement separates one experience, event or thing from another experience, event or thing in order to make a comparison between the two. This is relativity in process. Therefore relativity is IN (within) Process. Everything arises WITHIN process. Brains and science arises WITHIN process. Process IS reality. Everything, therefore, arises WITHIN reality. There is no such thing as a relative reality. There is either reality or relativity. Everything within reality is changing constantly. Everything is always on the move. It cannot be fixed. It cannot be made concrete. Reality cannot be fixed or made concrete. It is always moving. Nailing down reality, which is what you are asking me to do, is impossible. Reality is everything you think it is not (because thinking is only the process of comparison, the process of measuring). So that is what reality is. It isn't. Reality is isn't and reality isn't is. Reality, therefore, is the Whole Process of ISNESS.

I agree and have given similar arguments for what you are saying about the nature of so-called reality. But notice you have given a definition of what reality is {or isn't}. Others might have other definitions and reach different conclusions according to their definitions. But I do not believe any definition of reality can be fixed as permanent unless {and this is unlikely} someone can prove a fixed unchanging reality exists.