Assuming nothing is real or fake, what is reality?

[Grunth]

You call them offerings. You're happy with them. They aren't anything I could care about. There is just nothing there.

Obviously your care because you responded.

The rest of your comment is irrational, illogical, lacking common sense false concept, that, does not address my correct answer to the topic thread.

Nor does it address my rational, logical common sense definitions of spirit. None have ever offered any rational, logical commons sense comments that would invalidate my cosmic hierarchy as stated, or the comments directly related to the cosmic hierarchy.

You and others need to read 1a, and 2a, 2b and 2c for referential context of 1c and my correct answer. These is relatively simple to grasp concepts.

r6

You seem to think that merely repeating your initially stated opinion will somehow automatically reveal some sense to it.

[Rr6]

Grunth when you actually have some rational, logical common sense statements that invalidate my cosmic hierarchy, or other comments by me, please share. Like some others, you do not, because you have not any rational, logical common sense statements that invalidate my comments.

Please try and get your act together to stay on topic and address my comments, as stated, that are relevant to topic thread.

What really exists is in my cosmic hierarchy. See 1, 2 and its subcategories. Relatively simple concepts to grasp yet so many have mental blockages to them.

GR--Maybe it should be considered that we are, each and every person, a hallucination.

Grunth, your given concept is relevant if others want to create a fictional book or movie etc....

(Nested quote removed.)


Obviously your care because you responded.

The rest of your comment is irrational, illogical, lacking common sense false concept, that, does not address my correct answer to the topic thread.

Nor does it address my rational, logical common sense definitions of spirit. None have ever offered any rational, logical commons sense comments that would invalidate my cosmic hierarchy as stated, or the comments directly related to the cosmic hierarchy.

You and others need to read 1a, and 2a, 2b and 2c for referential context of 1c and my correct answer. These is relatively simple to grasp concepts.

r6

You seem to think that merely repeating your initially stated opinion will somehow automatically reveal some sense to it.

[Grunth]

Grunth when you actually have some rational, logical common sense statements that invalidate my cosmic hierarchy, or other comments by me, please share. Like some others, you do not, because you have not any rational, logical common sense statements that invalidate my comments.

Please try and get your act together to stay on topic and address my comments, as stated, that are relevant to topic thread.

What really exists is in my cosmic hierarchy. See 1, 2 and its subcategories. Relatively simple concepts to grasp yet so many have mental blockages to them.

GR--Maybe it should be considered that we are, each and every person, a hallucination.

Grunth, your given concept is relevant if others want to create a fictional book or movie etc....

(Nested quote removed.)

You seem to think that merely repeating your initially stated opinion will somehow automatically reveal some sense to it.

And again and again and again. Not unlike the conventional religious condition of referring always to a bible passage.

As far as this topic is concerned, with regard to what we tend to believe as reality, I understand it this way. We actually live in two universes. . The invisible zero universe of Cause, and the visible universe of Effect. We have sensed the Effect and believed in its reality. We have yet to know the universe of Cause. Science calls the invisible universe anti matter which appears to be a speculation that there is 'something' outside of matter which is seemingly the source of matter emerging from it. Matter is motion. The anti matter is stillness. All we experience is motion. Life or universe as we sense it, and measure it, therefore cannot really be wholly defined as reality as it is only one half of the picture.

-- Updated April 11th, 2016, 6:48 pm to add the following --

But as 'one half of the picture' this doesn't equate to us as having solved 50%. Half of the picture, because of its illusory nature, is essentially deceiving.

[Rr6]

Grunth You seem to think that merely repeating your initially stated opinion will somehow automatically reveal some sense to it.

A closed or narrow mind refuse to have anything revealed to them.

And again and again and again. Not unlike the conventional religious condition of referring always to a bible passage.

Absolute truths are unchanging. Some with closed or narrow mind choose to remain ignorant of many truths and rational, logical common sense when presented to them.

As far as this topic is concerned, with regard to what we tend to believe as reality, I understand it this way. We actually live in two universes. . The invisible zero universe of Cause, and the visible universe of Effect.

Invisible cause? Does that stem from invisible man or invisible man movies? Glad to see you at least believe there exist a Universe.

We have sensed the Effect and believed in its reality.

Not only that, some of us actually have rational, logical common sense deductions based on our observations.

We have yet to know the universe of Cause.

Universe exists eternally. See 1st law of conservation, physical/energy cannot be created ergo your consideration of cause is irrelevant to eternally existent Universe.

Science calls the invisible universe anti matter which appears to be a speculation that there is 'something' outside of matter which is seemingly the source of matter emerging from it.

That does'nt sound correct to me. If anti-matter does not exist, for the most part, then it is not a case of invisible it is case of not existent. So there may exist some anti-matter and we of course can create anti-matter. So you idea of anti-matter being invisible does not make sense.

If your scenario means there exist invisible anti-matter humans walking next to us. I don't think so.

Matter is motion.

Fermionic matter and bosonic forces all exist as physical/energy ergo motion ergo observed time ergo frequencies of observed reality we can express as a sine-wave patterned frequency{ ^v }. This is all in my cosmic hierarchy that goes in one ear and out the other of others here at Philo Forum

The anti matter is stillness.

No dude. Where do you get these kind of concepts from?

All we experience is motion. Life or universe as we sense it, and measure it, therefore cannot really be wholly defined as reality as it is only one half of the picture.

We can and do define Universe in wholistic manner. Anti-matter is fermionic and bosonic. Why you would think something else seems strange to me. You need to read with open mind my cosmic heirarchy so as to begin with observational truths and leave your false concepts by the wayside. imho.

r6

-- Updated April 11th, 2016, 6:48 pm to add the following --

But as 'one half of the picture' this doesn't equate to us as having solved 50%. Half of the picture, because of its illusory nature, is essentially deceiving.[/quote]

[RJG]

As far as this topic is concerned, with regard to what we tend to believe as reality, I understand it this way. We actually live in two universes. . The invisible zero universe of Cause, and the visible universe of Effect. We have sensed the Effect and believed in its reality. We have yet to know the universe of Cause. Science calls the invisible universe anti matter which appears to be a speculation that there is 'something' outside of matter which is seemingly the source of matter emerging from it. Matter is motion. The anti matter is stillness. All we experience is motion. Life or universe as we sense it, and measure it, therefore cannot really be wholly defined as reality as it is only one half of the picture.

Grunth, ...interesting, and nicely said, …I can’t disagree.

In essence, experiences (effects) exist, and their causes (assuming they exist in the first place) can only be speculated.

[Belinda]

RJG, endorsing Grunth, wrote:

In essence, experiences (effects) exist, and their causes (assuming they exist in the first place) can only be speculated.

I prefer to alter RJG's to "In essence, experiences (events) exist, and their causes (assuming they exist in the first place) can only be speculated. "

I think that including my minor quibble the above is true. However the more difficult bit is to establish the ontological status of experiences or events.

[Rr6]

RJG--In essence, experiences (effects) exist, and their causes (assuming they exist in the first place) can only be speculated.

I trip on a piece of wood and hit my head on car. The cause is the piece of wood and my non-awareness or less than considerate consideration of it, is the cause of hitting my head on car, not to mention all of the associated physics that involved to facilitate the cause and effect.

Sorry RJG, you belief that cause can only be speculated upon does not make sense to me.

Perhaps, your approach is based upon ergo stems from, the uncertainty principle.

Grunth may refer to this as the 50% illusion. I'll take illusion over being delusional any day of week.

We have the illusion of having free will. Some are delusional in their beliefs of a macro-infinite, occupied space,
Universe.

I think the list of delusion is far greater than the list of illusion and of more significance to humanities survival for longer periods of time.

r6

[Belinda]

Rr6 wrote:

I trip on a piece of wood and hit my head on car. The cause is the piece of wood and my non-awareness or less than considerate consideration of it, is the cause of hitting my head on car, not to mention all of the associated physics that involved to facilitate the cause and effect.

Sorry RJG, you belief that cause can only be speculated upon does not make sense to me.

Don't you see that "not to mention all of the associated physics that involved to facilitate the cause and effect" goes a lot of the way to rebutting your own objection ?

To put it another way, the causes of any event ripple out to infinity.

[RJG]

In essence, experiences (effects) exist, and their causes (assuming they exist in the first place) can only be speculated.

I trip on a piece of wood and hit my head on car. The cause is the piece of wood and my non-awareness or less than considerate consideration of it, is the cause of hitting my head on car, not to mention all of the associated physics that involved to facilitate the cause and effect.

Hi Rr6, ...humor me here by trying to be as absolutely honest as possible here --

Regarding your accident: Isn’t more accurate to say that you just ‘experienced’ pressure on your toe, then you ‘experienced’ the sensation of falling, then you ‘experienced’ pain/pressure on your head, then you ‘experienced’ seeing a thing you call “wood”, and then ‘experienced’ seeing a thing called “car”. Isn’t this (this bunch of sequential experiences) what REALLY happened?

So where are the 'causes'? ...where in here did you actually experience (and hereby confirm) the ‘cause(s)’?

Cheat-sheet answer: ‘Causes’ are the ‘fictional constructs' (assumptions/speculations) that we humans like to use to complete the story that we like to hear.

[Grunth]

We have yet to know the universe of Cause.

Universe exists eternally. See 1st law of conservation, physical/energy cannot be created ergo your consideration of cause is irrelevant to eternally existent Universe.

Sure, Cause (or 'source') is eternal, presumably. Effects, however, exist for observations temporarily. The effect that is 'you' (as body and as body which observes other temporary effects) appeared and will disappear.

Science calls the invisible universe anti matter which appears to be a speculation that there is 'something' outside of matter which is seemingly the source of matter emerging from it.

That does'nt sound correct to me. If anti-matter does not exist, for the most part, then it is not a case of invisible it is case of not existent. So there may exist some anti-matter and we of course can create anti-matter. So you idea of anti-matter being invisible does not make sense.

If your scenario means there exist invisible anti-matter humans walking next to us. I don't think so.

The universe of sense is the universe of effect. Science is still struggling with this as you are. Anti matter humans? Absurd and mediocre conclusion.

Matter is motion.

Fermionic matter and bosonic forces all exist as physical/energy ergo motion ergo observed time ergo frequencies of observed reality we can express as a sine-wave patterned frequency{ ^v }. This is all in my cosmic hierarchy that goes in one ear and out the other of others here at Philo Forum

You have described motion. You have described observable phenomena which are Effects. Matter arises as effect.

We can and do define Universe in wholistic manner. Anti-matter is fermionic and bosonic. Why you would think something else seems strange to me. You need to read with open mind my cosmic heirarchy so as to begin with observational truths and leave your false concepts by the wayside. imho.

Universe is not wholly understood, as you know. What anti matter is thought to be is a presumption. It is still the puzzle for science.

-- Updated April 12th, 2016, 3:50 pm to add the following --

I trip on a piece of wood and hit my head on car. The cause is the piece of wood and my non-awareness or less than considerate consideration of it, is the cause of hitting my head on car, not to mention all of the associated physics that involved to facilitate the cause and effect.

Awareness (of all these 'I', 'wood', 'head', 'car', 'associated physics', in a word, 'experience') is in itself Effect. Awareness is Effect. What is its cause?

[Rr6]

Rr6 wrote:

I trip on a piece of wood and hit my head on car. The cause is the piece of wood and my non-awareness or less than considerate consideration of it, is the cause of hitting my head on car, not to mention all of the associated physics that involved to facilitate the cause and effect.
Sorry RJG, you belief that cause can only be speculated upon does not make sense to me.

Don't you see that "not to mention all of the associated physics that involved to facilitate the cause and effect" goes a lot of the way to rebutting your own objection ?
To put it another way, the causes of any event ripple out to infinity.

Certainly not infinity, if live in a finite, occupied space Universe.

Also I think your and others are confusing resultant with cause.

You see this past infinite set that caused me, the piece of wood and car--- not to mention all the physics ---to intefer with each other.

I see the wood, myself, and car as a resultant of past actions{ cause } reactions{ effects }.

What caused me hit my head on the car was tripping and the physics that associate with those circumstances.

The causal action is the tripping. Cause is inherently a single, initial action, not the infinite set of resultants from infinite set of past actions.

In this way we have only a finite set of events to consider. Infinite set only leads to irrational, illogical considerations as we goo further and further into past, and away for the reality of present set of circumstances.

Finite set = structural and systemic integrity ergo rational, logical common sense.

Infinite set = no integrity ergo irrational, illogical and lacks common sense.

r6

[Steve3007]

Rr6:

Do you believe that the concept of an infinite set has any utility at all? What do you think of Cantor's different levels of infinity? What do you make of the fact that all of the inductive generalizations which we refer to as "the laws of physics" are, by their nature, references to potentially infinite sets?

-- Updated Tue Apr 12, 2016 7:15 am to add the following --

How could we have arrived at the Theory of Limits (a hugely useful theory, I presume you'd agree) if we did not use the concepts of infinity and infinitesimals?

[Belinda]

Steve, I think you are a naughty man to tease so.

Soberly though, differentiation, integration, measure, limits, infinite series, and analytic functions is mathematical terminology according to W------a. Yet those look like metaphysical terms and concepts too. Is my presumption correct that mathematicians use such terminology in a specifically mathematical context which has little or no relevance to metaphysics?

If my presumption is correct then "the meanings of words is their use" is true, and applies also to meanings that are circumscribed by the aims of the purveyors of whatever academic discipline is being applied.

In that case either nothing is real and ultimate reality is either unknowable, or " what is reality? "is a meaningless question, or both.

[Rr6]

In essence, experiences (effects) exist, and their causes (assuming they exist in the first place) can only be speculated.

I trip on a piece of wood and hit my head on car. The cause is the piece of wood and my non-awareness or less than considerate consideration of it, is the cause of hitting my head on car, not to mention all of the associated physics that involved to facilitate the cause and effect.

Hi Rr6, ...humor me here by trying to be as absolutely honest as possible here --

Regarding your accident: Isn’t more accurate to say that you just ‘experienced’ pressure on your toe, then you ‘experienced’ the sensation of falling, then you ‘experienced’ pain/pressure on your head, then you ‘experienced’ seeing a thing you call “wood”, and then ‘experienced’ seeing a thing called “car”. Isn’t this (this bunch of sequential experiences) what REALLY happened?

So where are the 'causes'? ...where in here did you actually experience (and hereby confirm) the ‘cause(s)’?

Cheat-sheet answer: ‘Causes’ are the ‘fictional constructs' (assumptions/speculations) that we humans like to use to complete the story that we like to hear.

RJG, I trip on piece of wood. Piece of wood is the cause{ action/trip }.

Toe interfering with wood is cause/action of tripping.

Why you think that is fictional construct makes no sense to me.

My reaction( effect ) may be many; yell flail arms, to think I'm screwed etc....

A resultant may be that I hit head on car, that my rotor cuff becomes strained from flailing of arms, I ge inflamed toe from interfence with wood.

Again, RJG, I'm total missing where you get that toe interfering with is tripping and that is some how fictional to you.

r6

[Steve3007]

Belinda:

Steve, I think you are a naughty man to tease so.

Soberly though, differentiation, integration, measure, limits, infinite series, and analytic functions is mathematical terminology according to W------a. Yet those look like metaphysical terms and concepts too. Is my presumption correct that mathematicians use such terminology in a specifically mathematical context which has little or no relevance to metaphysics?

I'll have you know I'm as sober as a judge and haven't touched a drop all day.

I'd say they definitely do have relevance to metaphysics - some would say that mathematics is metaphysics. Perhaps the more relevant question would be whether such mathematical concepts have an application to physics - to empirical observations. I'd say definitely yes. Differentiation and integration, for example, come from the Theory of Limits and they are the cornerstone of pretty much all applied mathematics (i.e. physics). In the maths courses of an undergraduate physics course you spend a year doing very little else except solving differential equations. Without Calculus physics just wouldn't exist.

If my presumption is correct then "the meanings of words is their use" is true, and applies also to meanings that are circumscribed by the aims of the purveyors of whatever academic discipline is being applied.

In that case either nothing is real and ultimate reality is either unknowable, or " what is reality? "is a meaningless question, or both.

I think it all just comes down to semantics again, and to me that means finding the meanings for words that are of the most use in achieving our goals. If we say something like "nothing is real" we're immediately faced with the problem of defining the word "real". Others may have different opinions, but for me "reality" is a common denominator of all possible subjective perceptions. Many people (like RJG) are not satisfied with this and seem to think there is some kind of Platonic perfect reality which, being beyond all possible subject perceptions, can never be known. Personally I don't see the point of concepts that can never, even in principle, be known. They can't develop. They quickly get boring. Once we're done with our speculations about them there's nothing more we can say about them.