There is No Provable Reality

I can assume other people exist but that does not prove they do.

First, can you even prove that you exist, or do you just assume that you exist? If you can prove it, please show the proof. I think you would find that any such proof would have to assume an external reality, and then you are caught in a circularity.

Solve this Paradox: 'REALITY' can not be 'PROVEN', because there is 'NOTHING' there TO 'PROVE'. And as there is 'NOTHING' there TO 'PROVE' , there is nothing which CAN be 'PROVEN'. And as there is nothing which CAN be 'PROVEN', there is nothing which CAN be 'PROVEN'. And as there is nothing which CAN be proven, nothing can be 'PROVEN'. Which CAN NOT be PROVEN!

I think that 'two people playing tennis being watched by a few spectators' proves there is a reality. Each player and spectator has their own reality, but the little bit of external reality being hit back and forth demonstrates that there is something beyond the internal realities - the tennis ball at least, otherwise it could not be hit back. As long as they all agree on the result, it is fanciful to imagine that they are all dreaming.

This maybe a little late in the game, but I'm unclear as to whether this reality that is unprovable is supposed to be physical or non-physical, and whether there is a difference.

I think spinning wheels about different perceptions perceiving different things does not prove that the physical world and self do not exist. They do, I think, logically confuse, because, empirically, the observer needs to show that said reality exists. If the self needs to show "reality," he or she will only show the reality they know.

However, like the quote here, the proof is in the agreement. In this agreement, each person can perceive differently and others either agree that it is fact or not. Some, like me, are so off the radar sometimes, that very few agree.

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.

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.

I find what you say interesting but am still wondering how this might answer the original hypothesis: 'There is No Provable Reality'. As I see it 'the dynamic of changing' could still be illusory.

If I do not exist then by extension because you are like me, you do not exist. So if neither one of us exists, who is asking the question?

Regards, John.

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.

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.

Yes, logical and 'probably true' but the first thing I think of is this logic and reality could be no more than the medium of a computer simulation with all the interaction and communication programmed. A tangible reality in real time in a real universe is still not proven. Of course it has already been postulated that reality is a simulation. And unless this can be completely discounted a complete and absolute proof remains tenuous. Of course maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. In the future Quantum Mechanics may rule - in which case we are part of one of many realities and one single reality is not existent because there are many.

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.

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.

I agree. But by the same token when you say "While it is logically possible that we are in a simulation, there is no reason to assume we are until we have proof." I can say it is logically possible that we are in the 'real world' but there is no reason to believe we are until we have proof that there is a 'real world' {or provable reality}. If I seem to be switching my stance, why not? Show me a stance of an absolute provable reality and prove I am wrong.

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.

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.

Suspend all assumptions as assumptions are just that - they prove nothing. You can prove anything you want by making assumptions but in fact you are proving nothing but the logic of the assumptions. If you want to prove reality you only have to accept two things: 1. A proof is possible, and 2. Reality is provable. I accept only proposition one that a proof is possible but still emphatically deny proposition two that reality is provable. As you point out you have to make assumptions to prove reality and deny that a proof can be made based on assumptions.

And when you say: "If there is no external world, then we cannot be in a simulation because nothing outisde of our consciousness exists." There are some who believe just that that nothing outside of our consciousness exist, in philosophy it is called Solipsism ["the philosophical idea that "My mind is the only thing that I know exists." Solipsism is an epistemological or metaphysical position that knowledge of anything outside the mind is unjustified. The external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist. In the history of philosophy, solipsism has served as a skeptical hypothesis."]

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.

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.

You can't prove what you are saying anymore than you can prove reality. To say illusion becomes meaningless is in a way similar to me saying a proven reality is meaningless. Remember that to 'prove' reality is a particularly difficult endeavor because 'if' it exists you are inside of it and to prove its existence one would have to view it from an external point {outside reality} and then the meaning of that view might still be questioned.

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.