What makes something 'real'?

[jokeripa]

Well according to Einstein it's impossible to seperate time and space.

Good Contribution Diane.

[leovanham]

Which is why it exists. It isn't a physical thing, no. But since we perceive it, it therefore exists.

that's some deep sh*it yo!!

serious: i believe your right about that!

[dreamz Veteran]

since this is philosophical, i'm moving it here.

i call "real" the ends of felicitous determinations, causal links, etc. whatever could not be otherwise.

[lav-chan]

Good Contribution Diane.

why you gotta steal

[Captain_Wang]

Good Contribution Diane.

It was a reply to Winmaclin's reply that time doesn't actually exist...umm...Cindy.

[psyko_x]

Today I dreamed of a purple rock. Does it mean it exists?

That purple rock doesn't have energy so no it doesn't exist. What does have energy are the brain cells that worked to create your dream.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As I said before, if it has energy it exists and if not, it doesn't. Theres nothing anyone here can think of that exists and yet has no energy.

Anything above absolute zero has some energy and the 3rd of of thermodynamics says nothing can reach absolute zero and so that implies that nothing exists without energy.

[Hum]

Real is only what you have experienced and what you accept. ;)

[Aaron Veteran]

If a schizophrenic is actively hallucinating that there are aliens living in his bathtub, does that make them real?

Also consider that the way we see, hear, feel, smell, etc, is can only be known to us. When I say this thing is 'red' you may agree as it is also the color you have learned is 'red'. Yet, what appears as 'red' to me, that is the sequence of neuronal firings occurring in my eyes and occipital lobe may in fact mirror in your visual system as what would be 'blue' in mine. So although we have a socially agreed upon construct of just what 'red' is, we are not sure we perceive things in the exact same way.

That purple rock doesn't have energy so no it doesn't exist. What does have energy are the brain cells that worked to create your dream.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As I said before, if it has energy it exists and if not, it doesn't. Theres nothing anyone here can think of that exists and yet has no energy.

Anything above absolute zero has some energy and the 3rd of of thermodynamics says nothing can reach absolute zero and so that implies that nothing exists without energy.

So you are saying the only things that exist are physical objects?

[dreamz Veteran]

As I said before, if it has energy it exists and if not, it doesn't. Theres nothing anyone here can think of that exists and yet has no energy.

Anything above absolute zero has some energy and the 3rd of of thermodynamics says nothing can reach absolute zero and so that implies that nothing exists without energy.

if we think about it logically (and ontologically), to say that something exists is not to say that it has energy, but that one would be committed to it. that is called "ontological commitment." according to quine, "to be is to be the value of a variable." in other words, a thing x exists if, when it is substituted for a variable in some context, the context becomes true.

for instance, when we say that, "there exists a prime number greater than 100", we are ontologically committed. clearly, that sentence is true, and the prime number is real and it exists, even though it has no energy.

Also consider that the way we see, hear, feel, smell, etc, is can only be known to us. When I say this thing is 'red' you may agree as it is also the color you have learned is 'red'. Yet, what appears as 'red' to me, that is the sequence of neuronal firings occurring in my eyes and occipital lobe may in fact mirror in your visual system as what would be 'blue' in mine. So although we have a socially agreed upon construct of just what 'red' is, we are not sure we perceive things in the exact same way.

if, however, there is never any case in which some distinction might occur (if, for instance, every time you were tested on seeing red, you actually saw blue and came to think it was identical with whatever others perceived as red), the two would be coextensive and identical, in which case, all determinations are felicitous.

[psyko_x]

So you are saying the only things that exist are physical objects?

No, it has nothing to do with our senses. Waves are an example. Radio waves and other electromagnetic waves are real things that we can't sense by touch, taste, etc and they aren't physical objects because they have no mass. They also take up no volume. However, they still have energy.

[psyko_x]

for instance, when we say that, "there exists a prime number greater than 100", we are ontologically committed. clearly, that sentence is true, and the prime number is real and it exists, even though it has no energy.

Numbers and words are just concepts humans created with their brains and the brains are made up of cells which are made up of atoms which have energy.

So heres how I see it when people learn numbers and words...

When a baby hears the sound "apple" from an adult, the sound waves (which have energy) enter the ear and excite cells in the brain (which also have energy). I'll call the cells in this region "region A". At the same time the adult may be holding an apple and so light waves bounce off the apple and enter the babies eye and eventually excite other brain cells in region B. If the adult keeps doing this (keep saying apple and showing an apple at the same time) then region A and B get excited each time. Eventually you can just say "apple" and not show an apple to the baby. When the baby hears it this time around, the same brain cells are excited from the sound waves in region A. But at this point the brain has been accustomed to also have excitation in region B due to light waves (the baby's used to seeing an apple too). So then you also have similar (but i guess not exactly the same) brain cells get excited just as if the baby actually was seeing an apple. At this point, the baby has learned what "apple" means. He/she is able to relate a sound to an image and vice versa. All of this requires energy (through sound/light waves and in brain cells).

note: I'm not a neurologist so don't take that example literally. I'm just saying that when you say a number/word (using sound waves) to someone else, it fires up similar brain cells in their brain (compared to the brain cells that were excited in your brain) and those cells have energy. I say similar because babies are taught in roughly the same way...I guess you could teach your baby that "5" is "3" and vice versa though lol.

Edited July 19, 2006 by psyko_x

[dreamz Veteran]

Numbers and words are just concepts humans created with their brains and the brains are made up of cells which are made up of atoms which have energy.

So heres how I see it when people learn numbers and words...

When a baby hears the sound "apple" from an adult, the sound waves (which have energy) enter the ear and excite cells in the brain (which also have energy) which I will call region A. At the same time the adult may be holding an apple and so light waves bounce off the apple and enter the babies eye and eventually excite other brain cells in region B. If the adult keeps doing this (keep saying apple and showing one at the same time) then region A and B get excited each time. Eventually you can just say "apple" and not show an apple to the baby. When the baby hears it this time around, the same brain cells are excited from the sound waves in region A. But at this point the brain has been accustomed to also have excitation in region B due to light waves (the baby's used to seeing an apple too). So then you also have similar (but i guess not exactly the same) brain cells get excited just as if the baby actually was seeing an apple. At this point, the baby has learned what "apple" means. He/she is able to relate a sound to an image and vice versa. All of this requires energy (through sound/light waves and in brain cells).

no, you're taking too parochial a view.

in particular, whether or not something has energy is an insufficient criterion for determining its "realness" (for want of a better word). when we are ontologically committed to a certain entity, we are saying that it makes some context true. energy works for most things because it accords with the system used to think and talk about those things.

whether or not a word or concept is humanly defined is another matter, but there is no doubt that there is a fundamental ontological difference between saying that "a prime number greater than 100 exists" is true and that "square circles exist" is false. reality has the peculiar quality of being felicitous in certain various ways, e.g., in terms of logical theory, in terms of perception, in terms of cognition, and so on. that is why some have proposed a "verificationist" ideal. were it not for these felicities, there would be no motive for verificationism. similarly, these types of felicities are the driving force behind certain pragmatic approaches, e.g., along the lines of peirce, james, dewey, and c.i. lewis.

that "square circles exist" is false is NOT due to its lack of energy. neither is the fact that a sentence is real (the sentence itself, apart from the physical representation in ink). do not confuse the sign with the object. moreover, do not confuse existence with reality or, in a more parochial thought, non-ideas with reality.

the interesting thing about truth and reality is that we are not necessarily constrained by energy.

moreover, there is no methodology by which energy can be verified. namely, a thing might be considered to contain energy and yet never be real, simply because the manifestations of energy could be wrong. here, a methodology (in my opinion) of felicitous determinations would determine it to be real.

[psyko_x]

no, you're taking too parochial a view.

in particular, whether or not something has energy is an insufficient criterion for determining its "realness" (for want of a better word). when we are ontologically committed to a certain entity, we are saying that it makes some context true. energy works for most things because it accords with the system used to think and talk about those things.

whether or not a word or concept is humanly defined is another matter, but there is no doubt that there is a fundamental ontological difference between saying that "a prime number greater than 100 exists" is true and that "square circles exist" is false. reality has the peculiar quality of being felicitous in certain various ways, e.g., in terms of logical theory, in terms of perception, in terms of cognition, and so on. that is why some have proposed a "verificationist" ideal. were it not for these felicities, there would be no motive for verificationism. similarly, these types of felicities are the driving force behind certain pragmatic approaches, e.g., along the lines of peirce, james, dewey, and c.i. lewis.

that "square circles exist" is false is NOT due to its lack of energy. neither is the fact that a sentence is real (the sentence itself, apart from the physical representation in ink). do not confuse the sign with the object. moreover, do not confuse existence with reality or, in a more parochial thought, non-ideas with reality.

the interesting thing about truth and reality is that we are not necessarily constrained by energy.

numbers wouldn't exist if our brains had no energy. If everyone suddenly died do numbers exist? No I don't think they do. No one is alive to think of any number or to count anything.

So I'm saying numbers are real but not the way you are thinking about them. They are real because they are just electrical signals in the brain. That's all they are and nothing more. Without brain cells they don't exist.

[davemania]

numbers wouldn't exist if our brains had no energy. If everyone suddenly died do numbers exist? No I don't think they do. No one is alive to think of any number or to count anything.

So I'm saying numbers are real but not the way you are thinking about them. They are real because they are just electrical signals in the brain. That's all they are and nothing more. Without brain cells they don't exist.

Something like "If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?"

Our perception does not define reality. Number, law of physics wouldn't collapse simply because the human race died out, its relevance to us certainly is gone but I think it's safe to say the universe will go on.

[dreamz Veteran]

numbers wouldn't exist if our brains had no energy. If everyone suddenly died do numbers exist? No I don't think they do. No one is alive to think of any number or to count anything.

So I'm saying numbers are real but not the way you are thinking about them. They are real because they are just electrical signals in the brain. That's all they are and nothing more. Without brain cells they don't exist.

that's not right either. you're saying that our thought conditions the world and creates it, for you say that the existence of numbers is contingent on the minds that conceive them. that is an old argument, and it is hardly justified.

if that were true, then humans would be the ultimate cause. but if that is true, there would be no such thing as incorrigibility, error, etc. moreover, there is no reason to think that it should remain regular or fixed either. if everything is reduced to electrical signals, there is no reason to think that what is conceived is conceived absolutely in the manner that was previously specified. hence, if it is absolute (as in mathematics), it would either be extraordinarily arbitrary so as to defy all chance, or absolutely transcendent or magical in that it would accommodate itself.

the fact that there is a prime number greater than 100 is not a fact of the human mind, but of the nature and qualities of the natural numbers. the fact that there are incorrigible facts is evidence of a non-contingent existence.

[PL_ Veteran]

Correction, Time doesn't exist. It is just our way to perceive before and after a current event.

4D, anyone?

[psyko_x]

Something like "If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, then does it make a sound?"

Our perception does not define reality. Number, law of physics wouldn't collapse simply because the human race died out, its relevance to us certainly is gone but I think it's safe to say the universe will go on.

I wasn't saying perception defines reality. And I certainly don't think the laws of physics would collapse if humans died. All I said was that numbers are a concept created by the use of brain cells. You don't need people writing equations and manipulating numbers for the laws of physics to work but we do it anyways because we are curious to understand physics.

that's not right either. you're saying that our thought conditions the world and creates it, for you say that the existence of numbers is contingent on the minds that conceive them. that is an old argument, and it is hardly justified.

if that were true, then humans would be the ultimate cause. but if that is true, there would be no such thing as incorrigibility, error, etc. moreover, there is no reason to think that it should remain regular or fixed either. if everything is reduced to electrical signals, there is no reason to think that what is conceived is conceived absolutely in the manner that was previously specified. hence, if it is absolute (as in mathematics), it would either be extraordinarily arbitrary so as to defy all chance, or absolutely transcendent or magical in that it would accommodate itself.

the fact that there is a prime number greater than 100 is not a fact of the human mind, but of the nature and qualities of the natural numbers. the fact that there are incorrigible facts is evidence of a non-contingent existence.

**Numbers are contingent on the minds that conceive them. Objects that exist just ...exist. We created numbers because we felt the need to be able to count them and to understand the world around us (though the use of mathematics).**

Numbers and, therefore, math didn't exist millions of years ago before humans came into existence. If no human thought up of the concept of numbers there would be no such thing as PI or 19832 and we would be a lot dumber than we are today but we could still exist just like any other animal who can't count to, say, 10,000 or figure out the 4th root of 16.

I'm definitely not saying reality only exists because of our brain's electrical signals. In fact I think I specifically stated the opposite in an earlier post.

- - - - - - - - - -- -

K, I'm bored of this argument. I still say everything that exists has energy. If it doesn't have energy, it doesn't exist.

Edited July 19, 2006 by psyko_x

[dreamz Veteran]

again, you fail to think about 1) the actual claims, and 2) the ramifications of those claims.

Numbers are contingent on the minds that conceive them.

as i've shown already, that makes no sense.

Objects that exist just ...exist.

no. you could argue that a table exists because it has energy, but that once you leave the room and are no longer conscious of it, it would cease to exist. that is the same argument bradley ventured, and it still does not make sense.

at this point, you have not shown what distinguishes a table from a number when confronted with this fact. energy is here irrelevant, simply because both can be shown to be non-existent when not thought (according to your definition).

We created numbers because we felt the need to be able to count them and to understand the world around us (though the use of mathematics).

again, that is false. men did not create numbers. he simply USED them, and then formalized them. if he created them, he could create anything he wanted. there would be no limit to the numbers he created. and yet, evidence shows us how false that statement is. there is a reason irrational numbers were discovered. the natural numbers proved to be insufficient! but that doesn't mean that men could have created perfect numbers that sufficed for all applications. what he formalized were manifestations of properties of numbers.

if he could create whatever he wanted, there would be no way to prove that irrational numbers are irrational, simply because they would be contingent absolutely on human conception. hence, their irrationality is not a matter of the number, but the mind. that, of course, is false, for no matter what the mind thinks, the numbers would remain irrational.

that is also why incorrigibility has a place here.

If no human thought up of the concept of numbers there would be no such thing as PI or 19832 and we would be a lot dumber than we are today but we could still exist just like any other animal who can't count to, say, 10,000 or figure out the 4th root of 16.

that isn't an argument and is wholly irrelevant. that has nothing to do with being able to conceive of number. the formal properties of irrational numbers would exist even if the mind did not. they are not dependent on human thought. human thought merely discovered them.

K, I'm bored of this argument. I still say everything that exists has energy. If it doesn't have energy, it doesn't exist.

the whole point of a discussion is to discuss.

[Vice]

Which is why it exists. It isn't a physical thing, no. But since we perceive it, it therefore exists.

It exists for someone who is able to remember, if you was unable to remember the passage of time would not exist for you, it is only an idea.

Here is one for some people to think about, Why can't you imagine a new colour in your mind. A mind which has limitless imaginative possibilities is unable to think of a new colour, why is that?, who told our mind to be bound by the laws of the universe. :p

[psyko_x]

at this point, you have not shown what distinguishes a table from a number when confronted with this fact. energy is here irrelevant, simply because both can be shown to be non-existent when not thought (according to your definition).

The table has energy because it is just a collection of particles and those particles have energy. So it exists and is real. If you leave the room and aren't able to measure the energy of those particles that doesn't mean it's not there. Atoms existed before we were able to detect them or measure their energy.

[dreamz Veteran]

The table has energy because it is just a collection of particles and those particles have energy. So it exists and is real. If you leave the room and aren't able to measure the energy of those particles that doesn't mean it's not there. Atoms existed before we were able to detect them or measure their energy.

there are so many issues here:

1. you have not proven or shown that energy is a necessary and sufficient condition for existence or reality. also, there has been no definition of "reality" that does not presuppose energy (hence, non-circular).

2. you have not proven or shown the identity or coextensiveness of existence and reality.

3. you have not shown that leaving the room doesn't disqualify the table. that remains to be proven. you can't simply assert it or invoke energy again (since that is contingent on your being present).

4. just because you can't measure the energy of numbers doesn't mean they don't exist.

5. just because numbers do not have energy doesn't mean they don't exist.

6. how do you know that atoms exist without measurement or observation? you're merely postulating that fact, bolstering it with ex post facto justifications. it's an ad hoc assumption.

7. again, if numbers are purely synthetic conceptions, they would be arbitrary and magical. the fact that we can do these operations on them consistently and logically is evidence of their non-contingent nature.

8. numbers existed before our formalizations of them. you're mistaking the entities for their formulations. that's like saying 5 didn't exist before the numeral "5" was devised or that trees didn't exist before they were called "trees".

9. you still have not shown that whatever is perceived to be energetic is necessarily energetic, i.e., beyond all possibility. hence, it may be possible to show that you are absolutely mistaken, but unable to know it, and hence, deluded. what is required is a methodology beyond energy.

there is a significant literature in this area. you could start with bradley and move on to kant, logical positivists, carnap, quine, and more contemporary philosophers as well, e.g., in metaphysics, epistemology, and so on.

[primexx]

my penis is real then :rofl:

I knew someone would say that.

[psyko_x]

there are so many issues here:

1. you have not proven or shown that energy is a necessary and sufficient condition for existence or reality. also, there has been no definition of "reality" that does not presuppose energy (hence, non-circular).

2. you have not proven or shown the identity or coextensiveness of existence and reality.

3. you have not shown that leaving the room doesn't disqualify the table. that remains to be proven. you can't simply assert it or invoke energy again (since that is contingent on your being present).

4. just because you can't measure the energy of numbers doesn't mean they don't exist.

5. just because numbers do not have energy doesn't mean they don't exist.

6. how do you know that atoms exist without measurement or observation? you're merely postulating that fact, bolstering it with ex post facto justifications. it's an ad hoc assumption.

7. again, if numbers are purely synthetic conceptions, they would be arbitrary and magical. the fact that we can do these operations on them consistently and logically is evidence of their non-contingent nature.

8. numbers existed before our formalizations of them. you're mistaking the entities for their formulations. that's like saying 5 didn't exist before the numeral "5" was devised or that trees didn't exist before they were called "trees".

9. you still have not shown that whatever is perceived to be energetic is necessarily energetic, i.e., beyond all possibility. hence, it may be possible to show that you are absolutely mistaken, but unable to know it, and hence, deluded. what is required is a methodology beyond energy.

there is a significant literature in this area. you could start with bradley and move on to kant, logical positivists, carnap, quine, and more contemporary philosophers as well, e.g., in metaphysics, epistemology, and so on.

Wow did you have to be so verbose and use such awkward language? Coextensiveness isn't even a word.

Number 9 is the only thing I care about. You have a really good point there actually. If there's really no such thing as energy then I don't have a great response except that that would result in breaking the laws of physics, thermodynamics, what have you. Furthermore since these laws are proven using mathematics that would mean mathematics (and therefore numbers) are flawed...something which you imply should be impossible because numbers are somehow an innate property of the universe and should always hold true since it's not a human invention.

As a simple example of what I mean let's say you use the identity property (x=x) in the last step of a physics proof. If the physics laws broke down then that identity is no longer true, right? Mathematics was supposed to prove that the law was true but it broke down here. Maybe I'm missing something but that's the way I see it right now.

[dreamz Veteran]

Wow did you have to be so verbose and use such awkward language? Coextensiveness isn't even a word.

that's just how i talk naturally.

and coextensiveness is a word in normal english. it takes on a specific meaning in logic and the sciences, namely, that f and g are coextensive if and only if they are true of the same things. the law of extensionality, e.g., allows you to replace one by another provided they are coextensive.

Number 9 is the only thing I care about.

oddly enough, the others are equally (or more) important.

You have a really good point there actually. If there's really no such thing as energy then I don't have a great response except that that would result in breaking the laws of physics, thermodynamics, what have you. Furthermore since these laws are proven using mathematics that would mean mathematics (and therefore numbers) are flawed...something which you imply should be impossible because numbers are somehow an innate property of the universe and should always hold true since it's not a human invention.

that wasn't my point at all.

the point is, you have not proven that whatever you perceive to be energetic (that is, measured, observed, believed, etc.) must be energetic. you may have been deceived by a demon who is telling you, in every way possible, that the table has energy. first of all, this presupposes your belief that energy is necessary and sufficient as a criterion, which i've disputed. second, this implies that energy alone is insufficient for transcending itself. even if you were assured of the energy of a given entity (and provided your thesis stands), you cannot argue that it necessarily exists, on the basis that skepticism is still possible.

this implies that some other method is wanted, viz., that justifies your thesis. so far, that has not been demonstrated.

[psyko_x]

that wasn't my point at all.

the point is, you have not proven that whatever you perceive to be energetic (that is, measured, observed, believed, etc.) must be energetic. you may have been deceived by a demon who is telling you, in every way possible, that the table has energy. first of all, this presupposes your belief that energy is necessary and sufficient as a criterion, which i've disputed. second, this implies that energy alone is insufficient for transcending itself. even if you were assured of the energy of a given entity (and provided your thesis stands), you cannot argue that it necessarily exists, on the basis that skepticism is still possible.

this implies that some other method is wanted, viz., that justifies your thesis. so far, that has not been demonstrated.

I don't get how I missed your point. I agreed that it is possible that there's no energy in something (or anything at all) even if you measure/detect it in a million different ways if all our brains are being decieved.

If we measure energy of a wave and it moves or affects some object just like we expect it would from a wave with that amount of energy then all is well. However if it turned out that that wave actually had no energy at all then that leads to the problems I was referring to before with the laws of physics, mathematics and numbers failing to hold true.

So provided there is a such thing as energy as we know it, anything that is real posesses some energy. If our brains have been completely decieved then I dunno...theres no way to distinguish illusion from reality and we just have to be content with what our brains and what other people tell us is real.