The reality is not as obvious and simple as we like to think.
Some of the things that we accept as true and take at face value are notoriously wrong.
Scientists and philosophers have made every effort to change our common perceptions of it. The 10 examples below will show you what I mean.
1. Big Freeze.
Big Freeze is the theory of the final state that our universe is heading toward. The universe has a limited supply of energy. According to this theory, when that energy finally runs out, the universe will devolve into a frozen state.
The thermal energy produced by the motion of the particles will gradually wear out, which means that eventually, this particle motion will slow down and, presumably, one day, everything will stop.
2. Solipsism.
Solipsism is a philosophical theory, which asserts that nothing exists but the individual’s consciousness. At first, it seems silly, but if you think about it, it really is impossible to verify anything but your own consciousness.
To check this out, take a moment to recall all the dreams that you have experienced in your life. Is it not possible that everything around you is nothing but an incredibly intricate dream? But, you may say, there are people and things around us that we cannot doubt because we can hear, see, smell, taste, and feel them, right?
Yes, and no. People who take LSD, for example, say that they can touch the most convincing hallucinations, but we do not claim that their visions are a “reality”. Your dreams can simulate sensations as well. After all, what you perceive is just a product of the information processing that takes place in different sections of your brain.
As a result, which parts of existence can we not doubt? Probably none. Each of us can only be sure of their own thoughts.
3. Idealism
George Berkeley, the father of Idealism, argued that everything exists as an idea in someone’s mind. Berkley discovered that some of his peers considered his theory to be stupid. The story goes that one of his opponents kicked a stone with his eyes closed and said, “I disprove it thus!”
The idea was that if the stone really only existed in his imagination, he could not have kicked it with his eyes closed. The way Berkeley refuted this is hard to understand, especially in these days. He argued that there was an omnipotent and omnipresent God who was able to see everything simultaneously.
4. Plato and the Logos.
Everybody has heard of Plato. He is one of the world’s most famous philosophers. Like all philosophers, he had a few things to say about the nature of reality. He argued that beyond our perceived reality, there lies a world of “perfect” forms.
Everything that we see is just a shade, an imitation of how things truly are. To learn more about these ideas, read about Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, which is a sort of the ‘Matrix‘ in its ancient version.
Plato argued that by studying philosophy, we have a chance of catching a glimpse of how things truly are and discovering the perfect forms of everything we perceive.
In addition to this stunning statement, Plato, being a monist, said that everything is made of a single substance. This means (according to him) that everything – from stars in the sky to the dust under your bed – consists of the same basic material, but in a different form. With the discovery of atoms and molecules, it has been proven true to an extent.
5. Presentism.
Time is something that we perceive as a reality. Of course, we usually divide it into the past, present and future. Presentism argues that the past and the future are imagined concepts while only the present is real.
In other words, today’s breakfast and every word of this article will cease to exist after you finish reading it until you open it to read it again. The future is just as imaginary because the time cannot exist before and after it happened, as claimed by St. Augustine.
6. Eternalism.
Eternalism is the exact opposite of presentism. This is a philosophical theory that says that time is multi-layered. All layers of the time exist simultaneously, but the measurement is determined by the observer. What they see depends on which point they are looking at.
Thus, dinosaurs, Queen Victoria and Justin Bieber all exist simultaneously but can only be observed from a specific location. If one takes this view of reality, then the future is hopeless and the deterministic free will is illusory.
7. The Brain in a Jar
The “brain in a jar” thought experiment is a question discussed by thinkers and scientists who, like most people, believe that one’s understanding of reality depends solely on their subjective feelings.
So, what is the essence of this thought experiment? Imagine that you are just a brain in a jar that is run by aliens or mad scientists. How would you know? And can you truly deny the possibility that this is your reality?
This is a modern interpretation of Descartes’ evil demon problem. This thought experiment leads to the same conclusion: we cannot confirm the actual existence of anything except our consciousness.
If this seems to sound reminiscent of the movie “The Matrix“, it is only because this idea was part of the very basis of the story. Unfortunately, in reality, we have no red pills…
8. The Multiverse Theory
Anyone who has not spent the last ten years on a desert island has heard of “the multiverse” or parallel universes at least once. As many of us have seen, parallel words, in theory, are worlds very similar to ours, with little (or in some cases, large) changes or differences. The multiverse theory speculates that there could exist an infinite number of these alternate realities.
What’s the point? In a parallel reality, you may be living in the opposite corner of the world or may have already died in a car crash. In another one, you might have never even been born because your parents never met. The probabilities are endless.
9. Fictional realism.
This is probably the most fascinating branch of the multiverse theory. Superman is real. Yes, some of you would probably choose a different story, for argument’s sake, Harry Potter might be real too.
This branch of the theory argues that given an infinite number of universes, everything must exist somewhere. So, all of our favorite fiction and fantasy may be descriptive of an alternate universe, one where all the right pieces came into place to make it happen.
10. Phenomenalism.
Everyone is interested in what happens to things when we aren’t looking at them. Scientists have carefully studied this problem and some of them came to a simple conclusion – they disappear. Well, not quite like this.
Phenomenalist philosophers believe that objects only exist as a phenomenon of consciousness. So, your laptop is only here while you are aware of it and believe in its existence, but when you turn away from it, it ceases to exist until you or someone else interacts with it. There is no existence without perception. This is the root of phenomenalism.
Which of these mind-blowing theories about the nature of reality appeal to you most of all? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
H/T listverse.com
art by Victoria Audouard
Like what you are reading? Subscribe to our newsletter to make sure you don’t miss new thought-provoking articles!
good to know, great post
This is an amazing inspiration post!
Pretty decent philosophical issues. Yet the brain in the vat, solipsism, etc. All fall under the same false concept of synthetic a priori. Put simply trying to Determine certain factual knowledge about the earth, simply from ones own mind. They all fall pray to Ayer; the senses necessarily undermine any assertion that we only know our own minds. Quite simply having a public language we share between us, that has developed through the public labeling of objects has necessitated public language. That existing within our own minds would some what not require. Excellent read though 🙂
I feel sorry for anyone who’s first exposure to the ideas is this post.
my first exposure to solipsism was this very morning while i was thinking of that concept on my own… it blew my mind when stumbleupon gave me this page on the same day i was thinking it myself…
Hahaha I was thinking similarly. But the point is not sorry it just please, on a Serious note to anyone reading this who found these ideas/theories interesting and they dont know much about them, it would be extremely valuable to do more research to clarify what is being asserted. All of this is great stuff for sure, but the way these ideas are explained may mislead the reasoning behind these theories. But again seriously if your interested in this stuff keep thinking about it all and just remember to be fair and honest with your judgements of it all.
Yes, truly. Those unwashed masses would certainly never go to the library and check out a book on any one of these subjects. Pity they chose not to look into them before since all knowledge is simultaneously and forever available to everyone in all formats. Oh well, at least there’s people like you, Sam. Thank God for people like you.
Don’t feel sorry for me. Loved this post. Solipsism rang truest. When we were kids we had this dangerous and idiotic way of making each other faint. Don’t ask me how but it’s quite easy. When it came to my go consciousness left me and i lived another life. It was long but like a dream as soon as consciousness returned the details faded. I was a ten year old boy and robert jones was kicking me in the ribs.
Just curious, if all that heat is being lost in number 1, isn’t it all going to other particles? To answer my own question, yes. Energy is conserved. It’s the Law of Conservation of Energy… This guy is probably not smart.. And by probably I mean definitely.
You’re partly correct. The total energy of the universe never changes, thus it is conserved, but energy flows in one direction, from useful -> not useful.
In any exchange of energy, even between particles, a small portion of that energy is lost. This is the reason why stars die. When the sun converts 600-million tons of hydrogen into 550 million tons of helium, its showing how energy is inherently lost in the transaction. If things worked the way you’re describing, then the stars would never die, but we know they do because we can study the after effects of their deaths; supernova.
What you’re describing would be a perpetual motion machine, something which would forever run on its own energy supply. The Universe is not like that however. Space is expanding, which means there is less energy available to fill an ever expanding volume. Eventually the Universe will be so massive and the amount of available useful energy so small that it will be spread far too thin to be of any use. At that point, all chemical reactions, even between the quarks, will cease. The Universe will come to a terrible, grinding, halt.
This isn’t a doomsday theory, either, its a rather cold fact, at least presently. The universe is getting bigger at an ever accelerating rate and there’s only so much hydrogen available to fuel the birth of stars…
technically, if we consider the universe as a closed isolated system, the only way the energy would be ‘lost’ is if the energy was converted to mass, since even the ‘not useful’ energy is still in this closed system.
No energy is ever “lost”, it can change type and move, and as dino said, become mass. Stars give out energy and eventually die, but the energy is recycled, and new stars eventually created. Also there are lots of theories about what will happen to the universe if expansion continues, but none of them are “cold facts”, some theories don’t even say the universe will expand continually, and instead, that after this period of expansion, there will be a period of contraction.
I do admire the underlying intent of this post. However I do feel the urge to point out that most accounts of the different worldviews described is either inaccurate or incomplete. If this is an attempt to get the unfamiliar interested in different worldviews then its a good, not great, but a good article. If someone were to read it in a haste then the point of these ideas would woosch past them like a freight train delivering kidneys. Most of these ideas have been refuted and disproved and there is more accurate/up-to-date ideas that cover pretty much the same area. Finally, if you want people to change their perception of the world it´s better to pose an idea as a question; “What if…”.
To explain my position; I have studied cognitive science and for those of you who don´t know, it is the study of human understanding, perception, behavior, etc.. for several years and though I believe this article strive for a noble pursuit, I can not say I agree with the accuracy of the descriptions.
However, for whomever decides to dive into the pit of philosophy because of this article, here is a sword, you will need it on your journey •, you will need it. 😉
Well put man. I am a neuroscientist and was going to get into think mode for at least the next hour, but it looks like you already completed the job.
Most of the things that are listed, are new to me. Fictional realism was a idea I always had and it is very cool to know that the idea already existed. So yeah, it is very shot. But that’s ok, because people will not be turned away by long texts.
I had to stop at the first one that says the universe has a limited supply of energy. This goes against the Law of Conservation of Energy that states that energy is neither created or destroyed, it just transforms or transfers into different types. So, the total amount of energy in the universe will always stay the same. It cannot be lost, nor can it be created.
Conservation of matter/energy only applies to closed systems. The universe isn’t necessarily a closed system (and the theory proposed necessarily presumes that it isn’t).
I have a question on number 5. If “Presentism argues that the past and the future are imagined concepts, while only the present is real.” How does Presentism claim that “In other words, today’s breakfast and every word of this article will cease to exist after you have read it, until you open it again.”? Wouldn’t all of those things still exist? If i close my eyes everything doesn’t “cease to exist” it is still there in the present. Tree falls in the forest…
Just wondering, because if it does claim that, Presentism is stupid.
I guess I would say that I subscribe to Presentism (though I’d never assigned it the name).
I’d like to point out that I think the description of this item was simply worded improperly. It’s not that your breakfast or the words of this page cease to exist, it’s that they cease to exist in their previous forms.
Once something changes in any way (the definition of what Time measures), then that previous state no longer exists. You cannot go back to it.
As for your breakfast, yes, the atoms and molecules that it was made of still exist (and may still be traveling through your body in some form or another), but it can never be reassembled into the original form, and you could never turn back Time to when it was in that form.
Likewise, the future state of everything does not exist yet.
Only the current state of Everything (otherwise known as “the Present”) exists. And at every interval of Time in its smallest possible degree, a new “Present” is created, and overwrites the previous.
This put my mind some information. You have a great posts. cheers
Great glaciation says everything will cool because the energy in the universe will be dissipated over a much larger area than it currently is ( due to expansion ) causing things to slow to a near-stop.
Everything will not stop.
The laws of physics forbids it. For a site called learning-mind this is a basic mistake to make.
Also, your description of Fictional realism is not 100% either. You neglected to mention that all the universes would be required to follow the laws of physics, which may have different variable constants such as gravity, but universes that create something out of nothing, could never exist, or those that use physics in a way that may be impossible, such as space movies that uses wormholes as tele-porters, when in fact they are much more likely to obliterate you, in any universe.
Good read other than those though 🙂
Whether things slow to a near-stop or a complete stop is a moot point, the effect on living beings will be the same. Life as we understand it will be impossible. Once stars exhaust all their heat and only black holes reign supreme, the effect is still the same. The extreme cold of that distant reality will make only the slowest and most drawn out chemical reactions possible which will take millions or billions of years just to happen in the most minute of ways.
In this kind of universe, an extremely cold one, time itself will really cease to have meaning as all events will now take place over such vast epochs of time that none of us have the capacity to truly comprehend how long things will take.
To minds such as ours, observing events taking place during this age will have the appearance of time having completely stopped, whether it really has or hasn’t.
Sam, thank you for being able to admire the underlying intent of this post, which no one else would ever be able to catch.. given your superior intellect. I also knew the definition of ‘cognitive,’ but thank you for defining it to the rest of these inferior people you knew would be reading this post. And my last thanks is for the sword you’ve given me, so I can whack you with it in the back of your pretentious head if I ever meet you.
come on, don’t be cruel :fffuuu: Sam has his point, since he knows the subject better than us :nerd:
This is a great article, but it’d be a lot more professional if you spell-checked it before you posted it.
I did, where did you find spelling mistakes?
We perceive reality through language. All these philosophies are products of Western languages. Non-Western thought/language(s) don’t ask these questions and don’t have these problems.
All of these are great, except Great Glaciation isn’t running out of energy in the universe, it is the expansion of the universe to the point where all energy is spread so far apart that everything freezes over, there will still be the same total amount of energy in the universe.
While trying to prove his own existence Descartes, who is most famous for the phrase “I think therefore I am” in his Discourse on Method, ended up developing the idea of Solipsism because he could not prove anything besides his own thoughts. His work is why all science calls things theories no matter how strong the evidence for it is, because everything we observe could easily just be a creation of our own consciousness. The only thing that I can prove is that I exist, but I can only prove that to myself. The only thing any of you can prove is that you exist, but you can only prove that to yourself. I can’t prove anything to you and none of you can prove anything to me. There is strong enough evidence that I do not doubt the existence of the world around me and all the people in it, but no one can prove it exists.
My head hurts….
So, this might be stupid of me, but this is concerning Phenomenalism. What about the times we come into contact with something that we were unaware was there?
Example: I’m walking around my house, doing some spring cleaning. As I pass through a doorway, my foot scrapes deeply across a rusty nail jutting out of the carpet.
I didn’t previously believe it was there. I was unaware. Yet it still hurt like a @*!$.
If it had disappeared due to lack of awareness/belief, then I wouldn’t have had to clean my bloody sole and make sure I didn’t eventually get lockjaw.
Maybe there’s more to Phenomenalism than what’s summarized here, so maybe there’s an answer for that example. I’m no philosopher, so I don’t really know.
Cool list. One for the bookmarks tab.
RE: #9. Does that mean that a million monkeys with a million typewriters really could write a work of Shakespeare?
With the refinement of the scientific method and the discoveries made and built upon, the majority of these ideas are no longer necessary. With the exception of the multiverse theory and glaciation, the ideas expressed do nothing to increase our understanding of the universe and how it works.
Science has a really great way of testing the reality of suppositions. I think we need to move on and not linger too long with notions that were ground breaking at the time of
I like eternalism, I’ve thought of it before but never knew what it was called. We can only observe the movement and change of time, but if it is a dimension like the 3 spatial ones, then that suggests that maybe all time does exist at once, but unobservable to us from an objective viewpoint.
I’ve always thought about Phenomenalism but didn’t think anyone else did. except in my perception, things not only don’t exist, but people don’t either. nothing at all exists until you look at them. a theory i’ve thought of is this world was made for me and nothign exists until i look at it. Kind of hard to explain but it makes sense in my head. Maybe you might understand what I’m trying to say. (if you’re even real that is)
Thought about all of these quite extensively myself. Point on #2: how is it possible to verify one’s own consciousness?
Considering verification as a logical process, if we logically prove that consciousness exists, then we must ask ourselves: what makes our proof truthful?
Is it the fact that it is logical? If not, I don’t see what else it could possibly be. But if so, we must then ask ourselves: what makes logical proofs in general truthful?
Is it the fact that they are grounded in reality? Obviously not, since we have already called all of supposed reality into question by suggesting that only consciousness exists.
Is it for any logical reason? No, because if that were the case, then we could logically prove that logical proofs are truthful, and so we would have to ask ourselves how we know that proof is true, and if we had to answer that it is for a logical reason then we would be back where we started, thus showing us that we are committing a petitio principii fallacy.
So if it is known that flawless logical proofs must be true, and this is so for a reason, then that reason must be neither logical nor grounded in reality. Sounds like a crappy reason if you ask me. The supposition that logical proofs are true for no reason doesn’t seem any better either.
The alternative is to accept it may not always be the case that flawless logical proofs are true — i.e. that logic itself is fundamentally flawed — but this being the case, we would be robbed of our most basic well-ordered instrument of reason and reduced to solving our problems in an irrational, disordered, case-by-case manner, just like our animal siblings, and so it would not behoove us to make generalizations about anything, but rather to accept life as it comes and make all of our decisions along the way instead of beforehand. This seems like perhaps the best choice, but I am saddened by the complete abandonment of all intellectual culture for which it calls.
If the multiverse theory and fictional realism do in fact exist, does that mean that we have access to these other universes through our imagination. Because, J.K. Rowling for example, came up with Harry Potter all on her own, supposedly, but if Harry Potter does exist in another reality, she must have some sort of link to that reality. Perhaps each person has a link to their own personal universe from which they can take creative inspiration from. Maybe that is what imagination truly is.
The question to ask with the brain in the jar is: Would it be so bad?
Doesn’t number 10 imply that if your friend didn’t inform you that they had a laptop, you wouldn’t see it on the table in front of you but your friend would? Then what – they mention the laptop and suddenly it appears out of thin air from your perspective?
Idealist Philosophy
I understand this response. I once had an epiphany. It is that God is man. God is where we are comfortable. And that’s why the natural pronunciation of the same or similar definition of “God” sounds different in other regions of the world. And isn’t it funny that it feels comfortable to them? But, if there was an all powerful and separate God, wouldn’t he or she or it have but one name? ..or at least a preferred one…
When I was a kid I had this thought quite often, that everything existed in my brain and nobody else had thoughts. This idea that I had just made up their comments and their actions.. because it was all in my mind. Maybe the mind is the all powerful and creates everything I “know”. Maybe you’ve all left comments here and will respond to this. Or maybe My Mind will generate your responses for my vessel’s eyes to read. Maybe you’ll try to disprove what “I’m” saying.
When George Berkeley’s critic performed his rebuttal and tried to disprove him.. Well first, what was he thinking? Was he thinking I’m going to kick a rock with my eyes closed? Because in this case–according this brief understanding of Berkeley’s theory–his mind would have created the sensation of a rock hitting his foot, let alone of his foot, his leg, everything he sees, and maybe even someone to disprove. That is, if he wasn’t a figment of Berkeley’s imagination to start off with. Secondly, in order for the imagination to be active, the eye’s needn’t be opened. Dreams are a prime example of this. People dream during sleep and often during the day are either effected by these dreams if they’re not “daydreaming”. So if imagination is entwined with constant consciousness then him closing his eyes and kicking the stone proves nothing.
Now, taking that into account, what about George Berkeley’s response to his theory’s opposition? “There is an omnipotent and omnipresent God, who sees all and all at once.” Well, according to his theory, everything exists as an idea in someone’s mind. And if George was comfortable in his theory, and I feel like he would have been, then he would have spoken comfortably. Maybe “God” was his most comfortable explanation for an all powerful being, be it his mind or anything else. And his eyes, the portals through which he could see it all at once. Omnipotent and Omnipresent: All Powerful and All Seeing.. God, Lord, Allah, Jehovah, Ra, the list goes on.. thousands of words. He chose a comfortable one to explain a complicated thesis.
His Mind is His God.
None is disproved.
If i remember correctly, Platon was dualist. Seeing the “soul” and body as two separate entities. Aristotle on the other hand, Platon’s pupil, was a monist.
What doesn’t seem to scare most of you, and I think it should, is we can talk about energy and squeeze it thru every testing device or analytic mind we now have but in the end, the only thing that should matter to us is consciousness vs. non-consciousness. To me, the non part is both wasted and scary. After all, what good is the most beautiful light display in Las Vegas or the most incredible skyline if there is no people or beings with consciousness to appreciate them? I want someone to prove to me that after my death, I will still be conscious, everything else as I bet Einstein would agree………..is totally moot!
If any of you have seen the program “Earth after people” , life becomes a very depressing rush to get things DONE before the world turns into that and according to THAT branch of science, it must, and it will. Imagine, an earth where only rats.reprtiles and the hardiest creatures survive after something extreme happens to the earth which probability greatly supports. The question is…can we truly “Thank God” we wont be here when that happens? I think we have the drug and alcohol epidemic we do because people do not want to stop to think about that for 5 minutes, let alone a few hours or a lifetime study. It takes great courage IMHO to make studies like this your lifes work. It reminds you that death is always a day closer. I could never live like that. Funny at age 54 this subject “unsettles me a lot more, I mean a lot more than it ever did at 39,just 15 yrs earlier, when “I had my whole life yet before me.”
Many of these perspectives are really from the same source of Non-duality. ie one not two. Which say there is only one thing, some call it ‘consciousness’ and everything is made of consciousness that’s all there is and even that in reality is ‘nothing’ or no-thing. So all so called experience is nothing appearing as something. If this interests you look up Tony Parsons.
Well none of them could be proven. But they are theories. A possibility of a theory can be believed but the theory itself can not be until it is proven. Disbelieving a theory makes the science and society blind. So the best approach is lets first believe the possibility and then try to prove it or disprove it.
If nothing exists but what is in the individual consciousness, then past and future dó exist, in peoples’ minds.
Moreover, the past is very visible in everything that we have, experience, and observe in the present. Without knowledge of the past (hence, in peoples’ heads + observable inter-subjective recorded knowledge) we cannot understand the present. A theory that says that the present is the only reality is definitely too simplistic. Nuances should be made about recorded past experience in memory (which can be experienced emotionally over and over in the present by memorizing) and the way these past experiences and past events are reflected in the present.
nice post thanks for the details and its very helpful this is nice post u have written.
If this philosophical theories interest you, I highly recommend the novel ”Sophie’s World” by Jostein Gaarder: http://www.amazon.com/Sophies-World-History-Philosophy-Classics/dp/0374530718
Not only is it both entertaining and instructive, it opens the readers mind to a variety of different perspectives that have been considered throughout the history of mankind.
Blueberry.
A very thought provoking read – The Fictional Realism part reminded me very much of some epsiodes of red Dwarf i have watched. particularly the ones with Ace Rimmer!
There is no doubt that those who are close to power are peripherally exposed to ‘what it really is’. I’ve collected the comments of some people who were close to power and noted what they said about it.
http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2013/05/conspiracy-theories-first-rejected-as-either-treason-then-ridiculed-then-accepted-as-common-knowledge-2451242.html
We are an advanced artificial intelligence experiment, so the universe it’s just a room in someone’s house. And that’s why we don’t know where we came from :O
These are not theories.At best these are philosophies and hypothesis.Someone need to check their definitions and try again.
Is Phenomenalism the reason why shit gets lost sometimes? Like our keys, wallet, phone etc.. And when you regain full consciousness of it you actually find it where you thought you left it. Oh but wait, it’s called reality. If phenomenalism exist then the bed you are sleeping on shouldn’t be there when you are asleep, thus hurting your back when you wake up.
Nonsense. everything is material whether it is subject to human thought/perception/imagination it still exists as realities in our own reality. An idea or a concept maybe immaterial unless it is given form in reality but nevertheless the thought process itself was driven by a material object and thus has the potential (highly or unlikely) to materialize as well.
The argument that if our brains are in a VAT experimented by aliens or if we are part of another reality or even if our reality just exists in our head is irrelevant/impertinent since we exist presently in our own perceived reality/imagination what truly matters is the here and now whether it’s a finality or not/imagination/shadow of an idea/ or mirrors of different realities.
We do what can, when we can and where we can under the boundaries or our own existence whether it’s true or not it just is.
I exist/We exist
I am/ We are
Does it even matter? Because it just is.
“Don’t fear God, Don’t fear Death, What is good is easy to get, What is painful is easy to endure.”
Another post about how to perceive the world on a different spectrum. Some people will agree with some and some won’t. We have OUR OWN WAY of perceiving things; it’s up to us to give them “names”.
On “eternalism:” Even if the future is already existing, say, in the mind of God, it doesn’t necessarily contradict the notion of free will. Free will means being able to choose by your own accord. Knowing what you will choose does not mean that your choices are not what you intend to choose.
Proof: If you look at the past, you already know the choices you have made. And yet your present self’s knowledge of that doesn’t mean that your past self couldn’t make his choices by his own accord. Knowing that you went to McDonald’s for lunch doesn’t mean you didn’t intend to go there.
Also, we can predict certain choices based on certain people’s characteristics, say, that a Bieber fan would buy his next album if she had the chance. And yet knowing this doesn’t mean that this Belieber didn’t have free will. In fact, her will to support Justin Bieber is what enabled us to predict her future choices. (whoever said Justin Bieber and philosophy are incompatible?)
Argument about #10,
– “what happens to things when we aren’t looking at them. – they disappear”.
– “So, your laptop is only here while you are aware of, and believe in its existence, but when you turn away from it, it ceases to exist”
This could be easily disproved. Yes, they do disappear, from your sight that is but not ceasing to exist. A “cctv cam” is an example, no need for a elaboration for this.
Another is, a person got hit by a stray bullet. Didn’t saw it nor heard it but he/she could definitely tell that it exist/happen.
So what is reality? Reality, on my own understanding, relies definitely on our senses. See, hear, touch, smell, feel, if this either one of this requirements are not met then that thing is non-existent.
So if you imagine on something, generally we use our sight, then it is a reality in your own way. When you feel something, a ghost or spirit or something, it is also a reality for you but to some who haven’t “sense” it then it is not a reality for them.
Even theories as such mentioned above is a reality too, parallel universe etc. because you have pictured it out, therefore it is a reality in your own way.
But what is “real reality”? To my own understanding, it is the general acceptance of things, to whom we all agreed upon (in general) of existence. What I mean by “real” is that the state we are living right now, things that as a common consciousness we all agreed upon to be existing, of-course by the means of our senses.
Other realities such as dreams, imaginations, parallel states, etc. is not of a major concern close to the point that it is irrelevant. Things that may happen or that is happening on other realities does affect you from this “real reality” as I so called. Even if you die there, or become a super human, or a dictator, saint, galactic savior, etc. It will not have an effect on the reality we are living as of now, the “real reality”.
When you die in the “real reality” then you cease to exist. You are not different from the ant you crushed with your fingers, from the insect that you stepped on, to the bird that died during the heavy rain, to the seal that get killed for their fur even to the most closest to us, to the monkey that died in a human experiment. When you die, your out, you will not have the capability of doing anything, not change the course you have chosen or setting things straight up.
We all started from a “bang”, all from the same particle, expanded, stars born, stars died and renewed attracting debris to surround it in an axis, planets were born, thru complexity of particles, cells, molecules, living things start to evolve, and up to this point we become so complex that we thought that we and other things a different from each other, but in “real reality” we are all one.
Reality is now, reality is here, reality is what your senses tells you.
We are one, that is the reality.
this is one of the most interesting articles ive read on stumble…. fictional realism seem interesting the concept of that and the brain in the jar…now i am puzzled to learn more about this stuff
Fictional Realism
“This branch of the theory argues that given an infinite number of universes, everything must exist somewhere. So, all of our favorite fiction and fantasy may be descriptive of an alternate universe, one where all the right pieces came in to place to make it happen.”
————–
In my understanding this isn’t quite correct. I thought science taught that everything that can happen, does happen, within the boundaries of observable physics. So Harry Potter (or Gandalf for that matter) could not exist, as he is a wizard practising physics defying magic. Or am I mistaken?
Thank you,
W
It’s a shame they missed the one that’s actually true: Neighborism
I do sincerely hope that more of us will see, realize and understand the significance of our physical reality. It’s all that is really real. Consciousness has been the biggest CON of all time. Understand who you are as one and equal with all life, here. It’s a long Journey to Life. Google me if you want to get in touch. I’ll support you as best I can, but it’s up to you in investigate what is reality.
ooh really nice post .really blowing theories.
Лично мне статья очень понравилась, автору статьи огромное Спасибо!
“je pense, donc je suis.” Descartes said that I think therefore I am. This makes a lot more sense, than a lot of these theories. It doesn’t disprove anything, but it is my opinion that I live by which disproves a lot of these to me. If you have consciousness, then you have the power to exist, and can not be controlled by an outside force or being.
I believe that as our Universe continues to expand we will not just glaciate but will, eventually, reach absolute zero.
It is also my thought that at absolute zero nothing can exist as matter will be destroyed too without any energy to support its existence.
Proof will come after many billions of years have passed.