What did Einstein mean when he supposedly said this:

Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.


???????

Probably that spirit, Which is eternal is the true life, as this one in the physical is only for a short while,

Also, Everything in the physical is made Of spirit.IMO

Love Omnaka

I think one has to concider the word "albeit" in that quote. Albeit seems to work as a fancy form of "but," which is a perfectly good word most everyone uses correctly. Is albeit therefore simply a verbal flourish, a synonym of "but" without a specifically different meaning?

The actual meaning of albeit is closer to 'even though or even if; although (it be)', and just like although, though, it is sometimes used to begin a clause: "He can ask for a loan, albeit I do not think he will get it." Here albeit implies an opposition or contrast, and yes, it is very similar to but.

Historically, the adverb all has been used with the conjunctions if and though, and often the order was reversed, producing "all if, all though." The phrase "all though" was originally an emphatic form of though, which later became although. Sometimes the conjunction if or though was dropped if the verb was placed before the subject, leaving all as an apparent conjunction, in the sense of "even if, even though, although." So the phrase "al be it" meant 'although it be', which later became the one-word form albeit.

Ones reality is different to their neighbors.

It's shaped by others, ourselves and the powers controlling the masses. For example, for our modern times, the Iraq war. One government stated it's going like a breeze, another states it's going pear shaped and more needs to be done. A citizen from both countries, have a differing reality to the war of Iraq. <<< Only example I could think of, which I admit needs a lot of work I won't be doing. But it gets my point across, slightly.

There are two definitions I'm well aware of, of 'Reality'. The true world and the truth within it / and the experiences that determine how things appear to one.

Edit: Because "Iraw" isn't a country.

The grammar is easy. He is saying 'reality is an illusion even if it is persistent' or something similar.

What do you think he means philosophically?

It means anything can happen and never stop questioning

Would you agree that ones reality is even different according to each and every individual?

Whether einstein meant this or not I dont know. However I myself agree that all is ultimately made of spirit.

To a varying degree, I would say yes.

Well I guess if life is an illusion then anything is possible.

Do you mean 'One person can see anothers reality, while that other has a different veiw on his reality'? If so, yes.

If you mean; 'We all percieve reality differently in some way or another'. Then yes.

What one see's as red, another will see blue. The only one who is correct is themselves.

...Unless they break out of their own reality and into anothers. Which goes to show the illusion of it, we make up one reality but are always snapped back to another.

That is your belief, (Albeit I do not follow it). There is nothing wrong with having a personal belief.

Funny how the laws of physics that einstein studied and partially mastered dont in themselves tell us if they are real or not. I think einstein possibly knew this.

Could scientists be accurately describing the operations of an illusion when they observe nature?

How would they be able to tell otherwise?

Who is saying there is something wrong? But if life is an illusion . . . . . then its limits are also possibly illusory. . . . (yes again my personal belief).

There is always the possibilty! Einstein, may have very well figured out that everything we perceive is nothing more than a thought process formed through signals in the brain. But, there is also the possibilty that we do not have a complete understanding of how it works.

This is what I meant. What if one saw that reality isnt limited by the laws of physics. Would that mean that they could possibly fly or run faster than the speed of light?

What dictates how an illusion is run anyways??? More illusion? That which is real? What is that which is real then?




Or that the illusion manifests in many illusory different ways. . . .

I'm sure there are people out there, who would completely disagree with your personal belief. I on the other hand find most of your thoughts to be very interesting. I did not say there was anything wrong with your belief.

This is line here more or less sums up my ENTIRE philosophical outlook. as in this line can be applied to everything in my view.




And if the brain itself is simply another signal that is interpreted then perhaps a 'mind' or 'energy' beyond the physical interprets the brain into existence which in turn hooks us up to a physical (yet illusory) way of percieving things??

To me it is that, Life will hand out delusions, and if you are not careful, you will be caught in your own stupidity. Which is why it is best to seek knowledge.

Cheers buddy! Likewise I am glad you have contributed to this thread!

How do we tell whether the knowledge we find isnt just more illusion?

Physics are always there, no matter if you try to fly with no mechanical objects. However, if you think you can fly. Then you can. Due to thought being the manifestation of our wants and of imagination. But you still cannot fly outside of thought.





Does it matter? Say you were somehow somewhere taken to one reality which was correct in every way, without being told but just knowing. You would stick with your own because it was safe and known. Because it is known, it's real but not correct. The other was correct but false. Because to you it's reds were greens.

All realities are real, simply due to them being seen, heard and felt. But none are correct, because who's to say.

We're going way off topic.

Well, it is up to us to determine whether it is or not. But , you never really know. The closest to knowing is to accept knowledge that is truly factual. But in seeking knowledge, we gain tolerance to the potential delusional worlds that are set upon us.

I think it may become a little clearer if we take it in context with other Einstein statements:




Einstein considered the world a mystery, and possessed a deep sense of the vast inexplicability of the universe. As such, he was fully cognizant of the fact that we are permitted to understand ourselves in small dribs and drabs. He provided some of those understanding dribs and drabs through his life's work.

But he also realized that the mystery, which he unveliled a bit through mathematics, was in no way absolutely described. In fact, he realized that nothing was certain as pertains to human understanding.

I strongly feel that in his deeper contemplations, he saw what quantum physics has been seeing more and more--that what we can describe through science and mathematics, while seemingly fixed and immutable, only describes the plane of reality that we exist on at this moment, in this place and time. Material reality.

And even at that, it may not describe all of it, nor does it address the possibility of other realities, perhaps even other planes of consciousness that aren't aligned with this one.

Thus, reality as we pereceive it and understand it, may well be an illusion...only one facet of the mystery of reality that may well exist outside of this particular plane. It is very persistent because we can only perceive it--our minds, generally speaking cannot conceive of other planes of existence, planes which would certainly correspond to the mysterious nature of "the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds..."


Just a possibility for consideration...

To know reality is an illusion (as Einstein intimates he does here) one would have to know what reality truly was. I don't think even Einstein would lay claim to that particular knwoledge.

While Einstein was undoubtedly a VERY clever individual, in some ways he was no more capable than any of us and philosophically I think his statement here is untenable. It is illogical and unsound and has no basis for reason.

The human physical form being merely a vessel has always interested me BNW. Again there is a possibility.

People have been trying to comprehend this, since the beginning of mankind.

Good post! Just goes to show how truly little we really know even when we try to kid ourselves into thinking that we know so much.

Therefore we would have to know what reality truly is to know whether it was real or not.



We observe reality according to what our senses tell us. How do we know what they are telling us is true? It is an act of faith either way to assume they are telling us what actually is or merely an illusion. Consider this:

We must remember that we do not observe nature as it actually exists, but nature exposed to our method of perception (ways of seeing). The theories determine what we can or cannot observe.

---Albert Einstein

And it is good to see that mankind hasnt given up yet!

Yes, but sadly, majority of man has. I blame Television.

What about if you know via intuition? Perhaps not logically but if reality is an illusion then why doesnt something have to be known logically in order for it to be something real that is known?



But if reality is an illusion then how do we know whether it is factual or not?




Yes we can roll in a deluge of delusion!

I BLAME EMOS!!!!!!!!!!!! hahahahahahahaha just kidding!

Thank you, brave...
I think that sentence of yours sums up Einstein's position.




That may well be what he was getting at precisely.
Human logic and reason may not be the tools we need, and may in fact be a limitation to our perceptions of reality!

Makes for an interesting philosophical discussion, eh?

Einstein the scientist, was a man fully possessed of a belief in a higher power, although it seems clear to me that his "higher power" was perceived from a different basis than that of most dogmatic organized religions.

That in itself, from the perspective of science and mathematics and the rigor of reason and logic, is illogical!

It's also somewhat telling that so many brilliant scientific minds are similarly posessed...

Hmmm....

As far as whether or not we're just living in a big holodeck. It's a question that we don't necessarily have a good answer to. I think this is a big philosophical problem that we have to deal with, interms of what science can say about our world, because we are always the observer in science. We are always constrained by what is ultimately coming into our human brain that allows us to see and percieve the things that we do.

---Dr. Andrew Newberg, from 'what the bleep do we know'

Everyman's world picture is and always a construct of his mind and cannot be proved to have any other existence. ---Irwin Schrodinger

I wouldn't presume to speak for Einstein, but I do wonder if he meant that it is our perception that is illusory or if what's percieved is illusory. The perceiving itself of a tree or anything else, to me, seems like a pure perception, the eye seeing a tree is not a personal event. It's the attributing the perception, or the owning of the perception by an individual that may be what he was pointing to???

The thing is, how do we know what is percieved is actually there or not? Hence how can prove that the 'not personal event' is objective and not personal?

I know, that's the question. There cannot be an object (seen) without the subject (seer), but isn't that a possible assumption also? Maybe it isn't quite true. We don't know if the perception is either personal or impersonal, we don't know if the object is there or is not there. The only one who can answer that is the one looking and the one looking appears along with all of the other objects 'out there', or so we think. I'll be back later today, this is a great topic!

It does not not have to logically exist for it truly to be there. For it to logically exist does not hinder the fact that it could exist. It could not logically and be there, regardless the fact if it is logical or not.

You said it yourself, via intuition.

Agreed!

It is an assumption. Then all philosophical points are assumptions. I guess ultimately it comes down to what your intuition says or what reasoning you want have faith in.




The one who looks is also there in the deep unconscious sleep (though supposedly we arnt looking then) and there is no world or anything but 'something'.

What is the true 'isness' that is real (if isness is real)?

Well said comrade!



I love intuition!

I liked your response MID. I have been fascinated by this statement for many years myself. IronGhost gave me an answer that went all the way down to the smallest of sub-atomic particles and their sometimes strange behavior - their ability to seem to phase in and out of reality. I don't know what Einstein meant, I wish I did. I know that Einsteins theories changed the way the world viewed our universe and for that he is among the foremost minds of all time.

Was he referring to the realm of the spiritual? Was he implying that our existence is somehow akin to the whole "Matrix" idea? I don't know - but it is a great thing to contemplate.

The word illusion is interesting. It is something that appears to be real but in fact is not.

Again, A.E. assumes we do not observe reality as it is, but if he believes it is an illusion he cannot make that statement with any degree of certainty so the philosphical truth of his statement is voided.

I respect Einstein very much, he was a brilliant physicist. I do not consider it heresy, however, to suggest he may have been a less-than-brilliant philosopher.

MID,



It certainly does. However that logic and reason may limit our perception of reality does not mean intuition and belief are the keys to unlocking its mysteries.

Yes, something is there in deep sleep. If there wasn't something there we would only ever have the sensation of 'awake'. We might experience drowsy or tired, but not sleep. Life would be one continuous sensation of differing states of awake if there were no form of consciousness in sleep. Sleep is usually equated as a gap in consciousness, but I totally disagree. A true gap can not exist, cannot be experienced. Things get interesting if we apply this notion to before and after death. How is it possible to know there was a time before we existed? We **know** this! How? LOLOL! Before and after death cannot be a true gap in consciousness because the ideas of before and after would never occur to us if the gap was truly a gap. I hope I'm making sense.

**oops, edited to add that I meant before birth and after death**

Sleep, even the deep sleep which Brave is referring to, can be considered an altered state of consciousness. With non-existence (before birth and after death), however, there may be no consciousness to be altered. The statement 'A true gap can not exist, cannot be experienced' is unsound in that the existence of something does not depend on our experiencing it, only our experience of that existence does.



We have the concept of existence and we have the concept of non-existence. We also have the concepts of mortality and the passage of time. Thus it is possible to realise there may have been a time we did not exist.

This one's nearly there.

Einsteins Theory of relativity mean exactly that. The universe is realitive to each of us individually depending on our circumstances.
The easy way to imagine is is we are all living in the matrix being fed our own version of reality.

Hi Leonardo-

That's where we run into confusion on topics such as these. It's seems as if one has to decide for ones self if consciousness is something that can be altered or have differing levels. I'm working with the assumption that consciousness is not something that arises with birth nor vanishes at death. Just as we can wake up and say that we had been asleep, with the passage of time we can look back on our lives and see that there was a time when we were not personally aware of existing, but that does not mean, in my opinion, that we (as pure consciousness) were not present. The appearance of the absence of existing does not necessarily imply that there is nothing 'there' noticing itself in the state of 'absence of existence'. Of course this does imply there is no individual there to know this, so this cannot be a matter of something known by an individual or something experienced within the realm of well..experience. Maybe this helps make clearer my statement about the gap not existing nor being something within experience.



Yes, in a conceptual/objective/seemingly relative state, which states are not ultimately different than/other than the non-conceptual/pure subjective/non-relative state. Neither of which have any affect on consciousness, are none other than consciousness. According to moi.

Could mean everything Is Relative, Him being a big Fan of relativity.

I heard hints of this in your dialogue w/ Bumbleroot.

Love Omnaka

Only i the creator of this statement can understand it.

i am the sole observer it only seems like you exist.

alone in a hall of mirrors
with only distorted images of myself to keep me company

some are more beautiful
and others dreadfully hideious

this is the true nature of the universe. anything is possible but like an infant we must first learn "how" we can do it.

i am slowly waking from this strange dream.

Another interesting aspect to this topic is the issue of the observation that the illusion is *happening*. The word illusion is a tricky thing. Does it imply non-existence or does it imply that what appears as illusion may actually be something else? If it implies non-existence then we run into the implication that reality does actually exist because it's being posited as something which doesn't exist, an illusion exists and is happening. If the word illusion implies that something may indeed be something else, then that opens the flood gates to any and all interpretations and we end up with no solid answer.

There is a wall that is reached with the concept of illusion, one has to admit that illusion is happening, which cannot then be an illusion. If the one seeing that there is illusion is an illusion then what can an illusional individual possibly say that would not in itself be illusional? We cannot have partial illusion, a 'real' thing seeing an illusional thing. There cannot be any half measures.

Is illusion real?