Does Absolute Reality Exist?

[freetoroam]

But its only a vibration, only a ear(nervous system converting it into a hearable sound) can make it a sound, it is only a vibration until converted.

if the vibration had enough momentum yes.

How about you put a tape recorder in the woods, leave the area and wait for a tree to fall, would you hear the sound on the tape recorder? I would say yes, but you were not there when the tree fell and you are now listening, not to a vibration, but to the sound made at the time the tree fell in the wood.

How can you possibly make it a sound, unless the tape picked up the vibration, which means it would have had to make a sound.

Edited November 21, 2012 by freetoroam

[The Id3al Experience]

How about you put a tape recorder in the woods, leave the area and wait for a tree to fall, would you hear the sound on the tape recorder? I would say yes, but you were not there when the tree fell and you are now listening, not to a vibration, but to the sound made at the time the tree fell in the wood.

How can you possibly make it a sound, unless the tape picked up the vibration, which means it would have had to make a sound.

It captures the frequency/vibration, and recreates it, then the ear does what it does turns it into a percieved sound for us to hear.

audio tape or

compact disc; the frequencies carried by the electrical signals are those to be produced as the sound signals. In the simplest case, the wires carrying the electrical signals are used to form an electromagnet which attracts and releases a metal diaphragm. This, in turn, causes the variations in the density in the air adjacent to the diaphragm. These variations in density will have the same frequencies as were in the original electrical signals.

it makes a vibration, depending on the circumtances on said virbation gives it its property. and our evolved sense of earing converts this to sound... the sound we hear could or might not be the same sound someone else, or thing heard, therefore what sound is correct?

Edited November 21, 2012 by The Id3al Experience

[Rlyeh]

It's called waves or vibration only, it's no where near to be called sound. You can have vibration that make no (hearable) sound

Nope. They don't even have to be in audible range.

http://dictionary.re...owse/sound wave

http://en.wikipedia....characteristics

http://www.wisegeek....-sound-wave.htm

http://whatis.techta...tion/sound-wave

Edited November 21, 2012 by Rlyeh

[UFO_Monster]

My thought upon reading the initial post is that its a pretty self-centered human viewpoint to even wonder if our perception of reality is the only thing that validates it. If every human on the planet somehow spontaneously and simultaneously vaporized into nothing reality would keep on trucking. It'd be a whole hell of a lot quieter though, because there'd be nobody around to debate deep philosophical truths like this thread. Might be kinda peaceful.....

Very excellent way of explaining it. Reality does not work for the individual. It will continue to exist long after we're gone.

Edited November 21, 2012 by UFO_Monster

[FlyingAngel]

Nope. They don't even have to be in audible range.

If they are not in audible range, then they shouldn't be called sound. They are simply waves

[The Id3al Experience]

Very excellent way of explaining it. Reality does not work for the individual. It will continue to exist long after we're gone.

Th OP was more about absolute reality, not reality itself, of course once we are gone reality will be there, for whatever is left to percieve it in its own way. This of course, opens the question that if nothing is there to perceive it, is there still something.. and although seems logical to say yes - we can not prove, Nor deny this.

However my view is thats its in the eye of the individual, therefore there is no absolute reality. IMO.

Kind Regards

Edited November 22, 2012 by The Id3al Experience

[Beany]

Very excellent way of explaining it. Reality does not work for the individual. It will continue to exist long after we're gone.

The problem with the question is in defining the terms of "reality", I think. My first instinct would be to say that something will continue to exist, but then I realize I don't know what that something might be, and don't really know if it might continue to exist as it currently is or if its nature would change. That would be an assumption on my part. When I was younger I loved assumptions, not not so much. I suspect that "reality" is far more complicated than most of us realize and that it would be very difficult to reach a consensus about the nature of reality.

[freetoroam]

However my view is thats its in the eye of the individual, therefore there is no absolute reality. IMO.

the eye as in "sight"???

you can not mean that cos you are aware that not every one can see!

[behavioralist]

Reality is absolute as perceived to the evolved degree, because the evolved degree of perception is what is manifest, so that the manifest follows the evolution of the perception, courting it to evolve more.

The fact that an observer changes results, also means that a different observer changes that result differently. It is touching physics at a point where it is sensitive to a presence, which is the same as evolution per my statement above.

This also invites the question: how far can this relationship evolve, between the entities the cosmos has cultivated and "the stuff" of that cosmos?

The answer, most appropriate here at UM, is that stars are kept apart only socially (therefore not by physical astronomical distances, as it seems to our primitive perception of the compulsatory insult-preemptive barrier), for lacking the cosmic graces to join until evolution has come a bit farther along, graces one might call "UNIVERSAL", except for here.

[The Id3al Experience]

the eye as in "sight"???

you can not mean that cos you are aware that not every one can see!

No i meant how you perceive your reality. Obliously a blind person would 'see' his/her experience differently

Kind Regards

[lightly]

the answer is Yes. We are just part of a chain of events which are pre and post 'us'.

As for the 'tree in the forest / sound conundrum .. similarly, If a super Nova explodes in space , but no one notices a flash in the night sky ... did it create Light? Of course it did.

That question always comes down to .. what is sound. Sound is waves... heard or unheard. The proof of this , is Hearing!

If your tea kettle boils over, but , your not home, did it happen?

If the wind blows, but your in a submarine, did the wind blow?

Things happen, with us or without us.

[starchild1976]

If you're talking in terms of sanity then often yes. Certain ideals and concepts may seem crazy to some while actually sane. On the other hand, some behaviors are just plain nuts.

[_Only]

that is correct, if the ears are not there to hear it!

But because you are not standing in its vicinity, does not mean it can not make a sound with out its vibration hiting something....If a tree falls on the ground, it hits the ground..hence a sound, it just so happens it did not hit your ears, but it did hit something...hence sound!

I have been reading this whole past exchange, and laughing at the mild absurdity of it all. The point of the original famous question would be better reworded in this way:

"If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to observe it in any way, does it still fall?"

Does the tree even exist? Does the forest?

In other words, does that hypothetical tree even exist if my mind is not present to percieve it?

"Of course, you nutjob", most would say. "You're the most arrogant, self centered egotist for entertaining any position otherwise!"

But suspend all you think you/Science/whatever else knows, and concentrate on the one thing that you absolutely and unequivocally know: your mind is real (as in your thought and emotion). I think, therefore I am. This I know, and nothing else. In reality, absolutely anything else you only trust and/or assume as being real, as it drifts through your mind through its thought/emotion/senses.

If anyone is getting my point here, and will come up with the inevitable "well, your mind can't be the only real thing, because my mind is real, too" response, you don't know that. You only know your mind is real, as I only know mine is. Meaning, we don't even know if each other actually exist. I can only trust that you likely exist, because my mind perceives you, and I have been taught and agreed to basic ideas about this world and reality, which tell me that if I perceive you, then you are in fact real. As I'd assume you do I, if you even exist at all. But all of this is never truly known. It is also completely possible that both of our minds do exist, and this means that both share a mind. But that is another thread's fodder.

Observing of the microscopic world shows us that things likely exist in an abstract wave of probabilities that can be honed into or directed, consciously or not, into a certain outcome or result. To think that this is possible to also be true in the non microscopic world is not less than logical, to assume that laws that govern tiny things also apply to the rest of everything. But again, all assumption. As we have already come to realize that we only know for sure that one thing is real.

With all of this is mind (pun unintended, but personally appreciated), the term 'only in your mind' becomes one of the most ridiculous terms in the way it is usually meant. What isn't in my mind?

Putting all this together, I am finding it increasingly hard to say that reality is absolute, as much as constantly being created, in my mind.

And yours, if it exists.

Hell, maybe even the tree's mind, too.

Edited June 8, 2013 by _Only

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

There is a probability, that this entire reality is a sort of dream state...

Source:http://www.icr.org/article/6067/

[Rlyeh]

There is a probability, that this entire reality is a sort of dream state...

Source:http://www.icr.org/article/6067/

Not sure what your pseudoscience article has to do with what you just said.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Horrible link, but the same concept is used to explain that we are possibly simulations within an alternate reality.

http://www.ucg.org/s...ling-evolution/

Dr Sylvester James Gates! That's who it was!

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BMYtnv_OnI[/media]

Edited June 8, 2013 by xFelix

[Rlyeh]

Your links are comparing microbiological mechanics with that of computers, nothing to do with simulations in alternate realities.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Your links are comparing microbiological mechanics with that of computers, nothing to do with simulations in alternate realities.

"I have never expected that the movie 'The Matrix' could be an actual representation of the place in which I live"

The Matrix is a movie about simulation of reality in an alternate dimension, that interestingly enough... is programmed.

Watch the video and you will see how string theory applies to a reasonable belief that we might just not be in an absolute reality...

Edited June 8, 2013 by xFelix

[pallidin]

Hmmm. My thoughts are that since we live in "reality" that there must be an "absolute" reality, however complex it might be.

[StarMountainKid]

I would think absolute reality means a fundamental level of reality that is not reducible. This absolute scale of reality would be far, far away from the reality we experience. Our physical universe is a manifestation of this "whatever it is".

This "whatever it is" may not be describable by our mathematics. The math we use to describe the universe may be many magnitudes away from this ultimate source in the hierarchy of its manifestations. After all, math describles behavior, but it is not that behavior itself.

What the ultimate reality or "the thing itself" may be, I'm not sure we will ever be able to discover, given that we are an expression of our "local level" of reality.

[SHaYap]

the absolute reality is this :

We are not part of the absolute reality but we are happy not knowing we are not the reality ....

~

[Glorfindel]

Well, if no observers existed in the universe, it would still exist. But what would it be? Just a mass of information interacting with itself? Im sure that is absolute reality at the end of the day, but then that brings the question back to "qualia". What part of reality makes the colour green, look green? What creates the taste of something sweet? These things would not exist without an observer, since they appear to only exist in the mind. And yet they are blatantly real qualities. So what part of reality creates qualia? How is it reconcilable with the absolute reality of information with no perceptions? There is a difference between the human perception of reality, and the dog's perception, which one is real? How does evolution create this perception if it has no basis in the absolute reality of information without perception? I don't know if I worded that right, but that's one of the ultimate mysteries of reality, IMO.

Think of someone taking hallucinogens, alcohol, or any drug. Think of someone with mental illness. Think of someone meditating. Think of someone in sleep paralysis. Think of all the different species of animals on Earth. Now picture all these different "someone" sitting in the same exact room in the same house at the same time. The room is real, the atoms and other particles making the walls of the room are solid. But imagine how vastly different all those "someones" I mentioned would perceive the same room. Im not sure exactly what Im getting at, but that's gotta say something weird about reality lol. Its like there's infinite ways to perceive one thing.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Glorfindel

[_Only]

Well, if no observers existed in the universe, it would still exist...

Let's hold up right there.

How do you know that?

[Glorfindel]

Because the conditions to give rise to life, the planet, the expansion of the universe etc. must have occurred. And because, despite the infinite ways of perceiving the universe, there is an aspect of reality that can still be measured consistently. Do I know without a shadow of a doubt? No, but I think its obvious the universe exists regardless of perception, as an array of information and energy. If a supernova went off in a nearby star (lets say its close enough to damage Earth), no one would have perceived the explosion itself, but its effects would be felt, and I think that applies to the universe before the evolution of mankind (or animals observers too), yet we know the universe did not magically appear when life did, as we can observe the expansion of the universe. Its the "qualia" of things like frequencies of light that are a mystery. Since we know things exist, but can be perceived in many different ways, I think its logical to conclude that things exist with no perception as well. But you are right to an extent, though that can be applied to everything, how do I know you exist for example, because of internet posts? Maybe everything is a hallucination in my mind, but like I implied, there is evidence to the contrary, just not absolute proof I suppose.

Edited June 8, 2013 by Glorfindel

[_Only]

I suppose now would be the fitting time to reveal that this is all StarMountainKid's world, and we're all just act...

No,

Not yet.

lol