NOM

I have always loved truth. Then someone changed the meaning to whatever someone believes. That's not the truth I love.

So I changed to loving reality. Then my friend would respond with "well, my reality...".

Stop stealing the meanings of my words!!! Can I just have one simple word that means the way things really are, objectively, without a belief system involved?

Probably not.

Unfortunately, the more we learn about reality, the more we understand it's not always simple and consistent.

Even in physics, one of the most strict and mathematical of sciences, we've learned that reality is not a permanent, fixed thing. Even at it's most fundamental level. There is the observer problem in Schrödinger's cat. As best we've been able to determine, the nature of light is dramatically different depending upon how we observe it. Then there is the time distortion problem that comes out of Einstein's relativity. If you live in SLC and someone else lives at sea level, time passes differently for the two of you. Not a lot, but some. The effect has to be taken into account for satellites orbiting the earth, particularly in the use of GPS.

We want reality to conform to the idea of two separate, distinct genders. That reality works out fine for me. But it doesn't match everyone's experience. It's not a biological reality.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:36 am Probably not.

Unfortunately, the more we learn about reality, the more we understand it's not always simple and consistent.

Even in physics, one of the most strict and mathematical of sciences, we've learned that reality is not a permanent, fixed thing. Even at it's most fundamental level. There is the observer problem in Schrödinger's cat. As best we've been able to determine, the nature of light is dramatically different depending upon how we observe it. Then there is the time distortion problem that comes out of Einstein's relativity. If you live in SLC and someone else lives at sea level, time passes differently for the two of you. Not a lot, but some. The effect has to be taken into account for satellites orbiting the earth, particularly in the use of GPS.

We want reality to conform to the idea of two separate, distinct genders. That reality works out fine for me. But it doesn't match everyone's experience. It's not a biological reality.

But those things you mention don't mean there is no objective reality, it just means that to find it a person must accept those things. I have no desire for reality to conform to the idea of two separate, distinct genders. If it doesn't I just want to know about it so I can accept it. The dual slit experiment didn't destroy reality, it enlightened people's understanding of the duality and probabilistic nature of light. We don't know everything about what reality is, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that we shouldn't strive for it.

The time distortion effect is a pretty clear example that reality is dependent upon the observer. I think you also dismissed the observer effect in some of the other situations a little too simply.

Linked, I think the best we'll ever do is approximate, shared, approximately equivalent mental models based on intersubjective experience. Even if the models are physics equations, they still need to be interpreted and applied.

I hear you, though. The most frustrating discussions I've ever had were with members who were working from a vastly different set of facts and first-order conclusions than I was. ("Can we at least agree that species change over time?" "No.") I've never been frustrated like that discussing things with historians, biologists, and other people who pursue objective truth.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:07 pm The time distortion effect is a pretty clear example that reality is dependent upon the observer. I think you also dismissed the observer effect in some of the other situations a little too simply.

I don't see how the observer effect causes an issue, so long as you take it into account.

There are as many perspectives as there are people.

I suppose that you could define reality by accounting for that in your definition. Something like, reality is that everyone sees things slightly differently, but if it comes down to that, why bother trying to define reality?

Linked wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:55 am

Jeffret wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:36 am Probably not.

Unfortunately, the more we learn about reality, the more we understand it's not always simple and consistent.

Even in physics, one of the most strict and mathematical of sciences, we've learned that reality is not a permanent, fixed thing. Even at it's most fundamental level. There is the observer problem in Schrödinger's cat. As best we've been able to determine, the nature of light is dramatically different depending upon how we observe it. Then there is the time distortion problem that comes out of Einstein's relativity. If you live in SLC and someone else lives at sea level, time passes differently for the two of you. Not a lot, but some. The effect has to be taken into account for satellites orbiting the earth, particularly in the use of GPS.

We want reality to conform to the idea of two separate, distinct genders. That reality works out fine for me. But it doesn't match everyone's experience. It's not a biological reality.

But those things you mention don't mean there is no objective reality, it just means that to find it a person must accept those things. I have no desire for reality to conform to the idea of two separate, distinct genders. If it doesn't I just want to know about it so I can accept it. The dual slit experiment didn't destroy reality, it enlightened people's understanding of the duality and probabilistic nature of light. We don't know everything about what reality is, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, or that we shouldn't strive for it.

Darn right. I think reality can be inconsistent, but it is still reality. I think this is where church leaders (and all of us to some degree) get in trouble. We think some parts of reality are more important than others. I can believe that there are GA's that might believe that gender isn't just a two separate and distinct, male and female reality, but it's more important to them that the church be in control, or that their authority not be questioned. That is their most important reality. And they will continue to stumble when/because they don't see that Reality/God doesn't equal authority, and Authority/God doesn't equal reality.

Defining reality may be too big a job for any of us, but defining parts of reality shouldn't be. But I might be wrong.

Hmmmm, what was I thinking when I wrote that?

Linked, I'm with you in your disappointment at having to settle for a much weaker version of things such as truth or reality. In fact, that's been more at the core of my faith "crisis" than anything to do with religion.

I've more or less concluded that it's all just "choosing to believe." And even if there is some sort of objective reality that we can approximate, whether that reality matters at all is simply a matter of perspective and preference. And we can only approximate is as far as our senses allow us to. If we had five totally different senses, this "reality" would be the same but not to us.

nibbler wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 2:09 pm There are as many perspectives as there are people.

I suppose that you could define reality by accounting for that in your definition. Something like, reality is that everyone sees things slightly differently, but if it comes down to that, why bother trying to define reality?

Reality doesn't care about perspectives. Well, not exactly doesn't care, it is above the different human, animal, plant perspectives. It acknowledges that they exist as part of itself, but it's a small piece of the pie.

Human bodies can detect a lot of stuff; pressure, different molecules in solids, liquids and air, and visible light. But there are pressures too light for us to detect with our bodies, and pressures we can't detect because they are so great we would die. Taste and smell are awesome, but they only tell us so much. The visible light the human eye can see is a tiny sliver of the electromagnetic spectrum. So the reality of these things is beyond what we can detect with our bodies, they were beyond detection for humanity at all until quite recently. But that doesn't mean that just because we can't/couldn't feel them that the reality we could observe was all encompassing or right. Now we can detect up and down the electromagnetic spectrum and see a much larger picture. Closer to reality.

I don't think anyone gets to claim that they can have a different reality. Flat-earthers don't get to live in a reality with a flat earth, they live in a delusion with a flat earth. Joseph Smith doesn't get a reality where quakers live on the moon, he can have a delusion that they live on the moon. But for many opinions delusion is too harsh a word, and many differing opinions don't have a clear answer.

Reality doesn't care about perspectives.

I understand this 'perspective' (see what I did there ) and share it to a large degree but I think it may be shortsighted.

What is reality from the atomic perspective vs the celestial body perspective? It seems that perspective can in fact change how the laws of physics operate. I think perspective can in fact sometimes have a huge effect on reality.

LaMachina wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:41 pm

Reality doesn't care about perspectives.

I understand this 'perspective' (see what I did there ) and share it to a large degree but I think it may be shortsighted.

What is reality from the atomic perspective vs the celestial body perspective? It seems that perspective can in fact change how the laws of physics operate. I think perspective can in fact sometimes have a huge effect on reality.

You make a good point. At atomic scale things are far different than at human scale which is far different than planetary or star or galactic scale. I got this cool book, The Zoomable Universe for Christmas that goes from atom small to observable universe large. But those perspectives just give more to reality, they don't make different realities.

Linked wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:36 amI don't think anyone gets to claim that they can have a different reality. Flat-earthers don't get to live in a reality with a flat earth, they live in a delusion with a flat earth.

Well, the flat-earther's delusion is their reality, and that's the "reality" that the live in.