And how can we know that the world we see matches what anyone else experiences? Human senses are fallible. What people think they perceive is actually filtered and processed by the brain to construct a useful view of the world.
Normally, this filtering is helpful, allowing people to sort out important information from the barrage of data that comes in every minute from their environment. But this filtering ability can become a weakness, as it often does when we're watching a magician.
For instance, a magician often directs the audience's gaze to one hand while he does something with the other. But Rosenblum doesn't see the human tendency to fall for such misdirection as evidence that all of reality exists only in our minds. As members of society, people create a form of collective reality.
For example, money, in reality, consists of pieces of paper, yet those papers represent something much more valuable. The pieces of paper have the power of life and death, Freeman says — but they wouldn't be worth anything if people didn't believe in their power.
Legend has it that he climbed into a large stove to do so in warmth and solitude. He emerged declaring that the only thing he knew was that there was something that was doubting everything. As Descartes pointed out a century earlier, it is impossible to know we are ….
Existing subscribers, please log in with your email address to link your account access. THERE is an old philosophy question about a tree in a forest. If it falls with nobody there to hear it, does it make a sound? Quantum mechanics has long pushed the boundaries of our understanding of reality at its tiniest.
Countless experiments have shown that particles spread out like waves, for instance, or seem be in more than one place at once. Maybe you are hallucinating the other person as well. I think you will find that any attempt to prove reality requires you to either disprove a negative or have a point of comparison to a non negative. Meaning, you can't prove reality by contrasting it to a known fiction because you are then forced to disprove the fiction is reality first.
I'm sure it is real to someone. Religion comes to mind here. Also what happens to the proof if reality turns out to be a series of nested simulations? How could you ever know which one is the real one? Famous movies have made this pretty clear. Or Total Recall, you can't prove that your memories are real. It's worth considering that but also, worth considering also dropping the notion of absolute certainty and look at things in terms of likelyhood and probability.
There is an idea, an a fair argument can be made in its defense, that the entire universe as we know it is simply some kind of simulation being done by some unknown and vastly superior intelligence. Evidence that leads to this idea is that the closer you look at the inside of an atom the more you begin to realize that there is no actual physical size to anything in the universe. That is to say that everything is made up of points in space that exhibit properties like gravity, but they have no physical size like a video game simulation.
Inside of a proton is smaller particles that are so small they may possibly exist merely as points in space reacting with neighboring points in space as their properties dictate. Commander Data. Once you admit the possibility that such a thing can exist outside of yourself you are then presented with the question of whether or not it is possible that we ourselves are examples of such complex programs. It is certainly an entertaining idea in the least.
If such an idea were to be valid, it would also imply that a "god" exists as the creator, but this entitie's intentions and abilities however, still cannot be known. Proving any statement is true or probably true is impossible, unnecessary and undesirable. This is true whether the statement is deemed to be philosophical or not.
If you assess ideas using argument then the arguments have premises and rules of inference and the result of the argument may not be true or probably true if the premises and rules of inference are false.
You might try to solve this by coming up with a new argument that proves the premises and rules of inference but then you have the same problem with those premises and rules of inference. You might say that some stuff is indubitably true or probably true , and you can use that as a foundation. But that just means you have cut off a possible avenue of intellectual progress since the foundation can't be explained in terms of anything deeper.
And in any case there is nothing that can fill that role. Sense experience won't work since you can misinterpret information from your sense organs, e. Sense organs also fail to record lots of stuff that does exist, e. Scientific instruments aren't infallible either since you can make mistakes in setting them up, in interpreting information from them and so on. We don't create knowledge useful or explanatory information by showing stuff is true or probably true for reasons so how do we create knowledge?
We can only create knowledge by finding mistakes in our current ideas and correcting them piecemeal. You notice a problem with your current ideas, propose solutions, criticise the solutions until only one is left and then find a new problem. We shouldn't say that a theory is false because it hasn't been proven because this applies to all theories. Rather, we should look at what problems it aims to solve and ask whether it solves them. We should look at whether it is compatible with other current knowledge and if not try to figure out the best solution.
Should the new idea be discarded or the old idea or can some variant of both solve the problem? So how should we assess realism? Let's suppose solipsism is true. You have just imagined the whole world. There are large parts of this imagined world that you can't control. If you walk across an imaginary motorway with your eyes closed you will be run down by an imaginary car and spend several imaginary weeks in an imaginary hospital.
Your entire position consists of taking the world as described by realism and labelling certain parts as imaginary. This labelling doesn't solve any problem and ruins solutions to existing problems. Why did you just happen to imagine that dinosaurs exist? There is an explanation of why dinosaurs exist, but it involves the existence of a real world so solipsism denies that this explanation is true.
Any theory that claims that something described by a current explanation doesn't exist suffers from a similar problem, including any other position that denies realism. Thought occurs, therefore something exists whatever has caused the thought or whatever medium the thought is happening in. Descartes presupposes the existence of a thinker. In any case, this argument is simply a slightly more waterproof variant of Descartes'. So one must choose to believe it because one likes it.
That is all one can do. It's a particular aesthetic. Well heres my attempt to prove reality: If reality isn't real, what is real? That last part has to be defined, if nothing is real then you are defining real incorrectly.
We could define reality as not nothing, which in that case is true. We could say that reality is exclusive, that somethings cannot be real, as there are more unreal things than there are real things. If we define real as the math version of real, we are not imaginary as there are no tachyons imaginary mass particles. If we want to be unnecessarily specific, we could say that reality isn't a simulation, in that case your proof is to find the limitations of the simulation, not just limitations in general.
So I guess its very dependent on what you mean by real, and what is not real. So is the apple really an apple? What is not an apple? If its what an apple is not then it is so. We need to define what apple means. So I guess you answer your own question, what is real and what is not, where do we fall? Scientists have proven that there is an objective reality each and every one of us plays a part in, but they have also proven that our perception of that objective reality is subjective and flawed in many ways.
Currently, there is growing evidence that our universe is a giant hologram. Does that mean that our universe isn't real? Or should we reassess what it means to be real? Personally, I would argue for the latter, as our objective reality is the only reasonable reference we have for what constitutes as real or not. Sign up to join this community. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top. Stack Overflow for Teams — Collaborate and share knowledge with a private group. Create a free Team What is Teams?
Learn more. Can we prove reality? Ask Question. Asked 7 years, 2 months ago. Active 3 years, 9 months ago. Viewed 14k times. I heard someone make an assertion that 'We cannot really prove that there is reality.
0コメント