How do you know they dont?
A Comprehensive Theory of Everything (A Mind-Stimulating Journey)
Sort:
Mar 28, 2017
0
#3
Cubronzo wrote:
Move to off-topic. My computer stinks at that
Stephen Hawking once said in an interview "Reality exists because it can't not exist" but I disagree with his assessment. I think what he meant to say was "Reality is an extention of its own cohesiveness and therefore must exist because the statement is true." However there still seems to be some big gaps in such ideas when you consider Subjective Reality. If reality is really just random information coming into and out of existence at will, how come these events don't often occur in our own Universe?
Mar 28, 2017
0
#4
Bonsai_Dragon wrote:
You and I seem to be constant. I would not exist if everything was a sequence of random information. Things that exist now would be immediately destroyed.
How do you know they dont?
Hawking's statement is logically correct (if that's actually factual).
The rest of your post is ass talk. In your defense, Hawking's statement is the same to no lesser extent.
But he has logic on his side. What do you have?
Unless our perception of reality is constant or the mere act of observing the randomness brings order. We cant measure the speed and the location of a particle at the same time. We can't observe an atom without changing it's quantum state...its it such a stretch to think we can't observe chaos without bringing order?
Mar 28, 2017
0
#7
kkl10 wrote:
What you call "Logic" is much more complex than you understand it to be. Also, Hawking saying it exists because it can't not exist is as philosophically biased as Alan Watts statements regarding the Universe. Even if it can't not exist doesn't mean it has to exist. It's the difference between a verb and an adjective.
Hawking's statement is logically correct.
The rest of your post is ass talk. In your defense, Hawking's statement is the same to no lesser extent.
But he has logic on his side. What do you have?
What are you assuming to be my understanding of logic? Reality is not bound to anyone's understanding. It's way above and beyond. But there needs not be a wholy complicated syllogism to prove that it is necessarily fact. I think that would be redundant. I don't interpret Hawking's statement to be philosophically biased either (don't know the context of his statement, though).
The mere fact that this experience is happening is absolute proof that reality is fact. It exists. It's happening, and it couldn't happen if it didn't exist. Nothing is as self-evident as reality's existence. For all intents and purposes, one may equate reality with existence.
Saying that it can't not exist necessarily means that it has to exist because one thing is the direct opposite of the other. Not that complicated. It can't exist and not exist at the same time.
Just to be sure that you're not making shit up, where has Hawking said such a thing? Can you link a source?
Mar 28, 2017
0
#10
kkl10 wrote:
Sorry, I thought he tried to "solve" reality using sentential logic. My bad.
What are you assuming to be my understanding of logic? Reality is not bound to anyone's understanding. It's way above and beyond. But there needs not be a wholy complicated syllogism to prove that it is fact. I think that would be redundant. I don't interpret Hawking's statement to be philosophically biased either (don't know the context of his statement, though).
The mere fact that this experience is happening is absolute proof that reality is fact. It exists. It's happening, and it couldn't happen if it didn't exist. Nothing is as self-evident as reality's existence. For all intents and purposes, one may equate reality with existence.
Saying that it can't not exist necessarily means that it has to exist because one thing is the direct opposite of the other. Not that complicated. It can't exist and not exist at the same time.
Just to be sure that you're not making shit up, where has Hawking said such a thing? Can you link a source?
Mar 28, 2017
0
#11
Simply saying "It is because it is" doesn't really get us anywhere though.
Mar 28, 2017
0
#12
I still disagree with "it exists because it can't not exist" because the statement itself is vague. Like I said, the difference is that one is a state while the other is a process.
No amount of linguistic gymnastics will ever get you a satisfying answer to why reality exists.
Mar 28, 2017
0
#14
Bonsai_Dragon wrote:
Its actually a huge stretch and is very unlikely, almost impossible when you think about it.
Unless our perception of reality is constant or the mere act of observing the randomness brings order. We cant measure the speed and the location of a particle at the same time. We can't observe an atom without changing it's quantum state...its it such a stretch to think we can't observe chaos without bringing order?
Mar 28, 2017
0
#15
we don't even know what "reality" is, until that question is answered the rest of this is meaningless.
Mar 28, 2017
0
#16
kkl10 wrote:
Your statement I would regard as both true and false. It's true because we can't define what exactly reality is with our finite minds, but it is false because we have the gift of language, and can thus create an abstract generalization of what reality is in a finite sense.
No amount of linguistic gymnastics will ever get you a satisfying answer to why reality exists.
kkl10 wrote:
No amount of linguistic gymnastics will ever get you a satisfying answer to why reality exists.
True, It's a puzzler and maybe best to accept that if reality isn't life as we experience it then it's something beyond our comprehension anyway & not worry too much about it.
Mar 28, 2017
0
#18
universityofpawns wrote:
Reality is whatever fulfills the context of its own definition. I'll elaborate. In this reality, a Unicorn does not exist because it is not a three-dimensional material object existing in our own frame of reality, but it is defined so. Dragons do not exist for the same reason.
we don't even know what "reality" is, until that question is answered the rest of this is meaningless.
Mar 28, 2017
0
#19
Cubronzo wrote:
Stephen Hawking once said in an interview "Reality exists because it can't not exist" but I disagree with his assessment. I think what he meant to say was "Reality is an extention of its own cohesiveness and therefore must exist because the statement is true." However there still seems to be some big gaps in such ideas when you consider Subjective Reality. If reality is really just random information coming into and out of existence at will, how come these events don't often occur in our own Universe?
He didn't specify exactly what reality is. What he said is less sure than Descarte's "Cogito ergo sum," which means "I think therefore I am." IS reality this "universe" where I was happy I won a chess game today for my team but also sad as I attended a wake for an old friend who died of leukemia? Or is reality such that whatever I physically am is sitting in a chamber in a researcher's lab being fed artificially and being sent electronic impulses to make me think I'm living in a world and chess, my car, my piano, my family are all electronic or chemical fantasies?
In either case, there IS a reality, we just can't prove what it is.
Stephen Hawking once said in an interview "Reality exists because it can't not exist" but I disagree with his assessment. I think what he meant to say was "Reality is an extention of its own cohesiveness and therefore must exist because the statement is true." However there still seems to be some big gaps in such ideas when you consider Subjective Reality. If reality is really just random information coming into and out of existence at will, how come these events don't often occur in our own Universe?