I've been in the business of debating the meaning of 'reality' for most of my life. What you've stated above doesn't truly offer any clarity to that question at all.

You're use of the term actuality is truly nothing more than a very lame attempt to try to claim that your vision of reality is the actual truth.

And that truly is funny. I'm not laughing at you but I'm laughing at the very concept.

You claim: "This actual world is the one we live in, the one where the choices I have made and the circumastances beyond my control have led me to where I am."

Well, based on this statement then we all live in quite different "Actual" worlds then since we have all made different choices, and we all views different circumstances to be beyond our control.

Just because you believe a situation to be beyond your control doesn't mean that it necessarily is. Just because you don't know how to control it, or don't believe that you can control it doesn't meant that you "actually" couldn't control it if perhaps you had differnt information or even something as simple as a differnet perspective.

In this way, you create many of the elements of the universe that you believe to be beyond your control. Yet, for someone else those same elements may not be beyond their control.

Morever, your own personal situation often dictates what you may or may not have control over. But this wouldn't be the same for eveyone else. So in this sense eveyone's actuality is quite different.

So by chaning the semantics of reality to the semantics of actuality you've accomplished absolutely nothing other than to delude yourself into believing that you have control over something that you do not. (i.e. the absolute meaning of reality)

You are an absolutist. Let's make no mistake about that. Your arugments are all from an absolutist's point of view. You are in love with logic like Rene Descarte and you put all your eggs in that one basket.

I'm not attempting to evaluate you as a human being, I'm merely speaking to the content of your arguments on these forums. You argue from an absolutist point of view as though things have definite answers. They typically don't unless they are questions posted within structured formalisms such as mathematics or physics where give postulates, axioms or premises have been accepted and rules of logic have also been put into place.

But once you leave the realm of that artifical world and enter into the world of actuality then all the rules and premises evaporate into unproven smoke.

The word of actuality has no absolutes.

There's nothing you can put your finger on. There are no anchors. And when you think you've found an anchor you'll soon discover that the anchor is actually not touching bottom but is just dangling in the water beneath your ship of dreams.

Here's something to think about.

I once had an argument with a philosopher concerning the color green. This was actaully a take-off from a much deeper debate concerning mathematics, but let's just stick with the color green here.

I was attemtping to be the absolutist. (the supporter of actuality, an advocate of the concreteness of reality)

The question was simple. Is a green bottle really green?

Is green an absolute?

What is green?

Well, there are two ways to look at the problem. We can look at it as an absolutist and say, yes, a green bottle really is really green in an absolute way.

How so?

Well, we turn to science and the scientific definition of "green".

Then we ask if the bottle is scientifically green?

We shine light on it. We measure the radition that comes from the bottle and if it falls into the frequency that we have labeled as 'green' then we can prove that the bottle is absolutely green.

Then we might say, this is the actuality of our universe!

But then the philosopher goes and gets a blacklight (an ultraviolet light source) and shines it on the bottle and aks what color is the bottle now?

The color has changed. The frequency of light reflected by the bottle is no longer green. It's some other color, perhaps brown.

What does science have to say now?

Well, this is silly right?

Science has all the answers! Science has defined green based on a standard anchor of white light!

There's a method to the madness of science. We have everything anchored on standards.

But now the philosopher points out that our standard anchor is arbitrary and truly meaningless. There's nothing absoltute about it at all.

And then the philosopher poses the next question.

"Can you assure me that we both percieve the experience of the color green in precisely the same way in our minds?"

Now science is at a completely loss. There is no way for us to know the answer to that question. I have no clue how your brain precieves the various frequencies of light, nor do you have any way of knowing how I percieve them.

All we can really do is put a numerical value on the vibrations of electromagnetic radition that enters our eyes. But we have absolutely no way of knowing how our brains are precieving that simulus.

So is reality "out there" in the numbers?

Or is reality in the actual experiernce of life?

If reality is the actual experience of life, then I would hold that we all create our own actuality.

Do you see how changing the semantics hasn't changed a thing?

Whether you call it reality or actuality you haven't changed the primal concept.

A play on words hasn't changed anything at thing.

The fundamental question still remains. Is the reality that you percieve a function of what's out there, or is it a function of perception? Or is it a combination of both?

I vote for the later. It is neither all percieved, nor all actual to use your term. It's an illusive combination of both. Put your finger on one and the other becomes reality. Try to put your fingers on both simultanously and you'll discover the principle of complementarity of Quantum Mechanics. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

You can't know perception and actuality simultaneously. They are complementary phenomenon.

There is no place to sink your anchor. All shores are relative.

There is no concrete actuality.

it is as you perceive it to be

Back to the original question:



I think most reasonable people will agree that experience is the ulitmate source of knowing anything.

But experiences can conflict, yet both be simultaneously true.

If we ask the question, "Is it warm or cold"

One person may very well say, "It's hot in here. Open a window!"

Yet the person right beside them may say, "No! I'm cold! Turn on a heater!"

Where's the actuality in that?




It sure seems that this is more in line with the way humans percieve their life experiences.

Everyone's reality (and therefore their actuality) is different.

There is no absolute actuality or reality.

Like Carebear just posted:

All it takes is a slight shift in perception to change what is believed to be real ... where is "actuality" in that ...

Knowing is experiential.

Truly.

Without this basic truth there would be no sense in writing Faerytales. Especially the kind the teach of the magick of perception.

James...



No, you misunderstand my position.

That response was framed from a multiple worlds standpoint. It says nothing about what I believe to be an absolute truth. That being said, there are other ways to view what has been stated, by yourself and me alike. Those views are our personal perception, which we hold as true and therefore they constitute our realities. What we are viewing is actuality. That is the distinction... necessarily so.



We all live in this world, not any other. There is only one from which we interpret and form our own absolute truthes. We all have them. It is a business of nonsense to doubt everything. The differences are personal perception, the constant is what we are perceiving. That is not to say that this world is unchanging. It is to say that we all view the same world in different ways, and it is a common factor in everyone's perceptual formula for reality.

Concerning the philosopher debate and colors...

There are ways to assure that you and I perceive the colors in the same way. The old question of "How does one know that we each see green the same way?" has been answered. We do, unless we have some sort of 'color-blindness'. It is also a physiological construct employing physical traits which can be and have been identified. The fact that shining a different frequency of light other than our visible spectrum upon an object is direct evidence that we know some things about the properties of visible light.

The term actuality does not refer to my perception any more than it refers to any other individual's. It was and is necessary in order to make the distinction between this world and our percpetion of it. If reality is perception, and for all intents and purposes, it is, then what is being perceived must be distinguished. Actuality exists separately from the observers. Reality is the personal interpretation that each of us hold concerning this world, and we react based upon our understanding of it.

My experience would not bear this out to be true.

In art school, when an entire class looked at a colour, very few would agree on what the colour was ...

Something that I interpret as 'green' may be seen as more yellow than green by some and more blue than green by others.

The wavelength is the same but it is clear that how we interpret that wavelength in our brain is not. Hence the only 'reality' is my reality ... I cannot know for certain that of another...

No matter. Should each have the skills to be able to accurately reproduce that color by only using the same set of basic colors then they would all eventually produce the same color. No matter how differently they may be thought to be seen through our sense of sight.



The actual wavelength would be actuality in this case, would it not?

Yes, of course, given our current construct. But what is the correlation between actuality and knowing then? Perception ... and it is different for each of us.

So what is 'knowing' then? Experience ... and that 'knowing" too is changeable ...

This 'actuality' is irrelevant.

What would happen if new information came to light that suggested one or several different levels of measuring this 'actuality' ... and what if new information didn't agree with the initial definition? Would it matter when our only interaction with it is run through our filters and slotted into some file in our brain that makes sense at the time. Whatever 'it' is ... would be our perceived reality anyway.

Just seems like semantic gymnastics to me... no?

Creative wrote:




This statement is clearly an opinion and one that has been debated often. The "truth" of it resides only on a particular level of consciousness. That level is the level of the mind and matter worlds and it goes no further than this.

Delving deeper, we find that without an "observer" of some kind, be it spiritual or simply different vibrational exchanges emanating from different black holes (or event horizons), nothing would exist.

Existence of any kind requires acknowledgment. (That acknowledgment would be from an observer.)

Otherwise existence itself is meaningless.

From there the discussion would have to travel to the definition of what exactly an observer is.

If you confine and limit the definition of an observer to human or animal, then your statement would hold true. If not, we are back to existence (actuality) needing some sort of acknowledgment or confirmation from something, even from within itself.

The exchange of energy and information of any kind is confirmation of existence of some sort of actual reality. Within that picture, you can decide what is or is not "an observer."

If anything can react or sense anything else it is an "observer."

A hammer hits a rock. The rock breaks. Both the hammer and the rock are observers as they sensed each other in the form of frequency and vibration and the acknowledged each other's existence in the exchange of energy and force.

Perhaps everyone is correct as the possiblities are all there to use, so therefore, no one is wrong on the issue of this topic creativesoul started.

We disagree to agree to only agree to disagree in a sense of a circular answer that enwraps each other as one.

Sounds crazy doesn't it. I know so don't mind me and just pass the mashed potatoes please

Point understood.

How can one know how closely their personal perception(reality) corroborates with actuality?

That is why actuality is necessary. It opens the mental door for the possibility of an open-minded change. It shakes one's foundation. Actuality changes filters, unless one believes those filters are absolute. In that case, it matters not.

We do not need to be able to understand actuality with exactness... We just need to be aware of it's existence, separate from the individual.

The observer may indeed create his/her own reality in some senses, but they do not create actuality, they merely interpret it.

There are some things we can know beyond a doubt.

If not nothing matters, nor does it have any meaning whatsoever.

Actuality is one of those things.

what is knowing...

interesting question, but I think it needs to be clarified, if you are speaking of personal, or "cultural" knowing...

Personal knowledge... I know the facts of my physical universe (the table is a hard flat surface, fire is hot and will burn you, water has 3 states, liquid, frozen and gas (steam), I know when I am hungry, and I know there are 100 pennies in a dollar...

The harder question - cultural or "accepted" knowledge... which I would take as being based in feeling and faith...

The former is way easy to answer, the latter.. well... that will be pontificated for years to come :).... as for me, I know what I feel to be true - those things that come from indirect sources... I THINK I know Obama is the president, although I was not there when he was sworn in nor did I get to count the ballots myself...

I think cultural "knowledge" is a belief more than actual knowing... if there is a difference? (p.s. sorry for my "simple" logic here, I am ignorant but wanted to express my opinions...)...

As for religeous beliefs... I know for a fact that I do not know enough about the world to negate others beliefs (or the knowledge they claim)... I believe what I choose to belive as true... so again my personal feelings, but with the reality basis that I don't know enough to tell anyyone else their beliefs are wrong...

You're really just giving the EPR argument here. The Einstein, Podolski, Rosen, argument for a concrete preexisting reality.

That's been blown away.

It can't hold true.

That's where we're at with our "knowlege" of the scientific actuality of the universe.

Things cannot be like we used to think. There can not be any concrete actuality.

That's the conclusion of Bell's Theorem.

At least not in the non-local causal way that we used to believe in classical physics.

What Quantum Mechanics tells us is that some things are simply not well defined before they they become actual.

That's the conclusion.

The Copenhagan Interpretations says precisely this. The world is complementary and all things cannot be simultaneously defined. This is an innate property of nature and not a limitation of knowing

Even nature can't know according to this interpretation of QM.

The Hidden Variables Interpretation says that the universe must ultimately be one. There can be no temporal division between events. Time is an illusion. The speed of light is not a limiting factor.

The Many Worlds Interpretation says, "CreativeSoul is right! The universe is contrete and determinisitc it just keeps splitting into infinitely many worlds."

Personally I feel that the Many World's Interpretation is a seriously high cost to perserve determinism.

I have no problem with randomness and indeterminism. So I live in a Copenhagen universe and you live in a Many Worlds universe.

But you're trying to claim that your universe is true, and mine is false.

I don't see the need for that but I do understand why you are obscessed with this. You need things to be concrete so you argue that this must be the case.

I have no problem with things being elusive and mysterious, so I don't accept your arguments.

You need to come to a conclusion because it's in your philosophy that all things can be known and therefore concluded to be a certain way.

I have no need to come to any conclusion.

You say:



I turn to Richard Feynman and agree with him when he says:



I just sing Que Sara Sara.

You need to have answers.

Life doesn't need to be figured out in every detail.

Just enjoy it.

You'll drive yourself insane trying to put your finger on reality.

In fact, Feynman also said the following:

"I think it is safe to say that no one understands quantum mechanics. Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, 'But how can it be like that?' because you will go down the drain into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that." --Dr. Richard P. Feynman

You just need to accept that the actuality that you so desire simply doesn't exist.

Or accept the Many World's interpretation which you may have already done.

Personally I don't buy that interpretation. I perfer to accept that God does indeed toss dice. I have no problem with a random universe. It just doesn't bother me because I understand how it works on a much deeper level.

My question was,
If it is true for YOU (whomever) why would it not be true for YOU (YOU)? What sets you apart from the crowd Creative?


You may think that I am not familiar with your kind of circular logic that you call "persuasion." Ultimately people will go with their feelings, not with logic, circular or otherwise, when it comes to persuasion tactics.

To imply that someone is "ignorant ...by sheer will alone...." (no matter whom you are aiming your vague remark at) is non-productive in any kind of "persuasion."

Thank you Abra! Good post.

To understand reality you have to contemplate Infinity. The only truth about infinity is that it goes on forever. There is the infinitely large and the infinitely small.

When people think of the "Big Bang" they think of large. But the particle smasher is creating mini "big bangs" so a "big bang" does not have to be large.

"Large" and "small" are clearly relative concepts. We see our sun as large compared to our planet, but there are stars in this galaxy that compared to our sun on the computer screen, our sun is not even one pixel in size. That is mind blowing.

To get a grip on infinity and being infinite and accepting that is massive. Don't even ask how that is possible. We, in this state of consciousness, think of everything as having a beginning and an end and measurable boundaries.

The truth is there is no beginning or end, and there are no boundaries.

There also needs to be a definition of what is meant by 'knowing' something?

Even when we experience something all we can know is that we have experienenced it. That doesn't mean that we will necessarily experience it again. If we experience things repeatedly we begin to think that we 'know' something for how the future might unfold.

What CreativeSoul is concerned with is knowing the "true nature" of reality. What is really going on?

Those are interesting questions to consider. As a scientist/phiolosopher I've pondered these questions my entire life.

A new question has come up for me know and it is this:

"When do we accept that it may be impossible to know anything of the true nature of reality?'

Supposedly Quantum Physics has already proven that knowing the true nature of reality is impossible, and not because we aren't clever enough, but because the true nature of reality is genuinely complementary. That is to say that it can't be known as a 'whole'.

The answer is that it's a balancing act of smoke and mirrors.

That's the answer.

That's the actuality that CreativeSoul is desperate to put his finger on.

But you can't put your finger on smoke!

And that's the paradox.

If you want to know the truth of reality I can tell you the truth.

Reality is paradoxical.

That's the answer.

And to ask, "How can it be that way?" Is to go down the drain from which there is no return. Nobody knows how it can be that way. It just "IS"

See Jess Lee for further details on the nature of "JUST IS"

She is the Queen who surfs on the vortex of the horizon of the black hole of that which cannot be known.

Well that surely makes alot of sense what you say. "We don't know!"

It just is what it is, but I can imagine for a scientist or even a philosopher this is disturbing for such minds want definite answers and results! So yes thank goodness I am no scientist or philosopher or I would probably be on the verge of insanity demanding absolute answers.

I think I am the king of that phrase, " I don't know!"
The good thing about this is that I am satisfied if I don't know everything. If it wasn't meant to be then so be it.

I often swing my hands up in the air when I say that also

but yes in the end it is all a paradox, but it surely doesn't prevent scientists and philosophers to continue to ponder on the thought of it

I know the feeling.

There are so many answers to that question. I guess that is what makes life so interesting.

I think existence and realities exist on many levels. It is like asking what is going on in the world. Many things in many countries, and many stories and events taking place. There is no single answer.

It's not just scientists and philosophers. It's everyone really.

This is the basis of religion. People invent a God who "has all the answers".

They somehow think that when they die and go to heaven God will share all the answers and they'll say, "Ah ha! I understand now why things have to be the way they are!"

But what if God wasn't willing to tell them all his secrets?

Then they'd be in the same predicament that they are already in. Soon they would be asking questions like, "So why are you God, and I'm just a peon?"

People don't think that far into the future.

As long as someone has the answers for NOW they are happy. So they just imagine a God who has all the answers, and they ignore any questions that might crop up after they die.

It's difficult for me to comprehend even a God who knows its own true nature. It seems to me that the question of knowing your own true nature will always be equivalent to pulling yourself up with your own bootstraps. There's simply no reference point to put your finger on.

Even a God could not know its own true nature. And that is the greatest mystery of all. It boggles the mind. So it's better to just go to the Green Dragon's Inn and have a Goblin's Brew and order a dish of Dragon Steak and enjoy the conversation, the meal, and hopefully a bard will drop by and get everyone to sing The Green Dragon's Inn theme song.

http://users.csonline.net/designer/ideas/Inn.htm