[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 57 KB, 800x600, 1262104337512.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1014643 No.1014643 [Reply] [Original]

What is the separation between "Real" and "not real"?

For example, many insist that the internet and the things on it are "not real." Data in a computer is "not real." A waifu is "not real", etc.

However, all of these things are actually represented in the world.

Furthermore, the same can be applied to thought. Where is the separation between dream and reality? More importantly, is the place of separation relevant at all? Is there any substance to either dream or reality that should be held above the other?

Discuss.

>> No.1014655

Subjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjective
subjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjective
subjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjectivesubjective.

Subjectivity.

>> No.1014663

Go back to /a/, you pathetic, waifu-loving faggot.

>> No.1014669

Not /sci/ but i like philosophy

I think anything that interacts with you in some degree is considered real. So, in my definition Reality is relative. Your waifu is real because she has an effect on you mentally. If she has absolutely no influence on your life, she's not real. Same with the physical kid in africa.

>> No.1014678

one word: "synthetic"

>> No.1014684

Objective reality is everything that can be confirmed/refuted by consensus of external observers. (The definition of this can be stretched slightly, but for the most part, if most people don't see what you see, you're hallucinating, not Superman.)

Our interpretations of that reality are imperfect, as our senses/experience are limited, and thus OUR entire reality is subjective, based on our interpretation of what we think to be true.

We're all blind dudes describing an elephant. If we can agree on an aspect of the elephant, that's objective reality. If there's something we imagine the elephant to be that is not verifiable, that's not real.

>> No.1014688

>A waifu is "not real", etc.

stopped reading

Get the fuck out you faggot

>> No.1014702

>>1014643What is the separation between "Real" and "not real"?

It's real if no portion of it is a multiple of the square root of -1.
/thead

>> No.1014710

The concept of something is real even if that thing isn't.

>> No.1014713

>>1014684
okay but how do you prove that any external observers that you perceive aren't just a subjective hallucination?

I mean lots of crazy people have imaginary friends that agree with them or interpret real people incorrectly in such a way that they believe their observations are being validated.

>> No.1014720

>>1014669
You're suggesting that because you don't know of something, then it doesn't exist?

I argue that there is a limited amount of information in the universe, and that some information is only available through various means, and that said information is only valid within its own domain.

That "Kid in Africa" is real in the universe, but within the domain of your mind, it may not be. A waifu is real in the domain of a hard drive, various servers throughout the internet, or mind of the partner of said waifu.

So while a waifu may not exist in the universe, it is very much real in a persons own mind, or storage medium, and valid in all aspects of both.

The relevance of this is in determining the validity of morals. We live in a deterministic universe, and that "Kid in Africa" is instead only a "Kid in Africa" within the proper domain; the mind of the interpreter. In the universe, it is instead a compilation - a construct. Nothing more.

Morals, and ideas are valid within their own domain, but in domains where they are not valid, they have no place, such as reality, or another persons different mind.

Thus it could be said that a person is only wrong when applied to other differing domains.

>> No.1014719

>>1014684
Okie dokie, but what about the cosmos?

>> No.1014717

>>1014684
Ok, but what is truth?

>> No.1014752

>>1014720
WHO THE FUCK MADE YOU THE OFFICIAL SPOKESMAN OF THE UNIVERSE?!

>> No.1014792

>>1014720
That's what I think too.

>> No.1014844

>>1014752
I don't know, but evidently they had the right idea.

>> No.1014858

>>1014792
I'm glad to hear that.

>> No.1014871 [DELETED] 

>>1014640

ZZhZZ
ZZtZZ
ZZtZZ
ZZpZZ
ZZ:ZZ
ZZ/ZZ
ZZ/ZZ
ZZaZZ
ZZtZZ
ZZ.ZZ
ZZkZZ
ZZiZZ
ZZmZZ
ZZmZZ
ZZoZZ
ZZaZZ
ZZ.ZZ
ZZsZZ
ZZeZZ

>> No.1014888

you just realized tali is real in some universe

>> No.1014918
File: 6 KB, 180x180, 1272405262908.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1014918

Is there an universal particle present in anything that exists that can be used to measure anything?

>> No.1014931

>>1014918
no, there are like a dozen elementary particles

>> No.1015058

The more you study philosophy the more you realize its mental masturbation that flip flops between reality and twisting words and premade notions.

Also biologically we are not designed to contemplate such things so wait for a super mutant/ autistic savant to explain this shit to you.

Also.... The concept of absolute Truth.

/thread

>> No.1015067
File: 86 KB, 270x216, 1273718775701.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1015067

>>1014669
>Your waifu is real because she has an effect on you mentally
Jesus fucking christ

>> No.1015084

this is as stupid a discussion as "natural vs unnatural"

>> No.1015127

>>1014918
Not a particle but energy works

>> No.1015143

>>1015067
IF YOU CAN DREAM IT!

>> No.1015148

>>1015058
>The concept of absolute Truth.
what about it?

>> No.1015156

>>1014643
Real is the stuff that doesn't go away when you stop believing in it.

>> No.1015163

>>1015156
Like God.

>> No.1015181

>>1015163
Yes, just like God isn't real, so is everything else that goes away when you stop believing in it.

>> No.1015313 [DELETED] 
File: 1.35 MB, 1097x3565, ego.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1015313

I agree with >>1014684. While I see what >>1014720 is getting at, determining what is "really" real is tricky at best, impossible at worst, because all domains we can access are themselves in a limited domain:

<- from Metzinger's The Ego Tunnel. Short version: what you think of as "you" moving around in "the world" is a model of yourself moving around in a model of the world, and there's no way to be consciously aware of this because of your brain's construction. This isn't mysticism or made-up "Matrix" business; it's current-day neuroscience.

Evolution favors a quick & dirty modeling of reality, since it's less energy-intensive to just sketchily model what is needed at any time. As a result, humans don't connect with actual reality: we just aren't wired for it. The best we can do is realize that we are never in direct contact with real reality.

>> No.1015326

>>1015313
It's true because Metzinger said so.

>> No.1015359 [DELETED] 

>>1015326

Hey, I'm just giving my source. If you like, leave out the pic and the middle paragraph and just pretend that I made it up on the spot if that'll make your self-model feel better.

>> No.1015406

>>1015326

What the fuck ever.

>> No.1015417

>>1015406
THOU FURIOUS!

>> No.1015437

>>1015417

Nah, just realizing that "/sci" spells "/b/" and ain't worth even a nigger's time. Toodles.

>> No.1015497

Empiricism. Can you use your senses of the external world to perceive it? It's real. Does that mean that if you use your senses of the external world to perceive an animoo lolita in an animoo TV show, that then she's real? No, that would mean that you have determined that the TV show is real. Basically.

>> No.1015550

There is none. It's all bullshit metaphysics (aka making shit up)

>> No.1015555

inb4 everyone ITT becomes schizophrenic.