Reality

[Anonymous No.2153887]

Guys, I came upon this stunning realization, and need other points of view on this.

Science is just us using our perceptions to make sense of reality. But I believe this will never work to find a single answer to our universe. You see, there are infinity ways to percieve infinity things. This means we will get nowhere with science.

Mathematics is just a generalized human concept that every point of view of a human can relate to. It makes sense to everyone. But again, we use math to prove things, and since math is infinite and has no limits, we can't come to a single conclusion to anything. We will just keep going farther and farther down the rabbit hole.

Since science is based on observation and perception, we are limited by the infinite ways we can percieve and think about things. In a way this means we can't reach a general conclusion to anything. And since humans are constantly looking for an underlying meaning, with science this in my eyes won't ever be reached. We require a new way of perceiving things if we want to come to a "single" conclusion on "everything". It will have no bias, it will have every bias. Think of it as "The True Perception". I can't say I can think in this way, but I have created the general idea of this concept. I see this as the "answer". It's what I believe is the next (or last) step of universe. It's beyond any way we can perceive anything, because it's beyond our infinite limit of perception.

Thoughts? Am I just insane?

[Anonymous No.2153896]

Kant was here, no.

[Anonymous No.2153919]

OP, all of your complaints are also true of language, yet your words convey similar meanings to a broad and varied audience.

[Anonymous No.2153922]

i wanted to be one of those, but...
in the end, i could onlt think for my self.

[Anonymous No.2153933]

Well, OP.

It comes down to whether or not an objective reality exists.

It doesn't matter if there is a harsh disparity in how one experiences reality through the senses, as long as the base conclusion is the same. Mathematics and probably other forms of logic are absolute, assuming an objective reality exists (fundamentally).

If we all agree 1+1=2, no matter how we perceive the variables and answer, does your idea matter?

[Anonymous No.2153940]

Depends there is more than one school of thought on this.

1. There is a grand unified framework for science and the universe etc.
2. Science simply provide more and more accurate predictions of reality. That is scientific theories can be disproved and more accurate ones replace them. Relativity replacing newtonian mechanics for example.
3. There is no theory that describes the universe, and events can't be predicted beyond a certain extent.

It's mostly paraphrased from a brief history of time.

[Anonymous No.2153942]

>>2153933

But you see we aren't geting anywhere with our mindset it seems like. Infinity is fucking everything up.

[Anonymous No.2153961]

>>2153940
Yes, science is slowly getting more and more accurate. But it literally won't stop getting accurate it seems to me. Idk I've just been thinking a lot about different perceptions.

Like, think of all the chemical reactions that we wouldn't even define as life that could have perceptions on the universe. There are just so many possibilities that it approaches infinity.

Man, calculus has really been fucking up my view of reality. I love it.

[Anonymous No.2153967]

>>2153942
And.... We would have to occupy position normally attributed to god. That is have the the traits normally associated with god to have absolute knowledge. We would have to be coterminous with the universe.

[Anonymous No.2153997]

>>2153961
Thats why I hate the anthropic principle, we automatically assume our particular view on the universe is somehow 'better". When in fact were are attempting to understand the deepest nature of reality with a form that is suited to hunting and gathering on the savanna, and as of late has been focused on civilization building. Yet we blindly assume our math logic and science is unassailable. It's not a rag on science math and logic in general I'm just saying were aren't perfect, and our creations math logic science etc. may be replaced with something that describes reality even better.

[Anonymous No.2154003]

>>2153967
In a way I suppose. I can't tell you how to view this idea of mine, because it's beyond perceptions in general. I just had this realization of this "ultimate truth" that I can't fucking explain with the english language.

I read up on Kant, and he seems pretty close to what I'm saying.

[Anonymous No.2154019]

>>2153942
>>2153942

Well, I'm not sure if you're in a stable psychological state atm, but until you start blabbering schizophasia, I'll assume you're still logically apt.

We are getting somewhere with our mindset, due to most experts agreeing with the fundamentals of every science (this is applicable to all of academia), you can agree that there must be some similarities within our perception? Even if there aren't, we still seem to reach similar conclusions. The format of one's acquisition is irrelevant, as long as it performs well and they execute reasoning to come to a fairly congruent conclusion as another. This is assuming they are given the same variables to work with.

Judging by your original message, you do believe that we exist in the same tangible reality, but our interpretations of it may be different. If you believe that how one acquires and utilizes information can be rationalized and thoroughly explained , you can figure out whether or not we do perceive reality in a similar fashion.

Would you agree?

[Anonymous No.2154029]

>>2153997

Omg I'm so glad other people understand what I'm trying to say. Fuck I love you guys. Yes, we have math and logic to prove things, but we can't actually "prove" our math and logic to be right.

We can't even give a definition of "right", "truth", or any word. It's just our fucking way of thinking. And it's killing me how limited we are and aren't.

I've been thinking about being a Physicist of some sort, but shit I just don't know anymore. We literally just don't know what the fuck anything is. We just keep coming up with these perceptions that seem to be right for some reason. Like, seriously what the flying fuck is this?

[Anonymous No.2154048]

>>2154019
>>2154019

Well really psychological states need not apply, they are just different perceptions.

The only similarities that I can observe with perceptions of humans is mathematics. That's the only thing I'm actually sure of.

I don't know how to think of this reality anymore, or anything in it. I just realized that there is more than just how our brain interprets things. It's weird because I see this thing beyond the brain, but at the same time I'm using my brain to think this way. It's just a paradox.

[Anonymous No.2154059]

>>2154003
The way I equate is science is a cartographic enterprise. With science we are trying to make a map of reality one that we hope corresponds with the way nature really is. But it depends on a subject object distinction. There is an you and other objects in the world to contextualize. But we also have knowledge that is only gained by losing your sense of self. It wouldn't even make sense at to say subject and object.

Take for example A map of a national park. It does describe accurately the park but you lose a dimension you have to contextualize it A map is a two dimensional representation of a three dimensional area. Science does this to it depends of objectifying the universe that is turning it into an object of study.

Now if you hike in that same park it's hard to say that you and the map are not experiencing the same thing, but the distinction between you and the park breaks down.

I'm not saying science is bad it's just when you are doing science it's one kind of knowledge gathering and it isn't the only one.

[Anonymous No.2154088]

Let's not get too solipsist here. We can be reasonable and accept we are evolved beings with evolved minds/brains.

Our perceptual processes are have been selected to work very practically. So we won't see the universe in an infinite number of ways, but in ones that are generally practical. This is not a fully accurate view, but we can correct that; e.g. we know through science that walls are mostly empty space even if they appear quite dense.

[Anonymous No.2154091]

>>2154059
To elaborate further science can only deal with our perceptions of an object. That is our scientific viewpoint can't comment on the thing in itself. We can put all sorts data and numbers to a proton, but we don't knwo what it is like to "be" a proton, that is we don't get at it's essential nature.

This is why it's important to have knowledge the doesn't rely on subjects and objects. It requires dissolving your sense of self. I know this sounds like mumbo jumbo, but it isn't a rag on science. It's just that each type of knowledge has it's place in our endeavours.

[Anonymous No.2154113]

OP,

If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is, infinite. —William Blake

[Anonymous No.2154128]

>>2154091
>>2154091

Yes! I agree completely with this whole comment.

[Anonymous No.2154180]

I must hear more views of this.

[Anonymous No.2154215]

>It's just that each type of knowledge has it's place in our endeavours.
I don't like the sound of that sentence.

[Anonymous No.2154227]

>>2154215
I'm saying that giving in to only one type of knowledge seeking is cutting ourselves short. It doesn't mean give in to religious mysticism.

[Anonymous No.2154249]

>>2154227

You can't really view anything as "right" or "wrong". We can't even view our ideas as anything. I'm trying to have this general concept of our limitations in understanding. But at the same time limitation is just an idea, and it could possibly not exist. Like, I just feel like we are trapped in one way of viewing reality, and we need to break free of it.

[Anonymous No.2154262]

>>2154249
I'm using right and wrong lightly, I'm assuming we want to survive into the future, and as such some type of knowledge are more beneficial than others in this endeavor. I don't mean right and wrong as having some sort of universal significance.

[Anonymous No.2154267]

We just need more data.
Give us one or two billions years.