What is reality?

The question “what is reality?” is circular by demanding the answer from the questioner himself. If this question would have had a single true objective answer, then objectivity would have been the same as subjectivity, and similarity would thus have been the same as difference. An answer to this question thus requires fusion of similarity and difference.

The answer to this question is thus hidden in the distinctions that we make by conceptualization itself. We lose the answer in the moment we start looking for it.

Belief in an objective answer to this question, like cladistics and particle physics, also called realism, is thus vain. Never will it find the “things” it is looking for, like “the true tree of life” and “Higgs particle”. In an objective sense, these “things” are the same kind of things as Gods, and the question what Gods are belongs to theology.  Science thus has to discard realism in order to liberate itself from theology.

We can answer the question “how does reality behave?”, but not the question “what is reality?”, because what it is do we decide, and for this reason, it actually can’t be anything objective. This question does thus belong to theology rather than to science.


5 responses to “What is reality?

  1. Armando Furioso

    “What is reality?” is an unskillful question. Silence is the appropriate response.

    • “Unskillful question”? Do you make the distinction “skillful” and “unskillful” questions? What do you mean is the difference between them? And, is silence the appropriate response only for “unskillful” questions? If so, for all of them? I merely say that silence is the correct objective response to this question (and that cladistics’ search thus is vain and that particle physics’ purported finding thus is an illusion).

  2. If you define a thing, you are saying what it is, therefore necessarily saying what it isn’t. To define a thing, such as humanity, conscience, reality, you say what those things are, giving these ideas boundaries between what they can be and cannot be. A definition limits the possibilities of a thing. If a thing cannot be defined, the possibilities of what it can be are not given boundaries: left undefined, a thing can be infinite… does this say anything about reality?

    • Yes, it says that we can’t nail a single thing, and unfortunately only single things can be real. Definitions are ultimately paradoxically contradictory (see Russell’s paradox), which also can be understood by that if the number of things is even, then the number of definitions is odd, and vice versa, meaning that a thing can be infinite (as you conclude).

      The solution to this mystery appears to be that reality is not a matter of actualities (ie, things themselves), but of probabilities (ie, probable positions for them), according to quantum mechanics (on the contrary to what realists like cladists and particle physicists believe). How we shall understand this reality apart from mathematically is, however, difficult to say. But, luckily, a mathematical understanding of it suffices to allow us to predict and manipulate it, although within certain probability limits.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s