On the impossibility of an understanding of reality

Human (logical) reasoning revolves around an empty middle. We try to understand reality by modelling reality, although a model can’t fuse with what it models. The end of the modelling instead meets a double contradiction: it is both either of two incompatible alternatives and both of them.

However, since we avoid contradictions like the plague, we do not acknowledge this fundamental contradiction, but instead continue revolving around it. It means that we will never understand reality, but instead infinitely revolve around such an understanding.


7 responses to “On the impossibility of an understanding of reality

  1. Maybe thats what reality is. Maybe you just understood it. And your descripion is that understanding of what reality is, really.

    • Do you mean that The Logical Understanding of reality is is that it is a double contradiction – both either of two incompatible alternatives and both of them? Well, this is indeed an understanding, but a double contradiction can’t exist and can much less work, and reality does at least work. The fact that reality actually works does thus falsify this understanding of what reality is. So, it can’t be The Logical Understanding of what reality is. No, this double contradiction (or empty middle) is instead the impossibility for rationality to understand what reality is (the beam in the eye of rational people). What reality is is simply hidden from logical understanding. Luckily, this does not apply for how reality works, but this is instead the basis for science. Science (the methodology) does not deal with what reality is, but with how it works.

      • Perhaps what you just ssid here is what reality is. Logically.

      • The problem with reality is that it appears to be stretched between two orthogonal aspects, between which we have no possibility to penetrate, because according to all measures, it is empty. We simply can’t reach beyond (or into) the orthogonality. The conclusion of this fact is that we can’t understand reality (although we can understand why we can’t understand reality).

      • How are you able to make understandable statements about something you are not capable of undetstanding? How are you able to undetstand how yoy dont undetstand? What is it that you are not understanding?

      • If there are only two possible (consistent) lines of reasoning (traditionally called “nominalism” and “realism”) to reach understanding about what reality is and both end in contradiction (one single and one double), then it is not possible to reach understanding about what reality is. We simply can’t describe reality in terms of what it is without contradiction.

        This does not mean, however. that we can’t reach understanding of how reality works, because such understanding rests on models of reality that are independent of what reality is.

  2. …maybe that reasoning around an empty middle Is teal, is in fact Undetstanding reality. We are understanding reality in that way that is thus real.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s