Talk:Reality/Archive 2

In stark contrast to the 'I must say...'

Is there recognition of the worst articles on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.112.134 (talk) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: I read the bit about it being 'Start class'. I readily agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.112.134 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

FINAL EDIT: Justin, WAY below, has it altogether right. Who are these people that think that quantum uncertainty is somehow related to the observers or their instruments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.112.134 (talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I must say...

That this article is REALLY well written.

Wiki

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.14.211 (talk) 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC) 

Sadly, "reality" doesn't exist in the Wiktionary ... for the Wikipedia (as it was so 'sine qua non' important that those two (reference... working) couldn't just work in a single project).

(Sadly, I still doesn't really know if: reality, how it - or "she"(?) - is. (I know English doesn't know genders ... and it's sure here it isn't also like as for the Navy ships?) --de:Alien4 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Libeling Thomas Szasz in "Psychoactive Substances and 'Reality'" section

This dreck article is par for the Wikipedia course. It says, ". Thomas Szasz called his LSD trip near the end of his life "one of the best experiences" he'd lived through..." The problem with this is twofold. Szasz isn't dead, so nobody knows when the "end of his life" will occur; and he never made this comment about using LSD. Wikipedians are satisfied that such a scandalous libel is labeled "citation needed," rather than to demand that entries be factual or be removed. I've changed "citation needed" to "disputed," but I haven't removed it because it is a good illustration of the fiction passed off as "reality" by Wikipedia, and someone would probably just change it back anyway. Nicmart 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You are not being very helpful. Controversial material which is not referenced to a reliable source should be removed. Especially if it relates to a living person. Fred Bauder 16:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My purpose is not to be "helpful" to Wikipedia or its users, but to show why it deserves to have no credibility. In Wikipedia, living people can be declared dead and quotes falsely attributed to them.

You have now removed the Szasz nonsense, but left this: " Jean-Paul Sartre is said to have experimented with Mescaline, with catastrophic results." In Wikiworld it is fine to include unsourced assertions ("Jean-Paul Sartre is said"...) about dead people. It happens all the time. Nicmart 16:36, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That is mentioned in http://www.tameri.com/csw/exist/sartre.shtml without a specific source being given although I don't know what it has to do with the article. And at http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Jean-Paul%20Sartre in Everything2 at the comment by JerboaKolinowski some thoughtful commentary there, but again no specific source is cited. That comment seems to relate to reality. Also at http://www.slate.com/id/2088648/ in Slate. No source, but "pursued by a lobster".... See also http://www.ac-strasbourg.fr/pedago/lettres/lecture/Sartrebio.htm I think the story has a source as it is generally repeated. Fred Bauder 17:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, a source cited in http://www.pd.org/~chea/Perforations/perf20/michaux.html "Simone de Beauvoir reports in "The Prime of Life", pp. 169-170, that Jean-Paul Sartre (master of French phenomenological philosophy and subsequently awarded the Nobel Prize) had a medically supervised mescaline injection in 1935 along with an intern. Sartre reported seeing lobsters, orangutans, and houses gnashing their jaws - and the intern reported virtually romping through a meadow full of nymphs." That is footnote 3, a source for "mescaline engendered thought". Fred Bauder 19:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Nausea_(book)#Psychedelic_connection Fred Bauder 19:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed, "Many philosophers who wrote intensely on reality and perception experimented with psychedelic drugs. Jean-Paul Sartre is said to have experimented with Mescaline, with catastrophic results.". There is no source whatever for the first sentence and I know only of the case of Aldous Huxley, Castananda's reports, being fiction, do not count. I think it more likely that philosophers who experiment with psychedelics are rather rare. I have, to my own satisfaction, established that Satre had an isolated mescaline experience, but one experience does not support the proposition being advanced, that "Many philosophers who wrote intensely on reality and perception experimented with psychedelic drugs" Fred Bauder 19:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Phenomenal relaities->worldviews

I have changed "phenomenal realities" to "worldviews" in the "fact section.

The use of the word "reality" for an individual perspective can lead to confusion, as well explained in the "Reality, worldviews, and theories of reality" section. It also conflicts with the definition given in the introduction.1Z 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Colbert Report

For those who don't know, this page is protected because it was mentioned on The Colbert Report last week. Also I want to bring it to the attention of the admins that disambiguation pages need to be checked as well. --Voidvector 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but what pages are you talking about? John Reaves (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reality (disambiguation), seems they are still fully locked. --Voidvector 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I really have no idea why the talk page was locked. shaaaame on wikipedia. Skhatri2005 09:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

--68.184.85.150 14:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)== Why not section on reality as a commodity? ==

Perhaps the fact that so many people are interested in vandalising the main article illustrates the fact that there is some validity to reality as a comodity? Could a section of the main article be developed that uses relevant examples throughout history. Egyptian politics to the making of the Bible to modern media: examples abound that could be verified and cited.

Greenmrt 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The section on postmodern/post-structuralist "consensus reality" says the same as Colbert using more complicated words. 91.4.71.234 21:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

On his show Colbert belittled the Wikipedia while suggesting this little bit of vandalism. Although it was done as a joke, humorously adding his comment would be counterproductive. Describing the event on The Colbert Report or even Stephen Colbert would be more appropriate. Cuvtixo 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with a section on it if you could establish how it is notable. This isn't a case of using an existing word, this is Colbert making a specific claim that hasn't been picked up by anyone else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

If you can find citations from peer-reviewed philosophy journals on Colbert's claim, then make a note of it. Otherwise, it is original research. --Voidvector 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the person editing references to Microsoft on wikipedia for money that prompted Colbert to make this statement probably got off easier than the people who edit this page. --12.206.4.89 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it ironic that M$ got off easier than WP. 1Z 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I love Microsoft. I love Stephen Colbert. Reality has become a commodity. Microsoft owns that commodity. Therefore, if Microsoft tells me it is awesome then it is. Because as stated earlier, Microsoft decides what is real, and what isn't.

The entire article of reality is based almost entirely on people's philosophies. The "Reality as a Commodity" joke on Stephen Colbert is, in essence, another philosophy regarding modern day reality. Why not add it to the section dealing with philosophies of reality? Immortal321 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Because it hasn't been picked up by anyone else. We're not here to document every single person's attitude towards reality. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

By "anyone else" you mean, besides the hundreds of persons who are going to edit this entry every other week? 194.158.104.36 01:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

there is a section on "what reality might not be" why not make a section on what it might be. you can quote theories, including colbert's theory that reality is a commodity.

I would suggest people take a look at WP:NEO. Wikipedia an encyclopedia, and not everything that is said is encyclopedic. If, 10 ten years from now, the phrase has become a philosophical movement, with published sources to back it up, then it would be ok under wikipedia policy to add it. Otherwise, no, and such attempts to compromise the article are considered vandalism. And please don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildas (~~~~) Thanks, Danski14 01:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don;t think anyone has totally put this into perspective for those who don't know... Stephen Colbert told people to put "reality is a commodity" on this page it has nothing to do with how people actually feel about the subject. He did the same thing with the elephants page (did you know they;ve tripled in population?). It's frickin hilarious... but it ain;t encyclopedic.--68.184.85.150 14:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It's simple: Wikipedia Is not a soapbox that anyone can edit willy-nilly. For that, go to uncyclopedia. Wikipedia is a factual encyclopedia with policies (see WP:5 for an overview of them). It is a serious project to help "make the internet not suck" and organize and share human knowledge. Danski14 15:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC) I like Colbert a lot, but when he encourages vandalism (or even participates directly in it)(even when it is satirical), he becomes a vandal himself, and lowers himself to the realm of those who spray graffiti on walls. I think he lost a lot of good viewers because of his actions. But I digress.. this is not a discussion ground for Colbert's character. Danski14 16:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I view Colbert's actions as more of a challenge to wikipedia. Not necessarily outright vandalism.--Dr who1975 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't point people to vandalize Uncyclopedia. Uncyc is serious satire. An article claiming that reality is a commodity would be great, but replacing the page with just "Reality has become a commodity" would get reverted and protected just as fast on Uncyc as on WP, and possibly faster. 71.2.72.28 22:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC) (an Uncyclopedian)

Sorry about that. I am now a fan of the great work you guys do. I also agree with Dr. Whos comment above. Danski14^(talk) 00:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the objection to this edit? (Reality) I think it makes the page better. Deepstratagem 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

That is not a different way of expressing Phillip K Dick's idea. It is a way off sneaking the vandalism back onto the page. The notability of Colbert has been discussed at length and rejected. 1Z 10:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

But is it really vandalism if it is not intended as such? It's as if you knew my motive, when in reality I just like the real, concise and subtly humorous overtone to the quotation. (i.e. in reality, it doesn't have to say anything about Colbert, we can just quote him tacitly with a reference). Besides, just because Colbert said it, doesn't mean it's wrong or irrelevant). I think you are all too sensitized to the word Colbert and have developed a lacuna that blinds you from seeing improvement when adjacent to Colbert. Deepstratagem 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless your intent, the edit was incorrect on a factual/citational level. He's not Dr. Stephen Colbert, he's Dr.h.c. Stephen Colbert, see Honorary degree for the proper way to signify an honorary degree.

I suppose it's possible you meant the fictional Stephen Colbert (character) (he did make the quoted comment in-persona) who holds a non-honorary D.F.A. (inspired by the actor's honorary one), but in that case his title should have been D.F.A Stephen Colbert.

Either way it was incorrect. The latter especially so because I don't think we should be using in-fiction academic credentials to confer authority on out-fiction articles (there's probably a wiki-standard against it) and anecdotally I know Alan Alda gets enormously frustrated with hospital staff because they are used to thinking of him as a Doctor of Medicine, and so they leave all the big words in when eplaining things.  ;-)

( I do think that this article needs some sprucing up, but I have almost no user history outside of Wikia, so my suggestion to edit a heavily contested article carries very little weight? Maybe I'll put together a formal proposal of changes or something... ) -Deriksmith 04:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if it isn't "really" vandalism, it lacks notability, etc. 1Z 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Reality Has Become A Commodity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worms42 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, maybe u didnt notice but Colbert's vandalism is still in the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.41.123 (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Reality Has Become A Commodity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.13.42.13 (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it quite necessary for these "Reality Has Become a Commodity" comments to appear on this talk page? It's not exactly discussing reality, and while I'm not either, I believe that these comments invalidate the attempts to remove this phrase from Wikipedia. Is there something that can be done? 67.61.51.183 (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Reality is that the video of Colbert's $5 challenge will always be on Youtube, and thus someone viewing it - responding late to this four year old (and already completed) challenge - will decide to honour the great Stephen Colbert (slight sarcasm intended, though I love his show myself) and take up the challenge of redefining "Reality". This will always be a threat as long as the video exists somewhere or the memory of the challenge is intact. Protection must be infinite, and to the IP editor, the phrase you quote is the one he challenged his legion to use. Think of Anonymous but in a Colbert version. CycloneGU (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully protecting this page

Guys, I'm temporarily giving this page full protection. The amount of vandalism going on here is horrendous, even after the page was given semiprotection. I hope that it will cause these vandals to give up. There hasn't been a good faith edit in months. - Richard Cavell 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

• What the frig is going on, why are unlogged IP's editing this page if it is fully protected? Kntrabssi 04:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Protection expired yesterday. I suggest at least semi-protect for a while. Also Reality (disambiguation). [1] Danski14^(talk) 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
    • At the very least, semiprotection. This article and the Elephant article have become giant targets of vandalism since Colbert's show. Kntrabssi 05:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
      • And by "vandals" you mean "people redefining their own reality" right? Why do you think so many people keep editing this page, despite all the protecting going around? They do it because they believe in it. We are the man of the year, and we plan to redefine our reality as we see fit. Same reason the movie "The Matrix" spawned such a cult, because people relate to the concept of defining their own reality. We don't have to wait for others to tell us what we must think (so-called peer-reviewed philisophical papers).194.158.104.36 02:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
        • lol, which is why you had always thought that reality is a commodity and didn't wait for Colbert to tell you what to think. right? >:3 Ssh83 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, until you can provide some kind of reliable source for this, than it won't be included here. See WP:NPOV.

Besides, if you can redefine your own reality, it should be no problem for you to redefine the article as unblocked. But perhaps you find reality strangely resistant to your redefinitions? (Yes, I know I shouldn't feed the trolls). Banno 21:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • • The sheer fact that you had to block edits to that page proves our point. We say that in this age of information, reality has become a commodity. You disagree and try to apply your own definition of reality, arguing that it is accepted by a greater number of people. And you didn't do so by convincing the other part, you did so by removing our theory from its support (the page), perhaps even purging logs and erasing all trace of it to the point one could argue it ever existed. Proving our point that reality has, indeed, become a commodity.
            • No it doesn't. All it proves is that you've been reverted (and have no real insight or contribution to this encyclopedia). Richiar 02:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because Steven Colbert said it making fun of this website doesnt take away the fact that its true. Reality really is a commodity thanks to you guys and Many Many others, its not called vandalism its called spreading the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smmazariegosh (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Self-contradictory

The second sentence of the article says: "The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable, comprehensible, or apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, or any other system of analysis."

Maybe I'm not understanding it properly, but the end of that sentence doesn't make sense to me. What does "apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, etc" mean?

I think the sentence would work just fine as: "The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable or comprehensible."

If I'm not understanding the purpose of the "self-contradictory" phrase, then could the sentence be revised to clarify its meaning? -- Danny (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's responded, so I'm going to edit the sentence. -- Danny (talk) 21:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It's stating that if something's exist in reality, then all the knowledge of philosophy, science, religion, etc, if wrong is wrong (in reality).--209.80.246.3 (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Needs

This page really needs to be protected to stop people from changing it to the commodity thing. Its the only way to ensure this stops.Silver seren 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It recently came out of a long period of protection 1Z 22:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize that, but it probably needs it almost permanently because people aren't letting up on the vandalism.Silver seren 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It needs improvement, too. 1Z 01:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

o_o...that was a large chunk you deleted. I think they'll get mad.Silver seren 01:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Philip Dick Quote

The Philip K. Dick quote is unsourced. I found the same statement in Berger & Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality. If anyone can supply the date of the Dick quote, I can check to see which one came first. Diogenes 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Added more definitions of reaity

The "definition of reality" seemed a bit simplistic: I added a note with an array of definitions to add more dimension to the definition. Richiar 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

After reflecting on this I realized it was simpler and more aesthetic to put in an external link. Richiar 02:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

HEY, SOMEONE HAS VANDALIZED THIS ARTICLE! DO SOMETHING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.144.75.5 (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

References

There's no way to add to the References at the bottom of the page, as far as I can tell. Is it "protected"? Strange... KyZan (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)KyZan

How can reality include everything that is?

The first paragraph of this article contains an unsourced statement claiming that "the term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is".

A centaur is a creature with the upper half of a man and the body of a horse, yet a centaur is not real, and it therefore cannot be included in reality. Santa Claus is a big old man with a white beard that distributes presents for millions of children and adults throughout the world on a single night of the year, yet Santa Claus is not real, and it therefore cannot be included in reality. A philosopher's stone is a magic body capable of turning cheap metals into silver and gold, but a philosopher's stone is not real, and it therefore cannot be included in reality.

According to the article's logic, centaurs, Santa Claus and philosopher's stones are real (i.e. included in reality), since each one of those concepts is something. However, let us be serious, and sorry kids for the spoiler, but Santa Claus is not real. It is usually parents who buy those presents for their children and for each other. Should that statement be removed?

I kindly request Peterdjones not to delete this contribution, since this Talk page is the most appropriate place to point out this issue regarding the correctness of referenced article. Abedul69 (talk) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Real vs Actual

Is this worth including? http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/real.htm

- Nearfar (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Quantum Mechanics

I rise in strong opposition to the following statement: This imprecision introduces an uncertainty into the overall state of the system and the necessity of a choice on the part of the one making the measurement, namely which aspect will he find accurately at the cost of the other. This decision on the part of the measurer has created no small problem for objectivists who insist that at its core reality is objectively present whether anyone notices or not. The first sentence is as far as I know correct. The second is not. An Objectivist does not necessarily claim reality can not be changed by an observer. It follows from observation that the electrons' position is not precisely known when its momentum is, this therefore is objectively true. Quantum mechanics and Objectivism are coherent (they do not contradict each other). Please comment. Trueness (talk) 11:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think that "objectivist" (little-o) here is referring to Randian (big-O) Objectivism, though I do see how this could lead to confustion; however, I'm not sure what the technical name for that Laplacian-determinist objective-realist school of thought is, so I'm not going to change the article. Justin. 71.188.189.164 (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Quantum mechanical section

In introductory modern physics, the first thing we were taught about the Uncertainty Principle is that it does NOT depend on the idea that you "necessarily" perturb the system by measuring it; the uncertainty arises from pure mathematics. Therefore, even if you had a perfectly omniscient observer, that observer could not simultaneously give measurements to two HUP-related quantities with precision greater than the theoretical maximum. Of course that slightly alters the definition of "omniscient", but only so insofar as it needs to be altered to be consistent with (apparent) "reality".

Thanks,

Justin

71.188.189.164 (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Omniscient is by definition all-knowing, what the words means to (the majority of)people in English(or Latin?). If you ain't perfect, you ain't omniscient! It's an abstract ideal, independent of reality. Only believe what you can prove: nothing Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prying open my third eye (talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolute Vs Relative

The world as it exists is relative and not absolute. This view of reality needs a paragraph in the Article. ......202.138.120.65 (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I do not understand what this is "Warning: An automated filter has found a sequence of repeated characters in or around this edit (often an indicator of vandalism). If the edit is correct, please go to the bottom of this page and press 'Save page' to continue. If not, and your edit is clearly not constructive, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you are unsure of where the repeated sequence of characters occurs, and this message is in error, please report this."

Another note on QM

The statement "wave-particle duality; specifically, this means that their probabilistic nature is given by an oscillating probability wave." is misleading and the line in which it appears should be removed as it does not further the readers understanding. An otherwise very well written page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phb07jm (talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Truth and Reality

In Hinduism Being-Awareness-Bliss (Sat-chit-ananda) is considered the reality, rest all is maya or non reality..anything that changes, which has birth and so death is not reality. The sun, moon, solar system etc..all of these things they change and undergo continuous transformation from one form to another. These things are not real. 202.138.120.65 (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Mathematical use of the word "axiom" is misstated

The article contains this paragraph:

"Mathematical formulations and propositions in mathematical logic are based on axioms, and hence these fields are often referred to as pure disciplines. The validity of the set theoretic proposition would hold true in any systemic process or universe. Its validity is self evident in ontological existence and works on the axiomatic level of reality."

It is simply wrong to suggest that the word "axiom" in a mathematical context is currently used to mean something that is self-evident.

This may well be how Euclid understood the term (or its synonym, "postulate"). And some teachers of high school geometry courses may still use the term this way. But among professional mathematicians, that is not how the term is defined.

Rather, in today's mathematics, an axiom is no more and no less than a statement, used in a specific context, that is permitted to be invoked as part of a deduction. The context is called an "axiom system", and there is no requirement whatsoever that the axioms need to be "self-evident". (Though surely, the original use of axioms was as self-evident statements about something familar.) For example, in set theory, the most common axiom system, called ZF, has one axiom that says, in effect, "There exists an infinite set."

Many mathematicians may consider this to be self-evident. There are also some mathematicians who don't find infinite sets palatable at all and prefer to work with some axiom system for set theory that does not allow infinite sets.Daqu (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Spirituality and Phenomenology

"Much of the kind of experience deemed spiritual occurs on this level of reality."

What is the source for this statement? 70.138.218.110 (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

More phenomenology

I am very confused as to why made observations (phenomenological reality) are considered "more subjective" than truth and facts, which are both products of and relations within the mind. The word "bus" can't run you over and kill you, while an ACTUAL bus, the phenomenological experience, can. Words are not more real than things in the world and facts and truth are both CONCEPTS rather than objects. So the opening of this article has it backwards - truth and facts are the least real things and experiences are the most real. Not that I expect any changes to be made... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.193.9 (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

More complaining about opening sentences

The opening sentences now read:

"Reality, in everyday usage, means 'the state of things as they actually exist.' In a sense it is what is real."

In a sense? Isn't reality literally what is real? (That is the etymology of the word, after all.) What are the words "in a sense" supposed to contribute to the meaning of the second sentence? - dcljr (talk) 05:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've reworded the opening sentences a bit, along the lines I alluded to above. Now I question this sentence:

"Reality in this sense includes being and sometimes is considered to include nothingness, as well."

Hmm. I'm not sure I understand how "nothingness" could be part of reality. Is that actually trying to say that reality includes the lack of existence of certain things? (Example: "Fairies don't exist; that's just reality.") - dcljr (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you click on the blue underlined words (a "link"), you will be transported to another article which will explain the term for you. — goethean ॐ 16:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to be sarcastic. I did that, of course. There are multiple interpretations of "nothingness" discussed in that article; which meaning is being referred to in this case is not at all clear. The Nothing article says: "Nothing is a concept that describes the absence of anything at all. ... Nothingness is used more specifically as the state of nonexistence of everything." Clearly the second interpretation cannot be the one meant here, since the next sentence (in this article) contrasts reality with existence. On the other hand, the first "definition" I quoted above is basically circular, since it's using the word anything to define nothing — so it's not clear what it means in the first place. (Granted, perhaps some circularity is unavoidable because of the limitations of natural language.) Further down in the Nothing article, it says: "In philosophy, to avoid linguistic traps over the meaning of 'nothing', a phrase such as not-being is often employed to unambiguously make clear what is being discussed." This is more promising. Clearly some things "are not". So, is that concept what is "sometimes... include[d]" in reality? Basically, I'm just saying we should define what sense of "nothingness" we are referring to in this article. To say that the use of the word "sometimes" is justified because at least one interpretation of the word is understood by at least one philosopher to be part of reality is to say almost... er... nothing at all. [w] - dcljr (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Now that I read my last comment over again, the first sentence I struck out above doesn't make any sense. If the next sentence (in the article) is contrasting reality with existence, then I suppose that the "nonexistence" interpretation is exactly the intended one! (In my defense, I was somewhat rushed to finish the comment and send it, so I didn't think it through as thoroughly as I would have liked.) Anyway, I'm not sure any interpretation of "nothingness" would satisfy me in this context, so I'm just giving up. For now. - dcljr (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Reality is

Don't you think "that which doesn't change whether one believes it or not" is a better way to put it? Chrisrus (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Or how about "that which is independent of belief"? Chrisrus (talk) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't some people believe that belief determines reality though? Pollinosisss (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only speculate why they would believe that. Obviously, just because I believe that there are cities on Mars doesn't effect their existence or lack of same. Chrisrus (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

How would such people explain the well-known tendency of reality to come back to bite you in the ass? Chrisrus (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Because they do not truly believe it could do otherwise. Whatever the case, whether things not yet discovered truly exists as of now is impossible to prove. What makes us think that we, as biological creatures, are at all equipped with the senses necessary to experience the universe? Such arrogance. Reality is something unreachable - it defies all attempts to understand it. Trying to - from your subjective point of view - define objectivity, reality, is a fool's errand. It cannot be achieved. The harder one tries, the more distance they will put between themselves and the truth. "Understanding matter" is impossible, a paradox in and of itself - understanding that such understanding is impossible... that's a step in the right direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.139.147 (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me the hight of arrogance would be to believe that nothing can exist without us Homo sapiens to perceive them. The dark side of the moon managed to exist for a very long time without the help of humans perception. Dinosaurs seemed to be able to exist just fine with no humans around to kindly bestow our perceptions on them, thereby permitting them to exist. The word "reality" simply does mean that which exists despite contrasting concepts such as "fantasy", "denial", "ignorance", and whatnot.Chrisrus (talk) 05:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet, there was formerly no ignorance in claiming the world is flat. Without human perception, such a definition as "the dark side of the moon" would not exist. The concept of "reality" would not exist. A question, if I may: How do you suppose humanly inaccessible facts could ever be part of our definition of reality? Mankind simply call true whatever they are equipped to perceive. It is certainly possible to imagine something could exist independent of our perception of it, but we will never be able to prove such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.139.147 (talk) 21:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

How can you say that the previously held common belief that the world was flat was not based in "ignorace" (meaning simply not being aware of facts, no moral judgement)? And you will notice that you can know not only that the world isn't flat now, but also that it never was, even when everyone believed it was, proving that the earth can be the way that it is/was completely independant of what people think. The earth doesn't care what people believe it's shape to be. All the human belief in the world isn't going to make the earth flat. The dark side of the moon is unaffected by our perception or whether mankind calls it real or not. Of course, the "consept" of something that you mention, these are mental objects, including the concept of reality. But even these have their existence (or don't) within the confines or a person's skull regardless of whether others are aware of them or believe they exist, or not.

I will try to answer your question "How do....reality?" If something truely is an "inaccessible fact", it is by definition a part of reality that we can't know about. For example, evidence and reason dictate that many animals existed long ago that were not fossilized or whatever and left no trace. But reason dictates that the ones that left footprints or some such couldn't have been alone. Many more examples leap to mind, but suffice it to say that the fact that you, I, or anyone else know about or doesn't know something doesn't have to have any bearing on it's existence. For example, Pluto existed long before anyone knew about it. Chrisrus (talk) 02:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Our current "knowledge" says the earth isn't flat. You're perfectly right when you say the earth doesn't care what people believe its shape to be. Yet we call it a globe. Once again, reality defies definition. Wouldn't our defining the world as a globe (and calling it "fact") imply that we, after all, do assume reality is something that can be put into words? Also, by humanly inaccessible facts, I meant "something that we, as biological creatures, are unable to observe" rather than "a fact of which we are and/or will remain ignorant." As you said, a part of reality that we can't know about would still be reality - yet it could never be part of our definition of reality. Our definition of the thing will never suffice to translate into the thing, if you catch my meaning. Therefore, "reality" still couldn't be anything more than our very limited perceptions of matter - hardly objective. As I've said, an objectively subjective point of view is a paradox. And I still think it is impossible to prove Pluto's existence before it was discovered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.139.147 (talk) 18:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You keep talking about what humans say, believe, assume, can or cannot put into words or prove about reality, and so on. That doesn’t matter. Saying “we know nothing for sure about reality” still assumes that there is a reality that we can’t know. Reality is that which remains true whether one can know it or not. That’s what the word “reality” means in typical sentences such as "you need to face reality, Pal", or "Such-and-such was thought to be the case, but the reality turned out to be different" and so on. Chrisrus (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)