What Is The Nature Of Reality?

[Philosophy Now]

The following readers’ answers to this central philosophical question each win a random book.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/61/Wha ... Of_Reality

[surreptitious57]

The nature of reality is that which cannot be determined and that is because science has nothing to say about it. Since what it does is investigate observable phenomena. It only investigates the physical properties of that as such and so nothing else. For it does not hypothesise about whether
that constitutes reality or not for that pertains more to philosophy specifically ontology. Though it should be stated that philosophy is actually no better at answering this question either. Now reality is generally used to describe what it is that science investigates. But strictly speaking this is
a fallacious use of the word that acts more as a placeholder than a precise definition simply for want of a better one. It is therefore important to realise the distinction [ that may or may not be real ] between observational reality and actual reality. It may as well be termed observation and actuality for the word reality is as I have said only there because there is actually nothing better to replace it. But it does not really matter at all
what it is called as long as its definition is understood. But even if observational reality and actual reality were the same science would still have nothing to say about it. Philosophy would have much to say about it but none of it could be potentially falsified so neither discipline has anything
to say about reality which can be verified. And so while it seems like a very simple question there is in actual fact no definitive answer to it at all

[Obvious Leo]

The nature of reality is that which cannot be determined and that is because science has nothing to say about it. Since what it does is investigate observable phenomena. It only investigates the physical properties of that as such and so nothing else. For it does not hypothesise about whether
that constitutes reality or not for that pertains more to philosophy specifically ontology. Though it should be stated that philosophy is actually no better at answering this question either. Now reality is generally used to describe what it is that science investigates. But strictly speaking this is
a fallacious use of the word that acts more as a placeholder than a precise definition simply for want of a better one. It is therefore important to realise the distinction [ that may or may not be real ] between observational reality and actual reality. It may as well be termed observation and actuality for the word reality is as I have said only there because there is actually nothing better to replace it. But it does not really matter at all
what it is called as long as its definition is understood. But even if observational reality and actual reality were the same science would still have nothing to say about it. Philosophy would have much to say about it but none of it could be potentially falsified so neither discipline has anything
to say about reality which can be verified. And so while it seems like a very simple question there is in actual fact no definitive answer to it at all

Agreed. This is really just basic Kant 101. In an abstract sense we can agree that there is such a thing as an objective reality, in the sense that there there is something REALLY going on. However it is always impossible, even in principle, to define this real reality because all the human mind is capable of doing is modelling the observed patterns of order in nature and there is an almost infinite number of possible different ways a mind could potentially do this. Science is NOT about what's right and wrong but about what works or doesn't work.

[Dubious]

Reality is everything we have to contend with. If the Book says we aren't real, meaning nothing else is, we'd have to contend with that too even though that insight would amend nothing in regard to all our chronobiological points of reference.

This is one case where, be it fact or fiction, proven or merely imagined, it's the kind of opposition which defaults to meaning NOTHING! At best it's a matter of Perspective only as considered by Philosophy. It compels the conclusion of having no real interest to science since nothing can ever be truly derived by examining it even that were to persist to the last day of human existence.

[Scott Mayers]

I think that some perceive this question On to(o) logical depths they can't make sense of.

[Max Sitting]

The nature of reality is that which cannot be determined and that is because science has nothing to say about it. Since what it does is investigate observable phenomena.

The connection between these two statements make me ask: Do you mean by the nature of reality some concealed reality undetectable in observable phenomena? Or: is the nature of reality the essence of reality— thinking about atoms or monads, something like that? In the context of your sentence can nature be essence?

[attofishpi]

Reality is a convoluted apparition of the Truth.

[attofishpi]

Entropy dictates that man must become ever more efficient as available resources diminish.

Does this then dictate that man will evolve into a super efficient system where reality is projected to our consciousness via AI...is God that AI?

Its more efficient to project reality to 5 senses than it is to allow man continue in a physical material body...

......ergo...do you really comprehend reality?


http://www.androcies.com

[surreptitious57]

Do you mean by the nature of reality some concealed reality undetectable in observable phenomena

In a word yes for I make a distinction between what can be termed observational reality and actual reality
However it could be that they are both the same or it could be that they are entirely or partially different
But as there is no way of actually knowing any possible distinction between them has to be clearly defined