Reality

[Tormod]

Originally posted by: Freethinker

Hahahahahahahah !!!!!!!

Old man Tormod...

It's his grandchild!

ROTFLMAO

Well, the thread is about "reality"...here is the full picture:

http://www.hypography.com/personal.cfm?id=6142




Tormod

[Tormod]

...except that I now have TWO of the little critters so I'm two years older than the photo. Reality bites!

Tormod

[sanctus]

I like the answer somebody gave reality is what you don't see, but I would make stronger: realitiy is what you don't perceive with any of our 5 (6?) senses.

Think about how general relaativity says that space is curved, I imagined that all our body could be some round shape but our brain makes us see/fell/hear/... things so that we got the idea to have the shape we have (I know that the curving of space-time is spposed to not be negligible onlly for big distances, but I liked this idea anyway).

One of my faavorite SF books speaks about perception of reality:"The Futurological Congress: From the Memoirs of Ijon Tichy" by Stanislaw Lem

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: sanctus
I like the answer somebody gave reality is what you don't see, but I would make stronger: realitiy is what you don't perceive with any of our 5 (6?) senses.

So REALITY is things that we can not perceive as REAL. Interesting convolution.

Think about how general relaativity says that space is curved, I imagined that all our body could be some round shape but our brain makes us see/fell/hear/... things so that we got the idea to have the shape we have (I know that the curving of space-time is spposed to not be negligible onlly for big distances, but I liked this idea anyway).

OK, I am not sure of how to deal with "not be negligible". It is a double negative, so would seem to be intended to mean "be detectable" (if "detectable" is a suitable opposite of "negligible" here). Thus what you are saying is "the curving of space-time is spposed to be (detectable) onlly for big distances".

This is obviously erroneous. We would be floating off into space.

[Tim_Lou]

isnt general relativity more like a fantasy thing?

such as "space is curved", b4 this theory, people would never think about this...does it mean that reality didnt exist in the past??

[Uncle Martin]

You must think abstractly to understand GR, and although the math is way beyond me, there are too many experts in the field that corroborate it for me to have any serious doubts of it being a valid theory.

Reality is what you think is real at this moment. 20 years from now you will have a new reality. Their reality was just as real to them. Our's is closer, but not the ultimate reality. We think we keep getting closer, but we may sometimes we go off on the wrong tangent. History will be the judge of our perceptions.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Tim_Lou
isnt general relativity more like a fantasy thing?

QM definately, but GR is not that abstract. In a very elementary nutshell, GM states that any event has not only an X,Y,Z locational description, but also a Time domain dimension attached to it's description as specifically as the X,Y,Z.

such as "space is curved", b4 this theory, people would never think about this...does it mean that reality didnt exist in the past??

"REALITY" exists independant of perception of it.

[Uncle Martin]

Originally posted by: Freethinker


"REALITY" exists independant of perception of it.

I really hate to sound like you but, PROVE it. That is an extraordinary claim and I think it requires extraordinary proof.

[Freethinker]

Originally posted by: Uncle Martin
You must think abstractly to understand GR, and although the math is way beyond me, there are too many experts in the field that corroborate it for me to have any serious doubts of it being a valid theory.

I read "Relativity, Special and General" by Einstien not too long ago. Although it had some math in it, is was more a verbal description using analogies and thought experiments. It was fairly easy to comprehend actually. Trains with riders and outside observers, Elevators being accelerated at 1G.

Reality is what you think is real at this moment. 20 years from now you will have a new reality. Their reality was just as real to them. Our's is closer, but not the ultimate reality, maybe. We think keep getting closer, or maybe sometimes we go off on the wrong tangent. History will be the judge of our perceptions.

I do not find "reality" to be a product of personal perception. "Reality" is independant of perception.

Lots of people actually think it is real to talk to the dead (as proven by the success of John "biggest douche in the universe" Edward). But we know that is NOT reality. No matter how may believe it.

Argumentum ad numerum

This fallacy is closely related to the argumentum ad populum. It consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct.

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#numerum

[Tim_Lou]

so, if a guy doesnt know GR, he doesnt know reality?

or, if a guy doesnt believe in GR, he is away from reality?

policican is not facing the reality, b/c they never deal with general relativity (space, such and such...).
a athlet is not knowing the realtiy, he only plays sport...


while a guy who thinks about GR all the time,
without eating,
without drinking,
without sleeping,
finally leads to death.

is he in reality?