If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Consider a table. Its hard and holds your dinner.But at the atomic level it is mostly empty space, and the atoms aren't even touching.We could say that the hardness of the table is an illusion.Before we were capable of observing down to the atomic level, would you say that we couldn't call that an illusion?

We could say that, but would it be correct? The hardness is a result of the interaction of electrostatic fields surrounding atoms rather than being due to solid spheres bumping together. That does mean that reality is not what people thought up through 19th century, but does that demonstrate that reality is an illusion? I don't think so.Rocks and telephone poles are hard using our ordinary daily definition of hardness. Wear a helmet when you go biking.

Its all an illusion. Nothing is as it seems. Reality is far weirder than we can imagine.

I think that the illusion was in regard to the nature of solidity. The fact that the table holds the dinner is not an illusion. It is not reality that changes when an illusion is revealed but rather it is our perceptions that change.

Yes, solidity would have been a better word than hardness. Thanks for getting the point rather than focusing on the bad way in which it was expressed. Sure, but its an illusion that the plate is actually touching the table.I'm responding to you saying that if nobody can distinguish the illusion from reality then it can't be called an illusion anymore. The plate has never actually touched the table. It is our illusion that they actually touch. Before the illusion was revealed, and nobody could distinguish it from reality, it was still an illusion and could be called such.

Everything we perceive we perceive in the same way. The mental image of a coin disappearing is the same metal image whether the magician palmed it or the laws of physics allowed it to dematerialize.As Einstein said, it's all an illusion; it's all the same illusion, so how can you ever distinguish "real reality"? What does real reality look like to your brain? How does the image differ from fake reality?Edited by ringo, : Speleling.

Perhaps it is. But my point is that your example does not further that argument. If everything is an illusion, then yes, electric fields are not real either. We cannot know.

You have yet to absolutely prove the existence of more than a single observer.Can you explain how you have absolutely established to yourself that I, Ringo or indeed anyone and anything else isn't a figment of your imagination?How can I know as an absolute truth that you are not a figment of my imagination?The problem for absolutists is the problem of subjectivity. We are all slaves to our own perspective. In practical terms this is readily surmountable through the use of evidence. For absolutists it poses an insurmountable problem.

"What if everything is an illusion and nothing exist? In that case, I definitely over paid for my carpet." ~Woody Allen~ :0

I get what you are saying but this is an example of a misconception that has been revealed. I was talking about an illusion that is indistinguishable from reality.The misconception about the nature of matter does not change the reality that the table holds up the plate.

That's what I mean. If there is no difference then what's the difference? A fake table that holds up the plate is not a fake table. We can know that the plate is not fake because it held the non-fake food that sustains our ability to contemplate the reality of the table.It is not so much that everything is an illusion as it is that there is more to the picture. The fact that there is probably more to it indicates strongly that there was something there in the first place.

If I was there I could buy you a beer. That should do it.Even if you believe that you alone exist then what difference does that make to the point that there is in fact some absolute reality that absolutely exists? What other kinds of terms are there besides practical ones?As soon as we can conclude that we have at least one perspective then we can conclude that there must be something to have a perspective on.

Just the point I was going to make! A magician making a coin disappear is an illusion, but a table holding up a plate is not. That walls are solid is a misconception, or maybe we're using an insufficiently detailed definition of solid, but in any case it's not an illusion, and that walls are mostly empty space doesn't change the fact that punching a wall will hurt your hand.--Percy

I would agree with you.If we cannot tell the difference between an illusion and reality... then the illusion is reality.The problem people are trying to show you, though... is that you have no way of comparing any illusion we may (or may not) be seeing to "reality."Take your table example.If there is a table holding up a plate... you can compare it with another table holding up a plate.
Can you touch it as you can with the known-normal table? Is it simply a laser-light show in contrast to the known-normal table? Can you move it like you can the known-normal table?These questions, when dealing with "a table" can be answered. You can have your "normal table" and your "possibly-fake table" and compare the two.The problem with telling the difference between illusion and reality with reality itself is that we have no other "normal reality" to compare "this reality" with. We only have the one.Is it fake? Is it real? We don't know because we have no "normal reality" meter-stick in which to measure this reality against.You keep saying "if there's no difference between an illusion and reality..." but, we only have 1 reality. Therefore, you cannot possibly be comparing our 1 reality to another regardless of which is possibly illusion and which is possibly reality. Therefore... you can never make this comparison when dealing with reality itself simply because you have nothing to compare it to.That's why this "no difference between illusion and reality" argument is bullshit when discussing reality itself. You have no idea if the illusion is actually equal to reality... you can only tell if what you're experiencing is equal to itself... that tells you nothing about how "absolute" it is. It simply tells you that you're experiencing something. Which is one of those "trivial absolute" statements again.Edited by Stile, : Oh I wish I were an Oscar Mayer weiner... 'cause then I'd know reality was an illusion.

That's what I mean. If there's no difference between fake reality and real reality, how can you claim one "is" real? There may be more to the picture. If the Mona Lisa was unfinished, would you know?