If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

My ability to make absolute truth statements about that reality would be highly questionable. Ones that relate to absolute truth. Unless one's perspective is not just the receiver but also the generator. Which one cannot absolutely know.

Well, it was a shitty example. So, there is an ultimate reality that we all exist in. And there are illusions within that reality.The illusion never becomes the reality. Even if we can't distinguish it, and even if everyone agrees that the illusion is real.And for a lot of it, we cannot distinguish between the illusion and the reality. But that still doesn't make the illusion the actual reality. The ultimate reality is what is actually the reality, despite the illusions.

Consider the standard kg. It is a mass that we have defined as a kg and it becomes the reference point. We only need the one reference point and can compare everything else to it. It does not matter that the reference point is arbitrary as long as it persists. Reality persists.

There is no such thing as a fake reality. There is reality and there is illusion. If there is no difference between the two then there is only the one thing. If there is only the one thing then it cannot be illusion in the place of reality. The Mona Lisa was finished on the day that da Vinci died.Just because we may never have all the information that perfectly describes reality in no way supports the notion that there is no reality.

Perhaps but I don't see how you can question the thought that there must be something there. Even if that were the case there is still a generator and something is generated. This much we can know absolutely.

Yes I agree with everything that you said there.I was trying to get at the idea of a 'God's eye view' without referencing God. An illusion that cannot be revealed as an illusion by any observer anywhere at any time including any God like creatures should not be thought of as an illusion. Imagining some higher reality is the introduction of an unnecessary entity.

Then what about The Mystery of Edwin Drood or Weir of Hermistion? Are they "finished" because the authors are dead? Nor does anything support the notion that there "is" a reality. It's all philosophy.

So we are, once again, back to - Something exists.One might call this something "I".All the indications are that "I" is a physical being inhabiting a physical reality that is shared with other physical beings that are independently conscious and with whom we can seek to reach objective conclusions.But there is no way to absolutely know that "I" is not a fleeting ethereal consciousness and that all else that seems to exist is nothing more than a very vivid dream.Whilst the latter can be largely discarded when considering evidence, knowledge, truth etc. it poses something of a problem for those obsessed with "absolute truths".Because beyond (the arguably tautological) "something exists" there are no absolutes available. Because there is no way to absolutely know that anything one perceives is indicative of any external reality.Potentially fallible truths we can reach. But beyond (the arguably tautological) "something exists" not absolute ones.

Sure. We can consider anything you'd like.The point is that with kg (or anything else)... you can have plenty of different ones within this reality to which you can compare. Some will be more, others will be less. You can create a standard. You can say what's "normal." You can create a baseline.The continuing issue is that we still only have 1 reality. You can't compare 1 reality with another simply because we only have 1.Yes... there are many, many different things within this 1 reality to which we can compare against each other.But if you want to discuss the "reality" of reality itself... it doesn't help to compare things-existing-within-that-one-reality vs. other-things-existing-within-that-one-reality... do you not see the circular hopelessness of such a procedure?What you're doing is saying "Okay... Mario and Luigi love to break bricks while jumping... I can compare lots of their jumps over and over again... the brick-breaking is absolutely real!!!!" But it's not, is it? It's only "absolute" within the reality of Mario and Luigi. Something that is only absolute within a certain scope is not totally "absolute." This is the possibility you have no hope of verifying one way or the other as long as we only have 1 reality we can access.Comparing multiple "anythings" against each other that are all contained within the 1 reality does nothing to serve any sort of comparison against that reality.You're still stuck with 1 reality and nothing to compare it to. Without a comparison... you cannot say what is "real" or "fake" or "normal" or "strange" or "messed up" or "absolute" because you have nothing else to measure it against.In order to move forward with your argument you'd have to have access to hundreds (maybe thousands?) of different realities to compare them to each other in order to see which are "real" which are "fake" what parts (if any) are "absolute" and what parts are "unique."As long as we only have access to 1 reality... you're dead in the water with this argument. It certainly does.Such persistence of a single reality alone, however, doesn't allow us to make judgments that would require multiple realities and the ability to compare them against one another.We simply do not have the required ingredients to bake the cake you're asking for.

As I read this sentence that you wrote, I find myself unable to imagine myself saying it with a straight face. I mean, how can reality be such a hard concept to understand....more so define. all that "philosophy" means is the love of knowledge.reality is what is. What appears to be---though undefined---still is by definition.

I like this quote by David Hume:
Some may have doubts of a absolute truth or the veracity of reality, but most do take the stairs.

quote:

---

Whether your scepticism be as
absolute and sincere as you pretend,
we shall learn bye and bye, when the
company breaks up: We shall then
see, whether you go out at the door
or the window: and whether you really
doubt; if your body has gravity, or
can be injured by its fall: according
to popular opinion, derived from our
fallacious fenses and more fallacious
experience.

---

~David HumeEdited by 1.61803, : Spelling

We're not just talking about "reality" here; we're talking about absolute reality.It's easy enough to define a practical reality - i.e. one that we can manipulate predictably and communicate with other people about. The moon is "real" in the sense that we can "go" there.But the odd thing - the thing that dug this whole rabbit hole - is that people who believe in "absolute truth" tend to consider things like gods to be absolute truth - things that are decidedly not predictable or manipulable, or even objectively detectable. What is commonly claimed to be "absolute truth" is less reliable than practical reality, not more.

Reality is, by definition, real.I think if nothing else we have established that in this thread.Now what?"Absolute truth"....is what? Such as?

Nobody is saying our senses are fallacious per se. It is simply being pointed out that they aren't perfect and that there is always the possibility of error thus resulting in a absence of absolutes.

Even without senses falicious or otherwise..
If a tree falls in the forest it DOES make a sound.So as perviously mentioned something exist.So could not one say with absolute certainty that there is something rather than nothing.