What is reality?

[SoMoney]

Can reality even be known? In thinking about reality it seems that a few assumptions have to be taken in faith. These assumptions would be striking out the possibility of the not readily apparent: that we live in the Matrix, that there is a demon within us making us see what it wants us to, that we are just the product of a dream being dreamt by a higher being, or are creating reality as we go. But we wouldn't be able to know this anyway, until an Outsider came along to tell us more thoroughly. (Aliens, Demons, gods, or white lab mice...)

What can be known about reality without using a justification (or evidence) chain that either (1) regresses infinitely--never repeating itself; (2) loops back on itself--becoming circular?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Can reality even be known?

[/ QUOTE ]

Using self-consistent logic without arbitrary assumptions? No.

[vhawk01]

Brain in a vat FTW

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Brain in a vat FTW

[/ QUOTE ]

Reality APPEARS real, and that's all that matters. FTW.

[SoMoney]

If reality cannot be known without arbitrary assumptions then what is the point of discussing it? What then is the purpose of this forum? Isn't it true that the most basic must be understood before the less basic can be?

BTW - I'm not arguing, just making discussion

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
If reality cannot be known without arbitrary assumptions then what is the point of discussing it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Discussion can be useful when certain fundamentals are agreed upon despite their arbitrariness.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it true that the most basic must be understood before the less basic can be?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because there is no most basic logical truth.

[SoMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it true that the most basic must be understood before the less basic can be?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because there is no most basic logical truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are right. I meant to say 'more' basic instead of 'most' basic. That the more basic needs to be understood before the less basic. For example, you have to understand addition before you can do calculus.

[ChrisV]

[ QUOTE ]
If reality cannot be known without arbitrary assumptions then what is the point of discussing it? What then is the purpose of this forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

We only really need one metaphysical assumption before we can have useful discussion about reality, and that is that there exists an objective material world. This assumption proceeds basically through Ockham's Razor - it is very simple, and the alternative explanations of why our perceptions are similar are very complicated.

After that, even though reality can't be directly known, it can be modelled accurately. That's the job of science, or natural philosophy as it was once known.

There are other areas of philosophy that don't require us to come to grips with reality before we discuss them. Examples are ethics, aesthetics, epistemology.

[Metric]

Information is reality. Whether it comes from the Matrix, a demon, God, etc. etc. makes it no less real information. The nice thing is that it appears in any case to be consistently predictable via the laws of physics.

[SoMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
Information is reality.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the only problem I have with this is that information is perceived via our senses and then interpreted via our minds. How do we know the information we interpret mirrors reality. I think that in order to believe this you have to first assume that there is an objective reality.

Though I tend to favor objective reality myself, others have had opposing points of view. Especially those embracing Eastern philosophy. Example, from Wikipedia on truth:

"Truth, for Michel Foucault, is problematic when any attempt is made to see truth as an "objective" quality. He prefers not to use the term truth itself but "Regimes of Truth". In his historical investigations he found truth to be something that was itself a part of, or embedded within, a given power structure. Thus Foucault's view shares much in common with the concepts of Nietzsche. Truth for Foucault is also something that shifts through various episteme throughout history."