Essay:On Reality

"on Reality" Proscriptus Voce per Eira

The idea that we are simply in a simulation has long been considered in the philosophical field of metaphysics. Some people are prone to take a practical view of metaphysics, and presume that what they perceive as the world, is in fact, very literally the reality of what exists. This is usually sufficient for most people, because due to the inescapable prison of our senses, we could never distinguish between our sense of reality, and the true reality as it exists. Of course, there is, and must be a "true reality", however-very eloquently put by the article-we cannot perceive it outside of our senses. As noted, for some this is enough to call it reality. Others may have a conscious "knowledge" of reality, that they perceive as trumping any perceptions that they might receive, and colors all information and stimuli that are coming to them. This is now people like Andy can "ignore" reality. He's not really ignoring reality, he just has an entirely skewed sense of what it is, as he is asserting that his constructed reality is the only true reality that exists, and thus denies things and arguments that would in any way conflict with his "known" reality, or as it seems, anything that would even partly conflict with his "true" reality.

This is perhaps the most dangerous perception of reality possible usually found in fundies, and other religions, no matter what they are. They are so invested in their conscious portrayal of reality, that they withdraw into essentially a solipsistic view of reality. They dictate that their reality is the true reality, and can therefore deny anything and anyone who conflicts it. (Even when they believe in Creationism at all costs, and refuse to accept arguments even from those one would consider allies, such as CP does with Archaeopterix.) The belief here is that they know what reality is, and anyone who attempts to contradict them is simply and plainly wrong with no justification necessary, because the person's beliefs or statements are rejected without question as misrepresenting reality. Such a statement is perfectly inline with the thoughts of a solipsist, where the solipsist would ignore anyone elses opinions, because he alone is the only true extant reality. To deny input about reality from others for any reason other than as a blatant contradiction of empirical reality, is a solipsistic position. Thus, many of the editors on CP are not looking for knowledge to learn, but rather they are simply looking for any affirmation of their beliefs, and their reality. Any fact that aligns with their reality, is proof per se, as it agrees with them.

This is the difficulty in talking to people such as Andy, and the other editors of CP. While I completely support their position, and the respresentation of reality that they put there, even though I consider it to be entirely contradictory with what I have so far perceived reality to be, and I find it absolutely frustrating that they oppose or even outright deny any non-aligning information at all to be entirely frustrating. I still support their perspective of reality, as it serves as evidenciary information to better my perception of reality, because they are constantly questioning the reality that I assume to be correct, and force me to consider my perspectives even closer than I would without such challenge, as well as presenting a different perspective of reality, in order to see what shadows upon the cave wall others see, and imagine myself in that understanding of reality, in order to get a sense of how reality may be perceived. However, as I was defending and supporting CP, I found it frustrating that I could not tell other liberal/moderate people directly that they are not arguing correctly to the CP reality. I could only revert the changes, or repair the unacceptable information with the same answers that they give "vandalism" or "liberal bias" or "liberal deceit". While at the same time, I worked meticulously to present and alter the point of view of their pages to be closer to the reality as I understand it. I always wanted to scream at people putting up "liberal" ideas as evidence per se, that such an argument will never swing their belief.

Most frustrating of all, when I finally do explain to liberals the view point that they must consider, and how they are arguing incorrectly, because in their reality the Bible is fact per se, and your assertions that conflict with such a standard of evidence will fail, unless presented appropriately. However, that I actually describe the Bible as prima facia evidence, and that if science and the Bible disagree, that the Bible wins. They immediately withdraw away from that position, and profess themselves to be entirely scientific, and that their reality is justified by science, rather than in conflict with it. Even they know how unfavorable my statements are, despite being written entirely inline with their beliefs. Yes, even explaining their reality to others that disagree with their reality, in terms of that other's reality, is offensive to them, because it is unfavorable, and can be taken overly genericizing as casting them in a light of "denial of science". I never said such a thing. I said that the Bible is Fact (capital F) on CP, and if a line of reasoning results in perceived evidence against the Bible or argues against the necessity of God, then that information must be immediately scrutinized in order to align it with reality. In a very similar way to how String theory has only been able to explain obvserved fact by carefully, consciously, and deliberately designing the system to fit the evidence, rather than letting the evidence drive the development of the system.

Is the standard model of physics correct? No, however, it is empirically based, and known. So far it is also the best explanation of observation without multiplying entities unnecessarily, unlike String Theory which seems to have set asside Occam's razor for a fanciful and meticulously crafted version of reality, explained no better than the ancient beliefs that agents of the Gods, or Gods themselves, cause action to happen, where no mortal man could possibly perform such actions. They knew that none of them could carry the sun across the sky, but they can explain such a commonsensably agented action as being performed by a woman on a chariot, which is pulled by two god-like cats. Unlike the standard model of physics but perfectly in line with String Theory, people invent incredible ideas, produced from the powerful imagination of mankind, as to how reality must work in a more elegant way than the haphazard arrangment of reality that we have observed so far. There must be some higher force, or higher reality than where we are now to explain eloquently how reality appears haphazardous to us. String Theorists, realizing the silliness of inventing a god, or god-like agent to explain things, have invented a higher reality something beyond humanity, and which our mortal agents cannot cause alone. Instead of inventing a god to explain the abstracted natural perceptions that we have, they have instead invented a mythos to explain the actions and properties of elementary particles.

These mythos are extremely difficult to dispell, because people invest themselves so heavily in it. Their mythos must be true, or else they shall in the future be known simply as fools. So, all evidence that comes in must be evidence for their model, even when it would appear to contradict the model. The existence of fossils is evidence that Satan has incredible power to sway humans from the Truth of God. The existence of the Higgs Boson is evidence that String Theory has more dimensions than originally thought.

So, I think this essay/rant/whatever has gotten quite long enough already. *laugh* The entire point is that CP's reality conflicts with the beliefs we feel must define a reality. Points must be argued appropriately to the audience, and CP makes this very, extremly, difficult, as their POV is so narrow. I fully support CP, and support it still, even after being banned for supporting them, and defending them, simply because one editor found my characterization of the properties of their reality to be offensive, distorted, or contempuous. In providing a POV that critics of CP can understand and learn to use to align themselves better to their audience to present better arguments, I have provided a liberal bias, because my characterization is not parallel to their POV, which is entirely obvious, because it was/is written for a different audience to bring them closer to being able to argue persuasively on CP. Even describing their POV in a liberal POV, with its origin at the same point that they are at, is enough liberal deceit, or evidence of a "sarcastic" representation, to grab for a reason, apparently any reason in order to ban someone. --Eira ^yay! 14:55, 7 January 2008 (EST)

Sometimes, I do enjoy thinking about reality in terms of atomic interactions for even mundane things. I know this coffee mug is best explained as a large set of atoms that are in a very strongly held position, and that when I place my hand against it, it is not the cup that I feel, but it is the chemical or atomic response of the stimuli, where the atomic particles in my hand are not allowed to permeate the surface of the cup to any meaningful degree. But it is still not a "cup" that I hold, it's a bunch of particles holding each other together in a vibrating confinement. As if to perceive the mug as particles that I can observe, that are in motion, and confined by chemical bonds near to each other. No matter how stable I perceive the mug to be, it is still fuzy, just at a level so fine, that I cannot perceive it with my eyes, but which I can still remove the abstraction upon my perception that it is simply a mug, and rather a collection of molecules and atoms, and force me to perceive-in a way-with the mind's eye what is "really" there. --Eira ^yay! 14:55, 7 January 2008 (EST)