EpicDude86
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2009
- Messages
- 4,384
- Reaction score
- 822
- Location
- Epic Mountain
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
No, you actually posited the existence of a place that doesn't exist.
We don't know that, which is why I say it can be a possibility.
When you said it was outside of reality, you said it doesn't exist. These are just the definitions of the words. Reality is all of the things that are real. What is real is what exists in actuality. If you are saying the thing exists, it must exist in reality.
To say it exist outside of reality is the exact same thing as saying it doesn't exist. It works like a double negative.
No, I only said it was outside the reality of what we understand as reality, pertaining to our universe. If something exists in a different universe, it is outside of our reality, yet it still exists.
What we understand as reality is only a construct that applies to this universe. We do not know that it can be applied to other universe. Therefore, we do not know that what is possible in this universe can be impossible in another. Conversely, we do not know if what is impossible in this universe can be possible in another. The bottom line is that we do not know, and we cannot know.
If you can understand the concept of multiple dimensions or multiple universes, then you must understand the concept of multiple realities. It would not be logical for you to assume that the properties of logic in THIS reality to apply to an unknown reality where different properties of logic may reside.
Again, only if you accept the above.
how can you absolutely know it doesn't exist?
You can only believe it does or doesn't exist. Its actual existence is not contingent upon belief in its existence.
The rules of logic are bound by what we perceive reality is. Our perception may be wrong.
And that requires ignoring th ereal definition of reality and inserting one that does nto exist. What you are defining reality to be is irrelevent to waht reality really is. REality is everything that is real. It is not confined to this universe IF there exists more things thatn this universe.
How so?I was wandering when somebody would bring that up if nobody had before I got to the last page I was going to.
Two points I would like to bring up about what the human race preceive as logica;.
1 The human race as a whole is in fact illogical.
True. It may. It may not.2 How we preceive logic today may change what we see as logocal in a matter of years.
Of course you don't have to give reasoning or evidence for your claims.That's my opinion anyway and I shouldn't have to give examples for either point.
The way we define reality is based on our understanding in this universe. You're not able to define reality in any other universe because of our ignorance of such.
I simply gave the notion that there may be multiple realities, which are defined by their respective universes, which may or may not be similar to ours. Therefore the possibility of a different reality cannot be determined by our definitions of reality because it is not based on the same universe.
Let's just ask you a simple question: Do you think it's possible that there are multiple universes?
But what we perceive as reality or concpetualize as reality is not necessarilly objective reality.It can't exist if it is not a part of reality.
The rules of logic are bound by what we perceive reality is. Our perception may be wrong.
But what we perceive as reality or concpetualize as reality is not necessarilly objective reality.
Our concepts or perception does not necessarilly accurately reflect actuality.
The rules of logic are founded on our perception of reality. We thus far cannot be certain what is "real reality". We can only assume that our perception accurately reflects "real reality".Not in the slightest. The rules of logic are defined by reality.
No. The trueness is dependent on conformity to logic which was developed from our perception of reality.The truth of a premise is not dependent on our perceptions. It is true or false regardless of whether we perceive the trueness correctly or not.
I agree. But until we define reality we cannot claim to be accurately representing it. Thus we can only claim to know about perceived reality. Not "real reality".But our conceptualization of reality doesn't dictate what reality encompasses.
no, not necessarilly. My imagination or hallucinations can be perceived as real but are not actually real. A comparable phenomenon could be our perception of reality.Even if we are unaware of the realness of a thing, if it is real, it is part of reality.
but you can't claim to know anything outside our understanding. So yes, our understanding, our perception, is the only relevant thing in this discussion.Our understanding is entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Where in my premises did I mention perception or human understanding? Nowhere.
The rules of logic are founded on our perception of reality. We thus far cannot be certain what is "real reality". We can only assume that our perception accurately reflects "real reality".
How did we "discover" the rules of logic? Do you claim they are absolute?
No. The trueness is dependent on conformity to logic which was developed from our perception of reality.
For example, why is it not possible to find that something contrary to logic. How can we be so sure?
I agree. But until we define reality we cannot claim to be accurately representing it. Thus we can only claim to know about perceived reality. Not "real reality".
no, not necessarilly. My imagination or hallucinations can be perceived as real but are not actually real. A comparable phenomenon could be our perception of reality.
but you can't claim to know anything outside our understanding. So yes, our understanding, our perception, is the only relevant thing in this discussion.
What I was saying is that it might have APPEARED to be a worldwide flood to people because what they saw get flooded, was the only world they knew. Do you think they had any idea what was farther than their borders in ancient times?? Most of these stories pre-date continent spanning (or even region spanning) peoples.
SO let's say some backwater tribe in Asia gets flooded out. They percieve that the World, actually the known world to them, gets flooded. And then add to that translation issues, which apparently aren't possible because of the Universal Grammar theory that paris brought up...cause...ya know how ancient languages were about as different as Italian and Spanish...
and wtf...Clams? really? CLAMS?! Don't bring the clams into this because you KNOW what picture I'm going to post...
EDIT: Too late.[/IMG]
But the Bible is supposed to be Divinely Inspired.
How else could the Apostles write word for word waht Jesus said 300-400 years earlier?
If some of it is wrong, meaning if those that wrote about the flood covering the world
(and that it really covered only the world that they knew) was wrong, and most of the world was not actually covered, then those that wrote about it were wrong, and God let them write it down even though it was wrong, and that then logically leads one to question the rest of the Bible.
Also, if it was only part of their world, how did they get animals from all over the world.
Our understanding of reality in no way defines the limits of reality. It only defiens our understanding of reality.
Reality is defined as the entirety of things that exist.
What you refer of as "multiple realities" is actually only multiple facets of a singular reality.
When I refer to the word "reality" I mean it in the sense of the definition of the word: "all things that are real".
If there is something real outside of our understanding, it is not less real than if it is within our realm of understanding.
Also, you are using the word "define" wrong. Teh way we describe reality is base don our understanding of what it real. Teh way it is defined is inclusive of things outside fo our understanding.
So can there be multiple universes?
Did you see that movie with Jet Li? I think it was him. I believe it was called "The One" or "One" time to IMDB that ****!
I saw Jet Li once at a grocery store around my neighborhood. He has a house in San Marino, CA. :mrgreen: I'll ask him, if I see him again.
There is no such thing as "the illogical". Illogical is an adjective.
How so?
True. It may. It may not.
Of course you don't have to give reasoning or evidence for your claims.
But on what basis should anyone take your claims seriously?