Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm not sure about what they mean by "complete" exactly, as a half finished puzzle is "incomplete," but that doesn't mean the thing doesn't exist. However, I DO see how consistent and finite and consistent quite well and don't see how you find those two things to be untrue. Reality is quite consistent. In reality a thing is always itself, it's not like some days a cat is a cat and others a cat is a dog with no pattern or reason behind it. Sometimes things will SEEM different, like something looks like a cat and acts like a cat, but upon closer examination it's a mechanical puppet. Even in these cases though, the thing still acts like itself - it's acting like the mechanical cat puppet it is and it's programing and parts allow it to be and tell it to be and unlike an actual cat it's not really alive and perform any strictly living functions. Or, still on the case of consistency, sometimes something seems to be acting against it's own rules only because their is another rule/rules we are not aware of at the time or forgot that make the thing act in such a way. As for being finite, consider this, something I was thinking about the other day: infinity is something only theoretically, but not actually possible in as far as I can see. There are essentially three types of quantifiable things that exist - matter, energy, and abstract things like ideas and concepts. Matter can be neither created (poofed up from absolute nothing) nor destroyed (poofed away into nothing with no side effects/results/etc), so that means matter is finite. Energy can be equated to matter (the whole E=MC2 formula ties them together) so if matter is finite then energy exists in a static quantity too. That leaves only abstractions, however, while those could theoretically be infinite, abstractions require something else to create them, either brains or machines, and since both of those things require energy to run, they too are actually limited. The one thing I could see being argued with on this is "time," but that would come down to a matter of definition. As for a definition of that,

time [tīm]
n (plural times)
1. system of distinguishing events: a dimension that enables two identical events occurring at the same point in space to be distinguished, measured by the interval between the events. Symbol t

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So in this case, time is a measurement, however, it' one that is always being used as long as there is something to measure. Time exists so long as other things exists. Time is limited also by the existence of any of the matter and energy for it to measure. It has a potential for limits too.

To come back to the matter of "complete" though, that may be more a matter of semantic correctness, like two puzzle pieces are not by themselves a real puzzle actually, however the puzzle pieces ARE real as the COULD be correctly called "puzzle PIECES" -- they ARE complete pieces of a puzzle.

Reality? What is reality? Reality is anything in space. But thats just a label right? A label that humans have though up to call everything they can see, touch, taste, feel, hear and smell. But that does not mean its there, because just like a game of Bullshit, there is a liar amongst the mass, but I still like to use the label because its the only thing we know everything as. Reality is basically, like I said, its anything in space, but being that Reality is different from everyone else's thoughts about the beings in space, its very complex. For example a person who walks in the middle of a street in an unknown town would just look around and around at the new environment with fear because of unfamiliarity. A person who walks in the town and is a resident is not scared because of the familiarity with the town. In both eyes of the people, they see a town but the feelings of the town are highly different. This could be an explanation of Reality, but being that everyone sees it differently in many depths of factors, its truly the place of orignality in the human psyche. So you can think what you want about reality because you see it your way, I see it my way, every other organism sees it their way. and that is the truth behind it, just like you said Austi, but also consider the way we experience Reality differently and then take out the human perspective and element in space. The people are no longer in the town from before, what is left? Buildings, schools, homes. Essentially matter and energy are the only things there. Since no judgemental perspective is virtual here, its just what is there. The pure basic of Reality is that of the town. So our perspective of Reality, in my opinion, is just illusion to the basic as in a dog has crapped on the floor. A woman removes it and tries to clean and mask the pressence of it being there. You do all you can to make it seem as if it wasnt there, but you cant change the fact that it was THERE. Thats how Reality is, the basic of things in space and then the thoughts of human perspective making it the way it is.

I LOVE IT! You understood me, and I really see where you get to the point of facts are more reliable than opinions, but even being that facts are better reliable than opinions, what is the fact? A fact is a known piece of information about the quality, quantity, or just anything about something that takes up space in the this reality, and that piece of information was formed by the opinions of the people who made the fact. Because you dont have a fact to make a fact, thats only creating illusion because if you rely on just that one piece of info., there should be the only 1 result you try to shoot for, where as in if you used opinions in your creation, the boundries of the said production are virtually LIMITLESS! Like I said a fact is info. about a certain something in the universe that was created by opinions of others to help better understand the way everything works. Newton's 1st law of Motion: Inertia is a prime example. It states "an object at rest, stays at rest while an object at motion stays in motion unless an outside force is applied." What is this? You would say "its fact about reality" or some other statement that is similar to this one. That is pure 100% fact because it involves real things, as in actual forces of nature in action and that cannot be changed by opinion because I guarantee you if someone tried to form an opinion against it(and I'm sure you agree with me) they can be disproven easily. But when you want to talk about other things like the label of reality and the way you personally think about things that cannot be 100% fact, HAVE to be opinion. It has to be a balance in certain topics because not everything the human mind questions can be solved with logic and reason, you have to go beyond fact and look at the bigger, brighter, open picture. What you said about "facts are facts, opinions are opinions" is what you can think because it's your opinion and true, true, true about opinions being fluid and facts being concrete. Facts are precise and tell you forever that "2+2=4". As on the other hand, opinions are just how you said; fluid, changing, mold-ess. The opinion is the most important variable in any situation of explanatory questions that can be multiple things because to be something at all in the human mind, it needs a label for it to be recognizable down the road of life. The label is made by opinions because when making a fact, you have different ideas, different opinions, and when you combine those, you make a good idea because an opinion is a brief thought by a human, when put together with other opinions, you may see that you may not have seen something from before. There-fore it completes it. They form together to make a fact. My view on reality is opinion versus fact-to an extent. The rest is the combination and the hand-in-hand layer effect.
All I'm trying to say, is that, what you said about my view gave off a vibe of your view being contradictory to mine stating 'the universe is based on fact, opinion is nothing'. Im not trying to say you're wrong, I'm right, because that's opinion and we can have them, what I am trying to say is that not only are facts important, but opinion is important too. I dont think facts are above opinions because to me its a balance, being everything in the universe has a certain balance and when involving concepts facts are facts, the bare bark, the structure, the bones and then opinions are the meat, what we think about the structure and that the opinions are affected to grow around the structure, my reality.

Now maybe I just didnt get my message out clearly enough. I do think that opinions made facts to an extent. What would you think about every fact in the world just suddenly seem to disappear? Of course thats foolhardy because that would take the destruction of every intelligent being in the human existance and anything the human can interact and share information with because if those two were gone, there would be no one to know, to understand, to feel the way the facts made the world, the world. What then? Reality would just be back to the basic, no intelligent lifeform where we used to be, giving it labels on how to understand it. Now think that the humans were back again, what's reality then? Labels, labels to understand how the world works. Different huh? With no intellect, Reality is nothing but what happens, what is there, and what will happen later, now, and what happened in the past. There are no facts in the basic essence of space, the universe, and reality because facts are information. With no beings intelligent enough to understand it, the information is forgotten.

I tried to paint that picture for you so that its easier to see it the way I see it. Now think back to the brink of mankind, forming the wheel. Whoever said the day before, there was a rule about gravity? Whoever said the day before, there was an idea about how to make something not required for living? There was nothing, nothing and then the wheel. Sir Isaac Newton, sitting under the tree. Do you think there was fact BEFORE the apple fell? No there wasnt after it fell and hit him, Newton began thinking about it. Ideas, adding to some, taking away from some, until finally he put into motion, the Laws of Motion.



Thats exactly what I mean, what the entire statement I made is that the facts werent there before, they had to have come from somewhere, from the person or group who made ideas to come to the conclusion about the fact being factual, or thinking based on all ideas to make the conclusion. To make the fact they had to take in the perspectives, experiences, and opinions to make it the fact. Thats what I meant when I said that opinions make up facts. Its not just one person saying "I eat ever kind of meat except fish because FISH IS DISGUSTING!" then that is the law of the world. No, that will never be a fact though because of the number of people who like fish against the number who dont. See? You need the ideas to make the fact. Maybe the last example is good, how about; Just one person saying "There is no such thing as God" doesnt make it true but it doesnt make it false either, because of the vast number of people who do think it true against the vast number of people who think it isnt true. Now think about a number of people who are belivers (hope I spelt that right) and think now that they are a community, a town. In this environment of space, God exists because they all think it. Now think about an athiest or a Buddhist or a Hinduist pass by the town to rest or to eat or for gas or to buy a home of something and now the basic concept "God exists" is now questioned because now the vast majority isn't all to one side of it. Now think that that one person buys a home. Then more people of different faiths start to come in, Pagainsm, Judaism, Islam, Indian and so forth all come in and the town grows with the new people. Next to have their faiths be heard they build temples of worship or have meetings or do something and then the entirety of the population now doesn't think entirely that "God exists", see now? Before it was fact, now that there are enough opinions to equal or even override the fact, its not fact anymore. Facts, as much as they are concrete, can change. Because the idea of the fact to begin with changes to better understand or for some other reason the fact is no longer fact, it was a past opinion. That was my entire concept.

Now for my other statement about the bones and the meat I'm sure that doesnt comply with my statements here. And I think I learned something here myself. Being that one person might think that everything is based on fact first, then opinion, they might think of the bones the structure, then the meat opinions. But now I see that I dont think that way. My new idea is that the structure is the bones, thats it. Facts are explaining how the structure works and so its a diagram of the skeleton, or some other visual aid that interprets how the bones work. Then the opinions are the scientists who thought up the diagrams, because their ideas made up the fact.

"Reality is merely an illustion, ableit a very pesistant one.
~ Albert Einstien.

Assumptions are a transparent grid through which we veiw the universe, sometimes we delude ourselves that the grid is our universe.

The way that we humans experience our existances limits our perspective. We experience a linear passage of time, from one moment to the next. Then it feels like past events are the influence on future events. While now I don't quite yet understand in-depth the physics of it, I know that it is untrue. From what I have read of the works of Einstien and Stephen Hawking the mechanics of time seem completely contrary to how we live.

What I learned and now believe that a true element of reality is that all points in time (if there even is such a thing) have occured, are occuring and are all yet to happen.This would mean that reality is a very maliable thing. Considering cause and effect that would mean that the future can influence the past just as much the past influences the future and the now.

So one would naturally ask: How much has my reality changed?

Thank you for understanding my point Bluecherry and I really do appreciate this conversation, but now I do belive we have come to a point in time where we can no longer agree and have to stop and state where our points are. You've stated yours, and now is mine. First I'd like to talk about your definitions. Obviously that is correct, all of it. And stated loudly and clearly, but what I am getting as here is you used 1 source for definition. I wonder, what would you get if you used multiple sources?



Obviously your definition and your source. Here's mine

fact (fakt)

n.

1.Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.

2. a.Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b.A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case
c.Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.

3.A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact

4.Law. The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact

The American Heritage Dic-tion-ar-ies
Copyright © 2007 Answers Corporation. All rights reserved

Notice the difference? How about this?

Fact

Incident, act, event, or circumstance. A fact is something that has already been done or an action in process. It is an event that has definitely and actually taken place, and is distinguishable from a suspicion, innuendo, or supposition. A fact is a truth as opposed to fiction or mistake.

Thompson Gale
Copyright © 2007 Answers Corporation. All rights reserved

See it now? They're all different! Sure they "mean" the same thing, but they're stated 'differently'. What does that tell you? They're stated differently because the people who submitted the information have different thoughts about the word 'fact'. If a fact is a piece of informatin that is true (thats what I think) then based on that, all of the definitions should be the same text, the same way. But they're not are they? You know why? They're different ideas or in other words OPINIONS. You say that I am wrong on my behalf based on your definitions. What my statement, as you stated that you had understood me, is that all facts are are just opinions made by different people and accepted to popularity. Because facts do not exist in the real world. And when I mean the real world I mean matter, think in the boundries of plain space. Is there such a thing as fact, floating among the dust particles of rock and other minerals? No, fact is an idea! You can not see it, you can not touch it, you can not taste it, you can not smell it, you can not even hear it. Facts are real, yes, but facts are ideas. I say that also ideas are the pieces of thought made by intelligent beings. Thoughts are different among people so they are called "opinions". Now, you pull up definitions and say that that is fact, and that opinions do not affect fact up to how they are expressed to the point of influencing behavior of other people when expressed correctly. Now think about this, where did those definitions come from? I'm sure they weren't just there. In space hanging around until someone came by and learned it. No, and you also have to think that the word "fact" can changed into other things. In France its called "fait, donnée, vrai, réalité, (Jur) fait " In Germany its called "Tatsache, Faktum, Wahrheit" In the Netherlands, its called " feit, feitelijkheid, gegeven, misdaad" All the word "fact" is just a word! And to express it is just to vibrate vocal cords in the human body. Thats it. But then you get to the meaning of "fact". It means a true statement. It means a piece of information. It means blah-blah-blah. And also just because something is stated as a "fact" does not make it true. Think of John Dalton's Atomic Theory, its accepted world-wide except for a couple facts about the Theory, you know why? Because they were proven wrong. He stated "Atoms cannot be subdivided, created, or destroyed into smaller particles when they are combined , separated, or rearranged in chemical reactions" and that, at his time, WAS THE FACT, now we see that that is wrong with the existence of fission, nuclear fission, and nuclear reactions.
Copyright © 2007 Answers Corporation. All rights reserved
If a fact can be wrong, then what does that make of it? Facts aren't always true, you know why? Because they're ideas! Ideas, thoughts, OPINIONS that can be proven wrong in some instances.

Thats where I draw my line of the definition of fact. "Opinions stated that have been accepted to a popular degree in an intelligent society and fit the need of the question stated." Meaning the best answer accepted to the question. Maybe in 500 years we'll replace Newton's Laws. I'm not saying we will, but as time goes on information is collected. Newton's Laws might stay the same, might be proven wrong or even changed to make a better answer based on the original concept.

And also, I'd like to add about my town. It's true what you said, no matter how many people live there and they all believe the same thing, its not true, because theres no answer. I see what you're getting at, and the reason I stated the translations of 'fact' in different languages is to prove my point. No matter how much we think it, to them we're wrong. We think a proven piece of information or whatever the definition you want to use for the word 'fact' it does not mean in their society 'fact'. Cause 'fact' is just a word, a label for whatever you want to say. Who says we're right, and they're wrong? You might say that, I might say that, the President of the United States might say that or even if the world is taken control over one power even if THEY say that, does not make it true. Cause ultimately in the end, fact is a word, in my opinion, a label used to better understand the universe. Here, I'll even post the definition of 'word'

word (wûrd)
n.

1.A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes
The American Heritage: Dic-tion-ar-ies
Copyright © 2007 Answers Corporation. All rights reserved.

I'm not trying to prove you wrong, I'm just trying to get you to get my proposal to the point that it makes sense. That's all I'm trying to do. Thank you this was very fun Bluecherry.

well this kinda puzzles me cause im thinking im getting a bit confuesed...the basic jist of what im getting is that Reality is what we persieve and how the brain interpets everything taht we expierenced (that includes what we learned and everything we accepted as truth) so reality has to be redefined as one persons reality where there is no dimisnsion...which is odd...because if i am correct in trying to follow teh ideas to this point then this is trivial BECAUSE a rock doesnt percieve so does it have a reality? a dream can seem like reality and based on the inferences (and i admit i skimmed a lot of it) you could say that the dream IS reality... to take a science approach, we have to state the problem: What is reality? then do some research on it, and come to the before ascribed discussion above...and yet ive not quite seen a Hypothesis on how to define reality...but that seems to be because to know reality you have to know how to define what a fact is, how to go about finding out what is real, and what is time and if time is a factor how do you define it...my OPINION is 1. time is a measure of entropy, BECAUSE symbols degrade and time is still there even if the symbol is gone...and this also goes into the theory that is debated with religions becuase if God can exist outside of time, this means that time is a dimension. thus it cant be defined by symbols, or by what the sun is doing. time is a measurement of this dimension... 2. fact works with theory hand in hand because in order for sumtin to be fact it can not be disproven (atleast in scientific fact) if the fact can be disproven it is mearly a theory...thus the problem with most theology the terms theory and fact are tossed around like they are one and the same...which tehy arent...so im still waiting for that one instance where the theory that holds all other theorys fails and science has to start over...but thats chasing rabbits....any how...before you can define reality you must be able to make a hypothesis on what it COULD be,, then test it to see if it works (atleast scientifically)