What if? A sort of philosophical question.

Well, to be honest, we each have our own unique map of the universe, contrived from experiences, culture, and personal history, and as we see and believe things. That being said you have to weigh in people that have color blindness, mental capacity, and mental illnesses.
Do I believe the universe is a hologram, no but it could very well seem that way to some.
 

We are looking at this from different perspectives. The nature of philosophical discussion is such that it tends to be open-ended. There is a bit of Russell's Teapot here in that I cannot say reality is a matter of perception and expect you to prove that it isn't. (Think I got that right).

However, you're missing the idea here that this is a philosophical, opened-ended thought experiment. You cannot prove reality is static because you have to do so within our mutually agreed-upon parameters of reality, which are subjective.

I mean, really, an entire group of philosophers can't have got it completely wrong.
Russell's Teapot was actually used to illustrate the opposite point. He meant it as an illustration of who has the burden of proof in a philosophical argument. His view is that the burden is on the person who is making unfalsifiable empirical claims, rather than the other way around. He raised the example in a discussion about the existence of God.

Here is little quote by Russell about knowledge:

Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.

For Russell, philosophy was about solving problems using the methods of science and putting an end to metaphysics. The open-ended nature of philosophy was due to misunderstanding and unclarity, principally about the way we use language.
 
Last edited:
I've been wrestling with this since I was three years old and dropped a piece of powder from a powdered donut on the sidewalk. That powder wouldn't be there if I wasn't here trying to eat a powdered donut. Or would it? How would I know?
Since the sugar came from your donut, it wouldn't be there unless you were. But you probably mean something a little more abstract, like the tree falling in the forest when nobody is around to hear it. Did it make a sound?

One way to look at this sort of puzzle is to analyze what is being said. If by "sound" you mean something like "noise" then it didn't make a sound because "noise" just means something a hearer perceives. But if "sound" means airwaves, then it did make a sound.

Does that help?
 

Russell's Teapot was actually used to illustrate the opposite point. He meant it as an illustration of who has the burden of proof in a philosophical argument. His view is that the burden is on the person who is making unfalsifiable empirical claims, rather than the other way around. He raised the example in a discussion about the existence of God.

Here is little quote by Russell about knowledge:

Whatever knowledge is attainable, must be attained by scientific methods; and what science cannot discover, mankind cannot know.

For Russell, philosophy was about solving problems using the methods of science and putting an end to metaphysics. The open-ended nature of philosophy was due to misunderstanding and unclarity, principally about the way we use language.
Yes, I'm familar with Russell's Teapot, which is why I referenced it. :) To wit: The burden of proof lies with me, the person making unfalsifiable claims (at least for the sake of this discussion). E.g., Solipsism cannot be disproven but also cannot be proven, much like Russell's Teapot.

Therefore, the burden of proof lies with me, which is what I said above when I said, "I cannot say reality is a matter of perception and expect you to prove that it isn't." Much like a person cannot say there is a tiny teapot orbiting Saturn and expect the fact that others cannot prove that there isn't to be proof that there is.

So, in referencing Russell's Teapot, I was agreeing with part of your argument or at the least, making a neutral statement. I think you may have misread my intent there.

Philosophy is about reasoning and thinking through, pondering, if you will, things that cannot currently be solved using the scientific method.
 
Since the sugar came from your donut, it wouldn't be there unless you were. But you probably mean something a little more abstract, like the tree falling in the forest when nobody is around to hear it. Did it make a sound?

One way to look at this sort of puzzle is to analyze what is being said. If by "sound" you mean something like "noise" then it didn't make a sound because "noise" just means something a hearer perceives. But if "sound" means airwaves, then it did make a sound.

Does that help?
You're here attempting to answer what is essentially an unanswerable question; that's why it's infamous. You're trying to answer a philosophical question using scientific evidence.

This has been the difficulty for our discussion (I mean here the one between you and I) throughout in that I am discussing philosophy and you are responding with science.

The purpose of philosophy is to ponder questions we cannot (yet) answer with science. This is one of those questions.
 
Yes, I'm familar with Russell's Teapot, which is why I referenced it. :) To wit: The burden of proof lies with me, the person making unfalsifiable claims (at least for the sake of this discussion). E.g., Solipsism cannot be disproven but also cannot be proven, much like Russell's Teapot.

Therefore, the burden of proof lies with me, which is what I said above when I said, "I cannot say reality is a matter of perception and expect you to prove that it isn't." Much like a person cannot say there is a tiny teapot orbiting Saturn and expect the fact that others cannot prove that there isn't to be proof that there is.

So, in referencing Russell's Teapot, I was agreeing with part of your argument or at the least, making a neutral statement. I think you may have misread my intent there.

Philosophy is about reasoning and thinking through, pondering, if you will, things that cannot currently be solved using the scientific method.
Ok, now I see what you mean. I have a somewhat different view of philosophy. I don't think the problems that cannot currently be solved by science can be solved in any meaningful way by philosophy. But I also think that many of the traditional philosophical problems can be solved--in a sense--by scientifically informed means. For example, I think Daniel Dennett does very good work explaining how a scientific view of mind/consciousness might work.
 
Ok, now I see what you mean. I have a somewhat different view of philosophy. I don't think the problems that cannot currently be solved by science can be solved in any meaningful way by philosophy. But I also think that many of the traditional philosophical problems can be solved--in a sense--by scientifically informed means. For example, I think Daniel Dennett does very good work explaining how a scientific view of mind/consciousness might work.
The point of philosophy is not necessarily to solve problems, but to ponder them until we can solve them, or answer questions.

I think it's possible to solve at least some philosophical problems via science sheerly because I have great faith in science.

Also, I would agree that a lot of scientific questions were at one time, philosophical questions, until they were solved. Afterall, the precursor to modern science was Natural Philosophy.

So, they are two different disciplines, in my mind, that often come together, eventually. However, philosophy remains important and useful outside scientific inquiry.
 
The point of philosophy is not necessarily to solve problems, but to ponder them until we can solve them, or answer questions.

I think it's possible to solve at least some philosophical problems via science sheerly because I have great faith in science.

Also, I would agree that a lot of scientific questions were at one time, philosophical questions, until they were solved. Afterall, the precursor to modern science was Natural Philosophy.

So, they are two different disciplines, in my mind, that often come together, eventually. However, philosophy remains important and useful outside scientific inquiry.
I suppose I am a born problem solver. My immediate response is always to look for a solution. I tend to agree with Wittgenstein;

"What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”

But anyway, what kinds of questions do you ponder?
 
We all as humans can see that which is real, however each human invents their own version of reality to fit in to their individual comfort zone.
I'm a stickler for how we use words, so I wouldn't say "own version of reality." That path leads to "it's right because I say so." It is where we get this talk of a "post-truth" world. I'm all for tolerance of differences of all kinds. But not when it comes to what is real or true.
 
"What can be said at all can be said clearly, and whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.”
Basically, what can't be proven isn't worth discussing.

I can meet you part way on that in that for the most part, asking pointless questions, e.g., the teapot, is pointless.

However, pondering for its own sake has merit because it expands the mind, the collective consciousness and, I think, ultimately widens our understanding of life, the universe and everything. ;)

In regard to your last question about what kinds of questions I ponder, I would love to answer you and I will, but not tonight. My brain hurts. 🤯

Thank you for a good mental workout and interesting discussion.
 
Basically, what can't be proven isn't worth discussing.

I can meet you part way on that in that for the most part, asking pointless questions, e.g., the teapot, is pointless.

However, pondering for its own sake has merit because it expands the mind, the collective consciousness and, I think, ultimately widens our understanding of life, the universe and everything. ;)

In regard to your last question about what kinds of questions I ponder, I would love to answer you and I will, but not tonight. My brain hurts. 🤯

Thank you for a good mental workout and interesting discussion.
I agree fully about pondering for it's own sake. It is a form of meditation. Thinking about the vastness of space, why there is something rather than nothing, what the meaning of existence is. All can only serve to make one a better person. To quote Socrates "the unexamined life is not worth living."

On the other hand, there is some truth in Kurt Baier's response:

"the over-examined life is nothing to write home about either."😓
 
What if reality is just what we BELIEVE it to be based on our traditions and teachings, culture and religion as opposed to it being concrete and tangible? I don't buy into the theory that the universe is just a hologram, but to some it is. :unsure: This makes me think about reality and how it really is largely subjective. If you think/believe something is so that makes it so for you and becomes your reality.

What do you think about this?
Reality, in my opinion, is the world you experience. I don't think it is what you believe, it's what you know based on your experience. That's not to say that your reality is universal. Just yours. Mine may be different. One doesn't cancel the other. What can we agree on......Life is hard, life is cruel, people suffer who don't deserve it. Love and caring are universal and effect us all. Happiness and sadness are things that we all experience. I think the search for reality is one reason why alot of people turn to God. Only he can answer your question. No one on this earth can answer your question. Anyone who thinks he can is only being foolish.
just my opinion
 
I'm a stickler for how we use words, so I wouldn't say "own version of reality." That path leads to "it's right because I say so." It is where we get this talk of a "post-truth" world. I'm all for tolerance of differences of all kinds. But not when it comes to what is real or true.
Well don't you see?...that's your version of reality. I personally do believe that there is "one reality", but there is also ample evidence that people interpret that reality to suit their own desires.
 
Well don't you see?...that's your version of reality. I personally do believe that there is "one reality", but there is also ample evidence that people interpret that reality to suit their own desires.
I would have to disagree about ample evidence. Lots of opinions of course, but we know all about those ;)
 
But that is the crux of what I'm saying, everyone interpreting reality and forming individual opinions of what reality constitutes.
Nobody seriously disagrees about the overwhelming majority of what constitutes reality, e.g., gravity, electricity, etc. A lot of disagreement starts when people start saying "my reality is" such and such.

Quite often that way of talking is used to defend some behavior, viewpoint, belief, etc., that is controversial or objectionable to some others. The reasoning is this: this is my REALITY so I can't be wrong. That is what I object to.
 
Reality, in my opinion, is the world you experience. I don't think it is what you believe, it's what you know based on your experience. That's not to say that your reality is universal. Just yours. Mine may be different. One doesn't cancel the other. What can we agree on......Life is hard, life is cruel, people suffer who don't deserve it. Love and caring are universal and effect us all. Happiness and sadness are things that we all experience. I think the search for reality is one reason why alot of people turn to God. Only he can answer your question. No one on this earth can answer your question. Anyone who thinks he can is only being foolish.
just my opinion
IDK. I think it's what we believe because people who believe in God will look for evidence of God in their lives and believe they experience that. The subconscious mind only knows what we tell it it through our most dominant thoughts and relays evidence to back up our beliefs. The only way to change this is to change your thoughts and then you can change your life and experience. :unsure:
 
IDK. I think it's what we believe because people who believe in God will look for evidence of God in their lives and believe they experience that. The subconscious mind only knows what we tell it it through our most dominant thoughts and relays evidence to back up our beliefs. The only way to change this is to change your thoughts and then you can change your life and experience. :unsure:
Yep! Change your mind, change your life. 💕
 
Since the sugar came from your donut, it wouldn't be there unless you were. But you probably mean something a little more abstract, like the tree falling in the forest when nobody is around to hear it. Did it make a sound?

One way to look at this sort of puzzle is to analyze what is being said. If by "sound" you mean something like "noise" then it didn't make a sound because "noise" just means something a hearer perceives. But if "sound" means airwaves, then it did make a sound.

Does that help?
That was sugar? Hmm this puts a whole new spin on the whole thing.
 
Just some random thoughts I’m running through my head.

What exactly is reality? Would we recognise it if we saw it. Is it based on individual or collective perception? If there are other type’s intelligent beings in this universe, would their perception of reality be different to ours, depending on their knowledge, their technology & there own level of intelligence. Depending on their level of “understanding” and experiences of it. Depending on their lever of comprehension compaired to our own.

What is people's understanding of the reality of sound? Would everyone see that reality differently depending on the factors mentioned above?

When a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound? What exactly is the ‘reality’ of it, based on our ‘perception’ of what sound is. What is the reality of the universe if we only have our subjective perception and our interpretations of our various types of ‘measurements’ of it? Are we measuring it in the ‘correct’ ways?

When a tree falls is there a sound made. Does sound only exist when the disturbance of air hits our ear drums, and not before? Remove the ear drum; remove the person, does the reality of sound still exist. Is sound just the movement of air? If there is no one to hear that movement of air, then are you just simply left with just that, the movement of air, which may not necessary be considered sound. Does sound not exist? Is the movement of the eardrum, the bones in the ear, and the cochlea, along with electrical signals to the brain what sound is. Is sound just an electrical signal to your brain, and nothing more? If no one can agree on the reality of what sound is, and how its perceived, how do we know what the reality of everything else is.
 
What if reality is just what we BELIEVE it to be based on our traditions and teachings, culture and religion as opposed to it being concrete and tangible? I don't buy into the theory that the universe is just a hologram, but to some it is. :unsure: This makes me think about reality and how it really is largely subjective. If you think/believe something is so that makes it so for you and becomes your reality.
What do you think about this?
As a child I used to keep asking questions such as "Why this or that was the case" or "What if" type questions, (not that I'm suggesting you have because I'd guess most forum members would have some unease about what is now described as the "new normal" :) ).

I often received the response from my parents if they were getting worn down by the questioning, (particularly my father), something along the lines of "What if your aunt Fanny is your uncle", (or something like that?).


BTW Just found this apparently long lost cousin of "Gary O" you might like to see giving an explanation of our use of language:
 
Last edited:
I suppose that if two people are standing in the forest, one deaf and one with good hearing when the proverbial tree falls then there will be two realities. In one case yes, the tree will make noise. In the other case, it will not make noise. Same situation, two different realities? Or one reality with two different interpretations?
 


Back
Top