Comments on: Is reality real?

By: WySage

WySage — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 22:55:43 +0000

A major part of Singers article was commenting on IPCC Fig. 9.5b, and says that the gap between models and actual temperatures is attributed to AGW, as if the scientists were simply hand waving.
Please look at the IPCC 2007, Vol 1, The Physical Science Basis, Figure 9.5a (this figure is also Figure TS.23 in the technical summary). With both natural and anthropogenic forcings, the models do a great job predicting the measured temperature trend over the 20th century!
Singer is simply omitting relevant information. So it is easy to say reality isn’t real if you omit real things from reality.

By: Cephalopod33

Cephalopod33 — Sun, 02 Sep 2012 02:43:15 +0000

Daniel J. Andrews:

“If things aren’t real, then what is the alternative and what difference would it make in how we act even if we knew that reality wasn’t real? We’re still stuck in the middle of it regardless.”

I tend to agree with your sentiment. However, as The Matrix may or may not have taught us… I guess it’s theoretically possible that if our reality *wasn’t* real, we could potentially exploit our evidence for *why* our reality isn’t real as a means towards understanding what is *actually* real.

…And potentially kill whoever is allowing us to live in paradise. For some reason.

By: Mauro

Mauro — Sat, 01 Sep 2012 23:55:24 +0000

Reality is not real.

Reality is simply there.

Regards,

Mauro.

By: Daniel J. Andrews

Daniel J. Andrews — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:51:38 +0000

If things aren’t real, then what is the alternative and what difference would it make in how we act even if we knew that reality wasn’t real? We’re still stuck in the middle of it regardless.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:34:25 +0000

That would work.

By: Marnie

Marnie — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 20:13:03 +0000

Ahh, ok, so “real” is “I have decided X and nothing is real that doesn’t support X”

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:58:57 +0000

In order to really get this you have to click through to the awful post in the link and see how awful that is. Really awful.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:51:31 +0000

This is like when after the Fukushima disaster, Greg had a post about how solar power is much more deadly than nuclear, right?

By: Marnie

Marnie — Thu, 30 Aug 2012 19:31:35 +0000

So how are you defining “real”? Give me an example of something that fits that criteria so I can understand the rules. We use the world “real” in everyday parlance to mean something in particular. I can have an “imaginary friend” or “real friend.” The line of delineation being that a “real” friend is someone that others can see, meet, speak to and interact with. But if you throw our experiences out as proof then what is there to even determine the basis for real?

It’s a mental game, though, right? I don’t think it matters if reality is real. We could be someone’s dream or a computer program or in the matrix or some alien’s ant farm, but whatever all that is if it can’t be called “real,” it is as untestable and verifiable as any sort of god would be. What we do know is that, whatever it is we are in, (the semantics of this is a little challenging) functions in ways that are testable, verifiable and consistent. This allows us some means of determining things like whether or not stepping off the top of a 5 story building is a good idea or a bad idea. There are consequences to disregarding certain apparent facts and that’s how we determine what is “real,” in a way that makes sense to day to day functioning.