Reology and the Philosophy of Reality
Reology and the Philosophy of Reality
Reology and the Philosophy of Reality
We have previously explored Reology and Quantum Mechanics, Sensory Physiology, and the Three Grand Illusions. What about the Philosophy of reality? Many great ideas and arguments have evolved over the last several thousand years to explain reality, from the ideas of Plato and Aristotle's Metaphysics to the current Simulation Hypothesis credited to Hans Moravec (which several popular science fiction movies were based upon). While this is by no means an extensive review of Philosophy, there are some philosophical views worth noting.
What is especially fascinating is how some Philosophers, based upon their own logic, reasoning, and insights postulated the nature of reality without benefit of our present scientific knowledge and understanding of the laws of nature. For example, Democritus created the word Atomos (later Atom) to describe the fundamental component of the material world around 450 BCE. The idea of atoms actually dates back to 6th Century India. Al-Ghazali, a gifted Muslim Theologian and Philosopher (1058-1111 AD) had incredible insight into the instantaneous nature of reality and the limitations of mathematical proofs being valid only for what appears physical. Coincidentally Quantum Mechanics is struggling with mathematical proof of reality at the quantum level of existence where nothing is physical. He also postulated we could not exist if not for the constant involvement of God supporting reality. He believed the only things that are "real" are the atoms of Democritus and perception!
How did these and other ancient great thinkers arrive at their ideas and conclusions, when they had no scientific evidence to support their ideas? There doesn't even seem to be any valid reason for these great thinkers to have had such ideas to begin with. Consider the philosophy of George Berkley (1685-1753). He postulated that matter is an illusion; that all experience is 100% subjective. What we perceive as physically real is actually us perceiving what is in God's Thoughts about His creation and makeup of our physically appearing experience. His reasoning is that we are incapable of experiencing anything in any way other then the idea of it. He was at the same time an empiricist, also believing knowledge is only gained through the physical senses. This of course appears to be a tremendous contradiction. If Berkley were alive today however, he would have what was not available to him in his day; ample evidence of just how close to correct he might actually have been.
The vast majority of Philosophers and their Hypotheses however are based upon assumptions that physical reality is in one way or another absolute, whether created by God or some other force of nature. The Cosmological and Teological Arguments argue for a "First Cause" and "Intelligent Design" respectively for existence, but neither disputes the validity of things physical in our reality. The Ontological Argument explains reality by attempting to prove the existence of God. Developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) and expanded upon by Descartes (1596-1650), both men assume their physical identity and ability to perceive reality is absolute. How else can one conceive any idea without seeing themselves as central to that idea? Logic dictates we are each inseparable from what we experience, yet this in not possible Reologically. (See the previous articles in this series.)
Naturally, for every philosophical concept favoring one set of ideas, there is an opposing philosophy just as seemingly credible. To prove, contrary to popular opinion, that the oldest profession in the world is that of being a critic (expertise for which is considered everyone's birthright), The Ontological Argument's distracters included Gaunilo of Marmoutiers, David Hume, Mullah Sadra, Immanuel Kant, Bertrand Russell, and Richard Dawkins among others. Again, in each of these opposing views, the assumption is that physical reality is absolute; it is real, it exists, and it is an integral part of any explanation or understanding of reality. Who would dare dispute this? Reology.
The point of this article is how at least certain philosophies created by acknowledged credible thinkers actually alluded to what science has presently discovered about our existence and our perception of it. There would seem to be some inherent insight we might each posses that, if we are open to it despite how illogical it first seems or how contradictory it is to our accepted convictions, allows us a glimmer of truth.
Is it possible there is some latent or ignored awareness in our own psyche that contains knowledge of our perceptive awareness from creation? Would it not be something that would be reflected in our philosophy, such as the insights of the Philosophers above, or even in our art, mythology, and fiction? Again, there are no really valid reasons based either on the laws of nature or the academic convictions of those times for these men to have had such ideas and not be labeled mentally deficient. The same may apply to some of the impressionistic art created by man, and the folklore and mythology ancient cultures devised to explain reality. In these endeavors however, no one is expecting things to "make sense". On this basis, concepts that fly in the face of science, while not taken seriously, do get accepted. Is it unreasonable to consider all these were based on some insight of truth of the actual means creation came to be, despite how illogical they may seem?
How do we comprehend Biblical Scriptures that specifically state that God is spirit, and that He created this reality with His thoughts, His invisible attributes. Even Science has come to the point of discovering that matter is only physical appearing in the instant of observation. When no observation is occurring, matter exists as energy in every possible variation. Observation is what forces this energy to appear as matter in one specific state out of all its variables. Since we each see ourselves made of this matter, who observes us into existence then? If there is no such Observer, then how do always appear as ourselves when Science claims we exist in a countless variety of forms? Further, a concept called entanglement definitively shows that all the states of matter are aware of and coordinate with all other states of matter instantaneously. This "communication" occurs without any limitations. The biology of our sensory functions confirms this "instant" of observation is the only way we have any recognition of anything physical. We have direct evidence of this in every experience we have as physical beings in physical reality. It's so obvious, it is ignored. It is ignored because it seems so totally absurd to the ideas we've developed about our reality, what it consists of, and how it all works.
We discover the ideas that describe physical laws and limitations. It is only natural to assume these discoveries are absolute, because they are provable and consistent. How could we legitimately consider that this reality and the laws that govern it are actually illusions instead? Obviously mainstream scientific thinking can't. Perhaps this should change however. Not in a manor indicative of any mysticism or new age type conjecture, but based on the ideas and evidence we have of an "unseen" reality that gives rise to our physical one as described by the Bible, numerous ancient to modern Philosophies, and now finally in Science itself through Quantum Mechanics.
http://www.therealitycode.com
PART 2 - The Tao of Da Vinci Code-Can Eastern Philosophy Contribute to the Da Vinci Code Controversy How to Look Hot in Plus Size Lingerie Tips to Choose Lingerie: the Points to Consider Plus Size Lingerie - Buying Tips You Should Know Plus Lingerie Manual for Buying Lingerie Buying Guide - Cotton Lingerie How to develop your own drawing philosophy ? Recent Developments In Breastfeeding Lingerie Yuletide, Horny Lingerie, Costumes and Santa Treats Shopping Guide - Selecting Lingerie Garments 5 Tips on How to Choose A Great Couples Lingerie Set Are You Looking To Purchase Lingerie? See This Philosophy of Pre-Employment Document Verification - ‘Trust, But Verify'