Metaphysics: Assurance of reality?

[Mundane]

I've had a recent interest in philosophy in the past couple months and have done a bit of reading on metaphysics. I'm going to start the thread by describing metaphysics in the simplest way I can.

Metaphysics is a major branch of philosophy that investigates the principles of reality. It can contain but is not limited to investigating how the human brain experiences reality, the investigation of other realities such as life after death, religion as it correlates to reality, and the properties of space and time.

Now in this discussion I want to ask the questions: The human body perceives reality through the use of it's five primary senses(taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing); how can you assure your self that these instruments of perception are portraying the TRUE reality? Is there a way to experience some other reality from within this reality(meaning to self induce an secondary reality experience)? If a reality exists after death, how is it portrayed? Through what sort of vessel or instruments of perception would this reality be portrayed?

Rules of Engagement: Religious stuff is definitely in play; I encourage you to use it. However, I don't want this becoming a religious slug fest. It isn't directly about religion and whether it's right or wrong, but if you use a religion or religious explanation make sure it is viable and as objective as possible. Drug talk is good; I encourage it as well. If you want to explain your beliefs on reality through the use of drugs, or an experience you have had on drugs, make sure you explain it well and make sure it makes sense. Trips are a very subjective experience and second hand reports often cannot truly explain how you really felt and what you really experienced - make sure you can explain it.

Here is my argument for the following question: If a reality exists after death, how is it portrayed? Through what sort of vessel or instruments of perception would this reality be portrayed?

I am going to go along the basis of Plato's Theory of Forms, which in a nutshell is Plato's explanation of the true reality and how it differs from the reality that we are experiencing whilst alive in human form. He says that all we see is merely a shadow of a perfect reality which he said is composed of Forms, and the shadows we experience in our reality are particulars, or Ideas of the perfection that is the Forms.

Take for instance a flower, which in our reality is a particular. We know a flower is beautiful when it is in full bloom and displays its most bright colors. However, it is a particular because it has the potential to change. The beauty of that flower can change as it wilts. In this ideal reality, the Forms are never changing, perfect aspects of life.

I feel that upon death the bodies "soul" if you will, leaves the body and is left to roam the the world. This world, will be portrayed to the soul as perfect. Now depending on your religious background, this is the basic premise behind Heaven, a la Plato. Now it is rather impossible for me to pinpoint just how the soul works or how it perceives the different reality but this is perhaps all up so assumption.

The discussion will probably branch off into further metaphysical topics about creationism, genesis of the universe, and what not. Which is good, the more the merrier. I want to see how people feel about the topic of reality and the possibility of different realities.

 

[Xilef]

I've been recently interested in metaphysics after watching The Nines.
I just say one small thing: There are over 20 identifiable senses in an average human body.

 

[Mundane]

That's why I said primary senses. :wink: What exactly is The Nines?

 

[Wolfgang]

Scientifically speaking, an enternity in 'heaven' is experienced within a very finite amount of time. The time between when your body is alive and when your body stops to function is to outsiders, only a few moments. In the case of the dying, those few moments take an eternity, in which they experience a hell or a heaven. Now, not all people are lucky enough to have a slow enough death to experience this.
Relgiously speaking, we are parts of the gods on earth and we return to them. The devine is a perfect one being, which splits into both god and goddess. From there, we give the god and goddess names, to which they respond and take the form that we give them, yet are still only lower gods to the whole of the god and goddess, muchless the complete devine. Our souls return to the source where we experience our heaven, the summerland. If you are evil, you are either punished or sent back to try it again. Through enough cycles of rebirth, you finally find a life where to do what good you can and are rewarded.
My scientfic brain and religious heart are at war, I know. It's fun.

 

[e]

You'd be better off ditching Plato and going straight for Descartes; read Discours de la Raison, which is roughly...err...Speech on Reason? I'm not too good at translating that kind of stuff. Nietzsche also had some good stuff to say about the Mask, the Illusion and dreams in general which are related to your topic.

The gist of it is that whilst you can't verify that your senses are correct, there is no point disbelieving them. It would be absurd to and pointless to mistrust your five senses, as you have no other basis of communication with reality (note: not the Real, but reality, what you experience, not what is). This is a similar reasoning to those who point out that science is based largely on empirical experimentation, which we can assume is incorrect (i.e.: again, five senses), yet since the error is constant, science is exact.

Basically, although it is a fun topic, it is a way of life that no man can sustain; I encourage you to read Albert Camus's Myth of Sisyphus, in which he argues that the absurd is, generally (as in, in a more abstract way) the only (now, I don't remember exactly; it might be the most prominent) cause of suicide.

 

[Mundane]

I have a collection of Nietzche's more moral works, which are really confusing to me. I'll look into some Descartes.

 

[rey meustrus]

Quantum Suicide. It's a very metaphysical thing which I've thought about extensively, and I still don't know. It's one of the ways in which I figure death could happen, or rather NOT happen. The question about the afterlife itself is really a small question which would be answered by larger questions, such as what the nature of consciousness is. Does consciousness come from the physical universe, produced wholly by our brains? Is it the other way around, the physical world being an elaborate dream concocted by our wandering minds? Could the physical reality and consciousness come from another, higher entity that we can't perceive? There's a lot of ambiguity.

 

[Wolfgang]

Quantum suicide is like having every horrible quantum theory turned into people, then having their heads shoved up eachothers asses and calling the finished project a horse. That being said, it is an interesting thought experiment if your into quantum theory. I just find the idea of quantum rediculous, as there are no random events or actions within the universe.

 

[rey meustrus]

So...you choose to reject an entire branch of physics? It's not like it hasn't produced anything practical--there is such a thing as quantum cryptography, which utilizes quantum physics to prevent eavesdropping on a transmission where both sides have traded a unique "key" by conventional means.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Basically, although it is a fun topic, it is a way of life that no man can sustain; I encourage you to read Albert Camus's Myth of Sisyphus, in which he argues that the absurd is, generally (as in, in a more abstract way) the only (now, I don't remember exactly; it might be the most prominent) cause of suicide.

Really? That's what you got from the Myth of Sisyphus? Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the "absurd" spoken of in both Myth of Sisyphus and Stranger (By the same author, if you have not read it) the idea of not having a choice (not even suicide) to get out of your problems. In MoS, Sisyphus was forced to push the rock up the hill endlessly, in the afterlife (therefore he could not commit suicide), and then in the Stranger, Meursault is given the death penalty and has no options there but to die. In both cases, they accepted the absurd unquestioningly. (Because, I guess they had no choice, right?)

As for the idea that your 5 senses are incorrect, when Animals and Plants respond to the same stimuli we do, it's kind of like: can everyone be wrong? I know that's a bad way of wording it, but what I mean is, as far as we can possibly know, the reality we know is the only reality we can ever know. All of our sensors, senses, etc. are only detecting the same reality, so it's pointless to think about the possibility of other realities.

Also, Wolfgang: if there aren't random events in the universe, the traditional idea means that there will have to be an end of the universe XD. If everything is done to reach a purpose (an equilibrium) then at some point that equilibrium has to be reached. Once that equilibrium is reached, there's no more weather, planets don't orbit starts or rotate anymore, every process stops happening. It's called the "Heat Death of the Universe" which is what will happen when the entropy (Or the tendency of a system to change from it's current state) in the universe runs out. Carrying out any process uses up entropy, and when it runs out processes can't happen anymore. Now, other than because it would be better than no random events, what about the fact that the bodies in the universe are accelerating away from each other. Theoretically, they were drifting because the big bang was an explosion that sent them off. If this was the case, the center of gravity of the system is where ever the big bang happened, and therefore everything in the universe should be accelerating towards that center, or in other words back towards each other.

 

[rey meustrus]

I don't know what you mean about entropy, a fact of its definition is that entropy is ALWAYS increasing, it can't go backward. Even acts which seem to make more order (for example, air conditioning) really make more chaos (screwing up the temperature outside and burning coal or whatever for the energy). Chaos is the natural state. Life itself is a self-defeating product of the universe, in that it's a natural creation of chaos but it seeks to create order, ultimately resulting in reproduction and death. Entropy is a very confusing topic, if only because the definitions of "order" and "chaos" are somewhat convoluted and against common sense expectations.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

Right, I actually explained it in a weird way. Entropy is the tendency of a system to lean towards disorder, which is what happens when a process that seeks some equilibrium (which every process does) knocks something else out of whack. Theoretically, however, at some point there can be no more entropy added because everything will be at equilibrium.

 

[Wolfgang]

Also, Wolfgang: if there aren't random events in the universe, the traditional idea means that there will have to be an end of the universe XD. If everything is done to reach a purpose (an equilibrium) then at some point that equilibrium has to be reached. Once that equilibrium is reached, there's no more weather, planets don't orbit starts or rotate anymore, every process stops happening. It's called the "Heat Death of the Universe" which is what will happen when the entropy (Or the tendency of a system to change from it's current state) in the universe runs out.

I know about entropy, it's actually one of my favorite scientific words to quote atleast three times a week. (I hang out with my physics profressor during lunch) There was this really interesting scifi story where the entropy of the universe was running out, stars dying and the like. Man built a huge computer the size of a continent and asked it, how can entropy be reversed? The computer didn't have an answer. Man made it the size of the earth, and still no answer. A whole solar system of computers connected, and no answer. They built a nanocomputer in hyperspace, basically a whole universe of a nanocomputer (every location of the atoms being part of the calculations for you kiddys). And still, it had no answer. The last of the stars were dying and the whole of mankind was in cyrosleep, with thier minds slowly linking. The stars died, the collective conciousness of man and machine combinded... then they sat there, looking at the darkness. They said, "Light." And it was so.

But on a side note, there are no random events, no matter how much the quantum physists want there to be. If there were random events, you would have strange shit happening. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If this was not true, then when I touch a car, it could fly off into the stratosphere or explode. Purple dinosaurs would fall from the sky! ... I'm being a bit dramatic and silly, but if there was even a single happenstance of more force coming out of a reaction then was put into it, this universe would become chaos, and not the fun to talk about kind. The rip your mind in half cause you turned west kind.

To the big bang theory, it might make sense that if entropy was zero. Everything would be located at a single point with no outside forces acting upon it. The collection of so many sub atomic (or sub sub atomic) particles together might just explode outward, like a jar full of air in a vaccum. And to why things are not moving back to the center? If you throw a ball up into the air, there is a certian amount of time before it starts to come back. The gravity pulling it back is much less then the force that pushed it out, it would take a long time for that ball to hit the ground. (aka everything converging on one point)

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

No, you misunderstood. When you throw that ball, yes it takes time for it to reverse direction, but it is slowing down as soon as it leaves your hand. In the same fashion, everything in the universe should be slowing down and eventually changing direction just like the ball. However, it was just recently discovered that it appears that everything is going faster and faster, not slowing down.

Also, it is important to remember that our understanding of physics is woefully inadequate for the purpose of understanding anything outside of our atmosphere. We can't even be sure we are correctly classifying everything that goes on inside of our atmosphere. I believe a recent attempt was made, yet again, to link all of our physical equations so far and predict future ones (Sort of like the periodic table of elements) But I am not sure yet if that has gone anywhere, as it is certainly not the first attempt at an all-encompassing equation. I believe the document I read on it was called "A simple explanation of everything" but I'm not sure (Don't let the title confuse you, it was not simple at all XD I understood maybe 5% of what was in that document XD) Ahh, actually here it is: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/071 ... 0770v1.pdf "An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything"

Anyway, the point is that, while as far as we know random does not exist anywhere in any form, we can't be 100% sure of that, as even our most basic and accepted theories are constantly challenged (We don't even know where we came from )

EDIT: By the way, Wolfgang, that story sounds really interesting. Do you remember what the name of it was? XD

 

[e]

Basically, although it is a fun topic, it is a way of life that no man can sustain; I encourage you to read Albert Camus's Myth of Sisyphus, in which he argues that the absurd is, generally (as in, in a more abstract way) the only (now, I don't remember exactly; it might be the most prominent) cause of suicide.

Really? That's what you got from the Myth of Sisyphus? Correct me if I am wrong, but was not the "absurd" spoken of in both Myth of Sisyphus and Stranger (By the same author, if you have not read it) the idea of not having a choice (not even suicide) to get out of your problems. In MoS, Sisyphus was forced to push the rock up the hill endlessly, in the afterlife (therefore he could not commit suicide), and then in the Stranger, Meursault is given the death penalty and has no options there but to die. In both cases, they accepted the absurd unquestioningly. (Because, I guess they had no choice, right?)

That is the classical myth of Sysiphus. Albert Camus' Myth of Sysiphus shares the title and talks about the myth, but is a philosophical treatise, not a tale.

 

[Eduardo]

I think the story he was talking about is book, a portuguese one, called "God's Formula" that's a literal translation, I dunno if its the correct name.

 

[rey meustrus]

Things don't need to really BE random to SEEM random. Look at computers, the rand function is never really random, just seemingly random (pulls numbers out of a table of seemingly random numbers created by humans, reads a piece of existing memory out of context, things like that).

Furthermore, quantum physics does not deal with visible reactions. It deals solely with subatomic reactions, for which conventional physics appears to be thrown out the window. The only random acts I have heard of in quantum physics involve the emission of a tiny piece of radiation, unnoticeable by ordinary means. At this subatomic level, classical physics and common sense do not apply for some strange reason; this is what scientists have observed using electron microscopes and indirect means.

 

[Mundane]

Rey, you're approach seems to scientific for my fancies. I feel that sometimes you need to be able to go outside the realm of proof and science to configure your belief on reality. All science is going to do is debunk your inner most beliefs with numbers and facts. That's how I feel, personally.

 

[Wolfgang]

DeM0nFiRe :: I don't remember the name of the story, I think it might have been done by either Robert A Hienlien or Piers Anthony.

 

[DeM0nFiRe]

etheon: Yeah, I know which one you are thinking of. The last paragraph started "One must imagine Sisyphus happy", I don't remember there being suicide mentioned in it at all :p Maybe I read it wrong, but it seemed to me like the absurd was having no options.