Question: Do people have different limits about how many possibilities they can hold in their heads? So does being open to more active possibilities make you less cognitively circumscribed? Does holding open too many active possibilities result in a person being muddled?
I get that, but once you know some basics of how to interpret your own dreams, they’re gifts to think about after waking up! They’re telling you something that you are unable or unwilling to process and feel while awake. That’s amazing.
@@melgross I don’t see much evidence for the viewpoint that they don’t tell us anything at all, it seems the controversy is around what they tell us and the level of how meaningful and reflective of us being awake. Dreams are wild, I love thinking about this topic.
@@jhodapp evidence? There’s no evidence. It’s just speculation. When I got my degree in psychology many years ago, there were a number of hypotheses floating around, Jung being popular at the time. There haven’t been any major advances since then. The major idea here is that the brain is sorting activities and either storing some memories or throwing others away. The creams come from the brain taking those memories ant moving them around. We “see” that from one part of the brain, while another part tries to make sense of them. What happens is that the brain hallucinates because the snippets of memories are disjointed. That’s really the best understanding of it we have now.
Whether in dream or under light, one is always learning. The issue man faces today is not knowing the when to intentionally face a purposeful journey on a daily basis. This has ruined lives and has stolen a vast world of invaluable wealth of varying rich insight. If only I can explain what a 10 or 20 mile journey does to oneself, then you might realise the impact and change for richer future. Every single human will test this phase of change......it is a promise.
When we dream, I believe we are dissociated from our awakening state and therefore experiencing the dream as a real thing/happening. Thinking of it, this might give us a hint that dissociative experiences can feel as 100% real and having said that, (this is part of Kastrup’s theory) why would our awakening state be something else then another form of dissociation from the real us, which then would be consciousness, which remains and which isn’t physical but purely mental as our dream is?
Like this sortve um Rebecca would kinda not call it “mental illness” the specific term would be “extreme involvement” you could put “dissociation” but “it’s in your hands” as I say. ❤😮
Certain drug states feel real until the effect wears away. What if natural limitations within the structure of our brains limit our cognition in a way similar to the effects of a drug? It's at least possible that a much higher level of reality exists, but does so above our ability to perceive it. We're mechanically "drugged" in a way. If we were to remove the parts of our brains that produce the sensation of pain, we would say that such a brain is damaged and not experiencing real reality. However, if those parts of the brain never existed in the first place, we would not know of such a thing as pain in the first place, and a reality without pain would be our real reality. Now imagine what parts could exist, but don't.
Look around at our human species thriving in our technologically advanced world. Realism is doing fine. The problem is with the short sightedness of the human species, not how they perceive reality
It doesn't seem that differentiating between the real and the imaginary is a solved problem. This dualism seems emergent, to me. Scientific inquiry is the best tool we have for approaching this problem. To be precise, at the point of observation, it is not possible to differentiate between the real and the imaginary. (They're the same thing here.) Sometimes it even seems that the reason why the imaginary doesn't seem real is simply because we need better theories of the imaginary. Instrumentalism is the best approach when realism has broken down, in my opinion. It's an approach that works even when it's not so clear what's real and what isn't. When well documented, it can be imitated by individuals with any number of philosophical differences.
Is the verb 'believe' the real test of reality? Even with logic and coherent thinking, it still appears as if it must have the last word, on the matter. What I consider more useful in deciding what is reality is to realise that it is, chaneleon like, able to manifest itself in different ways. And we should be grateful that we can perceive reality's double act: awake and dreaming. It tells us that we're part of a very complex and magical reality, part of a world that can create many forms of reality which should be given equal status because they each, simply, exist. Alice in Wonderland senses the weirdness of reality and explores it without fear or category. That's the best approach to reality imo. .
I like how she observes that one reality calls on her mind and will, and the other one, the one we all live in (or under), does not. I would also observe that one reality can be controlled, but another cannot, at least not by us. If we accept that, but still maintain it's all generated internally, then we admit some arbitrary but observable part of our own minds is somehow beyond our control and beyond predictability too. Whether it's the Matrix or God or whatever, you've already put reality outside our minds with just that statement. That seems like a contradiction to me.
Untranquilized maybe entangled, emotion, faith and reason, may explain fallaciously concluding that there will be a world for some uncertain state of nature.
How can a Theory of the mechanism of consciousness not also be a theory of consciousness? Why does the word "mechanism" make a significant difference? Her point I take is that claiming that consciousness is an illusion does not deny the existence of consciousness.
...ja but it is an illusion or Physics is wrong: according to the thermodynamic law energy can not be destroyed so if consciousness contains energy where does it go afterwards and where does it come from in the first place?!
It does not go anywhere because we do not know what happens after death it is all speculation or you just use survival itself into the future which is survival itself into the future. The more important question is this, why did a dinosaur or an old creature have consciousness and what is its purpose if not to survive with it,. It is a feature of survival or if not survival itself realizing itself as an agent in the world from the brain itself or an elaboration or higher level of survival itself from the material into the abstract realm of existence. This is so when you are conscious you are alive or you are able to partake in the survival process when you are asleep you do not you are sub conscious and it is not fully switched off. Its a mode or abstract expression of survival itself from the material into that realm of existence or higher level survival function. This is why if you say removed consciousness from the equation survival not existence would be highly irrelevant or unlikely and it is why lets say a dinosaur was a conscious agent to promote survival of material substance into the future. The mistake is to use soul or spirit instead of the correct definition which is conscious agent or survival agent. The power of the brain or material in a complex substrate is that it has this ability or disposition to be in abstract realm or it overlaps with the material from material in to abstract composition to promote survival of matter.
The story of Jesus is basically a survival story but it extends this survival capacity into the unknown not future, or death which is highly speculative or it just extends survival into the unknown sphere. No one honestly knows because you can not measure it or we have no real substantial way to know. Its more of a postulation of survival then anything real but it does provide solace even though it lacks coherence or measurement but you could also say its a postulate or way to pretend you know something when you dont for possible political reasons or hierarchy reasons or simply to seem that you know something when you dont.
The question is does the thought of such a thing means that because the thought is real does that mean it is so or true, this is the real question with no real way of understanding which could be seen as questionable at the very least.
You would also have to ask this question, if a dinosaur has soul or spirit instead of consciousness then would this entity be available for heaven lets say like any other conscious agent that exists if it behaves good, which this then highlights the possible weakness in argument and reason to question evolution itself which in honesty comes across as quite weak or it fails to specify this question through neglect or obfuscation or the goalpost effect take your choice. If you cannot answer this basic question then in all probability it is false because of the weakness of position or obfuscation technique which is obvious. You would have to postulate that a dinosaurs soul could go to heaven but this seems comical the best way to describe it is a conscious agent in survival mode or avoiding death by being a conscious agent. Elaboration techniques of the force of survival in material substrates with complexity to promote survival both in abstraction via consciousness combined or overlapped with material composites with the protocol 1 of survival as a disposition of material substance.
@@MasterofOne-zl6ur What happens to a worm after death is what happens to us after death. Why should there be a difference in this regard for two biological entities? Either a worm has a soul as we have a soul or a worm does not have a soul as we don’t have a soul. Do people think there’s a worm heaven?
A worm interacts with the same realty as us, but perceives and experiences that reality in ways that have proved beneficial for the species of worm that it is
Philosophy reality are definitive description in Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza. However shows up reality in philosophy proceendings It is NOT definitive philosophy process so far . She believes in consciousness but NOT figure It out as philosopher proceendings. Neurosience shows consciousness It is NOT figuret It out Though neurosience so far. So I can Not quite believe when she shows as philosopher and neurosience closer this fundamental question without philosophy and neurosience process. She is NOT belong in philosophy and neurosience. Absolutetly.
These speculations are thousands of years old and led to nowhere, no new understanding. Three centuries of science changed the life of humanity fundamentaly. That should be a hint, that science makes real claims about the phenomenon of nature.
Go into deep meditation - shut down all of your mental apps -- stories, feelings, perceptions, and etc, then see what the answer comes up. Then forget it and just accept what is and live in the moment.
Creating a world for a novel is vivid, but not even remotely like reality, but for those of us who have lucid dreams, it's an entirely different matter. I would normally accept the evidence of the physical world as evidence against solopsism, but I frequently have lucid dreams in which I wake up in the dream and have the wherewithal to test my environment. The people in my dream are real. Just as real as people in reality. The matter and physical interactions of my dreams are weird but also fully real. It challenges everything.
*"Creating a world for a novel is vivid, but not even remotely like reality, but for those of us who have lucid dreams, it's an entirely different matter."* ... I agree with both of your points, but as an artistic creator and writer who also has lucid dreams, I don't think you're giving enough credit to what goes into creating a literary, artistic or motion picture landscape. The deeper I immerse myself into my artistic creations, the more I find myself "existing" within that reality. I have to "snap out of it" after a while. I believe that the more an artist becomes immersed within their creation, the greater the reception by those who read, hear or view it. It's like the difference between watching "Schindler's List" and a "Happy Days" episode.
As a novelist, Rebecca is probably best suited for discerning between reality and non-reality. I can easily relate to her _"reality vs nonreality"_ argument as I am currently creating a ten-character cartoon. I am tasked with developing _convincing personalities_ for each of the ten characters, and I often find myself _consciously existing_ within this bizarre, 2-dimensional realm. ... At the end of the day, they are all just manifestations of my own imagination via proxy! The only reason the Antirealism argument exists at all is because the human mind (conceivability) allows for it. If you can *logically conceive* something, then at the very least, it is _possible._ However, just because something is conceivable (possible) doesn't mean that it must exist or that's what's really going on. The same applies to _highly imaginative propositions_ such as Multiverse, Simulations, Hard Determinism, Libertarian Free Will, and God that challenge what we subjectively experience as the default reality. What we CAN do is take all "conceivable propositions" related to the subject in question, assign value to each proposition, and then place them all in a "Spectrum of Possibilities" ranging from most likely to least likely. .... Whichever proposition holds the highest value ranking in the spectrum is "Closest to Truth" by default.
I'm pretty sure this is why and how the Self is acknowledged - by inquiry into the quintessence of reality itself - but first must be realized and by quite the ascetic practices, althought not entirely requisite, but to inquire this most subtle and seemingly fleeting "thing" but only is because it's non objective., therefore mind cannot grasp it in an objective fasion, like our conditioned reality here of things transistory and ephemeral. Maya, they say, i.e., the creative power of Brahma, is the illusion, i.e., phenomena, this conditioned experience, things transistory,... but this realm only is denominated "illusion" so to bring the minds attention to this very substratum of all. There is Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, i.e., creation, sustenances, dissolution, i.e., birth, life, death. This doesn't mean that phenomena isn't real entirely; it most certainly is, but it's not what we think it is; it's not real in the sense of lasting, cause, immutable, impervious, source, primordial - therefore, because there is a power that is immutable, lasting, unintelligbile, source, cause, primordial, we denominate this the 'real'. Calling all of phenomena as illusion is acknowledging what is the true cause. Even though this phenomena is trasistory, ultimately unreal, the light of the Divine still shines forth and through all things: Wisdom, Good, Truth, Justice, Knowledge, Self realization, order, meaning, rapture, the silly word love[(which is sacrifice) the Sun gives to all and receives nothing]. We must not think this 'Good' derives from doctors or heroes nor our rapture and delight in things material like money, but these qualities are in us, in soul, and precede all phenomenon.
To prove that quarks (subatomic particles) are more real while protons and neutrons (atomic particles) are less real, we need to establish a clear definition of what we mean by "real" and then provide evidence or logical arguments that support this claim. Let's approach this step by step. Definition of "real": For the purpose of this proof, we will define "real" as being more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality. Proof: 1. Quarks are the fundamental building blocks of matter: - Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark, while neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks. - Quarks are not known to have any substructure; they are considered to be elementary particles. - Therefore, quarks are more fundamental than protons and neutrons. 2. Quarks are indivisible: - Protons and neutrons can be divided into their constituent quarks through high-energy particle collisions. - However, there is no known way to divide quarks into smaller components. They are believed to be indivisible. - Therefore, quarks are indivisible, while protons and neutrons are divisible. 3. Quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality: - The Standard Model of particle physics, which is our most comprehensive theory of the fundamental particles and forces, describes quarks as elementary particles that interact through the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. - Protons and neutrons, on the other hand, are composite particles that emerge from the interactions of quarks. - Therefore, quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most fundamental scientific theories. 4. Quarks exhibit more fundamental properties: - Quarks have intrinsic properties such as color charge, flavor, and spin, which determine how they interact with each other and with other particles. - Protons and neutrons derive their properties from the collective behavior of their constituent quarks. - Therefore, the properties of quarks are more fundamental than those of protons and neutrons. 5. Quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons: - Without quarks, protons and neutrons would not exist, as they are composed entirely of quarks. - However, quarks can exist independently of protons and neutrons, as demonstrated by the existence of other hadrons such as mesons, which are composed of one quark and one antiquark. - Therefore, quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons, but not vice versa. Conclusion: Based on the above arguments, we can conclude that quarks are more real than protons and neutrons. Quarks are more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most advanced scientific theories. They exhibit intrinsic properties that determine the behavior of composite particles like protons and neutrons, and they are necessary for the existence of these atomic particles. It is important to note that this proof relies on our current scientific understanding of particle physics and the nature of matter. As our knowledge advances, our understanding of what is "real" may evolve. However, based on the current evidence and theories, the argument for the greater reality of quarks compared to protons and neutrons is strong.
Sir Kuhn, your first question is fabulous.
Goldstein wrote a fantastic book about Kurt Godel and his Incompleteness Theorem. Her description of the theorem in layman's terms is quite good.
Question: Do people have different limits about how many possibilities they can hold in their heads? So does being open to more active possibilities make you less cognitively circumscribed? Does holding open too many active possibilities result in a person being muddled?
Sometimes, people overthink things. When I wake and remember part of a dream, I understand it was a dream. I don’t agonize over it.
I get that, but once you know some basics of how to interpret your own dreams, they’re gifts to think about after waking up! They’re telling you something that you are unable or unwilling to process and feel while awake. That’s amazing.
@@jhodapp maybe they are. It’s pretty controversial as to whether they’re telling us anything at all.
@@melgross I don’t see much evidence for the viewpoint that they don’t tell us anything at all, it seems the controversy is around what they tell us and the level of how meaningful and reflective of us being awake. Dreams are wild, I love thinking about this topic.
@@jhodapp evidence? There’s no evidence. It’s just speculation. When I got my degree in psychology many years ago, there were a number of hypotheses floating around, Jung being popular at the time. There haven’t been any major advances since then. The major idea here is that the brain is sorting activities and either storing some memories or throwing others away. The creams come from the brain taking those memories ant moving them around. We “see” that from one part of the brain, while another part tries to make sense of them. What happens is that the brain hallucinates because the snippets of memories are disjointed. That’s really the best understanding of it we have now.
Whether in dream or under light, one is always learning. The issue man faces today is not knowing the when to intentionally face a purposeful journey on a daily basis. This has ruined lives and has stolen a vast world of invaluable wealth of varying rich insight. If only I can explain what a 10 or 20 mile journey does to oneself, then you might realise the impact and change for richer future. Every single human will test this phase of change......it is a promise.
could external reality be conception of causative mind for universe, similar to human mind conceive stories / novels and characters?
I loved the line about Bertrand Russell. Closer to Truth: it’s nice to have a space where so many of us solipsists can hang together 😂
When we dream, I believe we are dissociated from our awakening state and therefore experiencing the dream as a real thing/happening. Thinking of it, this might give us a hint that dissociative experiences can feel as 100% real and having said that, (this is part of Kastrup’s theory) why would our awakening state be something else then another form of dissociation from the real us, which then would be consciousness, which remains and which isn’t physical but purely mental as our dream is?
what in the world am I looking at in the background?
Like this sortve um Rebecca would kinda not call it “mental illness” the specific term would be “extreme involvement” you could put “dissociation” but “it’s in your hands” as I say. ❤😮
The cluttered mind of modern man in darkness
@@S3RAVA3LM FACEPALM! SMH
@@S3RAVA3LM*Russian accent* I do not need another fedora wearin Italian Jewish lady giving me the butter to her biscuits if you catch my midriff.
Certain drug states feel real until the effect wears away. What if natural limitations within the structure of our brains limit our cognition in a way similar to the effects of a drug? It's at least possible that a much higher level of reality exists, but does so above our ability to perceive it. We're mechanically "drugged" in a way.
If we were to remove the parts of our brains that produce the sensation of pain, we would say that such a brain is damaged and not experiencing real reality. However, if those parts of the brain never existed in the first place, we would not know of such a thing as pain in the first place, and a reality without pain would be our real reality. Now imagine what parts could exist, but don't.
Realism gets into deeper problems the more we learn.
Look around at our human species thriving in our technologically advanced world. Realism is doing fine. The problem is with the short sightedness of the human species, not how they perceive reality
It doesn't seem that differentiating between the real and the imaginary is a solved problem.
This dualism seems emergent, to me. Scientific inquiry is the best tool we have for approaching this problem.
To be precise, at the point of observation, it is not possible to differentiate between the real and the imaginary. (They're the same thing here.)
Sometimes it even seems that the reason why the imaginary doesn't seem real is simply because we need better theories of the imaginary.
Instrumentalism is the best approach when realism has broken down, in my opinion.
It's an approach that works even when it's not so clear what's real and what isn't. When well documented, it can be imitated by individuals with any number of philosophical differences.
Is the verb 'believe' the real test of reality? Even with logic and coherent thinking, it still appears as if it must have the last word, on the matter. What I consider more useful in deciding what is reality is to realise that it is, chaneleon like, able to manifest itself in different ways. And we should be grateful that we can perceive reality's double act: awake and dreaming. It tells us that we're part of a very complex and magical reality, part of a world that can create many forms of reality which should be given equal status because they each, simply, exist.
Alice in Wonderland senses the weirdness of reality and explores it without fear or category. That's the best approach to reality imo. .
I like how she observes that one reality calls on her mind and will, and the other one, the one we all live in (or under), does not.
I would also observe that one reality can be controlled, but another cannot, at least not by us. If we accept that, but still maintain it's all generated internally, then we admit some arbitrary but observable part of our own minds is somehow beyond our control and beyond predictability too. Whether it's the Matrix or God or whatever, you've already put reality outside our minds with just that statement. That seems like a contradiction to me.
Closer to Truth ?
Get closer to your Star (the Sun)
You'll return to Stardust.
That's the Reality of it !
Untranquilized maybe entangled, emotion, faith and reason, may explain fallaciously concluding that there will be a world for some uncertain state of nature.
Illusion-ism is misunderstood. It is not a theory of consciousness. It is a theory of mechanism of consciousness.
How can a Theory of the mechanism of consciousness not also be a theory of consciousness? Why does the word "mechanism" make a significant difference? Her point I take is that claiming that consciousness is an illusion does not deny the existence of consciousness.
mental constructs are physically bound to conciousness?... dont know if mathematical logic can be exemplified as mental construct ?
...ja but it is an illusion or Physics is wrong: according to the thermodynamic law energy can not be destroyed so if consciousness contains energy where does it go afterwards and where does it come from in the first place?!
It does not go anywhere because we do not know what happens after death it is all speculation or you just use survival itself into the future which is survival itself into the future. The more important question is this, why did a dinosaur or an old creature have consciousness and what is its purpose if not to survive with it,. It is a feature of survival or if not survival itself realizing itself as an agent in the world from the brain itself or an elaboration or higher level of survival itself from the material into the abstract realm of existence. This is so when you are conscious you are alive or you are able to partake in the survival process when you are asleep you do not you are sub conscious and it is not fully switched off. Its a mode or abstract expression of survival itself from the material into that realm of existence or higher level survival function. This is why if you say removed consciousness from the equation survival not existence would be highly irrelevant or unlikely and it is why lets say a dinosaur was a conscious agent to promote survival of material substance into the future.
The mistake is to use soul or spirit instead of the correct definition which is conscious agent or survival agent. The power of the brain or material in a complex substrate is that it has this ability or disposition to be in abstract realm or it overlaps with the material from material in to abstract composition to promote survival of matter.
The story of Jesus is basically a survival story but it extends this survival capacity into the unknown not future, or death which is highly speculative or it just extends survival into the unknown sphere. No one honestly knows because you can not measure it or we have no real substantial way to know. Its more of a postulation of survival then anything real but it does provide solace even though it lacks coherence or measurement but you could also say its a postulate or way to pretend you know something when you dont for possible political reasons or hierarchy reasons or simply to seem that you know something when you dont.
The question is does the thought of such a thing means that because the thought is real does that mean it is so or true, this is the real question with no real way of understanding which could be seen as questionable at the very least.
You would also have to ask this question, if a dinosaur has soul or spirit instead of consciousness then would this entity be available for heaven lets say like any other conscious agent that exists if it behaves good, which this then highlights the possible weakness in argument and reason to question evolution itself which in honesty comes across as quite weak or it fails to specify this question through neglect or obfuscation or the goalpost effect take your choice. If you cannot answer this basic question then in all probability it is false because of the weakness of position or obfuscation technique which is obvious.
You would have to postulate that a dinosaurs soul could go to heaven but this seems comical the best way to describe it is a conscious agent in survival mode or avoiding death by being a conscious agent. Elaboration techniques of the force of survival in material substrates with complexity to promote survival both in abstraction via consciousness combined or overlapped with material composites with the protocol 1 of survival as a disposition of material substance.
@@MasterofOne-zl6ur What happens to a worm after death is what happens to us after death. Why should there be a difference in this regard for two biological entities? Either a worm has a soul as we have a soul or a worm does not have a soul as we don’t have a soul. Do people think there’s a worm heaven?
A worm interacts with the same realty as us, but perceives and experiences that reality in ways that have proved beneficial for the species of worm that it is
Philosophy reality are definitive description in Descartes, Leibniz and Spinoza. However shows up reality in philosophy proceendings It is NOT definitive philosophy process so far . She believes in consciousness but NOT figure It out as philosopher proceendings. Neurosience shows consciousness It is NOT figuret It out Though neurosience so far. So I can Not quite believe when she shows as philosopher and neurosience closer this fundamental question without philosophy and neurosience process. She is NOT belong in philosophy and neurosience. Absolutetly.
These speculations are thousands of years old and led to nowhere, no new understanding. Three centuries of science changed the life of humanity fundamentaly. That should be a hint, that science makes real claims about the phenomenon of nature.
bros looking more and more like Einstein
also Carl Jung I find
They belong to the same tribe
@@Knaan-ro6eo exactly 👍👍
Just mix closer to truth channel ,pbs spacetime and Sadhguru channels, you, you will be the Einstein 😅😅😅
I’m strangely attracted to Rebecca…
beauty and brains an amzing feature i must say
Go into deep meditation - shut down all of your mental apps -- stories, feelings, perceptions, and etc, then see what the answer comes up. Then forget it and just accept what is and live in the moment.
Source -> "The art of saying nothing profoundly."
Creating a world for a novel is vivid, but not even remotely like reality, but for those of us who have lucid dreams, it's an entirely different matter. I would normally accept the evidence of the physical world as evidence against solopsism, but I frequently have lucid dreams in which I wake up in the dream and have the wherewithal to test my environment. The people in my dream are real. Just as real as people in reality. The matter and physical interactions of my dreams are weird but also fully real. It challenges everything.
*"Creating a world for a novel is vivid, but not even remotely like reality, but for those of us who have lucid dreams, it's an entirely different matter."*
... I agree with both of your points, but as an artistic creator and writer who also has lucid dreams, I don't think you're giving enough credit to what goes into creating a literary, artistic or motion picture landscape.
The deeper I immerse myself into my artistic creations, the more I find myself "existing" within that reality. I have to "snap out of it" after a while.
I believe that the more an artist becomes immersed within their creation, the greater the reception by those who read, hear or view it. It's like the difference between watching "Schindler's List" and a "Happy Days" episode.
Describe the test(s) you use to confirm that people in your lucid dreams are real.
Their background set is a metaphorical nightmare.
Is she a realist or an anti-realist?
As a novelist, Rebecca is probably best suited for discerning between reality and non-reality. I can easily relate to her _"reality vs nonreality"_ argument as I am currently creating a ten-character cartoon. I am tasked with developing _convincing personalities_ for each of the ten characters, and I often find myself _consciously existing_ within this bizarre, 2-dimensional realm.
... At the end of the day, they are all just manifestations of my own imagination via proxy!
The only reason the Antirealism argument exists at all is because the human mind (conceivability) allows for it. If you can *logically conceive* something, then at the very least, it is _possible._ However, just because something is conceivable (possible) doesn't mean that it must exist or that's what's really going on.
The same applies to _highly imaginative propositions_ such as Multiverse, Simulations, Hard Determinism, Libertarian Free Will, and God that challenge what we subjectively experience as the default reality.
What we CAN do is take all "conceivable propositions" related to the subject in question, assign value to each proposition, and then place them all in a "Spectrum of Possibilities" ranging from most likely to least likely.
.... Whichever proposition holds the highest value ranking in the spectrum is "Closest to Truth" by default.
I see what you did there.
I'm pretty sure this is why and how the Self is acknowledged - by inquiry into the quintessence of reality itself - but first must be realized and by quite the ascetic practices, althought not entirely requisite, but to inquire this most subtle and seemingly fleeting "thing" but only is because it's non objective., therefore mind cannot grasp it in an objective fasion, like our conditioned reality here of things transistory and ephemeral.
Maya, they say, i.e., the creative power of Brahma, is the illusion, i.e., phenomena, this conditioned experience, things transistory,... but this realm only is denominated "illusion" so to bring the minds attention to this very substratum of all. There is Brahma, Vishnu, Siva, i.e., creation, sustenances, dissolution, i.e., birth, life, death. This doesn't mean that phenomena isn't real entirely; it most certainly is, but it's not what we think it is; it's not real in the sense of lasting, cause, immutable, impervious, source, primordial - therefore, because there is a power that is immutable, lasting, unintelligbile, source, cause, primordial, we denominate this the 'real'. Calling all of phenomena as illusion is acknowledging what is the true cause. Even though this phenomena is trasistory, ultimately unreal, the light of the Divine still shines forth and through all things: Wisdom, Good, Truth, Justice, Knowledge, Self realization, order, meaning, rapture, the silly word love[(which is sacrifice) the Sun gives to all and receives nothing]. We must not think this 'Good' derives from doctors or heroes nor our rapture and delight in things material like money, but these qualities are in us, in soul, and precede all phenomenon.
To prove that quarks (subatomic particles) are more real while protons and neutrons (atomic particles) are less real, we need to establish a clear definition of what we mean by "real" and then provide evidence or logical arguments that support this claim. Let's approach this step by step.
Definition of "real":
For the purpose of this proof, we will define "real" as being more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality.
Proof:
1. Quarks are the fundamental building blocks of matter:
- Protons and neutrons are composed of quarks. Protons consist of two up quarks and one down quark, while neutrons consist of one up quark and two down quarks.
- Quarks are not known to have any substructure; they are considered to be elementary particles.
- Therefore, quarks are more fundamental than protons and neutrons.
2. Quarks are indivisible:
- Protons and neutrons can be divided into their constituent quarks through high-energy particle collisions.
- However, there is no known way to divide quarks into smaller components. They are believed to be indivisible.
- Therefore, quarks are indivisible, while protons and neutrons are divisible.
3. Quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality:
- The Standard Model of particle physics, which is our most comprehensive theory of the fundamental particles and forces, describes quarks as elementary particles that interact through the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces.
- Protons and neutrons, on the other hand, are composite particles that emerge from the interactions of quarks.
- Therefore, quarks are closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most fundamental scientific theories.
4. Quarks exhibit more fundamental properties:
- Quarks have intrinsic properties such as color charge, flavor, and spin, which determine how they interact with each other and with other particles.
- Protons and neutrons derive their properties from the collective behavior of their constituent quarks.
- Therefore, the properties of quarks are more fundamental than those of protons and neutrons.
5. Quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons:
- Without quarks, protons and neutrons would not exist, as they are composed entirely of quarks.
- However, quarks can exist independently of protons and neutrons, as demonstrated by the existence of other hadrons such as mesons, which are composed of one quark and one antiquark.
- Therefore, quarks are necessary for the existence of protons and neutrons, but not vice versa.
Conclusion:
Based on the above arguments, we can conclude that quarks are more real than protons and neutrons. Quarks are more fundamental, indivisible, and closer to the underlying nature of reality as described by our most advanced scientific theories. They exhibit intrinsic properties that determine the behavior of composite particles like protons and neutrons, and they are necessary for the existence of these atomic particles.
It is important to note that this proof relies on our current scientific understanding of particle physics and the nature of matter. As our knowledge advances, our understanding of what is "real" may evolve. However, based on the current evidence and theories, the argument for the greater reality of quarks compared to protons and neutrons is strong.
Today is Galatasaray
Author of "the Mind Body Problem" 40 years ago. Not very interesting today. Like a painter spouting philosophy, she's not on point.
Basically himan beings dream 24 hours of the day. Just once in a while they may be out of it .