Reality - potentially not as real as it seems

**Avian** · 09-19-2014 01:34 AM

The scientific achievements of today are mind-boggling. Scientists are uncovering the nature of the universe, which actually turns out to be quite absurd. Just look into any aspect of particle physics and you will understand what I mean. Electrons, quarks, antimatter, dark matter, the atomic model, string theory, etc. All these things are positively insane, and yet they all have a lot of merit and some are even basically proven. But when I think of this, a question comes to mind. What actually is reality itself? What are molecules, what is energy, and why do they exist? Whether it is god, coincidence, or any other thing, there has to be somewhere "outside" of reality. With positive, there must also be negative. Just a great nothingness where there is no space, time, energy, or matter. Just pure nothingness. In fact, it doesn't even exist in the sense that you could go there because it is not a part of reality, as in it is not real. But it is still there. In this nothingness, there is no order of any sort, meaning that anything and everything is always happening, and at the same time it isn't. And when I think about it, it seems to me like our reality is nothing more than a reflection on the nothingness.

I know this theory sounds like total rambling with little to no evidence to back it up, but I understand that, so please don't criticize me about it. I wasn't able to really put my thoughts into words, but I tried. Maybe if I think of a more accurate description of my thoughts, I will edit this post.

**splodeymissile** · 09-19-2014 08:25 AM

Isn't nothingness precisely that? Nothing at all? So, you'd be right in that there's no order,but there would be nothing else either. It may also be that reality is true initial state of, well, reality, which would make the idea of nothingness, especially one outside reality(since there wouldn't be an outside, no matter how abstract, to speak of), needless. I don't like the idea of using duality to come to nothingness, either, since nothingness wouldn't be able to possess a quality, such as negative.

**Avian** · 09-19-2014 03:31 PM

Yes but what I am saying is that I think reality exists not for a reason; there are no reasons or laws that govern the world. It simply exists because there is nothing saying it can't exist.

**snoop** · 10-13-2014 06:17 AM

Existence exists because it can. And after it does once, it can never stop completely, it is self-propagating. I imagine that there are periods or dimensions of "inexistence" or at least relative inexistence (which you maybe just chalk up to empty space really, I don't know). The existence of existence almost entails that inexistence does as well, at least during some point in time (or rather the space-time continuum). This really does allow for nearly all possibilities. There are times or dimensions in which things that may not be capable of happening here, are capable of happening there. Not to mention it sits very well with the idea that the universe is going through a giant loop, that existence will continue to implode on itself into a singularity until it explodes again and then expands and contracts until it eventually all happens again, or doesn't..... for a really long time. It could be exactly as long as the universe does exist. It's a lot like getting knocked out though. You suddenly wake up and the time that passed was like it never even happened, you know? So how long it would take to happen all over again or even for it to happen just once is pretty much irrelevant.

**Rainman** · 10-14-2014 07:29 PM

Originally Posted by Avian

Yes but what I am saying is that I think reality exists not for a reason; there are no reasons or laws that govern the world. It simply exists because there is nothing saying it can't exist.

Hmm. I had to think about this for a moment. I think we are getting very close to this relating very closely to language. The mind can make conscious sense of the concept of "not something" (ie, "not existing" or "not real") because of the development of languages, but the brain, and thus the creating force of the universe, whatever it was, also necessarily cannot implement nor understand "not." After all, in order to acknowledge "not something," "something" would either have to exist, or be created in order to be made sense of, thus invalidating the "not." I hope I'm making sense here!

You say, for example, that there is nothing saying reality can't exist, and therefore it exists. However, even if there were a creative force saying that reality can't exist, it would necessarily have to exist or be created/come into existence in order for the creative force to have a concept or understanding of what to make not exist. Thus, your postulation is logically invalid. (I mean that objectively, not as an assault on your opinions!) The concept of "not," in regard to existence, can only exist in language, and can only be applied or understood by conscious beings who implement the language containing "not" in this regard. Universally speaking, I can't imagine how this is "not" the case.

I enjoy pondering your questioning of reality is real. We don't know, and we will never know. We will only develop discoveries of further smaller particles that make up the particles that make up the particles that we already know of. But what are those particles made of? This question is analogous to two mirrors facing one another. The very basis upon which this question is asked is infinitely circular, and thus probably irrelevant.

For this reason, I feel that this topic is merely propelling us infinitely into a loop of language. We have inherent definitions and understandings of "reality" which are all based on language; after all, this is how we make sense of the world. But this is a prime example of how language is exceptionally limiting. Reality cannot be explained with language. What is "real" cannot be explained. A sound that I make with my mouth cannot reveal the essence of what is "real," but rather simply communicate to those who can hear it an interpretation of an explanation of what reality is. In any case, it's a recipe for a "real" headache.