RE: The ways to know reality?
August 26, 2012 at 7:04 am
(This post was last modified: August 26, 2012 at 7:45 am by Angrboda.)
You know, I was going to make some snide comment on your avatar, but on reflection, I realized that an oversized pair of balls and a colossal dick is probably a fitting representation of you.
I've been bested in the meaningful comment department by someone whose comment is, "*ROFL*" I feel so outclassed. I'm going to go slash my wrists now. If anybody needs me, I'll be bleeding out.
(August 26, 2012 at 6:55 am)Rayaan Wrote:(August 25, 2012 at 7:53 pm)Napoléon Wrote: How would you define reality, if not by a means of science?I would define reality as just "what really is." The definition might also include the totality of everything that exists. But, in the end, we still do not know if science is the only means of understanding reality. You may think it is, but that doesn't necessarily make it true. For example, there may exist other dimensions and/or regions of space in the universe in which the laws of physics become totally obsolete and everything that happens there is completely unpredictable and unexplainable by science. If that was the case, which is not impossible, then this would invalidate the idea that science is the only means of understanding reality.
Reality is reality, but our beliefs about it and our method of understanding it varies from person to person. Hence, in my opinion, understanding reality is always a subjective process, even for scientists. We don't even know whose understanding of reality is the right one because, again, it is subjective.
"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point."
— Friedrich Nietzsche