Absolute Reality

[Starman]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

That is exactly what I said..

With Love
Eelco

Human beings have different meanings for various words of the same language and the word "reality" is one of those.
I like the Taoist saying, "Nothing in the universe is what we call it here on Earth."

Peace

Originally Posted by Starman

Yet "relative" does have an opposite or at least it means in-relationship to something or other.
However we would not know absolute unless we knew relative, or vice versa, although they are not opposites, they are not dueling concepts.

This is the kind of philosophical discussion that's best served with beer and popcorn.

No they're not opposites but they are in a relationship or a dichotomy, and what we're really talking here is not about 'absolute' or 'relative' but our own perspectives from where we choose to put our feet. Einstein said the science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind, and who am I to argue? I guess you can throw Spirituality in there as well. In that case reality is like Schroedinger's Cat that's only alive or dead when we open the box, or the classic quantum physics' slit test where the state changes because we observe it. Then again you could do some Douglas Adams' Deep Thought and spend time trying to find the right question, like "What are the reasons I'm trying to define an absolute reality?" If we are God a some Eastern religions would have us believe, then isn't every perspective of reality absolute?

Originally Posted by Starman

I have always thought of permanence as a standard for "reality," and impermanence as illusive and unreal.
My cosmic paradigm views all of creation as an illusive impermanent reflection, an illusion, and sees the one static, silent, unmovable energy, which you refer to as the only reality.

Are you talking about God, quantum physics or both?

[iamthat]

Originally Posted by Starman

I love what you have said here and it does resonate with me but I also think that you may
be saying that ultimate reality is not real because it can not reflect on itself.

I have always thought of permanence as a standard for "reality," and impermanence as illusive and unreal.
My cosmic paradigm views all of creation as an illusive impermanent reflection, an illusion, and sees the one static,
silent, unmovable energy, which you refer to as the only reality.

But I do realize that we all have our way of looking at this and there is no right or wrong view.
Thank you for your sharing.

As has been said elsewhere by those far wiser than me:

That which is real does not change.
That which changes is not real.

And yet, I also accept that everything is real on its own level, even if it is an illusion from a higher perspective. Which simply means that we accept the reality of the world we live in and deal with it accordingly, while also accepting that it is all a play and we are just acting out our roles. When the play is over and the curtain comes down, we discard our costumes and go home.

Peace.

Originally Posted by iamthat

As has been said elsewhere by those far wiser than me:

That which is real does not change.
That which changes is not real.

And if the only constant is change then nothing is real? And if those changes only happen over a time that doesn't exist?

Originally Posted by iamthat

And yet, I also accept that everything is real on its own level, even if it is an illusion from a higher perspective. Which simply means that we accept the reality of the world we live in and deal with it accordingly, while also accepting that it is all a play and we are just acting out our roles. When the play is over and the curtain comes down, we discard our costumes and go home.

Fanfair please, with trumpets, dancing girls and tickertape.

Originally Posted by Greenslade

In that case reality is like Schroedinger's Cat that's only alive or dead when we open the box, or the classic quantum physics' slit test where the state changes because we observe it.

I don't know points you try to make.
But Both examples you put up are not what they were about.
In case of schrodingers cat. All that was proposed was we cannot say for certain if it lives or dies when we think about the thought experiment that is schrodingers cat.
It was in fact devised by schrodinger to proof that the observations of the double slit particles do not merrit some of the conclusions that derived from it. I.E the conclusions that a particle probably even didn't exist before it was observed.

It gave rise however to even more debate about the the issue.

Some today are of the opinion that the importance of the roll of the observer is to strongly emphazised.

Because in case of schrodingers cat. The cat will without question experience whether he is alive or dead. We as observers are left in the dark about that though..

[lemex]

Originally Posted by Greenslade

And if the only constant is change then nothing is real? And if those changes only happen over a time that doesn't exist?

the final 3 words are most important.... and go home. Nothing is real here but is it real home. Does "God" tell us or have in mind what to do? The example of karma for instance. Do you have the right to choose? Hopefully it is freedom based. I still haven't heard, is there spiritual reality where we talk about physical reality?

[Melahin]

Originally Posted by lemex

The example of karma for instance. Do you have the right to choose?

Now I don't really believe in free will, yet is karma even real or just a figment of the mind; because that is the only way the mind might explain it... while there might be something else entirely going on that makes little or no sense at all unless it does

[Starman]

I too believe in the interplay between science and spirituality, and I think some religions embrace science but it seems most do not. Energy, particles, atoms, molecules, etc., form something and we call what has been formed reality instead of acknowledging what bought that reality together.

Human reality is largely based on concepts derived from the names that we give to forms or formats. Yes, I acknowledge that every level has its own reality, as iamthat points out. I find the life span of a mayfly rather interesting. There is one species of mayfly that only lives for one day and then it dies, but in that one day it mates, brings forth offspring, and passes on its knowledge. What is the reality of a mayfly?

So from a human perspective we have a much different reality than a mayfly. I have seen hundreds of people die, and the most poignant is when a baby dies. A newborn comes into this world and dies days later. What is that newborn’s reality, and I would imagine it has no concept of reality. Reality is just maybe a label, a handle that adult human beings use to codify their existence.

When talking about perception maybe the word “absolute” also does not apply. It might be considered a sweeping generalization or fallacy of presumption when absolutes are used in discussions. Always, everybody, everything, etc., does not consider that there may be variables. Ultimate on the other hand implies the final, last, greatest, top thing, but if one accepts the concept of infinity, which has no up or down, no sides, high or low, then ultimate as a concept is dismissed.

Nonetheless, I have enjoyed this discussion and reading what others have posted. Thank you!

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

I don't know points you try to make.
But Both examples you put up are not what they were about.
In case of schrodingers cat. All that was proposed was we cannot say for certain if it lives or dies when we think about the thought experiment that is schrodingers cat.
It was in fact devised by schrodinger to proof that the observations of the double slit particles do not merrit some of the conclusions that derived from it. I.E the conclusions that a particle probably even didn't exist before it was observed.

It gave rise however to even more debate about the the issue.

Some today are of the opinion that the importance of the roll of the observer is to strongly emphazised.

Because in case of schrodingers cat. The cat will without question experience whether he is alive or dead. We as observers are left in the dark about that though..

Hello Cat
You're right that the outcomes and implications which occur on quantum scale (probabilities and manifestation), where things are not necessarily consistent moment to moment and entanglement is instantaneous (faster than light) ...

... are generally different than those on the larger, "classical" scale of large-scale (visible) objects which have a generally accepted permanence from moment to momemt.

Though those borders are constantly growing fuzzier
Even now there are real-world applications such as quantum cryptography in (hackproof because all hacking by an observer instantaneously is revealed and changes the encryption), and they reckon quantum computing is a decade or so away.

Just throwing out some interesting tidbits about our foundational reality...

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Starman

I too believe in the interplay between science and spirituality, and I think some religions embrace science but it seems most do not. Energy, particles, atoms, molecules, etc., form something and we call what has been formed reality instead of acknowledging what bought that reality together.

Human reality is largely based on concepts derived from the names that we give to forms or formats. Yes, I acknowledge that every level has its own reality, as iamthat points out. I find the life span of a mayfly rather interesting. There is one species of mayfly that only lives for one day and then it dies, but in that one day it mates, brings forth offspring, and passes on its knowledge. What is the reality of a mayfly?

So from a human perspective we have a much different reality than a mayfly. I have seen hundreds of people die, and the most poignant is when a baby dies. A newborn comes into this world and dies days later. What is that newborn’s reality, and I would imagine it has no concept of reality. Reality is just maybe a label, a handle that adult human beings use to codify their existence.

When talking about perception maybe the word “absolute” also does not apply. It might be considered a sweeping generalization or fallacy of presumption when absolutes are used in discussions. Always, everybody, everything, etc., does not consider that there may be variables. Ultimate on the other hand implies the final, last, greatest, top thing, but if one accepts the concept of infinity, which has no up or down, no sides, high or low, then ultimate as a concept is dismissed.

Nonetheless, I have enjoyed this discussion and reading what others have posted. Thank you!

Starman, I have a thread about Karma and the Foundational Quantum Reality under the Buddhism thread because I thought Buddhists would be open to discussion of the science mixed with karma and multiple incarnations.

I wonder if you might be interested. Would love to hear your thoughts.
And those of all others too

Peace & blessings
7L