Reality and Fantasy, a discussion.

[Jolly Joker]

Something is real if we can observe it or observe a cause it produces.

*Sigh* We don't know WHAT is causing an effect, if we observe an effect. It may be that we observe effects and NEVER find what causes it. However, we do KNOW that there must be something which does. The scientific way is to build a theory or hypothesis and try to verify it - not a foolproof way, but it brings results.
Since we cannot explain every effect we observe our idea of the reality we live in isn't complete (at least; but not necessarily wrong). Since we observe the effect (and consider it real), that what causing it has to be considered real as well and therefore as existing whether we find it or not and whether we can name it aptly or not.

A simple example. Theory: earth is flat. Test: I go to the horizon, there the world must end. I do that. Oops. Earth is flat doesn't explain effect. Earth must be something else than flat. Theory after marching around: Earth is a globe. Question: wouldn't people fall down on the other side? They don't. Consequence: there must be SOMETHING that holds them tight. Obviously this something existed already when people thought the world was flat (after all they didn't fall down), even though people didn't knew the earth was round (because they didn't think about the moving horizon, for example; there would have been other explanation possible of course).
So: there IS an objective reality (that we explore). If we can't agree on that every discussion makes no sense because in that case I'm imagining you and you don't exist.
Of course the act of observing might change reality, but that's a completely different question because if it was so it would be part of the objective reality.

[okrane]

*Sigh* We don't know WHAT is causing an effect, if we observe an effect. It may be that we observe effects and NEVER find what causes it. However, we do KNOW that there must be something which does. The scientific way is to build a theory or hypothesis and try to verify it - not a foolproof way, but it brings results.
Since we cannot explain every effect we observe our idea of the reality we live in isn't complete (at least; but not necessarily wrong). Since we observe the effect (and consider it real), that what causing it has to be considered real as well and therefore as existing whether we find it or not and whether we can name it aptly or not.

And I don't see where you are disagreeing with me. We observe an effect, therefore there must exist a cause which must have certain properties compatible with the effect. So we model/identify a cause with certain properties. The WHAT in your statement is modeled to fit the cause... because that's the information we have about it...

Dark Energy right.... we've seen effects of it, therefore we said it must exists and we figured some properties. Maybe for another observer it has some more properties, but as we've discovered only these... the DE we know is just how we defined it... i.e. it exists in the form we discovered it...

So I don't think we're disagreeing here...

So: there IS an objective reality (that we explore). If we can't agree on that every discussion makes no sense because in that case I'm imagining you and you don't exist.

Let's define objective: objective would mean it is the same for all observers, right?

Because you are talking to me, and seeing my posts, you see the cause of an effect I am producing, therefore something must exist. You could conclude that I am a human being, because of the fact that there is nothing else you know that writes in English. Still, you cannot say much more about me... like my eye color for instance... My friends though know these things about me, so for them, their perception of me is slightly different.... subjective that is...

[Jolly Joker]

Let's define objective: objective would mean it is the same for all observers, right?

Nope. It would mean it is the same for all TO observe (whether they observe it or not and whether they are able CURRENTLY to observe it or an effect of it.
The only thing necessary is that it must BE observable (or the effect it causes) in PRINCIPLE, i.e., it must be possible.

[okrane]

Myths, legands, and folk tales are not really about escapism, or not all are. They also provide wisdom, guidence, and a moral in many cases. A lot this is missed because more then a few people see it as just : good guy wins, evil guy looses. This is not so in some of the folk tales my ancestors have passed on to me. They teach things such as caution, how to spot possible dangers, and patience.

I have asked, what do you think reality is. What do you think fantasy is, and when do you think they become blurred. A few have answered that, a few still have yet to.

Myths have their value nonetheless, but they are mostly metaphors for certain teachings easier to explain in a story that in real life words.

I think reality is the ideological representation of experience acquired through the means of our senses.
Fantasy is a subset of fiction. Fiction represents happenings that according to the person's experience have not happened. Fantasy is even more than that... not only it did not happen, but it is highly unlikely that it would ever happen to anyone. Fiction and reality become blurred when the perception of the individual is altered by positive or negative effects, like drugs, insanity, misleading, make-belief, idealism, day-dreaming...

Fiction and fantasy are a part of all of us, because without them there would be no hope, and no dreams, and certainly the world would be a sadder place.

[okrane]

Let's define objective: objective would mean it is the same for all observers, right?

Nope. It would mean it is the same for all TO observe (whether they observe it or not and whether they are able CURRENTLY to observe it or an effect of it.
The only thing necessary is that it must BE observable (or the effect it causes) in PRINCIPLE, i.e., it must be possible.

Here you are wrong, and that's why I stated in the first place that these conversations are silly and lead into a logical black hole. You are not God. All you have is your perception of the world given by your senses, and you cannot argue but from that perspective... therefore you must remain subjective at all times.

Of course this Platonic view of the world would seem at first the most natural one: i.e. what I see, everyone sees and it must be absolute, but in the later centuries, starting with Kant these conception have started to change.

If you remove this relativity principle from this type of topics we will end up with nonsense like the spaghetti monster, simply because we will not be able to define what that something observable/possible really can be...

[Jolly Joker]

I wonder, Okrane, since for you reality is so subjective, why fiction is not real then? Because I can tell you from experience that when you write a story you actually "see" the things you write about; you see the characters, you hear them talking, you watch them die. In your mind, but still. Wouldn't that give them and their story the same kind of subjective reality?

[okrane]

It certainly would. But you are aware that they are your own creation and furthermore you cannot observe any effect these characters have upon your surroundings.

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

I think reality is absolute as far as whether or not an item exists. I may or may not observe an item though the item does exist. The item may not be real to me in the sense that I have not yet discovered it but it does exist whether I acknowledge its existance or not. My conclusion that the item does not exist does not influence the actual existance of the item.

This is where I go a step forward and say no, reality is not absolute. If something exists, it must exist for an observer, otherwise how can you state it exists? Fate, intuition, make-belief? You saying that it is absolute, you imply that it exists an observer to which all these things exist, and you place yourself in his shoes. But as I see you are accustomed to the theory of relativity you should know better than that and only judge from your perspective.
You can say that it *may* exist or not, i.e. in your perception of the world this is possible or not, but without you(and mankind in general) actually witnessing the existance of an item, what is the point if it truly existed or not.(i.e. it exists an observer to which this item exists)
Again... it is a matter of DEFINITION. I rule out the things we cannot test because they are irrelevant for our reality. I find this the most natural way to define the existance of certain aspects of this universe, because there is no point into taking into account things that do not influence us in any way.

Here is an example of a creature that until recently was considered mythological.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070711/sc_ ... a_squid_dc

Because science said it did not exist until recently did it only recently start to exist?

Does it not exist for me? I have never seen one. I do not feel any effects from it. Giant squids are totally irrelevant to my existance.

No, it has existed for some time dispite the fact that I and others may have known nothing about it and may have never been affected by it. My lack of observations of it don't affect its existance.

GOW

[Jolly Joker]

Let's define objective: objective would mean it is the same for all observers, right?

Nope. It would mean it is the same for all TO observe (whether they observe it or not and whether they are able CURRENTLY to observe it or an effect of it.
The only thing necessary is that it must BE observable (or the effect it causes) in PRINCIPLE, i.e., it must be possible.

Here you are wrong, and that's why I stated in the first place that these conversations are silly and lead into a logical black hole. You are not God. All you have is your perception of the world given by your senses, and you cannot argue but from that perspective... therefore you must remain subjective at all times.
...

How does that interfere with there being an objective reality? For example, dogs can hear higher frequencies than humans. While the dog lives subjectively in another reality than me (he hears something I don't, and smells other things at that), that reality is nonetheless there and if I HAD the senses of the dog I could experience the dog's reality. That is, the reality is IN PRINCIPLE observable.
It doesn't have to be the same. If it was the same for everyone there wouldn't be anything to talk about. If there was no objective reality there wouldn't be the need to talk about anything either.

[Jolly Joker]

It certainly would. But you are aware that they are your own creation and furthermore you cannot observe any effect these characters have upon your surroundings.

Well you can. In fact stories have a big influence on their surroundings. People are talking about them, crying tears, laughing, change their life even.

[okrane]

as I said, it is a matter of defining things. I certainly agree with your point that your beliefs do not influence it and it has existed for some sailors and all that...

The problem here is: is its existance relevant? If the answer is no, then there is no reason to consider its existance in any argument whatsoever...

I used this way of defining things in order to counter the paradoxes regarding the existance of fairies and the spaghetti monster.

Do they or an effect they are causing exist for a certain observer... maybe(who knows), is that observer one of us... no... therefore their existance is irrelevant and we can safely suppose they are not real.

[okrane]

Well you can. In fact stories have a big influence on their surroundings. People are talking about them, crying tears, laughing, change their life even.

well that would mean there is something real in those characters after all... which links us to mytical's post

[Corribus]

I think the illogical thing is presuming that you absolutely know that every person who has ever seen a ghost/faery/elemental is delusional or misintrepreting what they have seen.

It's a very easy and sensible belief to hold. The nature of the world has yet to be demonstrated to be less than 100% empirical. On the other hand, there are countless examples of the flawed nature of human interpretation. I for one would prefer to believe in the constancy of the physical universe than the non-constancy and fickle, easily influenced nature of human beliefs.

Also, I could just as easily say that "I think the illogical thing is presuming that you absolutely know that every person who believes that there is a logical explanation to every empirical observation is delusional."

No, but if you saw some guy flying around in the skies through no visible means throwing lightning bolts that might be something to consider.

Alright... but have you seen such a thing? And if you here admit that lightning bolts are clearly not evidence for the existance of Zeus, how can you be so confident that hot air pockets and creaky noises are evidence for the existance of ghosts? Nobody STILL can tell me the criteria for credulity. I'd be quite happy if someone could. The fact that nobody can, or even will try, just makes me that much more confident that there ARE no criteria and that it's all blind and misguided faith.

Why must there be a "more rational explanation" thatn ghosts or faeries? Don't automatically reject evidence because it doesn't fit with your beliefs.

Perhaps you should look into the definition of evidence. It's not evidence if there's not a logical deduction to be made. Hot air pockets are NOT logical evidence of ghosts. The belief in the existence of ghosts made upon this observation is derived from speculation, not evidence. I don't reject the observation outright (I can't, since I am not privy to the source), but I reject the fantastical interpretation because I believe there must be a more logical explanation. I believe this because over history there are thousands of examples of "unexplained observations" that were later explained in a similar fashion. That is not a proof, I admit, but it IS the basis of my belief.

The idea is that the ghost uses the energy to do things like make a visible presence, make objects move, cause sounds, ect.

If you believe in thermodynamics, such actions require work. For instance, if you want to create a "cold spot" (as in, a refrigerator), this takes work because it is a thermodynamically unfavorable process. How does something not physical do physical work?

Note that I am not arguing that because people believe in fairies they must exist. I am saying that when there are so many reports of fairie folk, there is reason to think that there may be some unexplained phenomenon at work.

No, just because there are lots of "reports", that does not mean anything! You cannot draw any conclusion from "Lots of people believe it!" That was my whole point. It's a logical fallacy. For instance - lets say my mom has a sudden feeling that I am dead. She tells this to a friend, explaining that she had a dream where I died. The friend tells a friend, who tells a friend. Lots of people may come to believe that I am dead. Now you come in and say, "Where's Corribus??" and a bunch of people tell you, "Oh, we believe he is dead!" You cannot make any deduction from their beliefs alone. If you say, "Well, all these people believe he is dead, so there must be a reason to believe he is dead!" After all, I am very much alive. If my mom has a vision of my corpse and tells this to two hundred people, all who eventually come to believe I am dead based on this "evidence", that should not, if you are a logical creature, lead you to believe - based ONLY on the fact that lots of people believe it - that I am dead. The only way that you should believe that I am dead is if you see my corpse and can verify, scientifically, that it is, in fact, my corpse.

And yes, I am messing with you.

I knew it!!! But I'll look at the site you provided, when I have a chance.

If you had the possibility of completely disproving the existence of everything people refer to as 'fantasy', of giving thorough scientific explanations to each and every 'paranormal' phenomenon, would you do it?

I'm a scientist. Explaining the previously unexplainable is what I do for a living. If there was a magical box that had all the answers, I'd be out of a job. But more seriously, even if I could "prove" what you suggest, it would still be a proof based on empiricism. The people who believe in ghosts (or fairies, or God) obviously don't believe that reality is necessarily based on empirical law, and so even if such a proof existed, it would change nothing. People still believe in Creationism, despite all the empirical evidence that "proves" otherwise.

As I've said repeatedly, "proof" is word whose definition needs to be carefully understood. Many people get into trouble because they don't know what it really means, particularly as it realtes to another tricky word, "belief".

Lets look at this from another angle, to try to get it back on track (without all the quotes I hope). Lasers. When lasers were first mentioned, it was in a sci-fi book (ie fiction). Now the majority of people dismissed it as impossible and went about their 'real' lives. Somebody, stopped and actually thought. "Hey why wouldn't this be possible?" and they did it. Maybe not as effectively as some stories has it, but real and concrete.

That's not how lasers were invented at all. Where are you getting your information? What sci-fi book are you referring to? Actually the invention of the laser is a funny story rife with complicated lawsuits.

Science and scientist do not know it all. There are things that can not be explained by science, even if they are unwilling to admit it.

There are things that cannot be explained by science NOW. But I believe that science is capable of explaining everything. And even if you laser story was true, I'm not sure how that proves your point. Eventually science DID invent the laser.

The thing is, with his attitude (beg your pardon, Corribus; it's not polite to talk about people in the 3rd person. Feel spoken to directly) there would be no fantasy - no stories at all, in fact, because even if he would invent them he wouldn't tell them in earnest and believably. He'd ruin the story by ending it with: "Of course this is all pure imagination. We have no proof for things like that to exist or to have ever existed."

That's not true, or fair, at all. I like fantasy, I read it, and I've written it. Just because I don't believe in ghosts, demons, or fairies doesn't mean I don't have an imagination, or would enjoy reading about them. Creativity is an important element of humanity. Really, I'm quite annoyed that you can conclude that, just because I believe in empirical law, that I have no imagination and that I would ruin anything that is not based upon it. Shame on you! Furthermore, just because something is not real in the physical sense does not mean they cannot impact reality. I don't mean ghosts moving furniture, but the broader impact of ideas on reality. Beliefs are not necessarily connected to physical reality, but they shape human actions, which in turn shapes history.

The trouble with science is, it doesn't say anything about the why.

Of course it does! Science can tell you all sorts of 'whys'. Why do balls roll down hills?" "Why do molecules react?" "Why do people die of cancer?" Pure imagination does not answer why, OR how. Pure imagination answers nothing. It only entertains.

@Okrane - Nice posts. I just wanted to say that without commenting on anything you said. The anthropological principle was a nice thing to bring up.

As a vulcan would say. "Nothing is impossible, just very highly improbable."

A lot of truth in those words. Unfortunately they prove my point more than they do yours.

Imagination/fantasy/fiction comes before theories and inventions. The inventor has to dream up his inventions before he can implement them.

The thing about science is that it's self-reinforcing. Inventors may think of an idea, but solutions are grounded in science. The laser was just not invented out of thin air. It was invented based upon consequences of earlier theories. That DOES take imagination, but it is a cycle, not a line. Theories lead to imagination, lead to inventions, lead to theories, etc. It's a chicken and egg problem.

Alright that's enough for now. Too many posts to respond to, and this is taking forever!

[Grumpy Old Wizard]

The problem here is: is its existance relevant? If the answer is no, then there is no reason to consider its existance in any argument whatsoever...

I used this way of defining things in order to counter the paradoxes regarding the existance of fairies and the spaghetti monster.

Do they or an effect they are causing exist for a certain observer... maybe(who knows), is that observer one of us... no... therefore their existance is irrelevant and we can safely suppose they are not real.

If something exists it exists regardless of whether it has any effect on me or not. If I am a hermit that lives deep in a mountain cave, living on fungi, rats, and insects, the rest of the world still exists even if I never observe it.

If someone wanders in my cave and tell me that there are such things as cars and toaster ovens those things exist even if they never have any impact on my life and if I never observe them.

If a man with sight enters an enclosed room where the light is turned on the light bulb does not suddenly start producing light even if the only person in the room before was a blind man. The blind man's inability to detect the light did not change the fact that the light was present. The light bulb did not suddenly gain a new property becase another observer was present.

The existance of a thing is not relative to the relevance of the thing to an observer. It either exists or it does not.

GOW

[Corribus]

The existance of a thing is not relative to the relevance of the thing to an observer. It either exists or it does not.

Just for the sake of argument... how do you know this to be true?

That's the old "if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?" philosophical question. If you don't observe something, what makes you so sure that it's there?

[Jolly Joker]

as I said, it is a matter of defining things. I certainly agree with your point that your beliefs do not influence it and it has existed for some sailors and all that...

The problem here is: is its existance relevant? If the answer is no, then there is no reason to consider its existance in any argument whatsoever...

I used this way of defining things in order to counter the paradoxes regarding the existance of fairies and the spaghetti monster.

Do they or an effect they are causing exist for a certain observer... maybe(who knows), is that observer one of us... no... therefore their existance is irrelevant and we can safely suppose they are not real.

I disagree. The question you'd have to ask would be: are there any EFFECTS you cannot explain (currently), but could explain with the existance of fairies and/or ghosts. If you answer that question with yes, fairies and ghosts are a serious hypothesis you cannot simply dismiss AND the question of their existance had relevance as well.
Of course that wouldn't mean that fairies do indeed exist. It would simply mean that it was a hypothesis and one might start and try to think about an experiment to verify or falsify the hypothesis.

If your answer is no (no effects to explain with them), then the question is indeed academic (albeit they are still either existing or not).

[Jolly Joker]

Well you can. In fact stories have a big influence on their surroundings. People are talking about them, crying tears, laughing, change their life even.

well that would mean there is something real in those characters after all... which links us to mytical's post

Not at all. People seem to take a real interest in completely unreal characters playing in completely unreal settings and experiencing completely unreal situations in a completely unreal world.

This is meant to be a joke and doesn't need an answer.

[Corribus]

I disagree. The question you'd have to ask would be: are there any EFFECTS you cannot explain (currently), but could explain with the existance of fairies and/or ghosts.

No, no, no, nononononono. How many times must it be stated that invoking nonempirical beliefs ARE_NOT_HYPOTHESES? Just as invoking god as an explanation for lightning is not a hypthesis, you cannot say "well because I have no other explanation, I can just make up anything and that's a scientific hypothesis". A hypothesis has to be testable. Suggesting that a hot spot in an old house is due to patches of methane gas and oxygen that are combusing at low rates due to disturbances in earth's magnetic field due to large iron deposits in the ground may be an absolutely absurd idea with very low probability of being right, but it IS a hypothesis, because we can test many aspects of it. Suggesting a hot spot in an old house is due to a ghost is NOT a hypothesis because you cannot test for ghosts.

It would simply mean that it was a hypothesis and one might start and try to think about an experiment to verify or falsify the hypothesis.

I'm waiting for a description of your proposed experiment.

[Ethric]

I think the illogical thing is presuming that you absolutely know that every person who has ever seen a ghost/faery/elemental is delusional or misintrepreting what they have seen.

It's a very easy and sensible belief to hold. The nature of the world has yet to be demonstrated to be less than 100% empirical. On the other hand, there are countless examples of the flawed nature of human interpretation.

New methods of observing are constantly being developed, thus expanding the scope of what is empirical. Meaning that there can be a whole lot of stuff around that we can not observe, or at least not "clearly" enough to make it out. Microorganisms and subatomic particles are good examples. First people start to suspect their presence, and theorize around it. Then eventually sufficiently advanced devices are developed, one is able to observe them in an empirically satisfactory way, and their existance is proven.

Ghosts and fairies could be actual lifeforms, maybe fluctuating between dimensions or something similarily startrekky, and some day we'll be able to observe and communicate with them and they'll teach us inner peace Fairly ridiculous at this point, of course. But it isn't impossible.

[Jolly Joker]

The thing is, with his attitude (beg your pardon, Corribus; it's not polite to talk about people in the 3rd person. Feel spoken to directly) there would be no fantasy - no stories at all, in fact, because even if he would invent them he wouldn't tell them in earnest and believably. He'd ruin the story by ending it with: "Of course this is all pure imagination. We have no proof for things like that to exist or to have ever existed."

That's not true, or fair, at all. I like fantasy, I read it, and I've written it. Just because I don't believe in ghosts, demons, or fairies doesn't mean I don't have an imagination, or would enjoy reading about them. Creativity is an important element of humanity. Really, I'm quite annoyed that you can conclude that, just because I believe in empirical law, that I have no imagination and that I would ruin anything that is not based upon it. Shame on you! Furthermore, just because something is not real in the physical sense does not mean they cannot impact reality. I don't mean ghosts moving furniture, but the broader impact of ideas on reality. Beliefs are not necessarily connected to physical reality, but they shape human actions, which in turn shapes history.

I'm truly sorry, if I offended you there. I've meant that only half in earnest, but still, I'd like to point out that I didn't imply you didn't READ them. I just said you'd have a problem to TELL them (believably) or tell your son some fairy tale about the stars or something. If that's wrong, again, sorry. No offense meant.

Pure imagination answers nothing. It only entertains.

Ah, and here we are again and the circle is closing. It does for a LOT of people - it has to, because science answers nothing as well, at least not until now, it might in future times, but it hasn't, not the important questions. It is no religion - it's only an instrument.