Is physical reality an illusion?

appleseed024 · Aug 19, 2009

ok. lot's of rhetorical questions, but i hope it makes you think!
food for the mind :drool5:!!!

is physical reality a complete illusion?
if physical particles do exist, theoretically, there must always be a boundary to their qualities, which gives room for other particles, ad infinitum.

Say if you wanted to reach the threshold of a door, and each time you step closer, you halve the distance from you to the door. Assuming that you could measure that infinitesimally small, you could keep halving those halves, and you would never actually reach the point where the floor changes into the threshold of the door. You would never get there!
In the way our eyes and regular senses perceive the world, we could say, "Well I've reached the threshold of the door, and I can even pass through it! Of course I'm moving, and things have physical, concrete existence in this reality!"
But do they?
You could argue that physical matter exists because when you knock on wood, it makes a sound, or if you get punched in the face, it hurts. If you get in your car and drive somewhere, it takes time, and requires you to travel over a definite distance.

But what about your dreams? When you are dreaming, and unaware you are dreaming, you still have the ability to experience "motion" like the 'driving your car' example.
You can hear sounds, and people talking in your dreams, but, in "reality" you are laying quiet and motionless on your bed. Everything in your dream is a product of your mind.

Perhaps this is also the case in consensus, waking reality that we all seem to experience everyday, only at a different frequency and level of conscious and subconscious cooperation.

What are thoughts composed of? Can we simply write them off as electric pulses traveling to different parts of the brain?
Perhaps thought is existence in and of itself. Thought doesn't seem to have tangibility.
This would mean there simply is no physical world, but only the projected collection of thought 'waves' in which everything is the center, and simultaneously the edge, perpetually 'folding' in and out of itself.

any thoughts? what do you think about existence? please comment and share!
peace and positive vibes~~

ACTION MAN · Aug 19, 2009

Your life is a series of moments that are projected by thought and collected through memory. Dreams are a reflection of deep inner thought influenced by life. Our society and way of life is product result of thought and intentions of our own survival. We went from hunter-gatherers (who killed and ate only what we needed to survive) to reapers (who grow our own food by using Earth's resources and being able to store food so that we can survive longer). That is how we developed a sense of value, and invented things like money and commerce, which has ultimately lead to our superiority over the planet, and eventually to our own downfall and extinction.

Our hunger for knowledge will never leave us and we'll always continue trying to find the answer to everything that does not yet have an official human answer. Personally, I believe that some things just cannot be explained. Reality just is, and I don't believe humans should know the secret of existence anyways. That is powerful knowledge I don't believe humans should ever have.

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT · Aug 20, 2009

Reality is what u think it is that is the are as many reality's as there are consensus beings.
It depends what answer u are looking for when u are asking the question.

If u what reality is just an illusion u will find ppl that agree with u, u will find theory's explaining why and how soon u are a believer and ur mind develops a filter that passes by the everyday reality cut on ur finger, ppl around u whatever now the only thing it can see is the evidence that confirms the suspicion. Its a slippery slope the more u think about it the more evidence u accumulate the more evidence u have the more u think about it and this is where it happens reality disappears ppl in white coats come and take u away. So now u have lost touch with normal reality and u yourself no longer exist in the normal reality all there's left is a small white room and if u cant snap out of it u are good as nothing just an illusion.

If u what reality is real solid as a rock it does not even mater if it is or not all u need is belief in ur personal reality hell u can get even lost in media, religion anything that repeats its seemingly important message over and over again with great relevance to ur life and to anyone's ellses who cares to listen.

Why or how? In the end It all falls under I think there for I am.

Coromaster · Aug 20, 2009

I think the argument of this thread falls under the category of "If You Can't Disprove It, Then It Must Be True". I have had those kinds of thoughts before, but then I remember that all dreams eventually end when you wake up, but your argument is that the physical is merely a dream, meaning you'd wake into yet another dream. Following this train of thought, we never really live, but it also makes the very real limitation of death fuzzy, since death is a very physical thing.

Royaltramp · Sep 2, 2009

This is why I treat science as theories in a similar way as religion is theories. How can someone claim to prove that for example we are made out of certain elements, when we can't prove that what we are perceiving is reality?

-Matt

scratcho · Sep 2, 2009

Proof positive=acquire a 3 foot 2 by 4.Grasp one end and lower opposite end to the ground.Swing it upward briskly making contact with forehead. Re-think position.

Number48 · Sep 2, 2009

If it is an illusion, it's a very convincing and interesting one. I, for one, want to do everything I can to understand it, illusion or no. What does it matter what's "real"? An interesting question, but since it has no answer it can be taken no further.

jumbuli55 · Sep 2, 2009

There is similar thread where Zeno's paradox is discussed (copy-pasted my reply below).

You can also look up nuclear physics (elementary particle is not a hard, Earth shaped ball or anything you envision based on your daily experiences. At those levels it possesses dual properties and is more about electric charges, energy and waves than anything else. So you can't just break it up ad infinitum).

Below, for starters, is a copy-paste from wikipedia link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_paradox

In general , as one can observe, a lot of confusion arises from inability to digest seemingly contradicting statements or arguments, thus creating an illusion of paradox which in fact is nothing else but the failure of Mind to comprehend things beyond its' immediate grasp.

I will give you another (not related to Zeno's Paradox) example, that also contributes to much confusion in peoples' minds.

For instance much has been said about a tree falling in the forest and no one being near to hear it. The well known question goes along the lines of asking wether the tree really fell and was there any sound if no one was there to see and hear it?

Complete misunderstanding of what this example and question implies divides most people into two foolish and passionatly arguing with each other groups, whereby some claim that there absolutely IS the "tree and the sound" it makes falling, regardless of anyone being there to see or hear it; with others claiming with equal passion that there IS NOTHING AT ALL, neither the tree, nor the sound , nor any occurence or presence of any physical existence in space-time , nothing whatsoever, as long as there was noone to see and hear it.

Both claims, taken to extreme and near fanatically defended, are equally wrong and the product of shallow minds, of which btw enormous majority of human beings are in possession of.

The truth is simpler and more complex at the same time , thus it successfully evades the senses of those who , for the sake of fun and artistic expression, would best be caricatured as gorillas trying to contemplte the basics of geometry.

And here is what the "falling tree in the forest" implies :

1. It is true that the so called "reality" ,as we know it, is the product of our senses and perception.
So, if you nor anyone else was present at the event then most definitely there was no perception of it.

Even if you were present in there (and for the arguments' sake: with all of your senses), but was the size of the atom within that tree, would you either see or hear anything? It's a rhetorical question, since what you define, perceive and call a "Tree" (as a regular sized human being walking on the surface of the planet Earth) would appear to you (if appeared at all) to be as huge as Milky Way galaxy and the whole picture of a "tree" (to associate it with) would simply be out of your frame of reference. And no need to mention the sound effects in the context.

Thus we arrive to our first observation , which is:
the definition of objects or things, as well as whole of human perception, is purely mental process and nothing but the mental process, with things in themselves lacking both a definition and relation to each other in absence of subjective frame of reference which we call perception.
Much like the chaotic little dots on a piece of paper that turn out to be a photo image of something entirely different, as soon as you remove yourself to a distance where you can see the whole image so you can associate it with already stored in your memory and aquired through experience images, thoughts, concepts and pictures.

However, not the second to mention and equally important to note is the fact that neither the entire space-time nor any elements comprising it disappear and cease their existence simply if there is a lack of perception.
If it were true, then there would be no Universe in existence for billions of years before any conscious creature we know of was there to perceive it (that would preclude the very same conscious beings from coming into existence in the first place).

Things cease to "exist" as perceived in our minds, but who said our minds and perception are the ultimate arbiter and maker of existence per se, in absence of which whole existence would cease to be?

A deeper understanding is miuch like a point in 3D space, sometimes a point that is beyond the reach of your senses.

Think of a point somewhere in the middle of any spherical, hard and impenetrable by light object. All you see ,looking at such object with bare eyes, is the surface of it.
However, given two separate angles/directions from any 2 points on the surface of the object, you can visualize the imaginary point were the two lines would cross.
Kind of hazy and still our of reach for your vision, isn't it?
But that's where the point is, whether you can or can not see it clearly.

________________________________________________________

The arrow paradox
“ If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. ”
—Aristotle, Physics VI:9, 239b5

In the arrow paradox, Zeno states that for motion to be occurring, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one instant of time, for the arrow to be moving it must either move to where it is, or it must move to where it is not. However, it cannot move to where it is not, because this is a single instant, and it cannot move to where it is because it is already there. In other words, in any instant of time there is no motion occurring, because an instant is a snapshot. Therefore, if it cannot move in a single instant it cannot move in any instant, making any motion impossible. This paradox is also known as the fletcher's paradox—a fletcher being a maker of arrows.

Whereas the first two paradoxes presented divide space, this paradox starts by dividing time—and not into segments, but into points.[7]

[edit] Three other paradoxes as given by Aristotle
Paradox of Place:

"… if everything that exists has a place, place too will have a place, and so on ad infinitum."[8]
Paradox of the Grain of Millet:

"… there is no part of the millet that does not make a sound: for there is no reason why any such part should not in any length of time fail to move the air that the whole bushel moves in falling. In fact it does not of itself move even such a quantity of the air as it would move if this part were by itself: for no part even exists otherwise than potentially."[9]
The Moving Rows:

"The fourth argument is that concerning the two rows of bodies, each row being composed of an equal number of bodies of equal size, passing each other on a race-course as they proceed with equal velocity in opposite directions, the one row originally occupying the space between the goal and the middle point of the course and the other that between the middle point and the starting-post. This...involves the conclusion that half a given time is equal to double that time."[10]
For an expanded account of Zeno's arguments as presented by Aristotle, see Simplicius' commentary On Aristotle's Physics.

[edit] Proposed solutions
Aristotle remarked that as the distance decreases, the time needed to cover those distances also decreases, so that the time needed also becomes increasingly small.[11] Aristotle solves the paradoxes by distinguishing "things infinite in respect of divisibility" (such as a unit of space that can be mentally divided into ever smaller units while remaining spatially the same) from things (or distances) that are infinite in extension ("with respect to their extremities").[12]

Before 212 BC, Archimedes had developed a method to derive a finite answer for the sum of infinitely many terms that get progressively smaller. (See: Geometric series, 1/4 + 1/16 + 1/64 + 1/256 + · · ·, The Quadrature of the Parabola.) Modern calculus achieves the same result, using more rigorous methods (see convergent series, where the "reciprocals of powers of 2" series, equivalent to the Dichotomy Paradox, is listed as convergent). These methods allow construction of solutions stating that (under suitable conditions), if the distances are decreasing sufficiently rapidly, the travel time is finite (bounded by a fixed upper bound).[13]

Using ordinary mathematics we can calculate both the time and place where Achilles overtakes the tortoise. For example, if Achilles is moving 10 metres/second and the tortoise is moving at 1 metre/second, and if the tortoise has a 100 metre head start, then Achilles will reach the tortoise's starting point in 10 seconds. The tortoise will have moved 10 metres further. Achilles would then run that 10 metres in one second, and the tortoise will have moved one metre further. Zeno argues that every time Achilles reaches the tortoise's last position, the tortoise will have advanced further - but in the next full second Achilles will run another 10 metres, passing the tortoise who will have advanced only one metre. Algebra gives us the distance and time at which Achilles would exactly match the position of the tortoise: 111 1/9 metres after running for 11 1/9 seconds. This is neither an infinite distance, nor an infinite time. While this solves the mathematics of one of the paradoxes, it does not touch the dynamics of any of the three paradoxes - namely, "How is it that motion is possible at all?"

Another proposed solution is to question the assumption inherent in Zeno's paradox, which is that between any two different points in space (or time), there is always another point. If this assumption is challenged, the infinite sequence of events is avoided, and the paradox resolved. Philosophers typically prefer this approach over the mathematics based approaches, since while mathematics can tell us where and when Achilles overtakes the tortoise, it does not explain how these points in space and time can ever be reached. Philosophers claim that the mathematics does not address the central point in Zeno's argument.[14]

Yet another proposed solution, that of Peter Lynds, is to question the assumption that moving objects have exact positions at an instant and that their motion can be meaningfully dissected this way. If this assumption is challenged, motion remains continuous and the paradoxes are avoided.[15] This solution is related to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

A solution to the arrow paradox is given by Rudy Rucker in Infinity and the Mind: he points out that the motion of the arrow is indeed instantaneously observable due to the small contraction in length the arrow undergoes due to the effects of special relativity.

[edit] Status of the paradoxes today
Mathematicians today[who?] tend to regard the paradoxes as resolved[citation needed], but some philosophers disagree. Bertrand Russell, who was both a mathematician and a philosopher, wrote Georg Cantor invented a theory of continuity and a theory of infinity which did away with all the old paradoxes upon which philosophers had battened. ... Philosophers met the situation by not reading the authors concerned.[16] The paradoxes certainly pose no practical difficulties.

However, some philosophers insist that the deeper metaphysical questions, as raised by Zeno's paradoxes, are not addressed by the calculus. That is, while calculus tells us where and when Achilles will overtake the Tortoise, philosophers do not see how calculus takes anything away from Zeno's reasoning that there are problems in explaining how motion can happen at all.[17]

Philosophers also point out that Zeno's arguments are often misrepresented in the popular literature. That is, Zeno is often said to have argued that the sum of an infinite number of terms must be infinite itself, which calculus shows to be incorrect. However, Zeno's problem wasn't with any kind of infinite sum, but rather with an infinite process: how can one ever get from A to B, if an infinite number of events can be identified that need to precede the arrival at B? Philosophers claim that calculus does not resolve that question, and hence a solution to Zeno's paradoxes must be found elsewhere.[18]

Physicists point out that in the race, after a few dozen steps, we will have to deal with dimensions where quantum mechanics can’t be disregarded. According to the uncertainty principle those distances are so small that taking a measurement would be pointless, even from a theoretical point of view: uncertainty would be too prominent.[19]

Infinite processes remained theoretically troublesome in mathematics until the early 20th century. L. E. J. Brouwer, a Dutch mathematician and founder of the Intuitionist school, was the most prominent of those who rejected arguments, including proofs, involving infinities.[citation needed] In this he followed Leopold Kronecker, an earlier 19th century mathematician.[citation needed]

However, modern mathematics, with tools such as Kurt Gödel's proof of the logical independence of the axiom of choice and the epsilon-delta version of Weierstrass and Cauchy (or the equivalent and equally rigorous differential/infinitesimal version by Abraham Robinson), argues rigorous formulation of logic and calculus has resolved theoretical problems involving infinite processes, including Zeno's.[20]

[edit] The quantum Zeno effect
In 1977[21], physicists E.C.G. Sudarshan and B. Misra studying quantum mechanics discovered that the dynamical evolution (motion) of a quantum system can be hindered (or even inhibited) through observation of the system. [22] This effect is usually called the quantum Zeno effect as it is strongly reminiscent of (but not fundamentally related to) Zeno's arrow paradox.

This effect was first theorized in 1958.[23]

[edit] Writings about Zeno’s paradoxes
Zeno’s paradoxes have inspired many writers

In the dialogue What the Tortoise Said to Achilles, Lewis Carroll describes what happens at the end of the race. The tortoise discusses with Achilles a simple deductive argument. Achilles fails in demonstrating the argument because the tortoise leads him into an infinite regression.
In Gödel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter, the various chapters are separated by dialogues between Achilles and the tortoise, inspired by Lewis Carroll’s works
The Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges discusses Zeno’s paradoxes many times in his work, showing their relationship with infinity. Borges also used Zeno’s paradoxes as a metaphor for some situations described by Kafka.
Paul Hornschemeier's most recent graphic novel, The Three Paradoxes, contains a comic version of Zeno presenting his three paradoxes to his fellow philosophers.
Leslie Lamport's Specifiying Systems contains a section (9.4) introducing the character of the Zeno Specifications
Zadie Smith references Zeno's arrow paradox, and, more briefly, Zeno's Achilles and tortoise paradox, at the end of Chapter 17 in her novel White Teeth.
Brian Massumi shoots Zeno's "philosophical arrow" in the opening chapter of Parables for the Virtual: Movement, Affect, Sensation.
Philip K. Dick's short science-fiction story "The Indefatiguable Frog" concerns an experiment to determine whether a frog which continually leaps half the distance to the top of a well will ever be able to get out of the well.

[edit] See also
Zeno machine
Supertask
Thomson's lamp
Balls and vase problem
What the Tortoise Said to Achilles
0.999...
Solvitur ambulando
Incommensurable magnitudes
Quantum Zeno effect

[edit] Footnotes
^ Aristotle's Physics "Physics" by Aristotle translated by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye
^ ([fragment 65], Diogenes Laertius. IX 25ff and VIII 57)
^ Diogenes Laertius, Lives, 9.23 and 9.29.
^ "Math Forum". http://mathforum.org/isaac/problems/zeno1.html.
^ "Zeno's Paradoxes:Archilles and the turtle". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#AchTor.
^ [1]Zeno's Paradoxes Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Dichotomy
^ [2]Zeno's Paradoxes Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Arrow
^ Aristotle Physics IV:1, 209a25
^ Aristotle Physics VII:5, 250a20
^ Aristotle Physics VI:9, 239b33
^ Aristotle. Physics 6.9
^ Aristotle. Physics 6.9; 6.2, 233a21-31
^ George B. Thomas, Calculus and Analytic Geometry, Addison Wesley, 1951
^ Kevin Brown, Reflections on Relativity, [3]; Francis Moorcroft, Zeno's Paradox, [4];
^ Time and Classical and Quantum Mechanics: Indeterminacy vs. Discontinuity. Foundations of Physics Letters (Vol. 16, Issue 4, 2003)
^ Bertrand Russell, The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell, Routledge, 2009, ISBN 9780415472388; p 246.
^ Kevin Brown, Reflections on Relativity, [5]; Francis Moorcroft, Zeno's Paradox, [6]; Alba Papa-Grimaldi, Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno's Paradoxes Miss the Point: Zeno's One and Many Relation and Parmenides' Prohibition, The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 50, 1996.
^ Kevin Brown, Reflections on Relativity, [7]; Francis Moorcroft, Zeno's Paradox, [8]; Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Zeno's Paradox, [9]; Alba Papa-Grimaldi, Why Mathematical Solutions of Zeno's Paradoxes Miss the Point: Zeno's One and Many Relation and Parmenides' Prohibition, The Review of Metaphysics, Vol. 50, 1996.
^ http://www.riflessioni.it/science/achilles-tortoise-paradox.htm
^ Walter Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, McGraw-Hill Publishing Co.; 3Rev Ed edition (September 1, 1976), ISBN 978-0070856134.
^ Sudarshan, E.C.G.; Misra, B. (1977), "The Zeno’s paradox in quantum theory", Journal of Mathematical Physics 18 (4): 756–763, doi:10.1063/1.523304
^ W.M.Itano; D.J.Heinsen, J.J.Bokkinger, D.J.Wineland (1990). "Quantum Zeno effect". PRA 41: 2295–2300. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.41.2295. http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/general/pdf/858.pdf.
^ Khalfin, L.A. (1958), Soviet Phys. JETP 6: 1053

[edit] Further reading
Chan, Wing-Tsit, (1969) A Source Book In Chinese Philosophy. Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691019649
Kirk, G. S., J. E. Raven, M. Schofield (1984) The Presocratic Philosophers: A Critical History with a Selection of Texts, 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521274559.
Plato (1926) Plato: Cratylus. Parmenides. Greater Hippias. Lesser Hippias, H. N. Fowler (Translator), Loeb Classical Library. ISBN 0674991850.
Sainsbury, R.M. (2003) Paradoxes, 2nd ed. Cambridge Univ. Press. ISBN 0521483476.

[edit] External links
Wikiquote has a collection of quotations related to: Aristotle
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "Zeno's Paradoxes" -- by Nick Huggett.
Brown, Kevin, "Zeno's Paradoxes of Motion," from Reflections on Relativity at MathPages.
Silagadze, Z . K. "Zeno meets modern science,"
BBC article on shortest time measured as of 2004: 10−16 seconds.
Blog "Strange Paths": "Modernity of Zeno's paradoxes."
Platonic Realms: "Zeno's Paradox of the Tortoise and Achilles."
Zeno's Paradox: Achilles and the Tortoise by Jon McLoone, Wolfram Demonstrations Project.
The Dichotomy Paradox a series based solution.
Zeno's paradoxes-wikinfo [10]
Zeno's Paradox from PhilosophyArchive
Click to expand...

Nero_Designs · Sep 3, 2009

"the definition of an asshole is someone who doesn't beleive what they see"
-Thinner; Stephen King.

scratcho · Sep 3, 2009

Ahh--I still like my Zen method.

Nero_Designs · Sep 3, 2009

what the fuck does it matter if it's an illusion, it's what i'm perceiving and that's all that matters to me. pretty straight forward way to look at it.

of course, i bet someone will post something that makes me completely re-evaluate my view.

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT · Sep 5, 2009

Well if it is just an illusion would u want to know the real reality even if its rubbish. Like the matrix scenario humans fought against the caring machines whom provided all that was needed and for what to live in a toxic waste land?

'I know why you're here, Neo. I know what you've been doing. I know why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why, night after night, you sit at your computer. You're looking for him, I know. I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn't really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It's the question that drives us, Neo. It's the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.'

There is no logical reason to ask what is this reality to think that there is something more. Sure for ppl in this day of age its easy to imagine virtual reality the concept of it but weirdly through out history humans always had this nagging feeling that this is just illusion but why well maybe there something to it our souls want to be truly in lighted so they can be free.

Then again it all could be BS but hey sometime the search is more rewording then the actual answer.

scarlett_tunic · Sep 5, 2009

I've been here and there--in reality and out of it--and both have seemed like completely different places.

Number48 · Sep 6, 2009

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT;5905626 said:

Well if it is just an illusion would u want to know the real reality even if its rubbish. Like the matrix scenario humans fought against the caring machines whom provided all that was needed and for what to live in a toxic waste land?
Click to expand...

If this is an illusion, we currently have no known way to get or see out of it. That is why it doesn't matter. Show me how to escape, and I will.

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT · Sep 6, 2009

Well Hinduism is all about escaping this illusion through yoga, Buddhism similer through meditation well really its about gaining enlightenment so that u can escape the ever revolving wheel of life, death and rebirth reincarnation when u seest to reincarnate u haved escaped this illusion of our reality.
Am sure there's more ways...

Moving_cloud · Sep 8, 2009

Reality is what we think is real (I think ..) ... means each of us lives in their own individual reality, yet not secluded or separate, as we come to agreement in most parts; so there must be a common element of creation.

Illusion maybe is when we find out there's more than we ever had thought, including the glitches and bugs of what we think is sturdy, solid, fully reliable reality, which makes it as fragile as a fleeting dream (at the latest when we pass on).

Physical reality, this is a quantum dance of energy in the vast ballrooms of the universe, created from places beyond time and space - a miracle by itself, call it an illusion or not. There's a mystery about the most trivial piece of matter, but at most parts we are so used to it and take it for granted, and so we forget we are dealing with kinda construct that is made to keep this world functioning - yet this is not all there is.

Imagine the vast space between each single atoms both in your fingers and the keys of your desktop you're hacking right now, and yet they signalize there's solid matter in front of you, and all around. And yet you can permeate it with your mind, and enlighten it with your heart, and travel beyond in no time.

Just more thoughts.

danielleinthesky · Sep 22, 2009

oh man, deep

lillallyloukins · Sep 22, 2009

appleseed024 said:

ok. lot's of rhetorical questions, but i hope it makes you think!
food for the mind :drool5:!!!

is physical reality a complete illusion?
if physical particles do exist, theoretically, there must always be a boundary to their qualities, which gives room for other particles, ad infinitum.

Say if you wanted to reach the threshold of a door, and each time you step closer, you halve the distance from you to the door. Assuming that you could measure that infinitesimally small, you could keep halving those halves, and you would never actually reach the point where the floor changes into the threshold of the door. You would never get there!
In the way our eyes and regular senses perceive the world, we could say, "Well I've reached the threshold of the door, and I can even pass through it! Of course I'm moving, and things have physical, concrete existence in this reality!"
But do they?
You could argue that physical matter exists because when you knock on wood, it makes a sound, or if you get punched in the face, it hurts. If you get in your car and drive somewhere, it takes time, and requires you to travel over a definite distance.

But what about your dreams? When you are dreaming, and unaware you are dreaming, you still have the ability to experience "motion" like the 'driving your car' example.
You can hear sounds, and people talking in your dreams, but, in "reality" you are laying quiet and motionless on your bed. Everything in your dream is a product of your mind.

Perhaps this is also the case in consensus, waking reality that we all seem to experience everyday, only at a different frequency and level of conscious and subconscious cooperation.

What are thoughts composed of? Can we simply write them off as electric pulses traveling to different parts of the brain?
Perhaps thought is existence in and of itself. Thought doesn't seem to have tangibility.
This would mean there simply is no physical world, but only the projected collection of thought 'waves' in which everything is the center, and simultaneously the edge, perpetually 'folding' in and out of itself.

any thoughts? what do you think about existence? please comment and share!
peace and positive vibes~~
Click to expand...

IMHO the answer is: yes, physical reality is an illusion if you are vibrating at a vastly different rate from your current stasis. it all depends on perspective! :banghead: :leaving:

jumbuli55 · Sep 22, 2009

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G64LgaaVrlQ

hebrewnational00 · Nov 9, 2009

IT IS A FACT that we are real and everyone is going to either heaven or hell after we die.
It is proven in the movie south park: bigger, longer, and uncut.

Log in or Sign up

Is physical reality an illusion?

appleseed024 Member

ACTION MAN Guest

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT Member

Coromaster Member

Royaltramp Member

scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

Number48 Member

jumbuli55 Member

Nero_Designs Inhaled Dreams

scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

Nero_Designs Inhaled Dreams

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT Member

scarlett_tunic Member

Number48 Member

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT Member

Moving_cloud Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

danielleinthesky Member

lillallyloukins ⓑⓐⓡⓑⓐⓡⓘⓐⓝ

jumbuli55 Member

hebrewnational00 Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Is physical reality an illusion?

appleseed024 Member

ACTION MAN Guest

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT Member

Coromaster Member

Royaltramp Member

scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

Number48 Member

jumbuli55 Member

Nero_Designs Inhaled Dreams

scratcho Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

Nero_Designs Inhaled Dreams

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT Member

scarlett_tunic Member

Number48 Member

Sir-.-'nOOBalloT Member

Moving_cloud Lifetime Supporter Lifetime Supporter

danielleinthesky Member

lillallyloukins ⓑⓐⓡⓑⓐⓡⓘⓐⓝ

jumbuli55 Member

hebrewnational00 Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches