Res Ipsa wrote:The problem, in my opinion, is that you're asking the wrong question. Better ones would be: What do I mean by real? And what consequences flow form something being real? Or something being not-real?
I think the more important question is: Are my coffee table and Thor enough alike that it makes sense to give them the same label "real." And my argument is that, when we are talking about reality or existence, it makes no sense to treat something that exists regardless of human belief and something exists only as an electro/chemical process in the human brain. You can use whatever label you choose because it's not the labels that are important. It's the differences between the two that matter. But when you phrase the issues as "is it real" you are focusing on the labels and not what is being labeled.
For example, what if we distinguish among three different types of being real.
Real1: My coffee table. A physical object or process not limited to the human brain.
Real2: The label "coffee table" A real physical process in the human brain corresponding to my coffee table.
Real3: Thor A real physical process in the human brain that does not correspond with something that is Real 1.
So, "evolution" is Real2. The physical processes labeled as "evolution" are Real1. "Tree" is Real2. The Douglas Fir tree that sits outside my window is Real 2. "Growing" is Real2. The process to which "growing" is attached is Real2. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil is Real3.
in my opinion, treating these three types of being "real" as being the same leads to sloppy thinking and nonsensical conclusions.
My definition is pretty simple. "If it has influence, it is real." How real might depend upon how much influence is exerted.
But in my definition, the "reals" in your definition are backward. Say, like the law of gravity is more real then the coffee table, because it influences everything and everyone complies with its influence. What you imply as Real 3, real but less real is completely opposite. A coffee table didn't give spiritual bone to the Vikings for a thousand years.
In terms of influence, Thor is like a mountain compared to the coffee table. The table seems more real, because we can see it, feel it, but it wasn't a coffee table a twenty years ago and won't be a coffee table in 10 years from now. The reality of the coffee table is so fleeting we should hardly bother with the labeling of it.
But Thor. . . . . what influences are still playing out that started a thousand years ago? The Real 3 is in no way, cosmically speaking, less real then Real 1. According your Real 1, the laws form the universe would reside in Real 3, really not worth our time.
But the Real 3 is more solid, more eternal, more powerful, and unbreakable. One too many beers and that coffee table would cease it existence as a coffee table.
Seriously, I don't think I'm being unreasonable to state the Real 3 is far more "real" than the others. Our cultures form around God and he/she is the backbone of our civilization. Without God of the Garden, coffee tables wouldn't even exist. Without the superstitions that created God in the first place, we would have never left the banana trees.
So how can anyone, yourself included, imply that a coffee table is more real than Thor?
Thor is Real3. God is Real3. It has nothing to do with the number of dimensions. If God is a "pathway", then that "pathway" is Real3.
Totally agree. So is the concept of resurrection. It's a big nothing. . . . but motivated almost every great culture. How is an idea that motivates (perhaps) the Great Pyramids, the great tombs of Egypt, and caused Rome to join the Hebrew faith less real then a coffee table? The spiritual concepts, or spiritual forms, are MORE real then the physical objects. The physical objects wouldn't exist, or be defined without the spiritual forms.
Would it be deceptive to point out that the most deceptive cultures are Indo-European? The question isn't deception. The question is sound reasoning. And treating correlation as causation is never sound reasoning.
Spirit is the causation. The Christians didn't just happen to create the Christian faith, the Christian created the people. Deception isn't without influence either, therefore, deception can create and influence the nature of things. Whether a castle was built upon deception or good faith, the universe and castle don't care. Deception and honesty both have their pros and cons.
"Real to them" is the epitome of Real3. You know what else is Real3? Every single delusion believed by every single human. The woman who drowned her kids because her God told her to? Real3.
This just enforces what I am trying to say. Life is illusion. The "truth" is sum-zero, matter meets antimatter. That man that provides for his family because God told him too is under as much delusion as the woman that kills her kids. But, the number of people doing good things for God far out numbers the bad things. We need functional illusions. Like, some people might think their partners actually love them. HA! They are just trying to survive and get what they want, and you happen to fill the requirement. Relationships are based on lies, but hopefully they are functional. Hopefully you can help each other, but trust me, once you fail to meet enough requirements, those people you thought loved you will dump you.
But what I think you are missing is that being Real3 is not the same as being Real1, but I get the impression that you want to make some special case for God.
I don't need to make a special case. The evidence speaks for its self. I can walk through history with you and show you how ideas and God shapes the events on this planet, an ENTIRE PLANET and how a coffee table didn't mean crap in the scope of things. I think my rule will be, "it's real it's influence." So, if an idea divides the people of the planet and they blow up the planet with nukes, which causes the planet to go critical, which in turn causes the sun to implode, which creates a black hole that sucks in all the planets, which shifts the gravity balance among the local stars, puts a couple of dozen inhabited planets into a deep freeze, killing perhaps trillions of living beings. Influence=real
Take virtual space, and cyberspace. I can could store all the text of the Library of Congress in a couple of hard drives. It's really information, perhaps even more usable then a book. Is the information less real because it is as physical? Do feelings hurt less through cyberspace then in "real" space?
There are different spaces, such as virtual, cyber, spiritual, that are real (to a capable observer) and can do "real work."
To say that a thought process in a human brain can affect other processes in a human brain is neither mysterious nor remarkable.
Fair enough.
by the way: Einstein also never said "everything is relative." Or anything close to that. Ever.
You don't know that for sure, but I admit it hasn't been recorded. However, when I went through his "Theory of Relativity" it was strongly implied. And my fellow humans used the term around me often when I was growing up. Honest mistake on my part. But, since he wasn't recorded as saying it, I will take the time to do it now. "All Things are Relative." Every aspect of your identity is defined in relationship to something else. Take just one object out of the universe and your metadata, and thus your identity, will diminish or change.
Well, if you want to assert that anything could be true and so you are free to believe whatever you want, that's really simple to state. You don't need eleventy dimensional anything or dimensional holofluxes.
