# Is the universe real? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594 "2005-02-23T22:15:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/201 "2005-02-28T16:50:44Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > If heaven doesn’t have the likes of you there, what’s the point of it? Heh heh. You’ll recognise me easily - I’ll be the guy rapping his knuckles on things and asking where I can obtain some experimental apparatus. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/202 "2005-02-28T16:52:15Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I’ve now lost count of the number of times I’ve answered that question. I’ll just call it “umpteen”. The real universe would be eternal, essential, and necessary. I’ll just call this “umpteen and one”. Yuh-huh. And that just begs the question of what would be the difference between a “necessary” Universe and an “unnecessary” Universe. Is that kind of like “paper or plastic?” at your local supermarket? You ask an interesting question–“Is the Universe real?” I.e., Are we being fooled somehow? Does an evil demon rule my perceptions? Are we brains in vats? What is the Matrix? But before someone can answer that question in an interesting direction, you “slip in a blotter” per the old Pampers commercials and say, “Real means eternal, essential, necessary, and more absorbant.” It’s like Spinoza or Kant with all the dirty parts cut out. To answer the interesting question, “Are we being fooled?” the answer is “No.” Let’s grant for the sake of argument that the Universe is illusory: we’re a brain in a vat. But this begs the question of by what sure authority we grant that we have been fooled. After all, if we’re being systematically hoodwinked by Reality, why can we be sure that we’re hoodwinked in the first place? The whole concept of “unreality” or “being scammed” is based on a feeling of security in the vast majority of our beliefs. I found out my best friend is a conman (hypothetical story) because I found a passport with a different name in his jacket along with all my credit cards and that watch that was missing. This situation is in contrast to all my other friends, who at worst tell me little fibs to save face or prevent me from getting upset about something. There is no such “compare and contrast” possible with Reality or Universe, which is the whole of all things. But still the existential angst remains. With all our science and learning, we still don’t understand why we are conscious, why thought exists at all. We _do_ wonder whether we are being fooled somehow, and what the nature of Reality is. But mere words will not get us the answers, not the big ones. To say that they can is to claim that typing in MS Word will grant you access to the bios of the machine. It’s absurd. The big answers come through spiritual exploration, not philosophy. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/203 "2005-02-28T17:10:53Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > Yuh-huh. And that just begs the question of what would be the difference between a “necessary” Universe and an “unnecessary” Universe. Is that kind of like “paper or plastic?” at your local supermarket? Well, gosh, if you’re going to be condescending, then you ought to know two things at least: (1) begging the question is the logical fallacy of presuming one’s conclusion in one’s premise, and is not a synonym for “raising the question”; and (2) necessity is a formal term in logic for a particular modality, namely the negation of possible negation. In other words, that which exists necessarily cannot possibly not exist. > [@](#): > > You ask an interesting question–“Is the Universe real?” I.e., Are we being fooled somehow? Does an evil demon rule my perceptions? Are we brains in vats? What is the Matrix? Actually, I think of it as a mis-en-scene for our moral play. > [@](#): > > But before someone can answer that question in an interesting direction, you “slip in a blotter” per the old Pampers commercials and say, “Real means eternal, essential, necessary, and more absorbant.” I… you know, there’s just too much good stuff going on here to bother with this. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/204 "2005-02-28T17:23:21Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > By categorisations such as “abstractions don’t have mass” and suchlike - even then, like I said, I might be mistaken. Fine and dandy. But then, of course, I must ask why the categorizations aren’t arbitrary, and why they’re more justified that _other_ categorizations (Which, I think, you just might answer with: “…’cause I _like_ ‘em. They work for me.”) I wouldn’t find this answer particularly intellectually satisfying, but it _is_ a perfectly acceptable answer. > [@](#): > > Well, I say stuff and you say other stuff in response. Where we disagree, we say more stuff until we don’t. How’s that? Dandy and fine. I say the idea that we 2005 primates can accurately describe the nature of reality a billion years ago is a matter of assumption, not justification. What say you? > [@other-wise](#): > > After all, isn’t the billion-year-old reality you’re thinking about an abstraction? > > **Response by SentientMeat** > > **And** a thing, say I. I’d say your _abstraction_ might be a thing, but the billion-year-old reality is not. How could it be if you weren’t there to “thingify” it? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/205 "2005-02-28T17:25:04Z")
**Aeschines** , can you give me an axample of non-philosophical spiritual exploration? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/206 "2005-02-28T17:30:46Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > **Aeschines** , can you give me an axample of non-philosophical spiritual exploration? If anyone can respond, I’d say an epiphany would be one example. Otherwise, please ignore. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/207 "2005-02-28T17:44:07Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, you’re right. Analogous is a better word. God is the existent Facilitator-of-Goodness . Love is the essential facilitator-of-goodness. But doesn’t this raise the same question? What is “Facilitator-of-Goodness”? How is “Facilitator-of-Goodness” simultaneously essence-and-thing? > [@](#): > > But this is becoming a bit tedious. I agree. “effing” the ineffable usually is. I regret offering my analogy; it just muddied waters I’m trying hard to clarify. **Lib** , I may have to let this go; you’re trying to explain the taste of chocolate to someone who’s never tasted chocolate. No matter how eloquent your writing, I’ll never be able to “read” my way to a taste. Thanks for your patience. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/208 "2005-02-28T17:45:06Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Well, gosh, if you’re going to be condescending, then you ought to know two things at least. Oh, I know two things all right. > [@](#): > > (1) begging the question is the logical fallacy of presuming one’s conclusion in one’s premise, and is not a synonym for “raising the question” Noooo, really? Here is a link that says the matter is open for debate: > **[World Wide Words: Beg the question](http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm)** > > What is the current meaning of 'begging the question'? Even so, I said, > [@](#): > > Let’s grant for the sake of argument that the Universe is illusory: we’re a brain in a vat. But this begs the question of by what sure authority we grant that we have been fooled. That is, the concept of “illusion” _does_ implicitly contain a recognition of the principle of a “sure authority” by which to recognize the illusion. That is, it is an assuming of the very thing which is being denied–perhaps not question begging per se, but a related problem, smart guy. > [@](#): > > ; and (2) necessity is a formal term in logic for a particular modality, namely the negation of possible negation. In other words, that which exists necessarily cannot possibly not exist. I never dealt with the concept of “necessity” in my post, smart guy, so your slamming me here for not dealing with your hobbyist terms is way off-target. That said, I think all your modal logic fudge is about as “unreal” as it gets. > [@](#): > > I… you know, there’s just too much good stuff going on here to bother with this. Um, Have it your way at Burger King now. Have fun with your stale arguments, about as relevent and compelling as 25-year-old ad slogans. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/209 "2005-02-28T17:47:08Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > But then, of course, I must ask why the categorizations aren’t arbitrary, and why they’re more justified that other categorizations And I must direct you to post #186 in which I have already stated that the categories are arbitrary: that’s how minds _work_. > [@](#): > > I say the idea that we 2005 primates can accurately describe the nature of reality a billion years ago is a matter of assumption, not justification. What say you? Well, then we can board the carousel for another revolution around the word “accurately”. I’m beginning to feel a little queasy and so I’d probably politely decline, if that’s OK. > [@](#): > > I’d say your abstraction might be a thing, but the billion-year-old reality is not. How could it be if you weren’t there to “thingify” it? So the dinosaurs weren’t real? Is the ‘unthingified’ falling tree in the forest? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/210 "2005-02-28T17:51:21Z")
> [@Aeschines](#): > > I never dealt with the concept of “necessity” in my post, smart guy, so your slamming me here for not dealing with your hobbyist terms is way off-target. From your post: 'And that just begs the question of what would be the **difference between a “necessary” Universe and an “unnecessary” Universe**." ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/211 "2005-02-28T17:58:30Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > But doesn’t this raise the same question? What is “Facilitator-of-Goodness”? How is “Facilitator-of-Goodness” simultaneously essence-and-thing? Well now, wait a minute. Are we discussing the noumenal versus the phenomenal or the essential versus the existent? There is nothing to preclude a thing with essence from coming into existence unless you take existentialism as axiomatic, and I do not. > [@](#): > > I agree. “effing” the ineffable usually is. > I regret offering my analogy; it just muddied waters I’m trying hard to clarify. No problem. Sometimes analogies can be very helpful. Some of Jesus’ most effective teachings, in my opinion, were the parables. > [@](#): > > **Lib** , I may have to let this go; you’re trying to explain the taste of chocolate to someone who’s never tasted chocolate. No matter how eloquent your writing, I’ll never be able to “read” my way to a taste. Thanks for your patience. That is regretable. This has been the most interesting dialog I’ve had. Your approach was a good one. Small moves in logical chunks. You made patience unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/212 "2005-02-28T18:34:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > If anyone can respond, I’d say an epiphany would be one example. Otherwise, please ignore. The epiphany would be an example of a spiritual discovery. I’m asking about the skills, equipment and maps useful for the journey of exploration. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/213 "2005-02-28T18:57:06Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And I must direct you to post #186 in which I have already stated that the categories are arbitrary: that’s how minds _work_. Sorry, I didn’t get that from the statement “_…it’s all just a matter of opinion_”, although from the context, I obviously should have. My bad. > [@](#): > > Well, then we can board the carousel for another revolution around the word “accurately”. I’m beginning to feel a little queasy and so I’d probably politely decline, if that’s OK. I dunno, **Sentient** , isn’t accuracy what’s at stake here? I mean, I understand that your worldview is useful and, to you, satisfactory. But you also seem to be presenting it as more _accurate_ than the alternatives. I’m having a hard time seeing the justification for this, and apparently, **eris** , **Lib** and others are as well. > [@](#): > > So the dinosaurs weren’t real? Is the ‘unthingified’ falling tree in the forest? Now _I’m_ on the carousel (see posts #106 and #130 ). There was, assumedly, noumena. But there was nothing around experiencing noumena as (pre-edited and pre-filtered) _phe_nomena, to conceptualize/experience _as_ a “dinosaur”. ---
**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/214 "2005-02-28T19:05:55Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > From your post: 'And that just begs the question of what would be the **difference between a “necessary” Universe and an “unnecessary” Universe**." Here I was using “beg the question” in the “wrong” sense you pointed out. I’ll give you a point for that, smart guy. I wasn’t, however, dealing with “necessary” in the sense of making arguments using it, etc.; I was merely pointing it that it’s a bloodless, abstract term (one of your “hobby” terms) like that of real/unreal. So no, I won’t score you a point for your attempted slam of my ignorance (consider it willful and enthusiastic) of your logic hobby, as my use of the term “necessary” in what I wrote did not require me to know what you purport to mean by it. ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/215 "2005-02-28T19:25:23Z")
Well… maybe a little bit more. > [@Liberal](#): > > Well now, wait a minute. Are we discussing the noumenal versus the phenomenal or the essential versus the existent? I don’t honestly know anymore. There’s this bloody recursiveness that keeps cropping up: I’m having difficulty with it. Phrases like “_… a thing with essence_” confuse me; is “thing” noumenal, phenomenal, or neither? If it’s noumenal, and we cannot know the noumenal as such, how do we know it has essence? If it’s phenonmenal, how is it any more real than a photon? If neither, what the heck is it? ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/216 "2005-02-28T20:06:00Z")
**Liberal** , am I wrong or is\*\* Raftpeople\*\* the only poster who even tried disputing your OP assertion on the terms you set? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/217 "2005-02-28T20:13:49Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > Well… maybe a little bit more. > > I don’t honestly know anymore. There’s this bloody recursiveness that keeps cropping up: I’m having difficulty with it. > > Phrases like “_… a thing with essence_” confuse me; is “thing” noumenal, phenomenal, or neither? If it’s noumenal, and we cannot know the noumenal as such, how do we know it has essence? If it’s phenonmenal, how is it any more real than a photon? If neither, what the heck is it? I think our problems might have erupted when we started drawing analogies and failed to realize that our usages of noumenal and phenomenal with respect to them were themselves parts of the analogy. That’s why when Gyan called her comment a nitpick, I said that it wasn’t a nitpick at all, but an important clarification. God (or love) is noumenal because He is indescribable; and he must exist because He is the Supreme Being. Before you say that SB describes G, it does not. It describes the quality of the _existence_ of G — the bounds of existence, not the bounds of G. God (or love) is essential because, in facilitating goodness (that aesthetic which edifies) He has the same quality irrespective of whether He exists — once He is essential, He _must_ exist because of the nature of edification. You can’t edify something that isn’t there. We exist because we are what becomes edified. Not our bodies — they are trivial. But our spirits — that which in us is in His likeness. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/218 "2005-02-28T20:19:21Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > **Liberal** , am I wrong or is\*\* Raftpeople\*\* the only poster who even tried disputing your OP assertion on the terms you set? Going strictly on late afternoon dull memory, I believe you’re correct, although he took a stab only at its necessity. But due credit, I do believe that Other-wise is making a good faith effort at fleshing out the essence portion. He is at least making sure that we’re talking about the same thing before proceding, which is wonderful. And when it comes time (pun!) to talk about the eternal portion, I am confident that you will see Sentient coming in with guns ablazing. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![other-wise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/4bbf92/32.png) [@other-wise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/other-wise)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/219 "2005-02-28T20:59:09Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > God (or love) is noumenal \ Okay. > [@](#): > > …because He is indescribable; and he must exist because He is the Supreme Being. Before you say that SB describes G, it does not. It describes the quality of the _existence_ of G — the bounds of existence, not the bounds of G. In “…the quality of the _existence_ of G”, I’m assuming “quality” does not refer to any sort of subjective judgement. Does quality therefore refer to an extant’s phenomenalogical status? (i.e., is qualitative existence a synonym for phenomenological existence?) If so, then to paraphrase, SB describes the ultimate bounds of our phenomenological perception/conception, not the bounds of G, right? > [@](#): > > God (or love) is essential because, in facilitating goodness (that aesthetic which edifies) He has the same quality irrespective of whether He exists — once He is essential, He _must_ exist because of the nature of edification. You can’t edify something that isn’t there. We exist because we are what becomes edified. Not our bodies — they are trivial. But our spirits — that which in us is in His likeness. Then we are as essential as God? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/220 "2005-02-28T21:12:10Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > In “…the quality of the _existence_ of G”, I’m assuming “quality” does not refer to any sort of subjective judgement. Does quality therefore refer to an extant’s phenomenalogical status? (i.e., is qualitative existence a synonym for phenomenological existence?) If so, then to paraphrase, SB describes the ultimate bounds of our phenomenological perception/conception, not the bounds of G, right? It describes the bounds of G’s ontological status. Our perceptions are another matter, but something about them does indeed follow from the ontological implications. Specifically, existing necessarily (qua Supreme Being) means only that, and nothing more — SB must exist in every possible world. _But the perceptions in that world are formed according to its rules_. Every world that is accessible to some other world has a relation to that world. Please see this map of some of the possible relations (along with a general theory to derive more): [http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#8](http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/#8) What that means is that, for example, it is not a matter that God cannot create a square circle, or that the notion is objective nonsense and therefore He is not required to. It is a matter that were He to create a square circle in our world, _we could not percieve it_. > [@](#): > > Then we are as essential as God? Our spiritual selves are essential, yes. But keep in mind here that we’re not using essential as a synonym to necessary. Rather, essential means only that there is an essence — a quality that remains regardless of ontological status. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=12)