# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![kitarak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kitarak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kitarak)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 8:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/121 "2005-02-25T08:08:35Z")
> [@Loopydude](#): > > Never admit defeat. Insist the posts weren’t real. It’s tempting. 🙂 But not admitting when you’re wrong is a terribly debating style, and I was indeed wrong. To elaborate slightly on my error, the problem was that I deduced that in this particular model a proof of the unreality of the universe can’t be based on empirical evidence. However, this doesn’t hold in general: If we all woke up in our pods tomorrow with little AI servitors saying “Sorry, the Matrix is going down for a reboot. We apologise for the inconvenience” it would be pretty strong empirical evidence that the universe isn’t real! Anyway, still regrouping thoughts. May have more to say later. Kit ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 9:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/122 "2005-02-25T09:42:24Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > If S is a set that is an element of U, then the intersection of S and U is just S. Do we agree that based on the facts we both largely agree on, U and S are not _identical_: that U has at least one more element than S? Like what was there before humans evolved, for example? > [@](#): > > So now we both must discard either our conclusion or our premise. Which do you choose? I discard the premise that there is a “gestalt”: there is **no more** than the sum of parts. > [@](#): > > Terms and language are synonymous lexemes. Apologies: senses, memory, thought, emotions, consciousness, sentience and experience are all as demostrably physical things as any everyday object. > [@](#): > > I’m sorry. I do not understand the question. I’ll change it. Would you say _I’m_ real? If so, why are other people real but dinosaurs weren’t? And further, why did your OP specify entities which show quantum effects when it appears that everyday objects and dinosaurs aren’t even in your set of the “real” either? Like I said, reading through the whole thread again, it certainly takes a more esoteric twist the moment we starts exploring the philosophical definition (“independent of thought and language”). Are you taking this as “If something is describable, it is not real”? Then _nothing_ can _ever_ be real, even your own right arm. Had you begun a thread entitled “My right arm is not real”, I’d suggest that everybody would think you weren’t talking about idealism but prosthetics. > [@other-wise](#): > > But without us to perceive it and interact with it, all there is a HD with widely-scattered, magnetized bits. And all we are is an arrangement of ever-changing atoms. Thought, language, senses, memory, emotion and the like _emerged from atoms_ over the course of evolution. Atoms have no climate or biology either, but clouds and dinosaurs are still _real_. > [@](#): > > Without an “end-user” to conceptualize them as such, there were no dinosaurs. There _were no dinosaurs_ when there were no language-equipped apes around? There _were no_ large quadrupeds in the Triassic? The Earth and everything on it was _not there_? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 10:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/123 "2005-02-25T10:42:15Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > Do we agree that based on the facts we both largely agree on, U and S are not _identical_: that U has at least one more element than S? We do. > [@](#): > > Like what was there before humans evolved, for example? I was using S as the set of senses. Look at the context again, and that should be clear. My point was that S can return nothing to you from U except S. That’s where they intersect. Just as a snake is oblivious to any nouminal difference between the tree and the ground, so might you be oblivious to all manner of alleged reality. If your senses are your only source of reality perception, then the reality you perceive is subjective by definition. They are, after all, _your_ senses. Different people have different senses. Some people are blind. Some are deaf. Some are deaf and blind. Sure, you can use your intelligence to create machinery with gauges to quantify things you can’t see, smell, or taste, but what good are your gauges to a blind man? You can certainly make a reasonable claim to be exposed to more reality than the blind man is, but you have no logical basis on which to claim that you are privvy to the whole of it. You would be hard put even to _describe_ a whole new sense that you don’t already have because, like a blind creature in nature, the very meaning of sight would be forever beyond your grasp. You can’t say that there isn’t more out there than you can sense. All you get is S ∩ U. > [@](#): > > I discard the premise that there is a “gestalt”: there is **no more** than the sum of parts. Not from mine, from _yours_. I’ll choose my own. > [@](#): > > Apologies: senses, memory, thought, emotions, consciousness, sentience and experience are all as demostrably physical things as any everyday object. Maybe. But even giving you that assertion for the sake of argument, what difference does it make to the issue at hand? Those are all things that are products of the brain, therefore putting reality squarely inside your head. > [@](#): > > I’ll change it. Would you say _I’m_ real? If so, why are other people real but dinosaurs weren’t? And further, why did your OP specify entities which show quantum effects when it appears that everyday objects and dinosaurs aren’t even in your set of the “real” either? Nothing in this universe is real. Not you. Not me. Not the atoms. Not the dinosaurs. These are illusions born of perception, having no independent significance. Electromagnetic fields are colliding in a gravity suspension. It is one seemless event over the whole of time. > [@](#): > > Like I said, reading through the whole thread again, it certainly takes a more esoteric twist the moment we starts exploring the philosophical definition (“independent of thought and language”). Are you taking this as “If something is describable, it is not real”? Then _nothing_ can _ever_ be real, even your own right arm. Had you begun a thread entitled “My right arm is not real”, I’d suggest that everybody would think you weren’t talking about idealism but prosthetics. On the contrary, _something_ can be real. It’s just that nothing _physical_ can be real. In your first post, you said the topic was a good one, and that you have for some time had an interest in my views on this. I am presenting them here. > [@](#): > > And all we are is an arrangement of ever-changing atoms. Thought, language, senses, memory, emotion and the like _emerged from atoms_ over the course of evolution. Atoms have no climate or biology either, but clouds and dinosaurs are still _real_. Memory and emotion have to be particles of some kind as well; otherwise, you are sorely lacking in a material explanation for them. See the article linked by Other-wise above. Your only other recourse is to define them as abstractions, in which case calling them real is just… bizarre. > [@](#): > > There _were no dinosaurs_ when there were no language-equipped apes around? There _were no_ large quadrupeds in the Triassic? The Earth and everything on it was _not there_? To a snake, you aren’t here even now. You’re just some part of the ground that gets in its way. It strikes at you and a thorn bush with the exact same percipience. Even a mouse is only a part of the ground that it eats. Why should your perception of reality be any more valid than the snake’s? And if you insist that it is, can you prove that some being does not exist who has a superior sensory perception to yours, thereby making your own perceptions incomplete and inferior? If not, then how can you say that, just by your senses, you are even privvy to what is real and what isn’t? All that was there in the Triassic period was the same that is here now: a probability distribution. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/124 "2005-02-25T11:19:46Z")
> [@Lib](#): > > Nothing in this universe is real. Not you. Not me. Not the atoms. Not the dinosaurs. These are illusions born of perception … On the contrary, _something_ can be real. Well, in that case I would suggest that 3 pages (interesting though they were) could have been saved by you entitling the thread “I am not real and neither are you”. Is there anything which is **not** in the set labelled “illusions” in your personal Venn diagram? Your ‘something’ is surely _not_ independent of our thought and language, _whatever it is_? “Only indescribable things are real” is a premise as bizarre as I have ever heard (and the bizarre can still be interesting) - do you hold to it? > [@](#): > > Memory and emotion have to be particles of some kind as well; Why? Can they not be _arrangements_ of particles **and** energy **and** fundamental forces **and** spacetime? Why must this arbitrarily narrow set of ‘particles’ be the _only_ door to memory, emotion, information and computation? > [@](#): > > Why should your perception of reality be any more valid than the snake’s? I cannot remember using the words “more valid” or “superior” here at all. > [@](#): > > All that was there in the Triassic period was the same that is here now: a probability distribution. _Which is resolved upon observation_. That is the _point_ of quantum mechanics. And I still don’t really understand why we’re still discussing the distinction between things characterised by a probability distribution and everyday _non_probabilistic things or even you and me, since it does not really seem to be relevant to you **anyway** , probability distribution or not. **Lib** : A dice is not real: it’s just a probability distribution. **Me** : But _after_ you’ve thrown it, it _isn’t_ any more. How about a dice with the same number on every face? **Lib** : That’s irrelevant. A dice is not real for the same reason you and me aren’t real: we’re _describable_. Do you think this is an unfair or straw-laden characterisation? Apologies if so. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/125 "2005-02-25T12:11:10Z")
> [@Sentient](#): > > Do you think this is an unfair or straw-laden characterisation? Apologies if so. I think it is a hurried, frustrated, and careless one. But no apology necessary. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/126 "2005-02-25T13:27:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Nothing in this universe is real. Not you. Not me. Not the atoms. Not the dinosaurs. These are illusions born of perception, having no independent significance. Electromagnetic fields are colliding in a gravity suspension. It is one seemless event over the whole of time. If to you all the universe is some sort of mental construction or illusion then how is it possible that we are to convince you that you are not deluded that in fact the Universe is real. If I am hallucinating DesCartes sitting on the couch and he says I think therefore I am and I believe him that does not make him real. [aside] I find it interesting that you use Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle to support your view of atoms not being real yet don’t consider its implications for your omniscient ‘God’. In fact I am sitting here scratching my head wondering how someone can believe in multiple universes and an omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient being yet find the evidence for atoms lacking. Do you believe in Chemistry, Nuclear weapons, dinasours, evolution or the universe being billions of years old? [/aside] ---
**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 25, 2005, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/127 "2005-02-25T14:23:03Z")
> [@kitarak](#): > > It’s tempting. 🙂 If we all woke up in our pods tomorrow with little AI servitors saying “Sorry, the Matrix is going down for a reboot. We apologise for the inconvenience” it would be pretty strong empirical evidence that the universe isn’t real! It would have no bearing on the question. It would show you had a few details wrong, nothing more. ---
**Author:** ![kitarak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/898d66/32.png) [@kitarak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kitarak)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/128 "2005-02-25T14:32:20Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > It would have no bearing on the question. It would show you had a few details wrong, nothing more. I feel that it would resolve the question - the universe as we percieved it was not real. There is now a new universe which the question once again applies to and still has an unresolved answer, but the original version of the question we asked has been answered. ( Or of course we’re the victims of an elaborate hoax. Lets assume perfect information, etc. in order to exclude thie possibility ). Of course part of the problem here is that we don’t have a good working definition of universe. 🙂 ---
**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 25, 2005, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/129 "2005-02-25T14:36:06Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > It is one seemless event over the whole of time. Good word! But don’t you think it’s really no truer to call it seamless than saying “it” is divided into “things”? ---
**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 25, 2005, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/130 "2005-02-25T16:39:39Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > And all we are is an arrangement of ever-changing atoms. And the trash bin on my computer is a blue, 1/4” by 1/4" container. But that’s only how I perceive it and interact with it; it’s a _user interface_ for a pattern of magnetic blips. I do not have _unmediated_ access to the 1’s and 0’s on my HD any more than my senses have an unalloyed pipeline to reality. I’m suggesting that our description and conceptualization of “atoms” actually refers our _interface_ with reality, rather than reality itself (whatever that is). > [@SentientMeat](#): > > There _were no dinosaurs_ when there were no language-equipped apes around? There _were no_ large quadrupeds in the Triassic? The Earth and everything on it was _not there_? Again, I’m not suggesting that mind _creates_ reality. But considering that all our sense data has been massively tweaked by the time it reaches our conscious awareness, the odds of there being a “dinosaur” or “earth” or “atoms”, exactly as we conceive them now, _without anyone there to conceive anything_, strikes me as highly unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/131 "2005-02-25T18:03:43Z")
> [@treis](#): > > If to you all the universe is some sort of mental construction or illusion then how is it possible that we are to convince you that you are not deluded that in fact the Universe is real. I’ve already answered that question more than once in this thread. Show me analytical proof — a tableau, or at least a list of premises and inferences. > [@](#): > > I find it interesting that you use Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle to support your view of atoms not being real yet don’t consider its implications for your omniscient ‘God’. I haven’t so much as even mentioned Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle in this thread. At all. How is it that you can’t find things I’ve said, but can find things I didn’t say? ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/132 "2005-02-25T18:08:30Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > Good word! But don’t you think it’s really no truer to call it seamless than saying “it” is divided into “things”? That’s actually something I’ve already discussed a couple of times. (See the first post about the snake and the tree.) Whatever noumenal divisions there might or might not be, the only divisions available to our perception are phenomenal. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/133 "2005-02-25T18:12:11Z")
> [@Hoodoo Ulove](#): > > It would have no bearing on the question. It would show you had a few details wrong, nothing more. If inferences are drawn from those wrong details, then his conclusion is worthless. Once he cleans up whatever problems he perceives, the set of inferences might well head a whole 'nuther direction. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/134 "2005-02-25T18:58:26Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > I haven’t so much as even mentioned Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle in this thread. At all. > > How is it that you can’t find things I’ve said, but can find things I didn’t say? Thats a pretty disingenous statement seeing as you a) quoted Heisenberg in your OP and b) you have made a few posts concerning Quantum Dynamics in this thread. All of the ‘random probabilities’ and wacky results of Quantum Dynamics have to do with the uncertainty principle. So while you may have not said it directly you have certainly referenced in a few times in this thread. Tell me this if someone knows the outcome of an event then how can that event be called random anymore? > [@Liberal](#): > > I’ve already answered that question more than once in this thread. Show me analytical proof ? a tableau, or at least a list of premises and inferences. Well first you would have to define what you consider God. I will just go ahead and use the definition you used in this thread. My first complaint is that you use “greatest possible perfection” without defining perfection in what regard. This allows you to say it is possible which in fact is true when you do not give a definition to something it is possible it exists. Then after doing your logic proof you ascribe god status to this greatest possible perfection. Unfortunately an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being is not possible which invalidates your premise. Neither are many of the acts attributed to one Jesus Christ such as rising from the dead, turning water into wine or feeding hundreds of people with 5 loaves of bread. Second consider if you changed the definition from “greatest possible perfection on earth”. Then your result would be that it is necessary for it to exist on earth. Now change on earth to America, then to Ohio, then to Columbus, then to my Dorm, then to my room, then to the apple in the garbage, then down to a bacterial level. The greatest possible perfection on a molecular level is a bacteria, in the apple maybe a worm, in my room a human and so on up the line until you get the greatest possible perfection in the solar system which is still a human. Each step on the line still obeys the laws of physics, chemistry and is made of matter. By what reasoning do you conclude that when you get to the universe level that this being is no longer matter and defies all laws of science? Lastly the Judeo-Christian god is not perfect. He is a jealous, vengeful and insecure god. I don’t demand that people worship me on pain of eternal damnation, I do not take revenge on people by drowning them and I do not care if people worship someone else. In these ways I am more perfect than what you define as god. Certainly a being that can not get his jealousy under control is not the greatest possible perfection. If you would like me to prove a definition of god other than “greatest possible perfection” false I will be happy to do so. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 9:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/135 "2005-02-25T21:14:39Z")
A few thoughts. 1.) Bohr and Heisenberg’s interpretation of Quantum mechanics is just that: an interpretation. Schrodinger didn’t buy it, and there are other interpretations, including Hugh Everett’s “many worlds” idea. see [this book](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691023883/qid=1109364650/sr=2-2/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_2/002-2595890-8962416) for more. Bohr appears to have been a positivist. Positivsts reduce science, and in extreme cases all of reality, to observables. I don’t like positivism for a number of reasons. First it leads to mystery-mongering statements (Including, I must say, things like “the universe isn’t real”). Second it’s bad for science. It retarded the acceptance of the atomic theory for quite some time. (See the essay “Against Philosophy” in url=http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679744088/qid=1109364870/sr=2-1/ref=pd\_bbs\_b\_2\_1/002-2595890-8962416] this book for more on this.) Finally, it misstates how humans come to know the world. 2.) We are not slaves to our senses. We have brains, minds and reason. My senses tell me that the table in front of me is a continuous mass. But I know through other people’s reasoning that in fact it is composed of discrete particles, and is mostly “empty” space. Most of what we know about the world is through reasoning, not through a mindless collection of sense data. Our decisions on how to chop up the world of perception are (hopefully) based not on dumb obedience to our senses, but are based on a judicious, pragmatic analysis. This is why positivism is wrong. In reducing all of science–or all of experience in extreme cases–to observation it reduces a person to a sort of automatic instinctual percieving machine. The most cursory glance at the history and practice of science shows that this is not so. 3.) I don’t see why we have to abandon the plain old definition of the word “real.” Some things are real, others aren’t. George Bush is real, Homer Simpson not. Lions are real, Hippogriffs not. Of course these are pretty obvious cases, since we could bump into a lion, or George Bush. But even with dinosaurs, we can use the empirical evidence–fossils–and our mighty brains to deduce that dinosaurs once existed in the same way that lions do, and that dragons and orcs don’t. Even with atoms and other microphnemomena where quantum weirdness becomes important we can still use our reasoning to state that an atomic theory of matter is a better explanation than the alternative. Given that atoms are–at this point–the best explanation of the world, I think we are allowed to conjecture that they are real. And its not only “things” or entities that are real. Relations are real too. The earths gravity accelerates objects at a rate of 9.8 m/sec. Thus the 9.8 m/sec acceleration of the earths gravity is real and a 6.5 m/sec one isn’t. The universe then is simply everything that is real. Therefore it is real in itself, in the same way a can of soup is as real as the beans meat and veggies it contains. 4.) I’m not sure what it means for the Universe to be a probability distribution. A probability distribution is a mathematical artifact which gives the odds of certain things occuring. It’s a statement, not a thing. 5.) The reality of the universe is to be distinguished from our best scientific theories about it, which contain some element of conjecture about them, even at their most successful. The point is that while our human condition forces us into this conjectural game, it’s pretty clear that something is doing something out there. That’s it for now. Sorry about the hurried incoherent nature of these thoughts. Also I realize that some of these ideas have been brought up earlier–and more clearly–by other posters, particularly **SPOOFE**. No replies neccesary, though I’d appreciate any. ( I wont be back till tomorrow.) Thank you **Liberal** for starting this thread. It’s been getting me thinking for a day or so now! ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/136 "2005-02-25T21:17:55Z")
[fixed second link](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0679744088/qid=1109367138/sr=2-1/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_1/002-2595890-8962416) ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/137 "2005-02-25T21:37:41Z")
Treis, with all due respect, your last two posts — and, come to think of it, your first one as well — are insane. Point the first: You said that I “[used] Heisenburg’s uncertainty principle to support your view of atoms not being real.” Your statement is false. It’s like saying that Sentient used Einstein’s relativity theory when he quoted Einstein about math. I did indeed quote Heisenberg, but neither I nor he said anything about his uncertainty principle. The quote doesn’t come from _The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory_, which was Heisenberg’s paper on his theory. The quote I gave from Heisenberg is just something he said echoing Bohr. The source for the quote is Peat’s _Einstein’s Moon: Bell’s Theorem and the Curious Quest for Quantum Reality_, page 85. **THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.** Point the second: What on earth is the point of your desultory philippic about God, which includes such asinine assertions as “the greatest possible perfection on a molecular level is a bacteria [sic]”? Frankly, debating with you is like chasing a greased cat. Every single one of my experiences with you has been… unpleasant. There are a lot of people in here who are enjoying a good debate on an interesting topic. I would appreciate it if you would kindly participate as a reader only. If you want to disprove God or something, please open another thread. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/138 "2005-02-25T22:04:34Z")
Fascinating. Just fascinating. I am sitting here at lost for words on how to respond to someone who doesn’t believe in atoms, doesn’t believe the universe is real, despite not believing the universe is real believes that there are many of them, feels that the universe is random yet somehow a being knows the future, said being also being omnipotent and omnipresent defying all scientific knowledge, believes that a man rose from the dead despite any eye-witness accounts of this miraculous event is calling me insane. I wish someday I could experience such a distorted reality as yours but unfortunately I do not believe there are enough drugs in the world to allow me to do so. Whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/139 "2005-02-25T22:43:09Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > Bohr and Heisenberg’s interpretation of Quantum mechanics is just that: an interpretation. I grant you that. As I said in the OP, I’m not invoking either man in an appeal to authority, despite that such an appeal, given their credentials, would not be a logical fallacy. I didn’t invoke them in that manner precisely because there are varying interpretations of quantum level phenomena. As I said before, I just found it interesting for my own purposes when I came across their quotes because I, independently and by very different means, had come to the same conclusion as they. I’ve been reading Eddington and Peat lately, and I came across the quotes in [this book](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0809245124/ref=ase_fdavipeat/002-4467032-9482456?v=glance&s=books). > [@](#): > > We are not slaves to our senses. We have brains, minds and reason. My senses tell me that the table in front of me is a continuous mass. But I know through other people’s reasoning that in fact it is composed of discrete particles, and is mostly “empty” space. Don’t you think “trust” might be a better, more accurate word, than “know”? Or “believe”, maybe? I don’t see how you can know something based on someone else’s senses or reasoning. I can understand that some people’s reasoning might be more trustworthy than others, but isn’t it the case that progress is made when someone _questions_ someone else’s reasoning or experience? Believe it or not, I’m open to discovering that the universe is in fact real, and I’ve laid out exactly how someone may accomplish convincing me of it. And I don’t think my demand is unreasonable. All I ask for is sound analytic proof that it is eternal (i.e., describable without circular reference), necessary (i.e. contingent on nothing), and essential (i.e., would have the same properties it now has if it did not exist). > [@](#): > > I don’t see why we have to abandon the plain old definition of the word “real.” Because it’s circular, and as such doesn’t really say anything. Suppose, for example, you asked me about John. You tell me that all you know is that he is an unmarried man, and I respond by saying, “Well, an unmarried man is a bachelor; therefore, John must be a bachelor as well as an unmarried man!” What new information about John do you have that you did not have before you asked? > [@](#): > > I’m not sure what it means for the Universe to be a probability distribution. A probability distribution is a mathematical artifact which gives the odds of certain things occuring. It’s a statement, not a thing. Loose, but close enough for our purposes here. The universe is also a statement, or set of statements — at least, what we can perceive of it is that. We really can’t look for any more than we can see. We really can’t recognize anything that we don’t discern. The only thing we can really see are photons. And they are randomly distributed. “What we are observing is not nature herself, but nature exposed to our type of question.” — Arthur Eddington > [@](#): > > And its not only “things” or entities that are real. Relations are real too. Well, then by that leap, why can’t faith be real? Moreover, why can’t the objects of faith be real, just as the objects of relations are, to you, real? > [@](#): > > The universe then is simply everything that is real. Therefore it is real in itself, in the same way a can of soup is as real as the beans meat and veggies it contains. Real is the universe and the universe is real makes for a fascinating identity assignment, but really doesn’t say anything about either the universe or reality. I mean, a can of soup is a can of soup because a can of soup is a can of soup. > [@](#): > > Thank you Liberal for starting this thread. It’s been getting me thinking for a day or so now! Thanks. The replies have made me think as well. As I’ve said so many times, I’ve probably learned more here at SDMB than I have in my whole life before it. That’s why I like it so much, despite… Well, let’s just leave it at that. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 25, 2005, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/140 "2005-02-25T22:45:49Z")
> [@treis](#): > > …despite not believing the universe is real believes that there are many of them… That’s exactly the kind of intellectual recklessness I’m talking about. I’ve believe no such thing and have never said so. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=8)