# 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:** 9
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/161 "2005-02-27T15:26:32Z")
Look at it this way, Other-wise. We’ve been talking about essence. If you were to remove the things you allegedly see, they could always be replaced by other things. So long as there are retinal cells and photons, your capacity for sight remains. But reverse that — take away either the photons or the retinal cells — and no matter how densely packed your environment is with things, you will never see any color, shape, or motion. The photons and cells are the essential noumenals at work. You perceptions is shaping them into phenomenals for you. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/162 "2005-02-27T15:51:35Z")
> [@Antiochus](#): > > I haven’t read all the posts, but if no > one has suggested it it… > > You might want to read a short article > in this week’s New Yorker, entitled > > TIME BANDITS, by Jim Holt > > What were Einstein and Godel talking about? > > Enjoy. > > [http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/index.ssf?050228crat\_atlarge](http://www.newyorker.com/critics/atlarge/index.ssf?050228crat_atlarge) A very interesting article, Antiochus. Thanks. Among the gems it contains is probably the simplest explanation of special relativity that I’ve ever seen. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/163 "2005-02-27T17:34:40Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > A very interesting article, Antiochus. Thanks. Among the gems it contains is probably the simplest explanation of special relativity that I’ve ever seen. You’re more than welcome, **Liberal**! The explanation of Special Relativity was quite good, but how about the bit the author tantalizes us with, but never reveals — the Constitutional loophole that Gödel discovered? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![II\_Gyan\_II](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/bbe5ce/32.png) [@II\_Gyan\_II](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/II_Gyan_II)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/164 "2005-02-27T17:37:19Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > But reverse that — take away either the photons or the retinal cells — and no matter how densely packed your environment is with things, you will never see any color, shape, or motion. The photons and cells are the essential noumenals at work. You perceptions is shaping them into phenomenals for you. Nitpick: photons and cells are phenomenals. We hold thoughts that hold them in some noumenal capacity. Like everything else, that may change. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/165 "2005-02-27T20:33:36Z")
> [@Antiochus](#): > > You’re more than welcome, **Liberal**! > > The explanation of Special Relativity was quite good, but how about the bit the author tantalizes us with, but never reveals — the Constitutional loophole that Gödel discovered? 🙂 Yeah, I wondered about that too. I actually looked at the Constitution, and the closest thing I could find was this, from Article II, Section 3: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” It seems conceivable that, with enough capable allies to assist him, he could suspend Congress indefinitely. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/166 "2005-02-27T20:34:44Z")
> [@II Gyan II](#): > > Nitpick: photons and cells are phenomenals. We hold thoughts that hold them in some noumenal capacity. Like everything else, that may change. I really don’t think that’s a nitpick at all, but rather a very imporant clarification. Thanks, Gyan. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/167 "2005-02-27T22:41:14Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Yeah, I wondered about that too. I actually looked at the Constitution, and the closest thing I could find was this, from Article II, Section 3: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.” > > It seems conceivable that, with enough capable allies to assist him, he could suspend Congress indefinitely. I think you’re right. The text you cited is a way in which a doctatorship could arise. ---
**Author:** ![BarnOwl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e95f7d/32.png) [@BarnOwl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BarnOwl)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2005, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/168 "2005-02-27T22:42:41Z")
> [@Antiochus](#): > > I think you’re right. The text you cited is a way in which a doctatorship could arise. Oh, merde. d **i** ctatorship, dammit! ---
**Author:** ![eagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba8739/32.png) [@eagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eagle)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/169 "2005-02-28T00:10:22Z")
I cant believe I read this thread in its entirety. However, **Liberal** you wrote: > [@Liberal](#): > > I’d like to use either one of two operative definitions for “real”: > > 1. The common definition — “Being or occurring in fact or actuality” (_American Heritage_) > > 2. The philosophical definition — “Existing objectively … regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language” (_Ibid_) And your challenge is to prove, that the universe is real in either of the above mentioned sense. Well the first answer you got was the one of knocking against your desk to prove it’s real. You objected this request, because it uses subjetivity. Well this is OK for defintion 2) of real. But then you have to explain, what is a fact for you? Because for me, that knocking my desk does prove it to be real is a fact. Somewhere later in the thread you even say, that mathematics is not real, because it comes from order and quantities, which are subjective concepts. Well then, logic is also part of mathematics, but you say mathematics is not real, therefore you say logic is not real. Proofing something requires logic, because a proof is nothing more than a logical transformation following valid rules. However, if you deny the reality of mathematics, then you deny then reality of logic and with it you deny the reality of proof. Therefore there cannot be anything, that will convince you otherwise. Discussion ends. My challenge for you is easier: You believe God exists and is essential and necessary. I believe pink zebras don’t exist, and their non-existence is essential and necessary. You believe the universe does not exist. (or is not real, to use your wording) I believe the universe does exist. I can’t prove that God does not exist, but if I could, I would have proven that the only thing you accept to be real is indeed not real. You can’t prove that pink zebras (not pink painted ones) exist, but if you could, my universe would vanish into inexistence. Now my challenge: Prove to me that pink zebras exist, with the same rules you want us to apply, and after that I will agree with you, that the universe indeed is not real. There is a Zen koan, that goes about this: You know the noise of two hands clapping against each other, but what is the noise of only one hand. You might think this koan if offtopic, but it’s not. You defy the existence of things like trees, because on the subatomic level there is no tree. Well if this is true, why do we hear clapping hands, and to which hand do we contribute the noise? The left or the right? And why? We cannot name a single hand, the sound exists only if we have two hands, therefore there are things, that are more than their parts. Either that, or nothing exists at all. I can’t win your challenge, and you can’t win mine. However, I think my life, as bad as it is, makes more sense if the universe exists, than it would if it does not. It is comforting to accept its existence, and that’s is good enough for me. cu ---
**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, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/170 "2005-02-28T01:23:44Z")
**Lib** , \*\* II Gyan II\*\* beat me to it. That’s what I was clumsily trying to say (only I take it one step further and submit that photons are not phenomena, they’re _models_ of phenomena). I guess my question to you would be: what is _essence_ or _love_? If they’re phenomenal, why are they any more “real” than a photon? If they’re noumenal, how can we know them (-in-themselves) at all? ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/171 "2005-02-28T07:03:03Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > Sorry. I reject the major premise on account of the “in other words, it’s real” attachment. I reject the minor premise for reasons stated previously. We haven’t defined reality as existence per se, but rather a specific _kind_ of existence — namely, one that is not contingent on subjective perception or the conventions of language. Reality must exist objectively. In other words, it isn’t just an ontological question, but a broader metaphysical one. Therefore, the ontological argument — even if you’re allowed the wide berth of applying to it a panentheistic interpretation — is insufficient. > > To prove that the universe is real, you must prove that it is eternal (i.e., independent of perceptions like time), necessary (i.e., cannot not be real), and essential (i.e., would have the same qualities if it did not exist). It isn’t just existence, but reality. Ontology examines the nature of existence, but metaphysics examines the nature of reality. I’m on the “reply every 3 days” program, so you will have to bear with me. It seems to me that “existence” does not violate the 1st definition you allowed “being or occurring in fact or actuality”. Major issue: Is existence not a form of occurring in fact? Minor issue: Nothing in my proof relies on subjective perception (or any types of perception whatsoever) or the conventions of language (other than the fact that any proof does require some form of communication, even the ones we construct in our own minds for our own consumption) From Wikipedia (ontology, metaphysics and philosophy): “Reality=everything that exists” “a fact is something that exists” “unicorns do not exist, so they are not real” “in philosophy reality is contrasted with non-existence and mere possibility” As I think most would agree, by the definitions in Wikipedia, the only thing preventing the acceptance of my proof is if one does not believe the OA is valid. It seems we are left with a few options: 1. You do not feel the OA is valid, in which case, I will go back to the drawing board. 2. You do feel the OA is valid, but, while you do not disagree with Wikipedia (and other philosophy sources on the internet), the debate you wanted to have is not exactly the debate I am currently engaged in. In which case, despite having read your other definitions, I would ask for more clarification so I know where to focus my efforts. 3. The Universe is indeed real and Domokun will not have to feel cheated on his/her non-real graphics card. ---
**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, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/172 "2005-02-28T10:02:59Z")
> [@Eagle](#): > > Proofing something requires logic, because a proof is nothing more than a logical transformation following valid rules. However, if you deny the reality of mathematics, then you deny then reality of logic and with it you deny the reality of proof. Therefore there cannot be anything, that will convince you otherwise. Discussion ends. You say, “I cant believe I read this thread in its entirety”, and frankly, I can’t either. Because if you had, you’d have known that definition (2) is now the only operative definition, that there is no onus whatsoever to satisfy definition (1), and that I am willing to accept analytical proof (logic) that the universe is real because if logical analysis _can_ prove its reality, then logic is real as well. > [@](#): > > Now my challenge: Prove to me that pink zebras exist, with the same rules you want us to apply, and after that I will agree with you, that the universe indeed is not real. You base your challenge on an unsound premise, and multiple amphibolies. You seek by modus tollens — “I believe pink zebras don’t exist” — to show that if pink zebras do not exist, then neither does your particular universe — “my universe would vanish”. You are equivocating between existence and reality as though they are synonyms. > [@](#): > > You defy the existence of things like trees, because on the subatomic level there is no tree. No, I’m afraid that somehow you’ve gotten all mixed up. I believe that trees exist, that numbers exist, and that the universe exists. I just don’t believe that they are real, in accordance with the operative definition. They exists as illusions. ---
**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, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/173 "2005-02-28T10:06:59Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > I guess my question to you would be: what is _essence_ or _love_? If they’re phenomenal, why are they any more “real” than a photon? If they’re noumenal, how can we know them (-in-themselves) at all? Essence is that quality that a thing possesses irrespective of whether it exists. (Because of the sheer ubiquity of existentialist thought, it is easy to forget that not all philosophies hold that existence precedes essence.) Love is the facilitation of the aesthetic called “goodness”. Goodness is that aesthetic which edifies. ---
**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, 10:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/174 "2005-02-28T10:11:26Z")
> [@RaftPeople](#): > > It seems to me that “existence” does not violate the 1st definition you allowed “being or occurring in fact or actuality”. Back on page 1, I believe, Priceguy discovered that definition (1) is circular because it uses lexemes in its definition that are synonymous with the term being defined. We therefore discarded it. > [@](#): > > It seems we are left with a few options: > > 1. You do not feel the OA is valid, in which case, I will go back to the drawing board. I specifically addressed the problems with your ontological argument previously. Please refer to that post. > [@](#): > > 1. You do feel the OA is valid, but, while you do not disagree with Wikipedia (and other philosophy sources on the internet), the debate you wanted to have is not exactly the debate I am currently engaged in. In which case, despite having read your other definitions, I would ask for more clarification so I know where to focus my efforts. Focus your efforts on proving analytically that the universe is eternal, essential, and necessary. I’ve written enough commentary about that that, by reviewing, you can get all the requisite details. ---
**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, 11:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/175 "2005-02-28T11:18:19Z")
After being away for a weekend, there I was about to barge in here again, clumsily swinging my blunt know-it-all physicalist broadsword, only to be instantly and expertly disarmed by **Lib** ’s kind words. Indeed, I feel completely _undeserving_ of such praise: I’m no different to any of us here - just some guy shoving his model worldview into the arena just to see how it fares in each exciting edition of _Weltanschauung Wars_. That said, **erl** has asked me some specific questions and there’s a couple of other points which I’d like to address. > [@](#): > > **Me:** 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_? > **erl** : The question doesn’t make any sense. This, I feel, rather neatly illustrates how human thought and language has evolved so far that it can no longer see the wood for the trees. These are perfectly simple sentences appended by a “?” symbol, turning them into questions. Any australopithecine hunter-gatherer would have no trouble whatsoever parsing the meaning of “Past tense statement. Agree?” - they could perhaps even understand the particular _subject matter_ here if you showed them several reconstructed dinosaur skeletons. It is only because our language and cognition is so _advanced_ that we can feign (or, a least, _express_) utter _incomprehensibility_ of “Past tense statement. Agree?” based on which precise definition of the word “real” we have come to accept after years of studying the works of the greatest grunting, squealing chimps called “philosophers” (and **erl** is far more erudite than myself in that regard). When that first ancestral primate onomatopaeically made a sound of rushing water and pointed _over there_, was some new “reality” born from memories referenced by sounds, _ie._ “language”? Surely not. This is, and was, just a _continuation_ of whatever was the case for those previous 13 billion or so years. _Of course_ senses, memory and cognition cannot “know”, “understand” or “completely categorise” the environment into which a cognitive device is immersed. _Of course_ all it make is its “best guess” (the one which maximises its replicative fitness in that environment, perhaps). “Abstraction” is what sensed memories and their cognitive permutations **are**. But it can also clearly be said that memories can be **of** things, abstractions can be **about** things, _outside of_ the volume of space in the skull in which that cognition takes place. > [@](#): > > I don’t mean to disparage physicalism. I’ve come to the conclusion that I truly don’t understand it. It is either trivial, or wild-assed speculation couched in the success of science and induction. It is a philosophical position, a worldview, a _Weltanschauung_. It cannot be proven like a mathematical treatise. It cannot even strictly be _tested_, since any result could be interpreted in some non-physical way, and so it is arguably not even a _hypothesis_. But I do consider that it is a powerful _explanatory basis_. We can ask ourselves “ **If** the universe comprised only particles, fundamental forces, energy and spacetime,” (or comparable entities describable by _physics_) “ **could** every phenomenon, including the mechanism by which phenomena are ‘observed’, be satisfactorily explained?”. Now, what happens when those particles and forces comprise ‘something’ which our chimpy cognitive modules sort into a ‘category’? It has only been in recent decades that us chimps have even realised that ‘things’ _are_ built up of particles and the like. Before that, all we had was “water” (and its associated shushing noise or other linguistic referent), and yet we got along just fine, thank you very much. This is because, as I explained to **Lib** in [post 66](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5878443&postcount=66) our cognitive modules are evolutionarily _designed_ to categorise and understand **at a macroscopic level**. If we _were_ 10[sup]-12[/sup] tall, we presumably _would_ ‘think’ in terms of particles and quantum weirdness. > [@](#): > > I have a question for you. If I ask you, “Does love exist?”, would you think the equivalent question is, “Is love real?” and if so, would you think another equivalent question is, “Is there some physical interaction that takes place which characterizes what we otherwise call ‘love’?” Yes to all three. Taking one specific ‘type’ of love, say, _eros_, the physical process to which I would appeal would be that, upon access to the sense or memory of another person, hormones and pheromones from the pituitary gland affect the hypothalamus and hence the rest of the limbic system in a complex feedback process. Over a certain threshold (like your mother said, “when you’re in love, you’ll _know_”) this response is much greater for senses/memories of one person than any other. That _is love_. As for your unicorn example, the _thought_ of a unicorn, _ie._ the mental construction of a [memory of] HORSE + [memory of] HORN + [category of] MAGICAL, exists and is every bit as real as Sonic the Hedgehog when he appears on my monitor, or the Straight Dope Message Board for that matter. But, like I said, memories and thoughts are **of** things, and a memory **of** a thing can exist even when the thing itself does no longer. Hence I say that the thought/abstraction **of** a unicorn is real, but the unicorn itself (_ie._ HORSE+HORN+MAGICAL AND GRAVITATIONALLY BOUND) is not. > [@](#): > > **Lib** : (Sentient has discussed on prior occasions his experience with religious epiphany and his subsequent realization that it was all in his head, so to speak.) Largely true, but this realisation itself came from [experimentation](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=2826106) of a sort, wherein that “personal experience” which I had associated solely with _God_ could actually come from _other sources_, even some [physical molecules](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LSD#Chemistry) which I could hold in my very hand. I considered that I was making a God Of The Gaps argument, with the Gap I stuffed God into being “personal experience of God”. My saying “there can be no other explanation for that experience” was clearly just unsubstantiated opinion: difficult though it was, I felt I had to let it go. > [@](#): > > **other-wise** :Lib, doesn’t Sentient’s version have the advantage of being more Ockham-friendly than your own? > **Lib** : Not at all. In fact, his is quite complicated. I’d agree that it is complicated. As your own previous quote said, if human cognition was _simple_, so would we be. But “simplicity”, as we both know, is rather a _misreading_ of Ockham’s principle. He said merely that a **plurality ought not be proposed without necessity**. Explaining human cognition in terms of senses, memory, emotion and the **physical** basis thereof does not introduce _further_ entities - it seeks to explain cognition in terms we _already have_ in medicine and neuroscience, and is therefore genuinely, Ockhamly parsimonious. I’ve toyed with opening a thread entitled “A Memory is a Physical Thing” which I think will be a little more useful than “Ask the Physicalist”. Again, I can’t claim to be an expert on how the mind arises from non-mind over billions of years - I’m just some fellow on a message board who often dives in overly recklessly just to see how it goes - I am blessed in that I have good and kind friends here who indulge me. If I have time before I go on holiday next week, I’ll do so. ---
**Author:** ![eagle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba8739/32.png) [@eagle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eagle)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2005, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/176 "2005-02-28T12:36:24Z")
> [@Liberal](#): > > No, I’m afraid that somehow you’ve gotten all mixed up. I believe that trees exist, that numbers exist, and that the universe exists. I just don’t believe that they are real, in accordance with the operative definition. They exists as illusions. Thanks for your answer. Now, finally, I understand your point of view, and it is actually a very familiar point of view to me, though I was distracted by your terminology. However, I can’t prove the existence of universe to you. Your quest is essentially the same, that buddhists have when they try to achieve enlightenment. Enlightenment - put very simple - is to look behind the curtain of the illusions that we perceive as “reality” and to get a fundamental understanding of what really is. I am far from enlightenment, so I can’t help you. But when I do - a few thousand lifetimes later - I will return as Buddha to this thread and give you your answer. I will be able to do this, because as Buddha I am beyond the restrictions of space and time, because I will understand the universe. However, the crux is, that I then will also understand, why it would be wrong to give you the answer as straight dope. If buddhists read in this thread, don’t bother to correct me, I know this is all put very simple. cu ---
**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, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/177 "2005-02-28T12:58:55Z")
**Lib** , bear with me. We’re discussing the ultimate nature of ultimate reality and things get a little slippery out here. I fear I’ve been expressing myself badly, so let me take this one step at a time: Is love the _essence_ of a thing (if so, what thing?), or is love a thing? (or none of the above?) ---
**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, 1:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/178 "2005-02-28T13:44:04Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > … “Abstraction” is what sensed memories and their cognitive permutations **are**. But it can also clearly be said that memories can be **of** things, abstractions can be **about** things, _outside of_ the volume of space in the skull in which that cognition takes place. **Sentient** , I think an argument can be made that what you’re referring to as a “thing” is actually just a different type of abstraction. As you know, we _never_ get clean data from our senses. Sensory data is filtered, folded, discarded, spindled and mutilated long before it reaches conscious awareness. What we become aware of is _already_ an abstraction; an abstraction that was not formed through processes of conscious cognition or language, but an abstraction nonetheless. So you are correct that when that first ancestral primate onomatopoeically made a sound of rushing water and pointed _over there_, no new “reality” was born. But then, the sound he/she made _wasn’t representing reality_; it was representing an _abstraction_ of reality. ---
**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, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/179 "2005-02-28T13:58:57Z")
> [@other-wise](#): > > **Lib** , bear with me. We’re discussing the ultimate nature of ultimate reality and things get a little slippery out here. I fear I’ve been expressing myself badly, so let me take this one step at a time: > > Is love the _essence_ of a thing (if so, what thing?), or is love a thing? > > (or none of the above?) Love is the essence of God. If love did not exist, it would still have the same quality — facilitating edification (goodness). In other words, if nothing at all existed, then love, by its very essence, would cause it to. ---
**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, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594/180 "2005-02-28T14:00:13Z")
> [@](#): > > I think an argument can be made that what you’re referring to as a “thing” is actually just a different type of abstraction. There is a “thing” _and_ an abstraction **of** it (which is _also_ a “thing” itself). They are **both** subsets of **reality**. There can be abstractions (themselves real things) having **no** associated real thing, like the unicorn. There can also be real things having **no** abstractions of them, like everything in the universe for billions of years. > [@](#): > > the sound he/she made wasn’t representing reality; it was representing an abstraction of reality. The reality, and the representation of the reality, and the representation of the abstraction of reality, are all elements in the set of the real, IMO. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-universe-real/291594.md?page=10)