Eric Steinhardt - What Things Are Real?

Is the physical world real? Some claim that the physical world is only an expression of consciousness. Is the mental world real? Some claim that human consciousness is an illusion, only the output of the physical brain playing tricks on us. Does a spiritual world exist? Many people reject anything beyond the physical.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Watch more interviews on reality: bit.ly/3jLIuP9
Eric Steinhart is a Professor of Philosophy at William Paterson University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer to Truth presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.

[@bltwegmann8431]

Well this one went off the rails pretty quick.

[@alpha.wintermute]

Yeah thats what metaphysics does lol. All in all it seems to make sense in a loose way but I’m not sure it’s true. He seems to be taking some popular fringe views and duct taping them together

[@melgross]

Lots of them do. That’s what happens when you leave hard science behind, and try to discuss what we can’t really understand.

[@name5702]

@@melgross well hard science has its limits because ultimately humans are limited

[@melgross]

@@name5702 very true. But that applies to everything else as well. I once posited the question, long before it became so popular, that possibly our brains aren’t wired in a way that allows us to ask certain questions, and therefore, we won’t be able to find those answers. We may forever be on the brink of them, but never get there.

[@stevefitz1008]

What rails?!

[@NC-ye8dz]

this sounds like two people on different kinds of hallucinogenics talking to each other but really talking past each other.

[@BugRib]

Not sure about hallucinogens, but I'm pretty sure I smelled marijuana in this episode.

[@cadebritt8001]

This is a very good channel. For me no emotions to interfere just pure thoughts. 2nd day new subscriber.

[@projectmalus]

Welcome to the nuthouse!

[@cadebritt8001]

@Y Douglas Hi , I was trying to say. Their methods for reporting is not to evoke emotions from their viewers. And that works for me as I have military related ptsd.

[@seeker2seeker]

‘Thoughts are but the shadows of emotions.’ - Nietzsche

[@samknox1]

His “gods” reminded me of Donald Hoffman’s “conscious agents”.

[@caricue]

Philip K Dick famously said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." When I stop believing in little concrete gods, they absolutely go away. If only the Gnomes in my garden were so easily evicted.

[@blindlemon9]

That is a hugely naive and facile definition of reality, but I suppose that’s to be expected, coming from an overrated, mentally unstable sci-if writer.

[@caricue]

@@blindlemon9 I'm always surprised that anyone can criticize this useful heuristic that cuts through our wishful thinking and egotistic grandstanding. Or I could just say, "Truth hurts, huh?", but that would be unnecessarily provocative. I'm sure you have some great truth that no one can see but you to share with the world. Please enlighten us with your version of reality.

[@johnnnyutahq]

if the "software" is made of fundamental particles what "hardware" part should be made of ? ... was this guy even sober ?

[@genius1198]

I had to also say i feel sorry for this guy!

[@leonoradompor8706]

I am A simple God***

[@francesco5581]

Did someone understood anything about those mini-gods creating things ?

[@marcopony1897]

They are tiny little dwarfs with funny hats and bellows in their hands. With the bellows they blow space into existence and consume it and what they defecate is matter. With their hilarious laughter, they create space-time waves and the early inflation of the universe was a simultaneous fit of laughter of all the dwarfs.

[@caricue]

Francesco, no, it made no sense, but I do think they are made of concrete though!

[@UrbanBodhi]

Consider that when you watch a movie on a TV you're actually seeing a bunch of pixels simulating a reality that seems to be moving changing and dynamic. But it's all just a dynamic configuration of colors on the same screen. The movie, it's characters and plot doesn't give you insight into what the nature of the screen it's on. We have the experience of life and it seems to be happening in a universe. It seems to have programming/intelligence, a begining and end, continuity or time, and perhaps even some goal that it's evolving towards. All of the programs on a computer have the same characteristics. What is the computer that our lives/universe is running on? What are the pixels which simulate experience as we know it? You could name this anything but he decided to go with the term gods. With capital G God possibly being the entire network of computers/multiverses itself. It's not too much of a stretch if you can clearly see the absurdity of using in-game lore in a video game to attempt to point to and describe the world of the programmers which gave rise to it and the technology they have. In a similar way it just requires you to stop taking your current understanding of life as seriously as you're used to and open your mind to far greater possibilities than we tend to entertain. To see that the line between real and imaginary is much thinner than we'd like to entertain and that logic and reason could just as easily be very intricate works of imagination as much as imagination could be something that arises out of a seemingly logical 'real' world. If human beings can dream entire environments and multiple characters. Could something greater dream what we know of as this universe? Might the line between mind and matter be as flimsy as one drawn in the sand? We're usually in a very small sandbox of ideas that we're willing to play with. When those who play in a bigger sandbox suggest what they can fathom it may seem crazy at first. Just as a cellphone may have seemed crazy to a human 500 years ago. These kinds of things can be uncomfortable as it challenges our sense of what we think we know and many of us would rather dismiss it as madness than consider that we might not understand as much about our reality as we're convinced of. That even our style of science in all the hundreds of years it's been around may still be quite young and just scraping the surface of an iceberg that's billions of years old and intelligent enough to create life. Anything advanced enough seems magical. Those who speak of things that sound magical may just be ahead of the cultural curve. Not always the case of course. There is actual incoherence and misunderstanding. We just have to be more careful with how we assess it and how quick we are to dismiss or devalue someone. We may not be as good at telling the difference and a healthy dose of humility prevents us from keeping ourselves unknowingly fooled.

[@ezbody]

@@caricue Usually, they are made of clay or plaster, although concrete is a much more sturdy material, more suitable for a little god.

[@caricue]

@@UrbanBodhi People use the term Ultimate Reality to mean something like fundamental reality or the true nature of reality, but ultimate means end, not beginning. The end result of all the particle interactions, all the fundamental forces and all the chaotic interplay between them is the everyday, mundane reality in which we live. It makes no sense to look inside of the television for the purpose or meaning of its existence. Look around you at the people, the trees, the mountain and sky. This is the only place to find your Ultimate Reality. Peace.

[@NothingMaster]

Our encounter with the reality of Being should not be categorized; such categorization attempts are inherently disjointed, artificial, and ultimately meaningless. Humans approach reality with individual perspectives that serve the substrates, dimensions, and politics of their experiences of Being. Touching upon the ultimate reality of Being-in-itself [and Absolute Nothingness] is currently beyond the reach of the human enterprise.

[@jeffpritchard1592]

I'm more interested in the interviewer's views, he seems more thoughtful than the guy he is interviewing.

[@ElementInfinity]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYTSlYuojat0qcU&ab_channel=TheoriesofEverythingwithCurtJaimungal

[@leonoradompor8706]

I don’t understand well your English, and your choosing of words***

[@allenrussell1947]

Well, I have to say, this sounded a little silly to me.

[@SandipChitale]

What? Sorry you cannot propose existence of something by simply asserting or describing it.

[@thewholeeventhorizon]

I don’t like this guy. He’s too closed minded to make for a good scientist. He’s a classic my way or no way.

[@djkoti74]

I was about to write up something "concrete" but decided just to go with that this interview was extremely disappointing - it was like listening to a very sure of himself medieval alchemist talk about how to make gold and that its "very technical" How the hell this guy leads university courses is peculiar.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

I know right. Very good analogy.

[@Simonjose7258]

Ideas alone aren't "Real". Concepts in the Human mind aren't "Real". I.e.; Chimera- a thing that is hoped or wished for but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve... In Mathematics, Zero is a useful concept and tool. Combined with a One it gives us Ten. But Zero in and of itself is merely a concept in the Human Mind. Aside from theoretical Black Holes, there is nothing in Existence that is Zero. Things can only be. Things can only "Not be" in the human mind and perhaps in other sentient animals. The idea or concept that something "isn't there" or is "missing" or "lacking" is merely that. An abstract idea and concept in the mind. Ontologicaly speaking, matter can only exist or "be". If it didn't, only the human mind would think otherwise.

[@francesco5581]

Yes but the concept of Zero or "nothingness" is important to understand what actually exist. Because i fear that what you write is the classic big materialist excuse of "we have these things and dont raise questions !! No need to search a why !!"

[@xspotbox4400]

You don't get it, 0 is not about nothing. Nothing is an abstract place, doesn't exist as a physical reality. 0 is about perfect balance, when two opposites completely annihilate each other. Mathematical 0 is yet another set of ideas, we could add and subtract perfectly well without it, but mathematics would be very limited, it would be practically impossible to use very big numbers without it.

[@francesco5581]

@@xspotbox4400 because a physical reality is already something ... but then you have to decide if that physical reality come from nothingness (the zero) and why OR it always existed and explain why.

[@xspotbox4400]

@@francesco5581 Nothing would still not be 0, it would be not a thing. When nothing exist, nothing can come from nothing, so it will always be nothing. The universe was never nothing, it was always in some strange state of existence, therefore something. Nothing doesn't work in mathematics, we can count left or right side from 0. Those ideas are very scary, when we think about it, it means the only thing that didn't exist before is us, and we will not exist in the future. That's because our physical form was always atoms, but our personality was never objective, we are a flow of energy inside a temporary arrangement of molecules we call life. So we are information in a perturbing energy flow, energy is real and will never vanish, information will simply disperse like we never existed, so no logical rule is violated.

[@francesco5581]

@@xspotbox4400 lol i see you cant escape your materialists conclusions !! A) I totally agree , since nothingness never existed then there must have been always something B) True but putting it into play make clear point A, so is a necessary tool C) No because you cant say "something is existing from eternity" , that would put this very moment on quicksands. Eternity backward is a no concept in a material world. D) ok those are your classic reductionist ramblings ;D BTW information are never lost (the well proven no-hiding theorem) as many other things ...

[@GradyPhilpott]

Eric Steinhart sounds psychotic. I'm sure he's not, but without a lot of background information for the viewer to place these concepts into context, this sounds like the typical rantings of a lunatic.

[@leonoradompor8706]

Please simplify***

[@UrbanBodhi]

For anyone that doesn't get it or this sounds crazy to this might help: Consider that when you watch a movie on a TV you're actually seeing a bunch of pixels simulating a reality that seems to be moving changing and dynamic. But it's all just a dynamic configuration of colors on the same screen. The movie, it's characters and plot doesn't give you insight into what the nature of the screen it's on. We have the experience of life and it seems to be happening in a universe. It seems to have programming/intelligence, a begining and end, continuity or time, and perhaps even some goal that it's evolving towards. All of the programs on a computer have the same characteristics. What is the computer that our lives/universe is running on? What are the pixels which simulate experience as we know it? You could name this anything but he decided to go with the term gods. With capital G God possibly being the entire network of computers/multiverses itself. It's not too much of a stretch if you can clearly see the absurdity of using in-game lore in a video game to attempt to point to and describe the world of the programmers which gave rise to it and the technology they have. In a similar way it just requires you to stop taking your current understanding of life as seriously as you're used to and open your mind to far greater possibilities than we tend to entertain. To see that the line between real and imaginary is much thinner than we'd like to entertain and that logic and reason could just as easily be very intricate works of imagination as much as imagination could be something that arises out of a seemingly logical 'real' world. If human beings can dream entire environments and multiple characters. Could something greater dream what we know of as this universe? Might the line between mind and matter be as flimsy as one drawn in the sand? We're usually in a very small sandbox of ideas that we're willing to play with. When those who play in a bigger sandbox suggest what they can fathom it may seem crazy at first. Just as a cellphone may have seemed crazy to a human 500 years ago. These kinds of things can be uncomfortable as it challenges our sense of what we think we know and many of us would rather dismiss it as madness than consider that we might not understand as much about our reality as we're convinced of. That even our style of science in all the hundreds of years it's been around may still be quite young and just scraping the surface of an iceberg that's billions of years old and intelligent enough to create life. Anything advanced enough seems magical. Those who speak of things that sound magical may just be ahead of the cultural curve. Not always the case of course. There is actual incoherence and misunderstanding. We just have to be more careful with how we assess it and how quick we are to dismiss or devalue someone. We may not be as good at telling the difference as we think and a healthy dose of humility goes a long way in preventing us from unknowingly keeping ourselves fooled.

[@melgross]

Eh. I think he doesn’t know what he’s talking about it here, so he comes up with his own “thing” to explain it, with absolutely zero evidence of any of it. It’s too metaphysical. Metaphysics has never given us serious insight into anything. Little gods? He doesn’t explain what they are, just that they’re there. That’s the same as any theological thinking.

[@xspotbox4400]

Nah, it doesn't work that way, if real world observations and experiments are telling us a different picture, we must abandon false ideas and discover alternative models. Reality only appears as looking at a computer screen, but science doesn't rely on human vision, we have better and more objective tools on our disposal.

[@audiodead7302]

Eric's use of the term 'little g Gods' is unhelpful in this discussion. I think what he is really talking about are 'brute facts', things which are universal, never change, and give rise to everything else.

[@santhoshgopinath816]

......what he is really talking about are 'brute facts', things which are universal, never change, and give rise to everything else....".... Yes i agree. This discussion is not for evryone, and not understanding is not an excuse to absue.

[@oocloudoo1549]

In Essence, simulation theory.

[@mikedziuba8617]

I'd say that everything is real, but not necessarily in the same way. Language is real too. But it's something that exists in people's minds as a mental tool for thinking, understanding, and communication. It's not some physical object like a chair or a table. So, it's not so much a question of whether something is real. It's a question of how and in what way something is real. And this is where you can make mistakes. Because there are almost as many ways for things to be real as there are things in our universe. You can easily mis-classify in what way something is real. For example, there is a good reason to think that mathematics is just a special language for describing, thinking, and communicating about the physical universe. Because just as with any other language, you can use mathematics to write fiction or create mathematical structures that don't exist in reality. Mathematics isn't any more real than any other language. It's just a mental tool for doing something different from that of other languages. Some people might object by saying that if there are intelligent aliens living somewhere, then much of their mathematics would probably be the same as ours. They might use different symbols and alphabets. But the numbers and many mathematical ideas would be the same. And I agree that aliens would probably have very similar mathematics to ours. But this would be convergence by necessity, rather than evidence that mathematics is something other than language. Aliens would have the same mathematics, because they would need to describe the same physical reality that we describe. Convergence by necessity is the reason why people and flies both have eyes. Eyesight is so good to have in terms of survival, that both human and fly evolution independently evolved more or less the same thing. Mathematics is also like this. It's so good for describing the physical universe, that intelligent species would develop it and invent it independently of each other to have more or less the same thing.

[@Senazi08a]

I think Mr Eric need to meet some one like you to teach him from begining whats goes on

[@schleichface]

This is reminiscent of CS Lewis' admonition, ""In fact we should never ask of anything 'Is it real?' for everything is real. The question is, 'A real what?'"

[@ralexand56]

Brilliant!

[@Alex_Deam]

"We should have ontological commitments to things that are necessary for science, therefore numbers exist. Also I'm just going to make up a bunch of stuff about god computers that underlie everything, even though they're not necessary for science" - this guy having his metaphysical cake and eating it

[@JailBiden]

We are all God's... off to Raxxla!

[@clownworld-honk410]

Is it meant to be ironic that this was filmed in a church. May have been appropriate to shoot this in a computer retailer.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

Anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness is "real" in some context or another.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

So nothingness isnt real? Because if i go by your reasoning, a random abstract concept like "a square" lets say is different by its category from the concept of "nothingness" wich in my mind are in the same category as concepts. So why a "square" is real but "nothing" isnt real in your reasoning? I think this is flawed.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

"Real" must always be in relation to something or someone otherwise its impossible to discriminate anything from anything. In other words some things are real to you and it can't be otherwise. For me everything physical is "real" even if it doesnt seem physical because it has multiple substrates.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

@@adriancioroianu1704 What are the "substrates" of absolute nothingness? Describe them for me.

[@adriancioroianu1704]

@@TheUltimateSeeds Your mind... and you go from there. But first explain to me how is the concept of "a square" different from the concept of "nothingness" in your mind because that is interesting to me.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

@@adriancioroianu1704 A "concept" of absolute nothingness is a part of the real mental workings taking place within the context of the mind that is visualizing the concept. However, nothingness itself is utterly devoid of anything that we normally think of as being "real." I have no problem with you attempting to reify what seems to be some kind of Platonic ideal of "a square," because, again, it is a "real" process that is taking place within the context of mind. However, no such processes can take place within the context of absolute nothingness.

[@Pdotta1]

Total nonsense

[@mansourkhatib]

Calling a computer god is a fallacy . Why ... The term God comes with a lot of baggage and claims ... False equivalency . Is like God is love ... Now God are computers ?

[@oremazz3754]

In the quantum world, there are wavefunctions that describe the atomic scalable physical world; what if... this wave is an existence fluctuation between this 3D universe linked to a parallel universe where the essence of physical values are preserved (total energy, total momentum, total charge, etc) in a "pure" not material way. This can be the "hardware" fluctuating with the "software" in the video. Born deduce that the square modulus of this wavefunction was the probability of finding particles in (r,t); a concept very near to existence in (r,t). This and more ideas were taken from a small book at Amazon "Space, main actor of..." and can help develop the "concrete" real world expressed in the video. The other "intangible" world (concepts, thoughts, logic, values, misconceptions, etc) are real meanwhile there is someone that sustains them.

[@kallianpublico7517]

Why does he think Platonism is correct? Because of belief, experience, or just plain prejudice: prediliction? It's just beyond his mental energy, "it's technical". Which means it fits a neat, utilitarian, mental, manufacturing process that, in the end, is sufficient to the task at hand but not to a fuller tasking. He's like a painter telling you his portrait of something is accurate. Technically he's right. Really he isn't.

[@constructivecritique5191]

Why do atheist think our inventions aren't real? If people did not exist quantities of objects would still exist. God is not a different category from what exist. God exist and created everything from the beginning with his word. Just as we create the computer with or word. The word is the intellect/informatio/understanding.

[@rarebreed1984]

Another stale academic who doesn't appreciate the magnitude of the question. Bring back the Hoffmeister!

[@ChuckBrowntheClown]

Sits on top Earth, God's, who's Jesus Christ, Earth is His footstool. And just patiently wait till I put your enemies beneath your feet. Them cursed little g gods.

[@soubhikmukherjee6871]

Newton's laws of motion have never moved a single Billiard Ball in the history of mankind. It's such a shame!!!

[@MichaelKorolov]

Robert, interview me. You seem to get stuck in your circle of contacts. Maybe change of respondents will refresh your search.

[@julianmann6172]

This speaker seems to me to be very mixed up. Everything he says should be stated in the reverse. It is much simpler to admit to the existence of G-D and his blueprint for creation of the universe, rather than this nonsense about other gods.

[@scalefrog2]

Steinhardt sounds like he is saying something similar to Donald Hoffman "we are just icons on a desktop . . . and we do not have access to the underlying hardware. . . " I think Kant also supposed that we do not have access to the true nature of reality. Why should we?

[@bluelotus542]

The physical world is real but temporary. Let those who claim that it's only an expression of consciousness be swept away by an avalanche and see if they still stick to their nonsense claim.

[@alexisjardines3384]

Reality has two dimensions: the actual (in Aristotelian sense of actus) and the virtual one (structured knowledge). The first is that kind of reality that we get by participation. Only this is physical. The second is a result of intellection. So, all those things that this gay is mentioning are not physical, once you cannot touch, smell… them. My point is that reality has to be understood as a kind of tissue made of act-virtual correlations.

[@sirskeletor7931]

Then who or what created the hardware and software of those computers? This theory can be repeated infinitely and you will find no true God, only creators of creations who are themselves creations.

[@dondattaford5593]

Nothing is real nothing is what make our reality apparently here think out of the box start with what came about first that would be pure thought yes close your eyes and analyze these thoughts

[@bcats1309]

God is real, everything else is a thought in God's head. There, solved the whole discussion!

[@vtechk]

there is no god

[@godmanmindworld]

Folks chirping in this discussion are gonna miss this by a mile. Fair warning. But youre essentially right. They all equivocate on "exists" and "real". But they cant see that.

[@bcats1309]

. " Only a fool says there is no God!" Albert Einstein. Like a radio, It plays no music, it's of no use, makes no sound, until you turn it on! Then you understand!

[@vtechk]

@@bcats1309 "Dont' trust every quote on the internet." Abraham Lincoln

[@bcats1309]

@@vtechk I'm 78 years old and God has shown me many times that He is real! You don't know what you're missing! I know that I know God IS real. Jesus the Christ and the Holy Spirit Is real!

[@locutusdborg126]

If humans did not exist, then abstract concepts would not exist. How could they without a mind to hold these thoughts?

[@bozo5632]

Hockey is real. Lots of stuff is real. I doubt this guy's gods are real.

[@ForaPhil]

So his arguments are basically the simulation theory...

[@TheMrfilmmaker]

I propose that eric steinhardt is not the one to determine what is real and what is not.

[@abhir7823]

But there is no clear difference between abstract and concrete

[@geraldvaughn8403]

Nothing is real. You are imagining the universe.

[@BrianNeil]

Phew....little gods? What next?

[@DingleberryPie]

By golly, I think he's onto something here!

[@evanjameson5437]

you can't cut a stick so short that it only has 1 end..

[@richkroberts]

He’s pulling your leg Robert! I hope he is. He can’t be serious.

[@schleichface]

He is. He's talked about this theory elsewhere on this show.

[@jml5926]

I always think and suspect that consciousness is like a barometer, only an observer, a discoverer or a realizer of any thing in reality.

[@sajithsomaratna1493]

what a thought what I would see is in our everyone's commonsense stuff (concrete) and abstract (ideas ,when we think software when computer works ,interactions with particles so on

[@sajithsomaratna1493]

Only two categories for simplicity if you want to make it more simple concrete stuff with embedded software body with thoughts feeling particles with properties if you want to make broader categories add another concept like math previously mentioned

[@sajithsomaratna1493]

If someone thinks maths existence without a representation I would be fascinated these are concepts materialist can argue concepts even can't be real making it monism

[@godmanmindworld]

Pay Thales royalties, homes.

[@verycoldhardybles790]

Gods are software. Matter is hardware

[@peterrobson9920]

Depends on your own imagination

[@arunshukla7322]

Rubbish. pure rubbish.

[@evanjameson5437]

this video is REAL

[@5barkerstreet]

what a waste of time

[@bjm6275]

All energies, its properties and matter are actually real. But many concepts, like time and dimensions, are intrinsically real in our perception. Finally, emergent aspects of existence, like consciousness, thoughts, words, numbers and language, are intrinsically real in our minds. So reality consists of Energy Matter Concepts Emergents

[@Nonconceptuality]

That which does not change is real. As thoughts and sensations are in constant change, find that which is experiencing the thoughts and sensations. If you can't abide in/as effortless thought free Awareness, you won't understand. And then you'll try to understand using thought and it won't work, so then you'll disregard the thought free state as irrelevant. TRUST ME. If you seek Truth, seek the space between thoughts. Delve deeply into thought free Awareness. Remember what you are...

[@AvenEngineer]

Spelling the Professors name incorrectly in the title, and correctly in the description. 🤔

[@aperson2730]

Where can I watch the entire episode please anyone? A link to it would be very much appreciated. I tried the links in the description but got no joy.

[@rsr9200]

I am having difficulty with the logic underlying Eric’s formulation of reality. Suppose we call that which is at the very top of Eric’s formulation of reality as “Ericstence” (i.e., what Eric calls “Existence”). According to Eric’s formulation, Ericstence supervenes everything abstract and concrete, including concrete entities such as human beings and abstract entities such as numbers and sets. So, Eric exists as the concrete human being who formulated Ericstence. However, Eric could not have existed without Ericstence which supervenes him. So, Eric exists because of Ericstence, but then Ericstence exists because of Eric! Appears to be a case of circular logic here.

[@genius1198]

We are constucted by light energy and matter, things we can visually inspect ,the rest we cant detect ,dark energy and matter. But wait (yes we can)looking good!!!

[@julianmann6172]

Maths are abstract, reality is physical on one level or another, even in the Backward time realm of the universe.

[@roopspark9078]

COUPLE OF LUNATICS : YES THAT'S REAL : THAT'S THEIR UNIVERSE : THEY CAN GO ON AND ON FOR EVER !

[@Jaggerbush]

I'll tell you who I WOULDN'T want to have a beer with

[@HawthorneHillNaturePreserve]

Define reality.

[@brandonwilliams3788]

@Akim Smith you can touch yourself in a dream too, though. Does that mean that dreams are "real" or that waking reality is a dream too?

[@xspotbox4400]

Plato was a Stone Age guy, living in a world of fire and wheel. He made many epistemological mistakes that were clearly refuted by means of pure observations, still his ideas made more sense than this dude, with diploma in modern sciences. Abstract principles and number sets or Platonic solids, what's the difference? Physical theory ain't much better, particles emerge from force fields, and they come in discrete quantum packets. Particles are finitely small energetic dots, radiating gradients of potentials in a spherical shape, and light waves tend to travel in a straight line. But since space-time is a curved medium, geometrical ideals are not possible in reality. The universe is not a computer, there are no gods and abstractions arise from the simplest of natural principles. This is only what humans have learned in the past 10,000 years, but we can see weird shapes and energetic phenomena out there not possible to be explained by logic or anything we know. So no, the real universe is nothing like what Stone Age people could possibly imagine.

[@chrisc1257]

Oh, but there are gods and Plato was/is one of them.

[@jonstewart464]

I spat my tea out (actually it was wine) when he just dropped "gods" in, completely out of the blue. Wtf is he on about?

[@godmanmindworld]

That means you are not at all familiar with the literature, historical or contemporary.

[@jonstewart464]

@@godmanmindworld The literature? Is there a research programme into using a bungled metaphor of digital computing to add a completely unnecessary metaphysical layer to reality, one which explains nothing, that it would be worth me studying? Can you recommend a concise review, or will this literature forever be shrouded in mystery, accessible only to those who already believe what it has to say? Little linkie to start me off?

[@friendlystonepeople]

@@jonstewart464 To be fair, he is saying that it is not metaphysical. I think using the "g" word was not a good thing but he seems to think that there is a computational process behind giving rise to essentially the whole structure of the universe.

[@messenjah71]

The question you should ask is, "What is true?" We have attempted to make illusion true and call it "reality". For that reason, we don’t know the difference between the two. However, in our minds was placed a Voice that sees our illusions, knows the truth, and can teach us the difference. But you must invite this Voice into awareness. It’s a Spirit that is Whole, a.k.a the Holy Spirit (the Voice for God), and He does not come by force to correct your perception.

[@rondennis5120]

For me the question would be perhaps, is it happening. Can it be perceived by the senses in some way? 7.8 billion people will see the same shade of grey a lot or a little or somewhere in between differently, but is it true? I would have to say yes if that is the language they use to validate what they perceive.

[@messenjah71]

The physical senses, being a part of the dream of separation, can only perceive the dream. The truth is unchanging, yet this is a world of constant change. How can truth be perceived in such a world? It can be perceived, but this must be learned - and not by ourselves as teacher.

[@fieldandstream9362]

Usually men getting to discuss such.matters and having the support.

[@russiankid112233]

do women not have access to youtube and a camera or am I missing something?

[@fieldandstream9362]

@@russiankid112233 Yes, I apologize. They typically don't get the support is all I'm saying. I have to actively make an effort to find it. Any suggestions?

[@christophercousins184]

Lord have mercy. Our reality is supervened upon little "g" gods? I thought I was watching Monty Python's Flying Circus for a moment.

[@Senazi08a]

Mr Eric: The concrete divided into hardware and software, everything else is software....Robert ironically: whats everything else? proton neautrons are software? running on the hardware of your little gods :D Mr Eric probablyneeds a psychiatrist

[@tonkincool7083]

I think you need, bcz you have little knowledge but you are so sure about reality what not it is!

[@tonkincool7083]

Bytheway you are omniscient guy 👍

[@Senazi08a]

@@tonkincool7083 It seems you need it too, cause you are so delusional

[@vidtrax662]

this man's god seems all made up, totally unconvincing ...noticed Richard's sarcasm towards him...little god 😅😂

[@vincentchiong8957]

You two are UNREAL Because your thinking is INSANE and UNREAL

[@aarondamiano3467]

I think these guys need to learn about Ontology and look into Basic Formal Ontology.

[@babasdadda]

I agree in part with the conclusions of this discussion, but it doesn’t offer any conclusive answers. “Small” gods? Sounds very like simulation theory, which asks the question, who is the original creator(s)? The mind boggles 😊

[@maxwellsimoes238]

Interviwer ask rambling question. He keep gooing baseless anwering. Plato perfect world is inconsistence modern phiscs. Speak up he Mind is living Plato dreans World.

[@cvsree]

God is the only real one Everything else is an illusion

[@Battlefield3Maister]

The day we know what the US-goverment knows then i can start this trip about life and gods. But right now this is just a clown show

[@BradHolkesvig]

The invisible vibrations that make up the invisible Creation are real within the Creation. Everything else that we experience was programmed by our Creator.

[@Senazi08a]

And by this logic, why not creater programmed by other creater

[@BradHolkesvig]

@@Senazi08a Our Creator has never taught me anything beyond what came from HIS programmed thoughts to create the Simulation we're involved in.