Since all things are relative how can we be sure of reality?

Question

If there is one constant in the universe it is that all things are relative to the observer. Show a scene to three different people and they will see three different things.

Couple with this the fact that the only way that we (our brains) know anything about the world is via the signals provided by our senses and our sense of reality become very shaky, since our senses are not the be all and end all. Recent studies have shown the minor interference can cause major problems with the senses, a low drowning noise can throw off balance, a flash of light can mask something behind, the eyes can see one thing but the brain will interoperate it as another.

Given both of these 'problems' with perceiving reality, and the fact that we have no independent model to run from, something that we can go to and check to see if what we 'see' happening is what is happening, how can we be sure that what we perceive is reality? How do you know that what you are doing now is what is really happening?

Please explain your answers, including an example if possible to help explain your answer?

Thanks.

Answer 1

A great question that can bug us enormously to indeed move us into believing there is no point in anything at all!!

Absolute reality or the objective truth may well be a myth. To me the absolute reality must be eternal without being ever subject to changing... in this universe, whatever we can perceive seems to be bound by time, meaning given enough time, it must change. However, logically there ought to be something that never changes which can be the base or origin of this all... that means this base or origin is beyond our perception... we can't perceive it, we can only conceptualize it.

Thinking further on this, I come to the idea that this absolute truth that is NEVER changeable, must be the base of it all and ought to have existed before whatever we could ever perceive came to be. Hence it must be the absolute Origin of it all.

A simple logic takes me to an interesting conclusion. If everything must change with appropriate passage of time, then this origin must be 'nothing'. Strangely that alone makes sense to me, for if the Origin were to be something, it must have come from something else which must be the real Origin and so on..... this chain can end up only at 'nothingness'. So, how can everything come out of nothing?.... perhaps (obviously none can be sure) the analogy of zero gives a clue... zero can be broken up in innumerable pluses and minuses such that the grand sum always remains zero...... and indeed our universe has innumerable opposites all around... in fact every change intrinsically involves something or the other within it turning into its opposite or contrast for differentiation to be possible.

Thus PERHAPS the only reality is nothingness and that proves from the other side as well that we can never perceive reality. I also believe that we can not conceptualize either... whenever I try to imagine nothingness, I come a cropper because the best I can do is think of emptiness which admittedly occupies space and hence is something rather than nothing.

It is indeed a depressing thought that everything put together for all time in reality amounts to a big ZERO!! Much ado about nothing!!!!

Does it make sense to you or am I on a totally wrong track?

Answer 2

It's a good one! I would say that every one has a different experience of reality! Given that it's because our world view has to do with the way we were brought up and a leaned phenomenon. Then our level of maturity. Our perception of things is our reality! Therefore, there's as many realities as people. No 2 persons share the same worldview, every event creates it's own world. Getting the same message from our 5 senses reinforces that things are what they seem. The constance in the universe is wisdom! The more we get out of our mind and comprehend how the world is and evolves, and the more we get away from our own reality, wich is falsified, and the more we get into the oneness of the whole and the cosmos.
Take care.

Answer 3

You admit a reality in your second sentence, that three people saw something.
"Reality" in subjective thinking is when one's epistemology matches empirical existence as one understands it. 3 people seeing the same thing from different perspectives will have have different understandings. It does not follow necessarily that any one of them is wrong. Nor that anyone of them is right. It is true the senses can be misperceived even without the "droning sound" or the "flash of light," but the senses themselves never lie. It is the perception of those senses we must always examine carefully.
When a man's epistemology does not match empirical existence, the extreme is that he either is insane, or that he must sit and contemplate his dilemma until he changes his epistemolgy or decides that his perception was wrong. That is what Rodin's "The Thinker" is doing, sitting between his two theme parks that represent Heaven and Hell.
Ray Bradbury dealt with just such an event as having misperceptions in his short story, "The Man in the Multi-colored Shirt".

Answer 4

The Hindu Upanishads say that even the smallest
particle or living being in creation is a microcosm.
The more you try to know about it, you will understand that there is more to know.

What you know from your experience is your reality.
It can be supplemented by others.

In the 1930s, Austrian mathematician Godel
proved a theorem which became the "Godel
theorem" in cognition theory. It states that
any formalized 'logical' system in principle
cannot be complete in itself. It means that a
statement can always be found that can be
neither disproved nor proved using the means
of that particular system. To discuss about
such a statement, one must go beyond that
very logic system; otherwise nothing but a
vicious circle will result. Psychologists say
that any experience is contingent - it's
opposite is logically possible and hence
should not be treated as contradictory.

http://www.exploratorium.edu/complexity/CompLexicon/godel.html

The theorem can be extended to philosophy of
knowledge. Your knowledge of even the smallest
thing in nature is bound to be incomplete.

Answer 5

Not all things are relative. In fact, nothing is relative. America is a post-modern relativist society, but it, unfortunately, does not accept reality as such. There are myriads of religious and philisophical ideas that explain why nothing is relative, but I'll take two philisophical ideas to start.

Plato and Aristotle are generally agreed to be the most accurate philsophers of all kind. Aristotle was a student of the former, and so their ideas co-incide, to a slight degree.
Plato believes that there is a world of Ideas, or ultimate forms that exists outside our physical world. He says that we have all experienced that world before we were carnated, and the impression of these perfect forms (like ultimate Justice, Wisdom, and Truth) is the objective truth we have. Since ,as you have so lucidly pointed out, our senses often fail us, Plato dismisses our sense as imperfect. Physicality is also imperfect, so we cannot fully realize reality, but we all have a sense for it. Example time. Say, in the world of Ideas, your soul and my soul both encountered the ideal form of a chair. We carnated and bump into a chair on earth. We recognize the chair as a chair, in fact, all people will, but our knowledge of it is imperfect, since it is imperfect (it had to be crafted by imperfect craftsmen out of imperfect wood, etc) and our senses often decieve. We do, however, have an objective sense of what a chair is, and that is never, ever relative. Now, take that example and apply it to truth. Same principles.

Aristotle (much more briefly) said that the physical world is the only reality, and our senses are the only way we may perceive it. Thus, reality and what we percieve are the only objective truths. This does not, however, allow for wishy-washy relativism. Aristotle believed that these observed principals are true for anyone and everone anywhere, and that all objects have a potential and strive to acheive that. This potantial is not relative.

Further reading: Aristotle's Metaphysics and Plato's Republic

hope this is helpful....

Answer 6

All measurements are relative because you must have a point to being the measurement. However there are some things that aren't relative. They are things that can stand on their own without the need of a starting point. Absolute Truth is not relative.

Answer 7

We can't. Any attempt to prove that which we perceive as reality relies on the very sources that give rise to the perception: our belief forming practices, such as memory, and sensory input. Therefore, any attempt falls into epistemic circularity. That is what makes skepticism so problematic.

As an aside, stating that all things are relative is a universal claim, but I think you're clearly after something bigger than that.

Sigh. To add something more: If our senses are the product of evolution, there can be no reason to assume that they render true beliefs about the world--they are the product of selective processes that may favor an inherently flawed view of the world too ensure our own survival. We can easily imagine another species developing alternative senses through a process of evolution that render apparently true beliefs. Furthermore, random mutation gives us even more reason to doubt the reliability of our perceptions. What is more, evolution requires that we presuppose the reliability of the very thing we are attempting to prove, i.e. the reliability of our sense perceptions, but we don't know that, and so we can't know that ANY theory of evolution is true.

If we are the creation of a supernatural being, there is equal doubt about the reliability of our senses and/or belief forming practices. Descartes evil demon is one example, but there is also no reason to suppose that even a benevolent creator would necessarily see it fit to equip us with an actual perception of reality.

Some object that we can rely on a track record of sensory information, but this is also highly problematic. For one, there is no reason to suppose that memory is reliable either. As Bertrand Russel suggested, we may have come into existence only five minutes ago with all of our memories, supposed experiences, traits, scars, etc. already in tact. There is no way to disprove this idea. Secondly, track record only show that past occurrences (if we assume they are a reliable account) were consistent with each other, and does not dismiss the possibility that future results will be the same. For instance, the color blue might actually be grue, that is, all past evidence is that it is only blue, but conceivably it could become green at some point in the future, destroying the track record argument for a reliable perception of blue...it was actually grue.

More to follow later.

Answer 8

You might like "The Problems of Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. He spends pages going on about how it's not possible to agree on what a table is since no one observer sees or experiences it the exact same way.

The Hindu concept of Brahman is believed to be Absolute Reality -- indivisible, eternal, infinite, and all that stuff: the One which manifests itself to our perception as the Many.

And the Buddhist Heart Sutra, which teaches that no thing in this physical world has inherent existence. Everything and everyone, in every way, is interdependent on all else. Fascinating stuff. Best book, IMHO: "The Heart of Understanding" by Thich Nhat Hanh.

Sorry, that wasn't what you asked!

Answer 9

It doesnt matter whether what were doing is really the reality. As long as its real enough for us thats the only thing that matters.

Besides... its all in the mind. Our different perspectives of the world makes our experiences in life unique or one of a kind.

I dont care whether this world is for real or not.. Ill take this than whatever alternative there is any day.

Answer 10

Check "Psychoenergetic Science," Dr. William Tiller, http://www.tiller.org http://www.divinecosmos.com "Hope for the World: Spiritual Galvanoplasty," O. M. Aivanhov, "Climb the Highest Mountain" and "The Masters and Their Retreats," Mark Prophet, "The Field," Lynne McTaggart, and "Extraordinary Knowing," Dr. Elizabeth Mayer for some answers.

best regards,

j.