This is the archive of the old Colorless! Go to the new Colorless →

Reality (Thread)

Does the world exist, or not?


What are your thoughts on reality itself? (I know its a broad topic) XD I'm interested as to everyones view on the "Ultimate View".

many be the world like "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" build for account some question

Reality is how you want to look at it,if your point of view is full of apathy like mine,then your a happy person.

What you can see, touch and feel does exist. It may exist as an illusion or something, but it does indeed exist.
I would like you to check out my thread that is about this topic. Please use the search function.

But since you actually asked for something different in your OP I'm going to answer that too.
Life, reality and everything will become what you make of it. Simple as that :3

Not sure how in depth you want to get with this... but recently... the holographic theory of the universe was... for all intents and purposes... disproved recently. However more experimentation is needed.

This theory states that the properties of matter are actually stored at far away locations but somehow projected onto matter....light years away. The theory was invented to explain why we have such a hard time examining the properties of matter when we begin examining it in the quantum world.


Proof to the contrary:

I personally believe that this explanation is too complex to explain reality. I will say that the black hole information paradox is still a persuasive argument for me though. You can read about it in that wiki link.

To answer your question though, I disagree with the previous posts that 'reality is what you make of it' They're getting life and reality confused. Sure... life is what you make of it, because we can make life changing decisions. Reality on the other hand has properties... it can be explained mathematically. I think of it as being similar to a painter's canvas...except it can render it's contents in 3 dimensions. And if you're a string theory fan... multiple dimensions.

Thanks for the opinions! Your input is greatly appreciated! :3

@Fieyr Hell for one person can be heaven for another. How one persieve reality differs from person to person.

@Noodle - I think we differ in our definition of reality. Reality to me is the atoms, electrons, quarks and various forces such as gravity, electromagnetism, etc. I'm approaching it from the scientific side.

These things don't change based on our perceptions. In other words... you can perceive a hydrogen atom to be an oxygen atom. But that doesn't make it an oxygen atom.

Let me make my point by modifying/adding on to what you said.

LIFE can be hell for one person but heaven for another. How one perceives their LIFE differs from person to person.

Even if there was no life in the universe.... reality itself would still exist...whether there is anyone/anything here to perceive it or not.

Yes, a rock will always be a rock. To some this rock is a tool, and to some it's just another obstacle.
Why I repeat this is because the rock does not define the persons life. It's just part of their reality.

But from scientific view you are completely correct. It is and will always be a piece of "relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone."

Reality is a persons perspective on things.

Reality is a [bitch] way you see things in your way of thinking...for example im looking at a computer screen but to me its a magical portal that takes me to places...or is that fantsy? well then someone correct me if im wrong >.>

There was also a theory that there are multiple universes outside of this one, and that one could hold that dimension/universe together with thought alone. It's sort of like the string theory with multiple dimensions I guess. But, the farther you go from something like this universe, the odder things would appear to become possibly. To the extent that atoms could be arranged by mere thought.

What I really care about is if black holes serve as a giant method of time travel or some kind of transportation after you've overcome the event horizon's forces. I've read sources that state matter goes in, but only some comes out.(like the Stein's;Gate jelly theory). Another states, that matter that goes in a black hole, doesn't leave, but is recreated through matter elsewhere when you exit the black hole.

We are a story book, someone is reading us.

I read about half and the only one I could truly agree with somewhat would be that of @Fieyr and a little bit of @Noodle's second post.

This has already been thought about by many Philosophers and science has also given us a perspective on the matter. Basically, we know that this "world" does indeed exist, but our perception of the world is subjective to our individual impressions.

We can never truly know the things within themselves, since everything is made up of mostly empty space, our brain portrays our impressions onto the objects. Basically our brain takes the properties that have made impressions on us and covers up the space. This theory can easily be proven.

If you own a computer chair with wheels, arm rests, and a back, then no one will really say "Hell no, that isn't a chair". But, what happens when you take off the wheels? Is it still a chair? Obviously people will say, "Yes, that is a chair." What if you then take off the arm rests? Is it still a chair? Most people will again say "Yes, that is a chair." Lastly, if you take away the back of the chair so it's just a supported cushion, is it still a chair? When my teacher once asked my class and I asked some people on colorless before, they said, "No, it is a stool".

So the question is: What is it that makes a chair, a chair? In a sense, what is chair-ness? It is the properties that make up what we call a "chair". So we can say that yes this world exists, but will the same world exist in the future? Or is this the same world as the past? Of course it is still the same world absent of our perceptions, but is it going to always look the same? Since we can never really know the thing within itself and our brains continue to evolve, is it safe to say that our impressions that make up the images and properties portrayed on the objects will stay the same?

@Anubis Reality is not the way things are perceived. Reality is the way things actually exist and since we cannot truly know the things within themselves, we can never truly know what they are. We can only know what we perceive. A schizophrenic may see things that are not there, but it is what they perceive. So does that mean what he sees is reality? Since it's what he perceives.

@BboyNoblesse: But, the memory that those pieces made up the chair is still intact. However, ask a complete stranger who didn't know, and you'll get "no, it's not a chair." Only one who knows the so-called "truth" or past of an object can truly know what it was. Others will assume or insist it is what they perceive it to be.

@Warlock I agree with you. Through that though you can say there is nothing that exists except properties. There are no chairs, there are only legs, arm rests, and backs arranged in a manner that we decide to call a chair.

If someone have never seen a chair in their life, what would they say?

Edit: Too late

@Nico That's a language argument and has no value. I'm taking this at a philosophical view-point. I don't give a shit about what Koonta Kintai thinks of my organized properties that I sit on. He may call it a kiti, but that doesn't change the properties.


@BboyNoblesse: Well, you can always reconstruct the pieces back into a chair. It's how you use the pieces. You can say that there are just pieces, but I'd say there is just matter available in the universe that could be used to create whatever you want. That means that matter can be anything. Matter is recycled anyways, so I see no real problem. It's recycled especially if you believe in Big Bang Theory. Now, we're talking about objects with no consciousness. So in essence, a chair equals a couch, since matter is recycled and that couch could have been a chair before the matter separated. That's in the definition of it's essence, which includes the history of the object. However using a definition at face value, a chair does not equal a couch. This is how you can say a rock is a rock, but is also not a rock at the same time.

If you want to talk about matter that makes up beings with consciousness, I'll say it's different. Mainly because thought through consciousness might be strong enough to keep itself together without separating. However, that's just my personal theory.

You are on the old site. New site is here:

The site has been updated on the 24th December 2011. Please go there when you are finished with the archives.

  • 481,435 posts
  • 2,075 threads
  • 23,121 users