Philosophy Forum

Read Topic
Reply

Alternative 'realities'

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Alternative 'realities'

Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page

There are such theories which seem unintelligible to the Human Mind at times, but all together bearing fascination and curiosity that stimulates the Intellect to perplex over rather confound conceptions. Such unconventional theories are those regarding alternative realities.

We can only begin speculating as to all the possibilities of such and how could Humans identify and even interact with such a theoretical essence. One can conjure that there are alternative 'realities' or existences in our proximity, but due to our limited senses and subsequently our limited collective knowledge from Sensual Stimuli and of that of Ideas (whether educated or of self realisation) as well as the antecedent knowledge, we may always be naive to such. The Human mind adapts with arduousness to grasp the comprehensiveness of something that is eternal (as of that of universal space) or of an entity without matter. Even ideas in themselves as of that in this message, will always remain limited due to the initial foundations of the collective knowledge to form intelligible concepts.

As uncertain beings, its blithe and rather daunting to speculate over such, but by doing so, we allow the Mind to diverge from being ascertained and open to equivocal but all together plausible realisms.

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs200.snc1/6775_257114275437_536485437_8406968_3061662_n.jpg

@raidon04,

Hi,

I think we enter alternative realities every night when we go to sleep. This is basically a result of the mind switching off its senses and somehow, someway, moving into a completely different state of no-space/no-time. It is incredible to me that the mind can do this, all by itself.

The other direction is also possible, when the mind all of a sudden enters into a state of greater sensitivity (as opposed to no sensitivity). It happened to me at different times in my life. There are names for these different states, one state called synchronicity by Jung. I have had other events that were also quite different than my normal state.

It is possible that those people who say are suffering from mental illness are actually in a different reality that doesn't match up with our own common one. When my father had Alzheimer's, he felt he saw things that we didn't see. Was he simply more sensitive and could no longer operate in the reality that my brothers and I live in?

Anyway, some conjecturing on my part. Thanks for the post.

Rich

@raidon04,

Great Thread. What we project is what we reflect. If we project optimism, it is reflected in the response we receive back, it is only considered an alternative reality, yet it actually comes from us. If we project pessimism, it also is reflected back in those responses we receive. Is this in line with your thinking raidon04?

Oh, welcome to the forum. Nice to make your acquaintance.:bigsmile:

William

@raidon04,

This reminds me of Alice In Wonderland when she looks at the looking glass and sees the opposite world and enters it and when you're a child and look for other worlds and realities but if you want to get scientific I like to head down the worm hole route.

@raidon04,

Thank you for all those of whom replied. I was specifically placing focus upon the plausible possibility that alternative realities consist simultaneously with that of our own. Not just realities of a subjective ethos, but of an objective ethos, just in another sense of the term 'objective'. As anyone knows of who are well accustomed to the many theories and perplexities that arise from the field of Empiricism, it is clear to come to the conclusion that for which we know can be disputed and can never truly be proved. One could easy use an empiricist opinion to suppose that other sensual factors occur around us, but due to our limited sensual senses, we may always be naive to the identity of such. One could also use this example to conjure up the possibility of alternative realisms of which are simultaneously placed within which are commonly accustomed to believe constitutes to 'reality'. Our presumptions of the material world and their existence may create an automated ignorance to accept its plausibility. But allowing the mind to be philosophically imaginative to this possibility will blither the mind.

@raidon04,

But by calling them "alternate REALITIES" are we not confusing the issue because they don't work like reality?

@jgweed,

jgweed;88072 wrote:

But by calling them "alternate REALITIES" are we not confusing the issue because they don't work like reality?

By definition, some may make the fallible connection. Indeed one should not make the error of synonymously matching the terms 'alternative realities' (of which some physicists coin 'Parallel Universes') with that of total reality (multiverse) and is used interchangeably in most cases. There is sometimes an additional connotation implied with the term "alternative reality" that implies that the reality is a variant of our own instead of viewing the totality of completeness. To assert that additional realities of alternative laws of gravity and of time, notion, secondary characters etc, causes an almost unintelligibility. Cosmology and the philosophy of time and space time really has placed focus on this plausible essence.

A paper published by Max Tegmark, is worth reading for all those intrigued by such theoretical concepts: http://www.hep.upenn.edu/~max/multiverse.pdf

@richrf,

richrf;88012 wrote:

Hi,

I think we enter alternative realities every night when we go to sleep. This is basically a result of the mind switching off its senses and somehow, someway, moving into a completely different state of no-space/no-time. It is incredible to me that the mind can do this, all by itself.

Nope. It's pretty easy to see that sense data continues to flow in and affect your consciousness as you sleep.

Ever fallen asleep in a room that's too hot, has too much light, a lot of noise going on? Each of these conditions affects the sleep. Often times noises from "the outside" appear in your dreams (albeit often in a ludicrous and nonsensical way). When the temperature isn't right, the sleep is restless. A sudden and jarring change in environment will start you awake.

The fact is that your brain still processes your environment on some level as you sleep.

@raidon04,

raidon04;88078 wrote:

To assert that additional realities of alternative laws of gravity and of time, notion, secondary characters etc, causes an almost unintelligibility. Cosmology and the philosophy of time and space time really has placed focus on this plausible essence.

I just want to point out, though it may be so obvious that it is overlooked, then when one is asleep, the mind has a completely difference sense of reality, and all of the laws of physics are gone. It is still the same mind, but in a totally different reality. For me, it is amazing that this very matter of fact situation is so common that the ramifications of these state of mind are universally overlooked. Suppose one doesn't wake up, and sleep is the the reality for the mind?

Rich

---------- Post added 09-04-2009 at 07:27 PM ----------

rhinogrey;88109 wrote:

Nope. It's pretty easy to see that sense data continues to flow in and affect your consciousness as you sleep.

Ever fallen asleep in a room that's too hot, has too much light, a lot of noise going on? Each of these conditions affects the sleep. Often times noises from "the outside" appear in your dreams (albeit often in a ludicrous and nonsensical way). When the temperature isn't right, the sleep is restless. A sudden and jarring change in environment will start you awake.

The fact is that your brain still processes your environment on some level as you sleep.

When I am asleep and dreaming my reality is totally different than the one you describe. This is where I am at when I am asleep - no space, no sense of time passing, no beginning or no end. It is totally different. And suppose I don't wake up?

Rich

@raidon04,

During the 19th century the invention of cameras inspired a reaction among painters who could no longer compete with photographs for purely natural, detailed, realistic pictures. So various movements arose like impressionism, pointillism, expressionism, and later various forms of abstraction. In other words, artists began to recognize that the creative human mind can process reality in many ways other than a purely realistic one.

Being a photography enthusiast, I've tried to impart this idea on photography, by which I'm capturing reality but in a way that our eyes just don't see it. It's simultaneously truthful and interpretive.

Here are a few photos of mine, all shot on film (no Photoshop tricks), that I like to think convey this alternate reality idea. And ironically, it's the basic physics of the world, basic optics, basic photographic chemistry, some optical tricks (the Scheimpflug effect) that make reality look so unreal or hyper-real.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/71415447.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/72879049.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/96778509.jpg

@raidon04,

The intriguing thing is that perfectly respectable theoretical physicists are now openly speculating that there might be multiple dimension of reality which are somehow contiguous with our own, i.e. actually 'here' in some way but not able to be perceived by us. Such dimensions could exist in the 95% of the Universe that we now realise we can't account for. The thing which puzzles me about all this, though, is that if they are willing to consider it, then surely the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' has lost all meaning. They are basically talking about a model in which realms which without too much imagination could be designated as supernatural (means existing outside the realm of physical perception) actually account for a large percentage of the universe. Makes me wonder how anyone can maintain an attitude of 'scientific scepticism' any more. (Mind you, you can go nuts thinking about this stuff. Better off sticking to your knitting :bigsmile:)

@richrf,

richrf;88147 wrote:

I just want to point out, though it may be so obvious that it is overlooked, then when one is asleep, the mind has a completely difference sense of reality, and all of the laws of physics are gone. It is still the same mind, but in a totally different reality. For me, it is amazing that this very matter of fact situation is so common that the ramifications of these state of mind are universally overlooked. Suppose one doesn't wake up, and sleep is the the reality for the mind?

Rich

---------- Post added 09-04-2009 at 07:27 PM ----------

When I am asleep and dreaming my reality is totally different than the one you describe. This is where I am at when I am asleep - no space, no sense of time passing, no beginning or no end. It is totally different. And suppose I don't wake up?

Rich

Your analogy is worth consideration on the discussion of 'alternative realities'. When we discuss such an essence, one could assert the self with the belief that reality is relative and subjective. During alternative stages through the life, to which is considered perceptionally as 'reality', may de-fragment and take alternative forms, in dreams for example, delusions and even at a different placement within the Universe. Such alternations of realism can be observable (through the senses or of that purely limited to mind) e.g. a different sense of daylight time, a distinctly observable set of physical laws, implausible acts carried out thus by Humans..etc, can be perceived. Such eccentric forms in contrast is rather magnificent as it has aided some of the most intellectual beings within History to use the example to theorise up new intelligible concepts. Descartes and the dream paradox is a relevant example.
If One should also look at this topic in a purely idealistic approach, then reality is indeed subjective, and limited to the Mind in its self.
But for those who are more inclined to pursue with the notion that alternative forms of reality are more of an objective essence incomprehensibly limited to be perceived due to the but few sensual organs, then I would advocate an amelioration by not being swayed by observable matter being the the agglomeration of completeness. In doing so, you will be subsequently allowing the mind to remain speculatively curious for this concept to transcend to a more realistic plain.

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;88208 wrote:

The thing which puzzles me about all this, though, is that if they are willing to consider it, then surely the distinction between 'natural' and 'supernatural' has lost all meaning.

I don't think additional dimensions or multiverses or whatever really speaks to what is "supernatural". It's all natural, whether we observe it or not. But let's also bear in mind that this is all theoretical, and our inability to empirically substantiate (or not) their propositions doesn't really alter my idea of what is natural and what is not.

@Aedes,

Aedes;88157 wrote:

During the 19th century the invention of cameras inspired a reaction among painters who could no longer compete with photographs for purely natural, detailed, realistic pictures.

I love creative art. Thanks!

Rich

---------- Post added 09-05-2009 at 09:11 AM ----------

jeeprs;88208 wrote:

Makes me wonder how anyone can maintain an attitude of 'scientific scepticism' any more. (Mind you, you can go nuts thinking about this stuff. Better off sticking to your knitting :bigsmile:)

Some physicists view their mission not so much as to stay within the current rules of science but instead to explore the nature of the universe - and the two have now come into contradiction.

Scientists such as Dirac and most modern physicists have accepted that science cannot go beyond what is currently testable by classical instrumentation, and have stopped investigating. Others, have continued their exploration by speculating upon possible explanations, and who knows where this will lead. My guess into realms that there hereto considered verboten by science but at the same completely new ways to treat science that will allow the human mind to continue to evolve. Rules are made to be broken. It is the nature of the evolving human mind.

Interestingly, it is the Einstein EPR thought experiment that stretched the human imagination that eventually led to the Bell Inequality, which led to the lab verification of non-local action wave/particles. And while for a long while there was very little new happening in theoretical physics, now with the knowledge of entanglement, completely new and huge amounts of money are being poured into quantum cryptography and quantum computing, which takes advantage of entanglement (entanglement of the observed and the observer). So, new things are finally getting their funding and acceptance.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-05-2009 at 09:15 AM ----------

raidon04;88215 wrote:

If One should also look at this topic in a purely idealistic approach, then reality is indeed subjective, and limited to the Mind in its self.

Yes, it would have to be. No one can see my dreams except myself, and I don't even know that I am dreaming while I am dreaming.

raidon04;88215 wrote:

But for those who are more inclined to pursue with the notion that alternative forms of reality are more of an objective essence incomprehensibly limited to be perceived due to the but few sensual organs, then I would advocate an amelioration by not being swayed by observable matter being the the agglomeration of completeness. In doing so, you will be subsequently allowing the mind to remain speculatively curious for this concept to transcend to a more realistic plain.

At the very least, those with such objective beliefs (an interesting turn of phrase), would have to account somewhere in their belief system for purely subjective experiences that seem as real as any other experience to the observer.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-05-2009 at 09:17 AM ----------

Aedes;88246 wrote:

I don't think additional dimensions or multiverses or whatever really speaks to what is "supernatural". It's all natural, whether we observe it or not. But let's also bear in mind that this is all theoretical, and our inability to empirically substantiate (or not) their propositions doesn't really alter my idea of what is natural and what is not.

Here is where I put my postmodernism hat on:

If supernatural were to mean: not physical or material, then we are surely entering into the world of the supernatural. Of course, other meanings/ideas can be applied to this word. For example, I would consider the dream that I am having to be supernatural, though in common vernacular it may not be considered as such.

Rich

@raidon04,

You're a real hoot, rich.

You hold yourself as an anti-materialist, and yet you say that anything non-material/non-physical could be called 'supernatural.'

That's quality comedy right there.

You proclaim your dreams "alternate reality" and dismiss the fact that your body is still an active part of your state-of-being during sleep and dreaming. This isn't something that can be disputed, it's clearly verified by science and by everyday common experience.

@rhinogrey,

rhinogrey;88286 wrote:

How is a dream at all supernatural? It is perfectly natural and everyone has them. That doesn't make any sense. Just because you can't comprehend it in the normal way you comprehend things, you assume it must be supernatural.

It depends upon how one defines supernatural, and there are very may ways. So, one would have to have a definition of supernatural:e.g.

Definition from Google

1) not existing in nature or subject to explanation according to natural laws; 2) not physical or material;

I think, what is interesting about dreams is that we consider it natural though it is so much different from our normal awake state. For example, what natural laws of physics does a dream adhere to?

So, for me, there are two interesting aspects of dreams:

1) The ability for the mind to self-invoke another state of being.

2) The way humans consider it so natural yet it is so different.

I think this is the alternative realities reveal themselves, i.e. very (super)naturally. So much so, we do not even realize it.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-05-2009 at 11:08 AM ----------

rhinogrey;88286 wrote:

You're a real hoot, rich.

Well, I am glad I bring humor into people's lives.! Smile

rhinogrey;88286 wrote:

You hold yourself as an anti-materialist, and yet you say that anything non-material/non-physical could be called 'supernatural.'

This is not the way I picture myself. I see the non-material and material as two sides of the same coin. Similar to the wave/particle duality of quantum physics, where seemingly an indeterminate probability wave manifests as a particle when observed. So, for me, it is all the same.

[

rhinogrey;88286 wrote:

That's quality comedy right there.

I like stretching (or exploring) the boundaries of what is real and not real.

rhinogrey;88286 wrote:

You proclaim your dreams "alternate reality" and dismiss the fact that your body is still an active part of your state-of-being during sleep and dreaming.

For an outside observer it may be. However, when I was dreaming last night, I had no awareness whatsoever about my body. I don't know how I poofed out of the awareness or how I poofed back into it. It was all quite magical and instantaneous. The time I spent sleeping, was no-time and I felt no space while sleeping. For me, this is fascinating.

rhinogrey;88286 wrote:

This isn't something that can be disputed, it's clearly verified by science and by everyday common experience.

You, the observer of me, while I am sleeping are observing something. But it is not me, in my dream state. I like this kind of mind-bending stuff, but you probably don't see what I see. Which is fine, because I was the one sleeping and dreaming, and there is no way for you to occupy that no-time/no-space that I was in.

Rich

@richrf,

richrf;88252 wrote:

I love creative art. Thanks!

I always try to imagine what is there that I cannot see. Part of it is knowing the technological capabilities of the equipment.

richrf;88252 wrote:

Here is where I put my postmodernism hat on:

If supernatural were to mean: not physical or material, then we are surely entering into the world of the supernatural.

I think that this is a definition that everyone would agree with, including everyone from scientists to priests.

The disagreement would be over whether supernatural things can be experienced or regarded to exist. A pure scientist would say that anything that can be experienced is natural, and it's only misinterpretation or lack of knowledge that would make one judge it as supernatural.

richrf;88252 wrote:

For example, I would consider the dream that I am having to be supernatural, though in common vernacular it may not be considered as such.

Here's where language gets tricky. If you're having a dream about flying pigs, the dream itself is no more or less natural than a dream in which pigs are wallowing in the mud. The content of the dream is a supernatural subject, but dreaming about flying pigs is different than flying pigs.

@raidon04,

Whatever makes you happy, rich. Smile

@Aedes,

Aedes;88317 wrote:

Here's where language gets tricky. If you're having a dream about flying pigs, the dream itself is no more or less natural than a dream in which pigs are wallowing in the mud. The content of the dream is a supernatural subject, but dreaming about flying pigs is different than flying pigs.

The key twist that I would put on it is this: that at the moment that my mind is experiencing it, it is not feel supernatural at all. It is all quite natural, and every quite scary at times. Now, there is no reason to assume that this, what the mind is experiencing during this no-time/no-space reality is not as real as the awake state. The two states are different but equivalent from the point of view of the observer.

Bohm might describe these experiences as different in their similarities and similar in their differences. I am not making the assumption that the awake state is necessarily the only real state. In fact, the sleep state may be that which is the more natural. There is no way to tell.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-05-2009 at 03:03 PM ----------

rhinogrey;88330 wrote:

Whatever makes you happy, rich.

I love creative, expansive, free thought. Enforced thinking to suit the comfort level of others, who may not have the same flavor for life as I have, does not really suit me at all. I am here to explore and enjoy the edges as well as the norms of life. My guess is that anyone who enters into dreams is doing the same. Smile

Rich

@Aedes,

Aedes;88246 wrote:

It's all natural, whether we observe it or not. But let's also bear in mind that this is all theoretical, and our inability to empirically substantiate (or not) their propositions doesn't really alter my idea of what is natural and what is not.

Curious. I thought the practical definition of 'natural' in modern science would be roughly equivalent to 'what can (in theory) be observed'. It is easy to be sanguine about it because after all one gets up in the morning and life goes on as usual.

You may recall Lord Kelvin's assessment in 1900 that apart from 'two dark clouds' on the horizon owing to the Michelson-Morely experiments, scientists just about had a comprehensive understanding of the whole of physical reality. Now we can't even understand what the vast bulk of it is.

Philosophy Forum
» Metaphysics
» Alternative 'realities'

Read Topic
Reply

Philosophy Forum

Alternative 'realities'

Quick Links

My Account

able2know