The Cat in the Hat..Er.. Box

In any case I'll presume the universe has been whimpering on and on rather than than .. bang on.

And I'm right..

Can you prove me wrong?

I like your way of thinking.. even if I misdirected it.

There is the crux of the problem.Nothing can be absolutely proven.

Bang or whimper,it still requires,by current theories,an observer.

But what if the observer doesn't believe in himself?

If he has not looked into a mirror,he has not observed himself,so does he exist?

You assume he has self awareness and an understanding of how mirrors work...

I don't assume anything.I presume.

It's a synonym.

Based on previous states of superposition,he is in a superposition of knowing and not knowing that he exists.If he is dead when the door opens,it will not matter to him.If he is alive,it will only matter to the observer.It will not matter to the cat;it will remain as aloof and superior as usual,probably thinking what took you so long,and where's my supper?

Many, many moons ago, a wise one told me that I should be careful making assumptions, because what it does. Assume = make and "Ass" out of "u" and "me".

I had to bring some humor into the thread - before punches are thrown.

Which is why I always presume.

Couldn't he look at his body, hands, feet, arms or legs to see that he does exist - without the use of a mirror?

Hundreds of years ago, a mirror wasn't used by "normal" people, but they knew they existed.

He could touch experience himself in as little as any other sensory way that exists.

She would as well. In a gender neutral version it is: it.

That doesn't sound right. This is a G rated site!

But it is not inappropriate to point out "smell" as a form of experiencing ones self.

No G in smell!

I think it's G Rated to smell yourself, though one would have to be pretty stinky to smell himself.

I am going to go way out here:

How do you know that you exist?

Only by your sensory inputs.

If you were immersed into a sea of darkness,with no sensory input of any kind,could you prove you exist?

You would be like the "sentient" androids of Sci Fi before programming.

Once programming is installed,with all of your sensory inputs,you would become self aware.

Memories could be put into your program from your childhood,with all details of your life,even though you were only minutes old.

And you would argue with anyone that told you that you were not human,and that you were say,20 years old.

So to say that reality is real is a tricky question.

Even Einstein questioned reality,saying that it was an illusion.

It is likewise hard to prove otherwise because of our limitations.

The arguments for both sides could go on indefinitely,with each side claiming victory over the other,when in ("truth),whatever that is, there will never be an answer on this side of the pall.

And on the other side,it will not matter.

Epistemology - proof that I exist.

I don't believe in some Matrix type system, though I guess it's possible - though very unlikely.

Or a Total Recall type re-programming of the mind - Yes, there's more chance of this being possible.

But, how does a group control a world with nearly 8B people! Taint the water? Chemtrails? Very doubtful, but we can't say 100% not happening.

If you were immersed into a sea of darkness,with no sensory input of any kind,could you prove you exist?

I could feel myself (literally). My brain would tell me I exist, therefore I do.

Here's the tricky part. I agree 100% with Einstein. Each of us has different experiences in life. Our emotions have been pulled in different directions since we were very young. So, our perception of reality is going to be different. My example of how one would respond to "news" - each of us has a different view. Well, maybe our views can be put into a few dozen possible outcomes. Then we take everyone from one group and bring another reality and see how the group breaks into another few dozen outcomes. Then do it again and soon an individual will be exactly that with a unique set of beliefs. So in a sense, Einstein is correct. We live in a world that's our own individual illusion.

I want to clarify one thing. The actual event hasn't changed. It's the same, but people will interpret/perceive it to mean a different thing. And, with our brains being as strong as it is, we can trick our senses to see what our brain wants it to. Now that's deep!

Existence, other than this apparent existence of ours(sensory) is like theoretical physics. Even if Einstein failed to observed some implication, he just knew it existed.

Who can evade the equations equated to zero? No one. As far as Existence and our "self-defined" existence (sensory) we are all trapped in equation equated to zero.

A Ground state. A symmetry of positives and negatives. Zero, nothingness and the infinite. The Perfection. The uncreated. Who can fathom that? None

My understanding, if you want to call it that, is that the act of "observation" doesn't necessarily require a human "observer", but is a non-reversible process such as a photon striking a photographic film. The modern term is decoherence. When the quantum system interacts with the environment, information is lost to the environment and "the spell is broken".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence

A prime characteristic of quantum computers is that while they are calculating there are no irreversible processes happening. For example, a classical computer "OR" gate will produce a "1" output if the inputs are 0 and 1, 1 and 0, or 1 and 1. You cannot always tell from the output what the input was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OR_gate

A quantum gate, e.g. CNOT gate or "controlled not gate" , on the other hand, is completely reversible. There are as many outputs as inputs, and the inputs can be derived from the outputs.

The classical analog of the CNOT gate is a reversible XOR gate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_logic_gate

A quantum computer computes and its operation is completely hidden until decoherence happens, at which time we can read the answer.

So what you're saying is...

Quantum physics is actually like dealing with women?

Nah!Women are more complicated.

You can look at them wrong,and they can go into a nut-roll.

The problem here goes back to the beginning:how will you know if the quantum system interacts with,or has interacted with the environment until you observe it?

Is reality different for every individual?

Consider the case of the dress that everyone saw in a different color?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

Some non classical gates can are reversible.

Consider the Toffoli gate:

https://quantiki.org/wiki/Toffoli%20gate

Reality is not necessarily what you see,it is how you look at it,and When you look at it.

If the cat in the box is totally isolated from the environment,as is required for a quantum computer,and a fiber optic cable allows a person to view the results when the door is opened and the fiber optic cable is 1 light year long,will the cat be in a superposition for a year after the door is opened?Substitute a gamma-ray detector that will lock in at the last event if you are concerned about the health of the cat in a vacuum.This is a mental exercise,remember.

Disclaimer: These are just my thoughts. I'm not an expert, just an interested amateur and reader of books on the subject.

A quantum system, by definition, hasn't interacted with the environment. Once it does, decoherence takes place and it's no longer a quantum system.

You could argue that reality is different for different individuals. We all look through the filter of our senses and we interpret what we are sensing through our past experiences. We each build a unique mental model of the outside world. Some models, undoubtedly, are better than others. But this really isn't a quantum phenomenon.

I'm thinking that the issue with the dress has to do with the way the eye detects color, as ratios between the three color sensors. Reflected color is a product of the object color and the illumination color, and assumptions have to be made about the illumination spectrum to sense the object spectrum. (Fluorescent lighting, with a strong mercury line, is infamous for affecting perceived colors.)

For a white and gold dress, the white reflects red+green+blue and the gold reflects red+green (no blue). If the illuminating light is blue, the white reflects excess blue, (looking light blue) and the gold does not reflect the blue (looking black). Thus white and gold becomes blue and black if the brain assumes the illuminating light is white and not blue.

All non-classical (quantum) gates, including the Toffoli gate, are reversible.

Schrodinger came up with the "cat in the box" thought experiment to make the point that the Copenhagen interpretation made no sense, that if it were accepted literally that a cat could be both alive and dead, a "reductio ad absurdum".

In modern thinking, as soon as a quantum system affects anything on the outside, it is no longer in superposition, decoherence happens and it assumes a classical state. Any "observer", whether nearby or a lightyear away, would "observe" the same classical state.

The question was "When" would the cat experience decoherence if there are no other observers to observe it except the one at the end of the fiber cable?

Would it remain in superposition for a year?

Is the box not a part of the environment?

How about the particle that decays?

Or the detector,or the glass beaker?

I am no expert either,but I tend to examine things closely before accepting them on faith.

Pure science has no room for faith.It relies on facts only.

I think once the radioactive decay is detected, there is no superposition. The detector cannot "undetect" the decay, reversibility has been violated at that point. The cat is either dead or alive when the box is opened but was never in a state of superposition.

That is what I said,but the KNOWLEDGE of the cat's state is still undecided,therefor the sate of the cat is not in superposition,but it is our knowledge that is not fixed(collapsed into one of two possibilities) and is in a state of "undecided-ness" until it's state is known.

If a person told you that they put either a dead cat or a live cat in the box,and you did not know which it was,you would not know till you opened the box.

The cat was not in a state of superposition till you opened the box.

Same thing,the way I see it.

I never stay up nights to watch election results. Early on Nov 8, 2000, I was driving to work thinking that until I turned my car radio on, the election results were in a superposition, like Schrodinger's cat. When I did turn the radio on, it was still in superposition and stayed that way for about a month.

What a great segue to politics.

Speaking of which, if Schrodinger's cat could vote, who would he/she vote for (for POTUS)?

Someone who keeps pets, maybe.

Your anthropomorphic bias is showing.

The observer does not have to be a self-aware creature like a human being, another cat or anything alive at all. The observer is anything that will interact with the observed. Thus the idea that "Nothing is real until it is observed." should seem less like a paradox.

The cat has already reacted to the environment in the box.When the door is opened,the cat is as he was before the door was opened.

The uncertainty is in our knowledge of the state of the cat,not of the state of the cat itself.

So tell me, how do you know that if it reacts with the environment in anyway,the "spell" is broken.Can you prove that without observation?

The hubris belongs to the ones that claim to know what is real and what is not.

Even Einstein said that "Reality is an illusion,albeit a very persistent one."

I tend to agree with Albert.

Argue with him if you like.

Well, do you believe that all things there is, there was, there will be, exist in mathematical harmony or "the matrix". I too believe a matrix is real, even if there was or there was no observer at all. All things can be described by equations mingling in unity and harmony, although some is incomprehensibly kept until now hidden.

There were some who believed in "The Matrix" to the point that they were leaping off of buildings. They believed they could defy physics, but they learned a big lesson in the last 5 seconds of their life.

Do you take the red pill or the blue pill?

"Did the "Big Bang" require an observer to become real?"

Was this intended as a question or a comment?

If a question, did you want an answer to it?

A question.

Answer it if you can.

We don't know if it IS real. It's only a theory. I think you might have suggested some alternatives in the past.

Hmmm. You have me thinking!

Here's an outside of the box theory. Follow me for a minute.

Reality is in the eye of the beholder - this is my starting point. As an example, let's say news story hits - Facebook is going to start an online dating service. What are some of the responses to this.

• Not Facebook again! I don't trust them one bit!
• Hey, where is the stock price? It's going to go up on this news, so maybe I can get in before it runs!
• Hey, what about my privacy! Are they going to use some of my posts? Or will they judge me on my friends - or lack of?
• That Zuckerberg is so creative. Absolute genius!
• This company looks too much like a monopoly - let's investigate and see what we can do to break it up.

I see it differently. The first thing that I think of is that someone had this information yesterday and made a lot of money trading options ahead of the news. I should've made the trade - I blew a great opportunity, but it reinforces my strategy and I'll get the next one!

Since people see things differently (responses are sure different) does it make something right or wrong? What is the fact? What is opinion?

What is important is how each of us responds when someone doesn't agree with us. Do we "accept" this difference - maybe even "embrace" it? Or do we argue and try to prove our point?

Consider this; each of us has a preference of how we vacation, right? Why do some prefer sitting on the beach to climbing a mountain? Or eating the finest food and staying in a 5 star hotel vs backpacking through Tibet? What happened in our early life to make us like things and dislike others? Why does one woman choose a good looking, athletic superstar, another wants a successful executive, while another goes for the rough and tough lumberjack type? Is it due to lack of confidence and self esteem (can't get the good guy or I don't deserve it)?

Going back to the OP's post. I believe we approach questions from different angles. A lot has to do with our current situation, but I believe much of it comes from how we were formed in our youth, by the people closest to us or the ones who damaged us the worst.

My 2 cents!

I like the diversity of some of your hypotheses. However, I question the idea that reality is different for different people. For instance, the quadratic formula is ironclad true no matter who you are or whether you have even heard of it.

On the other hand, some truths are indeed relative to specific persons. For example, I am a former (but no longer active) tournament Scrabble player, which is not true of everyone.

The phrase "true for you but not for me" is usually bogus. The phrase "true of you but not of me" is often perfectly correct. What a difference a simple preposition makes.

Such is the reality that you construct for yourself,and no one can argue with that.But then again,you may be a construct of someone else's reality and you would never know,like wise, I would never know if the same were true for me.

Like the Chinese man that fell asleep and dreamed he was a butterfly.

When he awoke,he was not sure if he was a man who had dreamed of being a butterfly,or a butterfly still dreaming that he was a man.

And the echo of this will keep ricocheting around in his head,(whether mammal or insect) until his final "awakening" (death) when he will know the truth.

The statement that he's a Chinese man who fell asleep, then he woke - this means that he's a man.. A man fell asleep, had a dream, then awoke.

How about this one.

In China, it's absolutely fine to steal someone else's idea and make copies of their product. It's in their culture. In the US, we built our idea of business ethics on Trademarks and Patents. You can't copy someone's invention. In the whole scheme of things, which philosophy is right? Copy what you want or protect ideas from being copied? Growing up with different rules changes your perception about right and wrong.

The reality is the same for everyone - it's a fact. How one's perception of that fact is processed in our brain is different for every one of us. One part of our perception or the real world, in your example, the quadratic formula - yes, it's ironclad; a fact that we base mathematics on. I don't think we'll see many arguments from anyone.

Another part of our perception of the real world is global warming - I know that this is a hot button for this forum, but that's what makes it such a good example. Each one of us has a belief, which is based on our individual analysis of facts, news stories, our own personal life experiences, our upbringing, our education, our religion, etc. Each of us has our own view on GW and the impact (if any) to our planet. Who is right? Who is wrong? Who spends hours trying to prove or disprove GW?

Bottom line, our perception is based on our experiences and the people who "programmed" us to view the world like we do. True for you, but not for me.

I vehemently disagree that reality is the same for everyone. "Everyone" is far too big of a set of individuals while "the same" is a far too unique of a set of experiential conditions. A quadratic equation is far from ironclad to anybody that cannot or has yet to grasp basic algebra for whatever reason. (If you don't believe me, try explaining how a quadratic equation may have two, one, or zero unique scalar solutions to many tax accountants.)

Similarly a singular reality of a high school orchestra's performance of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring will be perceived in greatly varying different degrees depending on the listener's familial relationship, knowledge of how far the students have improved and how much overtime a custodian can claim.

When we think we hold the sole unique, valid representation of reality, this is when arrogance rules!

Hi Redfred,

You're thinking too much. Reality in the most basic way is simply observation. Here's a definition: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." The key is "as they actually exist" or reality, hence The reality will be the same for everyone. We use our senses to observe, however we use our mind to interpret what we sense.

At present, the reality is that I'm sitting at my desk typing on a computer keyboard. While a child from an uncivilized culture may not have ever seen a desk or computer keyboard, he still see me sitting at my desk, tying on a keyboard - the reality. This is a fact and can't be changed. If you asked this child what I am doing, he wouldn't have a clue. That is his perception, what he perceives I'm doing.

A tax accountant will see a quadratic equation on paper, he can see the numbers and letters. His perception is how he interprets it. The child from above could also see the numbers and letters, even though he has no clue what it is. An engineer sees the quadratic too, but in addition he can solve it.

Your example of the orchestra's performance has both observation or hearing them play - the reality. The quality is the perception of the observer and is based on many, many variables.

I do have a reality for you to think about. People in the Los Angeles area who drive Tesla cars drive more erratic than drivers of any other brand of car. Some drive much slower than the flow of traffic in that lane, while others drive much faster and weave in and out of traffic. The Tesla driver can see the reality - he is either blocking the flow of traffic or driving too fast for traffic conditions. Why he is doing it is his arrogance. He interprets other drivers as less important than him. He doesn't care about his driving style or what it's doing to the people around him.

Here's an interesting interpretation of a fact.

Fact: People who drive slow in the fast lane will have a large "gap" between them and the car in front. The large "gap" allows them to have a longer braking distance and thus have less chance of an accident.

My Interpretation: Those drivers are being selfish. They are only looking at from their own perspective - how to avoid accidents. It's more than just a nuisance as they are not only blocking the flow of traffic, but they are having others risk by passing to the right.

On my drive across country, I'd say that most drivers were very courteous and stayed to the right until it was time to pass, or to take an exit to the left. It was the same from Rochester New York to Reno, NV. For some reason, it was almost like a sign went up as soon as we got back to California that said "it's okay to drive any speed you want in any lane". Pass on the right - no problem. Impede the flow of traffic - sure, let them go around ME. Then we got on the 14 and it got worse. We weren't even in LA and many drivers became oblivious to what they were doing to other drivers. Drive with your brights on - no problem, because I can't see with my regular beams. Or I'm too busy to change bulbs, so I'll drive with the brights on! Or, I want to pass in the far right lane, so I'll just tailgate the person in front until they speed up! Or, I'll just take my time doing a lane change, the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them. Or, I'll take my sweet time changing lanes, even though I'm blocking both lanes now and everybody behind me will just have to wait. Or my favorite - oops, that's my exit right there! I'll just cut across three lanes of traffic, because me getting off the exit is more important than all the other drivers behind me.

Every magician fabricates a false reality for the general audience member that entertains us. Most con men create a false reality that steals money. Reality is subjective.

For me, I think I grasp how Danny Cole appears to defy gravity but I'll be damned if I can understand Penn Gillette's cryptic explanation. Then again, my idea might be the false reality Mr. Cole steered my mind into believing.

IMHO:

Anything seen on TV or the internet is subject to editing for entertainment/profit/political motives.

Like the magician that made a military tank disappear, the audience was in on it, and it was edited to appear real.

Some people actually believed it.

To paraphrase Abe Lincoln: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Today's politicians say: "Give me those that I can fool all of the time, and I will win, for they are the majority."

That is exactly my point. The people who are fooled, believe a reality that differs from what actually happened. Reality is subjective.

If you believe that reality is subjective, then you cannot legitimately use the phrase "actually happened."

Their belief is subjective. The reality is not.

Follow me for a second. If I'm holding a red pen in my hand, however you're color blind, so you see it as a gray pen. Am I holding a red pen or gray pen?

Fact - I'm holding a red pen. - this is reality.

My perception is that I'm holding a red pen. This is my belief.

Your perception is that I'm holding a gray pen. This is your belief.

What we could say is that my belief is reality. Your belief is not.

Does that example help?

Ok, your example gives me another way to make my point that reality is subjective. Your given statement that the pen is red assumes complete, invariant knowledge by somebody that the pen had color and that color is red. What if the perceived color is a trick of the brain.

Is one dog blue and the other yellow?

They're actually the same color and yet the left one seems yellow while the right one seems blue! (Click the image for other color illusions)

In case you are colorblind then this classic illusion is still one of my favorites:

The A and B squares are the exact same shade of grey.

What you see as a red pen in your hand may suddenly turn to grey when the illusionist turns OFF that focused black light or the internal red LED.

Reality is perceived and subjective.

You keep confusing perception (and/or misperception) with reality.

Tornado, Thank you. I couldn't find the right words.

No, I keep failing to communicate to you that human beings cannot ascertain what approaches to be a reality without first applying perception. Thus all singular or collective agreements of what is real is actually a perception.

It seems that you do reject my reality and substitute your own instead. How ironic.

Of course I reject your "reality", because it is just plain flat wrong.

The definition of the word reality is: the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Actually exist does not infer someone's perception. This is the literal definition.

I do understand your point and we interchange the word reality for perceived reality. Though to be literally correct, the word reality means what exists.

Yes, we regularly substitute our "perceived reality" when we use the term "reality". The corollary to this is what I'm promoting. Claiming knowledge of reality is pure hubris for we can only perceive reality and everyone's perception is at least a little different.

Claiming knowledge of reality is pure hubris for we can only perceive reality and everyone's perception is at least a little different.

I don't agree. Here's a very simple reality that we can all agree on.

"On a clear day, the sky is blue."

That is reality. When there are few clouds in the sky, you can see the sky and it's blue. We define the color blue and we can all agree on the definition.

What one perceives doesn't change the reality. If someone is color blind (or for that matter blind), they don't see the blue, but the reality is that it's blue.

When we make subjective statements or comments, we may or may not be stating reality. "Sky blue is a beautiful color". There is no reality to that statement. It's based on a person's perception and only that. His reality is that sky blue is beautiful and while others may agree, it's not reality. Yes, everyone's perception is at least a little different!

In reality, your anthropocentrism is showing. While you and I see the color blue in the sky a nocturnal creature is mostly blinded by the same sky. Which perception is a reality; people's, a bat, owl, Stevie Wonder or all? The sky did not change but each perceived a different fractional subset of the whole reality.

Actually, the atmosphere of the sky is transparent. The perceived blue color comes from Rayleigh scattering from the particulate molecules of gas in our atmosphere. Your perception is an inaccurate image of a natural trick in reality. This is why no painting or photograph can perfectly match the magnificence of seeing a clear, sunny day.

And as you may grasp, I perceive the same glorious vista a wee bit differently than you. I may grasp more about the reality that forms my perception than others but I don't claim to know all about that reality. I'm certain my receptors and knowledge limit what I can perceive as reality. Therefore I cannot know all of reality and my perception frames what I call reality.

Okay, how about going to the most basic of basic, which is the definition of the word "reality". Not our perception of reality, but what does the word reality mean?

What does Merriam Webster say?

"the quality or state of being real"

Or the Cambridge Dictionary?

"the actual state of things, or the facts involved in such a state"

If you go to Google, here's the first entry to pop up.

"the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them"

Yes, I am well aware of the linguistic definition of reality, but even that definition is a perception.

I'm saying that this is a classic chicken and egg paradox. (Which came first?) Perception precedes reality which precedes perception. You cannot have one without the other. One also cannot have reality without unreality or fantasy as a possibility. It is perception that demarcates the boundaries between fantasy and reality. Thus perception creates reality while reality presents something to be perceived.

Allow me a historical reference. When Galileo stood before the Holy Office in his heresy trial, both he and the Holy Office knew the truth of reality should prevail. Both sides were firmly convinced their perception portrayed true reality. I now clearly see both were wrong and right in their perceptions at the same time.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't agree. I believe in the definition of reality which states that what truly occurs is reality and it has nothing to do with our perception. It's simply what is real.

If the chicken or the egg came first, how would we know? We weren't there to observe it, so we don't know the reality. We can hypothesize and then we'll have two sides which will argue with each other, because they believe they're right, ie the chicken believers and the egg believers.

You do have me thinking about unreality. If reality is what truly exists, then unreality is the opposite or something that doesn't exist. As an example, if I look at the credit card in front of me, I can say that my senses tell me it's red. So, since I believe my senses are correct, and assuming that they are, then the reality is that the card is red. So, the unreality is the statement that my credit card is not red. It could also be said that my credit card it blue, green, black, orange, purple, yellow, etc. Any color, but the real color, which is red would be unreality.

Would I say that unreality is fantasy? I don't think so. I see fantasy more as someone's desire to have something that may or may not be real. Most of us would agree that fantasy is believing that the Miami Dolphins will win the Super Bowl. It's not unreality, because the Super Bowl hasn't been played yet, so it could be reality in the future. The reason it's fantasy, is because they have the worst record in the NFL (actually tied with a few other bad teams), but they've scored only 13 points in the first three games (offense stinks) and they have given up the most points on defense. I wouldn't go as far as saying it would be a miracle if they won the Super Bowl, but I would say that it's nearly impossible and for someone to believe it, they're living in a fantasy world.

My final statement is that many times, politics don't support reality. I know this is a hot button, but many politicians believe in GW, but is it reality? This is a rhetorical questions, so please don't answer it or we'll have a breakout of this thread. Or is the only solution to improving our education system, to make students pass standardized tests? Unfortunately, not only politics, but also many times, religion doesn't support reality too.

I think it's only fair to pass the floor back to you. I don't think either of us is going to convince the other to see our point of view and I'm okay with it. So, maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree and thus to keep things friendly. My belief is that you're a very smart person and I have the utmost respect for what you post to this site. I do enjoy hearing your point of view and it makes me think, which is a very good thing!

Allow me to toss this metaphysical/linguistic ball back into your court with a few questions and proffered fractional answers:

• Is reality knowable to a human mind?
• If reality is beyond our mind's capability, then anyone claiming to know reality actually knows only a fraction of reality. That fraction is bound by their perception.
• If reality is not beyond our mind's capability then we have clearly misperceived reality in the past (Galileo affair, Penn and Teller, Bernie Madoff). How can we be sure as to what is reality when we clearly misunderstood before?
• Is reality unique and immutable?
• The revered Einsteinian concept of spacetime implies the existence of multiverses with different realities.
• If reality is what occurs then must reality always be in the past and beyond our reach to influence?

Until it is perceived we have no idea what might be reality. Despite the intent of the definition of "reality", perception forms reality. As we gain more perceived perspectives of a phenomena we asymptotically approach a more complete reality of that phenomena. It is hubris to think we can ever perceive every single perspective of a phenomena. At the same time, we eventually identify all of the perspectives that are relevant to explain a perceived phenomena and thus call that reality but it is actually only a fraction of the definition of reality.

I'm game. Here's my take.

"If reality is beyond our mind's capability, then anyone claiming to know reality actually knows only a fraction of reality. That fraction is bound by their perception."

I think that many things are not beyond our mind's capability, therefore we can comprehend reality. My dog is laying down in the hallway. There are three pens on my desk. I'm typing on a wireless keyboard. These are facts = reality.

"If reality is not beyond our mind's capability then we have clearly misperceived reality in the past (Galileo affair, Penn and Teller, Bernie Madoff). How can we be sure as to what is reality when we clearly misunderstood before?"

Some thing are beyond 1. our mind's capability or 2. general knowledge available at he time. Gallileo fits under #2. Penn and Teller fits under #1 - our eye can see it, but our mind can't comprehend. Bernie Madoff is definitely #1 - he tricked people by tricking them into trusting him. For these items, we don't know what the reality is. We can theorize or speculate, but we don't know, so we are not aware of what's really happening.

"Is reality unique and immutable?"

I think most of us believe it is, but there's no proof. Could someone travel back in time, thus creating a dual reality at a specific time? Maybe, but we feel its very unlikely, so we can say that reality is unique. Immutable? I wouldn't say it's immutable. For instance a statement "The Cubs just won the World Series" would be reality in 2016. Any other year, it wouldn't. However the statement "The Cubs won the 2016 World Series" would not be immutable. It's a static fact that won't change, unless MLB strips the World Series from them for cheating on drug tests or something like that.

"If reality is what occurs then must reality always be in the past and beyond our reach to influence?"

I don't think so. Reality is both the past and present. Reality is "My dog ate salmon, pumpkin and green beans today" is the past. Reality is "My dog is laying down in the hallway". It's happening right now as I type this. How about the future? "In one second, my dog will be laying down in the hallway" It will most likely happen, but it's not reality, because it hasn't happened yet - there's no proof.

How about this one? "In one second, the Earth will be rotating on it's axis." It's not fact, rather, it's predicting a future fact. So it's not reality yet.

What you're writing about is unknowns. Could be something like - Show me where the electron is right now. We can guess, but can anyone say they are sure they know where it's at? Maybe someone a lot smarter than me does know the answer. I would have no way to know if he is correct.

I have a good one for you. A few days ago, I watched an old movie, Billy Budd. I was telling my better half about the movie and I got to the place where Billy was being court martialed. The Captain and his three officers wanted to do something to save him, but the English Maritime law at the time said that he's guilty and must be executed - this was suppose to be in the late 1700's. I said that they could've argued the importance of the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. The spirit of the law is that an enlisted man should not strike an officer during wartime, since it could have devastating effects on the battle. The law was not written to allow an officer to taunt an enlisted man to the point where he can't control himself. I was there on my soapbox, when I was told that in the 1790's, they didn't talk about the spirit of the law vs the letter of the law. Kings ruled and whatever the King says goes!

Good example of reality now vs in 1790.

You just presented multiple realities bound by your perception. Ironically all of your perceived realities on Billy Budd come from conceived imaginations. Thus none of those realities come from a real incident but they do come from a real story.

The 1962 movie of Billy Budd was perceived, conceived, and realized by Peter Ustinov (he both played the captain and directed the movie) from Herman Melville's posthumous short novel of the same title. Also, maritime law involves private disputes, not military disputes during a perceived time of war. It's been a while since I read the novel or viewed the movie so I don't know if that misperception really came from Melville, Ustinov's staff or a simple quick slip of the tongue.

On another note of irony, I present today's Dilbert cartoon:

All of these perceptions created a reality in one form or another, from flickering black and white light images in your home to a timely three-panel comic.

One cannot separate reality from perception. Thus they form each other.

Does this make me an intellectual garbage man?

Yes.

I really enjoyed the movie. It's funny how somewhere in the mid 50's, directors made a shift and the "good guy" would lose. Billy was a good guy. He was polite, kind, cared for others and was truly an optimist. Claggart was the opposite and ruled by fear and force, using unethical means. Though Billy almost got through to him, the guy sitting on Claggart's shoulder told him not to trust Billy.

Captain Vere was a good man, and he liked Billy, but he was too set on following the letter of the law. The officers had already decided to let Billy off, but Vere interfered and told them that their duty was to follow the law. He also said that he wanted one of them to find a valid reason to let Billy off, but none could. That's where my idea of using the spirit of the law came in. More on this in a moment. Billy was hanged the next morning. His last words were "God bless Captain Vere". Vere's conscience got the best of him and was also killed (a mast fell on him).

I did a quick Google search and found out that the "real" book was released in 1962. I'm not sure what the differences are between the 1924 version and the 1962 version, but the newer version uses more of Melville's notes - the 1924 version took interpretation from Melville's wife. Ironically, the truer version of the book came out the same year as the movie!

I really enjoy watching movies from the mid fifties and earlier. I like seeing the good guy win all the time. And I like the moral of the story. The US was much different back then. The real America! I wasn't alive back then, but I enjoy the era.

My perception may be that the dog on the left is yellow and the dog on the right is blue. My perception is wrong and I'm okay with that. The reality is that they're the same color.

The bottom illusion makes the A square look darker. That's my perception, however the reality is they're the same color. Again, the illusion tricked my brain to see things incorrectly. The reality is correct, my perception is wrong.

Thanks for the video - Really neat stuff. I love watching magicians. I've been to the Magic Castle many times. The thing that gets me is the close up magicians. I have no idea how they do it. And I'm sitting right in front of the magician.

Back to reality. Reality is just that, what exists as fact. We also use the word reality to describe what a person perceives reality to be, though it's not true reality. There can be only one reality - only one fact. If there's more than one, then we're living in a universe with two possibilities at a given time and place. It's not possible.

Your idea of the con men is a good one. They trick us into believing that something is real. Take Bernie Madoff. He tricked people into believing that he was investing their money. In reality, he created a ponzi scheme and he added a new twist - he'd give people their money back with a nice profit added. Greed would hit and the "mark" would beg Madoff to take more money. Let's say Madoff paid him back with a profit. The "mark" would be in the position to do anything to have Madoff invest for him. And of course, he's refer Madoff to his best friends, etc.

The perception was that Madoff was investing the money. The reality was that he was living high on the hog on other people's money. Perception is subjective. Reality isn't.

I'm curious what you think?

Easy trick. If you really want to spoil it.

I vehemently disagree with your interpretation, which reeks of subjectivity. Whether or not a person knows the quadratic formula, or how he/she "perceives" it, is irrelevant. The fact of it applies to everyone, whether or not they realize it.

For some hilarious examples of postmodernism and "deconstruction", see Sokal and Bricmont, Fashionable Nonsense.

That's another way to put it ... I guess.

And it is based on fact - a law of math from which science and engineering is required to follow - or things won't work, right?

I do recommend lightening up on Fasionable Nonsense. As funny as it it, there are some here who may take offense. This is an engineering site.

None of you are real. You are all figments of my imagination. I am in a chair with a virtual reality thing on my head, on Mars I think.

I reject your reality and substitute my own.

I reject your subjectivity.

Nanu nanu!

Head gear is SOOO Yesterday!

You must be a visitor from the past.

My DNA incorporates what you would call virtual reality.

I can go anywhere in the universe in no time at all.

Only imagination can exceed the speed of light without a wormhole ticket,and they are so expensive.

That is why I purchase(I say purchase,but not as you would define it) my reality on demand,and over billions of years, the reality library has grown and,there are many scenarios to choose from.

Before I can view a scene from someone else's point of view,either human,animal,or AEHI*, I must submit an equal allotment of my experiences into the library.

I can "sail**" the 11 known dimensions of space time,dive to the surface of gas giants,and drink liquefied hydrogen(it tastes very light,like a good grog should).

I can watch the fusion inside of the core of a neutron star,and watch a black hole as it is being born.

I can see ice ages go through their cycles,and planets go from snowballs to verdent green and blue,and back again.

Virtual reality is so relaxing.

I can travel a million light years and never be weary.

I am happy just to sit here on a shelf in the Universal Library in my jar of nutrients.

*Artificially Enhanced Human Interface

**Origin of the ancient "word"(no need for words anymore) is lost in time,but it is still in common usage.

"Head gear is SOOO Yesterday!"

I didn't use that term. Where do you get this stuff from?

If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one present to witness it does it make a sound? Yes it does. There is not a need for an observer for an event to actually occur ( regardless of what the prosecutor said!!!).

When the premised conditions are a contradictory impossibility, anything including impossibilities can happen. The forest itself is a witness.

That's deep.

When you shut the refrigerator door, does the light really stay off?
Inquiring minds want to know....

Why would a forest want a refrigerator?

To store leftovers for the next day.