Represented Reality vs True Reality

Friday 2nd December 2005 (Extracted LiveJournal Article)

Our Mind ‘represents’ our senses (e.g. our mind constructs colours like blue and red) thus it is argued that our mind and language is limited to describing the represented world rather than the world as it really is, and this in turn limits our ability to describe reality.

Ayer clearly describes this problem as;

.. the gap between things as they seem and things as they are; and the problem consists in our having to justify our claims to know how physical objects are on the basis of knowing only how they seem. (Ayer, 1956) www.spaceandmotion.com/Most-Simple-Scientific-Theory-Reality.htm

This got me thinking, about reality as a whole. Space & Motion and their Wave Structure of Matter describes their belief they have successfully figured out the truth about what reality actually is, but with the limitations on our senses described within the above paragraph I believe that may not be possible.

Take for example, the universe as a hollow sphere that all the known universe and therefore all our reality resides within. If the boundaries of reality exist within such a sphere then our known reality will be our perceived (represented) reality and not necessarily the true actual reality which exists.

I believe there may exist potential for an inability to ever figure out our true reality if such thing exists, so I guess by the same token our true reality cannot be perceived as anything but what we can perceive and represent as our true reality.

The Wave Structure of Matter theory explains the universe as a ‘Wave Medium for Spherical Waves that form matter’;

That may hold true but within all I have read to date regarding the Wave Structure of Matter and the definition of reality, it doesn’t seem to account for cause of the motion of the waves to begin with. Without describing the cause of such things contributes to the failure to represent a true complete definition of reality.

It is then by that same token that our perceived reality may only be a fraction of what makes up the true reality which may not be identifiable.

Take the previous example with the Hollow Sphere representing the universe. Consider that sphere, the entire universe including all known laws of reality including time, space, motion, gravity etc. Under which consideration must we regard this reality as the complete definition of total reality as a whole. This sphere representing our universe could be but a mere molecule or fragment to a much bigger system of reality, something which exists outside of our perceivable reality as a whole.

This may also provide answer to my question about what the cause of wave motion within space actually is. If our reality was nothing short of a fragment of a much bigger system then external influence could provide the energy which has created everything that we as a biological species can comprehend.

With our limited ability to sense reality around us, we could very well never understand the true reality which exists despite the technology we create to research this because no matter how we approach this problem, this machine will be designed in some form to provide us with information which we can conceive through at least one of our natural senses whether that be colour, sound, motion, time or anything else within comprehension.

I am not trying to be negative here, I believe the pursuit for reality should never be broken but I am just making notion that despite our best efforts we may never be capable of succeeding. Consider our understanding of reality as everything which makes up our perceived reality within the Hollow Sphere. Consider processes or forms of energy and connections in natural structures which exist outside of our Hollow Sphere and both supersede the complexity and energy of all known processes including our entire perceived reality. How can we ever understand a system which exceeds all that can be understood?

This could then lead to the belief true reality is nothing more then then the perfect definition of our ability to comprehend, describe and understand our perceived reality, and because the bigger reality may always exist outside of our comprehension it is safe to ignore such things and treat what we can perceive as the complete picture.

I feel entitled to agree with such a belief as how can anyone be forced to believe in something greater then what can be perceived. Despite its existence it could never become an element of thought though that does not ultimately mean it doesn’t exist.

~ by dablin on 20080504.