what is it?

[exogen]

Ok, so this is another philosophy thread by me, but hear it out before you dismiss it. This question is to me one of the most interesting in all of philosophy.

 

The question I want to discuss is, "what is the isness", we might say, of things or reality? What is the underlying "stuff" of reality (if you believe there is such a thing)? Some people might ask the question like "what is everything made out of?" People throughout time have had all sorts of answers for this. Some people might ask by saying "what is the reality behind the appearance" or what is the underlying continuity underlying all phenomenon?

 

No matter how you ask the question, or where you start, you usually get down to the question of "what is" in a fundamental way of asking that.

 

For anyone who might be still a bit lost here would be an example. The modern scientific picture is that everything we see and touch and experience is actually a representation of a world which consists entirely of little particles called atoms, which are themselves made of smaller particles. Something that these are made of strings, others think they are concentrations of space, and all sorts of other ideas. Let's take a simple one as an example. Suppose someone says "matter is just energy." Well, ok, but then what IS energy? There we don't get an answer. maybe someone might say it’s the ability to do work or something like that, but I have never seen a satisfactory answer from anyone in regards to this question.

 

Even those that say the fundamental reality is a string (as in string theory) I can't ever get a simple definition of what the strings are even made of? After all, what IS It that makes them all as the same substance? What is that substance? We never get an answer for this.

 

I find it funny that the most fundamental question ontological question about reality can't be answered.

 

I have a challenge: Can anyone give a definition of what is the underlying nature of reality that itself cannot be reduced, or doesn't fall back on further ontological considerations, or leave the question open?

 

Don't be shy either, I don't want to try to knock anyone's theory down. If anything I just want to ask questions to see if the definitions hold up. I also will be more than willing to give what I think the answer to this riddle is.

[Ataraxis]

Hot gas.

 

Everything is hot gas. Both in a literal and metaphorical sense.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

Good answer.

 

5 stars off the strength of Keanu's post

[exogen]

There actually have been some people that thought everything was fire or gas, so that isn't that far off from some ancient people's opinion. Pythagoras thought everything was made of numbers or couldn't be understood appart from math, and you have some people that think that exact same thing today.

 

But like take the gas example, it really doesn't matter. What exactly IS gas? So you describe, maybe the behavior of some phenomenon that we call gas. Then you start breaking down that experience into this description of, maybe, little particles that have a certain shape and spin in a certain way, and bla bla bla.

 

But shape, spin, color (maybe color or the properties that you think cause it) mass, etc, don't tell you what exactly IT IS that HAS all those qualities.

 

See what I mean? As silly as it sounds, when you mention all those qualities, you are saying something about the phenomenon, but you aren't saying what is the irreducible "stuff" or reality that underlies all those qualities. It's a serious problem.

Edited June 7, 2013 by exogen

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

word at some point I think you gotta just understand that it is what it is, and also you gotta let common sense take over. At least that's how I see it.

 

I'm an engineer, so while knowing the general forms of stuff is fine and dandy, we don't sweat that unless it gives us an edge in solving problems. If we can you specialized forms we will, because our goal is to get results not ponder forever.

[exogen]

Right, it would seem the buck has to stop some where, but where? And what is it? Is it that we just haven't got that far, or is the problem mistaken to begin with?

 

See, I fall on the side of those that think the question is in error and that is why we can't ever get an answer, even in theory. Ever notice how no one can actully give even a hypothetical answer that can be reduced and broken down in the ways I outlined above, or in other ways? That should tell you something that it isn't merely our ignorance of the fundimental constituents of matter, but something fundimentally wrong with how we are approaching this question.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

what i was saying was basically that the buck doesn't have to stop where it really ends it only has to stop where we want/need it to end to understand whatever it is we want to understand. if that makes sense.

 

and yeah I agree with that post pretty much. I feel like if you gotta ask those questions, than you gotta at least rethink how you're asking them cuz currently they are unanswerable.

 

lol man that sounds stupid when I phrase it that way

[poopscootsMcgee]

your subconscious creates a context of familiarity based on experiences. there is nothing else.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

and hot gas

[exogen]

what i was saying was basically that the buck doesn't have to stop where it really ends it only has to stop where we want/need it to end to understand whatever it is we want to understand. if that makes sense.

 

Well sure, in order to function in our lives we don't need to know what the fundimental reality is. However, wouldn't we be in a much better position practically if we knew this? I personally think so. In any event, what is wrong with the idea of genuine knowledge in addtion to practicality.

 

and yeah I agree with that post pretty much. I feel like if you gotta ask those questions, than you gotta at least rethink how you're asking them cuz currently they are unanswerable.

 

lol man that sounds stupid when I phrase it that way

 

Nah, its not stupid. Think about the argument between me, you and Noob. All of us were confused mainly int he VD thread, I think it is fair to say, because we had not yet clarified our definitions which were directly pertinent to the discussion. So when you are opperating on falacious or unclear assumptions, shit can go very wrong very fast, and unless we look at that, no one will see.

 

your subconscious creates a context of familiarity based on experiences. there is nothing else.

 

Can you elaborate on this? How does this weigh in on the issue?

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

In any event, what is wrong with the idea of genuine knowledge in addtion to practicality.

 

nothing is wrong with it

[exogen]

The reason I think that is because I don't think we can know what things are, appart from what they are like. In other words we can't talk about what is, appart from what we experience. If we are looking for a reality beyond that we are lost.

 

But doesn't that mean that we can postulate what it could be?

 

I think the idea of a substance is just flawed and it is evident by the fact that no answer can be given in principle that cannot be itself reduced futher untill we arive at just "isness" or "being" or something like that. But if the whole problem boils down to existence, then we have lost the problem. The question wasn't about what does existence mean, but what exists!

 

I think that the problem is just mistaken. there is an alternative though to the idea of substance, and that is process.

 

What if there isn't a substance, but process?

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

right, but to clarify I never said you can't ask the questions. What I was saying is basically if you want the answer to the question than ask it cuz the answer is the reason to ask, but if you want to ask the question for another reason, it's prolly a waste of time.

 

like tying back to the question "what is energy" you asked, to me I don't care about what is energy beyond what I know about it with regards to physics. I can do my job with what I know (make things fly, for example) so I'm good. Doesn't mean you can't ask anyways, though. That's up to you basically.

 

very zen approach I take to that sort of thing I guess

 

i mean i think we're kind of saying the same thing tbh

[exogen]

Yeah I think I understand your meaning for the most part, you’re talking about practicality. Particularly you’re talking about the essentials of doing things in the moment and the knowledge that is associated with that.

 

I just am not sure you if mean to reduce knowledge to merely a means to an end. If you do, then I think that position is problematic. If not, and what you mean is more mundane, that maybe we are saying the same things, sort of…

 

I'm trying to "push" the idea that maybe the whole business about, say for example, what is energy is just WAY off the mark. Not because we can get along with a simple and practical "notion" of what energy is to help us work in the moment, but because even that practical idea that we might be using in the moment is wrong as well. Like maybe some stuff helps us get along in the moment, but it could be wrong.

 

I am saying if we abandon this idea of a substance, or a fundamental "stuff" and work instead with the notion of a process, than we can have both the practicality in the moment that you speak of, and also the abstract "truth" that I am talking about.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

I just am not sure you if mean to reduce knowledge to merely a means to an end.

 

I'm not

[Ataraxis]

There actually have been some people that thought everything was fire or gas, so that isn't that far off from some ancient people's opinion. Pythagoras thought everything was made of numbers or couldn't be understood appart from math, and you have some people that think that exact same thing today.

 

But like take the gas example, it really doesn't matter. What exactly IS gas? So you describe, maybe the behavior of some phenomenon that we call gas. Then you start breaking down that experience into this description of, maybe, little particles that have a certain shape and spin in a certain way, and bla bla bla.

 

But shape, spin, color (maybe color or the properties that you think cause it) mass, etc, don't tell you what exactly IT IS that HAS all those qualities.

 

See what I mean? As silly as it sounds, when you mention all those qualities, you are saying something about the phenomenon, but you aren't saying what is the irreducible "stuff" or reality that underlies all those qualities. It's a serious problem.

 

Dude I was gonna expand on my answer to cover your concerns and such but then this:

 

it is what it is

 

If I were to add anything it'd just be fluff.

 

Damn dude I kinda want to fluff it up too, but I keep looking at that and I'm like...

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

it's tough huh

[exogen]

lol

 

Keansushiro,

 

I don't think it would be fluff. I mean, maybe, but maybe you might have something to say about it from another angle that might illuminate things.

 

Or you could agree or disagree with the idea I'm arguing for which is that the question is misguided because in reality there are no "things" or any kind of "stuff" i.e. a substance that underlies or gives rise to all we percieve. I think instead all that exists is an ongoing process.

 

My thought process goes like this in regards to this problem. I look at a wall, and I'm like what is the wall made of? Then I begin to break it down and eventually I'm like "ok physics says it's energy." But what is that? No answer.

 

Then I imagine something that energy could mean, but then I can ask the same question again, so there is never an answer.

Edited June 7, 2013 by exogen

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

Keanu peep the new Quadron it's good

 

I posted a streaming link from NY Times over in that music thread

 

http://armoredcoreuniverse.net/forum/index.php?/topic/2493-what-are-you-listening-to/page__view__findpost__p__60618

[Ataraxis]

Nah dude I don't think it's a misguided question. There is hot gas. Look at it from a metaphorical perspective;

 

Hot gas is mostly invisible, but in certain conditions, it can warp your perception of reality. Hot gas gives rise to a lot of things, because hot gas itself rises. Hot gas exists as an ongoing process; hot gas expands and changes (nuclear fusion).

 

This post is hot gas.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

the ether, the shit that make ur soul burn slow

[exogen]

PD: omg lol, Nas.

 

But yeah the hot gas is a process. When you take that idea seriously though, it means that there are no things at all or a substance. Things or substance than are just words to talk about aspects of process, all of which are inseprable from all other aspects.

[Aokiryu89]

the aether, the shit that make ur soul burn slow

 

I always assumed Exo just got high off his own supply.

[YUNG MASTERLESS GLENCOUR]

It's ether. Exogen got it right, you didn't.

 

You couldn't even quote it right. Geez.

[Aokiryu89]

http://www.merriam-w...ctionary/aether

 

 

I go by old school spelling.

Edited June 11, 2013 by Ogawa Lou