My pareidolia knows no bounds.

shando + LB- i see reality as Quantum reality as opposed to Newtonian.
Newton posits friction. There is no friction in quantum reality. By the format here i suggest that distinction should be made when using the terms.

1. "real". (Newton or Quantum or other such as zen, Brahmanic which includes Judaic + Christian + Muslim + Shia + Sunni + Native American + Primitive etc).
2. "reality". (Newton or Quantum or other such as zen, Brahmanic which includes Judaic + Christian + Muslim + Shia + Sunni + Native American + Primitive etc).
3. "is". (same as above)

We don't have to define every term - just the ones that lead to disagreement. So, whenever you say something that others argue about or when others say something that you feel is not right - that is the time to look for terms that can mean X to you and Y to someone else.

<u>IF</u> you are trying to communicate. Some people do things like the 'tree in the forest' for simple entertainment. Finding 'the answer' is not their goal.

***

That disagreement is the warning bell that accurate communication is not happening. It is still possible (but unlikely), after finding the term or terms that need to be defined, that the disagreement will persist. But at least then it will true disagreement rather than mere fighting over a misunderstanding.

LB

Fred,

I share shando's bewilderment at most of what you say.

<b>[pareidoliac] "i see reality as Quantum reality as opposed to Newtonian."</b>

And DRP posits that the universe (reality) is analog rather than digital. (IOW, it really is 'turtles all the way down'.)

Here is an example of a discussion moving in the direction of a real disagreement, and away from misunderstanding. (Will the disagreement still be there when the journey is done? Probably. But we will see.)

I have provided my definition of reality earlier (things with physical existence plus things with conceptual existence plus things with consciousness). You seem to be saying 'reality is all one kind of thing that exists in small chunks that can't be subdivided'

But I'll be surprised if my interpretation of your position meets with your total approval. Please speak up if you want to clarify your meaning.

<b>[pareidoliac] "Newton posits friction. There is no friction in quantum reality."</b>

Nothing is real in 'quantum reality'. Yet things with the property of physical existence do in fact 'frict'. <ul>(friction - a form of energy conversion, from other to heat, when things with physical existence touch each other in the right way.)</ul>
<b>[pareidoliac] "By the format here i suggest that distinction should be made when using the terms."</b>

OK. Um, which terms? 'Reality', of course, and 'friction'. Any others? You suggest Newton and quantum. My interpretation of your position is pretty much my interpretation of 'quantum' reality - there is nothing that is 'real' (closest translation = 'physical').

DRP and newton MOSLY share the assumption that there IS a deep reality to the universe.

***

The definitions I present are not as rigorous as they could be. If we need to we can work on that.

LB

Larry- My view is The Hindu/ Quantum view. All is illusion. All is one. We know what you mean by physical but we see physical as a temporary interference pattern that creates the illusion of matter/ time and space and relativity. When one falls from the higher quantum spiritual frictionless (no physical body) reality to this mundane earthly Newtonian reality we get the Descartian Dual view that there is matter and friction etc. We are in cyberspace now. The quantum world and this are one. There would be no computer without quantum physics. Analog is an idea of man that has no correspondence in quantum reality. i actually have the Grigory Perelman view of reality. The whole Newtonian view of an analog world is a political joke to keep us enslaved idiots in the Platonic cave much as we were told the earth was flat despite the obvious.

Cool - I was right. (About your outlook.)

So most of the misunderstandings (here, about this specific topic) seem to have been removed. An actual disagreement seems to exist.

***

There may still some aspects of this that turn out to be misunderstanding, so keep an eye pealed. In some ways, any such little nuggets of misunderstanding that remain can be more damaging to accurate communication than the big ones, because we think we are past that and get lazy.

Cool.
The words 1.Consciousness 2. Void. 3. Pattern. correspond to reality (Hindu/Perelman).
Everything is composed of these three basic things.

"Li is the pattern of behavior which comes about when one is in accord with the Tao, the watercourse way of nature." (Alan Watts).