4 ms·
>Physical reality by definition is everything that exists. The problem with this statement is it assumes we have a solid definition of what "physical reality"
by loveistheanswer 6y ago
>Physical reality by definition is everything that exists.
The problem with this statement is it assumes we have a solid definition of what "physical reality" is on a fundamental level.
The current state of quantum physics shows that we do not.
- lostmsu 6y agoIt is not a problem with the statement itself, more with the quantum physics. Besides, you seem to have incorrect assumption, that quantum physics has any sort of "reality" problem, likely referring to collapse thing, which is not even a problem in quantum field theory. Just an attempt to square field interaction into "understandable" interpretation with particles.
- loveistheanswer 6y ago>It is not a problem with the statement itself, more with the quantum physics. Are you trying to imply "physical reality" is unrelated to physics? Define precisely what you mean by "physical reality"
- lostmsu 6y agoPhysics is a model. Physical reality is defined above.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- loveistheanswer 6y ago>Physical reality by definition is everything that exists. How do we define what exists?
- lostmsu 6y agoThis question is hard to answer, but appears irrelevant to the contention point. The topmost comment is nonsensical because it claims consciousness "exists" (whatever that means) outside physical reality, which directly contradicts the definition of physical reality which is roughly all(X): exists(X) === (X in physical reality).