Is anything real?

yes

What is your definition of the word "real" in this case? To me, "real" is the word we use to describe the state of something being observably present, perceivable, or otherwise empirically repeatable.

I think the answer to that question is a lot more straightforward than people try to make it out to be. Yes, everything we know to be "real" is real, because there is a base precedent by which you can measure that question: yourself. Even if you're only able to physically prove that YOU are the only "real" thing, YOU are still able to observe, feel, and interact with everything you know and define as "real," therefore making it "real." In that sense, we too, are real.

Now, the question as to whether you're the only sentient being, or if your entire set of surroundings is self-contrived is a different story, obviously. I like to think that from interacting with the world around me though, that I'm exposed to things that I am mentally incapable of grasping and/or understanding, therefore the source of such information can't be my own mind.

Trying to use the argument that it's all a "subconscious" projection is starting to grasp at straws, because the very concept of "conscious" and "subconscious" would have to be one's own derived concept for this hypothetical self-projected reality, and would therefore not be something that "existed," so it can not be used as a crux to justify one's own unawareness to the reality """they created.""" To argue otherwise would imply that consciousness were something that already existed, and if that's the case, you have the answer to your initial question: you are most certainly NOT the only "real" thing in the Universe.

Attached: 1510026912606.jpg (971x565, 141K)

>But your theory seems to jump to random conclusions.
Yeah it does, because it's just some bullshit i pulled out of my ass. I'm by far not educated enough to actually understand the fundamentals of our universe, given even science has no answer yet.

Everything is real.
Keep your eyes wide open.

Attached: wasp propaganda.png (540x359, 120K)

no

Wasp and bee are wonderful.
Have a nice day, wasp and bee!

i think therefore i am.
Doesn't matter what is or isn't real the mind believes what it wants. There's no way to tell what existentially is real for we only have the perception of being a flawed species that struggles to understand outside ourselves.

Attached: 1530856433656.jpg (536x679, 77K)

Fair, I respect the fact that you aren't pretending to know shit.
So many people believe in or make up random nonsense and act like its indisputable fact.
I took a few philosophy classes as my electives at university and even I know that "all I know is that I know nothing".

Attached: dunning-kruger_effect.jpg (1300x728, 45K)

NO REALITY CANNOT BE ACHIEVED

All the numbers that are not imaginary or complex are real:
even those that are transcendental or merely irrational.

I think that depends what you mean by real, personally I think they're probably something we made up to *describe* a feature of nature. Rather than the numbers themselves being inherent to nature.
Its the whole "Was math invented or discovered?" debate, which doesn't really have an answer.

Attached: 12b1.jpg (500x334, 209K)

honeybees r an invasive species. Brough over to usa from europe they pushed other pollinators out and to the brink of extinction
bees r like humans - bumbling idiots stomping on ecosystems, totally oblivious to its complexity, destroying everything for a drop of juice

this isnt even a discussion about hod god isnt real and u r already redefinining reality to suit your narrative

Literally how did i redefine reality?

> "... that depends what you mean by real ..." ;

Words only mean (exactly) what they are defined to mean,
in the context in which they are being used:

Look up the formal definitions of all the words that I used in my previous answer

( at : )

..... then, by all means, tell me where I have been inaccurate in the assertions that I made,
in response to OP's very precise question.

>depends what you mean by real

Definitions are fluid though, and I can't tell if you're joking or not but OP's question was actually very vague. I know what all of those terms mean, I'm a university science student, I was approaching the question from more of an epistemological perspective rather than a mathematical one. Regardless, I never actually said that you were wrong, we're having a discussion, not everyone is trying to hurt you.
Pointing out that people have different notions of what something means is not redefining it."Real" has several meanings and OP never stated any context.

Pain.

> " ... I was approaching the question from more of an epistemological perspective rather than a mathematical one ..." ;
and it must be VERY obvious that I was approaching the question from more of a mathematical perspective rather than an an epistemological one ( especially to a university science student)
> "... not everyone is trying to hurt you ..." ;
nobody ever managed to hurt me to an extent that I actually noticed. On the contrary, if they ever attempted to, I have invariably stopped them from doing so.

It was obvious, that's why I thought I might offer you an alternative perspective that you might not have considered.

It's shocking to think that I'm just sitting here on my couch, talking with fags on a message board, and somewhere out the in the Universe on my same plane of reality, there's a black hole squeeezing matter in a singular point. That just blows my mind

Also my point was partly that you can argue (I'm not saying its certainly the case, just giving you something to think about) that numbers aren't even real in the sense that they exist in our world. But rather are something we made to describe the things that actually are in our world.
This is what I mean by 'real' meaning quite different things in nuanced ways, you could say that anything is 'real' in the sense that it exists as a concept. Such as words being 'real' in that they are a thing that exists in our minds and culture but not necessarily in any tangible way in our world, the latter meaning being what most people mean when they say real. Even the tangible existence definition of real gets hazy when you start thinking about solopsism and whatnot. I'm pretty tired so I'm probably not explaining things well but I'm sure you'll get the gist.

Attached: 1549605902315.jpg (503x671, 44K)

> "... an alternative perspective that you might not have considered ..." ;
..... for sure:
I considered the alternatives, and then decided to give a precise answer to a vaguely ambiguous question within the mathematical context in which I could remove any ambiguity and give an accurate and unambiguous answer.
--
Retired Lecturer in Further & Higher Education

Most probably.

>since its literally our brain simulating what our senses encounter
Friendly reminder that the concept of a brain, neurons, sense organs and your entire body are derived from perception that can't be trusted to show the truth.
The brain is just as illusionary as the rest.

The only thing real is unloading a clip into a group of unsuspecting people. If you don't get feels from that, then the police about to murder you are doing you a service.

>Is anything real?
We are virtual beings living in a teenage reptiloid alien's Tamagotchi.
So yes, we are real.

Attached: 1535839887484.jpg (225x225, 5K)

>gives respect if given respect
The person who made your picture never encountered a wasp before. They are the niggers of the insect world. Try to eat something with wasps around. The only way to get rid of them is to either kill them, or get rid of the food.

Good point.
This was also me by the way, forgot to reply to both posts.

You niggers need to look up Dr. Donald Hoffman.

I fucked up the replies again, I should sleep.

Fixed:
Good point.
This (You) was also me by the way, forgot to reply to both posts.

Attached: Last_Crusader.jpg (1750x1724, 1.1M)

Will do.

>niggers of the insect world

kek

He recently released a book called "The Case Against Reality". Haven't been able to find a pirated version yet, but there is a pirated version of the audio book floating around, if you are into this kind of thing.
Also, lots of presentations on YouTube.

>hey
>hey you
>gimme that
>let me eat that
>that's not yours
>that's mine
>hey
>hey do you notice me?
>hey
>give me your food
>give it to me now
>don't you dare touch me, i'll sting you

>"... you can argue ... prevarication ... that numbers aren't even real ..." ;
You may be able to argue that the universal set of NUMBERS aren't real, but you can't successfully argue that the real number subset of numbers aren't real:
because they are "real" by formal definition.

You're right, but I don't think my point is getting across. Maybe I should say they might not 'exist' in reality instead of talking about whether or not they're 'real' since that means something in both contexts. Google's definition of real: "actually existing as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagined or supposed.", I'm talking about numbers as a concept, not the numbers themselves. Numbers are just the sort of language we created to represent our observations. The set of real numbers are called real because they describe things that we can actually observe, like the countable integers are fairly self explanatory, continuous numbers let us bring fractions into it, negatives account for things like debt or direction. Whereas complex numbers as I understand, were more abstractly created in order to solve things like quadratics and ended up being helpful in representing things like phasors.
The proposition I'm making is that ALL numbers were merely created by humans, and aren't an inherent property of the universe, they're more like a painting or statement that describes it.
I couldn't find it free anywhere either ,just read up on it a little though. I find this stuff fascinating, especially when you start bringing in evolutionary factors. I might have to buy it.

Attached: 2001-A-Space-Odyssey-spaceship.gif (480x270, 1.51M)

> "... I don't think my point is getting across ..." ;

but YOUR point IS getting across (to me), it is my point that is not getting across (to you):

You are a university science student, by your own admission
and you will be writing very important Theses that may define your future success in your chosen field of study.

It is imperative that you ACTUALLY know & understand exactly what the words and concepts mean
( by definition and by peer reviewed opinion & their mutual, agreement)
when you use those terms and refer to those concepts by citing them in your Papers.

Don't try to argue that you actually meant something else, when your Tutors / Mentors / supervising Professor point out that you have said something that is not consistent with the subject that you are talking about,

..... or that you have asserted something (that you are actually deliberately writing about) that contradicts the formal definitions of the words you are using, or recognised peer reviewed interpretation of what those concepts are understood to mean.

I am not trying to be a "cunt"
(even though I probably am, even without trying)
I am just trying to emphasise the importance of the precise use of defined terminology.

Just as (I believe) I have consistently done:
in all my replies to specific questions or observations, within this thread.

Let's just agree to differ if you don't actually see what I'm getting at.