|
|
2003-03-05 12:38:16 ET
I suppose it'd be how you interpret objects in space, whether you have confidence that those objects are actually in space. I'm thinking that 'reality' is these objects linked together, which constructs a perspective by which future objects fit into. A method of rationalizing.
However, these 'objects' that are there are only there because, obviousely, you put them there. To me, it seems such an arbitrary process, and that's where the speculation comes into play. There are infinite objects available, and you will only come into contact with a finite amount of these objects, and from this quantity you will create reality. How can one assume 'reality' if there is so much of this 'reality' left out?
So I guess my definition of 'reality' would be an object that occupies space. But to think of space is to attribute a system that wouldn't exist unless you attribue that system, sort of like math is meaningless jargon until you apply it.
Objects in this sense should also entail concepts which forward our capability to reason, comprehend, and construe things, but once again, these things occupy no space, so my definition is flawed.
So what the fuck? |
|