Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Reality
View on Wikipedia
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2025) |

Reality is the sum or aggregate of everything in existence, primarily omitting imaginary things. Different cultures and academic disciplines conceptualize it in various ways.
Philosophical questions about the nature of reality, existence, or being are considered under the rubric of ontology, a major branch of metaphysics in the Western intellectual tradition. Ontological questions also feature in diverse branches of philosophy, including the philosophy of science, religion, mathematics, and logic. These include questions about whether only physical objects are real (e.g., physicalism), whether reality is fundamentally immaterial (e.g., idealism), whether hypothetical unobservable entities posited by scientific theories exist (e.g., scientific realism), whether God exists, whether numbers and other abstract objects exist, and whether possible worlds exist. Skeptics question whether any of those claims are true, and suggest more extreme postulates.
Etymology and meaning
[edit]The word reality is a borrowing from the Middle French realité and the post-Classical Latin realitas. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, it first appeared in English in 1513. The first definition given is "Real existence; what is real rather than imagined or desired; the aggregate of real things or existences; that which underlies and is the truth of appearances or phenomena".[1]
Western philosophy
[edit]Philosophy addresses two different aspects of the topic of reality: the nature of reality itself, and the relationship between the mind (as well as language and culture) and reality.
On the one hand, ontology is the study of being, and the central topic of the field is couched, variously, in terms of being, existence, "what is", and reality. The task in ontology is to describe the most general categories of reality and how they are interrelated. If a philosopher wanted to proffer a positive definition of the concept "reality", it would be done under this heading. As explained above, some philosophers draw a distinction between reality and existence. In fact, many analytic philosophers today tend to avoid the term "real" and "reality" in discussing ontological issues. But for those who would treat "is real" the same way they treat "exists", one of the leading questions of analytic philosophy has been whether existence (or reality) is a property of objects. It has been widely held by analytic philosophers that it is not a property at all, though this view has lost some ground in recent decades.
On the other hand, particularly in discussions of objectivity that have grounding in both metaphysics and epistemology, philosophical discussions of reality often concern the ways in which reality is or is not in some way dependent upon (or, to use fashionable jargon, "constructed" out of) mental and cultural factors such as perceptions, beliefs, and other mental states, as well as cultural artifacts—such as religions and political movements—on up to the vague notion of a common cultural world view (or Weltanschauung).
Realism
[edit]The view that there is a reality independent of any beliefs, perceptions, etc., is called realism. More specifically, philosophers are given to speaking about "realism about" this and that, such as realism about universals or realism about the external world. Generally, where one can identify any class of object, the existence or essential characteristics of which is said not to depend on perceptions, beliefs, language, or any other human artifact, one can speak of "realism about" that object.
A correspondence theory of knowledge about what exists claims that "true" knowledge of reality represents accurate correspondence of statements about and images of reality with the actual reality that the statements or images are attempting to represent. For example, the scientific method can verify that a statement is true based on the observable evidence that a thing exists. Many humans can point to the Rocky Mountains and say that this mountain range exists, and continues to exist even if no one is observing it or making statements about it.
Anti-realism
[edit]One can also speak of anti-realism about the same objects. Anti-realism is the latest in a long series of terms for views opposed to realism. Perhaps the first was idealism, so called because reality was said to be in the mind, or a product of our ideas. Berkeleyan idealism is the view, propounded by the Irish empiricist George Berkeley, that the objects of perception are actually ideas in the mind. In this view, one might be tempted to say that reality is a "mental construct"; this is not quite accurate, however, since, in Berkeley's view, perceptual ideas are created and coordinated by God. By the 20th century, views similar to Berkeley's were called phenomenalism. Phenomenalism differs from Berkeleyan idealism primarily in that Berkeley believed that minds, or souls, are not merely ideas nor made up of ideas, whereas varieties of phenomenalism, such as that advocated by Russell, tended to go farther to say that the mind itself is merely a collection of perceptions, memories, etc., and that there is no mind or soul over and above such mental events. Finally, anti-realism became a fashionable term for any view which held that the existence of some object depends upon the mind or cultural artifacts. The view that the so-called external world is really merely a social, or cultural, artifact, called social constructionism, is one variety of anti-realism. Cultural relativism is the view that social issues such as morality are not absolute, but at least partially cultural artifact. Potentially the most extreme form of anti-realism is solipsism — the belief that oneself is the only thing in existence.
Being
[edit]The nature of being is a perennial topic in metaphysics. For instance, Parmenides taught that reality was a single unchanging Being, whereas Heraclitus wrote that all things flow. The 20th-century philosopher Heidegger thought previous philosophers have lost sight of the question of Being (qua Being) in favour of the questions of beings (existing things), so he believed that a return to the Parmenidean approach was needed. An ontological catalogue is an attempt to list the fundamental constituents of reality. The question of whether existence is a predicate has been discussed since the Early Modern period, not least in relation to the ontological argument for the existence of God. Existence, that something is, has been contrasted with essence, the question of what something is. Since existence without essence seems blank, it associated with nothingness by philosophers such as Hegel. Existential nihilism represents an extremely negative view of being, the absolute a positive one.
Perception
[edit]The question of direct or "naïve" realism, as opposed to indirect or "representational" realism, arises in the philosophy of perception and of mind out of the debate over the nature of conscious experience;[2][3] the epistemological question of whether the world we see around us is the real world itself or merely an internal perceptual copy of that world generated by neural processes in our brain. Naïve realism is known as direct realism when developed to counter indirect or representative realism, also known as epistemological dualism,[4] the philosophical position that our conscious experience is not of the real world itself but of an internal representation, a miniature virtual-reality replica of the world.
Timothy Leary coined the influential term Reality Tunnel, by which he means a kind of representative realism. The theory states that, with a subconscious set of mental filters formed from their beliefs and experiences, every individual interprets the same world differently, hence "Truth is in the eye of the beholder". His ideas influenced the work of his friend Robert Anton Wilson.
Abstract objects and mathematics
[edit]The status of abstract entities, particularly numbers, is a topic of discussion in mathematics.
In the philosophy of mathematics, the best known form of realism about numbers is Platonic realism, which grants them abstract, immaterial existence. Other forms of realism identify mathematics with the concrete physical universe.
Anti-realist stances include formalism and fictionalism.
Some approaches are selectively realistic about some mathematical objects but not others. Finitism rejects infinite quantities. Ultra-finitism accepts finite quantities up to a certain amount. Constructivism and intuitionism are realistic about objects that can be explicitly constructed, but reject the use of the principle of the excluded middle to prove existence by reductio ad absurdum.
The traditional debate has focused on whether an abstract (immaterial, intelligible) realm of numbers has existed in addition to the physical (sensible, concrete) world. A recent development is the mathematical universe hypothesis, the theory that only a mathematical world exists, with the finite, physical world being an illusion within it.
An extreme form of realism about mathematics is the mathematical multiverse hypothesis advanced by Max Tegmark. Tegmark's sole postulate is: All structures that exist mathematically also exist physically. That is, in the sense that "in those [worlds] complex enough to contain self-aware substructures [they] will subjectively perceive themselves as existing in a physically 'real' world".[5][6] The hypothesis suggests that worlds corresponding to different sets of initial conditions, physical constants, or altogether different equations should be considered real. The theory can be considered a form of Platonism in that it posits the existence of mathematical entities, but can also be considered a mathematical monism in that it denies that anything exists except mathematical objects.
Properties
[edit]The problem of universals is an ancient problem in metaphysics about whether universals exist. Universals are general or abstract qualities, characteristics, properties, kinds or relations, such as being male/female, solid/liquid/gas or a certain colour,[7] that can be predicated of individuals or particulars or that individuals or particulars can be regarded as sharing or participating in. For example, Scott, Pat, and Chris have in common the universal quality of being human or humanity.
The realist school claims that universals are real – they exist and are distinct from the particulars that instantiate them. There are various forms of realism. Two major forms are Platonic realism and Aristotelian realism.[8] Platonic realism is the view that universals are real entities and they exist independent of particulars. Aristotelian realism, on the other hand, is the view that universals are real entities, but their existence is dependent on the particulars that exemplify them.
Nominalism and conceptualism are the main forms of anti-realism about universals.
Time and space
[edit]A traditional realist position in ontology is that time and space have existence apart from the human mind. Idealists deny or doubt the existence of objects independent of the mind. Some anti-realists whose ontological position is that objects outside the mind do exist, nevertheless doubt the independent existence of time and space.
Kant, in the Critique of Pure Reason, described time as an a priori notion that, together with other a priori notions such as space, allows us to comprehend sense experience. Kant denies that either space or time are substance, entities in themselves, or learned by experience; he holds rather that both are elements of a systematic framework we use to structure our experience. Spatial measurements are used to quantify how far apart objects are, and temporal measurements are used to quantitatively compare the interval between (or duration of) events. Although space and time are held to be transcendentally ideal in this sense, they are also empirically real, i.e. not mere illusions.
Idealist writers such as J. M. E. McTaggart in The Unreality of Time have argued that time is an illusion.
As well as differing about the reality of time as a whole, metaphysical theories of time can differ in their ascriptions of reality to the past, present and future separately.
- Presentism holds that the past and future are unreal, and only an ever-changing present is real.
- The block universe theory, also known as Eternalism, holds that past, present and future are all real, but the passage of time is an illusion. It is often said to have a scientific basis in relativity.
- The growing block universe theory holds that past and present are real, but the future is not.
Time, and the related concepts of process and evolution are central to the system-building metaphysics of A. N. Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne.
Possible worlds
[edit]The term "possible world" goes back to Leibniz's theory of possible worlds, used to analyse necessity, possibility, and similar modal notions. Modal realism is the view, notably propounded by David Kellogg Lewis, that all possible worlds are as real as the actual world. In short: the actual world is regarded as merely one among an infinite set of logically possible worlds, some "nearer" to the actual world and some more remote. Other theorists may use the Possible World framework to express and explore problems without committing to it ontologically. Possible world theory is related to alethic modal logic: a proposition is necessary if it is true in all possible worlds, and possible if it is true in at least one. The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a similar idea in science.
Theories of everything (TOE) and philosophy
[edit]The philosophical implications of a physical TOE are frequently debated. For example, if philosophical physicalism is true, a physical TOE will coincide with a philosophical theory of everything.
The "system building" style of metaphysics attempts to answer all the important questions in a coherent way, providing a complete picture of the world. Plato and Aristotle could be said to be early examples of comprehensive systems. In the early modern period (17th and 18th centuries), the system-building scope of philosophy is often linked to the rationalist method of philosophy, that is the technique of deducing the nature of the world by pure a priori reason. Examples from the early modern period include the Leibniz's Monadology, Descartes's Dualism, Spinoza's Monism. Hegel's Absolute idealism and Whitehead's Process philosophy were later systems.
Other philosophers do not believe its techniques can aim so high. Some scientists think a more mathematical approach than philosophy is needed for a TOE, for instance Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time that even if we had a TOE, it would necessarily be a set of equations. He wrote, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?"[9]
Phenomenology
[edit]On a much broader and more subjective level,[specify] private experiences, curiosity, inquiry, and the selectivity involved in personal interpretation of events shapes reality as seen by one and only one person[10] and hence is called phenomenological. While this form of reality might be common to others as well, it could at times also be so unique to oneself as to never be experienced or agreed upon by anyone else. Much of the kind of experience deemed spiritual occurs on this level of reality.[11]
Phenomenology is a philosophical method developed in the early years of the twentieth century by Edmund Husserl (1859–1938) and a circle of followers at the universities of Göttingen and Munich in Germany. Subsequently, phenomenological themes were taken up by philosophers in France, the United States, and elsewhere, often in contexts far removed from Husserl's work.
The word phenomenology comes from the Greek phainómenon, meaning "that which appears", and lógos, meaning "study". In Husserl's conception, phenomenology is primarily concerned with making the structures of consciousness, and the phenomena which appear in acts of consciousness, objects of systematic reflection and analysis. Such reflection was to take place from a highly modified "first person" viewpoint, studying phenomena not as they appear to "my" consciousness, but to any consciousness whatsoever. Husserl believed that phenomenology could thus provide a firm basis for all human knowledge, including scientific knowledge, and could establish philosophy as a "rigorous science".[12]
Husserl's conception of phenomenology has been criticised and developed by his student and assistant Martin Heidegger (1889–1976), by existentialists like Maurice Merleau-Ponty (1908–1961) and Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980), and by other philosophers, such as Paul Ricoeur (1913–2005), Emmanuel Levinas (1906–1995), and Dietrich von Hildebrand (1889–1977).[13]
Skeptical hypotheses
[edit]
Skeptical hypotheses in philosophy suggest that reality could be very different from what we think it is; or at least that we cannot prove it is not. Examples include:
- The "Brain in a vat" hypothesis is cast in scientific terms. It supposes that one might be a disembodied brain kept alive in a vat, and fed false sensory signals. This hypothesis is related to the Matrix hypothesis below.
- The "Dream argument" of Descartes and Zhuangzi supposes reality to be indistinguishable from a dream.
- Descartes' Evil demon is a being "as clever and deceitful as he is powerful, who has directed his entire effort to misleading me."
- The five minute hypothesis (or omphalos hypothesis or Last Thursdayism) suggests that the world was created recently together with records and traces indicating a greater age.
- Diminished reality refers to artificially diminished reality, not due to limitations of sensory systems but via artificial filters.[14]
- The Matrix hypothesis or Simulated reality hypothesis suggest that we might be inside a computer simulation or virtual reality. Related hypotheses may also involve simulations with signals that allow the inhabitant species in virtual or simulated reality to perceive the external reality.
Non-western philosophy
[edit]Hindu philosophy
[edit]Hindu philosophy, particularly the Vedic tradition, includes a number of subtly different and nuanced perspectives about the nature of reality and unified consciousness[15] They are as follows (order irrelevant):
- Advaita – non-dualism
- Tattvavada (Dvaita) – dualism
- Dvaitadvaita – dualistic non-dualism
- Bhedabheda – difference and non-difference
- Vishishtadvaita – qualified non-dualism
- Suddhadvaita – pure non-dualism
- Achintya-Bheda-Abheda – inconceivable difference and non-difference
- Dvaitadvaita Vedanta - natural identity-in-difference
- Akshar Purushottam Darshan - multiple eternal realities
Jain philosophy
[edit]Jain philosophy postulates that seven tattva (truths or fundamental principles) constitute reality.[16] These seven tattva are:[17]
- Jīva – The soul which is characterized by consciousness.
- Ajīva – The non-soul.
- Asrava – Influx of karma.
- Bandha – The bondage of karma.
- Samvara – Obstruction of the inflow of karmic matter into the soul.
- Nirjara – Shedding of karmas.
- Moksha – Liberation or Salvation, i.e. the complete annihilation of all karmic matter (bound with any particular soul).
Physical sciences
[edit]Scientific realism
[edit]Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world (the universe) described by science (perhaps ideal science) is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be. Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?" The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of entities that are not directly observable discussed by scientific theories. Generally, those who are scientific realists state that one can make reliable claims about these entities (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as directly observable entities, as opposed to instrumentalism. The most used and studied scientific theories today state more or less the truth.
Realism and locality in physics
[edit]Realism in the sense used by physicists does not equate to realism in metaphysics.[18] The latter is the claim that the world is mind-independent: that even if the results of a measurement do not pre-exist the act of measurement, that does not require that they are the creation of the observer. Furthermore, a mind-independent property does not have to be the value of some physical variable such as position or momentum. A property can be dispositional (or potential), i.e. it can be a tendency: in the way that glass objects tend to break, or are disposed to break, even if they do not actually break. Likewise, the mind-independent properties of quantum systems could consist of a tendency to respond to particular measurements with particular values with ascertainable probability. Such an ontology would be metaphysically realistic, without being realistic in the physicist's sense of "local realism" (which would require that a single value be produced with certainty).
A closely related term is counterfactual definiteness (CFD), used to refer to the claim that one can meaningfully speak of the definiteness of results of measurements that have not been performed (i.e. the ability to assume the existence of objects, and properties of objects, even when they have not been measured).
Local realism is a significant feature of classical mechanics, of general relativity, and of classical electrodynamics; but not quantum mechanics. In a work now called the EPR paradox, Einstein relied on local realism to suggest that hidden variables were missing in quantum mechanics. However, John S. Bell subsequently showed that the predictions of quantum mechanics are inconsistent with hidden variables, a result known as Bell's theorem. The predictions of quantum mechanics have been verified: Bell's inequalities are violated. This means either particles have no definite positions independent of observation (no realism) or distant measurements can affect each other (no locality) or both. Different interpretations of quantum mechanics violate different parts of local realism.[19]: 117
The transition from "possible" to "actual" is a major topic of quantum physics, with related theories including quantum darwinism.
Role of "observation" in quantum mechanics
[edit]The quantum mind–body problem refers to the philosophical discussions of the mind–body problem in the context of quantum mechanics. Since quantum mechanics involves quantum superpositions, which are not perceived by observers, some interpretations of quantum mechanics place conscious observers in a special position.
The founders of quantum mechanics debated the role of the observer, and of them, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg believed that quantum mechanics expressed the observers knowledge and when an experiment was completed the additional knowledge should be incorporated in the wave function, an effect that came to be called state reduction or collapse. This point of view, which was never fully endorsed by Niels Bohr, was denounced as mystical and anti-scientific by Albert Einstein. Pauli accepted the term, and described quantum mechanics as lucid mysticism.[20]
Heisenberg and Bohr always described quantum mechanics in logical positivist terms. Bohr also took an active interest in the philosophical implications of quantum theories such as his complementarity, for example.[21] He believed quantum theory offers a complete description of nature, albeit one that is simply ill-suited for everyday experiences – which are better described by classical mechanics and probability. Bohr famously avoided any characterization of "reality".[22]: 163
Eugene Wigner reformulated the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment as "Wigner's friend" and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line which precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation. Commonly known as "consciousness causes collapse", this controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics states that observation by a conscious observer is what makes the wave function collapse. However, this is a minority view among quantum philosophers, considering it a misunderstanding.[23] There are other possible solutions to the "Wigner's friend" thought experiment, which do not require consciousness to be different from other physical processes. Moreover, Wigner shifted to those interpretations in his later years.[24]
Multiverse
[edit]The multiverse is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.[25] In the many-worlds interpretation (MWI), one of the mainstream interpretations of quantum mechanics, there are an infinite number of universes and every possible quantum outcome occurs in at least one universe, albeit there is a debate as to how real the (other) worlds are.
The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy, religion, philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science fiction and fantasy. In these contexts, parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternative realities", "alternative timelines", and "dimensional planes", among others.
Cyclic theories
[edit]Some cyclic theories postulate continuous expansion of the universe across cycles to ensure entropy growth, but they have been shown not be truly cyclic in time.[26][27][28] In any case these types of scientific hypotheses do not fundamentally alter concepts of the ultimate origin of reality such as the cosmological argument.[29] A theist can argue for perpetual divine creation or for an unmoved mover responsible for the first universe in the sequence.[30]
Anthropic principle
[edit]Personal and collective reality
[edit]
Each individual has a different view of reality, with different memories and personal history, knowledge, personality traits and experience.[31] This system, mostly referring to the human brain, affects cognition and behavior and into this complex new knowledge, memories,[32] information, thoughts and experiences are continuously integrated.[33][additional citation(s) needed] The connectome – neural networks/wirings in brains – is thought to be a key factor in human variability in terms of cognition or the way we perceive the world (as a context) and related features or processes.[34][35][36] Sensemaking is the process by which people give meaning to their experiences and make sense of the world they live in. Personal identity is relating to questions like how a unique individual is persisting through time.
Sensemaking and determination of reality also occurs collectively, which is investigated in social epistemology and related approaches. From the collective intelligence perspective, the intelligence of the individual human (and potentially AI entities) is substantially limited and advanced intelligence emerges when multiple entities collaborate over time.[37][additional citation(s) needed] Collective memory is an important component of the social construction of reality[38] and communication and communication-related systems, such as media systems, may also be major components .
Philosophy of perception raises questions based on the evolutionary history of humans' perceptual apparatuses, particularly or especially individuals' physiological senses, described as "[w]e don't see reality—we only see what was useful to see in the past", partly suggesting that "[o]ur species has been so successful not in spite of our inability to see reality but because of it".[39]
Scientific theories of everything
[edit]A theory of everything (TOE) is a putative theory of theoretical physics that fully explains and links together all known physical phenomena, and predicts the outcome of any experiment that could be carried out in principle. The theory of everything is also called the final theory.[40] Many candidate theories of everything have been proposed by theoretical physicists during the twentieth century, but none have been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that general relativity and quantum mechanics are hard to unify. This is one of the unsolved problems in physics.
Initially, the term "theory of everything" was used with an ironic connotation to refer to various overgeneralized theories. For example, a great-grandfather of Ijon Tichy, a character from a cycle of Stanisław Lem's science fiction stories of the 1960s, was known to work on the "General Theory of Everything". Physicist John Ellis[41] claims to have introduced the term into the technical literature in an article in Nature in 1986.[42] Over time, the term stuck in popularizations of quantum physics to describe a theory that would unify or explain through a single model the theories of all fundamental interactions and of all particles of nature: general relativity for gravitation, and the standard model of elementary particle physics – which includes quantum mechanics – for electromagnetism, the two nuclear interactions, and the known elementary particles.
Current candidates for a theory of everything include string theory, M theory, and loop quantum gravity.
Technology
[edit]Media
[edit]Media – such as news media, social media, websites including Wikipedia,[43] and fiction[44] – shape individuals' and society's perception of reality (including as part of belief and attitude formation)[44] and are partly used intentionally as means to learn about reality. Various technologies have changed society's relationship with reality such as the advent of radio and TV technologies.
Research investigates interrelations and effects, for example aspects in the social construction of reality.[45] A major component of this shaping and representation of perceived reality is agenda, selection and prioritization – not only (or primarily) the quality, tone and types of content – which influences, for instance, the public agenda.[46][47] Disproportional news attention for low-probability incidents – such as high-consequence accidents – can distort audiences' risk perceptions with harmful consequences.[48] Various biases such as false balance, public attention dependence reactions like sensationalism and domination by "current events",[49] as well as various interest-driven uses of media such as marketing can also have major impacts on the perception of reality. Time-use studies found that e.g. in 2018 the average U.S. American "spent around eleven hours every day looking at screens".[50]
Virtual reality and cyberspace
[edit]Virtual reality (VR) is a computer-simulated environment that can simulate physical presence in places in the real world, as well as in imaginary worlds.

The virtuality continuum is a continuous scale ranging between the completely virtual, a virtuality, and the completely real: reality. The reality–virtuality continuum therefore encompasses all possible variations and compositions of real and virtual objects. It has been described as a concept in new media and computer science, but in fact it could be considered a matter of anthropology. The concept was first introduced by Paul Milgram.[51]
The area between the two extremes, where both the real and the virtual are mixed, is the so-called mixed reality. This in turn is said to consist of both augmented reality, where the virtual augments the real, and augmented virtuality, where the real augments the virtual. Cyberspace, the world's computer systems considered as an interconnected whole, can be thought of as a virtual reality; for instance, it is portrayed as such in the cyberpunk fiction of William Gibson and others. Second Life and MMORPGs such as World of Warcraft are examples of artificial environments or virtual worlds (falling some way short of full virtual reality) in cyberspace.
"RL" in internet culture
[edit]On the Internet, "real life" refers to life in the real world. It generally references life or consensus reality, in contrast to an environment seen as fiction or fantasy, such as virtual reality, lifelike experience, dreams, novels, or movies. Online, the acronym "IRL" stands for "in real life", with the meaning "not on the Internet".[52] Sociologists engaged in the study of the Internet have determined that someday, a distinction between online and real-life worlds may seem "quaint", noting that certain types of online activity, such as sexual intrigues, have already made a full transition to complete legitimacy and "reality".[53] The abbreviation "RL" stands for "real life". For example, one can speak of "meeting in RL" someone whom one has met in a chat or on an Internet forum. It may also be used to express an inability to use the Internet for a time due to "RL problems". A related abbreviation is "AFK", which stands for "away from keyboard",[54] signifying that one is (at least temporarily) choosing to disengage themselves from the virtual world so as to focus preferentially on the real one.
World views
[edit]A common colloquial usage would have reality mean "perceptions, beliefs, and attitudes toward reality", as in "My reality is not your reality." This is often used just as a colloquialism indicating that the parties to a conversation agree, or should agree, not to quibble over deeply different conceptions of what is real. For example, in a religious discussion between friends, one might say (attempting humor), "You might disagree, but in my reality, everyone goes to heaven."
Reality can be defined in a way that links it to worldviews or parts of them (conceptual frameworks): Reality is the totality of all things, structures (actual and conceptual), events (past and present) and phenomena, whether observable or not. It is what a world view (whether it be based on individual or shared human experience) ultimately attempts to describe or map.
A worldview (also world-view or world view) or Weltanschauung is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the whole of the individual's or society's knowledge, culture, and point of view.[55] However, when two parties view the same real world phenomenon, their world views may differ, one including elements that the other does not.
A worldview can include natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.[56]Certain ideas from physics, philosophy, sociology, literary criticism, and other fields shape various theories of reality. One such theory is that there simply and literally is no reality beyond the perceptions or beliefs we each have about reality.[57] Such attitudes are summarized in popular statements, such as "Perception is reality" or "Life is how you perceive reality" or "reality is what you can get away with" (Robert Anton Wilson), and they indicate anti-realism – that is, the view that there is no objective reality, whether acknowledged explicitly or not.
Many of the concepts of science and philosophy are often defined culturally and socially. This idea was elaborated by Thomas Kuhn in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). The Social Construction of Reality, a book about the sociology of knowledge written by Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann, was published in 1966. It explained how knowledge is acquired and used for the comprehension of reality. Out of all the realities, the reality of everyday life is the most important one since our consciousness requires us to be completely aware and attentive to the experience of everyday life.
See also
[edit]- Alternate history – Genre of speculative fiction, where one or more historical events occur differently
- Consciousness – Awareness of existence
- Extended modal realism – Version of modal realism
- Fact – Datum or structured component of reality
- Hyperreality – Term for cultural process of shifting ideas of reality
- Modal realism – Philosophical concept
- Potentiality and actuality – Principles in the philosophy of Aristotle
References
[edit]- ^ OED staff. "Reality (noun)". Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press. Retrieved 4 April 2025.
- ^ Lehar, Steve. (2000). The Function of Conscious Experience: An Analogical Paradigm of Perception and Behavior Archived 2015-10-21 at the Wayback Machine, Consciousness and Cognition.
- ^ Lehar, Steve. (2000). Naïve Realism in Contemporary Philosophy Archived 2012-08-11 at the Wayback Machine, The Function of Conscious Experience.
- ^ Lehar, Steve. Representationalism Archived 2012-09-05 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Tegmark, Max (February 2008). "The Mathematical Universe". Foundations of Physics. 38 (2): 101–150. arXiv:0704.0646. Bibcode:2008FoPh...38..101T. doi:10.1007/s10701-007-9186-9. S2CID 9890455.
- ^ Tegmark (1998), p. 1.
- ^ Loux, Michael J. (2001). "The Problem of Universals" in Metaphysics: Contemporary Readings, Michael J. Loux (ed.), N.Y.: Routledge, pp. 3–13, [4]
- ^ Price, H. H. (1953). "Universals and Resemblance", Ch. 1 of Thinking and Experience, Hutchinson's University Library, among others, sometimes uses such Latin terms.
- ^ as quoted in [Artigas, The Mind of the Universe, p.123]
- ^ "Present-time consciousness", Francisco J. Varela, Journal of Consciousness Studies 6 (2–3):111–140 (1999)
- ^ For the concept of "levels of reality", compare: Ioannidis, Stavros; Vishne, Gal; Hemmo, Meir; Shenker, Orly, eds. (8 June 2022). Levels of Reality in Science and Philosophy: Re-examining the Multi-level Structure of Reality. Jerusalem Studies in Philosophy and History of Science. Cham, Zug: Springer Nature. ISBN 9783030994259. Retrieved 31 May 2024.
- ^ Kockelmans, Joseph (2001). Edmund Husserl's phenomenology (2 ed.). Purdue University Press. pp. 311–314. ISBN 1-55753-050-5.
- ^ Crowell, Steven Galt (2001). Husserl, Heidegger, and the space of meaning: paths toward transcendental phenomenology. Northwestern University Press. p. 160. ISBN 0-8101-1805-X.
- ^ Mori, Shohei; Ikeda, Sei; Saito, Hideo (28 June 2017). "A survey of diminished reality: Techniques for visually concealing, eliminating, and seeing through real objects". IPSJ Transactions on Computer Vision and Applications. 9 (1): 17. doi:10.1186/s41074-017-0028-1. ISSN 1882-6695. S2CID 21053932.
- ^ Shankara's Crest Jewel of Discrimination. ISBN 9780874810387.
- ^ Jain, S. A. (1992). Reality. Jwalamalini Trust. p. 6.
- ^ Jain, S. A. (1992). Reality. Jwalamalini Trust. p. 7.
- ^ Norsen, Travis (26 February 2007). "Against 'Realism'". Foundations of Physics. 37 (3): 311–340. arXiv:quant-ph/0607057. Bibcode:2007FoPh...37..311N. doi:10.1007/s10701-007-9104-1. S2CID 15072850.
- ^ Nielsen, Michael A.; Chuang, Isaac L. (2000). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press. pp. 112–113. ISBN 978-0-521-63503-5.
- ^ Marin, Juan Miguel (2009). "'Mysticism' in quantum mechanics: the forgotten controversy". European Journal of Physics. 30 (4): 807–822. Bibcode:2009EJPh...30..807M. doi:10.1088/0143-0807/30/4/014. S2CID 122757714. link, summarized here [1]. Archived 2011-06-06 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ Honner, John (2005). "Niels Bohr and the Mysticism of Nature". Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. 17–3: 243–253.
- ^ Symposium On The Foundations Of Modern Physics 1987 - The Copenhagen Interpretation 60 Years After The Como Lecture. (1988). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing Company.
- ^ Schlosshauer, M.; Koer, J.; Zeilinger, A. (2013). "A Snapshot of Foundational Attitudes Toward Quantum Mechanics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics. 44 (3): 222–230. arXiv:1301.1069. Bibcode:2013SHPMP..44..222S. doi:10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004. S2CID 55537196.
- ^ Michael Esfeld, (1999), Essay Review: Wigner's View of Physical Reality Archived 2014-02-01 at the Wayback Machine, published in Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics, 30B, pp. 145–154, Elsevier Science Limited.
- ^ James, William, The Will to Believe, 1895; and earlier in 1895, as cited in OED's new 2003 entry for "multiverse": "1895 W. JAMES in Internat. Jrnl. Ethics 6 10 Visible nature is all plasticity and indifference, a multiverse, as one might call it, and not a universe."
- ^ Kinney, William H.; Stein, Nina K. (2022-06-01). "Cyclic cosmology and geodesic completeness". Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics. 2022 (6): 011. arXiv:2110.15380. Bibcode:2022JCAP...06..011K. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/06/011. ISSN 1475-7516.
- ^ Cain, Fraser (August 11, 2022). "Even a Cyclical Universe Needed to Come From Somewhere". Universe Today. Self-published. Retrieved 11 June 2025.
- ^ Hsu, Charlotte (August 4, 2022). "Do 'bouncing universes' have a beginning?". UB News Center. University of Buffalo. Retrieved 11 June 2025.
- ^ Reichenbach, Bruce (Apr 16, 2024). "Cosmological Argument". In Zalta, Edward N.; Uri Nodelman (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 11 June 2025.
- ^ Halvorson, Hans; Kragh, Helge (Nov 16, 2021). "Cosmology and Theology". In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 11 June 2025.
- ^ Savin-Baden, Maggi; Burden, David (1 April 2019). "Digital Immortality and Virtual Humans". Postdigital Science and Education. 1 (1): 87–103. doi:10.1007/s42438-018-0007-6. ISSN 2524-4868. S2CID 149797460.
- ^ van Kesteren, Marlieke T. R.; Rignanese, Paul; Gianferrara, Pierre G.; Krabbendam, Lydia; Meeter, Martijn (16 March 2020). "Congruency and reactivation aid memory integration through reinstatement of prior knowledge". Scientific Reports. 10 (1): 4776. Bibcode:2020NatSR..10.4776V. doi:10.1038/s41598-020-61737-1. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 7075880. PMID 32179822.
- ^ "Understanding reality through algorithms". MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Archived from the original on 6 November 2022. Retrieved 6 November 2022.
- ^ Popova, Maria (28 March 2012). "The Connectome: A New Way To Think About What Makes You You". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 31 March 2012. Retrieved 6 November 2022.
- ^ Seung, Sebastian (2012). Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are. HMH. ISBN 978-0547508177.
- ^ "Quest for the connectome: scientists investigate ways of mapping the brain". The Guardian. 7 May 2012. Archived from the original on 6 November 2022. Retrieved 6 November 2022.
- ^ Peeters, Marieke M. M.; van Diggelen, Jurriaan; van den Bosch, Karel; Bronkhorst, Adelbert; Neerincx, Mark A.; Schraagen, Jan Maarten; Raaijmakers, Stephan (1 March 2021). "Hybrid collective intelligence in a human–AI society" (PDF). AI & Society. 36 (1): 217–238. doi:10.1007/s00146-020-01005-y. ISSN 1435-5655. S2CID 220050285. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 September 2023. Retrieved 3 September 2023.
- ^ Luckmann, Thomas (February 2008). "On Social Interaction and the Communicative Construction of Personal Identity, Knowledge and Reality". Organization Studies. 29 (2): 277–290. doi:10.1177/0170840607087260. ISSN 0170-8406. S2CID 145106025.
- ^ Draaisma, Douwe (April 2017). "Perception: Our useful inability to see reality". Nature. 544 (7650): 296. Bibcode:2017Natur.544..296D. doi:10.1038/544296a. S2CID 4400770.
- ^ Weinberg (1993)
- ^ Ellis, John (2002). "Physics gets physical (correspondence)". Nature. 415 (6875): 957. Bibcode:2002Natur.415..957E. doi:10.1038/415957b. PMID 11875539.
- ^ Ellis, John (1986). "The Superstring: Theory of Everything, or of Nothing?". Nature. 323 (6089): 595–598. Bibcode:1986Natur.323..595E. doi:10.1038/323595a0. S2CID 4344940.
- ^ McDowell, Zachary J.; Vetter, Matthew A. (2022). Wikipedia and the Representation of Reality. Taylor & Francis. doi:10.4324/9781003094081. hdl:20.500.12657/50520. ISBN 978-1003094081. S2CID 238657838. Archived from the original on 2023-03-07. Retrieved 2023-09-03.
- ^ a b Prentice, D.; Gerrig, R. (1999). "Exploring the boundary between fiction and reality". In S. Chaiken; Y. Trope (eds.). Dual-process theories in social psychology. The Guilford Press. pp. 529–546. Archived from the original on 2022-11-06. Retrieved 2023-09-03.
- ^ Gamson, William A.; Croteau, David; Hoynes, William; Sasson, Theodore (1992). "Media Images and the Social Construction of Reality". Annual Review of Sociology. 18: 373–393. doi:10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.002105. ISSN 0360-0572. JSTOR 2083459. Archived from the original on 2022-11-06. Retrieved 2023-09-03.
- ^ McCombs, Maxwell E.; Shaw, Donald L. (1972). "The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media". Public Opinion Quarterly. 36 (2): 176. doi:10.1086/267990.
- ^ McCombs, Maxwell; Reynolds, Amy (2009). "How the news shapes our civic agenda and News Influence on Our Pictures of the World". Media Effects. Routledge. pp. 17–32. doi:10.4324/9780203877111-7. ISBN 978-0203877111. Archived from the original on 2022-11-06. Retrieved 2023-09-03.
- ^ van der Meer, Toni G. L. A.; Kroon, Anne C.; Vliegenthart, Rens (20 July 2022). "Do News Media Kill? How a Biased News Reality can Overshadow Real Societal Risks, The Case of Aviation and Road Traffic Accidents". Social Forces. 101 (1): 506–530. doi:10.1093/sf/soab114.
- ^ "How the news took over reality". The Guardian. 3 May 2019. Archived from the original on 6 November 2022. Retrieved 6 November 2022.
- ^ Gorvett, Zaria. "How the news changes the way we think and behave". BBC. Archived from the original on 6 November 2022. Retrieved 6 November 2022.
- ^ Milgram, Paul; Takemura, H.; Utsumi, A.; Kishino, F. (1994). "Augmented Reality: A class of displays on the reality-virtuality continuum" (PDF). Proceedings of Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies. Telemanipulator and Telepresence Technologies. pp. 2351–2434. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2006-10-04. Retrieved 2007-03-15.
- ^ "IRL – Definition by AcronymFinder". www.acronymfinder.com. Archived from the original on 2011-06-28. Retrieved 2021-05-14.
- ^ Slater, Don (2002). "Social Relationships and Identity On-line and Off-line". In Livingstone, Sonia; Lievrouw, Leah (eds.). Handbook of New Media: Social Shaping and Consequences of ICTs. Sage Publications Incorporated. pp. 533–543. ISBN 0-7619-6510-6.
- ^ "Dictionary entry for 'afk'". Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge University Press. Retrieved 11 June 2025.
- ^ Funk, Ken (2001-03-21). "What is a Worldview?". Retrieved 2019-12-10.
- ^ Palmer, Gary B. (1996). Toward A Theory of Cultural Linguistics. University of Texas Press. p. 114. ISBN 978-0-292-76569-6.
- ^ Guyer, Paul; Horstmann, Rolf-Peter (2023). "Idealism". In Zalta, Edward N.; Nodelman, Uri (eds.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2023 ed.). Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University. Retrieved 2025-05-14.
External links
[edit]Reality
View on GrokipediaEtymology and Definitions
Linguistic Origins
The English term "reality" derives from the French réalité, which entered usage in the 15th century to denote "property, character, or quality," stemming from Medieval Latin realitas (nominative realitās), an abstract noun formed from realis meaning "actual" or "real."[6] The root realis originates in Latin res, signifying "thing," "matter," or "affair," emphasizing concrete existence over the imaginary or abstract.[6] This linguistic evolution reflects a shift from denoting tangible objects to the broader quality of objective being, first appearing in English around the 1540s.[6] In philosophical contexts, realitas emerged in the 13th century within scholasticism, attributed to thinkers like John Duns Scotus (c. 1266–1308), who used it to discuss the independent existence of universals and essences amid debates between realism and nominalism.[7] Early English applications, recorded from 1513 onward, often carried legal connotations, such as "fixed property" or immovable assets, linking the term to enduring, verifiable holdings distinct from chattel.[8] By the 17th century, its usage expanded in metaphysics to signify the aggregate of all that exists independently of human cognition, as in the works of René Descartes, who contrasted realitas with mere appearance or illusion.[9] Linguistically, the term's adoption parallels the post-medieval emphasis on empirical verification, with no direct ancient Greek equivalent; Greek philosophy employed concepts like ousia (substance or being) or alētheia (unconcealed truth) but lacked a precise analog for "reality" as objective state.[7] Modern dictionaries, such as the Oxford English Dictionary, trace its multifaceted origins to both French and Latin borrowings, underscoring its role in bridging legal, ontological, and perceptual discourses.[9]Philosophical and Scientific Conceptions
In philosophy, realism asserts that entities and properties exist independently of human minds or perceptions, forming a mind-independent substrate of reality.[10] This view traces to ancient thinkers like Aristotle, who emphasized substances as primary realities composed of matter and form, contrasting with Plato's idealism where ultimate reality resides in eternal, non-physical Forms accessible only through reason.[11] Idealism, conversely, maintains that reality is fundamentally mental or dependent on consciousness, as in Berkeley's subjective idealism ("esse est percipi"), where objects persist only through perpetual perception by a divine mind.[12] Materialism, a dominant strand in modern philosophy, posits that all phenomena, including consciousness, reduce to physical processes and matter, rejecting supernatural or immaterial substances.[13] This aligns with causal chains governed by natural laws, as articulated by Democritus in ancient atomism—positing indivisible particles in void as the basis of all—and revived in Enlightenment thinkers like Hobbes, who viewed mental states as motions in matter.[14] Critics of idealism and dualism argue that materialism best explains empirical regularities, though debates persist on whether qualia (subjective experiences) fully reduce to brain states.[15] Scientifically, classical physics conceives reality as a deterministic, objective material world of particles and forces operating in absolute space and time, as formalized by Newton in his Principia Mathematica (1687), where laws like gravitation describe causal interactions without observer dependence.[16] Einstein's general relativity (1915) refines this by curving spacetime as the fabric of reality, where mass-energy dictates geometry, verified empirically through phenomena like gravitational lensing observed in 1919 solar eclipse expeditions.[17] Quantum mechanics introduces probabilistic elements, challenging local realism—the notion that objects have definite properties independent of distant measurements and that influences propagate at finite speeds. Experiments confirming Bell's inequalities, such as those by Aspect et al. in 1982, demonstrate non-local correlations in entangled particles, implying reality lacks predefined attributes prior to measurement.[18][17] Interpretations diverge: the Copenhagen view emphasizes observer-induced collapse of wave functions, while Everett's many-worlds (1957) posits branching realities encompassing all outcomes, preserving determinism at multiversal scales.[19] These conceptions underscore a physical reality emergent from quantum fields, as in quantum field theory, where particles are excitations in pervasive fields, yet debates on foundational issues like measurement persist without consensus.[20]Ontological Foundations
Being and Existence
In ontology, being denotes the fundamental condition or structure that underlies all entities, encompassing what it means for something to be at all, whereas existence refers to the actual instantiation or actuality of particular entities within reality.[21][22] This distinction arises from the recognition that not all conceivable essences or possibilities achieve concrete realization; existence thus acts as the principle by which potential forms become actualized.[23] Ancient Greek philosophy, particularly through Parmenides around 475 BCE, framed being as a singular, eternal, and unchanging unity, indivisible and without generation or destruction, since non-being cannot be thought or spoken of coherently.[24] Parmenides argued via deductive reasoning that "what is" must be whole, complete, and immobile, rejecting sensory appearances of change as illusory, a view that prioritized logical coherence over empirical flux.[25] This monistic conception influenced subsequent metaphysics by establishing being as self-identical and necessary, though it faced critiques for underaccounting observable diversity, as later developed by pluralists like the Atomists. Medieval scholasticism refined the essence-existence relation, with Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century positing that in all created beings, essence—what a thing is—differs from existence—the act by which it is—such that finite entities participate in existence as a received perfection rather than possessing it inherently.[26][27] For Aquinas, this real distinction implies contingency: no essence guarantees its own existence, necessitating an uncaused cause (God) whose essence is identical to existence, pure act without composition.[28] This framework integrates Aristotelian categories with theological causality, emphasizing that existence is not a genus or property but the ultimate perfection actualizing potency. In 20th-century phenomenology, Martin Heidegger in Being and Time (1927) highlighted the "ontological difference" between Being (Sein)—the enabling horizon or meaning that lets entities show up as what they are—and beings (Seiendes), the concrete entities themselves.[29] Heidegger critiqued prior philosophy for conflating the two, arguing that beings always presuppose Being, yet the question of Being's meaning had been forgotten amid preoccupation with beings' properties.[30] He proposed Dasein (human existence) as the site for accessing this difference, through temporal structures like care and thrownness, though his analysis remains interpretive rather than demonstrative, subject to debates over its evasion of systematic proof.[29] Contemporary analytic ontology often equates being with existence in a Quinean sense, where commitment to entities follows from quantified statements in theories, treating "what exists" as coextensive with "what there is" without deeper metaphysical strata.[21] Ontological pluralists, however, allow varied modes of existence (e.g., abstract vs. concrete), challenging uniform treatments while grounding claims in logical and empirical scrutiny over speculative deduction.[22] Empirical sciences verify existence through repeatable observations and causal interactions, as in physics' detection of particles via collider data (e.g., Higgs boson confirmed 2012 at CERN), underscoring that robust ontological claims require integration with verifiable mechanisms rather than isolated introspection.Properties and Universals
In ontology, properties are the qualitative or relational attributes possessed by particulars, such as the mass of an electron or the shape of a sphere, which contribute to distinguishing and relating entities within reality. These properties raise the problem of universals: how can distinct particulars share identical attributes, as when multiple objects exhibit the same redness or sphericity? Realist theories posit universals as repeatable entities that ground such resemblances, enabling causal regularities and scientific laws by ensuring that like causes produce like effects across instances.[31] Nominalist alternatives deny universals' independent existence, attributing resemblance to mere linguistic conventions or contingent similarities among particulars, though this struggles to explain the necessity in natural laws without invoking ad hoc resemblances.[32] Plato's theory of Forms advances transcendent realism, wherein universals exist as eternal, immaterial paradigms in a separate realm, with particulars participating imperfectly in them; for instance, all circular objects approximate the Form of Circularity, which itself lacks spatial location or change.[33] Aristotle critiques this separation, proposing immanent realism: universals inhere directly within particulars as their essences or forms, actualized through matter, such that "humanness" exists only in human individuals without a transcendent substrate. This view aligns with empirical observation by tying universals to observable substances, avoiding Plato's "third man" regress where Forms require further Forms to explain participation.[34] Both positions affirm universals' reality to account for predication and induction, but Aristotle's emphasis on immanence better accommodates causal interactions grounded in material composition. Contemporary debates extend to trope theory, treating properties as non-repeatable particulars (tropes)—e.g., this specific redness in one apple distinct from that in another—bundled into objects via compresence rather than shared universals. Proponents argue tropes preserve ontological parsimony by eliminating abstract repeatables while explaining resemblance through qualitative similarity among tropes, potentially resolving bundle theories of substances without invoking bare particulars.[31] Critics contend tropes fail to fully capture laws of nature, as exact replication in causation requires identity, not mere similarity, reverting to nominalist challenges in predicting uniform outcomes like gravitational attraction across masses. Empirical support for either view remains indirect, drawn from physics' reliance on invariant properties (e.g., charge conservation) favoring realists, versus quantum indeterminacy suggesting particularized instances.[35] Ultimately, the debate hinges on whether reality's causal structure demands transcendent or immanent sharing of properties, with realism better suiting first-principles explanations of regularity over nominalist reductions.Abstract Objects and Mathematics
Abstract objects, including mathematical entities like numbers, sets, and functions, are characterized by their independence from spatiotemporal location and causal efficacy, raising questions about their inclusion in the ontology of reality.[36] In philosophical discourse, these objects are distinguished from concrete particulars, which possess physical properties and participate in causal relations.[36] The debate centers on whether such entities exist objectively or are merely conceptual constructs, with implications for understanding the structure of reality beyond empirical observation. Mathematical platonism asserts the independent existence of abstract mathematical objects, maintaining that truths about numbers and geometries hold necessarily and are discovered rather than invented.[37] Proponents, including Kurt Gödel, argued that mathematical intuition provides access to this abstract domain, akin to perceptual knowledge of the physical world, though lacking sensory mediation.[37] The indispensability argument, advanced by Willard Van Orman Quine and Hilary Putnam, contends that since mathematics is essential for empirical science—formulating laws like those in physics—commitment to abstract objects is rationally required for realism about the sciences.[37] This view aligns with the observation that mathematical structures, such as the natural numbers extending to infinity, underpin predictive successes in fields like quantum mechanics and general relativity, suggesting a deep correspondence with reality's causal framework.[37] Opposing platonism, nominalist positions deny the existence of abstract objects, proposing instead that mathematical discourse refers to concrete particulars, linguistic conventions, or fictional entities.[38] Strict nominalism, as articulated by Hartry Field, seeks to reconstruct mathematics without ontological commitment to abstracts, for instance, by developing "nominalistic" versions of geometry using concrete spacetime points rather than abstract spaces.[38] Critics of platonism highlight the Benacerraf problem: if abstract objects are causally inert and non-spatiotemporal, epistemic access to them via reason alone undermines naturalistic accounts of knowledge, paralleling challenges in direct realism about physical reality.[37] Empirical considerations favor nominalism by privileging causally efficacious entities; for example, numerical patterns emerge from physical interactions, as in counting discrete particles, without necessitating a separate platonic realm.[38] Hybrid views, such as structuralism, reconcile the debate by positing that mathematics describes structural relations among concrete objects rather than standalone abstracts, thereby integrating mathematical realism with physical ontology.[37] Surveys of mathematicians reveal a prevalent intuitive platonism, with many reporting a sense of discovery in theorems, yet philosophical rigor often tempers this toward anti-realist interpretations to avoid metaphysical extravagance.[37] Ontologically, the status of abstract objects impacts causal realism: if reality comprises only entities capable of influencing events, mathematics functions as a descriptive tool capturing invariant patterns in the physical domain, indispensable yet not ontologically primitive.[36] Recent debates, such as those between Peter van Inwagen and William Lane Craig, underscore ongoing contention, with fictionalist nominalism gaining traction for its parsimony in explaining mathematical efficacy without positing acausal existents.[39]Epistemological Dimensions
Perception and Direct Realism
Perception involves the transduction of environmental stimuli—such as light wavelengths, sound pressure waves, and tactile pressures—into electrochemical signals processed by sensory organs and neural pathways, yielding conscious experiences that represent spatial, temporal, and qualitative features of the world.[40] In the context of reality, philosophical inquiry centers on whether these experiences afford unmediated access to mind-independent entities or are filtered through internal proxies like neural representations or qualia. Direct realism posits that, in veridical cases, perceivers stand in immediate epistemic and phenomenological relations to external objects, which cause and constitute the content of perception without intermediary veils.[41] This contrasts with indirect theories, where awareness targets mental surrogates that bear representational relations to the world.[41] Aristotle articulated an early form of direct realism in De Anima, contending that perception arises when a sense organ receives the intelligible form (eidos) of an object, actualizing the organ's potential without incorporating the object's matter or generating a copy; thus, the perceiver directly apprehends the object's qualities as they exist.[42] This framework avoids positing sense-data, emphasizing causal actualization over representation. In the 18th century, Thomas Reid advanced direct realism within Scottish common-sense philosophy, rejecting the representative "ideas" of Locke and Hume as engendering skepticism; he argued that perception operates via original faculties that yield direct conception and belief in external objects, evidenced by the instinctive reliability of sensory judgments in everyday action.[43] Contemporary defenses, such as John Searle's in Seeing Things as They Are (2010), maintain that perceptual experiences are intentional states presenting ordinary objects under mind-to-world direction of fit, where the objects themselves satisfy the experience's conditions without mediation by freestanding representations; illusions and hallucinations, Searle notes, fail satisfaction but share no common factor with veridical cases beyond causal ancestry.[44] Proponents invoke explanatory parsimony: direct realism sidesteps regressive problems of justifying representations and aligns with perceptual phenomenology's immediacy, wherein objects appear presented rather than inferred.[45] It also undergirds noninferential justification for external-world beliefs, as perceptual awareness grounds entitlement without prior validation of intermediaries.[41] Challenges include perceptual variations (e.g., Müller-Lyer illusion, where lines of equal length appear unequal due to contextual cues) and scientific findings of neural processing delays (e.g., visual signals taking ~100-150 ms from retina to cortex).[46] Direct realists counter via disjunctivism, holding that veridical perceptions involve object-involving relations absent in illusory counterparts, preserving phenomenological fidelity in good cases.[47] Empirically, enactive approaches bolster the view: perception emerges from sensorimotor interactions, where an object's affordances (action possibilities) are directly accessed via contingent neural responses to movement, as shown in studies of change blindness and predictive coding that prioritize ecological validity over static representations.[40] Retinal and cortical rivalry experiments, while cited against directness, demonstrate rivalry at neural levels but do not preclude object-directness at the conscious level, as causal chains from world to experience remain unbroken.[46] Thus, direct realism coheres with causal mechanisms in neuroscience, interpreting brain activity as enabling rather than intervening in worldly presentation.[40]Skeptical Hypotheses and Responses
Skeptical hypotheses in epistemology challenge knowledge of reality by proposing scenarios where experiences systematically misrepresent the external world, rendering ordinary beliefs unjustified. These include ancient dream arguments, positing that waking life might be indistinguishable from dreams, as articulated by philosophers like Zhuangzi in the 4th century BCE and later by Descartes.[48] In his Meditations on First Philosophy (1641), René Descartes introduced the "evil demon" hypothesis: a powerful deceiver could fabricate all sensory perceptions and even mathematical truths, leaving only the cogito—"I think, therefore I am"—indubitable.[49] Contemporary formulations extend this doubt. The brain-in-a-vat (BIV) scenario envisions human brains isolated and connected to computers that simulate sensory inputs indistinguishable from unaided perception, first popularized in philosophical discourse in the 20th century.[50] Philosopher Nick Bostrom's simulation hypothesis (2003) argues that if posthumans capable of running ancestor simulations exist, the vast number of simulated realities implies most conscious beings are simulated rather than base-level. Bostrom's trilemma posits that either civilizations go extinct before such simulations, lose interest in them, or we are almost certainly in one. Responses to these hypotheses emphasize logical incoherence, evidential underdetermination, and pragmatic grounds for realism. Hilary Putnam's semantic argument (1981) contends the BIV claim is self-refuting: a BIV's language refers only to vat-simulated objects, so "we are brains in a vat" (referring to real brains and vats) cannot be true if asserted by a BIV.[51] Critics of Bostrom note the argument's reliance on unproven assumptions about computational feasibility and posthumans' motivations, with empirical evidence favoring base reality via Occam's razor, as elaborate deceptions add unnecessary entities without explanatory gain.[52] G.E. Moore's "proof of the external world" (1939) counters by asserting evident facts like "here is one hand," which skeptical scenarios fail to undermine without circularity.[53] Further rebuttals invoke causal and evolutionary considerations: perceptions reliably track reality because natural selection favors veridical representations for survival, not systematic illusion, as deceptive inputs would hinder adaptive behavior.[48] Scientific theories' predictive success—e.g., quantum mechanics accurately modeling subatomic events since the 1920s—bolsters confidence in an observer-independent reality over ad hoc skeptical alternatives lacking comparable empirical support.[53] While skeptical hypotheses remain logically possible, their invocation requires extraordinary evidence, which is absent, privileging the coherent, parsimonious view of reality as causally efficacious and mind-independent.[54]Phenomenology and Lived Experience
Phenomenology, as developed by Edmund Husserl in the early 20th century, examines the structures of consciousness through direct analysis of lived experience, or Erlebnis, prioritizing first-person descriptions over theoretical assumptions about external reality.[55] Husserl's method involves epoché, a suspension of judgments about the existence of the external world to focus on the pure phenomena as they appear in consciousness, revealing intentionality—the directedness of experience toward objects.[56] This approach posits the Lebenswelt, or lifeworld, as the pre-reflective horizon of everyday experience, where reality manifests as a coherent, meaningful backdrop prior to scientific abstraction.[57] Maurice Merleau-Ponty extended this framework in his 1945 work Phenomenology of Perception, arguing for the primacy of embodied perception in constituting reality, where the body serves as the medium through which the world is encountered, not merely represented.[58] Unlike Husserl's more transcendental focus, Merleau-Ponty emphasized how sensory-motor engagement—such as the intertwining of touch and being touched—grounds lived experience in a pre-objective spatiality and temporality, challenging dualisms between subject and object.[59] Empirical validation of such claims appears in studies of perceptual illusions, where discrepancies between sensory input and neural processing highlight the body's active role in shaping phenomenal reality.[60] In relation to objective reality, phenomenological descriptions provide causal insights into how consciousness correlates with worldly structures, but they face critiques for potential correlationism, wherein entities are only accessible via human experience, undermining independent realism.[61] Quentin Meillassoux, for instance, argues that this confines contingency and necessity to subjective brackets, neglecting mathematical facts about reality's ancestral past, such as pre-human geological events verifiable through empirical science.[62] Responses integrate phenomenology with causal mechanisms, as in neurophenomenology, pioneered by Francisco Varela, which combines first-person reports of lived states with third-person neuroimaging to map qualia onto brain dynamics, such as correlating meditative awareness with default mode network deactivation.[63] Contemporary empirical phenomenology employs structured interviews to elicit micro-phenomenological accounts of brief experiences, yielding data on temporal granularity—e.g., experiences unfolding in 30-70ms cycles—aligning with neural oscillation findings and supporting realism by linking subjectivity to verifiable physiological processes.[64] Critics from realist traditions, however, contend that phenomenology risks solipsism by prioritizing essences over falsifiable predictions, as seen in analytic philosophy's preference for behavioral and neuroscientific tests of perceptual content over introspective purity.[65] Thus, while illuminating the subjective texture of reality, phenomenology's truth-value hinges on causal integration with objective evidence, avoiding unsubstantiated idealist drifts.[66]Philosophical Traditions
Western Philosophy
Ancient Greek philosophy initiated systematic inquiry into the nature of reality, with Pre-Socratic thinkers seeking a fundamental arche or principle underlying the observable world, often material elements like water or air, though such views prefigure later metaphysical realism by positing a unified substrate. Plato advanced a transcendent realism in his Theory of Forms, arguing that eternal, immaterial Forms constitute the true, intelligible reality, while the sensible world offers mere approximations or shadows, accessible only through reason rather than perception.[67] Aristotle rejected Plato's separated Forms as explanatorily inert, developing hylomorphism wherein individual substances form the primary realities, each a composite of indeterminate matter (hyle) actualized by specific form (eidos or morphe), enabling causal explanation grounded in observable changes from potentiality to actuality.[68] Medieval scholasticism extended these debates, particularly through the problem of universals, where realists like Thomas Aquinas maintained that universal properties (e.g., "humanity") exist objectively, either ante rem in divine intellect or in re in particulars, supporting a realist ontology compatible with empirical categorization.[69] Nominalists, such as William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347), countered that universals lack independent existence, functioning merely as mental concepts or linguistic conventions (flatus vocis) to denote resemblances among individuals, prioritizing parsimony in ontology and foreshadowing empiricist skepticism toward abstract entities.[69] This tension influenced theology and science, with realism bolstering essentialist views of natural kinds and nominalism aiding conceptual shifts toward mechanistic explanations. In the early modern period, René Descartes foundationalized epistemology via methodical doubt, arriving at the cogito ergo sum as the indubitable certainty of a thinking substance (res cogitans), distinct from extended body (res extensa), thus framing reality as dualistic realms interacting causally yet ontologically separate, though the precise mechanism of mind-body union remained contentious.[70] Continental rationalists like Spinoza reconceived reality monistically as a single substance (God or Nature) with infinite attributes, knowable through adequate ideas, while empiricists such as Locke emphasized primary qualities (solidity, extension) as mind-independent powers inhering in material substances, derived from sensory data.[71] Immanuel Kant synthesized rationalism and empiricism in transcendental idealism, distinguishing phenomena—the structured appearances conforming to a priori forms of sensibility (space, time) and categories of understanding—from unknowable noumena or things-in-themselves, positing that human cognition shapes experiential reality without accessing its intrinsic causal structure.[72] Post-Kantian developments included Hegel's absolute idealism, viewing reality as dialectical unfolding of Geist (spirit) through historical contradictions, and 19th-century realists like Brentano reviving intentionality to anchor mental acts in objects. In the 20th century, analytic philosophy pursued scientific realism, with logical positivists reducing metaphysical claims to verifiable propositions, while ordinary language philosophers like Wittgenstein examined how linguistic "language-games" disclose reality's form without positing hidden structures. Phenomenologists such as Husserl employed epoché to describe essences in pure consciousness, and existentialists like Heidegger reframed reality through Being (Sein), disclosed in authentic Dasein amid everyday thrownness.[73] These traditions underscore persistent oscillation between realist commitments to mind-independent causal orders and anti-realist emphases on constructed or phenomenal access, informed by evolving empirical constraints.Eastern Philosophies
In Advaita Vedanta, a prominent school of Hindu philosophy systematized by Shankara (c. 788–820 CE), ultimate reality is Brahman, characterized as nondual, infinite existence-consciousness-bliss (sat-chit-ananda) that serves as the unchanging substratum of all phenomena, as derived from Upanishadic texts such as the Chandogya Upanishad (6.2.1).[74] The individual self (Atman) is ontologically identical to Brahman, with apparent distinctions arising from ignorance (avidya) and the superimposition of maya, an inexplicable power that projects the empirical world as a dependent, less-than-real appearance akin to a mirage or dream.[74] This yields a hierarchical ontology: vyavaharika satya (empirical reality) for transactional experience, where objects appear manifold under causation and space-time, and paramarthika satya (absolute reality) as the singular, self-luminous Brahman beyond attributes or duality.[74] Shankara's commentaries on the Brahmasutra (e.g., 2.1.14) argue that the world's independence is illusory, reducible to Brahman without remainder, privileging scriptural pramana (authority) over perception for discerning nonduality.[74] Mahayana Buddhism, particularly the Madhyamaka tradition established by Nagarjuna (c. 150–250 CE) in his Mulamadhyamakakarika, conceives reality through shunyata (emptiness), the absence of inherent existence (svabhava) in all dharmas (phenomena), which lack autonomous essence and originate dependently via pratityasamutpada (causal interdependence).[75] This avoids both eternalism (positing fixed substances) and nihilism by framing emptiness as a relational negation: phenomena function conventionally through conceptual and causal dependencies but ultimately lack self-sufficient grounds, as chains of origination regress infinitely without a foundational base.[75] Nagarjuna's two truths doctrine delineates samvriti-satya (conventional truth) for interdependent appearances sustaining ethics and cognition, and paramartha-satya (ultimate truth) as the emptiness of intrinsic nature, realized via prasanga (reductio ad absurdum) to dismantle reified views.[75] Empirical implications include the rejection of mind-independent permanents, aligning causality with observed conditionality while critiquing substantialist ontologies for proliferating unverifiable essences.[75] Taoist ontology, as expounded in Laozi's Tao Te Ching (compiled c. 4th–3rd century BCE), identifies the Dao as the ineffable, generative process of reality itself, encompassing the ceaseless transformation of the "ten thousand things" (wanwu) without static unity or endpoint (ch. 1, 42).[76] The Dao operates through correlative dynamics of yin (receptive, dark) and yang (active, light) forces, which interpenetrate in balanced flux rather than opposition, yielding phenomena as emergent patterns of spontaneous change (ziran) rather than created artifacts (ch. 42).[76] Naming or conceptual fixation distorts this flux, as the Dao precedes distinctions and eludes definition, promoting wu wei (effortless non-interference) as epistemic alignment with reality's natural efficacy over contrived action (ch. 2, 37).[76] Ontologically, this processual view subordinates being to becoming, with empirical correlates in observable cycles (e.g., seasons, growth) that evade reduction to invariant laws, emphasizing harmony via yielding to undifferentiated origins.[76]Indigenous and Other Perspectives
Indigenous ontologies diverge from Western substance-based metaphysics by prioritizing relational constitutions of existence, wherein humans, non-human entities, landscapes, and ancestors co-constitute reality through ongoing interactions rather than isolated essences.[77] [78] These perspectives, preserved in oral traditions and practices, emphasize responsibilities toward kin networks extending beyond anthropocentric boundaries, as documented in ethnographic accounts from diverse regions.[79] In Australian Aboriginal traditions, the Dreaming—or Jukurrpa—serves as a foundational ontology integrating cosmogony, cosmology, and social order, where ancestral beings traversed the land in a timeless era, forming topographic features, species, and normative laws that persist and demand adherence today.[80] This framework rejects linear temporality, viewing reality as eternally emergent from ancestral actions encoded in the landscape, with human agency limited to maintaining these relations through ceremonies and custodianship.[81] North American Indigenous views, varying across tribes such as the Lakota or Navajo, construe reality as a vital, animated continuum where natural elements, animals, and celestial bodies possess inherent agency and spiritual potency, demanding reciprocal relations for sustenance.[82] Knowledge of this reality derives from immersive participation and visionary experiences rather than abstract analysis, with the physical world reflecting deeper spiritual truths.[83] African Indigenous ontologies, as in Bantu or Yoruba systems, posit a hierarchical yet relational cosmos originating from a supreme creator deity who imbues all beings with vital force, where human personhood manifests through communal bonds—exemplified by ubuntu, denoting "I am because we are."[84] Epistemologies here favor collective deliberation, elder testimony, and relational validation over individualistic empiricism, grounding reality in shared ancestral and social fabrics.[85] Animist orientations, common in shamanic practices across Indigenous groups from Siberian to Amazonian contexts, extend subjectivity to non-human actants like rivers or spirits, positing reality as a negotiated multiplicity of perspectives rather than a singular objective substrate.[86] Scholarly reconstructions of these views, however, warrant scrutiny for potential imposition of external categories, as colonial documentation often filtered Indigenous articulations through Eurocentric lenses, potentially inflating relational motifs to contrast with scientific materialism.[87]Scientific Theories
Classical Realism in Physics
Classical realism in physics asserts that the fundamental entities, laws, and structures posited by classical theories—such as Newtonian mechanics, classical electromagnetism, and thermodynamics—describe an objective, mind-independent reality with definite properties existing independently of observation. This view underpinned the development of physics from Isaac Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica in 1687, which formulated laws of motion and universal gravitation as descriptions of real causal interactions among material bodies in absolute space and time. Newtonian realism posits point particles with intrinsic masses, positions, and velocities that evolve deterministically under real forces, enabling precise predictions like planetary orbits accurate to within arcminutes over centuries, as verified by observations from Johann Kepler's data through Edmond Halley's comet return in 1758. Key principles include locality, wherein causes propagate continuously through space at finite speeds or instantaneously in Newtonian gravity, and determinism, where initial conditions fully specify future states without probabilistic elements or observer-induced collapses. In classical electromagnetism, formalized by James Clerk Maxwell's equations in 1865, realism extends to unobservable entities like electromagnetic fields as physical media transmitting forces, evidenced by their successful prediction of light as an electromagnetic wave, confirmed experimentally by Heinrich Hertz in 1887 through radio wave generation and detection. Thermodynamics, developed in the 19th century by Rudolf Clausius and William Thomson (Lord Kelvin), treats heat as molecular kinetic energy in a realist framework, aligning with kinetic theory's atomic hypothesis, which Ludwig Boltzmann advanced despite initial empirical underdetermination, later corroborated by Jean Perrin's 1908 experiments on Brownian motion measuring Avogadro's number at approximately 6.022 × 10²³ particles per mole. This realist commitment drove empirical success, such as the Michelson-Morley experiment in 1887 yielding null results for ether drift, initially interpreted within classical frameworks before relativity, yet affirming the approximate truth of classical laws for terrestrial scales. Underdetermination arises in Newtonian mechanics through empirically equivalent formulations—such as action-at-a-distance versus field-mediated forces—but realists maintain that one ontology, often gravito-magnetic fields, better captures causal structure, as argued in analyses of spacetime geometry in classical limits.[88] Classical realism's validity persists in effective theories for non-relativistic, macroscopic domains, where predictions match observations to high precision, as in GPS corrections accounting for classical residuals beyond relativistic effects, without invoking quantum indeterminacy.[89]Quantum Mechanics and Reality
Quantum mechanics, formulated in the 1920s, provides a highly accurate mathematical framework for predicting the behavior of particles and fields at atomic and subatomic scales, with experimental confirmations reaching precisions of parts per billion in phenomena like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron.[90] However, its formalism—relying on wave functions that evolve deterministically via the Schrödinger equation yet yield probabilistic outcomes upon measurement—poses profound challenges to classical notions of an objective, observer-independent reality composed of definite particle positions and trajectories.[91] Key empirical observations, such as the double-slit interference pattern demonstrating wave-particle duality and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) correlations revealing instantaneous influences across distances, indicate that microscopic entities lack definite properties until interacting with macroscopic apparatus, undermining the intuitive picture of localized, independent objects.[92] The measurement problem encapsulates this tension: the Schrödinger equation implies linear superposition of states, yet repeated measurements yield single, definite results without superpositions of outcomes, requiring an ad hoc "collapse" postulate that lacks dynamical justification within the theory. This discrepancy has no resolution in standard quantum mechanics, prompting diverse interpretations that seek to reconcile the formalism with a coherent ontology. The Copenhagen interpretation, associated with Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, treats the wave function as a tool for calculating probabilities rather than a depiction of physical reality, asserting that definite properties emerge only through irreversible interactions with classical measuring devices, without committing to microscopic ontology.[93] Critics argue this instrumentalism evades the problem by prioritizing epistemology over metaphysics, potentially reflecting a reluctance to confront quantum non-intuitiveness rather than empirical necessity.[94] In contrast, realist interpretations preserve objective reality independent of observation. The de Broglie-Bohm theory, or Bohmian mechanics, posits definite particle positions guided by a pilot wave derived from the wave function, restoring determinism and hidden variables while reproducing all quantum predictions through non-local influences.[92] This framework upholds causal realism at the expense of locality, aligning with experiments violating Bell's inequalities, which in 1964 demonstrated that no local hidden-variable theory can match quantum correlations without superluminal signaling or abandoning locality.[95] Loophole-free tests, including a 2023 superconducting circuit experiment achieving a CHSH inequality value of 2.67 ± 0.07 (exceeding the classical bound of 2), confirm these violations under stringent conditions, ruling out local realism but permitting non-local realist alternatives like Bohmian mechanics.[95] The Many-Worlds interpretation, proposed by Hugh Everett in 1957, eliminates collapse by positing that all possible outcomes occur in branching parallel universes, with decoherence explaining the appearance of definite experiences within each branch.[94] While parsimonious in avoiding special postulates, it faces challenges in deriving the Born rule probabilities from the unitary dynamics and ontological extravagance, as the measure of branches remains debated without empirical distinguishability from other views.[94] Emerging approaches like quantum Darwinism suggest that environmental interactions redundantly encode quantum states into classical pointers, fostering objective, shared reality from quantum substrates without invoking collapse or multiplicity.[96] Experimental validations, including 2019 pointer state selections in cavity QED systems, support this mechanism for the quantum-to-classical transition.[96] Despite interpretive pluralism, quantum mechanics' empirical success—underpinning technologies like semiconductors and lasers—affirms its descriptive power, while the absence of consensus on ontology underscores that the theory constrains observable statistics rather than mandating a particular metaphysics of reality.[90] Violations of Bell inequalities preclude local deterministic realism but leave room for non-local or relational variants, with ongoing research into quantum foundations, such as 2023-2025 multi-particle entanglement tests, probing deeper constraints without resolving the measurement enigma.[97] Academic debates often reflect foundational preferences, with instrumentalist views dominant in particle physics applications where predictive utility trumps ontology, yet realist alternatives gain traction amid critiques of Copenhagen's vagueness.Relativity, Space, and Time
Special relativity, formulated by Albert Einstein in 1905, posits two fundamental postulates: the laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames, and the speed of light in vacuum is constant regardless of the motion of the source or observer.[98] These lead to counterintuitive consequences, including time dilation—where clocks in relative motion tick at different rates—and length contraction along the direction of motion, both verified experimentally through phenomena like the extended lifetime of cosmic-ray muons decaying in Earth's atmosphere.[99] The theory unifies space and time into a four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime, where events are invariant intervals rather than absolute positions, and the famous equation equates mass and energy, confirmed in nuclear reactions and particle accelerators.[100] General relativity, published by Einstein in 1915, extends these ideas to accelerated frames and gravity, interpreting the latter not as a force but as the curvature of spacetime caused by mass-energy. The equivalence principle equates inertial and gravitational mass, implying that free-falling observers follow geodesics in curved spacetime, described by the Einstein field equations , which relate geometry to stress-energy.[101] Empirical validations include the 1919 solar eclipse observation of starlight deflection by the Sun's gravity, matching predictions to within 20%; the precise precession of Mercury's orbit; time dilation in gravitational fields measured by atomic clocks on aircraft; and the 2015 detection of gravitational waves by LIGO from merging black holes, confirming wave propagation at light speed.[102][103] In relativistic physics, space and time form an objective, observer-independent spacetime manifold, where simultaneity is relative—events simultaneous in one frame may not be in another—challenging classical notions of absolute time but preserving causality via light cones that delimit possible influences.[104] This framework supports a realist view of reality as a fixed geometry of events, with empirical success across scales from GPS satellite corrections (accounting for both velocity and gravitational effects to achieve meter-level accuracy) to cosmological expansion.[105] While some interpret relativity's structure as implying a "block universe" eternalism, where past, present, and future coexist tenselessly, this remains a philosophical overlay not strictly required by the equations, which admit dynamic interpretations consistent with a flowing time coordinate amid objective relations. Relativistic spacetime thus reveals reality's causal fabric as geometrically encoded, empirically robust against alternatives like Newtonian absolutism, though tensions persist with quantum mechanics in regimes of extreme curvature.[106]Cosmological Models
Cosmological models provide frameworks for understanding the origin, evolution, and large-scale structure of the universe, grounded in general relativity and empirical observations such as galaxy distributions, cosmic expansion, and relic radiation. The standard model, known as Lambda Cold Dark Matter (ΛCDM), builds on the Big Bang theory, which posits that the universe originated from a hot, dense state and has been expanding for approximately 13.8 billion years.[107] This expansion is evidenced by Hubble's law, where distant galaxies recede at velocities proportional to their distance, as quantified by the Hubble constant H_0.[108] Key supporting data include the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, a uniform glow at 2.725 K discovered in 1965, representing the cooled remnant of the early universe's thermal equilibrium.[108] The ΛCDM model incorporates cold dark matter, which clusters to form gravitational wells for galaxy formation, and a cosmological constant Λ interpreted as dark energy driving late-time acceleration. Planck satellite measurements from 2018 yield precise parameters: matter density Ω_m ≈ 0.315, dark energy density Ω_Λ ≈ 0.685, and an age of 13.787 ± 0.020 billion years, aligning with observations of light element abundances from Big Bang nucleosynthesis, such as deuterium and helium ratios predicted within minutes of the initial expansion.[107] These predictions match measured primordial abundances, with helium-4 at about 24% by mass, supporting the model's validity during the first few minutes when baryonic matter density was Ω_b h^2 ≈ 0.0224.[107] Baryon acoustic oscillations in galaxy clustering and Type Ia supernova distance moduli further corroborate the flat geometry (Ω_tot ≈ 1) and accelerated expansion discovered in 1998.[109] Despite its successes, ΛCDM faces tensions, notably the Hubble tension, where early-universe CMB-derived H_0 ≈ 67.4 km/s/Mpc contrasts with local measurements around 73 km/s/Mpc from Cepheid-calibrated supernovae, exceeding 5σ discrepancy and suggesting potential systematic errors or extensions beyond the model.[110] [109] Inflationary theory, proposed in 1980 by Alan Guth, addresses the horizon and flatness problems by positing rapid exponential expansion in the first 10^{-32} seconds, smoothing initial irregularities and explaining CMB uniformity, though direct evidence remains indirect via tensor-to-scalar ratio constraints from BICEP and Planck data.[109] Ongoing anomalies, including σ_8 tension in matter clustering and potential dynamical dark energy signatures, indicate ΛCDM as a robust approximation rather than a complete description, prompting exploration of modified gravity or varying constants while preserving causal structure from general relativity.[109]Contemporary Developments
Advances in Quantum Gravity and TOE
Efforts to formulate a theory of quantum gravity, which reconciles general relativity's description of gravity as spacetime curvature with quantum mechanics' probabilistic framework for matter and forces, remain a central challenge in theoretical physics, as the two theories produce incompatible predictions at extreme scales such as black hole singularities or the Planck length of approximately 1.6 × 10^{-35} meters.[111] A complete theory of everything (TOE) would extend this unification to incorporate all fundamental interactions, including the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces described by the Standard Model, potentially resolving issues like the hierarchy problem and providing a framework for cosmology. Major approaches include string theory, which posits fundamental entities as one-dimensional vibrating strings requiring extra spatial dimensions, and loop quantum gravity (LQG), which quantizes spacetime itself into discrete loops without additional dimensions. Neither has yielded empirically verified predictions distinct from general relativity or quantum field theory, though mathematical consistency and computational techniques continue to advance.[112][113] In string theory, recent progress includes the "bootstrap" method applied in December 2024 by New York University physicists to validate consistency constraints on string vacua, addressing the landscape of approximately 10^{500} possible configurations by deriving self-consistent scattering amplitudes for gravitons without assuming supersymmetry.[114] Additionally, in November 2024, researchers proved a long-standing conjecture on the positivity of graviton scattering amplitudes in string theory, providing evidence for unitarity in quantum gravity interactions and bolstering its perturbative framework.[115] String theory has also offered novel interpretations of cosmic expansion, suggesting in October 2024 that string-theoretic effects could mimic dark energy without invoking a cosmological constant, potentially explaining the observed accelerated universe expansion rate of about 73 km/s/Mpc.[116] These developments, while theoretically promising, rely on holographic dualities like AdS/CFT and lack direct experimental falsification, with critics noting the absence of low-energy predictions testable by current accelerators like the LHC.[117] Loop quantum gravity has seen advancements in incorporating quantum information concepts, with a February 2023 arXiv preprint outlining how entanglement entropy in spin networks yields area quantization consistent with black hole thermodynamics, predicting discrete spectral lines in gravitational wave echoes potentially detectable by LIGO upgrades.[113] In June 2025, LQG models revealed distance-dependent fluctuations in spacetime geometry, where correlations decay with separation, offering a mechanism for emergent macroscopic smoothness from microscopic discreteness at the Planck scale.[118] Alternative proposals include a March 2025 entropy-based derivation of gravity from quantum relative entropy at Queen Mary University of London, unifying emergent geometry with thermodynamic principles without modifying general relativity at large scales.[119] A May 2025 theory from Aalto University integrates gravity into the Standard Model via gauge symmetries, preserving renormalizability and avoiding infinities in perturbative expansions, though it awaits cosmological consistency checks.[120] Experimental probes are emerging, with August 2025 proposals for table-top tests using entangled particles to detect gravity-induced decoherence, potentially distinguishing quantum from classical gravity at sensitivities near 10^{-15} meters.[111] A June 2025 framework posits time as having three dimensions with space as emergent, deriving quantum gravity effects that could unify forces but requires validation against observed particle masses.[121] Despite these theoretical strides, no TOE candidate has predicted novel phenomena confirmed by observation, such as deviations in gravitational wave signals from binary mergers detected by LIGO since 2015, underscoring the need for higher-precision data from facilities like the Einstein Telescope.[122] Progress hinges on computational tools, including AI-assisted exploration of string landscapes initiated in 2024, yet fundamental obstacles like non-perturbative definitions persist.[123]Debates on Consciousness and Observation
In quantum mechanics, the measurement problem questions why quantum superpositions appear to collapse into definite outcomes upon observation, prompting debates over whether consciousness is essential to this process. Early formulations, such as John von Neumann's 1932 chain of measurements, suggested that the infinite regress of observers ends only with a conscious mind, implying that subjective awareness might actualize reality from potential states.[124][125] This view influenced Eugene Wigner's 1961 thought experiment, where he posited that a friend's measurement of a particle's spin remains in superposition until observed by the conscious experimenter, potentially linking mind to wave function collapse.[125] However, empirical evidence and theoretical advances refute the necessity of consciousness. Quantum decoherence, formalized in the 1970s by H. Dieter Zeh and elaborated by Wojciech Zurek, explains the apparent collapse as arising from unavoidable interactions between quantum systems and their macroscopic environment, which rapidly entangle and suppress interference without requiring deliberate measurement or awareness.[126] Experiments, such as those using automated photon detectors in double-slit setups since the 1980s, demonstrate interference pattern disruption solely due to physical detection, independent of subsequent human viewing of results.[127][128] Physics consensus, as articulated in peer-reviewed analyses, holds that "observer" denotes any irreversible interaction amplifying quantum effects to classical scales, not sentience; claims otherwise stem from misinterpretations popularized in non-technical media.[129] Philosophically, these debates intersect with realism, positing an observer-independent reality governed by causal laws, versus instrumentalist or idealist views where observation constructs outcomes. Proponents like Shan Gao argue that resolving the measurement problem demands conscious observers to avoid infinite regress, suggesting mind as fundamental to quantum reality.[130] Yet, such positions lack falsifiable predictions and contradict decoherence's success in modeling environmental "measurements" in isolated systems, as verified in cavity quantum electrodynamics experiments by 2000.[126] Relational interpretations, like Carlo Rovelli's, emphasize perspective-dependence without invoking consciousness, aligning with empirical data while challenging absolute objectivity.[131] Critics of consciousness-centric theories highlight their reliance on speculative extensions beyond quantum formalism, which predicts outcomes accurately sans mind; for instance, cosmic microwave background observations from 1965 onward reveal early universe quantum fluctuations "measured" by photons predating observers.[132] Mainstream academia, despite noted interpretive biases toward instrumentalism, converges on decoherence's sufficiency, underscoring that reality persists causally prior to observation, with consciousness emerging as a late evolutionary product rather than its architect.[133] Ongoing experiments, such as those probing objective collapse models via spontaneous radiation limits (e.g., GERDA collaboration's 2020 null results for germanium decays), further constrain mind-dependent collapses, favoring mind-independent ontologies.[126]Multiverse Hypotheses and Criticisms
Multiverse hypotheses propose that our observable universe is one of many, potentially infinite, distinct universes, each possibly governed by varying physical laws or initial conditions. These ideas emerge primarily from extensions of established theories in cosmology, quantum mechanics, and string theory, aiming to address puzzles like the fine-tuning of fundamental constants. However, they remain speculative, lacking direct empirical confirmation.[134] In inflationary cosmology, eternal inflation—developed by Andrei Linde in his 1983 chaotic inflation model—suggests that inflation does not end uniformly across the universe but continues indefinitely in patches, spawning "bubble universes" with diverse properties due to quantum fluctuations in the scalar field. This process, occurring since shortly after the Big Bang around 13.8 billion years ago, implies a vast ensemble where our universe occupies one low-entropy bubble amid exponentially growing others. Linde's framework posits that the observed uniformity and flatness of our cosmos result from such a mechanism, with different bubbles exhibiting varied cosmological constants or particle masses.[134][135] The many-worlds interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics, formulated by Hugh Everett in his 1957 dissertation, posits that every quantum measurement causes the universal wavefunction to branch into parallel worlds, each realizing one possible outcome without wavefunction collapse. This deterministic view preserves the linearity of the Schrödinger equation across the entire multiverse, explaining phenomena like superposition and interference without invoking observer-dependent collapse. Proponents argue it resolves measurement paradoxes in quantum theory, which has been verified in experiments such as double-slit interference since the early 20th century, though MWI itself predicts no distinct observables beyond standard quantum predictions.[136][137] String theory's landscape contributes another multiverse variant, where the theory's extra dimensions and compactifications yield approximately 10^{500} possible vacuum states, each corresponding to a universe with unique low-energy physics. Coined by Leonard Susskind around 2003, this landscape arises from the moduli stabilization problem in string theory, suggesting that eternal inflation could populate these vacua, explaining why our universe's parameters permit atoms and life via the anthropic principle. While string theory unifies gravity and quantum fields, its landscape remains untested, as supersymmetry—predicted at energies around 10^{16} GeV—has not appeared in LHC data up to 13 TeV collisions as of 2023.[138][139] Critics contend that multiverse hypotheses evade falsifiability, a core scientific criterion articulated by Karl Popper, as other universes lie beyond causal contact, rendering predictions indistinguishable from a single-universe model. For instance, inflationary multiverses predict cosmic microwave background anisotropies consistent with observations from Planck satellite data (2013-2018), but alternative single-universe explanations suffice without invoking unobservables. Sabine Hossenfelder argues that multiverse claims function as post-hoc rationalizations, akin to religious faith, since they adjust parameters to fit data without risking refutation, contrasting with testable theories like general relativity.[140][141][142] These proposals also violate Occam's razor by positing immense ontological extravagance—trillions of unobservable universes—to explain fine-tuning that might stem from undiscovered principles, such as cyclic cosmologies or modified gravity. Paul Davies and others note that without empirical tests, like detecting bubble collisions in cosmic data (none found in WMAP or Planck surveys), multiverses resemble metaphysics rather than physics, potentially stalling progress by excusing theoretical failures. Defenders, including Sean Carroll, counter that parent theories like quantum mechanics and inflation are falsifiable, but critics like John Horgan maintain the multiverse extension itself lacks evidential support after decades of speculation.[143][144][145]Technological and Simulated Realities
Virtual Reality and Simulations
Virtual reality (VR) encompasses immersive technologies that generate interactive, computer-simulated environments, typically accessed through head-mounted displays, sensors, and controllers to mimic sensory experiences.[146] Pioneering efforts trace to 1956, when Morton Heilig patented the Sensorama, a booth delivering synchronized visuals, sounds, vibrations, and odors for up to four users.[146] In 1968, Ivan Sutherland introduced the first head-mounted display at Harvard, featuring stereoscopic views and basic tracking via a mechanical arm.[147] Subsequent milestones included NASA's VIEW system in 1985 for flight simulation and Jaron Lanier's VPL Research coining "virtual reality" in 1987 while developing the DataGlove.[148] By the 2010s, consumer VR advanced with the Oculus Rift prototype in 2012, crowdfunded via Kickstarter, leading to its 2016 commercial release after Facebook's acquisition.[147] Apple's Vision Pro, launched in February 2024, integrated high-resolution micro-OLED displays (over 4K per eye), eye and hand tracking, and spatial computing at a starting price of $3,499.[149] Entering 2025, VR trends emphasize lighter headsets, 8K resolutions for reduced screen-door effects, and AI-driven content generation to lower development barriers, alongside broader adoption in training, therapy, and enterprise applications.[150] Global VR market revenue reached approximately $12 billion in 2024, projected to grow amid hardware refinements like passthrough cameras for mixed reality blending.[151] VR's capacity to replicate perceptual realities challenges distinctions between simulated and base experiences, fueling the simulation hypothesis that our universe may be an artificial construct run by advanced posthumans.[152] Philosopher Nick Bostrom formalized this in his 2003 paper, positing a trilemma: either civilizations self-destruct before achieving simulation-capable computing, posthumans lack interest in running ancestor simulations, or we are almost certainly simulated beings, as simulated minds would vastly outnumber non-simulated ones under feasible resource assumptions.[52] Bostrom's argument relies on exponential growth in computing power, akin to Moore's Law, enabling one base reality to spawn billions of detailed simulations. Critics counter that the hypothesis invokes untestable assumptions and multiplies entities needlessly, contravening Occam's razor by favoring a complex simulated layer over direct reality.[153] Empirical disconfirmation arises from quantum phenomena like superposition and entanglement, which defy efficient classical computation; simulating a single electron's wavefunction requires resources scaling exponentially with precision, rendering universe-scale simulation infeasible even for advanced civilizations.[154] To model the observable universe at Planck-scale resolution would demand more bits than particles exist, exceeding black hole information limits and thermodynamic bounds on computation.[155] No observable glitches, pixelation, or code artifacts manifest, and physical constants appear fine-tuned for non-simulable complexity rather than optimized shortcuts.[156] Thus, while VR demonstrates perceptual mimicry, the simulation hypothesis remains speculative without verifiable evidence, prioritizing causal chains grounded in observed physics over probabilistic metaphysics.[157]Computational Theories of Reality
Computational theories of reality assert that the universe functions as a discrete computational process, where physical laws emerge from underlying algorithmic rules rather than continuous fields or substances. These ideas suggest reality's base layer consists of information processing, analogous to a digital computer executing programs, with phenomena like space, time, and matter arising from binary operations or cellular automata updates. Pioneered in the mid-20th century, such theories challenge traditional continuum-based physics by proposing discreteness at the Planck scale, supported by observations of quantum granularity but lacking direct empirical confirmation of computational substrates.[158] Konrad Zuse introduced foundational concepts in his 1969 book Rechnender Raum (Calculating Space), positing the universe as a giant cellular automaton where spacetime evolves through local rule applications, similar to Turing machines.[159] Edward Fredkin coined "digital physics" in 1978, developing "digital mechanics" to describe reality as finite, reversible computations conserving information, with particles as stable patterns in a discrete grid.[160] Stephen Wolfram's 2002 A New Kind of Science empirically explored simple programs, showing how one-dimensional cellular automata generate complexity resembling physical laws, arguing the universe's behavior stems from irreducible computations rather than differential equations.[161] Seth Lloyd's 2006 Programming the Universe extends this to quantum scales, viewing the cosmos as a quantum computer where particle interactions perform universal gate operations, processing bits into observable reality.[162] A prominent variant, the simulation hypothesis, claims our perceived reality is an ancestor simulation run by advanced posthumans. Philosopher Nick Bostrom's 2003 paper argues probabilistically: if posthumans exist and simulate ancestors, simulated minds vastly outnumber base-reality ones, making simulation likely unless civilizations self-destruct early or abstain from simulations.[163] Proponents cite quantum indeterminacy and fine-tuned constants as potential artifacts of efficient rendering, though these interpretations remain speculative.[164] Critics contend these theories are unfalsifiable pseudoscience, as they predict no unique observables distinguishable from standard physics. Physicists highlight prohibitive computational demands: simulating quantum many-body systems requires exponential resources, rendering full-universe ancestor sims implausible even for advanced civilizations, per thermodynamic limits and error correction needs.[155] [153] Sabine Hossenfelder and others note the hypothesis assumes unproven posthuman motivations and ignores that simulations would nest infinitely or terminate, without empirical tests like "glitches" holding up under scrutiny.[165] While inspiring computational models in physics, such as lattice quantum field theories, these ideas function more as philosophical frameworks than predictive science, with no verified evidence supplanting established theories like general relativity or quantum mechanics.[153]Worldviews and Implications
Religious and Metaphysical Views
In Abrahamic religions, including Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, ultimate reality is identified with a transcendent, personal God who exists necessarily and creates the contingent physical universe ex nihilo. The Christian doctrine, as articulated in Genesis 1:1, posits that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth," establishing God as the uncaused cause and source of all existence, with human nature bearing His image yet marred by original sin following the Fall.[166] In Islam, tawhid—the doctrine of God's absolute oneness—asserts that Allah alone possesses inherent reality, with all creation deriving its existence from divine will and lacking independent subsistence, as emphasized in Quranic verses like Surah Al-Ikhlas (112:1-4): "Say, He is Allah, [who is] One."[167] Eastern religious traditions offer contrasting ontologies. Hinduism, particularly in Advaita Vedanta, conceives Brahman as the singular, non-dual ultimate reality—eternal, infinite, and beyond attributes—while the empirical world manifests as maya, a veiling power that projects illusory multiplicity and change onto this undifferentiated essence, concealing true unity until realized through knowledge (jnana).[168] Buddhism, across its schools, denies any permanent, independent essence in phenomena, teaching sunyata (emptiness) as the absence of intrinsic existence: all dharmas arise interdependently, marked by impermanence (anicca), suffering (dukkha), and no-self (anatta), such that conventional reality is a provisional construct dissolved in enlightenment.[169][170] Metaphysical views, independent of religious revelation, probe the fundamental structure of being through reason. Substance dualism, defended by René Descartes in his 1641 Meditations on First Philosophy, maintains that reality comprises two irreducible categories—res cogitans (thinking substance, or mind) and res extensa (extended substance, or matter)—interacting despite their ontological disparity, contrasting with monistic alternatives that reduce all to one principle.[171] Metaphysical realism holds that entities exist mind-independently, with properties grounded in their nature rather than perception, as explored in analytic philosophy's emphasis on discovering reality's causal structure via a posteriori inference and logical analysis.[172] These frameworks often intersect with religious ontologies, such as in theistic realism where divine mind sustains extra-mental order, though empirical science challenges idealist variants by privileging observable causal mechanisms over purely mental substrates.[173]Cultural Relativism vs. Objective Reality
Cultural relativism posits that moral, ethical, and factual truths are context-dependent, varying by cultural norms without universal standards for judgment.[174] This view emerged in early 20th-century anthropology to counter ethnocentrism, emphasizing understanding practices from within their cultural framework rather than imposing external evaluations.[175] Proponents argue it promotes tolerance by rejecting absolute truths, but critics contend it undermines objective reality by implying no independent criteria exist to assess cultural claims, such as historical practices like infanticide or slavery.[176] Objective reality, in contrast, maintains that certain truths—particularly in the natural sciences—transcend cultural boundaries, grounded in empirical verification and causal mechanisms observable universally. Physical laws, such as the speed of light at 299,792,458 meters per second in vacuum or the gravitational constant of 6.67430 × 10^{-11} m^3 kg^{-1} s^{-2}, hold consistently across galaxies and epochs, as confirmed by astronomical observations and particle accelerator experiments replicated globally.[177] These constants' invariance challenges relativistic interpretations, as deviations would disrupt predictive models like general relativity, which accurately forecast phenomena from black hole mergers detected in 2015 to planetary orbits.[178] Even in domains like morality, cross-cultural research reveals universals that relativism overlooks. A 2019 analysis of ethnographic data from 60 societies identified seven recurrent cooperation norms—helping kin, aiding groups, reciprocity, bravery, deference to superiors, fair division, and property respect—present in all examined cultures, suggesting innate human adaptations rather than arbitrary inventions.[179] Similarly, a 2020 study of moral dilemmas in 42 countries found consistent patterns, such as aversion to harm, outweighing variations and indicating shared cognitive foundations.[180] Psychologist Steven Pinker argues that such progress in reducing violence—from 15th-century homicide rates of 30-100 per 100,000 in Europe to under 1 today—stems from applying universal reason and evidence, not cultural fiat, rendering relativism self-defeating as it universally asserts relativity's truth.[181] Relativism's persistence in academic discourse, despite empirical counterevidence, may reflect institutional preferences for interpretive frameworks over falsifiable claims, often prioritizing narrative over causal analysis.[182] Yet, objective reality's robustness is affirmed by technologies like GPS, reliant on relativity's precise, culture-independent predictions, and medical advances predicated on biological universals, such as DNA's double helix structure discovered in 1953 and validated worldwide.[174] This tension underscores that while cultural lenses shape perceptions, they do not alter underlying realities verifiable through experimentation and logic.References
- https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reality