Wednesday, August 20, 2008

What is reality?

I've been pondering over what it means for something to be real. We'll talk about things like whether the external world is real, whether an historical event is real, whether God is more real than the world, etc. However, what does real mean in these cases? Here are a couple of my attempts to parse things out:

(1) Publicness: "Reality" can be dispensed with in some circumstances, and we can talk about how public a phenomenon is instead. Dreams are not unreal, they are private. The reality of the external world is, at best, simply a best explanation as to why it is common to multiple subjects, and not anything necessary for its stability or for the success of science.

(2) Consistency: Reality is consistency. Dreams and hallucinations are inconsistent with the rest of our experience, and so we dismiss them as mere appearances.

(3) Effect: History is a bit trickier. I fail to see why we should care about historical events whose reality does not affect the present, though I suppose a complete theory must refer to such. Otherwise, it seems that an even is real if there would be effect A had it happened, and effect B otherwise, and effect A does in fact obtain. So, Christ's incarnation, death, and resurrection are real if they implement the effects they are said to effect, which presumably would not be effected otherwise. The question of whether Job and Esther (and IMHO at least the beginning of Genesis) are real seems to be a misleading question; they impact the present through their literary value mainly, and so this is the sphere of their reality.

(4) Actuality: The real is the true and actual in this very moment. This seems to me to be what grounds all of the other senses. Of course, we get into theories of time here. One theory (the block view, or B theory) states that the entire space-time continuum is one big block, which has an ordering of events. So, event A can be before event B, which is after A. However, there is no past, present, or future absolutely speaking; for every event A, A is in the present, everything before is past, everything after is future. However, these past and future events do exist. In contrast, the other main view of time (the presentist, or A theory) states that the present moment is what actually exists; the past and future do not. So, in the first theory, there is a set containing a Cretaceous-era Tyrannosaurus and a 21st century computer, while the second theory denies that this is possible. The former tends to be in vogue amongst the scientistifically minded, while idealists of varying stripes like the second.

If the block view is correct, then we have a way of discussing historical events in a new light; they are actual because they exist (once existent, always existent), and so are real. The publicness and consistency criteria also are expanded, in that what is most real is what is the most public/consistent at the most times. If the presentist view is correct, then there is nothing to be real except the present. Publicness and consistency also apply merely to the present moment, and so dreams, hallucinations, and perhaps even myths may be perfectly real at the present (though not necessarily at any other time).

No comments: