How do you, personally, define ‘reality’?
I suppose, to do such a thing, you would first need to define what is ‘real’. As our reality encompasses all that is real. Correct?
Oxford languages defines ‘real’ as something that “actually exists as a thing or occurring in fact; not imagine or supposed”
Where-as reality is defined as “the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them”
Our modern scientific world is build around these two words. Materialistic Reductionism is generally considered to be the ultimate answer to the universe; in which everything in the universe, including consciousness and complex phenomena can be fully explained by reducing them to their most fundamental physical components and the interactions between them. In simple terms, atoms and matter interacting with other atoms and matter. Anything outside of this is discarded; as something without physical matter cannot possibly be real.
But outside of the Oxford definition, what is ‘real’?
Reach out and touch the closest thing you can see. That is real, but what is actually happening for you to perceive it as such? Take a deep breathe in through your nose and detect any sort of scent. Stop and listen to the sounds around you. Realize for a moment, what you are viewing with your eyes.
All of these things are grounded in physical matter. What they are however, is nothing more than external electro-magnetic stimuli being received by one of our 5 main senses.
This external stimulus is then converted to an electrical signal and transmitted to the brain where it is processed, and ‘reality’ is built/perceived each and every moment.
What happens then, when we are able to artificially create those same electrical signals and send them directly to the brain? Devices like the neuralink hope to interface directly with the human mind, and perhaps within the next 50 years, we will see a time when such a feat will be possible.
How then, will we define what is real?
Will we even be able to?
When we can no longer define what is real, then we can no longer define reality, and much of what our modern world is built on begins to break down. That is, unless it evolves.
If everything we currently perceive as reality (and even the things we discard) are instead viewed as information/catalyst instead of real/not real, then an interesting concept begins to emerge.
I believe the entire point of existence is evolution. Not necessarily in the Darwinian sense but in a much purer sense of the word. If everything you experience, both physically and non-physically is instead seen as catalyst for evolution/growth, then what is real/not real begins to matter less.
Take a vivid dream, for example. Dreams are not considered to be real. They do not occur within the physical universe. They can, however, change a person. They can enforce a fear or help to overcome one. They can help solve problems both internally and externally. They can bring about spiritual growth and progression and surprisingly, many inventors claim to get their ideas through dreams. Dreams are not ‘real’ but they are information/catalyst for growth, and they can be both beneficial or detrimental depending on what you chose to do with that catalyst.
Hypothetical scenarios are used in risk assessments, despite not being ‘real’ in the purest sense of the word. And we can gain a lot of valuable insight by running as many ‘what-if’ scenarios as we can when trying to plan for crisis.
I hypothesise that this is the intended way to perceive not just your own interactions with the universe but everyone else’s as well. Each and every minute piece of information, is catalyst/information that can be used for growth. If the information/catalyst cannot be used, then it can be discarded.
This is not to say that the scientific process is not important, on the contrary; it is imperative that we champion such methodologies as they help us understand the physical universe and our place within it. But even within science, this new paradigm of information/catalyst can be used. Take one well known equation, and an incorrect version of the same equation, for example:
E=MC2 (Energy is equal to Mass times the speed of light squared)
E=2xMC (Energy is equal to 2 times Mass, times by the speed of light)
One of these equations is considered correct and real, the other, incorrect and/or not real. Both however are information, and one of these can be utilised for development/growth in a variety of ways. The other cannot, and so it is discarded.
But if everything is just catalyst for evolution, how do we define what is beneficial versus what is detrimental? Is there an end state we should be thriving towards? What exactly are we growing towards and would we need some sort of external standard to help us navigate our growth?
I am not sure. Perhaps that answer is different for everyone. I do believe that humanity as a species are rocketing towards a technological future that we are not spiritually or socially adjusted for and that having these discussions is imperative to understanding not just the universe, but our place within it.
If I had to formulate a hypothesis right now, it would be based around polarity. Take temperature for example. There is hot, and there is cold; of that there is no question. However, where warm begins for you and where it begins for me is a matter of personal opinion, ‘free will’ if you want to phrase it another way. Perhaps the entire point is to simply, chose a polarity, and evolve towards it. For light to exist, then so must darkness. For good to exist, then so must evil. Maybe evolution begins when you make a free will decision around what you want to polarize towards. Would you like to help others? Or would you prefer to help only yourself? Perhaps the universe itself is neutral about polarity, even if we as individuals and societies are not; with either end of the spectrum serving the same evolutionary function in a larger system we are unaware of/unequipped to understand. Society may deem certain actions ‘wrong’ but if we were to learn tomorrow that the soul is immortal and carries on after death, to experience more catalyst in a different form after life, would we change our viewpoint slightly? In no way am I condoning violence with this thought experiment, but in the grand scheme of the universe, the societal norms that we have decided upon on Earth may not exist elsewhere in the cosmos. And if we are going to explore the cosmos, then we need to be ready for that.
Various religions speak of the battle between good and evil, perhaps this is what they refer to. Entities that chose to polarise negatively, butting heads against entities that chose to polarise positively. This is all conjecture on my part, but it makes logical sense when we consider that life might be just another form of catalyst, one that can be repeated as many times as needed to learn the lessons required.
Then again, none of what I have written here could be real.
But does that really matter?
My thoughts on the above are not complete, and they continue to evolve. Perhaps, with time, I will completely change my hypothesis on everything I have written. Until then I will continue pondering, continue learning, and continue my own personal evolution.