Micheal wrote:
We can experience that part of the reality that our senses and physical limitations allow. My very colorblind friend sees thousands of shades of grey. Color is a fantasy to him. His wife's eyes a lovely deep blue, he shall never truly know what that means.
Extrapolate that out to the rest of reality. The deaf cannot hear, the blind cannot see, the mute cannot talk. What parts of reality are the rest of us missing because of senses we don't understand we don't have? How much more beautiful, how much richer the experience if we knew, if we could understand those things - if they exist.
Because we don't know if they exist, for us they don't. But if they do, and they are part of reality, we just don't know and appreciate the experience and it keeps us from making the connections they might provide.
Then again, what is it to reality if we can observe it or not?
I like this post very much!
To bring it home to the commonplace, some life on Earth (not humans) see parts of the ultraviolet spectrum that we do not. A photographer has taken photographs of flowers that sort of shift part of the UV spectrum into color we would normally see. Turns out that some flowers have patterns that we simply can not see, which some insects can.
This link shows a striking such example. The link for the main website for this UV (and infrared) photography is
here.
To us a yellow flower might just be a yellow flower. To an insect that doesn't quite see the same spectrum it may not be. Neither of us is any more correct than the other. You don't even have to venture out into the realm of the Matrix to have some problems with an objective reality. We may say "that is a yellow flower" but it's only true for us, and besides, that yellowness is just a creation of our brain based on reflected light entering our eyes and being picked up by nerves. The objective reality is that light bouncing off a flower, but it's one step removed from how we directly experience things. Kinda a strange concept once you wrap your brain around it, even if you toss out all Matrixesque possibilities.
With science discovering new fundamental stuff every now and then, I wouldn't even feel too comfortable stating that we know much about objective reality to begin with. You can cheat and say stuff like the Earth is round, since those are fully defined terms in and of themselves, but I wonder what some scientist 2,000 years from now would say if they read my comment about reflected light. I can imagine they'd say something like "well, yes, but..." and explain with a lot more finesse about the details of what is objectively happening. Well, I'm sure a scientist
now would find my science explanations infantile, but you guys get where I'm going with this I hope. :p Taking it a step farther, you can dig deep enough and find a whole lot of stuff science can only guess at right now, so I can only wonder about the stuff science has no clue even exists to question now.
The double slit experiment and time-bending gravity still confuse the heck out of me and these are not particularly new concepts. :p