Nostr Web Client

Zap reward, I'd like to find a universizable definition of "real". Let's set aside our bias of bitcoin being real for a minute. I'll zap anyone with an actual response or thoughts on , and I'll boost it en Mañana so I can collect as much insight as possible.

In the physical realm, you know something is real because you can touch it, but is that inadequate? You could say this is Tiger woods PGA winning golf club, but that requires some context in which you know that its real; a famous painting might be based off a chain of custody, appraisers, certificates of authenticity which are equally flawed; I know that this is wine, but is it really a Wenzlau pinot noir 2017, or a forgery; this looks like a golf club, it feels like a golf club, but when I hit a ball the head snaps off, that's not real right? Its not impossible perse, but it might depend on degrees of trust and your subjective experience.

In the digital realm, I could say this movie is real because I can watch it; I could say this video of matt Odell is real; I can know a picture of a politician with 17 fingers getting arrested is fake; a pirated copy of a movie is still the real movie. So what's the defining characteristic? Again maybe the degrees of trust and subjective experience are what makes a thing real.

Maybe I'm mixing up some metaphysical layers, committing a logical fallacy, or linguistic mess. It seems like a universizable definition of realness at least depends on degrees of trust and subjective experience, what do you guys think?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Scott 2y ago

I think you have to assume some sort of fundamental distinction between the “self” and the “non-self.” Perhaps the “real” is that which connects those two fundamental elements.

Geist 2y ago

Hmmm, well many eastern religions would dispute a distinction between the self and the non-self, I think it has to do with either of those being undefinable without the other. I don't know how to plug realness into that, but its worth bearing in mind.

Scott 2y ago

Sure, that distinction may not be ultimate. But I think that “real” as an idea only makes sense from the perspective of a “knower”. Without respect to any form of self it seems like everything would just be a “sea of being” without concern for “real”.

Geist 2y ago

Right, the self is subjective and the nonself is unprovable, so real is a quality of the self/subjective, and the objective may or may not conform, but also doesn't care. Though, if something is objective but not real it may be reinterpreted as real at a later date, I would think, and that may come back to the point about subjective experience and degrees of trust. In this sense, we can't know if bitcoin is objective, but it can be real depending on your perspective.

Scott 2y ago

I think “real” is more about the relationship between the subjective and the objective and not specifically about one or the other. As far as bitcoin, isn’t it self-evident that it is real? I didn’t think that was being questioned.

Geist 2y ago

I think its real, you think its real, but I am searching for a universizable definition for real. Its easy to assume something is real when you can touch it, but you can't touch bitcoin. I could say bitcoin is real based on assumptions about the node software, the block hash, the fixed supply etc., but that is a different set of requirements at first glance than how you would normally determine if a physical object is real, collectors items aside.

Any elaboration on the "relationship" between the subjective and the objective?

Scott 2y ago

Hmm. Philosophical history probably tells us that your quest is somewhat futile.

Everything we experience has varying degrees of concreteness/abstractness and I think that determines how easy it is to tell if that thing is real.

I don’t think you’re going to come up with some magic criteria that will make abstract realities all-of-sudden obvious. As bitcoin is a little more abstract, it will always be harder to grasp than something tangible.

As far as the relationship, I think the unity between the self and non-self is deeper than the distinction. So that would mean we have a deep connectedness with that which is beyond us.

Geist 2y ago

Hmm, yes it seems like this is one of those questions people have asked for forever and never settled on. The varying degrees of abstractness and what makes something obvious still leads me back to subjective experience and degrees of trust. More tomorrow if you want to add, time for bed, GN.

Scott 2y ago

What do you mean by degrees of trust?

Geist 2y ago

I have a high degree of trust that a video us real if I took it, slightly less is a family or friend took it and vouches for it, less if its on social media etc.

Scott 2y ago

Gotcha, gotcha. I feel like the way you were using the word “subjective” earlier made it sound like you view it as something that is untrustworthy. Is that accurate?

Geist 2y ago

I don't know if I would call the subjective untrustworthy, it could vary person to person but it doesn't have to, its just whatever you see something as, which could be influenced by drugs, experience, sleep deprivation etc.

Scott 2y ago

Maybe you define real like this: that which is within you is synchronized with that which is outside of you.

Scott 2y ago

You could*