Talk:Reality/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

"The truth refers to what is real, while falsity refers to what is not. Fictions are considered not real."-- but what if things within a fiction possess elements that lend them an independent existence. or if people within fictions have a nervous system-- then if the lives of those independent persons correspond with those of others, then the things that happen to them are real, as opposed to false-- if reality is the sum of real things, excluding only those things that are unreal, then reality must include the reality of those things, persons, places, as well-- then those things are also 'real', but it is not immediately clear to what extent, or in what way, or if the measure of their reality, or if compared to other real things they are as real or real in the same or a comparable way. if the real persons of a universe engage the universe through certain physical processes, processes that define their existence, then they are real in this way. but if other persons engage the universe by some other form, they are defined as being real in that way. but both fall within the broad category of 'reality'. (but though they both fall within the category of reality, it is not immediately reasonable for us to rush to the conclusion that they are in all ways equivalent, or equal, or alike, or identical, or these related terms). -- 0101010

Quantum mechanics again:

"Furthermore, the limit cases at each end are also unattainable: we cannot get a precise measurement of either property[position/momentum], for the principle demands that each such measurement would have to indeterminately alter the other."

a precise measurement of momentum which indeterminately alters position - using an infintely long wavelenght photon, adds zero energy and defines the position of the measured particle to within that infinite wavelenght (which is equivalent to a 'indeterminately alter the other') this is physically impossible because a photon with an infinitely long wavelenght is a mathematical construction and not a physical reality - however this is the reason the limit cases are unattainable, (infinitely short wavelenght in the other case) not the fact that such a measurement cause an indetermincy, but because that measurement in principle is un-physical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.198.63.214 (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"New to this. Just wanted to add that it looks like the QM section needs some major edits. It is not clearly articulated how QM is really relevant to the rest of the articles and there are several statements that are either vague or incorrect. Not sure how these things get edited but this section needs reviewing for sure."--Forreswiki (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

What reality might not be

Can someone please edit this section and put references, or just delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.156.125 (talk) 12:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This article should be self-referencing Wikipedia!

You can forget this entire article and just add this.

Anaïs Nin: "We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are."

I have lived these words since first reading them in my teens, and they still hold true today. Whether it be anything from personal interactions to global international politics, the way people behave in the goodness they do or the threats they perceive, it all boils down to what they "think".

But this article smacks of rhetorical nonsense. Much of it seems to be a synergistic effort in writing an academic prose, with referencing. Sadly though, it also demonstrates that those writing this article should be the last people editing this article as it reflects the "reality" of Wikipedia. I lament the Wikipedia's golden years (circa 2003-2006) where policies were mere guidelines and people did the job for the love of it. And the phrase "be bold" didn't mean start an edit conflict with a pedantic rules lawyer.

My reality? This site now lives up to the final few pages in Animal Farm when the law "All animals are equal" has eventually became "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." Other's will obviously have an entirely different reality of why they spend so much time doing so much work for free. Reality is our psychological make up but it is not because "that's what I say it is".

The statement "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or may be thought to be" is therefore wrong. Reality is whatever the spectrum of human thought can muster. Using Wikipedia as the example.

The top people i.e. senior editors think Wikipedia is wonderful, and dismiss all criticisms. Other people, me for example, think Wikipedia has become nothing short of a totalitarian state where laws have replaced free will, imagination and genuine love for making interesting, readable articles.

Using this analogy how can reality therefore be "the state of things as they actually exist" as clearly there is a dichotomy between the two statements above! One statement therefore denies that my reality exists. This article is therefore the reality/interpretation of the question by people using their own judgements/realities. It is a circular problem that is not answered here! 86.130.59.149 (talk) 23:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

How would you improve the article? This is too much generalization. You want something deleted, re-written, added? If all that post-modernist stuff is what you believe, fine, but it's not helping improve the article. Chrisrus (talk) 15:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Truth

When I was about 30, I found that if I asked people "What is Truth?" I got back a lot of confused drivel like that in the same named § in this article. Truth is a concept. It is the concept exemplified in the situation where I tell you that there is a dime in my closed fist and there is in fact a dime there. It is the abstraction from all such correspondences of representation with reality, thus truth and reality are essentially the same concept (except where reality is taken as including not just its intention but also its extension, "the real world"). Tarski and others have given this various rigorous formulations, and a very extensive literature in mathematics (probability theory, fuzzy sets and systems, model theory, etc.) and science deal with the degree of truth and techniques for finding it out, but any rational human being can be expected to at least know what kind of thing Truth is. When the fist is open, the truth, the reality is revealed. Without a grounding in this concept and a general ability to use concepts, man is simply an animal with a (largely wasted) language faculty (since the proper use of said facility involves being able to use concepts in an educated and critical manner). 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Quantum Mechanics Included?

While quantum mechanics is interesting it seem like it is off topic as to what reality is. I would recommend removing it and perhaps replacing it with a discussion of the scientific method and ways in which we determine what reality is. How we determine what it real and what isn't real. What is a scientific theory? What is proof? Keep the focus on reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcperkel (talk • contribs) 14:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

it is inappropriate for different reasons: quantum mechanics does not say definitively there is no determinism. see Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics. There may be reasons to be in favor of non-determinism, but the reasons given certainly aren't them. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

On second thoughts I removed the section on determinism, the explanation given was incorrect, and a much better article exists on it. Quantum mechanics is relevant to this article. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Reyobem, 3 March 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change "being" in the first paragraph to "been" because "being" is grammatically incorrect. It can, however, still link to "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Being". Thank you.

Reyobem (talk) 02:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Done Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

REFERENCES ON REALITY

The entry is well-written by too consise for such a fundamental topic. It is necessary to add references like as: Reality, Universal Ontology and Knowledge Systems: [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.228.42.75 (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources

While the article content is not controversial, editors should help with providing inline references. PPdd (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Kuhn

The edit on Kuhn is not very clear. While it is natural to think about the nature of reality when reading Structures, it is not certain without citing page numbers from the book that he ever overtly discussed reality, and I read it so long ago I don't remember. If there is not overt discussion, the edit is highly synth, but I have no objection to it on this ground, and would object to removing the mention of Kuhn WP:Common sense grounds. A more clear exposition as to how a paradigm shift is related to a "reality shift" would be helpful, if there are any Kuhn scholars reading this. PPdd (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Buddhist and Hindu conceptions

There is much about reality in Buddhism and Hinduism. Are there any non-analytic philospopher/editors around to help write a section on this? PPdd (talk) 16:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothingness

Section on relation to nothingness is needed. PPdd (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Lead first and second sentence; time and space section

The lead first and second sentence violate MOS consitency. The reason is that the Oxford definition, one of many related to time, is inconsistent with other meanings. Each should be encyclopedically expanded. I created a time and space section with other uses typically found in common or technical meanings. I can source them all with various dictionary defs, but better sources would be desireable. Does anyone have any RS at hand for the the various different, but related, meanings? PPdd (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Careful here. Wikipedia is not a usage guide.Rememberway (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant soemthing bigger than "meaning". I modified this above. PPdd (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Realism section is needed

A realism section is needed. PPdd (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal re WP:Synth, Lead, topics, and article evolution

This article topic is so broad, and has been written about so much, it is suggested that editors put in any reasonable thoughts (to get thoughts, break out your undergrad philosophy books, look in the index for "reality", and add content from the relevant textbook sections), then later add RS, then pare down the article later still. It is also suggested that topic sections be started, but leave the lead alone until the article has evolved to a better sourced and organized state, whence the lead can be written consistent with the article body. Ideas for topic sections can be brought up on the talk page. PPdd (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Native American conceptions

a Native American conceptions of reality section is needed. PPdd (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Dreamtime section needed

A Dreamtime section is needed. PPdd (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start needed

Since the article is now unprotected, and since it is hardly worthy of being called "start class" I intend to boldly revise the whole thing. First, archive most of this page. 1Z (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

See also section

The links in the see also section seem excessive to me. TimBentley (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Krakajakmak, 1 August 2011

Reality has become commodity.

Krakajakmak (talk) 07:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Fresh start needed

Since the article is now unprotected, and since it is hardly worthy of being called "start class" I intend to boldly revise the whole thing. First, archive most of this page. 1Z (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Some material has been deleted because it was of poor quality.

The subsection on axioms was unreferenced, and not in line with the main page axiom. This material should not feature in the article unless it rewritten to be verifiably relevant to reality.

I also couldn't find any references to support the existence of such a concept as "phenomenological reality". If this section cannot be referenced, it should be deleted as WP:OR.

16:27, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Definition

The definition Reality is the state of things as they actually exist just begs the question "How do things actually exist?" Another problem is that by this definition, realism is impossible to disprove and therefore scientifically meaningless. In one sense, the mind is part of reality, but the article is all about belief vs reality. I would suggest, "Reality is that which exists independently of belief and before experimental observation." Kauffner (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC) But belief is a thing which exists in reality ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.227.18 (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Typo

Within the time and space section, this typo appears: "betranscedentally ideal" should be "be transcendentally ideal" 74.132.249.206 (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I searched for it, i think its fixed.Beefcake6412 (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Truth vs. Fact §

Agree with the tagging, considered deleting the entire section. The quote attributed to Dick for example, I don't believe is original to him and if it were it would be inappropriate. "Truth", "Fact", and "Reality" are words corresponding to similar but distinct English concepts and this section is erroneous from the jump in opposing "Truth vs. Fact" a simple minded perspective which then plays itself out in the text of the § Suggest it be pulled to this talk space to be reworked or just deleted. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Also I redacted the lede per the tagging. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 20 November 2011

Reality is a commodity. -Robert Colbert

Adjacient (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. →Στc. 00:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

They want to put the phrase "Reality has become a commodity" in the article. This should explain it. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 December 2011

66.31.167.139 (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Reality has become a commodity

Not a request--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2011

Reality Has become A Commodity

76.222.124.38 (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

 Not done--Jac16888 ^Talk 02:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Levels of reality

In the Frege-Church ontology, there is an object, the name of the object, and the concept of the object. Using the Oxford definition in the lede, the object would be in reality and the concept would not (assuming a concept has existence in the mind or in some Platonic space). The concept itself has a concept, and is thus more real than the concept of the concept. And so on. Do any editors know a good reference regarding this notion of "levels of reality" or others? Similarly for "planes of reality". PPdd (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

(Subjectivity and mysticism) Walmarks OR Amputation

I believe the upshot of the editor's comment below in starting this section is to find reliable sources for, and then include, information on the possible subjectivity of reality based on arguments about subjectivity of truth. Also to include material re mysticism with sources. PPdd (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC) When I was about thirty, a fundamental realization of how complete the failure of education is was made clear when I found that the average person could not process the question "What is truth?". Like a recent survey that posed a moral/ethical dilemma to a mass American sample, the ignorant respondents can't even understand the question, it's beyond their education/understanding to reply something simple and straightforward such as "truth is a concept, the concept of information corresponding to reality" or some such. The section which long stood, and reflects such an intellectual level essentially placed this level of thinking at the top of this article where the complaints above mounted but nothing was done until the action I just took. It will be easy for a person with a modicum of education in philosophy, mathematics, etc. to put something there reflecting the minimum standards of education which need to be enforced in wiki for an article like this. Works of Tarski, Frege, Quine, etc. are especially relevant, but a statement that truth is what ever anybody happens to think it is, that there's no common clearly expressible core meaning as expressed in learned human culture, that truth is on a par with mysticism and evocative impressions of sunrises on VA beach, wasn't going to stand and I'm happy to be the one to do the honors. Lycurgus (talk) 13:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

What "recent survey" are you referring to? PPdd (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

To include "a statement that... truth is... what ever anybody happens to think it is", which I interpret to mean a statement on subjectivity of truth, and thus of what is called reality. All that is needed to include such as statement in the article is to find it in a reliable and verifiable source. Do a google scholar search and you will likely find many such sources on the subjectivigy of truth in the philosphy of logic literature, or in literature on objectivity in general. There is likely also material on this in in the perception literature in psychology. PPdd (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I heard it on NPR (the survey where the respondents couldn't capice a "moral dilemma") within last 90 days. No the above is not about subjectivity vs. its other. It's about the former "Truth vs. Fact" § Also, it's more the case I think that it just slid into its final state, dying a death of 1000 cuts until I put it out of its misery and as the article moved to a mature state, rather than a result of concerted personal effort as my rant would seem to indicate. A typical kind of progression for an article. That Reality is or isn't objectively perceived, that Subjectivity doesn't get treatment worthy the erudition of say, J. P. Sartre, isn't what I'm referring to and think I was fairly clear. It's not an admonition for/against future action, the article is naturally moving to reflect supporting cultural norms and doesn't need that from me. It's an explanation of action taken. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Ken Wilbers AQAL theory

I do not understand why Ken Wilber's work on reality is not cited in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.240.210.53 (talk) 16:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Wilber is one author among thousands. Unless this article were to cover all authors who have written on reality, covering Wilber's theory would violate WP:UNDUE. — goethean ॐ 16:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a great deal missing from the article, and a certain amount that should not be there. A section on New Age perspectives might be appropriate. 188.29.5.171 (talk) 04:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Why is the page being vandalised ?

Surely the vandalism that's evident here is contrary to the spirit in which Wikipedia normally operates and was intended to operate. Can someone please fix this and lock the page down until those involved can grow up and or go away? I want to read what is written about reality - not one persons dull single opinion that reality is metaphorically a commodity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.103.18 (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou - quick fix - is it locked down now?

The perception of reality is a commodity, ask anybody in PR or any political spin doctor. Oh and Colbert is anything but dull — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.149.128 (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible source of the vandalism: Stephen Colbert, on his comedy show The Colbert Report, when discussing the term Wikilobbying, offered $5 bucks to the first person who would change the entry on Reality to 'reality is a commodity'. Reference: Youtube Video - Colbert Vs. Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.11.248 (talk) 19:14, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

I was reading this article and noticed a point on style that needed some attention; in the introduction material, the author does make use of a certain negative phrase to refer to fiction when the author connotes that "Fictions are not considered real" when a more appropriate positive expression is available for changing the tone of the article which includes the mode "Fictions are considered not real". I hope this alteration is considered in the same spirit with which I bring to reading this article, and is so considered carefully and thoughtfully with others' best interest in mind. Thank you.

Done Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

"Reality is a construction":

this oft-cited phrase from [is from Sigfried] Kracauer's study Die Angestellten

Kracauer, Sigfried. "Translator's Note," The Mass Ornament. Harvard University Press: Cambridge:1995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.138.220.97 (talk) 05:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Distinction between what now?

The lead section says (and has said for over a year) that various people "have made a distinction between thought corresponding to reality, coherent abstractions, and that which cannot even be rationally thought." Is that supposed to be three separate things or just two (I assume the latter), with the phrase "coherent abstractions" modifying the phrase "thought corresponding to reality"? I guess I don't understand what "coherent abstractions" is supposed to mean (and/or why it's necessary) in that sentence. Can someone clarify? (Just leave aside the whole "[thought] which cannot even be rationally thought" thing...) - dcljr (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A coherent abstraction would be something like "gold mountain" whereas an incoherent one would be something like "square triangle". 1Z (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

So.... does that mean it's 3 separate things, or just 2? I still can't tell. (And BTW, I meant clarify this in the lead itself, not just here on the talk page. [g] I have now marked the text with {{clarify span}} to encourage someone to change it.) - dcljr (talk) 20:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's three things: thoughts of real things (like New York City), thoughts of things that are plausible (or at least imaginable) but false (like flying pigs), and that which can not be imagined or thought (like the fourth dimension, maybe?). I'm no philosopher, and small wording changes can be important in topics like this, so I hesitate to change anything, but I think I at least understand what is meant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etothei (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In any case the current final sentence of the 1st ¶ is entirely redundant with the previous sentence. Looks stupid, claims diff wo distinction. Not doing anything about though, enough of the lede is my composition already. 76.180.168.166 (talk)

The Axiom axiom?

I hope no-one states anything about anything, as fact. I like JP-Sartre's work, but the fact that he is a published author, and famous because of that 'truth', doesn't make his views ANY more correct/valid/truthful than anyone else's. I might wake up, and discover all 'this' to have been a dream, but I'll play along with it, just in case it isn't. I think maths it based on the axiom: The differnce between ZERO and ONE, is equal to the difference between ONE and TWO. This is self-evidently false, the former is infinite, the latter is only an increase by the magnitude of TWO. I see a big schism here. But what does it matter? I like this article, but remember that empiriscism doesn't grow on trees, it's just a relativly useful tool, invented by you/me/us/bee! Prying open my third eye (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Difference_(mathematics)160.36.8.226 (talk) 20:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggest link to quantum decoherence

The section "Role of the observer in quantum mechanics" covers several early viewpoints, but neglects a lot of work from the past 30 years, in particular quantum decoherence and the understanding that apparent wave-function collapse is a consequence of systems ceasing to be closed. The quantum decoherence article already covers these ideas in depth; it would be useful to link there. Concretely, I suggest, at the end of the section, paraphrasing a sentence from that article's lead paragraph:

In more recent work, quantum decoherence is understood to give the appearance of wave function collapse.

75.88.78.174 (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2014

reality has become a commodity 99.242.67.164 (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 04:20, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2014

According to Stephen Colbert, "reality has become a commodity". Lego423 (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:13, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Clarification request re: "Conjectured"

Why is the word "conjectured" used in the lede? Whether or not a particular observation of "the state of things as they actually exist" is "correct" or not, the concept of "reality" denotes the "state of things as they actually exist" in the objective sense, viz. independent from subjective reasoning or conjecture. The word "conjectured" seems highly problematic in this context, as it immediately muddies the definition at best, and renders it factually incorrect at worst. But perhaps I've misinterpreted the implication. If someone could provide a brief explanation, I'd be greatly appreciative.

Regardless, this wikipedia article is the only major reference/resource that interpolates "conjectured" (or any synonymous term) into the long-accepted definition of reality. Are these other resources omitting a critical term, or is wikipedia's definition meant to be conceptually distinct from any and all other definitions?

Oxford English Dictionary: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/reality

Cambridge English Dictionary: "the ​actual ​state of things, or the ​facts ​involved in such a ​state" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reality

Merriam-Webster: "the quality or state of being real" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality

Dictionary.com: "the state or quality of being real." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality

Encyclopedia.com: "In everyday usage, reality refers to the universe that exists independent of our thoughts. Dreams or delusions, which we experience when we are asleep or are otherwise not in full possession of our senses, are examples of the non real." ICHH 16 (talk) 09:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2015

Excise the word "conjectured" from the article's lede. I.e., change: "Reality is the conjectured state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined." to "Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined."

My primary justification for this request is that the provided source [ref 1] for the sentence in question, the OED, does not include the word "conjectured" or any synonymous terms. From the in-article citation: "the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." The word "conjectured" (which fundamentally alters the definition) seems to have been an invention of the contributor who initially interpolated in. The use of the word, in the context of definitions of reality, has absolutely no precedent that I'm aware of. A thorough Google search of the partial-phrase "reality is the conjectured state" turns up only one unique (i.e., not derived from this article) academic/educational/reference result: a non-fiction book by Simon Elias Bibri titled "The Shaping of Ambient Intelligence and the Internet of Things," which discusses reality in the context of computer sciences, and not in the general sense.

Beyond the discrepancy with its own citation, the word "conjectured" fundamentally alters the definition. Whether or not a particular observation of "the state of things as they actually exist" is "correct" or not, the concept of "reality" denotes the "state of things as they actually exist" in the objective sense, viz. independent from subjective reasoning or conjecture. The word "conjectured" is problematic in this context, as it immediately muddies the definition at best, and renders it factually incorrect at worst.

This wikipedia article is the only major reference/resource that interpolates "conjectured" (or any synonymous term) into the long-accepted definition of reality. Are these other resources omitting a critical term, or is wikipedia's definition meant to be conceptually distinct from any and all other definitions?

Oxford English Dictionary: "the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/reality

Cambridge English Dictionary: "the ​actual ​state of things, or the ​facts ​involved in such a ​state" http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/reality

Merriam-Webster: "the quality or state of being real" http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reality

Dictionary.com: "the state or quality of being real." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reality

Encyclopedia.com: "In everyday usage, reality refers to the universe that exists independent of our thoughts. Dreams or delusions, which we experience when we are asleep or are otherwise not in full possession of our senses, are examples of the non real."

Thank you for your time.

ICHH 16 (talk) 10:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Done I've gone ahead and removed the word "conjectured" from the lede sentence. I agree that it doesn't align well with the dictionary definition cited in that sentence, and having "conjectured" there doesn't improve the sentence in any way. If any editor disagrees with this change, I am open to a discussion on the subject; just ping me. ICHH 16, thanks for pointing this out! /wia🎄/tlk 12:26, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

This is all nonsense.

Ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:100:2700:444C:5647:EA52:960A (talk) 12:07, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Just this sentence...

"The most used and studied scientific theories today state more or less the truth."

Huge assumption. I'm sure the Greeks thought the same. And the Medieval times, and the Industrial Era etc. etc.

Might want to get rid of it. The theories are just really useful for making the world do what we want it to do, so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.148.151.65 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Reality includes the universe

Reality includes the universe, which is scientific speak for the reality (and not some philosophical reality). There is also the real time meaning of reality, meaning what exists in this moment only, such that past things do not exist currently but their effects remain. -Inowen (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - New Section

Reality in Advaita Vedanta

Ramana Maharshi once stated a central aspect of Advaita Vedanta:

"What is the standard of reality? That alone is real which exists by itself, which reveals itself by itself and which is eternal and unchanging."

162.205.217.211 (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is reality restricted to the physical here?

There is an odd physicalist presumption going on in this article. Presumably, mathematical Platonists would disagree. As would substance dualists. As would theists. As would anyone who believes that any abstracta are real. This article strongly begs the question for one position on this philosophical matter. Jonathanjong (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The first sentence is actually horribly written. It could simply say that reality is the name given to what is considered to exist. Beyond that, we would have to go into specific ontological positions. Sometimeswrong (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

"Reality" is not restricted to the physical. Reality (without quotes) is. I don't understand any of what you said above, it looked like a lot of mumbo jumbo. -Inowen (nlfte) 02:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I actually agree with them. Reality should be synonymous with existence or being. If it can be shown that something is not physical but still existing, then that would be reality.

I also don't like including "all" in the definition. REALity is the state of being real. The article makes a mention of smaller "realities." No, you can say the desk is reality. When I say a speech was laced with profanity, I do not mean they mentioned all things profane. -ity does not necessarily imply all, although it does mean all, it doesn't always reference all when applied.

With that being said, I think the editor is very intelligent. I just don't agree with this edit. RyanDanielst (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018

Change the 'imaginary' hyperlink to the Wikipedia page for imagination rather than the Wiktionary article for imaginary 160.91.143.204 (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Agree Linked to the page Object of the mind. regards, DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 04:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Deactivate template since @DRAGON BOOSTER: actioned the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

An interesting observation

Because of an edit on this page in mid-September, about 90% of all pages have been cut off from Philosophy. Now, people are stuck between Reality and Existence. Hdjensofjfnen (If you want to trout me, go ahead!) 16:31, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

reality is a comodity?

who came up with this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.209.193.72 (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

referenced Phenomenological reality

Added PhilPapers reference, "Present-time", to lead sentence...please check it out.Arnlodg (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

More reification content is needed

More reification content is needed. PPdd (talk)

What is the justification for the ontological status of this page?

Why does this page exist? Shouldn't it just redirect to ontology? I mean "Reality is the topic studied by ontology." or "See: Ontology?" To have two pages which cover the philosophical study of reality, which this page also does, is dumb. Also the first-link tree of this is a cycle meaning that it is a stranded definition based on circular topics. I think this is sophomoric philosophical speculation, the opening paragraph has a materialist bent which is mentioned in another comment and recommend this page be a redirection or deleted.

Ontology studies being more than reality, the Ontology page deals almost exclusively with being, I found this page far more relevant to what I was searching for. - 37.164.233.197 (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Religious bias in the article

Almost all of the religions in the world consist of their own metaphysical theories, but the article only includes a section on only Jainism, without any apparent reason for leaving out the theories of other religions. Besides that, Jain tattva (aspects of reality in Jainism) is a metaphysical theory, and its relation to "reality" is signified well enough by referencing metaphysics in the article. Should that section be removed? Ambuj Shukla (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Consider migrating it to a separate article, leaving a link and short summary, then doing the same for other religions. SkynetPR (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Coverage of philosophical aspects about "reality" lacks a universal scope

The article only covers philosophical aspects of reality with respect to Western philosophy. All other philosophical thoughts, such as East Asian philosophy and Middle Eastern philosophy, have been completely ignored. Ambuj Shukla (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Fair point. Consider making a start on your own. Leave a section, and let it grow as people work on it. SkynetPR (talk) 15:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Deletion?

The article contains no references in its main sections. Other third-party sources in Philosophy go straight to Realism etc where we also have articles. The whole thing reads like a slightly esoteric take and seems to be a fork. I'm inclined to nominate it for deletion or simply remove all unreferenced material (in which case it will be a stub). -----Snowded ^TALK 06:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)