geckopelli

I think it's more a matter of reality defining itself; hence my verbal definition. It dosen't explain reality so much as not conflict with it.

I've dismissed solipsism with this reasoning: The concept of self-awareness requires something that is not the self and with which one does not share awareness in order to define it. My inability to experience self-awareness as YOU confirms rather than denies your seperate exiatence, thereby validating the concept of reality outside one's self. Further, "I think therefore I am" carries the unspoken assumption of some stimuli to think about.

Agreed. Nevertheless, the existence of "reality" is the most basic of unstated assumptions, else there would be nothing to observe. Besides, it's essential for literary reason! Thank you all.

Much thanks.

The "names" of the variables expressed as d, p and x?

Heisenberg it is.

Thank you all. "We can't get outside the system or identify some independent variable, all we can do is accept some propositions as axiomatic or definitional, the rest is dependent on everything else and the aceptance of those axioms & definitions" In a way, this is "Universal Solipsism". Existence is functional becasue it IS. This leads to the basic assumption (truism?) that the term "reality" labels a concept which is valid. This assumption is basic to science, philosophy, relogion and our motivation to get out of (or stay in) bed in the morning. No components of the Universe are observable from outside the universe, since no "outside" can be shown to exist. I do. however feel compelled to drop the word "objective". Logic is a great servant but a lousy master. I use it as a structural framework only, fully realizing is limitations. I discount Descarte. He is clearly a solipsist. Besides, practitioners of "lucid dreaming" are quite capable of asking such question while in the dream state.

If so, how? And if not, why? I can handle a fairly complex science and/or math. But, of course, the simpler the better.

By self qualifying I mean that each component must meet the criteria seperately. I'm really looking for loopholes- the more subtle the better.

One other thing. It is possible for an idea to qualify as "real" under the definition -- provided it manifest itself in a way that can be objectively observed. Perhaps "Components of Existence influence one another in a manner which is subject to objective observation". Better?

This is a quasi-scientific question. I'm a writer, not a resercher. The "quantified" definition is too narrow because it doesn't account for the possibility of the undiscovered or as yet unquantified. A dream would have to have "influence" on a self-qualifying componet of existence as well as being observed by the dreamer in order to qualify. Events within the same dream do not qualify. Or how am I logically wrong? Side to NavajoEverclear: Spare me the life advice. I have a daughter your age. I hardly need a kid to tell me how to live. And would you mind if I made a living?

For a project I'm working on I need a rigid verbal definition of "what is real?". This is what I've come up with: Components of Existence influence one another in an observable manner. Can anyone refute this? In any context (science, religion, meta-physics, magic, etc.)? Is my logic faulty or perhaps inadequate? All comments will be greatly appreciated.

Hi, all. Even if entropy were decreased, "events" would not re-set themselves; you just "can't go home again".