We don't. Can you say why that seems like a quandary to you?

If the reality we experience is the only thing that we have experienced, how do we know that there isn’t anything beyond our reality? — an-salad

We know for a fact there are things we do not, and perhaps cannot, currently experience that we will be able to sometime in the future. I don’t think that’s what you’re talking about.

If, instead, you were talking about aspects of reality that we will never have access to, even in theory, then the question is meaningless. Or maybe metaphysics.

By definition, we can't. But as T Clark says, that makes the query meaningless and unanswerable.

If, instead, you were talking about aspects of reality that we will never have access to, even in theory, then the question is meaningless — T Clark

OK, pretend I'm a well-meaning philosophical novice, and explain to me, as simply as you can, why the question is meaningless. It looks to me as if it's referring to aspects of reality that humans can't access; there may be none we can ever know of, making the question unanswerable, but why is it meaningless?

explain to me, as simply as you can, why the question is meaningless. — J

I didn’t say it was meaningless. I said it was meaningless or metaphysics. Metaphysics doesn’t have to be true or false. As a matter of fact, as I understand it, it can’t be. Something that is metaphysical becomes meaningless when there is no possible use for it. I don’t classify making people say “golly geewhilikers” as useful.

beyond our reality — an-salad

:confused: (e.g. north of the North Pole)

If the reality we experience is the only thing that we have experienced — an-salad

You don't dream? How do we know dreams are really just our mind "attempting to work out" problems and conundrums even in unconsciousness like the prevailing theory claims? Sure, it can be measured with an EEG, but all that proves is the mind is being stimulated by activity, not that the activity is a contained system.

I take this as a fun thread, which is refreshing every now and then. Conversely, however, how do we know there isn't a horrible swamp monster under our bed at all times that goes away once we look under it? We don't, now do we? Not really. Like the prevailing sentiment of the replies thus far suggests, it seems there are much more "relevant" affairs and states of matter to tend to. But never let someone tell you what and what not (or how) to think.

Identity is knowledge. You likely thought you knew all there was to know at six years old. Your entire set of knowledge and view of the world likely (or at least should have) changed significantly from then by age 12. As it did in comparison to when you became 18. And then again at 21. And 30. And so on and so on. Effectively, we become a new person with a new understanding of reality (effectively, a new reality altogether) every time we learn something. Can this not be said and argued as fact?

Metaphysics doesn’t have to be true or false. — T Clark

But surely the statement, "There is a reality that humans can't experience" is either true or false, isn't it? I still don't see the leap from "unanswerable" to either "meaningless" or "neither true nor false."

But surely the statement, "There is a reality that humans can't experience" is either true or false, isn't it? I still don't see the leap from "unanswerable" to either "meaningless" or "neither true nor false." — J

@T Clark’s motto—If there is no way of knowing whether a statement is true or false, even in theory, then it’s either metaphysics or meaningless.

If you ask any more questions, I’m going to give you my prerecorded RG Collingwood metaphysics lecture, which you’ve probably heard before.

If the reality we experience is the only thing that we have experienced, how do we know that there isn’t anything beyond our reality? — an-salad

Because if it would be something than it would literally be 'some thing', meaning a thing we can identify. Something beyond our reality is exactly that, beyond our reality and then it would not be recognizable as something for us. The speculation therefore is idle. Of course there may well be a lot of things that are not part of our reality yet, just like iron was beyond the reality of the people in the stone age. At such a point though, it is not 'not part of our reality per se', but 'not yet part of our reality'.

Does your question only assume we “know” something that is inside our reality? You drew a line in reality and said we are in reality over hear, and over there is beyond our reality. You also only mentioned how we can’t know anything beyond our reality. This implying we can know reality, but only know the reality that is not “beyond”.

So is your issue here merely a version of the Kantian phenomenal/noumenal distinction? Is it essentially epistemological about “knowing”, or is it getting ant something metaphysical or ontological about the nature of reality?

If you ask any more questions, I’m going to give you my prerecorded RG Collingwood metaphysics lecture, which you’ve probably heard before. — T Clark

Aaaaaa! :wink:

If there is no way of knowing whether a statement is true or false, even in theory, then it’s either metaphysics or meaningless. — T Clark

OK, no more questions, just pointing out that your motto, while no doubt useful, isn't likely to convince someone who hasn't already adopted it as a motto. (The question I would have asked is, Why does the lack of a definitive answer drain the meaning from a question? But I won't!) (Also, if I understand you, it's not really a matter of "either metaphysics or meaningless." You're saying that metaphysics doesn't have to be true or false. But the statement in question does have to be. Ergo, it's not metaphysics. Ergo, it's meaningless. But see my [unasked!] previous question -- where did the meaning go away to? It seemed perfectly meaningful when it was posed.)

:up: :up:

The expression "how do we know" is peculiar in this context. It usually appears as a counter to a statement of fact made by a person.

"How do we know that Frodo was on the balcony with a torch as described by Cicero in his testimony?"

The request to confirm what cannot be reported upon is a diving board extended over an empty pool.

Any one-sentence OP is basically click bait.

OK, no more questions, just pointing out that your motto, while no doubt useful, isn't likely to convince someone who hasn't already adopted it as a motto. — J

I really wasn’t trying to convince anyone, I guess I was just pointing out that we were headed off into a more complicated discussion which is probably outside the intended scope of this thread.

Why does the lack of a definitive answer drain the meaning from a question? — J

What value, meaning, is there in a question that can’t be answered, even in theory? What do you do with it? What does it teach you? What implications, consequences does it have? How do I use the OP’s opening question?

how do we know that there isn’t anything beyond our reality? — an-salad

Do something with that. Show me what value it has. Let’s go further than that. We’ll assume there is something beyond the reality we can experience that is not accessible and never will be. How does that change anything?

These are the kinds of questions that make philosophy look ridiculous. I guess that’s why they bother me so much.

We’ll assume there is something beyond the reality we can experience that is not accessible and never will be. — T Clark

This, me thinks, is the arbitrarily-placed, obsequious stipulation that when removed makes the entire topic just a tad bit more open to conversation, no? :smile:

This, me thinks, is the arbitrarily-placed, obsequious stipulation that when removed makes the entire topic just a tad bit more open to conversation, no? — Outlander

No.

Any one-sentence OP is basically click bait. — Wayfarer

:up: