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:

All of existence is a prison. The question is, what is outside that prison?

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

When it strikes back.

Any one-sentence OP is basically click bait.
— @Wayfarer
:up: — 180 Proof

An OP can't be clickbait; only a thread title can be, eager beavers.

How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?

Because reality is what there is.

To posit something "beyond reality" is to posit more of what there is. It is to extend reality.

This is why the extent of our language is the extent of our world.

Hopefully, replacing "limit" with "extent" will head off some of the misplaced criticism of that phrase.

The other mistake here is to equate what we experience with what is real, and so to conflate "How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our experience" with "How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality".

"Beyond reality" is not a region; it is a grammatical error.

How do we know there isn’t anything beyond our reality?

Because reality is what there is. — Banno

I know what you mean, but I don't think @an-salad is defining it that way. They're making a distinction between "our reality" and "reality = our reality + whatever else there might be". The last thing we need is a debate on how to use the term "reality"! :smile: Using the word in the way an-salad uses it, wouldn't you agree that the question is a sensible one? And if you'd rather not use "reality" in the more restricted way an-salad means, we can come up with a different term, it doesn't matter.

Maybe put the question this way: Could there be anything that humans will never be able to know or experience?

This is why the extent of our language is the extent of our world. — Banno

Wow... I find that more ... idealist than I would ever dare to be ... :wink:

Could there be anything that humans will never be able to know or experience? — J

Not that we know of.

:wink:

...idealist... — Tobias

How rude. :wink:

The set of true sentences is never complete, if that helps. I suspect that is what and are trying to capture - that there is always more to be said.

All of existence is a prison. The question is, what is outside that prison? — an-salad

This is unexpectedly profound, perhaps that was your intent, perhaps not. For the average person, even those who claim to have found the charms of love or who otherwise remain placated by the juvenile pleasures life has to offer (wealth, physicality ie. "the flesh" or "pleasure", feeling of esteem and respect from strangers, hollow as these things are, they remain the sole driving force behind most of life's actions and ambitions, and of course, naturally, most of life's suffering) all have the same thing in common. We inevitably want more. No, we delude ourselves, often passively with empty gratitude shared in public (ie. "I'm so grateful, I couldn't ask for more") so as to sell an image to an ultimately uncaring world. But this inevitability manifests in "mid life crises", peculiar hobbies, marital strife, microaggressions, and more if left unexamined and unaddressed. Not to mention those who have yet to find peace and purpose.

Regardless of our status in life—perceived, real, deluded or anything in between—we all have one sobering dynamic in common. We all hunger and thirst. Both physically and of course symbolically, for that which we do not have, and even that which we do have. This is clear as day and does not require any sort of explanation for someone living in abject poverty or afflicted with a debilitating condition or ailment, naturally. But what of an upperclassman with everything the average man (or woman) reasonably strives for in life? Stable, high-paying job, big house, loving partner, beautiful family, good friends, respect from his or her peers, an abundance of wealth (including time)—and above all—that ever so elusive feeling of true peace at the very last moments of one's day to be followed by true purpose and drive at the start of the following, only to repeat indefinitely until the last of one's days. What of that man? Is he simply deluded? Or are those who compare his life and status to imprisonment merely jealous and disappointed with their own (projection, perhaps)? Surely this must be the only relevant dynamic (a binary "one or the other") in relation to the aforementioned questions posed. Mustn't it?

Surely he (and anyone else with half a mind) would never attempt to equate such a charmed and privileged existence to that of a "prison", would they? No, not in a million years. Or so it seems. One argument—and not a particularly good one (without the right biases in my opinion)—would be to start by taking a page from the stereotypical "anti-materialism" playbook. Along the lines of "one doesn't own possessions, one's possessions own the person, requiring constant and daily vigilance and occasional villainy to ensure one continues from one day to the next living in the manner in which one has become accustomed, all the while knowing, deep down, he would be not only hopelessly lost but simply destroyed if he were to lose any one of these things many men live life without, for even the slave with golden shackles undoubtedly remains but a slave." No, it's not particularly great, but it has merit given the right context.

I notice you go one further by saying all existence is a prison, so even an enlightened anti-materialist who has given up all worldly desire is still "imprisoned" due to him being conscious of himself. No different than a historical wealthy monarch in charge of vast swathes of lands, armies, and treasure. This would seem to betray an almost "antinatalist" or "anti-human" sort of world view, along the lines of "all life is bad and the less of it, the better." Not a very popular position to hold, quite dangerous even, yet the philosophical validity is not lost entirely.

The brevity (or simplicity) or your remarks, while profound, do leave much to interpretation. "All of existence" is a very broad term. Perhaps a bit broader than one initially realizes. Logically speaking, if "all of existence" is a prison, that would mean, the only thing beyond "existence" and "not a prison" would be... non-existence? This makes your remark astonishingly less profound, or at the very least, less vast in terms of philosophical context. There would seem to be two possible dynamics that can follow from that point. A sort of spiritual or metaphysical reality that transcends (has existed before and will exist after) the life and death of the body. Or, as mentioned previously, a sort of, in my view rather myopic, "anti-life" or "antinatalist" view of the world.

Either of which are valid—if not somewhat tired and largely titular—positions to hold, sure. Life, particularly the majority of human existence before the modern age of science and technology that largely alleviated the prevalence and tenacity of human suffering, is seemingly skewed in disproportionate favor of opportunity of things like pain, injury, illness, suffering, death, etc. Simply put, there's more things that can go wrong than go right as far as the human experience goes in the context of existence as we know and define it. But what of it? Where do you make the leap from "I think, therefore I am" to "I think, therefore I am not?" Was this intended or merely an adverse side affect? :chin:

It would be a kind of miracle if what we experience is all there is - a kind of evolutionary freak accident. So, I highly doubt that there is not more to the world than what we experience.

But - we can't know much - if anything, about it.

:lol: Yeah, I guess I walked into that one.

But the fact that we don't know of it could hardly demonstrate that it's impossible.

The set of true sentences is never complete, if that helps. I suspect that is what ↪an-salad and ↪J are trying to capture - that there is always more to be said. — Banno

I think this is true, and I'd go further: We have no warrant for believing that "what can be said" is a perfect match for "what can be said by humans." It's a big universe out there . . .