Originally Posted by tortoisedoc

the relativity theory!

Originally Posted by nthn

Which one? Einstein's? That's only general relativity, and is only the least complex way to describe what we can observe, proving my point. Einstein's relativity has not been reconciled with quantum relativity, either. Also, physically defined as what exactly?

Either way, there is no proof whatsoever for any existence of causality outside of the mind (if it even exists inside the mind). Any other claim results in circular reasoning: causality exists because you can observe it, and you can observe causality because it exists. This doesn't mean causality can't exist independently of any observer, only that it would be foolish to assume that whatever you think is causality a) is causality, b) exists, independently or dependently. I do suggest to read up on the different theories on what causality could be like (foregoing whether it actually exists), and on how all of them suffer from unsolveable problems.

Just to make things clear, however: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX7CeTXoxyU

Originally Posted by tortoisedoc

So causality as such is absolute (in this Reality); like entropy.

Originally Posted by nthn

Again you take the independent existence of causality (in whichever way) for granted and even posit it as an absolute, but there is nothing to indicate this is the case (or not the case). All of the thought experiments like the 'brain in a vat' (which can easily be combined with infinite regress to say that 'Reality' itself is also an illusion of 'Reality2', and so on) are old and often mentioned only in passing and with a dismissive attitude, but they cannot be proven or disproven. We just choose to ignore them. Here's one juiceme might recognise:

"By your belief in granular singularities, you deny all movement - evolutionary or devolutionary. Belief fixes a granular universe and causes that universe to persist. Nothing can be allowed to change because that way your non-moving universe vanishes. But it moves of itself when you do not move. It evolves beyond you and is no longer accessible to you."

Also, the observer, in observing, chooses to observe. If he didn't, he wouldn't be an observer. But choice also sounds like it would depend on freedom, and freedom would depend on free will, but you're going to need a really broad definition of free will considering it's possible to accurately predict which choice a person is going to make based on their brain processes before you've even asked them the question.

I'm not sure what you mean by right and wrong.

Originally Posted by tortoisedoc

this won't make the Reality with capital R as in the "real" reality, not the perceived one, go away

Originally Posted by pichlo

I have backed away from this discussion as it became too esoteric and I started losing track but... is that not what the entire discussion is all about? Whether there even is such a thing as "real" reality, independent of the observer. Our everyday intuition seems to confirm its existence but is it really objective or just a construct of our limited senses, processing power and perhaps frame of reference? After all, there are domains (quantum effects, more-that-four dimensional spaces, even plain old four-dimensional spaces but with a different configuration of time and space dimensions, such as inside black holes) where our everyday intuition fails spectacularly.

Originally Posted by tortoisedoc

Yes I think its a separate discussion; at least (from my point) my discussion was about Freedom

Originally Posted by pichlo

You do not "choose" to observe gravity, it has been imposed on you.

Originally Posted by tortoisedoc

Doesnt that answer your question "does a reality exist"?