The Real Nature of Jack's Third Wife

Recently, I’ve found myself spending more and more time in front of my computer(no small feat, in my case), engaged in activities intended to pull ones mind into realms of fantasy. By which I mean video games and e-books, so don’t be getting any ideas, buddy. In a rather desperate attempt to return to the real world, as it were, I tried to refocus my attention on my studies – something which has never worked too well before, but it had to be tried. Needless to say, I’ve met with miserable yet consistent failure. I think I’m beginning to understand how junkies feel (damn Call of Duty 2…) – I’m practically addicted to the 17-inch TFT screen on my desk, beaming its contents out in glorious 32-bit color. I mean, it’s pretty hard to tear myself away for such trivial items as showering and hygiene, and return to normal, dull, reality.

But then, what is reality? All of this got me thinking about the nature of reality, as we call it. We all assume that the world we live in is, indeed, the world – it’s all reality. Many people – especially these “positive thinking gurus” – repeatedly tell us that the world is what we want it to be, and going by the notion that the world is reality (and/or vice versa), we find that reality is what we want it to be. While it’s true that this is regarded as a more extreme view, it’s also true that it’s also often criticized (IMO) out of hand.

(as an aside, when I say “world” during the course of this rambling, I’m referring to not only this planet, but the universe as well)

Let me back up a little, and try to see if I can organize my thoughts somewhat here. As far as I know, there are 3 widely recognized (not necessarily accepted) views as to what “reality” is –
1) that “reality” is the world, as it is, and that the laws of this world are unbreakable. The laws of humanity may be breakable to varying extents, but not those of the world itself. (the first idea)
2) that “reality” is what we make it, and subjective, either entirely or in part. (the second idea)
3) that “reality” is something non-existent, and that everything is an illusion. None of it is real in the slightest. (the third idea)
There are probably – in fact there are bound to be – more viewpoints than this, but for the purposes of this piece, I’ll confine myself to working with only these three. Now, all schools of philosophical thought believe in one of these three, or some combination of any of the three, or all, or none. Or they just say that they don’t know, and that the answer is unknowable. Realistic Agnosticism, I s’pose you could call it. Then again, you could call it Jack’s third wife too. Wonderful.

Returning to the unfinished bit above, what, then, is the true nature of reality? Does/Must it even have a “true” nature? The first idea is something many of us have been brought up to believe, and as such, I don’t feel it needs any further explanation. If the world truly is reality, and its laws are inviolate, then we know precisely where we stand. It’s the second and the third ideas which lead to other, more interesting (again, IMO) possibilities.

If it’s all an illusion (or beyond our comprehension), then there’s no point in speculating as to its true nature any more than there is to a bacterium speculating on the death penalty. A crude analogy, but I think it conveys the message. But what if reality really is what we make it? What if it’s all entirely subjective? Many toss this idea out the window saying that if it were, then why isn’t that nut over there floating? I mean, he’s high and he believes he is, doesn’t he? So why isn’t he? At this point, we are left to turn to the first idea. After all, if the second holds no water and the third is beyond our grasp, what else is left?

One thing which critics – and, to a large extent, supporters - of the second idea never seem to add to that pot is social inertia. Consider, if you will, a case often made regarding morality. A man commits a murder which he genuinely believes to be right. Society disagrees. The poor slob gets the chair, or maybe the gas chamber, or maybe just 10 to 20 – whatever it is, he’s punished. Since punishment only follows a crime, and since a crime, by definition, is something that’s wrong, our man – the murderer who really thought he was right – has actually done something wrong. Why? Because society – read: the majority – says so. A clear case of social inertia defining morality (and there are loads more).

You see where I’m going with this – what if the world is the way it is simply because society thinks it is? What if the laws of physics are what they are simply because the majority believes they are? But then, who defines the majority? Is it numerical, or is it those in power who decide? Who defines power? What if there is no majority, and there are only mutually conflicting views? Again, in order to make this idea work, let’s add another concept – that reality isn’t necessarily the same for everyone.

At this point, it all becomes much clearer, in a roundabout sort of fashion. Why does the earth revolve around the sun? Because I say so. So what about that guy over there, who says the earth doesn’t revolve around the sun at all, that they both revolve around the moon, which is made of pink cheese and has a core of green eggs and ham – what about him? Well, that’s true too – to him. In my reality (if I may use the term), he’s a nutcase; in his, I’m the nutcase. While this is oversimplifying the idea, it does give rise to a question (and certainly more than one, but I can’t think of the others right now): Why aren’t we all in realities where we’re happy?

To this question, there’re only three words I can answer with – I don’t know. Well, four if you don’t like contractions. But does the fact that one doesn’t know exactly how it all works mean that ones ideas are impossible? Did Copernicus know the precise workings of gravity and the solar system when he proposed his Heliocentric model? Did this mean that his idea was impossible?

As AmiLEan Questions says, all too often we confuse criticism and a critical attitude. All too often we neglect possibilities out of hand, when the reality (there’s that word again) of the situation is that we simply don’t know – we may believe from the bottom of our heart (and then some), but that isn’t quite the same as knowing.

That’s not to say that only one idea must be true. Where’s it written that reality is unchangeable? Maybe it keeps changing. And I don’t mean to say that I think any particular idea about the nature of reality is true – I just speculate, I don’t know. So I guess I subscribe to Jack’s third wife, I mean, Realistic Agnosticism. Surprising how dirty that sounds…

I’m sure that many people would say that the truth of the first idea – and the nature of reality - isn’t widely accepted dogma, it’s just common sense. To them I respond – Is there really a difference between the two?

(I actually wrote this post a couple months ago, just forgot to post it)