Is there recognition of the worst articles on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.112.134 ( talk) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: I read the bit about it being 'Start class'. I readily agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.112.134 ( talk) 01:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
FINAL EDIT: Justin, WAY below, has it altogether right. Who are these people that think that quantum uncertainty is somehow related to the observers or their instruments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.112.134 ( talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That this article is REALLY well written.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.14.211 ( talk) 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, "reality" doesn't exist in the Wiktionary ... for the Wikipedia (as it was so 'sine qua non' important that those two (reference... working) couldn't just work in a single project).
(Sadly, I still doesn't really know if: reality, how it - or "she"(?) - is. (I know English doesn't know genders ... and it's sure here it isn't also like as for the Navy ships?) --de:Alien4 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This dreck article is par for the Wikipedia course. It says, ". Thomas Szasz called his LSD trip near the end of his life "one of the best experiences" he'd lived through..." The problem with this is twofold. Szasz isn't dead, so nobody knows when the "end of his life" will occur; and he never made this comment about using LSD. Wikipedians are satisfied that such a scandalous libel is labeled "citation needed," rather than to demand that entries be factual or be removed. I've changed "citation needed" to "disputed," but I haven't removed it because it is a good illustration of the fiction passed off as "reality" by Wikipedia, and someone would probably just change it back anyway. Nicmart 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed "phenomenal realities" to "worldviews" in the "fact section.
The use of the word "reality" for an individual perspective can lead to confusion, as well explained in the "Reality, worldviews, and theories of reality" section. It also conflicts with the definition given in the introduction. 1Z 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't know, this page is protected because it was mentioned on The Colbert Report last week. Also I want to bring it to the attention of the admins that disambiguation pages need to be checked as well. -- Voidvector 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-- 68.184.85.150 14:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)== Why not section on reality as a commodity? ==
Perhaps the fact that so many people are interested in vandalising the main article illustrates the fact that there is some validity to reality as a comodity? Could a section of the main article be developed that uses relevant examples throughout history. Egyptian politics to the making of the Bible to modern media: examples abound that could be verified and cited.
Greenmrt 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On his show Colbert belittled the Wikipedia while suggesting this little bit of vandalism. Although it was done as a joke, humorously adding his comment would be counterproductive. Describing the event on The Colbert Report or even Stephen Colbert would be more appropriate. Cuvtixo 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can find citations from peer-reviewed philosophy journals on Colbert's claim, then make a note of it. Otherwise, it is original research. -- Voidvector 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it ironic that the person editing references to Microsoft on wikipedia for money that prompted Colbert to make this statement probably got off easier than the people who edit this page. -- 12.206.4.89 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it ironic that M$ got off easier than WP. 1Z 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I love Microsoft. I love Stephen Colbert. Reality has become a commodity. Microsoft owns that commodity. Therefore, if Microsoft tells me it is awesome then it is. Because as stated earlier, Microsoft decides what is real, and what isn't.
The entire article of reality is based almost entirely on people's philosophies. The "Reality as a Commodity" joke on Stephen Colbert is, in essence, another philosophy regarding modern day reality. Why not add it to the section dealing with philosophies of reality? Immortal321 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
there is a section on "what reality might not be" why not make a section on what it might be. you can quote theories, including colbert's theory that reality is a commodity.
What's the objection to this edit? (Reality) I think it makes the page better. Deepstratagem 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if it isn't "really" vandalism, it lacks notability, etc. 1Z 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Reality Has Become A Commodity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worms42 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, maybe u didnt notice but Colbert's vandalism is still in the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.41.123 ( talk) 03:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Reality Has Become A Commodity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.13.42.13 ( talk) 03:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it quite necessary for these "Reality Has Become a Commodity" comments to appear on this talk page? It's not exactly discussing reality, and while I'm not either, I believe that these comments invalidate the attempts to remove this phrase from Wikipedia. Is there something that can be done? 67.61.51.183 ( talk) 04:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Guys, I'm temporarily giving this page full protection. The amount of vandalism going on here is horrendous, even after the page was given semiprotection. I hope that it will cause these vandals to give up. There hasn't been a good faith edit in months. - Richard Cavell 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just because Steven Colbert said it making fun of this website doesnt take away the fact that its true. Reality really is a commodity thanks to you guys and Many Many others, its not called vandalism its called spreading the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smmazariegosh ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article says: "The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable, comprehensible, or apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, or any other system of analysis."
Maybe I'm not understanding it properly, but the end of that sentence doesn't make sense to me. What does "apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, etc" mean?
I think the sentence would work just fine as: "The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable or comprehensible."
If I'm not understanding the purpose of the "self-contradictory" phrase, then could the sentence be revised to clarify its meaning? -- Danny ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It's stating that if something's exist in reality, then all the knowledge of philosophy, science, religion, etc, if wrong is wrong (in reality).-- 209.80.246.3 ( talk) 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This page really needs to be protected to stop people from changing it to the commodity thing. Its the only way to ensure this stops. Silver seren 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The Philip K. Dick quote is unsourced. I found the same statement in Berger & Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality. If anyone can supply the date of the Dick quote, I can check to see which one came first. Diogenes 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The "definition of reality" seemed a bit simplistic: I added a note with an array of definitions to add more dimension to the definition. Richiar 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
HEY, SOMEONE HAS VANDALIZED THIS ARTICLE! DO SOMETHING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.144.75.5 ( talk) 16:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no way to add to the References at the bottom of the page, as far as I can tell. Is it "protected"? Strange... KyZan ( talk) 16:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)KyZan
The first paragraph of this article contains an unsourced statement claiming that "the term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is".
A centaur is a creature with the upper half of a man and the body of a horse, yet a centaur is not real, and it therefore cannot be included in reality. Santa Claus is a big old man with a white beard that distributes presents for millions of children and adults throughout the world on a single night of the year, yet Santa Claus is not real, and it therefore cannot be included in reality. A philosopher's stone is a magic body capable of turning cheap metals into silver and gold, but a philosopher's stone is not real, and it therefore cannot be included in reality.
According to the article's logic, centaurs, Santa Claus and philosopher's stones are real (i.e. included in reality), since each one of those concepts is something. However, let us be serious, and sorry kids for the spoiler, but Santa Claus is not real. It is usually parents who buy those presents for their children and for each other. Should that statement be removed?
I kindly request Peterdjones not to delete this contribution, since this Talk page is the most appropriate place to point out this issue regarding the correctness of referenced article. Abedul69 ( talk) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this worth including? http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/real.htm
- Nearfar ( talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I rise in strong opposition to the following statement: This imprecision introduces an uncertainty into the overall state of the system and the necessity of a choice on the part of the one making the measurement, namely which aspect will he find accurately at the cost of the other. This decision on the part of the measurer has created no small problem for objectivists who insist that at its core reality is objectively present whether anyone notices or not. The first sentence is as far as I know correct. The second is not. An Objectivist does not necessarily claim reality can not be changed by an observer. It follows from observation that the electrons' position is not precisely known when its momentum is, this therefore is objectively true. Quantum mechanics and Objectivism are coherent (they do not contradict each other). Please comment. Trueness ( talk) 11:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In introductory modern physics, the first thing we were taught about the Uncertainty Principle is that it does NOT depend on the idea that you "necessarily" perturb the system by measuring it; the uncertainty arises from pure mathematics. Therefore, even if you had a perfectly omniscient observer, that observer could not simultaneously give measurements to two HUP-related quantities with precision greater than the theoretical maximum. Of course that slightly alters the definition of "omniscient", but only so insofar as it needs to be altered to be consistent with (apparent) "reality".
Thanks,
Justin
71.188.189.164 ( talk) 03:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Omniscient is by definition all-knowing, what the words means to (the majority of)people in English(or Latin?). If you ain't perfect, you ain't omniscient! It's an abstract ideal, independent of reality. Only believe what you can prove: nothing Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prying open my third eye ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The world as it exists is relative and not absolute. This view of reality needs a paragraph in the Article. ...... 202.138.120.65 ( talk) 10:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I do not understand what this is "Warning: An automated filter has found a sequence of repeated characters in or around this edit (often an indicator of vandalism). If the edit is correct, please go to the bottom of this page and press 'Save page' to continue. If not, and your edit is clearly not constructive, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you are unsure of where the repeated sequence of characters occurs, and this message is in error, please report this."
The statement "wave-particle duality; specifically, this means that their probabilistic nature is given by an oscillating probability wave." is misleading and the line in which it appears should be removed as it does not further the readers understanding. An otherwise very well written page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phb07jm ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In Hinduism Being-Awareness-Bliss (Sat-chit-ananda) is considered the reality, rest all is maya or non reality..anything that changes, which has birth and so death is not reality. The sun, moon, solar system etc..all of these things they change and undergo continuous transformation from one form to another. These things are not real. 202.138.120.65 ( talk) 10:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The article contains this paragraph:
"Mathematical formulations and propositions in mathematical logic are based on axioms, and hence these fields are often referred to as pure disciplines. The validity of the set theoretic proposition would hold true in any systemic process or universe. Its validity is self evident in ontological existence and works on the axiomatic level of reality."
It is simply wrong to suggest that the word "axiom" in a mathematical context is currently used to mean something that is self-evident.
This may well be how Euclid understood the term (or its synonym, "postulate"). And some teachers of high school geometry courses may still use the term this way. But among professional mathematicians, that is not how the term is defined.
Rather, in today's mathematics, an axiom is no more and no less than a statement, used in a specific context, that is permitted to be invoked as part of a deduction. The context is called an "axiom system", and there is no requirement whatsoever that the axioms need to be "self-evident". (Though surely, the original use of axioms was as self-evident statements about something familar.) For example, in set theory, the most common axiom system, called ZF, has one axiom that says, in effect, "There exists an infinite set."
Many mathematicians may consider this to be self-evident. There are also some mathematicians who don't find infinite sets palatable at all and prefer to work with some axiom system for set theory that does not allow infinite sets. Daqu ( talk) 02:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"Much of the kind of experience deemed spiritual occurs on this level of reality."
What is the source for this statement? 70.138.218.110 ( talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am very confused as to why made observations (phenomenological reality) are considered "more subjective" than truth and facts, which are both products of and relations within the mind. The word "bus" can't run you over and kill you, while an ACTUAL bus, the phenomenological experience, can. Words are not more real than things in the world and facts and truth are both CONCEPTS rather than objects. So the opening of this article has it backwards - truth and facts are the least real things and experiences are the most real. Not that I expect any changes to be made... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.193.9 ( talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The opening sentences now read:
In a sense? Isn't reality literally what is real? (That is the etymology of the word, after all.) What are the words "in a sense" supposed to contribute to the meaning of the second sentence? - dcljr ( talk) 05:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think "that which doesn't change whether one believes it or not" is a better way to put it? Chrisrus ( talk) 21:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Or how about "that which is independent of belief"? Chrisrus ( talk) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Is there recognition of the worst articles on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.112.134 ( talk) 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
EDIT: I read the bit about it being 'Start class'. I readily agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.112.134 ( talk) 01:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
FINAL EDIT: Justin, WAY below, has it altogether right. Who are these people that think that quantum uncertainty is somehow related to the observers or their instruments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.112.134 ( talk) 01:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That this article is REALLY well written.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.12.14.211 ( talk) 16:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sadly, "reality" doesn't exist in the Wiktionary ... for the Wikipedia (as it was so 'sine qua non' important that those two (reference... working) couldn't just work in a single project).
(Sadly, I still doesn't really know if: reality, how it - or "she"(?) - is. (I know English doesn't know genders ... and it's sure here it isn't also like as for the Navy ships?) --de:Alien4 18:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
This dreck article is par for the Wikipedia course. It says, ". Thomas Szasz called his LSD trip near the end of his life "one of the best experiences" he'd lived through..." The problem with this is twofold. Szasz isn't dead, so nobody knows when the "end of his life" will occur; and he never made this comment about using LSD. Wikipedians are satisfied that such a scandalous libel is labeled "citation needed," rather than to demand that entries be factual or be removed. I've changed "citation needed" to "disputed," but I haven't removed it because it is a good illustration of the fiction passed off as "reality" by Wikipedia, and someone would probably just change it back anyway. Nicmart 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I have changed "phenomenal realities" to "worldviews" in the "fact section.
The use of the word "reality" for an individual perspective can lead to confusion, as well explained in the "Reality, worldviews, and theories of reality" section. It also conflicts with the definition given in the introduction. 1Z 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
For those who don't know, this page is protected because it was mentioned on The Colbert Report last week. Also I want to bring it to the attention of the admins that disambiguation pages need to be checked as well. -- Voidvector 06:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
-- 68.184.85.150 14:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)== Why not section on reality as a commodity? ==
Perhaps the fact that so many people are interested in vandalising the main article illustrates the fact that there is some validity to reality as a comodity? Could a section of the main article be developed that uses relevant examples throughout history. Egyptian politics to the making of the Bible to modern media: examples abound that could be verified and cited.
Greenmrt 20:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
On his show Colbert belittled the Wikipedia while suggesting this little bit of vandalism. Although it was done as a joke, humorously adding his comment would be counterproductive. Describing the event on The Colbert Report or even Stephen Colbert would be more appropriate. Cuvtixo 22:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If you can find citations from peer-reviewed philosophy journals on Colbert's claim, then make a note of it. Otherwise, it is original research. -- Voidvector 07:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it ironic that the person editing references to Microsoft on wikipedia for money that prompted Colbert to make this statement probably got off easier than the people who edit this page. -- 12.206.4.89 22:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
I find it ironic that M$ got off easier than WP. 1Z 01:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) I love Microsoft. I love Stephen Colbert. Reality has become a commodity. Microsoft owns that commodity. Therefore, if Microsoft tells me it is awesome then it is. Because as stated earlier, Microsoft decides what is real, and what isn't.
The entire article of reality is based almost entirely on people's philosophies. The "Reality as a Commodity" joke on Stephen Colbert is, in essence, another philosophy regarding modern day reality. Why not add it to the section dealing with philosophies of reality? Immortal321 05:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
there is a section on "what reality might not be" why not make a section on what it might be. you can quote theories, including colbert's theory that reality is a commodity.
What's the objection to this edit? (Reality) I think it makes the page better. Deepstratagem 05:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Even if it isn't "really" vandalism, it lacks notability, etc. 1Z 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Reality Has Become A Commodity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worms42 ( talk • contribs) 02:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, maybe u didnt notice but Colbert's vandalism is still in the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.100.41.123 ( talk) 03:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
Reality Has Become A Commodity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.13.42.13 ( talk) 03:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Is it quite necessary for these "Reality Has Become a Commodity" comments to appear on this talk page? It's not exactly discussing reality, and while I'm not either, I believe that these comments invalidate the attempts to remove this phrase from Wikipedia. Is there something that can be done? 67.61.51.183 ( talk) 04:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Guys, I'm temporarily giving this page full protection. The amount of vandalism going on here is horrendous, even after the page was given semiprotection. I hope that it will cause these vandals to give up. There hasn't been a good faith edit in months. - Richard Cavell 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Just because Steven Colbert said it making fun of this website doesnt take away the fact that its true. Reality really is a commodity thanks to you guys and Many Many others, its not called vandalism its called spreading the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smmazariegosh ( talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article says: "The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable, comprehensible, or apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, or any other system of analysis."
Maybe I'm not understanding it properly, but the end of that sentence doesn't make sense to me. What does "apparently self-contradictory by science, philosophy, etc" mean?
I think the sentence would work just fine as: "The term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is, whether it is observable or comprehensible."
If I'm not understanding the purpose of the "self-contradictory" phrase, then could the sentence be revised to clarify its meaning? -- Danny ( talk) 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
It's stating that if something's exist in reality, then all the knowledge of philosophy, science, religion, etc, if wrong is wrong (in reality).-- 209.80.246.3 ( talk) 20:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
This page really needs to be protected to stop people from changing it to the commodity thing. Its the only way to ensure this stops. Silver seren 19:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The Philip K. Dick quote is unsourced. I found the same statement in Berger & Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality. If anyone can supply the date of the Dick quote, I can check to see which one came first. Diogenes 19:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The "definition of reality" seemed a bit simplistic: I added a note with an array of definitions to add more dimension to the definition. Richiar 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
HEY, SOMEONE HAS VANDALIZED THIS ARTICLE! DO SOMETHING! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.144.75.5 ( talk) 16:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no way to add to the References at the bottom of the page, as far as I can tell. Is it "protected"? Strange... KyZan ( talk) 16:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)KyZan
The first paragraph of this article contains an unsourced statement claiming that "the term reality, in its widest sense, includes everything that is".
A centaur is a creature with the upper half of a man and the body of a horse, yet a centaur is not real, and it therefore cannot be included in reality. Santa Claus is a big old man with a white beard that distributes presents for millions of children and adults throughout the world on a single night of the year, yet Santa Claus is not real, and it therefore cannot be included in reality. A philosopher's stone is a magic body capable of turning cheap metals into silver and gold, but a philosopher's stone is not real, and it therefore cannot be included in reality.
According to the article's logic, centaurs, Santa Claus and philosopher's stones are real (i.e. included in reality), since each one of those concepts is something. However, let us be serious, and sorry kids for the spoiler, but Santa Claus is not real. It is usually parents who buy those presents for their children and for each other. Should that statement be removed?
I kindly request Peterdjones not to delete this contribution, since this Talk page is the most appropriate place to point out this issue regarding the correctness of referenced article. Abedul69 ( talk) 20:02, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this worth including? http://actualfreedom.com.au/library/topics/real.htm
- Nearfar ( talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I rise in strong opposition to the following statement: This imprecision introduces an uncertainty into the overall state of the system and the necessity of a choice on the part of the one making the measurement, namely which aspect will he find accurately at the cost of the other. This decision on the part of the measurer has created no small problem for objectivists who insist that at its core reality is objectively present whether anyone notices or not. The first sentence is as far as I know correct. The second is not. An Objectivist does not necessarily claim reality can not be changed by an observer. It follows from observation that the electrons' position is not precisely known when its momentum is, this therefore is objectively true. Quantum mechanics and Objectivism are coherent (they do not contradict each other). Please comment. Trueness ( talk) 11:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
In introductory modern physics, the first thing we were taught about the Uncertainty Principle is that it does NOT depend on the idea that you "necessarily" perturb the system by measuring it; the uncertainty arises from pure mathematics. Therefore, even if you had a perfectly omniscient observer, that observer could not simultaneously give measurements to two HUP-related quantities with precision greater than the theoretical maximum. Of course that slightly alters the definition of "omniscient", but only so insofar as it needs to be altered to be consistent with (apparent) "reality".
Thanks,
Justin
71.188.189.164 ( talk) 03:13, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Omniscient is by definition all-knowing, what the words means to (the majority of)people in English(or Latin?). If you ain't perfect, you ain't omniscient! It's an abstract ideal, independent of reality. Only believe what you can prove: nothing Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prying open my third eye ( talk • contribs) 04:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
The world as it exists is relative and not absolute. This view of reality needs a paragraph in the Article. ...... 202.138.120.65 ( talk) 10:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC) I do not understand what this is "Warning: An automated filter has found a sequence of repeated characters in or around this edit (often an indicator of vandalism). If the edit is correct, please go to the bottom of this page and press 'Save page' to continue. If not, and your edit is clearly not constructive, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If you are unsure of where the repeated sequence of characters occurs, and this message is in error, please report this."
The statement "wave-particle duality; specifically, this means that their probabilistic nature is given by an oscillating probability wave." is misleading and the line in which it appears should be removed as it does not further the readers understanding. An otherwise very well written page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phb07jm ( talk • contribs) 14:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In Hinduism Being-Awareness-Bliss (Sat-chit-ananda) is considered the reality, rest all is maya or non reality..anything that changes, which has birth and so death is not reality. The sun, moon, solar system etc..all of these things they change and undergo continuous transformation from one form to another. These things are not real. 202.138.120.65 ( talk) 10:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The article contains this paragraph:
"Mathematical formulations and propositions in mathematical logic are based on axioms, and hence these fields are often referred to as pure disciplines. The validity of the set theoretic proposition would hold true in any systemic process or universe. Its validity is self evident in ontological existence and works on the axiomatic level of reality."
It is simply wrong to suggest that the word "axiom" in a mathematical context is currently used to mean something that is self-evident.
This may well be how Euclid understood the term (or its synonym, "postulate"). And some teachers of high school geometry courses may still use the term this way. But among professional mathematicians, that is not how the term is defined.
Rather, in today's mathematics, an axiom is no more and no less than a statement, used in a specific context, that is permitted to be invoked as part of a deduction. The context is called an "axiom system", and there is no requirement whatsoever that the axioms need to be "self-evident". (Though surely, the original use of axioms was as self-evident statements about something familar.) For example, in set theory, the most common axiom system, called ZF, has one axiom that says, in effect, "There exists an infinite set."
Many mathematicians may consider this to be self-evident. There are also some mathematicians who don't find infinite sets palatable at all and prefer to work with some axiom system for set theory that does not allow infinite sets. Daqu ( talk) 02:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
"Much of the kind of experience deemed spiritual occurs on this level of reality."
What is the source for this statement? 70.138.218.110 ( talk) 15:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I am very confused as to why made observations (phenomenological reality) are considered "more subjective" than truth and facts, which are both products of and relations within the mind. The word "bus" can't run you over and kill you, while an ACTUAL bus, the phenomenological experience, can. Words are not more real than things in the world and facts and truth are both CONCEPTS rather than objects. So the opening of this article has it backwards - truth and facts are the least real things and experiences are the most real. Not that I expect any changes to be made... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.80.193.9 ( talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
The opening sentences now read:
In a sense? Isn't reality literally what is real? (That is the etymology of the word, after all.) What are the words "in a sense" supposed to contribute to the meaning of the second sentence? - dcljr ( talk) 05:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Don't you think "that which doesn't change whether one believes it or not" is a better way to put it? Chrisrus ( talk) 21:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Or how about "that which is independent of belief"? Chrisrus ( talk) 21:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)