Introduction
Introduction
This site presents an analysis of the relationship between truth and reality. It starts with the definition of reality and some terms that underly the analysis. This presentation may be downloaded in pdf format by clicking here.
Reality
The term "real" is used to describe entities that exist whether we perceive them or not. The term "imaginary" is used to describe entities that exist only within our perception of them. The term "physical" is used to describe the material and electromagnetic universe, and gravity. The term "abstract" describes non-physical entities. The term "existence" encompasses real, imaginary, physical, and abstract entities.
It is fundamental to science that physical reality exists outside our perception of it. This is called scientific realism, and is the core of our definition of reality. However, we not only exist physically, but also as self-aware entities. And because we exist, abstract entities like observations and ideas exist. The term "ideas" includes concepts, beliefs, axioms and other ideas.
Universals
It is suggested that there are abstract entities, "universals", that exist whether we are aware of them or not. I.e. They are thought to be real but abstract. These include numbers and their relationships. "Realists" maintain that universals are real. "Nominalists" maintain that they are not.
It seems to me that at least some universals are neither real nor universal. This is because we have universals for things that are not, and never have been, real. Like fairies, gnomes, goblins and unicorns. Since these creatures exist only in stories and our imaginations, it seems logical that their universals are equally imaginary. If so, it follows that they only exist in the minds of those people who have heard of them. So they are cultural rather than universal.
Furthermore, if some universals are imaginary and cultural, then there is no necessity for any universals to be real and universal. They could all be imaginary and cultural. This does not prove that they are not real, but it does question why we should assume that any universals are real? One reason is that with universals such as numbers, there is a genuine universality. Numbers and their relationships are the same irrespective of what they are called, and irrespective of whether we are aware of them. However, this universality is inherent in the behaviour of physical reality itself.
For example, if science were to show that in some extreme circumstance the universe did not obey the universality of numbers, then numbers would no longer be universal. Hence their universality is dependent upon the behaviour of the universe, not the other way round. So I conclude that these universals could be simply concepts describing the universality (as far as we know) of physical reality. However, for completeness, we include universals in the analysis, with the proviso that they may not be real.
