Is reality a self referencing tautology?

IT appears to me lately, that ALL of reality references back to itself in loops, i.e. you cannot get away from self-reference even if you tried.

It seems to me that existence is a tautology in and of itself.

in this moment perhaps… new moment, new self…


But new moments aren’t new, they are reshaping of old selfs, i.e. playdough is there, it’s shape merely changes, but it’s still the same playdough.

no, there is no empirical evidence of a transcendental self…


Define your terms, what are you trying to say? You’re not making any kind of sense. Existence would be transcendental if that’s what you’re looking for, i.e. eternal. Existence would be prior to the universe, since the universe changes, and existence by definition is always itself. If we deny existence, we deny our existence, and all knowledge, all science, and all philosophy. Philosophy begins with the question: Does existence exist?

there is momentary evidence at best…

no evidence, no proof.


Define, momentary evidence. You just said there was no evidence, yet you said there was momentary evidence, which is it?

read hume


I will not tolerate your handwaving, hume had no understanding of physics or advances in computationl logic. You must define momentary evidence. It is disengenuous of you to say “there is evidence, there is no evidence”, until then you have no valid claim.

Men conceive concepts through the process of conceputalization. If the mans concepts were misconceived then the whole basis is flawed, because the words that encode the concepts are flawed because they were based on a misunderstanding of reality.

the whole basis is flawed as hume pointed out. call it whatever name you like. the “absoluteness” of science is a lie.


You’re not graspuing what I’m saying – in order to know you exist you must observe and detect yourself, you can’t detect something that doesn’t exist by definition – i.e. contradiction. I’m saying reality references itself, our truth statements about reality are merely reflections of what is, i.e. just because the ancients thought things were made of fire, does not mean there was no electricity.

I understand that you believe that words actually refer to things in themselves as they occur in the world. you are in error. there is no connection between ideas (words) and external “reality”…


You didn’t understand because you have no background in linguistics or neuroscience… sigh. You are a derived form – i.e. you were derived from something that preceded you – key concept here → inheritance, therefore you inherit the properties of what pre-ceded you (i.e. it existing).

The world transmitted information about the object to your mind, ideas are INSTANCES of objects in the outside world. They are derived forms. The definitions of words are actually images, instances of what you detected, i.e. energy, your thoughts are made of energy. Energy exists, energy is objectively existing part of the world. Hence there is no “external world” there is only one surface, which your mind is connected to, period. “insideness” and “outsideness” are illusions. Falsehoods are merely, holographic / reflective instances, of what is. When we say “all ducks are white”, our statements are only reflections of what we can see. We are comparing representations, not actuals. i.e. the truth itself is context bound to the moment of time and place in which it was said, and most importantly, the subconscious encoding. In the real world people don’t say

“All ducks, that is all the ducks that exist within (specificed area) are white within 5 meters of this area I am in, between this time and this time and holds only if x/y/z”. When they say “all ducks” they mean “All the ducks within the vicinity of some space”. They use “all” in the sense of some ducks, not actually all of them (i.e. conflated meanings, or dual uses of words). They do not mean “all ducks in the universe”. they do not mean “all ducks on the planet”, in languge our minds omit and mask things that are subconsciously encoded that would make our language much more verbose then it actually is.

hello ludwig.


nor any importance.

the conciousness seems seamless, therefore is treated as such.

The truth is that chasing answers to reality is largely a futile sport.

Most of humanity would rather entertain themselves while the scientists think they can give us answers with things like CERN.

Scientists (and physicists) are the explorers of the physical world… i think you might find an interest there.

the road in the distance in the desert seems wet too…


So does the water in the ocean.

Uhm no, the fact that you can navigate means you already have some of the answers, i.e. yes there is something there, no there is not, if you don’t know truthfully (absolutely) anything is there, you can’t decide. So saying the truth is futile is quite naive in this regard.

I agree most of humanity would rather entertain themselves, but most of humanity is poor and works most of their waking life, therefore, why wouldn’t they want to entertain themselves? Life is short, then you die. Most people on earth won’t get life extension and life-extending medical treatments, or body/mind augmentation when it becomes available. I see more wars with the advent of life extension and bio enhancement technologies.

We are all scientists to a greater or lesser extent (if we weren’t we couldn’t navigate – i.e. observe, detect, experiment, repeat), our scientific devices are just prosthetics for our minds. i.e. similar to a magnifying glass / better metal detector for the universe. The help us observe things our bodies by themselves cannot, but we ultimately develop these machines, therefore they are extension tools we use to bridge the gap to detect and transfer information to our minds.

anything you think you know could be disproven in a hundred years.

We know that something exists but we cannot for the life of us fully understand it.

I’m not saying that asking questions is futile, i’m saying that looking for a meaning or purpose to life (i.e the answers to reality), is rather futile.

do you think that these medications and mental augments bring objective answers to reality within your reach?

i sincerely doubt that anyone will ever find “the meaning to life” or “the secrets of reality”.

for that reason i say that searching for them is largely futile.

Our minds are tools that the universe uses to expend energy in it’s never ending quest for a state of equilibrium… that is my belief. The tools of our brains could be nothing more than illusions, along with all of our thoughts.

As per your example, imagine that humans are a jungle vine that is slowly covering a big stone monument. We can only understand what we already have covered.

My objection is that there are parts of the statue that are completely inaccessable. Humans are doomed to forever have an incomplete picture.

So you think that one day humans might discover the secrets of the universe or the answers to reality? fat chance :unamused: