Talk:Reality

Introduction does not summarize the article.

Per MOS:LEAD, the introduction section should reflect the entire article. Most of the content is not summarized in the lead. Johnjbarton (talk) 05:46, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Reality and the scientific method

The source

• Wagensberg, Jorge (2 April 2014). "On the Existence and Uniqueness of the Scientific Method: Abstract". Biol Theory. 9 (3). University of Barcelona - Faculty of Physics: Springer Nature. doi:10.1007/s13752-014-0166-y. PMID 25132810.

discusses the article topic, "reality", as it relates to the scientific method. As such it fits in the article. It does not discuss "scientific realism" which is a specific subtopic in philosophy.

Do we want to say more about the scientific method? If we could come up with one or two sentences I think it would make the section better. We don't want much more because the article is about reality; we already have an article about the scientific method for readers. A summary is difficult because there is a broad common understanding taught in schools but no consensus in professional philosophy on the nature of the scientific method.

I tried one sentence but @Cattenion removed it. I agree with that removal. However the replacement did not connect with the article topic. Perhaps we need to look for more references about the scientific method and reality. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Providing information on how the method is useful / succeeds to make knowledge (reality) - is the subject.

1. observations but no explanation

2. possible explanations

3. most probable of possible explanations is hypothesis

4. tested

5. T/F

- This is the accepted process / sequence. "no consensus in professional philosophy" indicates you know / remember such a problem - could you show the source(s)?

- 1. is ignorance / lack of knowledge / a stupid situation - everyone in the species shares this situation by varying degrees / amounts (possessing a percentage of knowledge of all possible knowledges). 5., if it produces T is sapiens - so showing how 5T=knowldege therefore becomes reality (so knowledge is the species orientation into its surroundings - like the sequence: blind Homer becomes the Academy; the species then can see reality (practically-actually - at 5. the scientist(s) publish T so post5. the species gains insight). 3 & 5. is reality so the focus of any inclusion is how 1-5=SM provide 3.5. specifically of which 5 is where possessing reality exists. 1-4 is the integration of a relatively small interaction with some part(s) of the universe to find T then making T available for all relevant members of the species - post 5. is that 5T provides confidence for any member of our species to use 5T as an integrated node of thought to base decisions / choices on. Cattenion (talk) 23:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC) (I corrected some part after the signature)

Thank you for your reply. If I understand your point of view, you are claiming that knowledge and reality are equivalent and thus when science creates knowledge is creates reality? In my opinion the Wagensberg source is evidence against that claim because that source describes a circular process of "reality is observable", "observation is comprehensible" "comprehension is falsifiable". I take the source "comprehension" to mean "knowledge", distinct from "reality". See source fig 1.

Regarding the definition of the scientific method, see induction/deduction/adduction in

• Voit, E. O. (2019). Perspective: Dimensions of the scientific method. PLOS Computational Biology, 15(9), e1007279.
• See Duhem-Quine thesis or Falsifiability#Lakatos's_falsificationism
• Maxwell, N. (1972). A critique of Popper's views on scientific method. Philosophy of Science, 39(2), 131-152.

But again I don't think the issue of details in the philosophy of the scientific method are relevant to the article and neither are the steps in the process. The article is about "reality" so the subsection on "scientific method" should be about the connection between these topics, not about the method or its philosophy. I think the first part of Wagensberg is fine for this purpose. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:21, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

"is evidence against that claim": I haven't read the indicated sources currently but as a response: my washing machine functions - the principles of the construction of the machine (as retrospective) began with 1. not knowing the basic principles of science. At group5T=future reality-washing machine all the necessary 5T's existed for the successful construction of a reality - a creation from nothing - based on science. So 5T knowledges are proven as reality by the concrete repeating success of functionality of machines (any utilitous machines). Cattenion (talk) 00:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Changes to the article

I'm thinking about implementing changes to this article with the hope of moving it in the direction of GA status. The article currently has the maintenance tag "more citations needed" and roughly half of the text is unsourced, posing a major issue for verifiability. The article also contains several false or questionable claims. The lead sentence Reality is the state of everything as they exist... is ungrammatical. Most of the examples listed in the subsection "Skeptical hypotheses" are thought experiments, not hypotheses or more extreme postulates. Generally speaking, skepticism is about what people can or cannot know about reality, not about extreme postulates of what reality is like. The definition The word "reality" means the state of things as they actually exist, not understood idealistically should be worded more neutrally to avoid an anti-idealism bias: mental entities can also be real; according to some idealists, they are the only real things. The sentence Existential nihilism represents an extremely negative view of being, the absolute a positive one. is also problematic: existential nihilism states that there is no objective meaning or purpose, it does not say that the world is negative or bad. Moreover, "the absolute" is just a concept about what does not depend on anything else. It is not a theory about the world being very positive. The section "Non-western philosophy" is more or less an annotated see-also list that only covers Vedanta and Jainism while ignoring Chinese philosophy. At the same time, some minor topics in other sections are discussed in too much detail, contrary to WP:PROPORTION and WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, such as the lengthy explanation of the principle of locality in physics.

Several central topics are currently discussed only in passing or not at all, and the article might benefit from a clearer and more comprehensive section structure. The definition section could address additional meanings (reality as the totality of existing entities vs as the state of being real/non-illusory), explain how the term is often contrasted with appearance, mention proposed criteria of reality, and discuss its relation to similar concepts (actuality, being, existence, truth). Other sections could cover often-discussed components of reality (e.g. objects vs properties vs relations; particulars vs universals; abstract vs concrete objects; facts and events; elementary particles), proposed structures of reality (e.g. levels of reality, fundamental vs derivative reality, spacetime, laws of nature, monism vs dualism), diverse theories associated with realism and anti-realism, how people know about and represent reality (direct vs indirect theories of perception, objectivity, relativism, skepticism, worldviews, virtual reality); and a discussion of the historical development of reality-related theories and concepts.

There are more issues to consider, but they can be addressed later since the points mentioned so far will already involve a lot of work to implement. I was hoping to get some feedback on these ideas and possibly other suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

I would encourage additions of reliable sources and new content based on reliable sources. For anything currently unsourced use you own judgement. I would wait to alter the first paragraph since that content is to be sourced by the article.

I don't think the article needs to be strictly a philosophical view. On the other hand some sections can be trimmed that go too far off the core topic. So "local realism" is an aspect of "reality" while "locality" is getting off track. Good luck! Johnjbarton (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Johnjbarton and thanks for the feedback! That's a good idea about waiting to alter the first paragraph. I usually focus on the body of the article first and leave changes to the lead for later. I'll try to work through changes of the body step by step to see how it goes. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:24, 4 June 2026 (UTC)

First sentence grammar

Everything is singular, it's not plural ~2026-33394-14 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be

The phrase

• the state of things as they are, rather than as they are imagined to be

is a direct quote and as such should be source as a MOS:quote. I did the wrong thing the first time with italics. @GTP Loopbreaker Johnjbarton (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

I just saw this comment. I agree this sentence should be like you said. The fact that something is as it is, is not the same as that something is as it exists. I guess some buddhists wouldn't agree with "it is as it is = it exists". 😉 Kind regards, Perquirius (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Local realism

Hi Phlsph7,

Thank you for your improvements to this article. I found it interesting to read about the different philosophical views of reality.

Regarding this edit on local realism: I think it is misleading to mention that local realism is a view in physics without mentioning that it is inconsistent with empirical evidence. While "it depends in part on the interpretation of those terms whether it is ruled out" is a true statement, reliable sources in physics (such as BESIII Collaboration 2025 and Lambare 2022) generally define local realism as a framework that is consistent with local hidden variables. I opted for a less technical definition in my latest edit to the article, to try to keep it accessible for the average reader, but perhaps it would have been better to lead with the technical definition and follow it up with a more accessible explanation. How about something along the following lines?

In physics, local realism is a framework that is consistent with local hidden variables. Realism is commonly interpreted as the notion that there are definite physical properties, whether or not they are being observed by someone. The principle of locality is the idea that physical objects are influenced only by their immediate surroundings: there is no direct or instantaneous action at a distance; all interactions occur and propagate through local mechanisms. Local realism has been rejected by empirical evidence, specifically through Bell test experiments. Interpretations of quantum mechanics try to make sense of this result by discarding locality, realism, or both. Arimetat (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Hi Arimetat, thanks for the feedback and your suggestion. From what I can tell, we are in agreement that current findings challenge local realism but don't yet rule out all of its versions. One difficulty is that different theorists mean different things with local realism. If we present only one specific definition of local realism, then we have to attribute it to a source and say that only this version is ruled out, losing generality.

I guess the key point of contention is the current sentence Some interpretations of quantum physics challenge the combination of locality and realism, arguing that observations are either influenced by non-local factors or depend on the act of measurement., which you consider too weak. We could address this point by strengthening the criticism without implying a definitive verdict. What about Various empirical findings in quantum physics challenge the combination of locality and realism, suggesting that observations are either influenced by non-local factors or depend on the act of measurement. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

That is a step in the right direction, but I still think that the formulation is too weak. The interpretation that local realism is consistent with local hidden variables is dominant in physics, supported by virtually all reliable sources in physics (at least all sources that I'm aware of). I took a look at the philosophical source that you cite (Laudisa 2023), which seems to agree: "The claim that what the Bell theorem is about is the refutation of local realism has acquired the status of a commonplace". Arimetat (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

A little after this quote, Laudisa 2023 states that this view rests on a misinterpretation that Laudisa aims to dissolve. it became standard to read incorrectly the locality condition as a <locality ​+ ​realism ​> ​condition. How did the consensus on ‘local realism’ get established, in spite of its dubious logical status? Which were its underying motivations and how and why did this dubious logical status fail to be adequately recognized? ... The present work aims to clarify the history of this misinterpretation narrative, contributing to dispel the confusion that still is present when most of the main reference papers between the 60's and the 70's are reconstructed. A similar point is made by Lambare 2022: We present a pragmatic analysis of the different meanings assigned to the term “local realism” in the context of the empirical violations of Bell-type inequalities since its inception in the late 1970s. We point out that most of them are inappropriate and arise from a deeply ingrained prejudice that originated in the celebrated 1935 paper by Einstein-Podolski-Rosen. Given these controversies, I'm rather hesistant to say in Wikivoice "local realism means exactly X and X has been refuted". Another consideration could be that the Bell theorem refutation of local realism may rest on the possibly unverifiable assumption that superdeterminism is false. However, I haven't yet researched this in more detail. For now I implemented the "step in the right direction" suggested above. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I can understand why you are hesitant. Perhaps, this discussion reflects the difference in perspectives between physicists and philosophers: Physicists tend to limit themselves to falsifiable empirical predictions whereas philosophers go beyond that. Regarding Lambare 2022: In chapter 2.4 he concludes that “Thus the correct way to interpret local realism when claimed to be falsified by Bell-type experiments is Local Realism ≡ Non-Conspiratorial Local Hidden Variables”, which is even more specific than what I suggested. Regarding superdeterminism: you are correct that Bell theorem refutation of local realism rest on the assumption that superdeterminism is false. This is implicitly assumed in the first two words of the passage (“In physics”): It wouldn’t be possible to do falsifiable experiments if superdeterminism is true.

If you insist on leaving out that physicists generally consider local realism to be refuted, then perhaps an alternative could be to reframe the passage in a more philosophical context. Now, it starts with “In physics, local realism is a view…”, which I think might give readers a false impression. But I won’t press the issue any further if you disagree. Arimetat (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

I removed the introductory phrase "In physics". Phlsph7 (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2026 (UTC)