A bit of a different post today – art with a side order of philosophy. Firstly, here is a digital drawing of a corner of my living room. I thought I’d try out the tablet again, see if I can get the hang of it. I think my approach will be just to use the pen and pencil tools exactly as I would if I were drawing on paper. For now anyway, we’ll see how it goes.
Now on to the more unusual part of my post. I’ve recently been having a discussion on twitter around reality and existence. We were arguing whether particular things were real or not when I thought that the issue between us might lie more in differing criteria of what it means to be “real”. Twitter is very limiting and difficult to express a nuanced position so I thought I’d post my view of what “real” means. Here goes:
For something to be said to exist it needs to have some interaction with the physical world that can be consistently measured. So a physical object is easy – I can experience it with my senses in a repeatable, consistent way. That is to say I can see it, feel it, smell it, hear it, etc. It is directly observable. But things do not have to be directly observable to exist. “Invisible” things can still exist. As long as they have some interaction with the physical world that we can consistently measure. So magnetism, for example, is not a physical object but it has repeatable, predictable effects on the physical world that can be measured. If something has no interaction with the physical world then that thing does not exist because it has no measurable effects.
Do you agree? If not then what alternative method do you use to navigate the world and decide which things are real? I’d love to hear from you in the comments.