🚀 go-pugleaf

hugh@young.wn.planet.gen.nz (Hugh Young) wrote:

>In <33992362.62325134@news.teleport.com> pdx4d@teleport.com (Kirby Urner) 
>wrote:
>
>>Kirby
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>Kirby Urner  "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU
>>Email: pdx4d@teleport.com
>>Web:   http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/
>
>No. There is only one reality and it is real. People have different 
>PERCEPTIONS of it, all incomplete and faulty to a greater or lesser extent 
>(mainly greater). (If there weren't a real reality, what could we agree 
>about?)
>

It's a take-off on a bumper sticker:  Reality is special case.

>("Virtual reality" is an oxymoron in the strict sense. It should just be 
>called virtuality. What's worse is the use of "3D" to mean no more than 
>"perspective in motion". I suppose when real 3D is up to speed we'll have to 
>call it "stereoscop/y/ic". Of course even "real 3D" is not really real 3D in 
>the optical sense because it's, um, virtual.)
>

Hard to follow, but I agree that "3D" is problematic -- when applied
to reality that is.  I don't believe in nondimensional points as 
'reality' either -- some might call them 'virtually real' though.

>Hugh Young, Pukerua Bay, Nuclear-free Aotearoa / NEW ZEALAND 
>

Thanks for writing.  My sig nets me lots of replies of this kind,
which suggests reality is perceived a lot the same way by folks
(but you already knew that...)

Kirby

----------------------------------------------------
Kirby Urner  "ALL realities are 'virtual'" -- KU
Email: pdx4d@teleport.com
Web:   http://www.teleport.com/~pdx4d/