 |
| Really? is that Factual? |
Bigfoot And "Factual Reality"
Why Bigfoot Might Be Real But Factual Reality Isn’t
By TCC Team Member Dorraine Fisher
Professional Writer, a nature and wildlife enthusiast who has written for many magazines.
A favorite new phrase has surfaced in the world of Bigfoot skeptics when they present their arguments against the case for the existence of the creature. "Factual reality" is supposed to end all debate and bring reason and logic to the conversation. But the trouble is, given the nature of science, factual reality itself can’t possibly exist.
What is reality after all? Physicists are attempting to answer this question as we speak, while, at the same time, only creating more questions as they learn. But with the knowledge that’s available, it’s becoming clearer that reality isn’t what we think it is. Well, actually it is...but it isn’t.
But the one thing that is clear is that reality cannot be determined by one person or one group of people. Reality is quite a personal thing, unique to each individual human, and created by that person’s personal perceptions. Are you confused yet?
Imagine that two different people from two different walks of life board a plane. The plane crashes and one of those people is killed while the other survives. For the family of the person who is killed, the event is a tragedy. While for the family of the survivor, it was a miracle. The two families, having had different experiences of the event will perceive the event two different ways. Two different perceptions, two completely different realities. Therefore, there is NO absolute reality that everyone should be able to recognize because they have not had the same experiences.
Law enforcement is now forced to decide if eye witness testimony is dependable. If there were three eye witnesses to a particular event, when asked to describe it, each will give a slightly different story. A positive person will try to see the bright side. A negative person will perceive it as negative. And a dramatic person will see it as a terrible tragedy or miraculous event, nothing short of a miracle. Three people, three completely different lives, three different sets of perceptions describing the same event, three different ways. So who’s right?
Our personal perceptions decide. If we’re basically a positive person, we’ll believe the positive witness. If we’re a bit on the negative side, we’ll buy into the gloom and doom sided witness. And you get the picture. So who IS right? Well, nobody....and everybody. Depending on their perceptions.
One person cannot possibly understand another’s point of view, albeit reality, unless they’ve lived exactly the same life, had exactly the same experiences, and done exactly the same things. But many will argue their point because their reality tells them one thing. But they’re arguing with someone that has different perceptions and can’t possibly see that same reality. The can only see their own. How could they understand anything else?
So the term "factual reality" is an oxymoron.
And, now, what is a fact?
According to the Oxford dictionary a fact is "a thing that is known or proved to be true."
There are a few things we can all accept as fact...for the most part. The sky is blue, the grass is green, etc. But after that there is a human problem with a fact. Who decides what is fact and what is not? Since a fact is also determined by personal perceptions of the interpreter.
Science is a well-respected medium of fact-finding, but it’s not flawless. It’s more of a collection of theories that are broadly accepted. Some things that were once considered facts, are now old wives’ tales. They’ve been debunked and replaced with the new "facts." Since new knowledge has replaced the old, was the old knowledge ever really a fact, by definition, in the first place? It was accepted as fact at the time, but science changes. What was considered scientific fact yesterday can very well change tomorrow. What some may have considered fact was nothing more than an idea that people aspired to. And when told something different backed by "evidence," they aspired to the new "fact." So how many things can we really determine to be fact? Almost nothing is cut and dry, folks. There’s all this gray area, and that’s where our hairy friends live.
So what about that "solid, factual evidence? That stuff that we can see and touch? Isn’t it a fact?
Sorry, but here’s where serious science comes into play: quantum physics. Matter, as we term it in science, is not solid. The chair you’re sitting in, the computer you’re working on, and everything else you see and determine to be real, they are not solid; not really. They are just masses of particles vibrating at a certain frequency. All those things you can see, taste, touch, and hold are not real in the sense you understand "real" to be.
So when we understand a little bit more about the real nature of reality, things start to seem a bit hazy and chaotic in the universe, like we have no control over anything, and that nothing is real at all. And it’s a bit scary and often hard for some to accept. Humans need order and structure, and they’ll try desperately to get it. So they’ll spin the whole idea of reality in their favor...just to make themselves feel better...or justify their opinions.
But here’s the interesting part. Humans are the ones that control reality. Each one of us individually creates our own reality as we go. We are the ones who bring order to chaos, and here’s how it’s known: Scientists placed photons, those little particles of light that everything is made of, inside a glass tube. As they observed the photons, they saw that they were chaotic, moving randomly and sporadically. But then they introduced human DNA into the tube. And when they did that, the photons suddenly became ordered. The chaos was ended. Something about introducing human DNA into the tube, caused the photons to start behaving differently. This suggests that human energy brings order to the universe.
Quantum physics has also found that matter behaves a certain way under normal circumstances. But it’s behavior changes dramatically WHEN it’s being observed by humans. Matter changes what it does when we’re watching it, as can be observed in Dr. Quantum’s double slit experiment at the bottom of this page.
But what does all this mean for the case for factual reality? It suggests that humans have a great deal more power over reality than we know. If matter, the stuff that makes up everything we see, changes when we humans are entered into the equation, what does that say? And if our personal reality is created by our very diverse personal perceptions, what does that say about reality? It says that we all see things a bit differently and that creates our own personal reality. And each and every once of us has a different reality that we’ve created for ourselves.
But what does this mean for the debate of the existence of bigfoot? It means that debate about the subject is completely pointless. Since reality is unique to each individual and there is no absolute reality, only individual perceptions, reality can’t possibly be debated. THERE IS NO SINGLE REALITY THAT EVERYONE CAN RECOGNIZE. We all have a different one. Period. End of story.
There is no right and wrong in the debate. Only different views, all which can be supported by some kind of evidence.
Bigfoot exists for some by way of personal perception (they’ve seen them for themselves) and is a myth for others...by way of personal perception... (they haven’t seen them and don’t recognize any evidence of them as being tangible). Those who’ve seen them don’t really need evidence to know they exist. And those that haven’t seen them need factual evidence based on factual reality that doesn’t really exist...or at least is determined by the perceptions of the interpreter.
So what are we left with? Nothing. Different perceptions, different ideas, different realities. 7 billion different, separate, unique realities worldwide.
Albert Einstein once said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a persistent one." And that’s the point of it all. So we should all be more tolerant of others’ ideas about reality. Their ideas come from their own observances and experiences as your ideas come from yours. So IN REALITY nobody’s wrong. Chew on that for a while. *******DF
facebook.com/TheCryptoCrew
Now you can get our blog on your Kindle!
Posts
I dn't think one needs to get so espteric with this. Undoutedly, there is consensual, shared reality; everyday we are around other people who confirm for us that what we are seeing and experienceing is v=being seen and experienced by them as well, that certainly is pointless to dispute. However, the fallacy repeated again and agian most ommonly is "It cnnot exist", which can be proven to be false. Point one: mammals exist. Point two: primates exist. Point three: animals can remain effectively hidden, especially if their numbers are low, they are intelligent and do not wish to be seen. Since all three of these statements are true, idisisputably, then the statement that a large, unknown primate cannot exist is completely fatuous and idiotic. One needn't spiel on about quantum reality to prove this.
ReplyDeletei think there are two realities at work here. the one here speaks to perception creating one's personal reality. in a personal reality fairies,mermaids,gods,etc all can be real.
ReplyDeletethe reality i feel is relevent is the shared reality,that which is determined to be factual by consensus of acknowledged authorities using the scientific method. the very nature of science is one of change some things do not fundamentaly or are so well understood as to make signifigant change unlikely.
there are some signifigant facts that make bigfoot possible. there is a possible ancestor,route to n,america,suitable enviorments and an abundance of compelling anecdotal,historical and emperical data. in some 40 years following the subject i have found no compelling reason to reject the existance of bigfoot with two exceptions. just can't warm up to bigfoot/alien connection or psychic bigfoot.
i would sujest that while one may be entitled to their opinion[perception] one is not entitled to be wrong,particularily when your applied incorrect opinion/perception can dramaticly affect others.kill the infidels eg