Is time travel to the past impossible?

[cousinbasil]

@Cousinbasil - in the theory of relativity, time is defined as the reading on a measuring device(clocks). That is not "change" in the sense I'm talking about. The change I'm talking about is simply the appearance of different things. When things appear, there appears to be change.

You are focusing on the subjectivity of time, saying it is an appearance of change. Obviously, when something appears, it appears to someone. What relativity says is that this appearance itself, this subjective experience, is affected by motion through space in this way: a moving person feels his own time to be normal, but sees that of someone stationary to himself speed up.

Because in whatever "sense" you are speaking about change, motion through space affects the rate at which the change happens. If one is to measure time, one must find a device whose appearance changes in a regular manner. If two such devices are identical, their appearances will change synchronously, meaning they will always look the same as each other. Atomic clocks count nuclear decay events. The numbers they show are proportional to the number of events they detect. For samples of the same substance, decay rates are identical. Therefore, one can calibrate two atomic clocks such that though the count each one displays is ever increasing, the two counts are always the same as each other.

In such a situation, since different numbers keep appearing (they grow monotonically), they are changing in the sense you are talking about. The change is extremely regular, but one still would have a subjective sense of time going by.

But if the two clocks are placed in two reference frames and one departs from the other and then returns, the numbers on the two clocks will not be the same. Specifically, the number on the clock that left and came back would always be lower. Yet a person traveling with the clock would not have experienced any subjective slowing down of time; he would have experienced physical g-forces of accelerations, but that is the only difference (and it is not unrelated, of course!)

The bottom line is that even if you define time as the appearance of different things in succession, fewer things will be able to appear to the person who has been moving with respect to another. Of course, if they never meet up again, this difference cannot be observed by them, it can only be calculated using general relativity equations (which include accelerations.)

My point is that as carmel has noted, time and space are inextricably bound together. They seem fundamentally different to us in an experiential sense. For one thing, one can choose any one of the three overt spatial dimensions, and one can choose to move along it in either of two opposite directions. The dimension of time can only be traversed in one direction, although nothing in the formulation of physical laws demands this be so.

[jupiviv]

in whatever "sense" you are speaking about change, motion through space affects the rate at which the change happens.

This effectively means that the change in motion changes the rate of the change, so it doesn't make sense. Rate is basically the number of things that appear to us within a given period time, and this number may be different for different people. But if the period of time itself is different, then it is simply a different period of time(longer or shorter), not the former period of time changed to a longer/shorter period of time.

But if the two clocks are placed in two reference frames and one departs from the other and then returns, the numbers on the two clocks will not be the same. Specifically, the number on the clock that left and came back would always be lower.

We don't know if it would always be lower.

Yet a person traveling with the clock would not have experienced any subjective slowing down of time; he would have experienced physical g-forces of accelerations, but that is the only difference (and it is not unrelated, of course!)

Again, we don't know either of those things for sure. There's no reason that the movement of things can't be influenced by certain things - eg, slowed-down.

If the movement of the molecules in our own bodies were slowed down then we would live longer - but we would still feel like we were aging at a normal rate.

My point is that as carmel has noted, time and space are inextricably bound together. They seem fundamentally different to us in an experiential sense.

I agree with this statement, but I probably don't mean the same thing by it as you. Speaking in terms of physics, they both lie on the same "continuum" because they can both be empirically measured, but this "time and space" is different from the philosophical "time and space."

[Carmel]

jupiviv:
I agree with this statement, but I probably don't mean the same thing by it as you. Speaking in terms of physics, they both lie on the same "continuum" because they can both be empirically measured, but this "time and space" is different from the philosophical "time and space.

Carmel:
What exactly, is your defintion of "philosophical 'time and space'"?

[jupiviv]

What exactly, is your defintion of "philosophical 'time and space'"?

Space is anything that can be conceived. Time is the difference or similarity between two things. So even philosophically time and space are really the same thing, since basically things are simply appearing to our minds.

[Carmel]

Why are you calling your definitions "philosophical definitions" as opposed to definitions that jupiviv arbitrarily made up?
--
Also, referring to "The Meaning of Life" thread, I'm still curious to know why you exclude things we "can't see" from "Ultimate Reality" and would like to know what you do include and by what reasoning you reached your conclusions.

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil: ...in whatever "sense" you are speaking about change, motion through space affects the rate at which the change happens.
jupiviv: This effectively means that the change in motion changes the rate of the change, so it doesn't make sense. Rate is basically the number of things that appear to us within a given period time, and this number may be different for different people. But if the period of time itself is different, then it is simply a different period of time(longer or shorter), not the former period of time changed to a longer/shorter period of time.

If by "it doesn't make sense," you mean "it is counter-intuitive," I certainly agree. But it is nonetheless a material, incontrovertible fact about the way nature works that motion through space affects the rate at which change happens. I find it helps to stick to an example. The one I have given about the atomic clocks is more concrete. You can disagree with me when I say that the clock which has been away on a trip and returns shows less time has elapsed. But you would be wrong.

cousinbasil: But if the two clocks are placed in two reference frames and one departs from the other and then returns, the numbers on the two clocks will not be the same. Specifically, the number on the clock that left and came back would always be lower.
jupiviv: We don't know if it would always be lower.

Yes, we do know this. This test has been carried out multiple times in differing ways. The slowing down of time for moving objects has been demonstrated in the decay rates of moving particles in accelerators. The theory has never been observed to fail. Obviously, there is a caveat, which would make immediate sense if you were familiar with the Lorentz transformations, which is the name for the mathematical framework used to calculate relativistic effects of moving objects. The caveat is that the relativistic effects are small, and not noticeable at slow relative velocities. But atomic clocks are accurate, and their statistical inherent uncertainties (error matrices) are well-known. Modern jets can go fast enough and far enough so that if one of them carries an atomic clock, that clock always shows a lower number (of atomic events) occurring compared to an identical clock which remains stationary. I believe they have even done the experiment where they switch clocks and do another trial. The moving clock always, yes always, runs slower when the effect is large enough to yield a statistical difference (larger than the inherent error matrices of the clocks.)

If the movement of the molecules in our own bodies were slowed down then we would live longer - but we would still feel like we were aging at a normal rate.

Exactly. Because we would be aging at a normal rate. Every local reference frame has its own "proper" time. It is only when you compare two reference frames that you see the effects of relativity. Both the traveler and the stationary twin in the so-called "twin paradox" age at what is for them a normal rate. But since they carry their respective internal proper times with them, the rate at which the time passed for the traveling twin has slowed down relative to his twin on earth.

This is the whole reason I supplied that quote from Brian Greene, so that one can immediately see the connection between time and space. Motion through space affects motion through time.

[jupiviv]

cousinbasil: ...in whatever "sense" you are speaking about change, motion through space affects the rate at which the change happens.
jupiviv: This effectively means that the change in motion changes the rate of the change, so it doesn't make sense. Rate is basically the number of things that appear to us within a given period time, and this number may be different for different people. But if the period of time itself is different, then it is simply a different period of time(longer or shorter), not the former period of time changed to a longer/shorter period of time.

If by "it doesn't make sense," you mean "it is counter-intuitive," I certainly agree.

No I mean it is not logical, for the reasons I stated. Again, time in science(physics) is basically a measurement, which is subject to fluctuations. So the scenario would make sense with that definition of time, because change itself would be a result of measurement by that definition, and can therefore be affected by other conditions which may or may not be known to us.

cousinbasil: But if the two clocks are placed in two reference frames and one departs from the other and then returns, the numbers on the two clocks will not be the same. Specifically, the number on the clock that left and came back would always be lower.
jupiviv: We don't know if it would always be lower.

Yes, we do know this. This test has been carried out multiple times in differing ways.

Yes, we do know this. This test has been carried out multiple times in differing ways.[/quote]

We have observed it and apparently this seems to be the case, but it may not be or may be falsified in the future, and it certainly can't be extended to be some sort of a philosophical truth. I do know a little about Lorentz transformations. Has the experiment been conducted in a scenario where both objects are moving at different velocities? The clock which moves and then comes back could be undergoing several changes which may be causing it to slow down, and the causes of which we can't perceive. In relativity the speed of light is held to be constant, and the reason it is held to be constant is that we depend wholly on light for our empirical measurements(basically anything we can observe and measure is light.) Maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know enough about the issue to comment on it further.

If the movement of the molecules in our own bodies were slowed down then we would live longer - but we would still feel like we were aging at a normal rate.

Exactly. Because we would be aging at a normal rate.

We would think we are aging at a normal rate, if we didn't know about the molecules slowing down, or if we weren't aware of any other rate of aging. But to another person we may be aging faster/slower than the normal rate. This is all about what you are observing about the empirical world from your particular viewpoint, and there is no problem with this as long as you include your viewpoint in the observation.

But this has nothing to do with motion through time in the philosophical or purely logical sense, or even in the plainly conventional sense of past and future(going back to the time of dinosaurs or going to the future when everyone walks upside down). The most simple reason why that kind of time travel is impossible is the fact that when(in the clocks experiment) the person who moves and comes back with a slower clock, he is there. If he really did slow down in time in the philosophical sense(even for an infinitesimal fraction of a second) then he would simply not be present at the starting point, because he would always be one step behind the person with the stationary clock.

[jupiviv]

Why are you calling your definitions "philosophical definitions" as opposed to definitions that jupiviv arbitrarily made up?

Because that is what philosophy essentially is - the creation of definitions. If you are not comfortable calling them "philosophical definitions" then you can call them "Jupiviv's philosophical definitions."

Also, referring to "The Meaning of Life" thread, I'm still curious to know why you exclude things we "can't see" from "Ultimate Reality" and would like to know what you do include and by what reasoning you reached your conclusions.

I don't remember saying anything like that. I do remember saying that we can't define Ultimate Reality as a mystical whole which can't be experienced or conceived in its totality but is nevertheless always and everywhere present, and simultaneously define it to be "the totality of everything that exists".

[Carmel]

jupiviv:
Because that is what philosophy essentially is - the creation of definitions. If you are not comfortable calling them "philosophical definitions" then you can call them "Jupiviv's philosophical definitions."

Carmel:
No, that's not what philosophy essentially is, that's what a dictionary actually is, you should invest in one onstead of making up your own definitions. Your definitions of time and space are useless and arbitrary crap and have nothing to do with philosophy. This is now the 5th or 6th definition that you've managed to mangle.

jupiviv:
I don't remember saying anything like that. I do remember saying that we can't define Ultimate Reality as a mystical whole which can't be experienced or conceived in its totality but is nevertheless always and everywhere present, and simultaneously define it to be "the totality of everything that exists".

Carmel:
Whether you remember it or not you did say it.
Here's the quote:

It is only invalid if you define Ultimate Reality as the feeling of happiness or security, or as some sort of a "whole" which we can't see but is nevertheless "there", and then say that that is identical to everything.

[cousinbasil]

cousinbasil: If by "it doesn't make sense," you mean "it is counter-intuitive," I certainly agree.
jupiviv: No I mean it is not logical, for the reasons I stated. Again, time in science(physics) is basically a measurement, which is subject to fluctuations. So the scenario would make sense with that definition of time, because change itself would be a result of measurement by that definition, and can therefore be affected by other conditions which may or may not be known to us.

I don't exactly know what you mean by "not logical." Relativistic time dilation is a demonstrable fact. How can it not be logical? You may not understand it, but that doesn't prove anything. Again, it is not intuitive because we don't notice its effects in everyday life.

Scientific analysis requires that time be measured, as you say. All scientific measurement is subject to fluctuations. You cannot possibly think this is some philosophical objection and that scientists are unaware of "other conditions which may or may not be known to us." There is a well-defined apparatus scientists use, when called for, to account for such effects.

Has the experiment been conducted in a scenario where both objects are moving at different velocities? The clock which moves and then comes back could be undergoing several changes which may be causing it to slow down, and the causes of which we can't perceive. In relativity the speed of light is held to be constant, and the reason it is held to be constant is that we depend wholly on light for our empirical measurements(basically anything we can observe and measure is light.) Maybe that has something to do with it. I don't know enough about the issue to comment on it further.

Good question! The short answer is I don't know if the experiment has been carried out with both atomic clocks aboard planes. I know what the theory would predict, though. The theory would have us ask us first to pick the reference frame from which we make our initial and final comparisons, and calculate each time dilation separately from that frame. Obviously, this would entail us knowing before hand what the trajectories were going to be. If we knew the route of each plane and how fast it was traveling at each point, the predictions could be made.

I can make one observation, however. Since the routes of our two planes carrying the atomic clocks, along with their speeds relative to where they meet up again, are likely to be different, so will their respective time measurements be different. The basic relativistic effect cannot be avoided. Newtonian mechanics -and our everyday common sense - would say that the two times should always be equal, no matter where the clocks went and how fast their trips were.

Your observation that we depend on light wholly for any observations or measurements we can make is a subtle one. That is not the reason behind the relativistic effects that are observed, however. Rather, one should think of the fact that the finite speed of light limits our ability to observe AND those relativistic effects as consequences of the underlying physical reality, which is that the speed of light is always the same in all possible reference frames.


Jup, these days there are many good popular texts on the advances of physics which took place about a hundred years ago. Most physicists see relativity as the last classical physics product and QM as the birth of modern physics. Unfortunately, there are many popular books that make your eyes glaze over when they approach relativity. This is because the temptation to resort to the equations is great, since once you understand those, everything else is clear. All too often, though, that approach neglects what prompted them in the first place. If you are interested, that book by Brian Greene (The Fabric of the Cosmos) is one of the most intellectually honest of the lot. Oddly, his PBS specials lack the clarity of the books behind them. You need to be able to go back and reread a paragraph here and there.

[jupiviv]

I don't exactly know what you mean by "not logical."

I mean that it is not logical if you use the philosophical definition of time(and change) rather than the physics definition.

I can make one observation, however. Since the routes of our two planes carrying the atomic clocks, along with their speeds relative to where they meet up again, are likely to be different, so will their respective time measurements be different.

The clocks experiment has proven that the time measurements of a stationary and moving object starting from roughly the same spot different. Two moving objects is a whole different scenario, and may well produce the same time measurement, or the faster body may show a lesser time measurement than the slower one. In the first case, the moving object has to move and then come back to the spot of the stationary object, which is fixed and doesn't change. In the second case, the faster moving object goes and comes back to the starting spot of both + the distance that the slower moving object has covered until both of them are roughly on the same spot. This may be significant in some way, but I can't clearly say how.

And as you say, factors other than speed and whether they are moving or not may influence their time measurements.

Rather, one should think of the fact that the finite speed of light limits our ability to observe AND those relativistic effects as consequences of the underlying physical reality, which is that the speed of light is always the same in all possible reference frames.

Yes, that is what I meant. If speed of light is constant then the "time" and "space" or anything else that is measured by light must be variable, and the reason the speed of light is constant for those things in the first place is that it is used to measure all those things. On the other hand, if we defined the measurements we made to be constant in and of themselves(if we could somehow measure things by, say, both sound and light), then speed of light would be variable.

But I don't think it is true that the speed of light is constant in all possible reference frames - it is simply constant in those reference frames that we've observed. Since we have as of yet used light to observe the reference frames themselves, therefore the speed of light in those reference frames wouldn't be variable for us.

Imagine if bats could do science - they would probably say that the speed of sound is constant for all reference frames. When I was a child I used to play a game - I would put my thumb in front of my eyes and look at distant things. The thumb would be as big as them. When I got closer to those things, the thumb would gradually become small. I could never resolve whether my thumb got smaller or the things got bigger...:-)

[jupiviv]

Because that is what philosophy essentially is - the creation of definitions. If you are not comfortable calling them "philosophical definitions" then you can call them "Jupiviv's philosophical definitions."

No, that's not what philosophy essentially is, that's what a dictionary actually is

A dictionary creates definitions?

Whether you remember it or not you did say it.
Here's the quote:

It is only invalid if you define Ultimate Reality as the feeling of happiness or security, or as some sort of a "whole" which we can't see but is nevertheless "there", and then say that that is identical to everything.

I wasn't talking about excluding things we can't see from Ultimate Reality. I was talking about the error of defining Ultimate Reality to be a whole which cannot be conceived and/or seen(perceived), and then equating it with everything.

[Carmel]

jupiviv:
A dictionary creates definitions?

Carmel:
No, it contains definitions. I'd strongly suggest you refer to these definitions instead of arbitrarily making up your own. Using actual definitions instead of made up ones makes communication far more efficient and effective.

jupiviv:
I wasn't talking about excluding things we can't see from Ultimate Reality. I was talking about the error of defining Ultimate Reality to be a whole which cannot be conceived and/or seen(perceived), and then equating it with everything.

Carmel:
Your statement is logically incoherent. So, what exactly is your definition of "Ultimate Reality". You really haven't expressed this very clearly, thus far.

[cousinbasil]

In the second case, the faster moving object goes and comes back to the starting spot of both + the distance that the slower moving object has covered until both of them are roughly on the same spot. This may be significant in some way, but I can't clearly say how.

Actually, you just had said how! You said:

Two moving objects is a whole different scenario, and may well produce the same time measurement, or the faster body may show a lesser time measurement than the slower one.

That is exactly what would happen. For the two measurements to be the same, the two flights would have to be carefully planned and executed. Or else, the planes would have to be slow and the trips short enough that the clock's inherent uncertainty was greater than any relativistic effects.

[Bobo]

Travel means motion, so it can only occur in space. Time and space are different things.

Space is anything that can be conceived. Time is the difference or similarity between two things.

In the experiment the clocks should show the same time if one of them were not on an airplane. When you compare both they don't show similar times but different ones. Meaning that by travelling thru space they also traveled thru time.

[jupiviv]

No, it contains definitions. I'd strongly suggest you refer to these definitions instead of arbitrarily making up your own.

So you are advising me to arbitrarily follow the dictionary definitions regardless of whether they are useful or not? For someone who proclaims to loathe religion you have a typically religious nature.

And you should look up the definition of "arbitrary" in the dictionary, because you don't seem to know it. I never use new definitions unless I need to, and when I do I say that they are different from the conventional definitions. How does that make my definitions even remotely arbitrary?

Using actual definitions instead of made up ones makes communication far more efficient and effective.

Define "actual definitions". Where did these "actual definitions" come from? Did they appear out of thin air or...made up?

I wasn't talking about excluding things we can't see from Ultimate Reality. I was talking about the error of defining Ultimate Reality to be a whole which cannot be conceived and/or seen(perceived), and then equating it with everything.

Your statement is logically incoherent.

Why do you consistently go on making statements without backing them up with any reasoning? I don't know if this is deliberate or not, but the minimum requirement for discussing philosophy is that you give at least some reason for the things you say.

So, what exactly is your definition of "Ultimate Reality".

I find it useful to define it as everything that exists. But really, the definition itself doesn't matter. What matters is whether it is true or not, and the same for all definitions.

[Carmel]

jupiviv:
Define "actual definitions". Where did these "actual definitions" come from? Did they appear out of thin air or...made up?

Carmel:
They are made up then agreed upon by society, not just simply made up then used in pseudo-philosophical babble as you do.

jupiviv:
Why do you consistently go on making statements without backing them up with any reasoning? I don't know if this is deliberate or not, but the minimum requirement for discussing philosophy is that you give at least some reason for the things you say.

Carmel:
I give reasons for my statements, that you don't understand them is a different matter entirely...

There's no way to respond effectively to statements that are logically incoherent as they have no meaning. It's your responsiblity to effectively communicate using logically coherent statements and viable definitions.

jupiviv:
I find it useful to define it as everything that exists. But really, the definition itself doesn't matter. What matters is whether it is true or not, and the same for all definitions.

Carmel:
"everything that exists" ...okey dokey, thanks for clarifying.

so then, What significance does the concept of "Ultimate Reality" hold for you?

[jupiviv]

They(actual definitions) are made up then agreed upon by society, not just simply made up then used in pseudo-philosophical babble as you do.

Do you realise you just made up an arbitrary definition? You don't give any reason for saying why definitions that are agreed upon by society are "actual definitions," as opposed to those which are not agreed upon or known by society, nor for your categorisation of my definitions as pseudo-philosophical babble.

There's no way to respond effectively to statements that are logically incoherent as they have no meaning. It's your responsiblity to effectively communicate using logically coherent statements and viable definitions.

It's your responsibility to elucidate why a statement is logically incoherent before you go around calling it logically incoherent, which you didn't do. Simply calling something logically incoherent doesn't make it so.

What significance does the concept of "Ultimate Reality" hold for you?

The same as any other concept.

[Carmel]

Carmel:
What significance does the concept of "Ultimate Reality" hold for you?

jupiviv:
The same as any other concept.

Carmel:
echo...
echo...
echo...

Which is what significance? You didn't provide any supporting reasoning or explanation for your opinion.

[Dennis Mahar]

Maybe this will help.


What is the Cosmological argument for the existence of God?


The cosmological argument derives its title from observing the world around us (the cosmos). It begins with what is most obvious in reality: things exist. It is then argued that the cause of those things’ existence had to be a "God-type" thing. These types of arguments go all the way back to Plato and have been used by notable philosophers and theologians ever since. Besides being philosophically evident, science finally caught up with theologians in the 20th century when it was confirmed that the universe had to have had a beginning. So, today, the arguments are even powerful for non-philosophers. There are two basic forms of these arguments, and the easiest way to think of them might be what are called the "vertical" and the "horizontal" forms. These titles indicate the direction from which the causes come. In the vertical form, it is argued that every created thing is being caused right now (imagine a timeline with an arrow pointing up from the universe to God). The horizontal version shows that creation had to have a cause in the beginning (imagine that same timeline only with an arrow pointing backward to a beginning point in time).

The horizontal is a little easier to understand because it does not require much in the way of philosophy to grasp. The basic argument is that all things that have beginnings had to have causes. The universe had a beginning; therefore, the universe had a cause. That cause, being outside the whole universe, is God. Someone might say that some things are caused by other things, but this does not solve the problem. This is because those other things had to have causes, too, and this cannot go on forever. Why not? Let's take a simple example: trees. All trees began to exist at some point (for they have not always existed). Each tree had its beginning in a seed (the "cause" of the tree). But every seed had its beginning ("cause") in another tree. See where this is going? You can't have an infinite series of tree-seed-tree-seed because no series is infinite—it cannot go on forever. All series are finite (limited) by definition. There is no such thing as an infinite number because even the number series is limited (although you can always add one more, you are always at a finite number). If there is an end, it is not infinite. All series have two endings actually—at the end and at the beginning (if you don't see why this is true, try to imagine a one ended stick!). But if there were no first cause, the chain of causes never would have started. Therefore, there is, at the beginning at least, a first cause—one that had no beginning. This first cause is God.

The vertical form is a bit more difficult to understand, but it is more powerful because not only does it show that God had to cause the "chain of causes" in the beginning, He must still be causing things to exist right now. Once again, we begin by noting that things exist. Second, while we often tend to think of existence as a property that things sort of "own"—that once something is created, existence is just part of what it is—this is not the case. Consider a simple example of the triangle. We can define the nature of a triangle as "the plane figure formed by connecting three points not in a straight line by straight line segments." Notice what is not part of this definition: existence.

This definition would hold true even if no triangles existed at all. Therefore, a triangle's nature—what it is—does not guarantee that one exists (like unicorns—we know what they are, but that does not make them exist). Because it is not part of a triangle's nature to exist, triangles must be made to exist by something else that already exists (such as I drawing one on a piece of paper). But it also does not exist simply because of what I am. So, I have to be given existence as well. This cannot go on forever (no infinite series, remember?). Therefore, something that does not need to be given existence must exist to give everything else existence. Now apply this example to everything in the universe. Does any of it exist on its own? No. So, not only did the universe have to have a first cause to get started; it needs something to give it existence right now. The only thing that would not have to be given existence is a thing that exists as its very nature. It is existence. This thing would always exist, have no cause, have no beginning, have no limit, be outside of time, be infinite . . . sound familiar? It should! It is God!

[Carmel]

Actually, Dennis, the question I posed to Jupiviv, was:

What significance does "Ultimate Reality" hold for you? The key words here being "for you".

Meaning, I was curious as to what meaning it held for him personally, but thanks, anyway.

[jupiviv]

What significance does the concept of "Ultimate Reality" hold for you?

The same as any other concept.

Which is what significance? You didn't provide any supporting reasoning or explanation for your opinion.

The significance is that it is true. I've covered this already, but I'm guessing you're just going to sling some more mud in response.

[Carmel]

jupiviv:

The significance is that it is true. I've covered this already, but I'm guessing you're just going to sling some more mud in response.

Carmel:

echo ...echo...echo...

[Dennis Mahar]

Carmel,

Meaning, I was curious as to what meaning it held for him personally, but thanks, anyway.

Do you mean has it given him certainty, peace, joie de vivre, warmth of being?

What are you getting at?

[Carmel]

I meant it as an open-ended question, to answer however he so chose...

since you're here, I'll pose the same question to you to answer however you choose.

I'm interested to know what "Ultimate Reality" means to you personally, what significance it holds for you.