Jump to content

Talk:Reality

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2024

[edit]

"add z to x,y,"

As I remember in school. The definition of reality is:

   The physical matter and it's smaller defined make, not reliant on perspective.

As this definition funtions in the use of objective reasoning as accurate, in comparison to subjective reasoning; the request submitted has a more practical and Lehman application that aids to a more populated use. "Narrative economics as a probable source". Yourpracticalword (talk) 10:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it should be "God," not "a 'God.'"

[edit]

1. "God," when capitalized, is a proper noun and refers to the concept in monotheism, not to one of many supernatural beings sometimes labeled "gods."

2. The rest of the article is written in American English, so the use of single instead of double quotation marks is inconsistent.

3. Adding quotation marks at all in this instance is a use of scare quotes. 2001:9E8:8C0:E200:888B:6AA7:C062:799F (talk) 06:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to "a god or gods". Shapeyness (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imaginary

[edit]

Imaginary stuff is in the mind of person who imagines so is somewhere in the universe or reality so the distinction at the beginning is wrong because imaginary stuff also is part of reality. 85.53.20.245 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bad opening sentence

[edit]

"Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within the universe, as opposed to that which is only imaginary, nonexistent or nonactual."

Recommend not defining reality by using its own term, which is in need of definition, "Reality is . . . all that is real. . ." Likewise, "imaginary" and "nonactual" are being here used as antonyms, which require a definition of the original term. It's like defining reality as that which is real as opposed to that which is unreal.

Nothing is really explained here. Maybe scrap the first sentence altogether and start with the second sentence. Geraldpriddle (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but the another issue is that the intro should summarize the article. I made changes. Johnjbarton (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lede was changed again, from
  • Reality is a concept that varies with context and culture.
which is clearly supported by the article, to
  • Reality is the sum or aggregate of all objects that exist, as opposed to being imaginary, nonexistent, or nonactual.
which is not discussed in the article as far as I can tell.
@Brent Silby why did you make that change? Johnjbarton (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @Johnjbarton! The reason I made that change is because "reality is a concept that varies with context and culture" doesn't tell us what reality is. I believe that article's first sentence should attempt to approximately define the name of the article as best as it can. I looked at other articles whose names heavily depend on context, and none of them start their lead section by saying that their main concept varies with context. They all give an approximate definition that a reader can work with. Brent Silby (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]