Are We Real?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

1) Vraith believes that I am not real.

2) I believe that Vraith is real.

Given that Vraith believes that I am not real, his very assertion that I am not real gives rise to the idea of me, thus making me real. Since part of my reality is that I believe that Vraith is real, Vraith is therefore a figment of his own imagination.

*************

The set which contains all paradoxes both contains itself and does not contain itself; however, this does not violate any logical analysis because that set is quantum in nature--it is its own superpostion and its waveform never collapses.

*************

If our reality is a simulation and it is so exacting that it mirrors the meta-reality in which it was programmed down to the smallest detail, doesn't that make it equivalent to the actual reality?

[Avatar]

Great posts.

--A

[Ur Dead]

Reality.. What a concept...

[Hashi Lebwohl]

As I am writing this, I exist and am real...but you are not real because future you is reading this and future you doesn't exist yet.

Now that you are reading this, the you who is now is real while you are reading this but the past me who wrote this no longer exists because it is "now" right now, not the past.

In other words, I am writing this for people who aren't real and by the time the people who read this are real the author of these words won't be real any more.

These statements will remain true even if you come back and read these comments at different points in time in the future.

[Avatar]

Nicely reasoned.

--A

[Vraith]

Is this real, or are we just programmed that way? I say the former. Case closed

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/phys ... simulation

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Yes, that is real...or you could just conclude that reality is not a simulation.

The entire question as to whether this reality is a simulation begins to fall apart when you ask this question: if this reality is a simulation, why did the programmers build it? If they are so advanced that they are able to create a simulation which is just as real as reality itself, then what question are they trying to answer that they cannot find via some other means? Yes, we could conclude "they were bored" but that is an unsatisfactory answer even if true.

[Ur Dead]

Is this real, or are we just programmed that way? I say the former. Case closed

https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/phys ... simulation

Beat me to it..
Why am I the last one to get the article?

[Skyweir]

Yes, that is real...or you could just conclude that reality is not a simulation.

The entire question as to whether this reality is a simulation begins to fall apart when you ask this question: if this reality is a simulation, why did the programmers build it? If they are so advanced that they are able to create a simulation which is just as real as reality itself, then what question are they trying to answer that they cannot find via some other means? Yes, we could conclude "they were bored" but that is an unsatisfactory answer even if true.

Agreed

[peter]

Well most likely we are ... but I'm feeling a bit insubstantial today.......

[Skyweir]

I don't think an assessment of the authenticity of 'reality' can be subjective. Therefore what a person believes about their existence is irrelevant in my most humble opinion.

Ive never liked the philosophical argument that if a tree falls in a forrest and no one sees it - did it happen?

Of course it frigg'n happened - the evidence of its prone position would indicate that it fell. Whether or not a witness was there to see it fall.

But it might just be my limited intellect - I am known for reasonably black and white analyses. Which is all kinds of flawed reasoning.

Taking out belief/faith/ .. what are we left with? Evidence, observation, experience.

Ok but if this is a simulated existence these may arguably fall under subjectivist criteria. Well no not really. Evidence exists in isolation to belief, thought, perspective.

There are some great posts in this thread which I have really enjoyed reading.

I like Vraith I think it was point regarding likelihood. Who could have designed such a simulation?

I think its interesting also about the upload to your neural network argument - yes who knows where the future of technology will take the human race.

I definitely wouldn't have survived existence in a different time frame - yeah the LARP / medieval fair fantasy has its attractions but at the end of the day its just that - imaginative play. Not that there is any thing wrong with escapism and fantasy - its my driving light lol

I love escapism - because some days reality is simply shit (second expletive - prepare your delicate sensibilities for others lol).

This is reality - <darkness warning - turn away now> this shit is real. There are way too many sick twisted fuckers in this world, humans are incredibly complex, diverse and most certainly not homogenous. Some incredibly perverse designer has gone to a hell of a lot of work to map out this reality if it is a simulation.

No glitches? All programs eventually glitch ..

The VROOM kinda makes me think of the Bruce Willis movie Surrogates (and yeah sure Matix) - the difference there is that they controlled an AI remotely - to safeguard their human bodies and not be limited by them.

But again another consciousness upload scenario - if the human brain does not or currently does not interface with technology (data uploads etc) then just another fantasy.

I kinda think aTOMiC is right - who knows in a millennia maybe that interface will be addressed. But ideas lead the way to a different future.

All the ideas of an advanced future are not the domain of fantasy - some of them progress to scientific research and from there who knows?

In the 70s Star Trek writers conceived of travel involving a "transporter" to beam up Scotty .. LOL .. and beam down. But that "idea" has become an area of scientific research and experiments successfully replicated a similar technology.

Im old my memory struggles to recall details - but I remember reading about this initiative and being super impressed by it (as a ST fan lol)

bleh .. well thats a whole heap of not particularly well thought through nonsense. But yeah

[Skyweir]

I don't think an assessment of the authenticity of 'reality' can be subjective. Therefore what a person believes about their existence is irrelevant in my most humble opinion.

Ive never liked the philosophical argument that if a tree falls in a forrest and no one sees it - did it happen?

Of course it frigg'n happened - the evidence of its prone position would indicate that it fell. Whether or not a witness was there to see it fall.

But it might just be my limited intellect - I am known for reasonably black and white analyses. Which is all kinds of flawed reasoning.

Taking out belief/faith/ .. what are we left with? Evidence, observation, experience.

Ok but if this is a simulated existence these may arguably fall under subjectivist criteria. Well no not really. Evidence exists in isolation to belief, thought, perspective.

There are some great posts in this thread which I have really enjoyed reading.

I like Vraith I think it was point regarding likelihood. Who could have designed such a simulation?

I think its interesting also about the upload to your neural network argument - yes who knows where the future of technology will take the human race.

I definitely wouldn't have survived existence in a different time frame - yeah the LARP / medieval fair fantasy has its attractions but at the end of the day its just that - imaginative play. Not that there is any thing wrong with escapism and fantasy - its my driving light lol

I love escapism - because some days reality is simply shit (second expletive - prepare your delicate sensibilities for others lol).

This is reality - <darkness warning - turn away now> this shit is real. There are way too many sick twisted fuckers in this world, humans are incredibly complex, diverse and most certainly not homogenous. Some incredibly perverse designer has gone to a hell of a lot of work to map out this reality if it is a simulation.

No glitches? All programs eventually glitch ..

The VROOM kinda makes me think of the Bruce Willis movie Surrogates (and yeah sure Matix) - the difference there is that they controlled an AI remotely - to safeguard their human bodies and not be limited by them.

But again another consciousness upload scenario - if the human brain does not or currently does not interface with technology (data uploads etc) then just another fantasy.

I kinda think aTOMiC is right - who knows in a millennia maybe that interface will be addressed. But ideas lead the way to a different future.

All the ideas of an advanced future are not the domain of fantasy - some of them progress to scientific research and from there who knows?

In the 70s Star Trek writers conceived of travel involving a "transporter" to beam up Scotty .. LOL .. and beam down. But that "idea" has become an area of scientific research and experiments successfully replicated a similar technology.

Im old my memory struggles to recall details - but I remember reading about this initiative and being super impressed by it (as a ST fan lol)

bleh .. well thats a whole heap of not particularly well thought through nonsense. But yeah

sky! out ..

[peter]

Now I'm of a different opinion on the tree falling thing Skyweir. I think in just saying the words ......tree falling in a Forrest.......an image is conjured up in two(plus) minds that, sure, enables them to use common ground to hang their ideas on -but has no objective reality beyond that image. It is an image (in both minds) that is built from yet further images that are engendered by actual experiences we both have of trees in Forrest's - either by physically being in Forrest's, or by yet further images seen in photos or whatever. But all of this rests on a bedrock of sand ( ) because it is entirely subjective at all levels - and subjective don't mean zilch at the objective level. So anything that happens out there in the universe beyond any receptors to construct that subjective framework that we understand, sure, remains an event (and one easiest described in this case as 'a tree falling in a forrest') - but not the one we have subjectively constructed to describe it. For vision there has to be an eye, a brain as well as something to see, to hear the sound there must ultimately be an ear, a brain to hear - without these things neither sight nor sound exist....so the tree both does and doesn't fall depending on how you like at it. Without anyone there it's the sound of one hand clapping.

[Skyweir]

mmm... I still don't like the rationale.

What you are describing are planting ideas, suggestion. I hear from what you have set down, is theoretical. And reliance on imagination, experience to relate to a suggestion of a tree falling.

That is not the same as hiking into an Oregon forrest and chopping down a tree - or the tree falling during after being battered by a storm.

I don't see the value of this argument in philosophy (not a criticism of you).

Yay humans can imagine the tree if they know what a tree is. So?

Has a tree fallen because you put the idea of a tree - and it falling - by uttering a scenario out loud. Simply hearing your idea has no affect on a physical tree. It resides in the realm of subjectivity and to me that is its flaw.

Maybe Im just not thinking in the same way - and thats why I can't appreciate that line of "reasoning". I didn't enjoy philosophy at University and still not a fan. Though not all philosophical arguments are similarly irritating to me

The test to my mind of the authenticity or otherwise of reality can only be asserted objectively. It can't be based in belief about their existence.

[peter]

I'm not sure that I like the ideas either Skyweir, but I do like testing them! Also I'd prefer the tree falling in the Forrest to be just that. But it isn't is it? I mean even at the non philosophical level (sticking purely to the materialist realm) it's only a tree falling in a Forrest at the scale we understand the world. To a nuclear physicist it's a dance of probabilities, to an intergalactic sized network intelligence it's an itch on its left hinder star cluster.

But this morning we'll declare it by fiat - it's a tree falling in a forrest! As John Luc Piccard would say, "Let it be so!"

[Skyweir]

[Fist and Faith]

I think that's more of a combination of Paul McCartney and Jean Luc.

[peter]

Oh yes, his was "make it so" wasn't it? You can tell I wasn't much of a Treckie......

[Vraith]

I have a lot to say on many of those things in the last 10 or 50 posts.
I'm not going to say any of it.

I'm going to say...
Beginning at the point where we could begin to BOTH recognize the difference between subjective and objective, AND imagine tests of those...
We have been on [mostly] the "easy" path where:
[[Among OTHER things, Many Important other Things]]
Subjective is meaningless [in real terms] because ONLY each particularity in EVERY situation can "see" it.
Objective is meaningful [in real terms] because NO ONE, in ANY situations can "see" it.
Well---as someone said---Fuck me running.
I don't buy it.

BTW...there is now empirical evidence that, roughly speaking...not only is Schrodinger's cat in some weird dual state, but just by WATCHING the box, you can STOP anything from happening...[kinda-sorta, I ain't gonna spoiler your brain thoughts].
A watched cat never lives/dies...[ya see how that weirds out "it isn't either UNTIL you look", right?]
so to speak.
I'd link but I have this 'Tank-related oppositional defiance cuz I'm right thing...complicated off topic, I'll shut up.

[peter]

Of all the bad things you could do (on the Watch) V, shutting up would be the worst. But (despite the Tank related thing) on the basis of my love of cats, I need to know of the shrodinger development; I'll try to search it out, but in the event of Google not being up to the task...... prepare to be hustled!!!