Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Is Anything Real?


midniterider

Recommended Posts

 

Pic is not loading for me.

 

 

It's loading fine on my end in my original message and in your reply. Not sure if there's anything to be done about it.

 

It's an image from a video game called 'Ittle Dew' where the main character and her sidekick are standing in a junk store with a shady looking owner and stating "Wow, look at all this total crap!"

 

Basically, the problem with the issue of 'proving existence' is that one person's view of their own existence isn't going to make sense to anyone but themselves. There is no way to really compare one person's perception of reality and their own existence to another's. Two people trying to explain their perception of their own existence just ends up two different mishmashes of nonesensical psychobabble to anyone else.

 

Unless you're one of those religious types that simply states that God causes it and obviously proves it. Which a completely off topic reply that makes no sense and is just a reflex answer caused by religious indoctrinization. Most people who try to answer such a question themselves come up with a completely unique set of theories about the whole mess.

 

It's ultimately unprovable and just a fun philosophical exercise. There is no real 'right' answer to existence or real evidence for it that can't be discounted as something that you alone may merely be perceiving if there is an actual 'you' to begin with. How do you really know that everything you see, hear, feel, and do is actually there and not merely constructs of your own imaginings? What if there are no other people and the world around you is just something whatever passes for your consciousness has created to exist in? How would you know it from a 'real' world? How do you know that if you personally went underwater for too long that you yourself would drown and die?

 

Maybe you've drowned before, but you obviously didn't die if you're reading this. Maybe you did, but how do you know that you were really 'dead' since you obviously didn't stay dead? How do you know that what you perceived was 'real'? Maybe you knew someone who did drown and die, but even then there is no way to be sure that it really happened outside of your own perception. The only way to truly find out would be to drown and see if you actually died. That's not advisable, but essentially the problem with the whole idea of proving the existence of anything. Even if you did die, you likely wouldn't notice that you were dead anyway, so even then you wouldn't 'learn' anything and the question would still be unanswered.

 

Plus, you'd still have the issue that you might be a construct of someone else's reality. Maybe you're not the one that actually exists and someone else is in fact the one who 'exists'. How would you know one way or the other? Reality is sketchy business and limited by our own personal perception of it. Your perception is completely different than anyone else's. For all you know the color you see as 'green' may be what someone else sees as 'blue' and what you see as 'blue' may be 'green' to that other person. As long as it's consistently uniform that you and they see the same shade in relation to that 'color' there would be no way to tell if you see those colors the same way or not. Maybe everyone actually sees the same 'shade' as their 'favorite color', but sees that shade as a different 'color' from everyone else?

 

Perception is tricky business and ultimately why the question of the proof of existence is so improbable. It's safe to assume that you and everything else you perceive exists, but there's really no way to be certain to the point of proof. Ultimately existence is something we'll probably never really prove due to our own limited perception as individuals.

 

You might as well just say the answer '42' and be done with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ContraBarbus, interesting what you're saying.  I think I agree :)

 

I know you play video games.  Have you ever wondered if the character you create in an RPG might have a conscience of his own?  I know it's stupid.  But I was playing The Sims the other day and after a while, when my Sim had enough money, I decided to buy him a computer and he started playing video games.  So here I was, playing a video game, controlling a character who was also playing a video game, and that character didn't seem to know that I was controlling him, then it dawned on me that I could very well be a character in a video game also and someone "up there" was playing me!  Freaky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

Then let us stipulate that nothing is "real" after all. So stipulated.

 

Now, what difference did that make?

 

It's like imagining gods actually make the sun to rise and the sky to rain. We may pretend we are all aspects of a single super being. We can suspect we are actually the spawn of aliens. We can make up and imagine the craziest things. Sometimes mankind just gets bored, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes mankind just gets bored, I guess.

 

Exactly!  I cultivate all kinds of crazy ideas just to stay alive, otherwise I would die of boredom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define proof.  What are you trying to prove?  Your sentience?  That I can't help you with.  We do, however have proof enough that each of us exists, mathematically, in the number of calories each of us burns per second/minute/whatever, converting (food) matter to energy.  We quantify the scale of a singularity by the accretion disk around it.  We don't deny that the singularity exists, do we?  What I can not prove to you is that the singularity is sentient.  Not even from the insanity booth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define proof.  What are you trying to prove?  Your sentience?  That I can't help you with.  We do, however have proof enough that each of us exists, mathematically, in the number of calories each of us burns per second/minute/whatever, converting (food) matter to energy.  We quantify the scale of a singularity by the accretion disk around it.  We don't deny that the singularity exists, do we?  What I can not prove to you is that the singularity is sentient.  Not even from the insanity booth.

 

Not really. That's just what your perception tells you. How do you know any of that is real, that these calculations matter, or that any of what you suggested is not merely the workings of your own mind and nothing more than reality as you perceive it? If it was all just something you imagined, how would you know that?

 

Your perception tells you that those things are real and valid, but how do you know you can trust your perception?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Define proof.  What are you trying to prove?  Your sentience?  That I can't help you with.  We do, however have proof enough that each of us exists, mathematically, in the number of calories each of us burns per second/minute/whatever, converting (food) matter to energy.  We quantify the scale of a singularity by the accretion disk around it.  We don't deny that the singularity exists, do we?  What I can not prove to you is that the singularity is sentient.  Not even from the insanity booth.

 

"Singularity" is somewhat of an interesting term. It often comes up when our current quantitative methods break down.  For example, the singularity of say a black hole is a mathematical construct, or rather the breakdown of general relativity resulting in infinities. Therefore, we say singularity, but in reality we are not sure what is really going on in the center of a black hole. Therefore, I would argue that asking about sentience and so on regarding the concept of a singularity is probably not at all productive, as we do not have fully developed quantitative framework to explain and clearly understand these phenomena.

 

Interestingly, we are not so much converting matter to energy, because fundamentally, matter and energy are interchangeable. What is going on in a big picture view is the energy from the sun is transferred to the Earth and that energy is converted into chemical energy. Basically, used to make chemical bonds in plants. Think, plants making glucose molecules. Then an animal may eat the plant and the chemical energy within the glucose molecules of the plant is transferred into another type of chemical energy that animals can use in the form of ATP molecules. Of course energy is wasted and given off in the form of heat and other chemicals like Carbon dioxide (CO2). Basically, it's not so much the creation of energy as it is the transferring of energy and the conversion of energy from one form into other forms (heat, chemical bonds and so on).

 

I do not know if I added anything of significance to the conversation, but a certain amount of clarity may result when we can better appreciate the terminology that is often thrown around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Define proof.  What are you trying to prove?  Your sentience?  That I can't help you with.  We do, however have proof enough that each of us exists, mathematically, in the number of calories each of us burns per second/minute/whatever, converting (food) matter to energy.  We quantify the scale of a singularity by the accretion disk around it.  We don't deny that the singularity exists, do we?  What I can not prove to you is that the singularity is sentient.  Not even from the insanity booth.

 

"Singularity" is somewhat of an interesting term. It often comes up when our current quantitative methods break down.  For example, the singularity of say a black hole is a mathematical construct, or rather the breakdown of general relativity resulting in infinities. Therefore, we say singularity, but in reality we are not sure what is really going on in the center of a black hole. Therefore, I would argue that asking about sentience and so on regarding the concept of a singularity is probably not at all productive, as we do not have fully developed quantitative framework to explain and clearly understand these phenomena.

 

I made the comparison between a singularity and sentience because they share that same undefinable characteristic.  Moment, what is a moment, same thing. 

 

I think if anyone who believes they were not real got locked down in a holding cell with rats for 2 years they would wish they weren't real and would have to suffer the fact that they are.  Question placed to self, am I real?  Fuck, I am and I'm stuck here.  How can I not be real?

 

The proof I claim that a given physical thing or things or everything is real is that all people/animals, things will experience the same universe.  If I saw a wall that no one else saw, the proof that it's not real would be the insistence of the others (you people) claiming that it's not.  They wouldn't experience it.  "Reality check."  Feedback from others.  Comparing notes.  Sharing proofs.

 

Kids used to hash through this argument a lot when I was a kid.  I always just walked away then.  Maybe this is progress, but I'm not a philosopher, I'm a wanna-be scientist, a civilian scientist and artist. 

'I think, therefore I am.'  Hmm.  Sounds like someone might have thought this stuff through once already.  

 

I feel that the proof we can choose to accept that things are real exceeds proof available to the contrary.  Actually, I haven't seen any proof to the contrary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I made the comparison between a singularity and sentience because they share that same undefinable characteristic.  Moment, what is a moment, same thing. 

 

I think if anyone who believes they were not real got locked down in a holding cell with rats for 2 years they would wish they weren't real and would have to suffer the fact that they are.  Question placed to self, am I real?  Fuck, I am and I'm stuck here.  How can I not be real?

 

The proof I claim that a given physical thing or things or everything is real is that all people/animals, things will experience the same universe.  If I saw a wall that no one else saw, the proof that it's not real would be the insistence of the others (you people) claiming that it's not.  They wouldn't experience it.  "Reality check."  Feedback from others.  Comparing notes.  Sharing proofs.

 

Kids used to hash through this argument a lot when I was a kid.  I always just walked away then.  Maybe this is progress, but I'm not a philosopher, I'm a wanna-be scientist, a civilian scientist and artist. 

'I think, therefore I am.'  Hmm.  Sounds like someone might have thought this stuff through once already.  

 

I feel that the proof we can choose to accept that things are real exceeds proof available to the contrary.  Actually, I haven't seen any proof to the contrary.

 

 

Just to play devil's advocate here, but how do you know there are actually 'other people' with which you are interacting with? It could be you are a single entity with one hell of a multiple personality disorder living in a dream world. Just as one possibility. Your perception tells you there are 'others' to share and compare information with, but that really can't be proven.

 

That's the whole issue with this. You can only see the universe from one viewpoint, your own, and how much you can trust that viewpoint can never really be certain.

 

That's not saying I actually think that there are no other people, that I exist in a dream world,  or that I'm somehow a singular entity who may not actually even exist on my own, only that I can't really prove that I'm not and can only rely on my own limited viewpoint to understand or navigate it. I wouldn't know if it wasn't all some sort of illusionary world, I wouldn't know if I was the product of someone else's dream, I wouldn't know one way or the other if thinking actually means that I do exist.

 

It just seems that way to me. I trust that, but I cannot prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Define proof.  What are you trying to prove?  Your sentience?  That I can't help you with.  We do, however have proof enough that each of us exists, mathematically, in the number of calories each of us burns per second/minute/whatever, converting (food) matter to energy.  We quantify the scale of a singularity by the accretion disk around it.  We don't deny that the singularity exists, do we?  What I can not prove to you is that the singularity is sentient.  Not even from the insanity booth.

 

Not really. That's just what your perception tells you. How do you know any of that is real, that these calculations matter, or that any of what you suggested is not merely the workings of your own mind and nothing more than reality as you perceive it? If it was all just something you imagined, how would you know that?

 

Your perception tells you that those things are real and valid, but how do you know you can trust your perception?

 

 

We take our perceptions on faith. :-) Faith that what we see is true. Faith that the people we talk to are real. :-) We can't really prove any of this is real or not. But if it isn't, eh, we just have to deal with it anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The proof I claim that a given physical thing or things or everything is real is that all people/animals, things will experience the same universe.  If I saw a wall that no one else saw, the proof that it's not real would be the insistence of the others (you people) claiming that it's not.  They wouldn't experience it.  "Reality check."  Feedback from others.  Comparing notes.  Sharing proofs.

 

What if a lot of people around you insisted that someone named Jesus was with them right then and why the heck didn't you see Jesus too? Would you agree with the consensus that Jesus was there or would you question the sanity or intelligence of the consensus? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then let us stipulate that nothing is "real" after all. So stipulated.

 

Now, what difference did that make?

 

It's like imagining gods actually make the sun to rise and the sky to rain. We may pretend we are all aspects of a single super being. We can suspect we are actually the spawn of aliens. We can make up and imagine the craziest things. Sometimes mankind just gets bored, I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then let us stipulate that nothing is "real" after all. So stipulated.

 

Now, what difference did that make?

 

It's like waking up from a bad dream, it feel's good.

 

I feel relieved.  I feel more freedom.  It means I have some power over how my perception of objects affect my feelings.  Yes, feelings!

 

Emotions seem to be less real than material objects but are they, to you personally?  What drives your life, the desire to feel good or the weight and color of a rock?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

The proof I claim that a given physical thing or things or everything is real is that all people/animals, things will experience the same universe.  If I saw a wall that no one else saw, the proof that it's not real would be the insistence of the others (you people) claiming that it's not.  They wouldn't experience it.  "Reality check."  Feedback from others.  Comparing notes.  Sharing proofs.

 

What if a lot of people around you insisted that someone named Jesus was with them right then and why the heck didn't you see Jesus too? Would you agree with the consensus that Jesus was there or would you question the sanity or intelligence of the consensus? 

 

 

I did at one point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I made the comparison between a singularity and sentience because they share that same undefinable characteristic.  Moment, what is a moment, same thing. 

 

I think if anyone who believes they were not real got locked down in a holding cell with rats for 2 years they would wish they weren't real and would have to suffer the fact that they are.  Question placed to self, am I real?  Fuck, I am and I'm stuck here.  How can I not be real?

 

The proof I claim that a given physical thing or things or everything is real is that all people/animals, things will experience the same universe.  If I saw a wall that no one else saw, the proof that it's not real would be the insistence of the others (you people) claiming that it's not.  They wouldn't experience it.  "Reality check."  Feedback from others.  Comparing notes.  Sharing proofs.

 

Kids used to hash through this argument a lot when I was a kid.  I always just walked away then.  Maybe this is progress, but I'm not a philosopher, I'm a wanna-be scientist, a civilian scientist and artist. 

'I think, therefore I am.'  Hmm.  Sounds like someone might have thought this stuff through once already.  

 

I feel that the proof we can choose to accept that things are real exceeds proof available to the contrary.  Actually, I haven't seen any proof to the contrary.

 

 

Just to play devil's advocate here, but how do you know there are actually 'other people' with which you are interacting with? It could be you are a single entity with one hell of a multiple personality disorder living in a dream world. Just as one possibility. Your perception tells you there are 'others' to share and compare information with, but that really can't be proven.

 

That's the whole issue with this. You can only see the universe from one viewpoint, your own, and how much you can trust that viewpoint can never really be certain.

 

That's not saying I actually think that there are no other people, that I exist in a dream world,  or that I'm somehow a singular entity who may not actually even exist on my own, only that I can't really prove that I'm not and can only rely on my own limited viewpoint to understand or navigate it. I wouldn't know if it wasn't all some sort of illusionary world, I wouldn't know if I was the product of someone else's dream, I wouldn't know one way or the other if thinking actually means that I do exist.

 

It just seems that way to me. I trust that, but I cannot prove it.

 

 

But what is proof?  It sounds like we're in the process of abandoning scientific method here with this argument and saying that even that isn't proof, that it may not be real.  So no, we won't be able to prove anything if we abandon standard definitions of proof and say they might not be real either.  This is the road to chaos.

 

Let me also point out that Buddhists strive for Nirvana, an ideal place where they can not exist.  They must be longing very hard to not exist.  It must be something they can't actually achieve in this life.

 

Please, those arguing that we can't prove we exist, provide definitions of proof.  Present some proof that we don't exist, proof comparable to the massive scientific proof that we do.  I'm still waiting for that.

 

It's only taken 40 years for me, but I think you're all helping me understand the impetus of this argument.  It really is boredom isn't it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I made the comparison between a singularity and sentience because they share that same undefinable characteristic.  Moment, what is a moment, same thing. 

 

I think if anyone who believes they were not real got locked down in a holding cell with rats for 2 years they would wish they weren't real and would have to suffer the fact that they are.  Question placed to self, am I real?  Fuck, I am and I'm stuck here.  How can I not be real?

 

The proof I claim that a given physical thing or things or everything is real is that all people/animals, things will experience the same universe.  If I saw a wall that no one else saw, the proof that it's not real would be the insistence of the others (you people) claiming that it's not.  They wouldn't experience it.  "Reality check."  Feedback from others.  Comparing notes.  Sharing proofs.

 

Kids used to hash through this argument a lot when I was a kid.  I always just walked away then.  Maybe this is progress, but I'm not a philosopher, I'm a wanna-be scientist, a civilian scientist and artist. 

'I think, therefore I am.'  Hmm.  Sounds like someone might have thought this stuff through once already.  

 

I feel that the proof we can choose to accept that things are real exceeds proof available to the contrary.  Actually, I haven't seen any proof to the contrary.

 

 

Just to play devil's advocate here, but how do you know there are actually 'other people' with which you are interacting with? It could be you are a single entity with one hell of a multiple personality disorder living in a dream world. Just as one possibility. Your perception tells you there are 'others' to share and compare information with, but that really can't be proven.

 

That's the whole issue with this. You can only see the universe from one viewpoint, your own, and how much you can trust that viewpoint can never really be certain.

 

That's not saying I actually think that there are no other people, that I exist in a dream world,  or that I'm somehow a singular entity who may not actually even exist on my own, only that I can't really prove that I'm not and can only rely on my own limited viewpoint to understand or navigate it. I wouldn't know if it wasn't all some sort of illusionary world, I wouldn't know if I was the product of someone else's dream, I wouldn't know one way or the other if thinking actually means that I do exist.

 

It just seems that way to me. I trust that, but I cannot prove it.

 

 

But what is proof?  It sounds like we're in the process of abandoning scientific method here with this argument and saying that even that isn't proof, that it may not be real.  So no, we won't be able to prove anything if we abandon standard definitions of proof and say they might not be real either.  This is the road to chaos.

 

Let me also point out that Buddhists strive for Nirvana, an ideal place where they can not exist.  They must be longing very hard to not exist.  It must be something they can't actually achieve in this life.

 

Please, those arguing that we can't prove we exist, provide definitions of proof.  Present some proof that we don't exist, proof comparable to the massive scientific proof that we do.  I'm still waiting for that.

 

It's only taken 40 years for me, but I think you're all helping me understand the impetus of this argument.  It really is boredom isn't it.

 

 

'Proof' is a variable and it only exists as an abstract. happy.png It exists within varying standards and limits there is no such thing as 'proof' of anything even in Science. Math is the only place you can provide definitive proof of an answer and that's because of the rigid rules and limits that govern it. We can use Science to provide repeatable results and assign a level of likelyhood for a particular explanation, but it's never truly definitively 'proven' true. Creationist love this idea, but also fall into the same trap.

 

It is incredibly likely that we exist and the Universe is all real and we are all separate individual entities. However, it is not and likely never will be conclusively 'proven'. No matter how many nines you put after 99.9...% it's still never going to be 100%, and there's no such thing as 100% certainty in Science. There is always a chance that new evidence can change or even reverse any existing theory. The current evidence suggest that the most likely explanation is that everything is real and all that, but all it would take is one currently unknown variable being discovered and everything could change in an instant.

 

You're also asking us to prove a negative here. I can't prove that we don't exist any more than you can prove that there are no gnomes living under the toenails of angels in the 45th dimension. You could say it's unlikely and be right about that, but you could never actually prove that it isn't true. Asking for proof of a negative is a logical fallacy and not a valid argument.

 

Pretty much everything humanity does is the result of boredom anyway. Why would this be any different?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, those arguing that we can't prove we exist, provide definitions of proof.  Present some proof that we don't exist, proof comparable to the massive scientific proof that we do.  I'm still waiting for that.

 

I'm positive I exist. I just may not be limited to the ego center/bag of skin that people tend to define each other as. Why is this (so-called waking) state considered real? Because it recurs? Dreams recur also. So why don't we consider dreams real also? Is it because in this waking state we have been brainwashed by its contents to believe this is real and the dream state is fantasy? The waking state seems so real until it dissolves into sleep and you dream. The dream state seems so real until it dissolves into the waking state.

 

Could a recurring dream be considered "scientific repeatability" ? Guess it depends on which state of consciousness it occurs. 

 

As far as proving we don't exist I have been advised by the logicians here that you can't prove a negative. For existing I think that's pretty simple. Something is certainly happening here and it seems to be 'me'. You probably feel sure about your existence as well. That may be scientific proof, or not. I dunno. But more likely that is just my opinion.

 

But I'm more interested in what the massive scientific proof is that there is an objective reality that exists when I'm not around to observe it. Other than the non-scientific circular argument of "Well, look around. Obviously the world is right here, dummy." That argument doesn't hold water if we try to apply it to the dream state. Why should it apply to the waking state?

 

Regarding abandoning the (holy) scientific method: If we cannot prove that the world is not just someone's dream then isn't it a waste of time to even conduct science? It could all be for naught. :-)

 

 

 

It's only taken 40 years for me, but I think you're all helping me understand the impetus of this argument.  It really is boredom isn't it.

 

Some people watch tv, some people do this. :-)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

I made the comparison between a singularity and sentience because they share that same undefinable characteristic.  Moment, what is a moment, same thing. 

 

I think if anyone who believes they were not real got locked down in a holding cell with rats for 2 years they would wish they weren't real and would have to suffer the fact that they are.  Question placed to self, am I real?  Fuck, I am and I'm stuck here.  How can I not be real?

 

The proof I claim that a given physical thing or things or everything is real is that all people/animals, things will experience the same universe.  If I saw a wall that no one else saw, the proof that it's not real would be the insistence of the others (you people) claiming that it's not.  They wouldn't experience it.  "Reality check."  Feedback from others.  Comparing notes.  Sharing proofs.

 

Kids used to hash through this argument a lot when I was a kid.  I always just walked away then.  Maybe this is progress, but I'm not a philosopher, I'm a wanna-be scientist, a civilian scientist and artist. 

'I think, therefore I am.'  Hmm.  Sounds like someone might have thought this stuff through once already.  

 

I feel that the proof we can choose to accept that things are real exceeds proof available to the contrary.  Actually, I haven't seen any proof to the contrary.

 

 

Just to play devil's advocate here, but how do you know there are actually 'other people' with which you are interacting with? It could be you are a single entity with one hell of a multiple personality disorder living in a dream world. Just as one possibility. Your perception tells you there are 'others' to share and compare information with, but that really can't be proven.

 

That's the whole issue with this. You can only see the universe from one viewpoint, your own, and how much you can trust that viewpoint can never really be certain.

 

That's not saying I actually think that there are no other people, that I exist in a dream world,  or that I'm somehow a singular entity who may not actually even exist on my own, only that I can't really prove that I'm not and can only rely on my own limited viewpoint to understand or navigate it. I wouldn't know if it wasn't all some sort of illusionary world, I wouldn't know if I was the product of someone else's dream, I wouldn't know one way or the other if thinking actually means that I do exist.

 

It just seems that way to me. I trust that, but I cannot prove it.

 

 

But what is proof?  It sounds like we're in the process of abandoning scientific method here with this argument and saying that even that isn't proof, that it may not be real.  So no, we won't be able to prove anything if we abandon standard definitions of proof and say they might not be real either.  This is the road to chaos.

 

Let me also point out that Buddhists strive for Nirvana, an ideal place where they can not exist.  They must be longing very hard to not exist.  It must be something they can't actually achieve in this life.

 

Please, those arguing that we can't prove we exist, provide definitions of proof.  Present some proof that we don't exist, proof comparable to the massive scientific proof that we do.  I'm still waiting for that.

 

It's only taken 40 years for me, but I think you're all helping me understand the impetus of this argument.  It really is boredom isn't it.

 

 

'Proof' is a variable and it only exists as an abstract. happy.png It exists within varying standards and limits there is no such thing as 'proof' of anything even in Science. Math is the only place you can provide definitive proof of an answer and that's because of the rigid rules and limits that govern it. We can use Science to provide repeatable results and assign a level of likelyhood for a particular explanation, but it's never truly definitively 'proven' true. Creationist love this idea, but also fall into the same trap.

 

It is incredibly likely that we exist and the Universe is all real and we are all separate individual entities. However, it is not and likely never will be conclusively 'proven'. No matter how many nines you put after 99.9...% it's still never going to be 100%, and there's no such thing as 100% certainty in Science. There is always a chance that new evidence can change or even reverse any existing theory. The current evidence suggest that the most likely explanation is that everything is real and all that, but all it would take is one currently unknown variable being discovered and everything could change in an instant.

 

You're also asking us to prove a negative here. I can't prove that we don't exist any more than you can prove that there are no gnomes living under the toenails of angels in the 45th dimension. You could say it's unlikely and be right about that, but you could never actually prove that it isn't true. Asking for proof of a negative is a logical fallacy and not a valid argument.

 

Pretty much everything humanity does is the result of boredom anyway. Why would this be any different?

 

 

Proof in a criminal court case is "beyond a reasonable doubt." A very high standard.

Proof in a lawsuit is "the preponderance of the evidence." Which is like just over 50% sure. :-)

Proof is definitely variable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It is incredibly likely that we exist and the Universe is all real and we are all separate individual entities. However, it is not and likely never will be conclusively 'proven'.

 

 

That pretty much answers the question that the thread asks. :-) It's most likely impossible to test the reality of reality.

 

Have you seen that joke question on tests?: Extra credit: Define the universe. Give three examples. :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It is incredibly likely that we exist and the Universe is all real and we are all separate individual entities. However, it is not and likely never will be conclusively 'proven'.

 

 

That pretty much answers the question that the thread asks. :-) It's most likely impossible to test the reality of reality.

 

Have you seen that joke question on tests?: Extra credit: Define the universe. Give three examples. :-)

 

 

I like the word 'improbable' more, but yeah, basically.

 

I try to avoid the word 'impossible' because I don't think there really is such a thing. I admit that I do use it when speaking or writing more informally, but I do try not to most of the time. That's not to say that I don't think things are incredibly unlikely though.

 

For example, you could drop the broken pieces of a wine glass and it's actually possible that they fall back together and reform the unbroken glass. It's highly improbable that it will actually happen, but it is a distant and probably incalculable possibility as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see.  Proof being somewhat ambiguous then, maybe what I'm looking for is evidence.  Evidence would be more like facts, observable manifestations of something, the result of an event or the existence (physical or energy) of a thing, recordable.  Proof in a science lab requires evidence.  The only evidence I can find pertaining to whether we're real or not points to our being real rather than not.  As to whether you are real, I'll engage my own insular cortex and listen to what you have to say about that.  I will empathize with you and likely believe that you are real - likely even if you don't believe it yourself.  If I made you up, how would you ever inspire me by saying or doing something I didn't/couldn't anticipate?  Other people do inspire me sometimes.

 

But if an argument disqualifies evidence on grounds it may not be real, when in fact it's there in front of you, there's a problem.  I start asking questions like, 'what are those people going to do if they don't believe anything matters?'  Isn't that one of the first ideals to surface when you entertain the notion that nothing's real?  That therefore nothing matters.  Some of you have said that, and in considering the possibility myself I thought it right away, that nothing would matter.  I'm concerned that the insular cortex is being bypassed in this train of thought.  That could be a problem for everyone.  It's easy to hurt/abuse others if you can believe they don't exist, that nothing's real.

 

 

I'm compiling a short list of things like the singularity, the soul, afterlife, the moment, division by zero, etc. of things we can't seem to quantify or prove.  I want to look at what they all have in common and see if anything cool surfaces.  I'm not driven or anything, it's just a curiosity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see.  Proof being somewhat ambiguous then, maybe what I'm looking for is evidence.  Evidence would be more like facts, observable manifestations of something, the result of an event or the existence (physical or energy) of a thing, recordable.  Proof in a science lab requires evidence.  The only evidence I can find pertaining to whether we're real or not points to our being real rather than not.  As to whether you are real, I'll engage my own insular cortex and listen to what you have to say about that.  I will empathize with you and likely believe that you are real - likely even if you don't believe it yourself.  If I made you up, how would you ever inspire me by saying or doing something I didn't/couldn't anticipate?  Other people do inspire me sometimes.

 

But if an argument disqualifies evidence on grounds it may not be real, when in fact it's there in front of you, there's a problem.  I start asking questions like, 'what are those people going to do if they don't believe anything matters?'  Isn't that one of the first ideals to surface when you entertain the notion that nothing's real?  That therefore nothing matters.  Some of you have said that, and in considering the possibility myself I thought it right away, that nothing would matter.  I'm concerned that the insular cortex is being bypassed in this train of thought.  That could be a problem for everyone.  It's easy to hurt/abuse others if you can believe they don't exist, that nothing's real.

 

 

I'm compiling a short list of things like the singularity, the soul, afterlife, the moment, division by zero, etc. of things we can't seem to quantify or prove.  I want to look at what they all have in common and see if anything cool surfaces.  I'm not driven or anything, it's just a curiosity.

 

I'm inclined to agree mostly. The existence of others is the most probable explanation.

 

The only place it breaks down is at individual perception and provability. Based on the evidence you perceive, you can indeed infer that there is consistent and reliable evidence that both you and others exist within a Universe that is really there. There really is no reason not to.

 

That doesn't mean that it's definite. Just more likely than other explanations considering what information you do have.

 

Though, as to inspiration. You could be inspiring yourself, and you could be surprising yourself. There are parts of the brain we do not directly control or are not aware of. A large portion of our own mind is unused and we don't fully understand how our brains work. That is of course assuming that we exist as we perceive we do.

 

If everything else is imagined by you, that doesn't necessarily mean that you will be aware of everything that happens or really be in complete control. Dreams often work that way for example. You can interact with people within a dream and not be aware of how they will react. Dreams can inspire you and unexpectedly surprise you. You can even have an unexpected realization when you are awake, which may or may not be the same thing.

 

There are lots of possibilities, many more unlikely than others, about the reality of our world, our perception, and our existence. Each having it's own probability of being true.

 

A few examples for perception making reality:

 

Maybe you're a being that never wakes up and simply moves between dreams on a constant basis? Perhaps this world is one dream, and when you sleep here you go to another dream? Perhaps you've never actually seen the real world, or simply do not remember it in this current 'dream' you exist in now?

 

Maybe the 'afterlife' of this world is simply the 'real' you waking up? Maybe you haven't been born yet and this place is simply created to keep your mind occupied until you are?

 

Maybe you're in a coma and part of what you remember is 'real' where as an unknown length of time that you perceive is just something your mind has created?

 

Maybe you're an immortal being who is not like the other inhabitants of this world and will never die, but you're too young to realize it yet?

 

Maybe you are a computer simulation created to test and develop AI entities on another world that is real? Maybe you're not the only one and everyone else is also an AI simulation? Possibly in a game or some sort of simulation that serves some scientific or academic purpose. Maybe it's a simulation meant to recreate a particular period in history or recreate some world derived from fiction that originated in some other medium?

 

Maybe you're actually just an individual that exists in someone else's dream but is not the 'real' dreamer?

 

Any of these has some probability of being right. Perhaps some more than others. Most are highly improbable, but there is that small chance that they are correct as well. Though, you wouldn't know one way or the other if they were correct. It's really something that is at least currently untestable. You'd most likely have to get 'outside' of the system to figure it out somehow, and it seems unlikely that we'll be able to do that any time soon, if ever.

 

Assuming that what you perceive and what the evidence suggests is correct is probably the best and healthiest thing to do, but that doesn't mean that assumption is necessarily correct either, only that there is a high probability that it is based on what evidence you have available, and that's plenty for a strong assumption that it is true. That's all you really need in regard to this anyway. Proof might be nice, but it's unlikely that it's a reachable goal at this point, so we'll just have to settle for highly probable.

 

Besides, even if we did know that none of this was real, it was all a dream, or whatever...what difference would it make? Why and how would you act any differently anyway? Does it really matter one way or another in regard to how you'll live your life? You'd probably still be here, everything would still most likely 'exist' as it does to begin with anyway. You'd just have a slightly different perception of what existence is, but you'd more than likely continue to 'exist' the way you do now.

 

Even if you were aware, it probably wouldn't change how anything works and you'd be here in this state and subject to whatever 'rules' apply anyway. How 'real' it all is doesn't matter much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't want to take credit for being inspiring CB?

I was thinking about probability since Deva brought up the uncertainty principle.  Mathematics does allow for absurd improbabilities.  I can go with that.  

You should be writing science fiction man.  It can be inspiring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

But if an argument disqualifies evidence on grounds it may not be real, when in fact it's there in front of you, there's a problem.  I start asking questions like, 'what are those people going to do if they don't believe anything matters?'  Isn't that one of the first ideals to surface when you entertain the notion that nothing's real?  That therefore nothing matters.  Some of you have said that, and in considering the possibility myself I thought it right away, that nothing would matter.  I'm concerned that the insular cortex is being bypassed in this train of thought.  That could be a problem for everyone.  It's easy to hurt/abuse others if you can believe they don't exist, that nothing's real.

 

If nothing mattered some might commit sucide. Others may stop working 80 hours a week. Maybe my ulcer would heal.

 

One problem with the scenario where everyone goes on a rampage when they all simultaneously discover nothing is real and therefore nothing matters is that it isn't likely to ever happen. Look how much trouble I'm having just getting you (one person) to consider that possibility. :-) Ha. Getting a large chunk of the population to agree on that? I doubt it. Maybe an Ashram or two would buy it. :-) But I'm not holding my breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.