ForumsWEPRSome Philosophy

10 3402
clipmaster3
offline
clipmaster3
104 posts
Nomad

I realize this isn't really a world event, political, or religious thing, but I don't know where else in the forums this can get some serious discussion. I therefore classify it as "etc."

Has anyone ever wondered if all the people they know are actually real people? If the reality that has been strewn about them is truly there, or if maybe all of this supposed "existence" lies solely in their mind? To go farther, that they are even a real person with control over themselves?

The latter can be brought to resolution with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am," but can anyone bring any insight into how one can discern whether what they perceive is "real" or not... and then maybe some other time we can get into a discussion about what we define as "real."

  • 10 Replies
DivineDarkness
offline
DivineDarkness
1,226 posts
Nomad

Like your hole life is like The Sims or The Matrix? I have thought of this and have decided it's fake.

1: You can do what ever you want, you are no told what to do, you do not seem to be able to get paused, and then unpaused and then a couch next to you.

2: They cannot program a game where you control a person, and that person has emotions. (Pain, love, hate, jelous, anger, fear, etc.)

3: If there were people who could dodge bullets by leaning back, the world/news/government would have eaten them alive, unless they are the government.

4: We experience Deja Vu, is where you may feel as you have done this already, or have thought of you doing this for a breif amount of time, once again, if we were a video game, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have Deja Vu.

5: The universe, this place would be to big to build/assimilate/make/etc.

chiliad_nodi
offline
chiliad_nodi
638 posts
Peasant

There was an earlier topic stating that if the technology to create simulation universes ever existed we are probably living in a simulated universe. Also, there was another thread about something called the big brain theory. I do not remember the name of the thread as it was posted months ago, but just Google the "big brain theory." I can't confirm or deny either one of them, it is up to you to decide what is right, think about it.

Strat
offline
Strat
107 posts
Nomad

Many philosophers have struggled with this question, but ultimately there is no way to "for sure" because we cannot perceive noumena independently of our conditions of experience. And for radical skepticists, this is a problem because they call into question those conditions of experience and worry about whether we are constantly being deceived by our senses or by some force greater than us that we can only imagine. For everyone however, our senses, when they act in concert, are thought to reflect reality in some sense, and even though there are special cases where our senses fool us because there is something wrong with them or our minds, our perceptions are easily corroborated by other people.

Thoth
offline
Thoth
44 posts
Nomad

Ooh! This sounds fun! As a matter of fact, strange as this might seem, my brother and I have discussions about this all the time, and I've been thinking about this since I was four or five (does that make ma a natural philosopher?). I have always wondered whether physical reality as I know it really exists, or am I some sort of human test object. Now that may seem a bit paranoid, but I am naturally so. Anyways, someone as a person, with our (or should I say their? Bwahahaha) limited views and perception of reality can never know what life is.

Divine Darkness, I have noticed some holes in your argument:

1. For your statement on us being able to do what we please, I believe AI solves that problem. As for the paused and un-paused time.,should something like that happen, we would never know what happened, as our brains were stopped as well. And if a couch appeared next to us, suddenly the couch has always been there. Or we exist in a complex game where everything has to be delivered.

2. The key words in there are "they cannot". Should there be someone or something creating us in a game, we would have no perception of what they could or couldn't do.

3. Dodging bullets goes under the heading, I do not use this term lightly: WTF!? I understand that you got that from The Matrix, but understand that if we were the creations or simulations of something, that thing would not let people announce to the world that they exists. 'Nuff said.

4. Again, we have no idea what "they" could do.

5. Only our ideals of the Universe. The whole thing could be a ruse created by our "somethings".

I'm not screaming to the world that I believe this, but I like pointing out flawed arguments as well as reading creative topics.

necromancer
offline
necromancer
750 posts
Peasant

If existence were a simulation it would obviously take space to store the information. Take for example a tiny atom, with billions of strings vibrating in the tenth dimension., with modern technology it would probably take an absolutely massive computer to store and calculate the positions of the strings, their charge, their current vibration, and the random number generation for their next movement. Having strings being so incredibly small, and being able to store so much information in and of themselves, we can hypothesize that if we were in a computer simulation generated in a like universe, we would exactly the same space we currently take, therefore such a universe would have to be absolutely massive in comparison to ours to be able to store all of that information. There is also a second possibility, a universe with higher order string vibration exists, which would allow for increased information to be stored in a smaller space, however, it would still take a vast amount of space to simulate our universe. Therefore, I concur with Ayn Rand: Existence Exists.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

Some counterpoints:

to clipmaster:

The latter can be brought to resolution with Descartes' "I think, therefore I am,"

The cogito as this argument is called actually must depend on the existence of a perfect god to work. So in order for Descartes argument to work, he must presuppose a god's existence. So are we really here?

to strat:
but ultimately there is no way to "for sure" because we cannot perceive noumena independently of our conditions of experience

Typically nominal features of existence revolve around an underlying substance of "stuff." But do more postmodern bundle theories that take into account experimental physics solve this problem?

to necromancer:
If existence were a simulation it would obviously take space to store the information.

This is true, however what if this simulation was done in such a way as to resemble a video game? For example, if you say grass blowing in the wind or a reflection in a pond it isn't a precise model of how the world works, it is simply a "good enough" simulation to mimic reality. What if our world actually only mimicked a higher reality and processes in this universe were only simulated? Some research has shown "glitches" in our own universe's programming that might indicate this very problem you're bringing up - that whatever alien's hard drive we're on has to just emulate certain things.

Regardless, we should all be as interesting as possible to avoid getting deleted!!
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,014 posts
Shepherd

This is true, however what if this simulation was done in such a way as to resemble a video game? For example, if you say grass blowing in the wind or a reflection in a pond it isn't a precise model of how the world works, it is simply a "good enough" simulation to mimic reality. What if our world actually only mimicked a higher reality and processes in this universe were only simulated? Some research has shown "glitches" in our own universe's programming that might indicate this very problem you're bringing up - that whatever alien's hard drive we're on has to just emulate certain things.


That is very interesting about the "glitches." Can you point me where to read more about this?
Strop
offline
Strop
10,817 posts
Bard

But do more postmodern bundle theories that take into account experimental physics solve this problem?


I was under the impression that this might invariably fall to some form of question-begging or another.
Strat
offline
Strat
107 posts
Nomad

But do more postmodern bundle theories that take into account experimental physics solve this problem?


Okay, I'll bite. What is postmodern bundle theory?
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,829 posts
Duke

Okay, do address Asherlee's question, I am going to post some reading about this universe simulation after this post (it's just kinda long and I want it to be separate. Oh wait, I just found a link to the article:

I can't find the evidence of these simulation glitches in this particular article, and the trusty googler isn't pulling what I want right now. I did find this, though:


The evidence of these glitches boils down to quantum mechanics and the Uncertainty Principle. I cannot present a strong argument for these "glitches" because I'm just not familiar enough with the basic arguments are what is considered to be a glitch versus just a phase shift or informational coding shift.

I was under the impression that this might invariably fall to some form of question-begging or another.

Bundle theories do have to presuppose some fundamental things, but I haven't really noticed any blatant question-begging in the arguments which I have encountered - at least none that I have noticed. Still, the presuppositions that must be made, or assumed enthymemes if you want to call them that, do weaken the argument but not to a point of fallacy, I don't think.

Okay, I'll bite. What is postmodern bundle theory?

The theories would incorporate the cutting-edge parts of physics like string theory, multiverses, and of course they would incorporate fundamental quantum mechanics. The arguments themselves seem to me to still essentially be the same arguments David Hume would've used but with more sophisticated physical theories.
Showing 1-10 of 10