Non-existence

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think Arcanus has got the point. There is no reason what-so-ever to believe one argument over the other. The only reason people assume the world is real is because a) they don't understand the argument or b) it is just easier to assume that it is real. In conclusion, one argument is no more valid than the other.

Yes there is reason, reasons I have already covered (and some others).

First of all let me make it clear that I concede there is no objective way to tell the difference and that reality is an assumption.

In essence my argument is not that we know the world/universe is real but that it is much more likely that it is for a number of reasons:

• If the universe is not real then we are, effectively, dead (we are programs, dreams or something else equally pointless to ourselves). Even if we were real, if it's all fantasy, what would be the point of living?
  
• The complexity of a non-real universe is far more complex than the universe. Just think about the supporting mechanisms or whatever that would be needed to support this fully fledged consistent and apparently real universe ..., if we're a dream then the entity dreaming us is infinitely more complex than our universe and if were programs then the computer controlling g it is much the same.
  
• No one, not one of us, acts as if the world were not real (which is essentially what my challenge about stepping out in front of was about ... *you* won't do it, I know you wouldn't do it, and you know I know etc.).
  
• If the universe I so firmly believe in is unreal then yours is too! That means Darwin never lived, no one evolved ... moreover (and all you religious freaks should consider this carefully) your Jesus never died to save any fucker and your God is utterly non-existent.
  
• The universe makes sense (it appears to largely consistent and operating within a given set of rules) when there is no need for it to be so.
  
• A real universe is far more interesting than an unreal one mainly because there would be no point in attempting to explain an unreal one e.g. the laws of physics basically work, we know that but if the universe were unreal how would we know it, how would we trust it, how could we trust anything?
  
• If the universe is not real then why the fuck is anyone bothered about how we behave to each other?

Now none of this proves the universe is real or unreal but what it does do is set an expectation that it is, it sets the base level assumption, explains why we have history, conflicts, science, education, health, wealth, poverty, television, rockets, planes ships, computers, books, art, churches, synagogues, people, races, species, plants, mountains, seas, countries, flags, pogroms, famines, babies and so on, and so on but the key point is that they all hang together, they all exist with in an utterly consistent framework, they work even if you don't like them, they work! In other words the assumption of reality is the base assumption and any other claim that doesn't fit what we appear to observe is an EXTRORDINARY one if you are going to claim anything else it is YOU who has to supply the evidence.

Ultimately, it's a pointless question i.e. it is as pointless to ask are we real as it is to ask are we not.

Kyu