(February 15, 2013 at 5:21 pm)Brian37 Wrote: RIGHT NOW the debate in science is it could have come from nothing or it could be a product of material processes prior. What is not required and can be ruled out is a cognition as the cause. And I doubt us being a program of some sort is a necessity either.

The debate doesn't matter as this "reality" is unproven...
.

FFS, this thread isn't even about science, it's a philosophical discussion on what it is to "know".

We're not going in circles, Brian, we aren't having the same discussion. You might want to check which subforum thread is in.

(February 15, 2013 at 5:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I think we are going in circles here.

Yep...

Round and round and round and round and fucking round. I would go to bed out of frustration but I drank a bunch of coffee and its only 20 to 10.

(February 15, 2013 at 5:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I think we are going in circles here.

I think you are completely misunderstanding the nature of science in relation to absolute truth. It's great that science seems to work, and it gives us nice results that we can use to predict things about the universe. However, it is not absolute truth, nor does it claim to be, so we cannot hold it as such. Science is similarly limited in that it can only tell us about the "nature of nature" within what we perceive as reality. If what we perceive as reality is in fact a computer simulation of some kind, then all our science has told us is the nature of the computer simulation. It tells us nothing about the nature of reality outside the computer simulation.

Note: Before you jump on me, I don't believe reality is a computer simulation. I just don't have any evidence that it isn't one, hence, it is a possibility.

Quote:Degree of accuracy of prior data and proper use of method insures less chance of mistakes. But "technically" no, we cant.

...so close...

Quote:Science is limited but it is our best tool so far.

...yet so far...

You have absolutely no grounds upon which to stand whilst you call it "our best tool so far", because you have no absolute truth to use to measure its results against. For instance, science tells us that we evolved over billions of years. This appears to be the case when looking at data within our perceived reality. However, if our perceived reality is actually a simulation that started last Thursday (with all data effectively fabricated to make it look like it was much older), then all that science is completely and utterly wrong. Science only works within the confines of our perceived reality. If reality is not how we perceive it, science may be wrong. Given this fact, we cannot say "science is our best tool so far" when talking about whether it can demonstrate reality.

Quote:No I am not going to place my bets on this being a dream or a simulation even if "technically" we cant absolutely know. Like I said in a prior post, I am quite comfortable, and consider it a very safe bet that my computer won't suddenly turn into a squid, even if "technically" I don't know the future.

I agree, but just because we aren't making bets doesn't mean we aren't certain or that science somehow has all the answers.

If you like using that then you can believe that your computer will turn into a squid 5 seconds after you read this since we cant know absolute reality. You want to make lousy bets like that be my guest.

"technically" reality cannot be proven absolutely, so what? That does not mean we have to let our brains fall out and assume.

(February 15, 2013 at 5:41 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: FFS, this thread isn't even about science, it's a philosophical discussion on what it is to "know".

We're not going in circles, Brian, we aren't having the same discussion. You might want to check which subforum thread is in.

People who don't understand the difference between science and philosophy should keep out of both the science and philosophy forums, IMO...

(February 15, 2013 at 5:49 pm)Brian37 Wrote: If you like using that then you can believe that your computer will turn into a squid 5 seconds after you read this since we cant know absolute reality. You want to make lousy bets like that be my guest.

"technically" reality cannot be proven absolutely, so what? That does not mean we have to let our brains fall out and assume.

This is just getting ridiculous.

Some of the best parts of my reality has been playing catch with my brain... And he wants to stop that???
.

(February 15, 2013 at 5:47 pm)Tiberius Wrote:

(February 15, 2013 at 5:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I think we are going in circles here.

I think you are completely misunderstanding the nature of science in relation to absolute truth. It's great that science seems to work, and it gives us nice results that we can use to predict things about the universe. However, it is not absolute truth, nor does it claim to be, so we cannot hold it as such. Science is similarly limited in that it can only tell us about the "nature of nature" within what we perceive as reality. If what we perceive as reality is in fact a computer simulation of some kind, then all our science has told us is the nature of the computer simulation. It tells us nothing about the nature of reality outside the computer simulation.

Note: Before you jump on me, I don't believe reality is a computer simulation. I just don't have any evidence that it isn't one, hence, it is a possibility.

Quote:Degree of accuracy of prior data and proper use of method insures less chance of mistakes. But "technically" no, we cant.

...so close...

Quote:Science is limited but it is our best tool so far.

...yet so far...

You have absolutely no grounds upon which to stand whilst you call it "our best tool so far", because you have no absolute truth to use to measure its results against. For instance, science tells us that we evolved over billions of years. This appears to be the case when looking at data within our perceived reality. However, if our perceived reality is actually a simulation that started last Thursday (with all data effectively fabricated to make it look like it was much older), then all that science is completely and utterly wrong. Science only works within the confines of our perceived reality. If reality is not how we perceive it, science may be wrong. Given this fact, we cannot say "science is our best tool so far" when talking about whether it can demonstrate reality.

Quote:No I am not going to place my bets on this being a dream or a simulation even if "technically" we cant absolutely know. Like I said in a prior post, I am quite comfortable, and consider it a very safe bet that my computer won't suddenly turn into a squid, even if "technically" I don't know the future.

I agree, but just because we aren't making bets doesn't mean we aren't certain or that science somehow has all the answers.

No one said, and I am not saying, we should act like robots. I am saying on important issues when we conflict on what reality is, the best path is to take those claims into neutral settings and kick the tires and have those claims then independently peer reviewed.

I am not saying we shouldn't have a sense of awe, or not have any value for pretty things. I am not saying we are even rational all the time, no human ever is every second of their lives. I am not saying we cant or should not enjoy art or sports or music. I am not saying we should oppress or arrest people or things we might not like.

If you get your kicks being a Buddhist, or Hindu or Christian, that is a placebo of that individual, but it cannot be equated to a universal thing, especially not something like a computer or car or cell phone. When people have personal predilections like politics or traditions or religions or favorite sports teams, those are mere personal predilections.

Humans need water and food and clothing. No one needs to watch soccer, they may like it, but they can also play another sport, or not play sports at all.

Cut it with the simulation crap please, that is simply a si fi version of a god.

Who caused the simulation? If it was uncased, then it it has no puppet master. If it has no puppet master then it doesn't need to be called a simulation, it can simply be seen as an ongoing cycle.

If it is a simulation then a more complex simulation caused this one, and then another even more complex simulation caused that one, and then an even more complex simulation caused that one and so on and so on and so on.

But, if all this is is an uncased cycle, it can start out from something simple and doesn't need something more complex to explain it.

(February 15, 2013 at 6:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Cut it with the simulation crap please, that is simply a si fi version of a god.

Who caused the simulation? If it was uncased, then it it has no puppet master. If it has no puppet master then it doesn't need to be called a simulation, it can simply be seen as an ongoing cycle.

It doesn't really matter who or what caused it the point is you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a simulated universe and a 'real' one.