Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism

[sswhateverlove]

If I may turn the question around sswhateverlove; imagine Morpheus called you at work tomorrow and somehow transported you outside the Matrix so that you became aware that everything you had up until that point believed was objective reality was now obviously nothing more than a computer simulation. Suppose you spent a few hours there and then found yourself immediately waking up in your bedroom, back in the Matrix. How would you know that had been anything more than a subjective experience? Wouldn't you need to run similar experiments outside of the Matrix to the ones you originally proposed?

---

"Objective reality is how things really are."

So, you think that while in the Matrix we are capable of perceiving things as they "really are"?

I'm saying any distinction between objective and subjective reality that a person could ever hope to possibly make wouldn't be effected either way.

In response to your thought experiment, I guess I would never know if any of the experiences that I had were objective experiences. Waking up, in that sense, wouldn't imply anything other than a different reality that could be subjective or objective. In my thought experiment I was giving you the fact that it was the "Matrix". In yours, waking up could also be another "Matrix", right?

---

So, you think that while in the Matrix we are capable of perceiving things as they "really are"?

Of course, since in that scenario we wouldn't know we were in the Matrix. So even if all our perceptions were ultimately false, they would still be true for us. When we have corroboration with other people's perceptions, then we can start to form a workable model of reality.

So, a group hallucination/delusion is still objective reality?

---

Is the fact that it supposedly makes up a majority of all that is (96%) not enough to assume that is should be considered a variable? Seems sort of naive.

Air suffuses the majority of experiments. It's always there, it's ever present in science, but it doesn't necessarily entail that air is actively interfering with the results of the experiment. Volume does not equal interference, especially without a single shred of evidence.

I think many experiments would have (and do) account for the properties of the air if it's relevant.

In this case, we don't even know enough about the variable to conclude whether it's relevant to control for, even if we could.