Non-existence

[Violet]

Kyu, you believe that our universe is the most real one, with no flaws, mistakes, flukes, makers, or potential data corruption?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyu, you believe that our universe is the most real one, with no flaws, mistakes, flukes, makers, or potential data corruption?

Your words, not mine!

Kyu

[dagda]

It has taken me long enough to reply, but here it goes.

There are a few flaws in this argument for the 'evidence' presented. Firstly, it requires huge amounts of faith. Just because (excuse the atrocious use of metaphors here) it is probable that there is a fly around the bull does not mean that there definitely is a fly around the bull. This is called the argument of the missing middle. There probably is a fly hence there definitely is a fly. The start of the sentence does not justify the conclusion. This leaves us with the fact that the conclusion is based on a wild leap of faith which seems out of step with the scientific justification which you have attempted to dress the belief up as.

Secondly, the argument is based on far too many assumptions. The assumption that the byondiverse is equal to or has some connection to the witnessed universe is completely unfounded. My dreams, for instance, have little barring on reality. Again, we are asked to make a leap of faith in order for the argument to work.

Thirdly (although connected to the second point), we are asked to assume the infallibility of science. Science is completely grounded in the material universe, and its reach does not extend beyond that area. Even if this were not so, science relays completely upon our interpretation of evidence. The weakness of our senses are also the weakness of science, and if our senses believe that this universe is real, then it is a fair bet that so will science.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Answering in order (including a post I missed):

It's clear that it's rubbish because, and non of you have adequately dealt with this yet, if the universe is virtual you have a more complex universe because a virtual universe must be "hosted". That means a real universe is simpler and therefore a more realistic assumption.

Kyu, whta you are doing here is creating my argument for me so that you can dismantle the thread. Stop making this something it is not. I never said that the universe was virtual. This thread is about finding proof for your 'theory' not mine.

I am, not making it something it is not ... if you are asking what the evidence for a real universe is it is critical that you supply an alternative therefore those alternatives must be discussed especially as I have already admitted that reality is an assumption fro various reasons, it is simply the far more viable assumption.

Some of my reasons, and I'll reiterate them because no one really dealt with them choosing to focus almost exclusively on my complexity point, are:

• The complexity of a non-real universe is far more complex than the universe [the point you're all focussing on]. 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 it is much the same.
  
• 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?
  
• 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?

As I said when I outlined those reasons, 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! Moreover, something I've thought of since that argument, if the universe weren't real there would be utterly no need at all for consistency, for logic, for reason and nothing would have to make sense ... that it does is a strong indicator that universe is exactly what we think it is, real!

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. Corollary: I don't have to supply evidence for reality ... if you wish to make an alternative claim (and implicitly you do) then it is YOUR responsibility to provide it not ours!

Even if that were not the case, your post takes as its proof that a 'virtual' universe would be to much like hard work hence we should ignore the possibility. Sorry, lathargy is not a proof.

One of the reasons yes and a valid one despite your lame objection but not my only point (see above)

There are a few flaws in this argument for the 'evidence' presented. Firstly, it requires huge amounts of faith. Just because (excuse the atrocious use of metaphors here) it is probable that there is a fly around the bull does not mean that there definitely is a fly around the bull. This is called the argument of the missing middle. There probably is a fly hence there definitely is a fly. The start of the sentence does not justify the conclusion. This leaves us with the fact that the conclusion is based on a wild leap of faith which seems out of step with the scientific justification which you have attempted to dress the belief up as.

No it doesn't, it's an assumptive position i.e. the universe is assumed to be real until such point as someone else provides validatable evidence that it is not.

Secondly, the argument is based on far too many assumptions. The assumption that the byondiverse is equal to or has some connection to the witnessed universe is completely unfounded. My dreams, for instance, have little barring on reality. Again, we are asked to make a leap of faith in order for the argument to work.

No ... see above.

Thirdly (although connected to the second point), we are asked to assume the infallibility of science. Science is completely grounded in the material universe, and its reach does not extend beyond that area. Even if this were not so, science relays completely upon our interpretation of evidence. The weakness of our senses are also the weakness of science, and if our senses believe that this universe is real, then it is a fair bet that so will science.

And that you consider science to be assumed infallible shows just how little you understand it ... no one here claims it is as far as I know! Science is actually characterised more by it's failures and it's those failures (the constant search for better and better explanations which gives us the confidence in science that we have). It's a shame that, when taught, we aren't taught about those failures so much as we are taught that this is so and the successes behind it.

Ultimately, whether or not our universe is real, is a pointless question i.e. it is as pointless to ask are we real as it is to ask are we not.

Kyu

[Ryft]

Some of my reasons [for assuming the universe is real]—and I'll reiterate them because no one really dealt with them ...

Excuse me? I carefully dealt with every single one of them, point-by-point (Msg. #35). Dagda referred to my argument as a sufficient response and you replied, "I am still considering my reply to Archy" (Msg. #49). Were you thinking that if enough time went by you could simply assert your arguments over again, pretend "no one really dealt with them" and no one would notice?

[dagda]

I wait for Kyu's reply to Arcanus.

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. Corollary: I don't have to supply evidence for reality ... if you wish to make an alternative claim (and implicitly you do) then it is YOUR responsibility to provide it not ours!

I thought I had made it clear that my position was one of agnosticism on the subject. How do you provide evidence for the view that 'there is no conclusive proof one way or the other'? You are the one who is claiming that there is hard evidence, hence it is up to you to provide evidence.

Below this statement, I could not understand anything clearly, due to poor punctuation.

[Kyuuketsuki]

I thought I had made it clear that my position was one of agnosticism on the subject. How do you provide evidence for the view that 'there is no conclusive proof one way or the other'? You are the one who is claiming that there is hard evidence, hence it is up to you to provide evidence.

No I clearly stated that reality was an assumption.

Below this statement, I could not understand anything clearly, due to poor punctuation.

I've checked (presumably my last post to you) and my spelling/grammar/punctuation are pretty standard for me and typically my use of English is regarded as excellent ... if you have issues with my punctuation then I'm afraid that's your problem.

Kyu