Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: Non-existence
August 2, 2009 at 5:42 pm
(July 31, 2009 at 11:07 am)dagda Wrote: There is no evidence that the world exists as a solid or permanent plane. We may be no more that an advanced computer programme or an elaborate dream-or something else entirely. There is simply no evidence to suggest that the universe we inhabit is in any way the 'real' or original world. In other worlds, without evidence of the existence of any substantial world-form we must conclude that the world may indeed be an illusion.
Quite right though if you really believe that you could step out in front of a fast moving lorry and test the "theory"!
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: Non-existence
August 3, 2009 at 1:11 am
(August 2, 2009 at 3:38 pm)dagda Wrote: ...Tell me, why do you think the world is real?
I already did tell you. I start from faith in an objective reality because I like the idea and then move forward by seeing how mutable reality is, up to and including actually trying to mentally change it.
Solipsism is an interesting concept but I really don't see the use for that mental model. It has been my experience that the world is real. I don't think this makes me "win" at all. I didn't know that was your game, I thought you were just trying to spark conversation.
Assuming that the null hypothesis is that the world around us is real what would your alternate hypothesis be and what data collection method would you use to test it?
Rhizo
Posts: 851
Threads: 8
Joined: April 23, 2009
Reputation:
4
RE: Non-existence
August 3, 2009 at 4:56 am
The world isn't real because the Demiurge made it, right? ( I always liked that theory)
The point is to not let yourself be too sure of anything...
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: Non-existence
August 3, 2009 at 10:58 am
Pippy,
I try not to get too attached to any one of my ideas, but I feel that I HAVE to at least accept the reality that is presented to me day in and day out as a foundation for further study. For example I could argue that red should really be called blue and vice versa and have done that very thing, but what value is there in that?
Since I have worked at intel I have been introduced to concepts of hypothesis testing, repeatability, statistical significance, long term stability, and reproducability. These things do not prove that the fabric of reality is NOT just a computer program but they are useful concepts in day to day life. Besides it is not for me to dissprove. The burden of proof lands squarely on the shoulders of the one making the assertion that we ARE living in a computer simulation.
Besides the Great Overlord Xenu sent thetans to explain the underlying reality of the universe so there!  /sarcasm
Rhizo
Posts: 851
Threads: 8
Joined: April 23, 2009
Reputation:
4
RE: Non-existence
August 3, 2009 at 9:20 pm
It is possible, likely even that reality is constant, and understandable. But it is not a given. That is all.
Posts: 3989
Threads: 79
Joined: June 30, 2009
Reputation:
41
RE: Non-existence
August 3, 2009 at 9:39 pm
But it is a given Pippy,
Every day you wake up it is given to you, free of charge! It doesn't sneak around and require that you believe in it without showing itself.
Just sayin'
Rhizo
Posts: 851
Threads: 8
Joined: April 23, 2009
Reputation:
4
RE: Non-existence
August 4, 2009 at 7:33 am
That is a different use of the word given. I know life is given to me, something I find it odd to hear from an atheist. If life is a gift, who gave it to you? If life just is, then...
We can be about 99% sure that reality is real. We can be about 99% sure there is or is not a god. These are things, like may others, that are not disprovable in total. We have to be careful with those things. I am speaking of adhearing to reality, something I think you guys speak highly of. In reality, we can't know that it is what it seems to be. And so we must adress this unsureness. Rember Kyu talling me how the world began, and me saying that all we had was theory about that. He posted the entire wiki about the big bang, because everyone knows that wikipedia was there at the begining of the universe.
Sorry to ramble.
We have to be very clear (with ourselves) over what we do and don't know for sure...
Thanks,
-Pip
Posts: 178
Threads: 14
Joined: August 27, 2008
Reputation:
1
RE: Non-existence
August 5, 2009 at 7:41 am
(August 3, 2009 at 1:11 am)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Assuming that the null hypothesis is that the world around us is real what would your alternate hypothesis be and what data collection method would you use to test it?
Rhizo
That is not how it works, I am afraid. You are the one trying to prove something (e.g. world is real). I am saying that this idea is wrong. What the 'alternative' hypothesis could be, I do not know. Now, ask yourself, if we happened to be talking about God, would you let me away with the above statement? I do not think there are many atheists on this forum that would let it pass. As they say, the burden of proof is on you because you are bringing forward a theory, I am only disagreeing with it by highlighting its flaws.
Posts: 2721
Threads: 99
Joined: October 8, 2008
Reputation:
17
RE: Non-existence
August 5, 2009 at 7:52 am
(August 5, 2009 at 7:41 am)dagda Wrote: [quote='Rhizomorph13' pid='24509' dateline='1249276297']That is not how it works, I am afraid. You are the one trying to prove something (e.g. world is real). I am saying that this idea is wrong. What the 'alternative' hypothesis could be, I do not know. Now, ask yourself, if we happened to be talking about God, would you let me away with the above statement? I do not think there are many atheists on this forum that would let it pass. As they say, the burden of proof is on you because you are bringing forward a theory, I am only disagreeing with it by highlighting its flaws.
Actually how it works is that we assume the world (everything we can see or otherwise detect/interpret) is real and that any claim that it is not is one that must be supported but, as I said above, if you really believe that you could step out in front of a fast moving lorry and test the "theory"!
Kyu
Angry Atheism
Where those who are hacked off with the stupidity of irrational belief can vent their feelings!
Come over to the dark side, we have cookies!
Kyuuketsuki, AngryAtheism Owner & Administrator
Posts: 178
Threads: 14
Joined: August 27, 2008
Reputation:
1
RE: Non-existence
August 5, 2009 at 2:20 pm
What would steping out in front of a lorry test? And why are you quoting 'theory'? What theory? Who are 'we'? Why do we assume anything? I think true skepticism is assuming nothing and working up from there.
|
