Non-existence

[Jon Paul]

As far as I can tell "empirical equivalence" is a term bandied about in purely philosophical circles to deal with metaphysical ideas such as the possibility that the universe around us is in some manner unreal or fake (e.g. a computer simulation) ... as such I feel entirely safe in pointing my finger and the funny performing theist and thinking to myself, "What a [expletive deleted]!"

In short it ("empirical equivalence") appears to be yet another pointless metaphysical device and, as I said to our resident Catholic lunatic, "Metaphysics however exclusively concerns itself with that which cannot be proven, cannot be demonstrated, cannot be directly or indirectly observed by any method and can be somewhat cynically defined as a means of justifying that which cannot be demonstrated empirically. Supporters of metaphysics would like it to be taken seriously however, in order to do so, one has to establish a standard by which to measure it, to demonstrate it as fact and there are no standards by which any metaphysical concept can be measured. Despite its name it is not now and never will be a science and is of no use as a tool in the armoury of the real knowledge seeker."

Empirical equivalence is certainly a valid relation between two different theories in science.

If you have two scientific theories which are empirically equivalent (say, the Copenhagenist interpretation and Bohmist interpretation of quantum mechanics), and for instance, makes the same observational predictions and observations, then the issue of which viewpoint you choose becomes non-empirical.

What is wrong with non-empirical? Nothing. Non-empirical in this context simply means the theory which you apply to the empirii, independently of the other theories that could be equally so applied.

Notice that I, as a Thomist, am a realist; so I believe the universe and our world is, indeed, real. So I am in no way arguing against you, I am just clarifying what I see as a misconception about what "empirical equivalence" would signify.

Indeed it seems you are using the word "metaphysical" or "philosophic" as a straw man to debunk any point your opponent in a discussion raises, just so you don't have to address the actual substance in his argument and point being made.

The real problem here is that science cannot settle it, due to the empirical equivalence. The question of whether reality exists or not lies outside the boundary of determinability by the scientific method. And it lies outside the boundary of what the empirical methods of science can observationally discover. Yet it is important for science, just like the scientific method is important for science. How you interpret science is important for the science you are doing.

What is going to decide whether you will believe reality exists is not the empirii, because realism and arealism can indeed be empirically equivalent. Arealist Bohrism is empirically equivalent to ontologist Bohmism, for instance.

What is going to decide whether you believe reality exists will be the scenario between Bohr and Bohm: it's going to be your empirically equivalent interpretations of the same empirii which will decide it. The empirical data in itself cannot decide it. An interpretation of those data can.

[Kyuuketsuki]

As far as I can tell "empirical equivalence" is a term bandied about in purely philosophical circles ...

Empirical equivalence is certainly a valid relation between two different theories in science.

Is it now? Would you care to point to a genuine scientific paper (even a an article in a reasonably reputable popular science magazine) to support that claim? As I believe I said ... "empirical equivalence" is a term that seems to be intimately associated with philosophy and metaphysics ... it has nothing, as far as I can tell, to do with science (nor with any comparison between the ideas of 2 scientists).

What is wrong with non-empirical? Nothing. Non-empirical in this context simply means the theory which you apply to the empirii, independently of the other theories that could be equally so applied.

Nothing is wrong with a lack of empiricism but a lack of measurable and verifiable data CANNOT be used as evidence for anything ... that is the problem. Empirical data can be verified, empirical data can be measured, empirical data is the core of science and science/math are the only things that have ever been shown to work.

Notice that I, as a Thomist, am a realist; so I believe the universe and our world is, indeed, real. So I am in no way arguing against you, I am just clarifying what I see as a misconception about what "empirical equivalence" would signify.

What I noticed was that your Thomist views appear to be full of shit! Now I know you will take my language, my dismissal as indicative of my lack of knowledge, as being brutish but the actuality is that I despise philosophical (and particularly metaphysical) psychobabble so much that I wouldn't even consider arguing against it because I consider such mental masturbation beneath me. I am not as uninformed of such subjects as you'd like to believe I am but I've made a choice for reason that make a great deal of sense.

Indeed it seems you are using the word "metaphysical" or "philosophic" as a straw man to debunk any point your opponent in a discussion raises, just so you don't have to address the actual substance in his argument and point being made.

A strawman eh? You realise of course that a strawman is where one sets up an analogous situation to the one under discussion, destroys it as a logical proposition and then declares the discussed claim invalid by the same logic when it isn't necessarily established to be so? I freely admit I may be committing some kind of logical fallacy but I don't believe I have committed a strawman even once ... and if that is what you think I am doing then I would ask that you either point out exactly where I have done so or withdraw the assertion because as far as I am concerned I have very simply, and very straightforwardly, dismissed metaphysics as rubbish. If you'd like to know why it is this ... science is a methodology that explains how & why things work, how they came to be and predicts other things previously unknown. Philosophy and metaphysics alone do not. If you think I err then I ask but one thing of you ... point out one thing (any thing) which has been fairly conclusively established on the basis of metaphysical or philosophical reasoning alone, something that is held to be true by (let's say) the vast majority of the scientific, academic and learned theological communities. Is that so much to ask?

The real problem here is that science cannot settle it, due to the empirical equivalence. The question of whether reality exists or not lies outside the boundary of determinability by the scientific method. And it lies outside the boundary of what the empirical methods of science can observationally discover. Yet it is important for science, just like the scientific method is important for science. How you interpret science is important for the science you are doing.

Actually the real problem is that science and math are the only two philosophies that actually explain anything in a fashion that can be validated by others ... no other methods have yet to be shown to work in that fashion.

The rest of your post is metaphysical garbage.

Kyu

[Violet]

A very interesting idea dagda and arcanus... myself being existentialist, i might be able to add some intellectual discourse into this already fascinating discussion. Rather than defending our universe with passionate faith (as some have tried in vain), I can defend us perfectly from non-existance with simple philosophy.

We may be a video game... an illusion... or even a bunch of vibrating single-dimensional strings.... but in all of those examples: we exist. The computer in front of me, the chair beneath me, the fairy creatures in my mind: all of them can be interacted with, and thus all of them must exist, in some form or another.

We are here having this discussion, so we must exist, based on the evidence of the discussion existing... even if the discussion is only an imagination or dream of your mind: it exists, and you are interacting, with it, therefore you exist. You might be a toy of a powerful being... but that toy exists. You may be the product of vibrating strings... but those strings, and therefore you, exist.

If our world did not exist in some way... then it follows that we would not exist. If we did not exist, then this discussion would not exist. But as the discussion you are reading exists... so does the thing that made it (you and me)... and so does the world that we live in.... and so does whatever made that.

Kyu, you are wrong to think that science and math are the only two phillosophies that can explain anything... there is always faith and existentialism: that all of our knowledge (being math, faith, science, and others) is based on assumption of our being correct, and that we are often wrong. I would discuss more, but i must do some errands soon, and will likely be off the internet for some extended time. I will reply to your response when i next get a chance, good day

[Kyuuketsuki]

Kyu, you are wrong to think that science and math are the only two phillosophies that can explain anything... there is always faith and existentialism: that all of our knowledge (being math, faith, science, and others) is based on assumption of our being correct, and that we are often wrong. I would discuss more, but i must do some errands soon, and will likely be off the internet for some extended time. I will reply to your response when i next get a chance, good day

So, as I asked of Jon Paul, point out one thing (any thing) which has been fairly conclusively established on the basis of metaphysical or philosophical reasoning alone, something that is held to be true by (let's say) the vast majority of the scientific, academic and learned theological communities.

Kyu

[Ryft]

We may be a video game, an illusion, or even a bunch of vibrating single-dimensional strings. But in all of those examples, we exist. The computer in front of me, the chair beneath me, the fairy creatures in my mind; all of them can be interacted with, and thus all of them must exist in some form or another.

First, hi there, Saerules. Nice to meet you.

Second, there is a fatal flaw in your argument. The thought experiment Dagda put forward never proposed the non-existence of our world, so arguing for our existence risks the ignoratio elenchi fallacy "of presenting an argument that may in itself be valid, but does not address the issue in question" (ignoratio elenchi, Wikipedia.org). His thought experiment proposed a different sort of existence, not non-existence.

It is much more likely that [the universe is real] because: (1) If the universe is not real then we are, effectively, dead ...

Obviously you do not mean 'dead' in the biological sense because, in a universe that is not real, the biological sense is likewise not real. Consequently, your statement here must mean, "If the universe is not real then we are not real." That not only follows logically but is precisely what a simulated universe states.

Does this somehow prove that a real universe is more likely? Only if we truly are real, and by extension, our perceptions are real. But that is question-begging. What our perceptions tell us does not prove anything if we ourselves are just elements of a simulation. A real universe is "much more likely" than a simulated universe only by begging the question. If you avoid begging the question, then what is left are two scenarios that are equally likely.

It is much more likely that [the universe is real] because: (2) The complexity of a non-real universe is far more complex than the universe.

False. If the universe is just a computer simulation, then it is incoherent to say that a simulation is more complex than itself. (To elaborate, your reasoning seems to assume a real universe somehow contained within a simulation, but such an assumption is generally incoherent and specifically question-begging. In the scenario of Dagda's argument, the universe is not contained within a simulation; the universe is the simulation. Ergo, it is incoherent to say the simulation is more complex than itself.) That which is incoherent cannot prove or disprove the likelihood of anything.

It is much more likely that [the universe is real] because: (3) No one, not one of us, acts as if the world were not real ...

This is likewise question-begging. If the universe is a simulation, then every single person is part of that simulation; how we act simply is the simulation operating. As I had said in a prior post, according to the parameters (laws) of this simulation (universe), a fast-moving vehicle would critically injure a pedestrian. None of it would be real, of course, but the elements of the simulation are not cognizant of that (because they are likewise not real). That our perceptions tell us the world is real counts against the likelihood of a simulated universe only if we and our perceptions are in fact real. But that begs the question. If we do not beg the question, the likelihood of either scenario turns out to be equal.

It is much more likely that [the universe is real] because: (4) If the universe [that] I so firmly believe in is unreal, then yours is too! That means Darwin never lived, no one evolved ...

How does that count against a universe simulation? It is an empty tautology: "If the universe is unreal, then it is unreal."

It is much more likely that [the universe is real] because: (5) 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.

Since this point is fully consistent with a universe simulation, it fails to count against it. Intelligibility, uniformity, and consistency is part of a universe simulation argument (i.e., the simulation's programming is completely thorough). This is the "empirical equivalence" point being made by Dagda, myself, and others; the empirical evidence one side relies upon is the exact same evidence the other side relies upon. Empirical equivalence results in both sides being equally likely on an empirical test.

It is much more likely that [the universe is real] because: (6) 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. (For example, 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?)

It seems you fail to recognize that if we and the universe are a simulation, we would not know that the world we are exploring is not real. The fact that you perceive the universe as real, intricate and interesting in its nature and structure (e.g., the laws of physics) does not prove that it is so, except by assuming as true that you are real, so are your perceptions, and so is the universe you are perceiving (question-begging). You assert that the laws of physics basically work and that we know this, but only if the laws of physics are real and describe a real universe (question-begging). If this were all a simulation, we would still perceive and explore the nature and structure of the universe; we just wouldn't know that it is actually a simulation and we are part of it (i.e., we would have no idea that we're explaining an unreal one; to us it is real).

It is much more likely that [the universe is real] because: (7) If the universe is not real, then why the fuck is anyone bothered about how we behave to each other?

That is actually a question. If we unpack it, the argument behind it would amount to, "Since we bother with how we behave to one another, that proves it is much more likely the universe is real." However, the latter does not follow from the former in any clear way, so there is a vital premise or two being suppressed. In other words, in what way does our bothering with how we behave to one another prove the likelihood of the universe being real over it being a simulation? Are you suggesting that if the universe is a simulation then it follows by logical necessity that we would not bother? If so, you would have to show that logical necessity.

Here is something that I want the readers to notice about all seven of Kyuuketsuki's reasons: every single one of them was philosophical! That is a truly remarkable thing for someone who vehemently despises philosophical (and particularly metaphysical) psychobabble as mental masturbation that is beneath him. For a champion of the hard sciences who despises philosophical babble, it is exquisite irony that his seven reasons are all philosophy and zero science.

[To Saerules] So as I asked of Jon Paul, point out one thing—anything—which has been fairly conclusively established on the basis of metaphysical or philosophical reasoning alone, something that is held to be true by, let's say, the vast majority of the scientific, academic and learned theological communities.

That the universe is real, in a way that corresponds to our perception of it—the very crux of Dagda's thread!

[Jon Paul]

Is it now? Would you care to point to a genuine scientific paper (even a an article in a reasonably reputable popular science magazine) to support that claim? As I believe I said ... "empirical equivalence" is a term that seems to be intimately associated with philosophy and metaphysics ... it has nothing, as far as I can tell, to do with science (nor with any comparison between the ideas of 2 scientists).

No, it is not. It is a term which has to do with what empirical data and predictions a theory deals with and makes. I gave the example of Copenhagist arealism versus Bohmian ontologism in quantum mechanics, two interpretations, one which doesn't affirm the existence of reality, even denies it, another which does affirm the existence of reality. Yet they are entirely equivalent when it comes to the empirical data they are interpreting, and the observational predictions they make.

Nothing is wrong with a lack of empiricism but a lack of measurable and verifiable data CANNOT be used as evidence for anything ... that is the problem. Empirical data can be verified, empirical data can be measured, empirical data is the core of science and science/math are the only things that have ever been shown to work.

But empirical data doesn't say anything about whether arealist Copenhagists are right that there is no reality, or whether ontologist Bohmists are right that there is one.

The rest of your post is metaphysical garbage.

Now I'm sure you are using "metaphysical" as a straw man.

But my post is not "metaphysical" in the sense you are using the word: my post is about different theories of actual science.

The fun is that you don't realise you are doing metaphysics when you claim that there is a reality. Because there is no mandate for that in science. It's an interpretation you have bring TO the empirical data you have, and that in spite that the same empirical data could perfectly well be explained by an arealist interpretation.

[Violet]

Kyu, you are wrong to think that science and math are the only two phillosophies that can explain anything... there is always faith and existentialism: that all of our knowledge (being math, faith, science, and others) is based on assumption of our being correct, and that we are often wrong. I would discuss more, but i must do some errands soon, and will likely be off the internet for some extended time. I will reply to your response when i next get a chance, good day

So, as I asked of Jon Paul, point out one thing (any thing) which has been fairly conclusively established on the basis of metaphysical or philosophical reasoning alone, something that is held to be true by (let's say) the vast majority of the scientific, academic and learned theological communities.

Kyu

One thing: our very existance. I did not use math or science to deduce that we do in fact exist. You cannot prove with our science or math our existance, as they are tools for measuring and identifying our universe... but are incapable of declaring either what might be beyond it, or why the measurement and identification must be true.

In math, you prove that one is equal to one by comparing it against our world and our mind. While that is perfectly acceptable for our world, it cannot tell you why one must equal one. The simple answer is that if it did not, then the universe would rapidly become oneness, or nothingness. That is a second example of philosophical evidence (I can cover it more for you if you have any trouble understanding it).

With science (of which math is a form), one forms a hypothesis based on an observation, and works to see if their hypothesis is a fact of our world or not. The problem? The observation was percieved with our own very innacurate senses. Can you see beyond that which you see with science? No... all you can see with is your eyes in science. But can you envision things that might not exist, like dragons, with your mind? Of course you can. And that is why philosophy and faith can be useful... they, like science, have a chance of being incorrect (I believe the history of science can be easily used for evidence of science being incorrect)... but they can ponder in what way we exist, and why it is so (much like we are doing now), whereas science can only tell us what works in our world, and will always be limited by our finite existance.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Arcanus: I understood that he was asking in which form we exist, and i responded with stating that we do not exist as nothingness, and do in fact exist. Descarte (sp?) once said, 'I think, therefore i am.', but he could have gone further to conclude: anything that can be interacted with, must exist. And i feel it likely that even that is incomplete.

As for our state of existance though, is it possible that we exist in more ways than one? After all... your dreams exist as surely as a table does... yet they exist in differant ways altogether. The dreams are not tangible, they cannot be touched, smelled, felt, seen, or heard. They can only be imagined.

Water... exists not only as a liquid, but as ice, and as steam. It may be possible that our reality is similar. It is certainly an interesting hypothesis.

[Edwardo Piet]

I just say that "This" is reality. This experience, whether other minds exist or not (and yes, for the record - I believe they do, lol).

Whatever we 'call it', whether we say it's real or not, it makes no difference. So I just say it exists because if it didn't exist then I wouldn't exist to be discussing this.

So I think the whole idea of whether reality is real or not, or the universe exists or not, is just semanticial. Whether we say it does or not - it makes no actual difference its just words.

EvF

[Violet]

As for the computer simulation theory:

In most video games, there is a cast of identical creatures, who perform the exact same actions in the exact same circumstances as each other. In easier language: all of the creatures react the same to the same stimulii in most video games today.

However, in recent years, there has been some significant progress in making the same specie of creature react differantly from its fellows in the same situations. An example of this would be Assassins Creed (Sp?), where there will be two footmen, and when they see you: one of them will rush to attack you valiently, and the other will run for his life cowardly. Perhaps we are a bunch of non-player characters with advanced AI?

We are well on our way to developing advanced motion tracking technology (Read up on Project Natal for the Xbox 360), AI is always being improved upon, and i can get terabytes of hard drive storage space, and i can create almost any creature i want to in Spore... Why can't we be the video game of a very advanced race?

[Jon Paul]

I just say that "This" is reality. This experience, whether other minds exist or not (and yes, for the record - I believe they do, lol).

So you appeal to personal experience. Fine.

On what grounds do you believe that other minds exist, again? Personal experience, I presume?

And on what grounds do most people accept the existence of God? Personal experience, exactly.

Whatever we 'call it', whether we say it's real or not, it makes no difference. So I just say it exists because if it didn't exist then I wouldn't exist to be discussing this.

The question whether reality actually is real or exists, is not about whether you seem to be doing what you seem to be doing (e.g. being here discussing), because you would seem to be doing that if you were a Matrix-style brain in a vat as well. The question is if any of reality actually exists (outside our minds), and if it does, then what you appeal to to justify that claim. All you can really appeal to is presupposition due to personal experience, and the same is the case with the existence of other minds.

So I think the whole idea of whether reality is real or not, or the universe exists or not, is just semanticial. Whether we say it does or not - it makes no actual difference its just words.

It makes no difference whether everything is an illusion, arbitrary sense-data fed to you by a computer, or actually real?

I would say it makes very much of a difference, whether everything and everyone I know and hold dear to exist is actually just an illusion, digits coming from a computer, or real things and real minds just like me, who I can have a real relationship to.