Non-existence

[dagda]

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.

[Giff]

In other worlds, without evidence of the existence of any substantial world-form we must conclude that the world may indeed be an illusion.

And what's the evidence of that? Since your idea have no support, more then the assumption that the world we live in can't be proven to be real, is it therefore irrellivant. With your logic can anything be possible, and with that would we have, instead of serious scientific research, just a simple guessing game.

[Rhizomorph13]

Dagda,

I choose to believe my senses and accept what registers in them as real. I would go further than that and say that I believe some of the instruments that man has created. I am an objectivist and start my worldview by stating that there is an objective reality based purly on faith then back it up with repeated observations of reality using my senses and equipment that I have proven as valid.

Reality is fairly stable, when I drive on roads they go pretty much where I remember them going, and when I measure things they pretty much measure what I expect them to measure.

I work in a quality and reliability lab for Intel and we have several devices for measuring matter and energy. We verify the validity of a metrology by doing a metrology capability analysis to ascertain the signal to noise ratio that comes out of the machine. While it is true that the machine will not produce the same value twice, all values obtained from a capable machine will fall within an acceptable distance from the nominal value and will usually have a slight bias that can be subtracted out when comparing data between machines. The things we measure are NIST traceable standards and are verified by a calibration lab.

Is it all a house of cards? Yes, to some degree but it is a house of cards built to scientific standards and aligned to be as close to "true" as possible. Also, I can compare my house of cards with one halfway across the globe and they will get very similar results.

It is sheer laziness to accept a reality that is just amorphous and purely subjective. It also makes all observations pointless because they say just as much about reality as they do about the observer or the purusha and the prakriti if that is where you are going with this.

Reality is real because I can measure it and get results that fall within a gaussian distribution! YAY bell curve!

Rhizo

[binny]

Sounds like someone's been watching 'The Matrix' or too many episodes of 'Star Trek'.

[Rhizomorph13]

Binny,

Dagda is proferring a version of solipsism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

It is an interesting hypothesis but I don't see any value in it because a true solipsist couldn't believe in any evidence because it could be argued that the evidence was originating from their own mind so they would say they were just trying to trick themselves.

Rhizo

[dagda]

Binny, the Matrix was a dramatisation of solipsism. The philosophical position is quite a bit older than the movie or even Star Trek.

Rhizo, you choose to belive your senses, but I do not. This may seem daft, but the senses are relitivly easy to fool (optical illusions etc). This means I require more evidence than that which can be obtained by my senses alone. Your standpoint that you assume the world is real untill proven otherwise is resonable, but I represent the other side of the coin; nothing is real untill proven otherwise. I always thought that was the standpoint which lead atheists to their denial of God.

Giff, just to be sure you understand, I am not trying to prove anything, I am trying to disprove the existence of the world. What do you atheists say? The burden of proof is with you?

[Rhizomorph13]

Dagda,

No, I have a hypothesis that the world is objective then test it by performing experiments like, going to a park I have been to before and seeing if it is still there. There will always be changes but they are explained by what I understand of the world, i.e. trees grow, seasons change, and vandals carve there damn initials into park benches.

Our senses are easy to fool, but our instruments with which we measure reality are not.

Rhizo

[Pippy]

Our senses are easy to fool, but our instruments with which we measure reality are not.

You skipped a step. Our senses are easy to fool, but the confusion is in the mind. Some advanced scientific instruments are impossible to fool. But their infallibility ends with themselves. As soon as I am looking at a ruler, and taking up the a priori sense experiences, it becomes just as fickle. I use the same eyes and mind and brain to observe the ruler, and my ability to be confused or wrong stands. Nothing we see and do is not interpretive.

If your gonna be skeptical, take it all the way.
I can doubt my senses, mind and view on reality.
Anything I do or see is filtered through my senses and my mind.
I can doubt anything I think or do...

-Pip

[Rhizomorph13]

Pippy,

Look dude, our senses aren't that easy to confuse. If the ruler says one inch, chances are it will read one inch every time give or take a little due to the sources of variance. There is no need in totally invalidating our sense because of some strange habits of the senses. Optical illusions aside, our senses are acurate enough and all we have.

Rhizo

[dagda]

The park is not proof that the world is real, only that the illusion has a memory-much like a computer game. When I said the world was an illusion, I did not mean that it was a randomly fluxuating illusion-obviously not-but that it simply was not real-do not try to make more of the argument than there really is so that your proofs can easily triumph. Tell me, why do you think the world is real?