Non-existence

[Kyuuketsuki]

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.

Everything science is based on has at root the single assumption that what we see is real, it has to because it's (probably) the one thing we can't test ... everything could be a dream, or a computer simulation or we could live in a universe that started last Thursday. Who knows but we assume that what we see, what we can detect is real and the fact that everything holds together tends to support that assumption plus a number of other questions varying around the idea that if the universe weren't real it would be more complicated and the simplest answer is usually best. I happen to assume (and believe) the universe we observe around us is real and I invite ANYONE who claims it might not be to step out in front of a fast moving vehicle to test their "theory" ... of course they won't, I know they wont, they know they wont because, whilst they appear to be advancing a serious argument, all they are actually doing is engaging in mental masturbation.

I put "theory" in quotes because it is a cynical view of the use of the word "theory" by many (most?) theists who use it as anything from "[evolution] is only a theory" (implying a guess, a good idea or a wizard wheeze), to sophisticated philosophical "theories" in an attempt to equate them to science when they never can be because a scientific theory is the highest form of explanation known to science implying nothing of guesswork or uncertainty but instead encompassing a fully fledged explanation complete with mechanisms, evidence and so on).

I do think scepticism is the proper approach but some (at least one) foundation assumptions are required.

Kyu

[Ryft]

We assume that what we can detect is real, and the fact that everything holds together tends to support that assumption.

Wouldn't the same result obtain if this world was a Matrix-like simulation whose programming was thorough and consistent? Someone who held this view certainly would not "step out in front of a fast moving vehicle"—not because they're being inconsistent but, rather, because they're being consistent. Even in the Matrix, the vehicle would critically injure them. In other words, I believe dagda's point would be, "Given that two competing conclusions are empirically equivalent (i.e., rely on the exact same empirical data), by what means can you test them for truth?" Occam's razor will not help here; given a Matrix scenario, the only thing Occam's razor would do is keep you locked in to the simulation—i.e., it would not test for truth.

A scientific theory is the highest form of explanation known to science ...

Umm... I should hope so. But that does nothing to undermine dagda's argument, given the point about empirical equivalence.

[Kyuuketsuki]

We assume that what we can detect is real, and the fact that everything holds together tends to support that assumption.

Wouldn't the same result obtain if this world was a Matrix-like simulation whose programming was thorough and consistent? Someone who held this view certainly would not "step out in front of a fast moving vehicle"—not because they're being inconsistent but, rather, because they're being consistent.

Why not? Such a world would be inherently valueless I think!

Even in the Matrix, the vehicle would critically injure them. In other words, I believe dagda's point would be, "Given that two competing conclusions are empirically equivalent (i.e., rely on the exact same empirical data), by what means can you test them for truth?"

I don't care about The Matrix ... it's a film (and the sequels are f***ing awful)!

Occam's razor will not help here; given a Matrix scenario, the only thing Occam's razor would do is keep you locked in to the simulation—i.e., it would not test for truth.

Occam's Razor very much does apply because the existence of the universe through natural cause only really begs the question how, whereas a simulation (or last Thursday-ism) begs not only the question how but who and why and as such is implicitly vastly more complex.

A scientific theory is the highest form of explanation known to science ...

Umm... I should hope so. But that does nothing to undermine dagda's argument, given the point about empirical equivalence.

Er yes ... it very much does!

Kyu

[Ryft]

Occam's Razor very much does apply ...

1. You tried to undercut Dagda's argument by pointing out that no person could really believe such a thing (it is just "mental masturbation") because even that person would not step into the path of a fast-moving vehicle. That criticism is an Epic Fail, however, because the simulation mimics what we call the laws of physics. That is, someone who believes the world is a Matrix-like simulation would not step in front of a vehicle and his refusal would be consistent with his view (i.e., his refusal proves nothing either way).

2. Occam's razor can certainly apply, sure. I never suggested otherwise. But applying it would not help, however, because (as I said) it would not test for truth when given these two empirically equivalent conclusions about the nature of reality. 'Parsimony' is not a synonym for 'true'.

3. Moreover, Occam's razor can neither establish nor disconfirm that the assumptions are unnecessary. If the world is in fact a simulation, then such assumptions would turn out to square with reality. The only way you could assert that the assumptions are unnecessary is to Beg the Question (fallacy) on the nature of reality.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Occam's Razor very much does apply ...

1. You tried to undercut Dagda's argument by pointing out that no person could really believe such a thing (it is just "mental masturbation") because even that person would not step into the path of a fast-moving vehicle. That criticism is an Epic Fail, however, because the simulation mimics what we call the laws of physics. That is, someone who believes the world is a Matrix-like simulation would not step in front of a vehicle and his refusal would be consistent with his view (i.e., his refusal proves nothing either way).

Actually no, that was simply a cynical addendum and not an essential part of the argument and yes I very much believe this kind of bollocks is mental masturbation because, as I have repeatedly said, we assume the world is real ... it is far and away the simplest explanation. In other words, to accept as valid any explanation outside of the base assumption we require evidence and as you have already pointed out there is none ... case closed!

2. Occam's razor can certainly apply, sure. I never suggested otherwise. But applying it would not help, however, because (as I said) it would not test for truth when given these two empirically equivalent conclusions about the nature of reality. 'Parsimony' is not a synonym for 'true'.

I agree it doesn't test for truth, as I said above it is an assumption that the world is real no more ... but any other explanation so far suggested raises the complexity to such insane levels that they are not worth considering except as exercises in what might be (hence my cynical reference to mental masturbation).

3. Moreover, Occam's razor can neither establish nor disconfirm that the assumptions are unnecessary. If the world is in fact a simulation, then such assumptions would turn out to square with reality. The only way you could assert that the assumptions are unnecessary is to Beg the Question (fallacy) on the nature of reality.

And again see above!

Kyu

[Ryft]

In other words, to accept as valid any explanation outside of the base assumption we require evidence ...

Kyuuketsuki, your responses persistently miss the eviscerating horns of Dagda's fantastic point; namely, empirical equivalence. The crucial point is that scientific evidence would be exactly the same under either view; ergo, scientific evidence is incapable of serving as criteria on this particular question. A posteriori heuristic devices are impotent on the issue. So, how does one solve for empirical equivalence?

[Kyuuketsuki]

In other words, to accept as valid any explanation outside of the base assumption we require evidence ...

Kyuuketsuki, your responses persistently miss the eviscerating horns of Dagda's fantastic point; namely, empirical equivalence. The crucial point is that scientific evidence would be exactly the same under either view; ergo, scientific evidence is incapable of serving as criteria on this particular question. A posteriori heuristic devices are impotent on the issue. So, how does one solve for empirical equivalence?

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."

In short "Empirical equivalence " appears to be more pointless metaphysical drivel.

Kyu

[dagda]

I think Arcanus has got the point. There is no reason what-so-ever to believe one argument over the other. The only reason people assume the world is real is because a) they don't understand the argument or b) it is just easier to assume that it is real. In conclusion, one argument is no more valid than the other.

[Rhizomorph13]

Dagda,

I've always understood your point and wasn't trying to say that you were wrong so much as explaining why I accept the world around me. There is no way to prove you wrong. You could be the only one that truly exists and right now the Rhizomorph13 part of you is conceding that there is no way to prove the world exists. My first post in this thread started with my assertion from faith that the world exists.

Clearly I'm doing it wrong; I should have waited for someone else to post with a positive statement and then picked their argument apart. After all, it is much easier to just play defense than it is to actually put forth a usable idea.

Rhizo

[Kyuuketsuki]

I think Arcanus has got the point. There is no reason what-so-ever to believe one argument over the other. The only reason people assume the world is real is because a) they don't understand the argument or b) it is just easier to assume that it is real. In conclusion, one argument is no more valid than the other.

Yes there is reason, reasons I have already covered (and some others).

First of all let me make it clear that I concede there is no objective way to tell the difference and that reality is an assumption.

In essence my argument is not that we know the world/universe is real but that it is much more likely that it is for a number of reasons:

• 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?
  
• The complexity of a non-real universe is far more complex than the universe. 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 g it is much the same.
  
• 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?

Now 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! 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.

Ultimately, it's a pointless question i.e. it is as pointless to ask are we real as it is to ask are we not.

Kyu