How can we be sure this is reality?

[Tiberius]

-is there any way we can prove that we aren't just sleeping and when we die we wake up.

No.

and how do you go on living,such questions totally screwed me up

We make assumptions. It is far easier to assume that what we experience is reality, and not some dream or virtual world. What matters is that we recognize and state these assumptions.

---

Really? Ugg. This is simply mental masturbation. It confuses "POV" issues as being equal to scientific reality and they are NOT the same thing.

Who mentioned science? Nobody but you it seems. The question is quite valid in the realms of philosophy and logic. Science, as you are probably aware, cannot answer this question as it only works within the scope of what we have deemed "reality". It cannot answer questions about the nature of the "reality" itself.

Yes this is reality. We are here.

That didn't answer OP's question. You are assuming that what we experience as reality is all that exists. You cannot prove to me (or anyone else) that we are not in a dream, or a simulation. It doesn't work like that.

This is as old as the question "If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound". Not worthy at all of any serious consideration.

Bullshit. That question may seem simple, but it is remarkably complex and does require a lot of understanding, both from a scientific and a philosophical perspective. What it boils down to is what "sound" actually is. We know that when pressure oscillates in certain ways, it creates sound in our ears. The question is, does that "sound" exist before it reaches our ears, or is it only our interpretation of the pressure oscillation that we call sound? If it is the latter (which to me is more reasonable), then a tree falling in a forest makes no sound if there are no sound receptors around to hear it. All it does is make a lot of pressure oscillations, but without a receptor to translate those oscillations into sound, they are meaningless.

Shrodinger's cat is garbage.

Physics would disagree with you.

[Brian37]

-is there any way we can prove that we aren't just sleeping and when we die we wake up.

No.

and how do you go on living,such questions totally screwed me up

We make assumptions. It is far easier to assume that what we experience is reality, and not some dream or virtual world. What matters is that we recognize and state these assumptions.

---

Really? Ugg. This is simply mental masturbation. It confuses "POV" issues as being equal to scientific reality and they are NOT the same thing.

Who mentioned science? Nobody but you it seems. The question is quite valid in the realms of philosophy and logic. Science, as you are probably aware, cannot answer this question as it only works within the scope of what we have deemed "reality". It cannot answer questions about the nature of the "reality" itself.

Yes this is reality. We are here.

That didn't answer OP's question. You are assuming that what we experience as reality is all that exists. You cannot prove to me (or anyone else) that we are not in a dream, or a simulation. It doesn't work like that.

This is as old as the question "If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound". Not worthy at all of any serious consideration.

Bullshit. That question may seem simple, but it is remarkably complex and does require a lot of understanding, both from a scientific and a philosophical perspective. What it boils down to is what "sound" actually is. We know that when pressure oscillates in certain ways, it creates sound in our ears. The question is, does that "sound" exist before it reaches our ears, or is it only our interpretation of the pressure oscillation that we call sound? If it is the latter (which to me is more reasonable), then a tree falling in a forest makes no sound if there are no sound receptors around to hear it. All it does is make a lot of pressure oscillations, but without a receptor to translate those oscillations into sound, they are meaningless.

Shrodinger's cat is garbage.

Physics would disagree with you.

Mental masturbation does not replace reality. Point of view does not replace a lab.

You can accept flawed perception without defaulting to making claims without backing them up.

Ultimately it works best like this.

You open your mouth, you make a claim, then you prove it.

It does not work like this.

I make a claim, since we don't know everything anything is possible so it is true until we disprove it.

Science certainly has some really freaky stuff in it, like gravity affecting time. But admitting that human perception is flawed does not make everything possible by default.

This is why we have scientific method and labs. To insure quality of data. The fact that scientists don't live in the future does not mean we let our brains fall out and assume something is true first.

A falling tree will still make a sound even if you don't hear it. The laws of physics are not suspended because you don't hear the sound. Right now somewhere in another country YOU don't live in a car horn is honking. A TV is on making noise in a house or apartment you don't live in.

[Mister Agenda]

We can't know for sure, but we gain nothing by assuming it isn't. At the very least, it's the reality we've got to deal with.

[Brian37]

We can't know for sure, but we gain nothing by assuming it isn't. At the very least, it's the reality we've got to deal with.

NO scientific method has never worked by assuming first.

Scientific method works on prior established data. Projecting with prior data is not assuming. Assuming does not require testing.

Assuming something is true before you confirm it with testing is stupid.

Projecting that something will be true because you have tested prior data STILL requires testing to confirm it.

"We cant know for sure" does not mean we assume pink unicorns, or Thor or Transporters will be true because we haven't disproven them. That is shifting the burden of proof.

Claims are never 50% 50% propositions. Law of probability allows us to discard something. And even outside science we do this all the time without disproving something.

"I am fucking Angelina Jolie right now". There, now do you need a lab to consider the likely hood of that claim? Technically it could be true since she is real and I am real, but somehow you can rightfully discard that claim without assuming it to be true because you cant prove it isn't true.

Humans reject all sorts of claims without labs. But, when it comes to proving something scientifically the integrity of the method cannot be based on "prove it isn't true". That is how psuedo science and quacks and snack oil people con others. IN SCIENCE you don't assume, you test to confirm.

[Nine]

NO scientific method has never worked by assuming first.

Okay, tell me how you prove that our reality exists?

[Mister Agenda]

We can't know for sure, but we gain nothing by assuming it isn't. At the very least, it's the reality we've got to deal with.

NO scientific method has never worked by assuming first.

Scientific method works on prior established data. Projecting with prior data is not assuming. Assuming does not require testing.

Assuming something is true before you confirm it with testing is stupid.

Projecting that something will be true because you have tested prior data STILL requires testing to confirm it.

"We cant know for sure" does not mean we assume pink unicorns, or Thor or Transporters will be true because we haven't disproven them. That is shifting the burden of proof.

Claims are never 50% 50% propositions. Law of probability allows us to discard something. And even outside science we do this all the time without disproving something.

"I am fucking Angelina Jolie right now". There, now do you need a lab to consider the likely hood of that claim? Technically it could be true since she is real and I am real, but somehow you can rightfully discard that claim without assuming it to be true because you cant prove it isn't true.

Humans reject all sorts of claims without labs. But, when it comes to proving something scientifically the integrity of the method cannot be based on "prove it isn't true". That is how psuedo science and quacks and snack oil people con others. IN SCIENCE you don't assume, you test to confirm.

What are you on about? What is it you think I've said that has you in such a tizzy?

[Brian37]

NO scientific method has never worked by assuming first.

Okay, tell me how you prove that our reality exists?

You are reading this aren't you? I am sorry, but I cannot entertain such absurdity.

Otherwise you can assume I am a baboon who also wrote all the works of Shakespeare because you were not alive to disprove that it was not me traveling back in time as a baboon claiming a human name to write those works.

If everything is true until unproven than I really was a baboon then and not a human, somehow I know you know that is absurd.

If we all get to make claims without proving them then any explanation for reality will do. Did I mention I am fucking Angelina Jolie right now? You can't prove I am not.

[Zone]

Even if it wasn't it still would be as far as we're concerned so the question is a bit moot.

[Nine]

You are reading this aren't you? I am sorry, but I cannot entertain such absurdity.

Yep I think so. I might be asleep or even a figment of something else imagination. Maybe a character in a book somebodies writing. Dear author stop being an asshole to me!

Its absurd but we have to assume we exist because there is no way of being sure.

Otherwise you can assume I am a baboon who also wrote all the works of Shakespeare because you were not alive to disprove that it was not me traveling back in time as a baboon claiming a human name to write those works.

You might be. I have no way of finding that out for certain.

If everything is true until unproven than I really was a baboon then and not a human, somehow I know you know that is absurd.

I never said everything is true just that we don't know for sure. I think its a safer bet that nothings true. I assume that this is reality so my best guess is that you are a human seems I don't know any baboons with you're ability to communicate.

If we all get to make claims without proving them then any explanation for reality will do. Did I mention I am fucking Angelina Jolie right now? You can't prove I am not.

I didn't say that you can make claims without proving them. Just that we can't know for sure that this is reality.

[Brian37]

Scientific method ALWAYS

Starts out with prior data that has been established.

Then that data is plugged into an established formula

THEN you test it with control groups

Then you hand your data and formula over to independent sources to be confirmed or denied.

You don't assume the outcome.

You can project an outcome, but you don't assume. It still requires testing and peer review.

So merely making a claim means nothing. I have no reason to take any claim as credible scientifically until it has been acted upon by testing.

Assuming is closed minded. Testing is being open minded. That way either way, if your data is good or bad, you get to learn from it. Assuming is how con artists and quacks con other people.