How can we be sure this is reality?

[Nine]

Technically, yes, but I am not going waste my time worrying about all the ifs and butts that "technically" might happen. Science is still giving us the best gauge of reality so far.

You don't have to if you don't want to. I assume that this is reality too. But I'm happy to admit that I can't be certain.

[Violet]

I am not accusing either Catulu or Violet of taking a dig a science. You don't come to a board like this if you hate science.

The common theist here may or may not agree.

The atheists too... gods, have you met some of these people?

[Brian37]

Technically, yes, but I am not going waste my time worrying about all the ifs and butts that "technically" might happen. Science is still giving us the best gauge of reality so far.

You don't have to if you don't want to. I assume that this is reality too. But I'm happy to admit that I can't be certain.

I am an agnostic atheist. I admit I don't know either. But I also am not afraid to dump bad claims or disregard a claim someone isn't willing to test with science.

There are currently outside science labs literally all sorts of si fi woo and superstitions people spout, not to mention all the 100s of thousands of different religious sects around the world.

Am strictly, all be it "technically" and "semantically agnostic about the future ONLY because I have not lived it yet. But like I said, I am not going to entertain garbage especially when someone spouting it isn't willing to have it tested.

[Nine]

I am an agnostic atheist. I admit I don't know either. But I also am not afraid to dump bad claims or disregard a claim someone isn't willing to test with science.

But we can't test to find out if this is reality seems we would get the same results if we were in a simulation. Its still better to go with science seems assuming that this is reality you can learn a lot with science.

There are currently outside science labs literally all sorts of si fi woo and superstitions people spout, not to mention all the 100s of thousands of different religious sects around the world.

And they tend to make more assumptions than the scientists. Well maybe not the scientists themselves because they might be crazy but the method..

Am strictly, all be it "technically" and "semantically agnostic about the future ONLY because I have not lived it yet. But like I said, I am not going to entertain garbage especially when someone spouting it isn't willing to have it tested.

You can't test it. Thats kinda the point we are trying to make. Doesn't mean that our world is not real we just can't know for sure.

[Brian37]

I am an agnostic atheist. I admit I don't know either. But I also am not afraid to dump bad claims or disregard a claim someone isn't willing to test with science.

But we can't test to find out if this is reality seems we would get the same results if we were in a simulation. Its still better to go with science seems assuming that this is reality you can learn a lot with science.

There are currently outside science labs literally all sorts of si fi woo and superstitions people spout, not to mention all the 100s of thousands of different religious sects around the world.

And they tend to make more assumptions than the scientists. Well maybe not the scientists themselves because they might be crazy but the method..

Am strictly, all be it "technically" and "semantically agnostic about the future ONLY because I have not lived it yet. But like I said, I am not going to entertain garbage especially when someone spouting it isn't willing to have it tested.

You can't test it. Thats kinda the point we are trying to make. Doesn't mean that our world is not real we just can't know for sure.

Please tell me you didn't fall for that recent new age si fi "simulation" woo?

That is simply replacing a god with a cosmic Captain Kirk with the same baggage of infinite regress.

If we are a simulation, then what caused that simulation? And if we are a simulation then the simulation that caused us has to be even more complex than the simulation we are, and then what caused that simulation that caused that simulation and so on and so on and so on.

Simulation explains nothing. It is a si fi gap answer, it is simply trying to replace a god with another type of cause.

Whatever came before the big bang I view as merely being as simply like the seasons changing. The weather on this planet is not a program or simulation, it simply does. So why would the universe or what may or may not have been before need to have a god, or a simulation?

We don't know. So until we know don't assume we are the cause of a god or a simulation or pink unicorns.

"technically" while I don't know either, what we do know since the big bang is that everything is both random and order and simply does based on the laws of nature. I would place my bets that the unknowns are simply a cycle, just like the life of the sun. Like winter changing into spring.

[Annik]

It's SCI-fi. As in science fiction. That was annoying the shit out of me.

Brian, you're just being contrary. We can't test if this is truly reality. We can't. We don't have to let that fact disrupt our lives, but it's a fact. You're being willfully ignorant, which is something I've noticed in your quite often. If you stop being so stubborn over the stupidest shit, maybe you could learn something.

[Brian37]

The universe could be the product of the death of another universe, or even a multiverse. It could be an infinite cycle or it could have come out of nothing. Science is working on that. But whatever it finds out does not require a cognition or a simulation. It would merely mean we have another piece of the puzzle of whether or not the cycle is finite or infinite, but it would not require a programer or god.

[catfish]

Whatever came before the big bang I view as merely being as simply like the seasons changing. The weather on this planet is not a program or simulation, it simply does. So why would the universe or what may or may not have been before need to have a god, or a simulation?

We don't know. So until we know don't assume we are the cause of a god or a simulation or pink unicorns.

Seems like woo to me...

[Nine]

Please tell me you didn't fall for that recent new age si fi "simulation" woo?

That is simply replacing a god with a cosmic Captain Kirk with the same baggage of infinite regress.

-_-

Its just a useful analogy..

If we are a simulation, then what caused that simulation? And if we are a simulation then the simulation that caused us has to be even more complex than the simulation we are, and then what caused that simulation that caused that simulation and so on and so on and so on.

Simulation explains nothing. It is a si fi gap answer, it is simply trying to replace a god with another type of cause.

The point I'm trying to make is that we would not be able to tell the difference between a completely synthesized universe compared to a 'real' one. It doesn't matter how far you want to go with it simulationception style but the point remains that we can't tell for sure.

We don't know. So until we know don't assume we are the cause of a god or a simulation or pink unicorns.

Thats what I've been saying damn it! We don't know!!! What you assume is up to you. You can assume this is real or that its not. It doesn't much matter to me. But science is based on the assumption that our world is real.

[Violet]

Gods... you're all being so exhaustingly... saddening.

Reality is. Don't need to throw NTSs around, right? THIS IS REALITY. There is more than one 'reality' in reality, really: for reals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUzLYl0oX2U

Realness, dudes. Realistic, and stuff.

And really... it's all perspective, mates.