|
And strong, and my friend. e: you said you haven't seen a human centipede. but you also haven't seen a brain in a jar. You're assuming that just because something is a possibility that can't be disproven, it must be real. but that's a bad assumption, so you shouldn't assume that 'the matrix is literally real' in the first place. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:25 on Jul 17, 2015 |
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 12:19 |
|
|
EB Nulshit posted:It's a sound argument by modern logic. it's not I mean our perceptions might actually be an extended dream, too, and we can't disprove that - so now inception and all other "you're in the dreamworld" stories are real by your logic. Yet we can't be simultaneously both things - perceiving things in an automatic dreamstate AND being subject to a designed program. Just as we can't also be actually perceiving a real material world with shared social interactions and commonly held perceptions while also in a dream-state or simulation. Only one material reality can exist in a universe, and you can only use one set of physical laws for your perception at a time. The way you perceive things, and whether or not that method of perception tells you if you are currently perceiving a material reality is another question. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 04:35 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Not being able to debunk the hypothesis of a thought experiment doesn't mean it's correct. that's not how the scientific process works. all it means is the theory is just "not definitively wrong yet"
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
Fados posted:What if material reality isn't internally consistent with itself (something that quantum physics might indicate) therefore, in it's struggle for ideality, generating something more than pure materiality itself. This something more, could be the illusion, or dream where human social interactions exists. what if many things, friend, what if many things until you can introduce positive evidence, they remain what ifs and the best model we have to go on is of a physical reality that we can infer probabilities of things happening from past consistent observations. until that more pure reality makes itself known and its properties start to assert itself, why bother stocking up on survival supplies for any number of alternate universes one might have dreamt up Rodatose fucked around with this message at 05:03 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
Fados posted:But pure reality also encounters a big if in the subjective experience with all it's gaps, doubts, misunderstandings and failings of communication, maybe this is the evidence you need? Doubt and skepticism is not positive evidence. it's negative evidence Besides, I think you're running into a problem of thinking "pure" or "real" is automatically what you should aim for. If this is the dream world, then your rules are dream rules which are what works here. until you wake up, you should stay using dream rules. the "reality" of something doesn't mean it's superior. all "dream perception" means is that it is the set of rules you perception is going by at the time. Maybe you perceive experiences through one set of laws consciously, and another subconsciously influences it (for instance, when you shudder in a dream from a draft of cold in physical reality), but both sets of perception are not consciously experienced at the same time. Rodatose fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Jul 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2015 05:06
|
|