Is there proof we exist? [Archive]

krelnius

26th March 2006, 06:49 PM

Ok, so here is my next question that requires more knowledge than I have on hand in a small town in Missouri.

Is there proof we exist?

What I mean is, how do I know I'm really typeing this post right now? How do I know that the roof above my head is really there at all? I can feel it? See it? The senses proof close to nothing. I've used every single sense I posess in plain dreams that I can have nearly any night of the week. How do I tell reality from what my brain could be producing?

We have science, true. We know other planets, stars, and complete galaxies exist but where is the proof? Lightwaves and radiation? Even if I were the man to test these all by myself it proves nothing to determine if anything is REAL. As far as I know I could be dreaming right now...everyone else could just be a part of a brain...of some creature completely different from humans...it could be a creature that looks like 3 toes on a pink planet and the creature could breathe acid and fart sulphur for all I know because I have no way to determine whats real.

Take any family member for instance...walk up...touch them on the shoulder...and prove their real. To say that any of the 5 senses can prove their real is to basically say that anything I can touch, taste, smell, see, or hear is real....in which case every nightmare I've ever had would be terrorizing the world and their not...this alone tells me that my brain can distort reality to a degree that I can not differentiate between what is dream and whats not. Surely nobody here can make the claim they have never had a dream that they mistook for real until they woke up....this alone is proof that we can be easily fooled by our minds.

So, my question is, in an existence where basically our mind tells us everything we know...how do we know that our mind is telling the truthe, or that its all a big lie?

Coincidentally, to say that "Well I've got a dad and he isnt fake." doesnt prove anything. Everyone from gradeschoolers to skitzo's have imaginary friends and there is no reason why a human brain couldnt do this on as grand a scale as might be needed since considering the idea means not only that what we know of the brain might be false but everything we know of science alltogether could be false.

Ask yourself for a moment if its possible that youve made up every single thing youve ever experienced...I know it probably sounds ridiculous but if you think about it...well, personally it scares me cause when I think about it I realize there is no proof that anything really exists...everything from my most intimate and meaningful moments to the posts on these forums could be really just figments of my imagination.

Also, I don't see a way to refute this... I mean...how could u tell a dream from reality if you never knew the difference?

strathmeyer

26th March 2006, 06:51 PM

So, my question is, in an existence where basically our mind tells us everything we know...how do we know that our mind is telling the truthe, or that its all a big lie?

What evidence do you have that it is all a big lie? What evidence do you have that our minds aren't telling us the truth?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th March 2006, 06:54 PM

Krelnius, your entire lament is caused by neglecting to define the word real. Why don't you try defining it and see if it helps to clear things up?

~~ Paul

emperorchaos

26th March 2006, 06:59 PM

You're the only one that exists, actually. You solipsist, you. I've wanted to use that new vb code for a few hours now!

It's like this. Existence. Reality. Whatever you want to call it. I'd say that the same fundamentals work as they do in the scientific community. If the general consensus says so, then here we are.

I was never big on these philosophical types of questions. But if you apply Occam's Razor to it. Hmm... I believe we do exist.

TimmyBerry

26th March 2006, 07:00 PM

:tr:

... But then, again, that's my opinion of a fair amount of extremists here..

emperorchaos

26th March 2006, 07:02 PM

:tr:

... But then, again, that's my opinion of a fair amount of extremists here..

That's what I thought at first, but I can never tell until I've already exchanged dialogue with them to the point of absurdity.

I like iguanas. My girl's name is Glaurung.

TimmyBerry

26th March 2006, 07:14 PM

As he's yet to reply to this thread, I'd guess for a hit-and-run.

My guy's called Icky (Alternatively, Icky-Baby or Ickus the Terrible). :) Have you had yours for long?

Soapy Sam

26th March 2006, 07:25 PM

krelnius- I'll take your question seriously.

The answer is you can't know except through the senses. They are all you have. If all sensory input could somehow be stopped, including awareness of gravity , orientation and temperature, your only awareness would be of internal sensation -such as pain from a rotten tooth or breathing chlorine- and the awareness of your thoughts.
If your nerves could be blocked by anaesthetic, you would be left only with your thoughts.
Now suppose this was done to a newborn baby which has no vocabulary, which never sees, hears or feels anything.

Would it be aware at all? Remember, unlike Helen Keller, it could not be taught by external stimulation- there are no sensory channels available.

Would a person exist , from your point of view?

Now think hard. Would you exist from it's point of view?

I don't know the answer to these questions. You are free to decide. My point is that there is no possible way, other than the sensory, through which the questions are even answerable in principle. You do not exist from a cloud's point of view, because it has none.

Some might say that a disconnected mind might know "through the spirit " that others exist- but that would be just as open to the doubts you express about sensory knowledge. How could anyone ever know for sure?

Dr.Johnson's famous rejection of solipsism was to kick a stone, saying "I refute it, thus!" Now as a Scot, I would like to be able to refute a few of Johnson's jibes by applying my boot to his backside in similar vein, but in this case he's right. We either take the world as our common senses tell us it is , or we do not. But if we do not, we will soon be in a sorry pickle.

The supposition that things are real, coupled with the consistency of the supporting evidence, is all we have. It's either that or nothing.

Timothy

26th March 2006, 07:26 PM

Is there proof we exist?

Short answer: No.

Slightly longer answer: Yes or no, depending on the level of formality proof you require.

Slightly more lengthy answer: Philosophers have spent several thousand years debating and examining the question. Don't expect to have it all presented to you here.

Slightly more topical answer: There's a thread examining most of the salient points of this argument going on right now in the "Skepticism" forum--
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53830

- Timothy

Cabbage

26th March 2006, 07:27 PM

I've involved myself in many debates over this sort of thing over the years, but I'm still convinced I'm right (though I must admit I'm not 100% sure I ever fully grasped the point others were trying to make to me).

Anyway, yes, there is proof that you exist. (Or, more appropriately, I can prove to myself that I exist. Assuming you're like me, you can prove your existence to yourself).

It's entirely possible that all your sensations are merely hallucinations; however, the fact that you experience these sensations/hallucinations are all that's required to prove your own existence.

I've sometimes thought Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" might be more appropriately phrased as "I perceive, therefore I am".

I don't necessarily argue that my perceptions are in any way based on reality (whatever that means), but that mere fact I have perceptions demonstrates my existence.

In fact, in a sense it's almost a proof of "existence" by definition. "I" can define "me" to be that "thing" which experiences these perceptions of which "I" am aware.

Whether those perceptions are experienced in a "dream" or "reality" or whatever is irrelevant: I perceive, therefore I am.

People have sometimes argued to me that the argument "I perceive, therefore I am" begs the question. I'm assuming my own existence by referring to an "I" (or "me") in the first place.

I've always countered that that is really just an artifact of the language that it's couched in. I can't think of any natural and proper grammatical way to state the same thing without using a word to reference "myself", the reference is there merely for grammatical purposes. However, the true argument is independent of any quirks of the language it's presented in: Maybe it would be better phrased as, "Perceptions are experienced. Define "I" or "me" to be that thing experiencing these perceptions."

emperorchaos

26th March 2006, 07:50 PM

As he's yet to reply to this thread, I'd guess for a hit-and-run.

My guy's called Icky (Alternatively, Icky-Baby or Ickus the Terrible). :) Have you had yours for long?

I've had her for four years this September. Her birth date was somewhere around August 1st so I just say the 1st.

-=-=-=-

krelnius's last activity shows at 8:49pm by my clock's reckoning. The same time as his post was made. So maybe he'll come back?

ynot

26th March 2006, 08:16 PM

If everything is a figment of our imagination, does it mean that our imagination is a figment of itself?

GregC

26th March 2006, 08:25 PM

Krelnius,

Your three favorite movies don't all have the word Matrix in the title, do they?

TimmyBerry

26th March 2006, 08:40 PM

I've had her for four years this September. Her birth date was somewhere around August 1st so I just say the 1st.

-=-=-=-

krelnius's last activity shows at 8:49pm by my clock's reckoning. The same time as his post was made. So maybe he'll come back?

..At least you know when she was born. Mine's about 2 years old, and 've had him for a year. Amazing how quickly those guys grow.

----

As I said, hit-and-run. :p Guess we'll see tomorrow night.

Dogdoctor

26th March 2006, 10:39 PM

Cecil

26th March 2006, 10:48 PM

"Perceptions are experienced. Define "I" or "me" to be that thing experiencing these perceptions." The only problem I see with this argument is that you're assuming that perceptions are things which must be experienced by some other thing. Why could it not instead be the case that perceptions merely exist, independent of an observer?

I suppose you could still define "I" to be the thing which all perceptions have in common, though that still leaves another problem. How is it in fact known that all perceptions have something in common? Perhaps other perceptions exist of which this "I" is not a property.

And that's really the problem, I think. One can't define "I" to be the thing experiencing these perceptions, since the perceptions "I" experience might only be a small subset of the set of all perceptions, and there's no way to refer that that small subset "I" experience without already having defined "I".

Of course, then we have the problem of what a perception is. I assume that you include the set of things often termed "thoughts" in your category of "perceptions". Then, of course, it must be the case that at least one "perception" exists. Which is really all you can say; everything else is an assumption.

But it's a pretty good assumption on which to base an ontology.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th March 2006, 05:31 AM

The only problem I see with this argument is that you're assuming that perceptions are things which must be experienced by some other thing. Why could it not instead be the case that perceptions merely exist, independent of an observer?
Well, you could, but then you would be redefining perception:

1 a : a result of perceiving : OBSERVATION b : a mental image : CONCEPT
2 obsolete : CONSCIOUSNESS
3 a : awareness of the elements of environment through physical sensation *color perception* b : physical sensation interpreted in the light of experience
4 a : quick, acute, and intuitive cognition : APPRECIATION b : a capacity for comprehension

I think it would make more sense to say that objects exist independent of an observer. Not to belabor my point, but I think we have to define what it means for something to be real.

~~ Paul

schplurg

27th March 2006, 05:42 AM

I don't necessarily argue that my perceptions are in any way based on reality (whatever that means), but that mere fact I have perceptions demonstrates my existence.

In fact, in a sense it's almost a proof of "existence" by definition. "I" can define "me" to be that "thing" which experiences these perceptions of which "I" am aware.
Cool. Good post.

Angus McPresley

27th March 2006, 06:06 AM

I think there's a reality outside my mind, because it's the simplest answer that fits the facts.

BTW, the philosophical term for this issue is "epistomology", and it's been debated for centuries, so it shouldn't be hard to find all the lousy theories (in addition to mine) that you want on it.

c4ts

27th March 2006, 06:37 AM

I think I exist. Close enough for me.

aggle-rithm

27th March 2006, 06:52 AM

My answer to that question is that it doesn't matter. As far as we can tell we exist so we should act like we exist because to act otherwise is not using the best information we have. Therefore it really doesn't matter is we exist or not since we should act as though we exist.

When I first got my own place, I tried to act as if the junk mail I found in my mailbox didn't exist. Despite my best efforts, it persisted in its apparent existence, clogging my mailbox to the point that it was difficult to pull out my legitimate mail. Finally, an alleged object that appeared to the the mailman lectured me on the importance of taking ALL my mail out of the mailbox, not just that whose existence I had faith in. Now I put it in the trash, which supposedly goes to a landfill, but I haven't perceived this first hand.

I'm still not convinced that junkmail exists. But it helps to pretend that it does. ;)

Arkan_Wolfshade

27th March 2006, 08:10 AM

Cogito ergo sum, anything beyond that is mu.

tkingdoll

27th March 2006, 08:13 AM

Cogito ergo sum, anything beyond that is mu.

As the original poster has not returned, I think you're putting Descarte before de horse.

Arkan_Wolfshade

27th March 2006, 08:57 AM

As the original poster has not returned, I think you're putting Descarte before de horse.

*groan*

casebro

27th March 2006, 09:04 AM

I post, therefore I am. I get 200 spams a day as proof.

Trifikas

27th March 2006, 10:23 AM

There's the proof we need. Proof by junk Mail.
All we need is the latin for "I receive Junk e-mail" so we can add "ergo Sum" to it. Problem solved, and probably a fun T-Shirt to sell...

Now, for my actual ramblings on the topic.

It seems to me that the problem is "Who are we proving our existance to?". without an Outside observer to submit proof to, and trying to prove it conclusivly to ourselves is, well, circular isn't the proper term, but does kind of get redundant.

hmm. not quite so clear. My thinking is along the lines of "Since I can interact with my computer, I determine it exists." I can interact with other people, so we form sort of a mutual-existance pact. As more and more things are added to the M-E pact, it gets to as close of a proof as we're likely to get.

Maybe I'm not making sense. anyone able to clean it up for me?

Trif

27th March 2006, 11:24 AM

You're just all part of my imagination! :p

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th March 2006, 11:30 AM

hmm. not quite so clear. My thinking is along the lines of "Since I can interact with my computer, I determine it exists." I can interact with other people, so we form sort of a mutual-existance pact. As more and more things are added to the M-E pact, it gets to as close of a proof as we're likely to get.
There you go! You can define real as meaning something like "anything that interacts with anything else." Now we can say things are real without getting bogged down in the mind-numbingly annoying ontological question about "what stuff actually is."

~~ Paul

Jimbo07

27th March 2006, 12:45 PM

You can define real as meaning something like "anything that interacts with anything else." Now we can say things are real without getting bogged down in the mind-numbingly annoying ontological question about "what stuff actually is."

~~ Paul

The wave function of a free particle is dispersive... or summat :D

However, some particles (such as the ions in an ionic crystal) are likely localized.

So... could an answer to the Woo Interpretation of QM be something like: rather than having conscious observers, we can define reality as things and their interactions. This would necessitate:
i) Things cannot be fully defined as wholly separate from their interactions
ii) Interactions cannot be fully defined as wholly separate from their things
iii) As one is studied more intently, less is known about the other separately

I call it Jimmy's Thingness Uncertainty Principle! :D

Soapy Sam

27th March 2006, 01:18 PM

The problem with Descartes line is its incompleteness. There are people who cannot think - and yet are, demonstrably , there.

Where did Descartes go when he was not thinking?

Thinking cannot define existence, though it can test it.

I suspect the thread is another of the one shot wonders we are seeing lately. I take such posts seriously because we never know who else is reading it. There may be real people out there thinking the same things. But if they don't interact with the forum, we don't know they exist.

Arkan_Wolfshade

27th March 2006, 02:11 PM

RandFan

27th March 2006, 02:21 PM

Is there proof we exist?No.

Also, I don't see a way to refute this... I mean...how could u tell a dream from reality if you never knew the difference? Welcome to two thousand years of philosophical inquiry. Thanks for joining us. See early Greek philosophers, solipsism, Descartes and mountains of other mental masturbatory thought (not that that's a bad thing BTW.) I dig it big time.

In any event, this is how we resolve the issue. I (that's me) Locks you (that's you) in a room without food, water or toilet until you agree that reality is real and you promise to forever abandon solipsism.

Does it prove anything? No.

Will in convince you? It will either kill you or convince you. Both have roughly the same outcome of ending any serious entertainment of such thoughts.

ETA: No, it might not even convince you. You might be lying to get out still believing that it is all in your mind.

So in the end whether we believe in reality or not it doesn't matter. The fidler plays and we dance...or die.

Soapy Sam

27th March 2006, 04:19 PM

Replace "or" with "and" otherwise, I agree.

shemp

27th March 2006, 04:34 PM

If somebody comes up with a proof that we DON'T exist, would you please let me know so I don't have to pay my income taxes?

RandFan

27th March 2006, 05:36 PM

If somebody comes up with a proof that we DON'T exist, would you please let me know so I don't have to pay my income taxes?:D

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th March 2006, 05:55 PM

If somebody comes up with a proof that we DON'T exist, would you please let me know so I don't have to pay my income taxes?
I'll let you know, but don't forget that you have to pay your nonexistent income taxes, then.

~~ Paul

krelnius

27th March 2006, 08:58 PM

Hey come on give me some credit, I came back see? I just visit like once every day or 2 is all. I'm lazy. ;)

Now as for my response to...everyone...this post was kinda my follow up post to my post on why we dream. I consider dreams and the idea that all reality is basically in the mind to be easily linked to eachother for arguments sake.

Obviously the idea that we have to take reality for what it is...is correct...I mean, true there is no proof that we don't exist...but the idea itself means that it can't be proven...its kind of like saying there is a bar and grill in another universe...or Christianity somewhat....the claim itself is believable because it is a lot like saying God did everything....then when someone says "Wow! Look at that!" a believer can jsut say "Yep. God did it." and when someone says to prove Gods existance they can simply say "God wants his believers to take him on faith, but we know he is there!"

To the one poster who asked whether my favorite movies are the matrix trilogy...for pies sake no...no no no and an everlasting NO. I hated all 3 of the matrix movies...I think their a bunch of rip offs of modern and even some classic anime. Especially the action scenes...really obvious DragonBallZ influence there with some scenes being close to a "copy & paste" job. But please...do not get me start on how badly I hate those movies.

Moving on...I just had another question for you guys! Woot! Here it is...

Ok, this isnt it, a little reason first. I've read before that with certain parts of the brain being linked to certain sensory input such as smell, taste, and touch that by stimulating areas on the brain that someone can be made to think that something is happening when its not...like an old smell or taste or sensation etc. This sounds like crap to me and I can't remember where I read it, but if it was true then if such a technology was fine tuned to a science couldnt we simulate entire dreams by sequencing the reactions? Oh...and like...putting the person asleep and paralyzing them...or something?

Basically I'm asking, why can't we simulate or force dreams?

joller

27th March 2006, 09:38 PM

I hated all 3 of the matrix movies...I think their a bunch of rip offs of modern and even some classic anime.

aha! So you saw the 2nd and 3rd one, even though you saw the 1st one!
really obvious DragonBallZ influence there with some scenes being close to a "copy & paste" job.
oh boy..

Moving on...I just had another question for you guys! Woot! Here it is...

I've read before that with certain parts of the brain being linked to certain sensory input such as smell, taste, and touch that by stimulating areas on the brain that someone can be made to think that something is happening when its not...like an old smell or taste or sensation etc. This sounds like crap to me and I can't remember where I read it, but if it was true then if such a technology was fine tuned to a science couldnt we simulate entire dreams by sequencing the reactions?
It's not technicaly possible yet, but it is researched, and patent for the idea has been pursued by Sony about a year ago
http://www.swissbiotechassociation.ch/files/countryprofile/ST_NewsJ_April_2005.pdf
search for 'matrix' in the PDF, it's copy protected, can't copy and paste.
another link:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18624944.600
Interestingly, sony wants to use the idea for .. computer games! I'm thinking it would do for cool interactive TV and perfect virtual reality.
My friends think the best implementation of the idea is to create... virtual brothels.

Interesting, that in Japan you can just patent an idea like that, without any technology etc. being developed. Won't it just stop the progress in this particular area?

TjW

27th March 2006, 10:36 PM

Ok, so here is my next question that requires more knowledge than I have on hand in a small town in Missouri.

Is there proof we exist?

Not only is there one proof, there's ninety proof.
If that's not proof enough, there's 140 proof.
If you need more proof than that, there's Everclear, at 200 proof.

lostnick3

27th March 2006, 11:07 PM

dont belive anything you hear and only half of what you see. delveing into dreams is a pretty tricky busness. dont even know whats going on when we're awake yet. and how do we know we're here "this side of the other side" the answer comes and goes as you age.

lostnick3

27th March 2006, 11:11 PM

but its hard to keep everclear at 200 proof because of water vapor in the air

Jimbo07

27th March 2006, 11:38 PM

To the one poster who asked whether my favorite movies are the matrix trilogy...for pies sake no...no no no and an everlasting NO. I hated all 3 of the matrix movies...

See...

and I kinda liked the first one. The 'power system' was a terribly executed idea (so bad, in fact, that it prevents the Matrix from being my all-time favorite). It combined that sort-of fun 2:00 am discussion about the meaning of reality (or afternoon discussion if you're VN), with some nice action/adventure. It had a little bit of everything for everyone... with sunglasses added for style... :cool:

The other two were average sci-fi, and drek at that!

RandFan

28th March 2006, 01:58 AM

Basically I'm asking, why can't we simulate or force dreams? Now? Or Ever?

For now we don't understand the hardware and code well enough. In the future I don't see why not.

Your getting ever closer to the Matrix movies. That's ok. So, your questions are not meant to illicit information there is somewhere you are taking us?

aggle-rithm

28th March 2006, 07:08 AM

If somebody comes up with a proof that we DON'T exist, would you please let me know so I don't have to pay my income taxes?

Oh, no! Don't think for a SECOND that non-existence will get you off the hook!

aggle-rithm

28th March 2006, 07:09 AM

but its hard to keep everclear at 200 proof because of water vapor in the air

It can still be homeopathic 200 proof.

Sapien

28th March 2006, 07:47 AM

I think, therefore I am. If I didn't exist, you would not have read this reply.

Hellbound

28th March 2006, 07:55 AM

Well.

No matter whether we really exist or not, or whether the universe is really out there or not, there are a few things to be aware of.

Whether real or illusion, what we experience has consequences that appear to be "real". We feel pain, discomfort, hunger, happiness, pleasure, etc. So far, we haven't been made aware of any other "real" besides what we experience. Thus, the only pragmatic conclusion is that, whether real or not, we shoudl treat what we experience as reality; as it appears to affect us as if it were "really real".

Iamme

28th March 2006, 08:45 AM

If everything is a figment of our imagination, does it mean that our imagination is a figment of itself?

Man!...is THAT ever confounding. Headache city! :)

krelnius

28th March 2006, 02:42 PM

Well IMO Sony is on the right track. I'd rather have a version of counter strike where I can smell the crack in the crackhouse map....ok mayeb not that far...but you get the idea. As for vr hookers...well, I look down on that concept as much as it seems you do DragonBallZ.;)

I'd much rather see technology go towards something fun than something perverted. If your that obsessed...ya know...their IS an opposite sex out there...or atleast I've heard. :confused:

uruk

28th March 2006, 03:36 PM

Here's a paper where some Berkley students produced phosphenes by stimulating the occiptal lobe with an electro-magnetic field.

(warning, It opens a PDF file)

http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1993%20Phosphenes%20Induced%20by%20Magnetic%20Stim ulation.pdf

Checkmite

28th March 2006, 07:09 PM

Stop paying your bills for a while, and keep an eye on your mail. You'll receive all sorts of proof that you exist.

Elind

28th March 2006, 07:15 PM

Ok, so here is my next question that requires more knowledge than I have on hand in a small town in Missouri.

Is there proof we exist?

Are you not really asking "why" we exist?

Dunno.

As to whether or not; take this posted reply as proof positive. How much more evidence would you like?

You could try to kill yourself and see if we still exist. Some people call that religion.

RandFan

28th March 2006, 09:55 PM

I think, therefore I am. If I didn't exist, you would not have read this reply. Sure I would have. My dream would be supplying it for me. Dreams do that.

RandFan

28th March 2006, 09:56 PM

MattusMaximus

28th March 2006, 10:11 PM

So, my question is, in an existence where basically our mind tells us everything we know...how do we know that our mind is telling the truthe, or that its all a big lie?

Krelnius, the Matrix has you ;)

Cheers - Mattus

Mrs. Hmmphries

28th March 2006, 10:50 PM

Everytime I hear a question like this, I want to poke the asker repeatedly with a very sharp stick until they conceed that they do exist...or until they get blood on my shoes. One or the other.

lostnick3

30th March 2006, 03:50 PM

Then give her the short answers and a little chocolate

Lamuella

30th March 2006, 04:01 PM

to paraphrase Pierre-Simon Laplace: "I have no need for this hypothesis".

The postulation that nothing that my senses tell me is real, but is instead a vivid hallucination is bereft of useful information. As all I can experience is this world, how am I helped by the idea that this world is not real?

When faced with a vivid, all-encompassing, coherent hallucination that behaves like reality, you might as well call it reality.

Lamuella

30th March 2006, 04:06 PM

and I kinda liked the first one. The 'power system' was a terribly executed idea (so bad, in fact, that it prevents the Matrix from being my all-time favorite).

absolutely. From the moment I saw the first one, I wondered why they went with "power" as the reason for keeping humans around. Why not use cows? The Cow Matrix would have all of the power and none of the risk.

Wouldn't it have been a much better idea for humans to be farmed for their processing power? The brain is a remarkable thing. It's a much stronger science fiction idea for brainpower to be farmed rather than heat.

Jimbo07

30th March 2006, 04:25 PM

Wouldn't it have been a much better idea for humans to be farmed for their processing power? The brain is a remarkable thing. It's a much stronger science fiction idea for brainpower to be farmed rather than heat.

Problem with that: some amount of that finite processing resource would be required to maintain the illusion.

I thought of 3 fictional scenarios that might convey a more 'realistic' feel

i) They're trapped in an n-deep stack of simulations. The machine war, itself, was a lie (of course, as we've discussed on this board it's a useless description of reality... but that could be part of the horror!)
ii) The lead AI went 'off' during the war and came up with a sadistic way to torture humans (dangle victory in front of awakened eyes), at a power expense!
iii) A human group was controlling the machines and simulation! What enslavement!

Iamme

30th March 2006, 04:41 PM

JayT

30th March 2006, 05:10 PM

Is there proof we exist?

That depends entirely on what your threshold of 'proof' is.

Some people are easy to convince of anything. Individual intelligence plays an important role in trying to convince someone of something.

For example, how do you 'PROVE' your mathematical theory is correct to another person who cannot read your math symbols? All that person sees is meaningless, strange, cryptic symbols and remains unconvinced for obvious reasons. One might wonder, do symbols actually constitute proof of anything? Under such circumstances, what would possibly convince the other person that you were correct?

Perhaps you should ask yourself some questions first:

"If I do exist, what kind of evidence would it take to convince me?"

"If I do not exist, what kind of evidence would it take to convince me?"

Any 'proof' would have to be validated by scientific methods. That's where it gets really sticky in defining what you mean by 'proof'.

Logically speaking, all of our experienced 'reality' is a 'lie', since when more closely examined, nothing is really what we perceive it to be in the final analysis.

In that context, no proof is definitive whether we answer 'yes' or 'no' to that question.

Blame Quantum Mechanics for that! QM is evil !
LOL

I think it's one of those endless philosophical questions with no possible satisfactory answer.

Not to be a stick in the mud, but I've often wondered if questions that cannot ever hope for an answer are worthy of prolonged debate - especially questions that have lasted for thousands of years and are no more answerable today than they were several millennia ago.

But, one can dream.

:)

Molinaro

30th March 2006, 05:22 PM

I think a satisfactory answer could be looked for by answering the question:

Would a perfect simulation of a particular existance be any less real than what it simulates?

If I am just a simulation, I am still just as real as if I wasn't a simulation. The sum total of my experiences is going to be what I am in either case.

Sapien

30th March 2006, 05:42 PM

Sure I would have. My dream would be supplying it for me. Dreams do that.

Well said and maybe so RandFan but the thing that's going to plague you in the morning is whether it was your dream that supplied it or mine!

JayT

30th March 2006, 05:57 PM

... Would a perfect simulation of a particular existance be any less real than what it simulates?

It couldn't know unless it (the simulation) could examine the external thing it was supposed to be simulating and make a comparison.

How could your video game character examine your 'real' world to determine his status as pertains to his possible reality as opposed to the reality of his creator?

From his viewpoint, you would be a supernatural being he could only speculate about forever, but never meet on equal grounds of 'reality'.

In his world, only the Pastor Woo and his congregation would believe in you.

Evidently, two different 'realities' cannot be directly compared in any meaningful way.

Do dead people ask, "Am I dead or is it all just a very realistic dream?"

Maybe being able to contemplate reality is proof in itself of reality.

Lamuella

30th March 2006, 05:59 PM

Problem with that: some amount of that finite processing resource would be required to maintain the illusion.

True, but you could argue that the more the mind was stimulated the more useful processing could be done. It's a little bit pseudoscientific bollocks, but this is The Matrix we're talking about.

lostnick3

30th March 2006, 06:45 PM

you controi input how much does he get?

This Guy

30th March 2006, 08:44 PM

I drink, therefore I am.

And topics like this really get me drinking ;)

SirPhilip

30th March 2006, 10:14 PM

BTW, the philosophical term for this issue is "epistomology", and it's been debated for centuries, so it shouldn't be hard to find all the lousy theories (in addition to mine) that you want on it.A strange implication of an objective world is events occuring prior to being born - you look back into time witnessing events through pictures and film, all happening in a universe in which you did not exist yet. Your awareness was nowhere, nothing, at the time. You were uncreated - yet events happened. It's utterly absurd in an existential sense.

lostnick3

31st March 2006, 12:12 AM

looked up epistomology interesting.

am i paraphrasing this right ? your saying prior to occuping here. you can look back into time and witness events that happened prior to your trip.

SirPhilip

31st March 2006, 02:55 AM

looked up epistomology interesting.

am i paraphrasing this right ? your saying prior to occuping here. you can look back into time and witness events that happened prior to your trip. Well, obviously lots of high-adventure happened before brother Philip ever existed. The big bang, dinosaurs, the second world war, you name it - which implies:

1) You die, but the world and the ten-thousand forms of taxes remain.

2) By chance/transmigration/fate, you come into form again at a particular place and time, in some form of universe (hopefully one with beer). After surviving childhood, you notice you are alive, but have no idea what's going to happen to you afterward.

3) While huffing butane on a dare during your teenage years, you realize your own "self" is a fiction and is co-dependent with the natural enviornment.

4) While stubbing your toe on a rusty nail, which quickly becomes infected, requiring hospitalization - and also requiring you to listen to bedridden and in pain, "Lala" by Ashlee Simpson on a radio station you cannot change every three hours, you express annoyance at this undignified condition.

5) Realizing with some degree of faith you've got more mojo going on than a two-stroke engine, you set out to find some way nature provides to a) either live in a better place or b) stop this from happening again altogether.

Molinaro

31st March 2006, 07:59 AM

It couldn't know unless it (the simulation) could examine the external thing it was supposed to be simulating and make a comparison.
.
.

That's the point of the question. Even if you were simply a perfect simulation, you would have no basis for drawing that conclusion. Hence, no frame of reference (or state of existence) should allow one to come to any definitive answer as to whether or not your reality is a 'real one'.

If on the other hand you were to say that no perfect simulation is ever possible, because true reality includes complexities that cannot be exactly defined, hence cannot be exactly simulated. That would be your definition of the true reality corresponding to a true existence:

The true existence of reality is that which cannot be simulated.

Jimbo07

31st March 2006, 09:13 AM

It's a little bit pseudoscientific bollocks, but this is The Matrix we're talking about.

That's why I was going the unprovability or malicious intents routes, no pseudoscience required, beyond the fantasy spun to the inhabitants.

I actually have a lot of respect for sci-fi authors who can incorporate good science into their work. Kim Stanley Robinson did an excellent job of this in the Mars books. I'm trying to work out an FTL system for an interstellar civilization, and it's hard to achieve all 3 objectives: i) make it non-woo-ish, ii) not copy every other sci-fi out there, and iii) result in an interesting setting, appropriate for the stories I want to tell. It's hard!

It's worse when people go the other way around, trying to pull gobbledygook from sci-fi and presenting it as a theory of reality :mad: . That technique does a favour, neither to science, nor science fiction. Any pseudoscience is designed to support the fiction in the first place, not the other way around. Sci-fi is better at inspiration than explanation...