False statement: "it does not exist"

[htirwin]

In philosophy, it is thought to only be provable that you exist, (yourself). The famous, "I think therefore I exist", argument. Anything else could be a figment of your imagination like unicorns are. But I would venture to say that it's not provable that you (yourself) are not an artificially intelligent character in a simulation, or even a figment of another persons imagination. But if that is so, then there must be something generating you. What is generating you could also be a simulation or figment of an imagination, then it would also need to be generated by something.

The true question then becomes, is there a base case? If not, is an infinitely recursive system of reality simulation or imagination rooted in reality?

It might be a related question to ask wether the universe, or anything for that matter can truly be infinite. Or, can the Universe, defined as everything that exists, be finite?

Can we really even prove under these circumstances that at least one thing exists? I think that it is possible.

[devonrevenge]

Paintings are lesser than games because the latter unite Apollonian and Dionysian elements.

I don't know what that means but i would never squander an opportunity to say that around arty types who I want to think im clever(er than I am)

[LB]

@Disch, thank you, I agree with you.

[Oria]

@Disch; seems like philosophy makes you angry?

Disch wrote:

I really hate this "Matrix" crap

This concept is much older then the Matrix, however, why so much anger about the subject? I understand, not everyone agrees with some principles of philosophy, however not having proof of something, does not make it unreal. You remind me of scientist who swore that the earth was flat and that flying would be impossible.

[LB]

@Oria: it's not philosophy :p

[chrisname]

@devonrevenge
It's a concept that Nietzsche discusses at length in The Birth of Tragedy Out of the Spirit of Music (although I'm fairly sure the idea pre-existed him). It refers to the Greek gods of art, Apollo and Dionysus. Apollonian art is very structured and orderly, Apollo being the god of reason, so painting is Apollonian. Music, on the other hand, is Dionysian, Dionysus being the god of wine, revelry, etc. Nietzsche says that the tragedies of the ancient Greek playwrights Sophocles and Aeschylus are the pinnacle of art because they unite Apollonian and Dionysian elements. I would say that video games also unite the two, although maybe I wouldn't go so far as to say that video games were the pinnacle of art.

[Oria]

@LB:
Hmmm, yeah it is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Wikipedia wrote:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language

[chrisname]

Saying metaphysics is not philosophy is like saying algebra is not maths. Okay, metaphysics ≠ philosophy just as algebra ≠ maths; but metaphysics ϵ philosophy just as algebra ϵ maths.

[Disch]

Oria wrote:

@Disch; seems like philosophy makes you angry?

Not necessarily. Only stupid philosophy does. There's nothing wrong with self-reflection when it has purpose. This topic has no purpose.

Oria wrote:

however not having proof of something, does not make it unreal.

Not having any proof of something makes it conjecture. And makes it as likely as the idiotic "foot laser gun" situation I gave in my previous post.

Good philosophy at least tries to answer a question that has practical merit and the potential to improve or at least change peoples lives. Philosophy that is based on nothing but conjecture is bad philosophy. And philosophy that not only is based on conjecture, but also opposes proven scientific fundamentals is flat out retarded.

Unfortunately, most armchair philosophers (read: you and most other people in this thread) don't get that, and so they waste their time with these kinds of questions and give real philosophy a bad name.


There is absolutely no reason to think that we are living in a simulation. No more than there is to think that my foot magically morphs into a gun when nobody is looking. And in fact there are dozens of reasons which suggest that we don't live in a simulation.

Oria wrote:

You remind me of scientist who swore that the earth was flat and that flying would be impossible.

I was thinking the same about you. The Earth being flat is a baseless assumption... just as thinking we are part of a simulation is also a baseless assumption.

But you're crossing wires here. The scientists that changed peoples minds about the Earth being round did so with evidence... not with philosophy. They didn't say "Hey, guys, what if the Earth was really round?" They said "Hey guys, I think the Earth is round because we can see a subtle curve on the horizon and because traveling east/west spans more relative distance when you move further north."


But you don't even need scientific evidence for this discussion to have meaning. You just need to be able to draw some kind of parallel to reality. So far nobody here has done that. At least not that I've seen.

All I've seen is a bunch of discussion on semantics and hair-brained speculation.

[cire]

hair-brained speculation

That brings to mind an amusing image.

Hannibal Lecter removes the skull cap only to find a regurgitated fur ball occupies the cavity within. Damn cats.

[devonrevenge]

@chrisname, you would have made a good point in an annoying debate in the guardian, someone wrote an article in it about how games could never even be art, he had never played a game in his life though :P

I like what shadows of the colossus made me do, and I felt pangs I was doing something wrong as I played it, if the purpose of modern art is to provoke a reaction you never thought you may have had, I think it succeeded

[Oria]

Disch wrote:

just as thinking we are part of a simulation is also a baseless assumption.

In a sense I dont really believe we are part of a simulation, mainly because I am christian and that is what I believe in. However, your point makes no sense, considering we have no real scientific proof that we are not part of a simulation, which technically, we could not begin to comprehend due to our lack of understanding. (like an ant trying to understand computer science).

Disch wrote:

Not necessarily. Only stupid philosophy does. There's nothing wrong with self-reflection when it has purpose. This topic has no purpose.

If you don't find a purpose, then don't read these posts, you have no obligation to. However, you have to have an open mind to understand a lot about philosophy. The term "stupid philosophy" only brings me to think that you do not really understand it, and that you are close minded.

[Olysold]

Is there even actual room for good philosophy in this time and age? I pretty much figured any talk about philosophy is like conversing at the water cooler (or a circle).

Disch how do you expect that this discussion have meaning when the OP is not even clear about what is meant? It's pretty much split between dictionary definition, philosophy and semantics.

[Disch]

However, your point makes no sense, considering we have no real scientific proof that we are not part of a simulation

I never said you needed scientific proof. In fact I said the exact opposite. All you need is to be able to draw some kind of parallel.

Answer me this question:

Assuming we are just part of a simulation, what would that imply? How would that change anyone's life in any meaningful way?

The term "stupid philosophy" only brings me to think that you do not really understand it, and that you are close minded.

So you think my "foot laser gun" suggestion is real philosophy?

You can't disprove it and there's just as much reason to think it might be true as there is to think we might be in a simulation.



EDIT:

Also there's a difference between being open minded and being gullible. I am certainly open to entertain theories and speculation provided they have some merit.

[cire]

Oria wrote:

If you don't find a purpose, then don't read these posts, you have no obligation to. However, you have to have an open mind to understand a lot about philosophy.

If you don't want these posts responded to by people who read public posts, don't post 'em in public. One doesn't need an open mind to "understand a lot about philosophy." One that grasps logic does nicely.

Oria wrote:

The term "stupid philosophy" only brings me to think that you do not really understand it, and that you are close minded.

This brings to mind a certain pot and kettle. I believe they were black.

[Oria]

Disch wrote:

Assuming we are just part of a simulation, what would that imply? How would that change anyone's life in any meaningful way?

It wouldn't, because if it were the case, I doubt we would be able to even understand it. I think we strayed off a little... This was just to explain that everything exists in its own way, whether it is in the form of the real world, or a fabricated one. To explain my point I presented that the real world could be fabricated too... but at this point we are butting heads and going around in circles.

So to that note;
"I would love to change the world, but they won't give me the source code"

[Disch]

It wouldn't,

Which is exactly my point.

There's no value in speculating about something if it doesn't make any difference whether or not the speculation is true.

That's not philosophy.

[Ispil]

This isn't even an actual question- it's debating whether there is something (that is either real or otherwise, apparently) that cannot be interpreted. Now, going off of several definitions, they all hold one key point, and that is that it is conveying meaning... So this whole thread is stating "if it has meaning, it exists." And since meaning is subjective, the question can't even be answered simply, nor does it actually have any relevance. You're basically asking whether there is something that is meaningless, when meaning itself is subjective. So, if something can't be explained and lacks meaning, then it doesn't exist. Of course, one could do the whole "with 7 billion people, at least 1 must find meaning in the things that the rest don't, so therefore everything has meaning, and thus exists blah blah blah" argument, but at this point there's nothing really to argue. Unless, of course, you want to start arguing about what "meaning" is in the first place. Which, as you can see, only begs more questions: and if you haven't figured this out, these are the reasons why this whole argument is stupid- it's arguing about definitions. There are better philosophical questions to debate versus the cliche-metaphysical ones. Especially ones that aren't semantics.

However, if you are someone who likes questions about whether anything exists, I recommend that you read Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell. It's a rather interesting book (or in my case, textbook). It goes from metaphysics to the concept of knowledge, to the sciences, and all the way back again.

[htirwin]

You can't disprove it and there's just as much reason to think it might be true as there is to think we might be in a simulation.

EDIT:

Also there's a difference between being open minded and being gullible. I am certainly open to entertain theories and speculation provided they have some merit.

Your interpreting this backwards. The point is finding out what can be proven to be absolute truth. The idea that we could be in a simulation is not being gullible, it's the exact opposite. It's the most extreme end of skepticism where absolutely nothing is taken for grant-it.

Of course this particular discussion is not real philosophy or metaphysics because most of what has been stated is fallacious, and the terms have not even been defined.

The value of philosophy is in learning how to think logically, view things from different perspectives, to separate fact from assumption, and build valid logical structure.

We have to make some assumptions in order to establish some order of truthiness. But these assumptions are best very simple in which there is incredibly strong reasoning to believe they are true. For example the axioms that mathematics are based on, like 1 + 1 = 2. Once you make those assumptions then you build logical structures based on them, but you cannot forget the assumptions they are based on are not or cannot be proven.

[Daleth]

If it can be interpreted, it exists. Therefore, everything exists.

If everything exists, then for nothing to exist also exists. Therefore, for nothing to exist also does not exist. Therefore, for nothing to exist also exist. Therefore...

Not everything is real, though...

But if everything that exists does not have to be real, then for everything to be interpretable does not have to be not real. Therefore, for everything to exist does not have to be real either.

But what happens to this convoluted conjecture if we add "the possibility" before every "for?"


Philosophy? What philosophy? This is non-restricted rambling. >:|