Metanet Forums

I was re-watching some of the extra DVD content in my Matrix Ultimate Collection box set the other day (I'm a geek...so sue me), and I heard several plausible arguments that what we are experiencing isn't reality. Many philosophers (going back to Plato and his ilk) have thought the same thing, each with slightly different theories about the nature of reality.

I've done a bit of reading on it too, and although I'm not ready to attempt suicide to get out, I've found the arguments quite convincing that we aren't currently participating in reality.

Thoughts, opinions?

Some background reading: Simulated reality, Simulation hypothesis, or Dream argument.

"Y'know how I know we're not in the Matrix? If we were, the food would be better." -Sheldon Cooper

Shit's too crazy for this to be some arbitrated sub-reality. There are surprises everywhere, particularly in the sciences... breakthroughs that reveal something mind-bending and inconvenient that we can nonetheless harness for our own use. If our reality was structured, it would be beyond stupid for whoever made the thing to make it all so very ridiculously complicated and nonsensical on a fundamental level. Unless we're in a reality that was designed to stress-test the human brain (which could be done far more effectively without the excessive elaboration of, y'know, the rest of reality), there's no friggin' way something that designed all this could possibly also be so stupid.

Then again, that's not knowledge or proof of anything; I'm saying that the chance is so close to zero that we're in a simulated reality that it may as well be zero.

Yet I have no motivation to find a true reality, even if this is some bizarre simulation. Cypher had it all right.

Tsukatu wrote:"Y'know how I know we're not in the Matrix? If we were, the food would be better." -Sheldon Cooper

Great program. I love The Big Bang Theory.

What if it wasn't a matrix thing, but it is an advanced civilization's simulator game?
Does it even really matter? I'm happy simulated or not.

Don't make things more complicated than they have to be.

Reality is subjective; the reflection on the wall is the prisoners' reality, and it's just as a really real one.

Also, QFE @ flag.

No, I'm pretty sure that our concept of reality is what makes it reality. Like, honestly? If this is a "computer program" that our brains are experiencing, it's so complex and ridiculous that there is no point in acknowledging that that is what it is.

SlappyMcGee wrote:No, I'm pretty sure that our concept of reality is what makes it reality. Like, honestly? If this is a "computer program" that our brains are experiencing, it's so complex and ridiculous that there is no point in acknowledging that that is what it is.

It's similar to Windows Vista. It tries to look simple, but it's just complex and becomes useless most of the time. It's life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper

SlappyMcGee wrote:No, I'm pretty sure that our concept of reality is what makes it reality. Like, honestly? If this is a "computer program" that our brains are experiencing, it's so complex and ridiculous that there is no point in acknowledging that that is what it is.

And yet, if this is the true state of things, regardless of how it affected our daily life, it would still bother the hell out of the free-thinking, Thoreau-worshiping independents who like to think they decided which coffee to drink based on rational choice or something.

That sentence got out of control fast.

QFE is what I was trying to say. That's what I meant by my earlier post.

Flycatcher wrote:Reality is subjective objective; ASDFA;LSKDJFLKASDJFDSAKLF

Tunco wrote:
SlappyMcGee wrote:No, I'm pretty sure that our concept of reality is what makes it reality. Like, honestly? If this is a "computer program" that our brains are experiencing, it's so complex and ridiculous that there is no point in acknowledging that that is what it is.
It's similar to Windows Vista. It tries to look simple, but it's just complex and becomes useless most of the time. It's life.

Can brains upgrade to windows 7?

Tunco wrote:
SlappyMcGee wrote:No, I'm pretty sure that our concept of reality is what makes it reality. Like, honestly? If this is a "computer program" that our brains are experiencing, it's so complex and ridiculous that there is no point in acknowledging that that is what it is.
It's similar to Windows Vista. It tries to look simple, but it's just complex and becomes useless most of the time. It's life.

I think it is interesting that an OS would be substituted here for reality. Not that being able to communicate with a computer in binary is impossible, but the level of ridiculousness that goes into making an OS work so functionally is a very cool metaphor.

My not so firm grip on reality is as such. I can only know that my immediate surroundings are in fact real unless some illusions are involved. Everything else that is far away from me is mostly a very good guess. In fact this is probably why I like to find out things for myself rather than pay attention to anyone else's opinions. If I didn't know beforehand that 1 + 1 is 2... I would have to prove it to myself.

It doesn't help when you can have differing opinions on sanity.

So let's assume by some miraculous discovery we conclude that we are infact some sort of computer generated "reality". What difference does it make?

WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO? EAT THE PILL?

This made me think of the fact that regardless of how hard we try, our perception of reality is always delayed from the moment something happens to the time we perceive it. (If we perceive it that is.)
I think as far as reality goes this can be the only suggestion that we are not experiencing reality, but I believe we are truly living in whatever it is that we decide to call reality.

Blackson wrote:So let's assume by some miraculous discovery we conclude that we are infact some sort of computer generated "reality". What difference does it make?

There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

Whatever the heck this is, reality or not, we should enjoy it.

I believe that all this stuff is way to complicated to be simulated, and that the odd omnipotent aliens/scientists that are watching us would of stopped some of the stupid actions that happened.

So let's assume by some miraculous discovery we conclude that we are infact some sort of computer generated "reality". What difference does it make?

We reverse engineer the program and predict the future!
Those with the power would become GODS!
We would be almighty, masters of our own destiny![/overhype]

"I guess reality is what you make of it." Reality is down to individual interpretation.

Broghan wrote:"I guess reality is what you make of it." Reality is down to individual interpretation.

Okay, I'm going to be excessively nit-picky here and call this statement completely empty.
At first, I figured that you were saying that reality is defined by individual interpretation. For one thing, you quickly end up in a convoluted loop if you try to define something by interpreting an already present definition. Interpretation entails some separate existing thing (the object of interpretation), and if reality is this thing, then clearly it has some form outside of the one it's given by the interpreter. But if it's then defined by its own interpretation (especially by humans, of which no single member can fully comprehend the entirety of reality), then we've necessarily changed it drastically. It cannot ever resemble whatever the heck it once was. Or if you don't even think reality existed before humans were there to define it through this "interpretation" process (which would make "interpret" a poor choice of a word), then you're saying that humans were the Creators.
So you're either guaranteeing that we're all completely schizophrenic, you're calling us gods who don't realize our own perfect knowledge and/or creation of reality, or you didn't mean to say something quite like this.

The only alternative I can think that you might have meant is that each person's understanding of reality is a subjective interpretation of it, which is to say that each person's interpretation of reality is his interpretation of reality, which is not a useful piece of information because it's an identity.
My perception of reality is my perception of reality. My right foot is my right foot. One equals one. Fucking brilliant.
If this latter bit is what you meant (which is also the only reasonable interpretation of what you wrote, I think), then you've said nothing meaningful. Which is to say, you're talking out of your ass.

I'm really not trying to be a complete dick here... it's just that I remembered a war I declared on "wise" phrases that are empty at their core, and that I should probably get back in the game.

Ooh. Nicely said.

scythe33 wrote:
Blackson wrote:So let's assume by some miraculous discovery we conclude that we are infact some sort of computer generated "reality". What difference does it make?
There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

QFE. That is a brilliant short story, and I hope that everyone has read it, several times.

There is that core question of whether or not the nature of reality matters. It would seem that it doesn't, since reality will likely march on either way (although perhaps we could suppose some eventuality like that of Prof. Moriarty in ST:TNG, where Moriarty realizes that he is in a holodeck and learns to call up the Arch control console, thus taking control of the holodeck).

Nonetheless, curiosity drives us to investigate such matters. I, myself, find it quite plausible if not likely that we inhabit a simulation. There is always the root question of existence, that is the question of where space "is", if you will. Your answer is as good as mine.

scythe33 wrote:
Blackson wrote:So let's assume by some miraculous discovery we conclude that we are infact some sort of computer generated "reality". What difference does it make?
There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.

Oh, wow, I completely missed that the first time around. scythe, <3.

Yes, Tsukatu, I do realise that my post was a little empty in it's interpretation. I should elaborate that I think that reality is indeed subjective, as you speculated relating to what I said.
I don't really appreciate the ultimately harsh analysis of my post, as I am just simply putting my opinion out there. I believe that we each live in a reality that is our own, and it just so happens that the majority of us live in one that is the same. You can't say that someone with a mental disorder such as Schizophrenia lives in a reality the same as everyone else, or that a person who has severe post-traumatic stress can be considered "the norm" when it comes to what an individual's reality should be, which leads be to believe that we each experience reality in a different way, that is my point.

You weren't being a complete dick, Tsukatu, and I do admire your candor and the way that you say what you think.

Metanet Forums

Reality?

Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?

Re: Reality?