Philosothread: Metaphysics of Reality

[twilight24 323]

I think it would be fun to have intellectual  and serious debates and topics that require thought. For as long as I've been on here, there is a lot of acceptance and tolerance with the occasional rude or ignorant person.

[Idris 241]

MLP a is a great forum and I'm fascinated by the discussions it has. I mean, come on, philosophy! Am I into this one

I did a lot of thinking about God and the universe and I came to some conclusions that I am mostly happy with. One of the the problems was fate, because I had a good idea of people being psychic and changing their future given the information they received. This was at total odds with Fate, which says your life is written. It looked like my life was driven by what I have done, what I am doing and a little bit by what I might do, as reflected back through time. Which led me to a direct problem with the tick-tock of the seconds through which I live. So far I am working on the theory that what is outside of me is governed by a universal clock which is totally screwy. Call it a 'k' factor if you like. It partly explains the things that defy science.

There's that 'common thought' concept that fascinates me too, where ideas pass like they are linked across an animal internet.

But I can offer somthing more concrete than what I have written above, and that is how much we are what we have witnessed around us and expirienced. A few years ago I had a nervous breakdown which caused a huge amount of data loss. Seriously like running a magnet over a hard drive! And it has changed my outlook a fair bit. So I can conclude that maybe I think therefore I am, but also I am what I remember.

[Suukorak 354]

@@Steel Accord
The scientific method is a great way for bringing new things into external reality, but it relies on the belief (or agreement) that there is something externally real already. So yes- if there is an external reality, I am quite happy to bring in scientific knowledge, but we have to make the first step out of our minds before that can happen. That first step is the most important, and it's seeming more possible now than before. I have to think more before I can decide whether I believe that.

 

 

Artistic value, morality, love, friendship, indeed philosophy, these things don't physically exist. You can't hold them, they aren't observable through scientific or technological means like gravity or the invisible portions of the light spectrum are, but aren't they just as real as time or matter?

 

Ooh, this is an interesting point. It reminds me a great deal of the Platonic Forms [wikipedia]. It seems to me, though, that different people have very different definitions of love or art or morality. Thus the central thing "Art" might not exist at all, and even if it does, we have to allow for very different interpretations of it. Most of these things I am quite willing to put in the realm of the mind, and what limited agreement there is concerning them is most likely a product of culture rather than observing the same thing. Still, I'm curious - what makes you say that love is an external thing rather than an internal concept?

 

 

 

I can think, therefore I definitely exist. My senses give me information about something, therefore something, possibly the world as told by my senses, exists. That's all that can be proven.

 

This is a tricky point. I wouldn't go so far as to say that my senses must be triggered by external things. It's clear that internal things (dreams, or maybe drugs) can also trigger the senses. Maybe my whole idea was just Descartes' dream problem [wikipedia] in disguise. What could be happening, though, is that even these delusions need something to distort; one good argument I can think of for reality is that there are patterns to it which help shape my thoughts, and yet remain unchanged as they change me. This is also something I have to think about more.

 

 

The probability that we are in a "matrix" right now, is bigger than you think.

 

This is possible, yes. However, I wouldn't put too much faith in those probabilities. We have very little idea of the "probability" of something being possible. What was the probability that our universe got attractive rather than repulsive gravity? No idea. We have no pattern to observe from. I think what we need is a conditional probability. If "matrixing" is possible and accepted in a larger universe, we are very likely "matrixed." Otherwise, quite unlikely. I remember someone was doing an experiment to see if our reality used a convenient shortcut which would most likely mean that we were matrixed. I don't remember if they published results yet, though.

 

 

 

Hey, who says the Matrix would be bad? Immortality, physical space and material limited only by bandwidth and processor power, our environments being entirely controlled by the limitless potential of the mind? Sounds like something I'd vacation with at the very least.

 

Yeah, it's nice, but some people would rather live in a real reality. I don't know, in my case. I'd have to understand the nature of the thing better.

 

 

One day a Guru asked the Buddha if there was a God. The Buddha said, "no." There was much rejoicing that day, so many did things they never would have done if they had faith that there was a God. At the end of the day, a materialist (one who believed in only what they could see or observe) came from out of town and he asked the Buddha the same question. The Buddha said, "yes, there is a God."   What do you think Siddhartha meant?

 

Oh, I love these of stories, but they tie me in knots! Maybe he meant that you should doubt or think about your assumptions, but that seems an odd way to do so. Maybe he means that the presence of God is through the actions of people, in which case both answers come across as a test of faith or conviction... I really don't know. What do you think?

 

 

Religion has been discussed many times and many times to mutually beneficial results and with respect all around. We're bronies, unlike many places, we actually care about creating an accepting and nurturing environment.

True, so perhaps it's worth a shot. It's not a critical point for the moment, though. You guys are posting almost faster than I can respond! It's perfect! 

The philosophy- it just keeps coming! You guys are awesome!

@@Idris, great thinking. You brought up some great questions. Are we the sum of our memories? Do we have free will? How do those two questions interact? These are great things to think about. I might use one of these questions if I make a second thread.

[shameless fanfic plug warning!]

 

I wrote a one-shot about the question of memories, which you can find here, if you're interested.

 

I have some questions about your ideas, though.

One, when you talk about the giant clock, what do you mean that it's "screwy"? Is there something in particular you can see that makes it "screwy"?

Two, do you mean that inside of you there is no clock? If so, what makes you think that, and what does it mean for you?

Three, what do your conclusions about fate and our memories mean to your belief (or lack thereof) in external reality?

 

@@twilight24, you're quite right. If it won't work here, it can't work anywhere, so it's worth a shot. When this topic dies down (if it dies, because it's amazingly active right now for a philosophy thread!), I'll make a second one with a new question. I hope everypony's enthusiasm carries over. 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

The scientific method is a great way for bringing new things into external reality, but it relies on the belief (or agreement) that there is something externally real already. So yes- if there is an external reality, I am quite happy to bring in scientific knowledge, but we have to make the first step out of our minds before that can happen. That first step is the most important, and it's seeming more possible now than before. I have to think more before I can decide whether I believe that.

 

To quote a great internet series.

 

"All logical systems have to start with a group of postulates that have to be taken on faith. All our math is built up this way, and all our science relies not on exhaustive proof but by simply being the most provable thing that hasn't yet been proven wrong."

 

"The only difference between science and religion, is that science takes faith as a starting point, whereas for religion faith is the central tenant."

 

~Extra Credits: Religion in Games part 2

 

As both a transhumanist and a person of great faith, this makes my belief that there is a provable external reality a very easy pill to swallow. I believe there is a divine intelligence or greater order to the universe and science is how we get closer to such.

 

However, by your own admission, such is not the case with you. So in order to properly answer the question, or even start to form what question you're really trying to ask, you have to address the principal of faith at least in it's most emaciated form. Even the most empirically minded people have faith in their or other's ability to test and prove things.

 

So do you believe things can be proven objectively? Is there truth?

 

(I'm asking somewhat rhetorically, you don't need to come up with a satisfactory response.)

 

 

Thus the central thing "Art" might not exist at all, and even if it does, we have to allow for very different interpretations of it. Most of these things I am quite willing to put in the realm of the mind, and what limited agreement there is concerning them is most likely a product of culture rather than observing the same thing.

 

Well that is what defines art and not science, the fact that something like The Island of Dr. Moreau is interpretable. The doesn't make it less real though. If I read a copy of said book, and another person reads a different copy, we'll both have read the same story. We may interpret the messages and themes differently, but the actual events that took place remain the same. It's the same principal as the hydrogen balloon experiment I mentioned. The same things happens regardless of your perception of it.

 

Culture is just another filter though. Plus not everyone reacts to their culture the same way. Some embrace it, others reject it. Then there's our gender, our age, our personal history and a million other things that act as filters to how we perceive things. Again though, if two people read Uncle Tom's Cabin, one on a computer and the other on a hard copy, they'll tell you the same story even if what they inflect or emphasize is different.

[Suukorak 354]

 

 

So do you believe things can be proven objectively? Is there truth?

 That's a huge question. I'm a little daunted by it, so I don't really have an answer. However, you're quite right that it seems to be the question we've all been trying to get at. Good job finding it. My intuitive answer would be yes, but I'm not all that certain. I'm going to need to think about that one.

Also, yes, I agree Extra Credits is a great series. That quote would be great to mention if we ever talk directly about religion (but that's a notoriously volatile topic, so that's probably not yet, at least).

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

Yeah, it's nice, but some people would rather live in a real reality. I don't know, in my case. I'd have to understand the nature of the thing better.

 

 

Well you're the one who's proposed there is no reality to begin with, so what would be the difference? If humans lived like ants, performing an instinctually assigned function day in and day out until they dropped and were replaced, with no sense of self or identity but lived in otherwise an undeniably physical existence, would that be real?

 

On the other hand, if we all lived in a simulation of Equestria, pursuing our dreams and passions in a world of magic and wonder where we all retained our souls, would that be real?

[Aeros Sine 492]

I'm going to take another shot at this because i need to get the hang of philosophy.

 

The parties that postulate the perception of reality have different points of views not to mention the value of ideas. For example, the metaphysical numbers that appear in mathematics can be seen as something that only the brain could conjure up but if reality is the nature in mathematics, how could it be fantasy.. I don't get it. Mathematics is more than enough to seem to explain the world and its significant figures but i don't understand how the perception of metaphysics can perpetuate inside... I'm confusing myself. Another example, the moral world makes different example of crime and reasoning behind fast food take outs and chemical affinity but how can the human perception be explain in the sense of a beginner?

 

I'm not making any sense and it has become harder to do philosophy now...at least in my head...

Edited March 20, 2015 by Aeros Sine

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 That's a huge question. I'm a little daunted by it, so I don't really have an answer. However, you're quite right that it seems to be the question we've all been trying to get at. Good job finding it. My intuitive answer would be yes, but I'm not all that certain. I'm going to need to think about that one.

Also, yes, I agree Extra Credits is a great series. That quote would be great to mention if we ever talk directly about religion (but that's a notoriously volatile topic, so that's probably not yet, at least).

 

 

Hence why I said I was asking the question rhetorically. I don't know the answer. I think there is truth, but I'm not concerned about that. Truth means comparatively little to me.

 

~ ~ ~ ~

 

I think you're approaching the topic of religion with respect but a little too much hesitance. I certainly don't mind discussing it via PM if that's what you'd prefer.

 

 

Oh, I love these of stories, but they tie me in knots! Maybe he meant that you should doubt or think about your assumptions, but that seems an odd way to do so. Maybe he means that the presence of God is through the actions of people, in which case both answers come across as a test of faith or conviction... I really don't know. What do you think?

 

I don't know what the He meant, really how can anyone besides an enlightened being know? I believe there is a God precisely because I believe in humanity. Whatever It's nature, I have faith that there is something beyond us and that It is benevolent.

[Suukorak 354]

Well you're the one who's proposed there is no reality to begin with, so what would be the difference? If humans lived like ants, performing an instinctually assigned function day in and day out until they dropped and were replaced, with no sense of self or identity but lived in otherwise an undeniably physical existence, would that be real?

 

On the other hand, if we all lived in a simulation of Equestria, pursuing our dreams and passions in a world of magic and wonder where we all retained our souls, would that be real?

To be clear, I wasn't stating my own opinion there. Plenty of other people have stated they prefer a grim reality to a happy Matrix. However: good questions. I am a bit lacking in answers, though, so I'll answer with a question. If you had a choice to leave this world- permanently- and enter the (knowingly unreal) simulation of Equestria... would you?

I would have quite an internal debate... but I might.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Still, I'm curious - what makes you say that love is an external thing rather than an internal concept?

 

If I think "iron" an ingot of the stuff is not going to appear in front of me, however I can still dig it up. If I feel love for someone though, true love not selfish love, than I will move mountains and push myself past the limits of what I would do for other people to make them happy. (Speaking from experience.) If that person returns the feeling, the love becomes external, because it's not just in a person's head anymore, it's a part two people's lives and something that effects them in a profound way.

 

 

Love is more than an emotion, more than a series of synapses, it's a driving force of human action and changer of history. After all, would the Trojan War have happened if Paris didn't fall in love with Helen?

 

To be clear, I wasn't stating my own opinion there. Plenty of other people have stated they prefer a grim reality to a happy Matrix. However: good questions. I am a bit lacking in answers, though, so I'll answer with a question. If you had a choice to leave this world- permanently- and enter the (knowingly unreal) simulation of Equestria... would you?

I would have quite an internal debate... but I might.

 

Oh Hell yeah I would! It doesn't matter if it's a simulation. What matters is how I live my life.

 

If a person stole a barrel of cider from Sweet Apple Acres and another stole a keg of guinness from a bar, aren't both actions equally wrong? (I assume your scenario has Equestria function as it does in canon. E.G. Applejack can't just clap her hooves and conjure another barrel from it's source code. Even if it was, stealing is wrong even if the stolen thing is replaceable.)

 

Knowing the fandom, I wouldn't be "alone" in Equestria for long. Plus Equestria still would have all the canon ponies as just Artificial General Intelligence.

 

There is an absolutely kickass fanfic that has this exact premise.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Steel Accord

[Cleverclover 1,526]

If you had a choice to leave this world- permanently- and enter the (knowingly unreal) simulation of Equestria... would you?

 

Absolutely not. At least not permanently. Regardless of whether or not our world can be defined as a "reality" or not, the point is that it's a world that I understand well enough. It's a world that I've spent all my life in, and it's a world where I know I can find happiness and content, because I have experienced those feelings before.  

 

All I know about Equestria is what I have seen on the show. I have never experienced it firsthand, and thus I have no idea what the experience of living there feels like. I have no idea whether or not I would be able to find happiness there. However, I do know for a fact that I love my hands a lot, and thus being transformed into a creature without hands would be nearly impossible for me to get used to, and that alone is enough to make the idea unappealing to me. However, keeping my human form in Equestria would hardly be any better since I would feel too much like an outsider---like an alien. Like I don't belong. This would certainly hinder my ability to find happiness there. 

 

And exactly how close to the show would the simulation be? Would Equestria still come under threat of domination by evil beings on a relatively frequent basis? What if, in one instance, the villain won and made all Equestrians their slaves? Would there be any kind of failsafe in place to prevent such a thing from happening? 

 

I simply cannot fathom permanently jump into a simulated reality that I do not truly understand---that I do not know for a fact I will actually enjoy.  

Edited March 20, 2015 by Cleverclover

[Blaze Bronson 343]

This is a tricky point. I wouldn't go so far as to say that my senses must be triggered by external things. It's clear that internal things (dreams, or maybe drugs) can also trigger the senses. Maybe my whole idea was just Descartes' dream problem [wikipedia] in disguise. What could be happening, though, is that even these delusions need something to distort; one good argument I can think of for reality is that there are patterns to it which help shape my thoughts, and yet remain unchanged as they change me. This is also something I have to think about more.

 

Our senses is not thoughts or reasoning, it's signals to our brains. Something needs to send the signal. Even if nothing sends it, then the sense itself still has to exist. And if that doesn't exist either, how does this sense enter our consciousness?

To put it a bit different. Without a brain, we can't sense, and the brain is something.

If I touch my skin, I can feel it. My nerves are reacting to the touch, and sending electrical signals to my brain, which in turn filters it, and makes me aware of it.

 

The only odd counter argument I can find against this would be that all the sensory input we get, are fantasies in our brains that we have to think about to activate. So senses are just extremely vivid thoughts and ideas that are so strong they affect the consciousness.

If senses aren't external, they have to be internal somehow.

 

 

This is possible, yes. However, I wouldn't put too much faith in those probabilities. We have very little idea of the "probability" of something being possible. What was the probability that our universe got attractive rather than repulsive gravity? No idea. We have no pattern to observe from. I think what we need is a conditional probability. If "matrixing" is possible and accepted in a larger universe, we are very likely "matrixed." Otherwise, quite unlikely. I remember someone was doing an experiment to see if our reality used a convenient shortcut which would most likely mean that we were matrixed. I don't remember if they published results yet, though.

 

If we ever run into the end of Pi = 3.141592...

That means we are in a matrix.

Pi is an irrational number, which means it has endless decimals. The computer running the matrix can't make an irrational number.

However, if we actually are close to finding out, they would just reset us back to 1995, or whenever this matrix started 

[Suukorak 354]

 

 

The only odd counter argument I can find against this would be that all the sensory input we get, are fantasies in our brains that we have to think about to activate. So senses are just extremely vivid thoughts and ideas that are so strong they affect the consciousness.

Like dreams? To clarify: by "external reality," I mean external to the mind. I'm quite convinced my own mind exists, by Descartes' reasoning.

 

 

 

I simply cannot fathom permanently jump into a simulated reality that I do not truly understand---that I do not know for a fact I will actually enjoy.

Granted, you don't know enough about the world. My point, though, is different - even if it were perfect, some would still refuse to go for the reason that it doesn't truly exist. To give another example: Imagine you lived a long and wonderful life, with many good friends and a delightful significant other. Then, the day of your death, it turns out they're all actors paid for the job. None of them were "actually" your friends. How would you feel about this?

 

 

 

Well that is what defines art and not science, the fact that something like The Island of Dr. Moreau is interpretable. The doesn't make it less real though.

Ah, I think I see what's going on here. You meant "art" as a set of particular works, but I understood you as meaning "Art" as in the overarching concept ("what is art?"). Of course, each work of art is real in common-sense reasoning. It's the big category up in the sky that is troublesome. Ditto for love or the others.

 

 

Truth means comparatively little to me.

Whoa, huge statement there. Why? 

 

 

I think you're approaching the topic of religion with respect but a little too much hesitance. I certainly don't mind discussing it via PM if that's what you'd prefer.

I did this mostly for two reasons: one, to avoid the risk of a religion argument here, and two, because I want to keep the discussion on-topic to some extent, sticking to metaphysics for this thread, and if I ever have the courage to start a religion thread we can discuss it at length there. If you'd like to discuss it, though, I'd be happy to - shoot me a PM if you so desire.

 

 

Knowing the fandom, I wouldn't be "alone" in Equestria for long. Plus Equestria still would have all the canon ponies as just Artificial General Intelligence.   There is an absolutely kickass fanfic that has this exact premise.

Got the link? 

 

 

 

I'm not making any sense and it has become harder to do philosophy now...at least in my head...

I don't mean to be discouraging, but I can't make out what you mean at all. Also, to misquote a professor of mine:

"Philosophy never gets easy. You just get used to being miserable." - Dr. Leslie

(the quote was originally about writing)

 

I had originally intended to respond to every post in turn, but you guys are becoming so active that I can't keep up (especially since I won't be on at all tomorrow). So keep the discussion rolling - I haven't abandoned you, or at least, not for long. And when I come back, I'll have to cherry-pick what I want to respond to. Just a heads-up.

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

Whoa, huge statement there. Why?

 

"Because defeating you is the Avatar's destiny . . . helping him do that is mine."

 

~Prince Zuko

 

Simply put, that's not my job. Even if I believe truth exists, I am ill suited to such an austere goal. I leave the pursuit of truth to detectives and mathematicians. I'm a writer and a martial artist. My concern is ideals and how best to convey and act upon them.

 

 

Granted, you don't know enough about the world. My point, though, is different - even if it were perfect, some would still refuse to go for the reason that it doesn't truly exist. To give another example: Imagine you lived a long and wonderful life, with many good friends and a delightful significant other. Then, the day of your death, it turns out they're all actors paid for the job. None of them were "actually" your friends. How would you feel about this?

 

That's different though than the actual simulated environment scenario though. In the Matrix, you're at least talking to other real people. Even if the person and you aren't physically in the space you perceive yourself to be in, the words, thoughts, and emotions are still genuine.

 

What you propose sounds similar to the counter argument I made above. The "if humans were ants" scenario where we had no minds of genuine thoughts but still existed in the physical meat space.

[Mysterious Grepper 89]

Pi is an irrational number, which means it has endless decimals. The computer running the matrix can't make an irrational number.

However, if we actually are close to finding out, they would just reset us back to 1995, or whenever this matrix started 

If we ever run into the end of Pi = 3.141592...

 

That's funny, I responded to an assertion like this recently. Read this thread.

[Discordian 6,015]

Topics like these are among my favorites. Unfortunate as it is they often just turn into religious debates but it's not hard to see why either. Religions do a thorough job of detailing a possible form of reality. Between that thoroughness, the push for one to have faith in what they cannot outright prove and generations upon generations of believers teaching their children to follow it religion has become one of the most widely accepted possibilities that shapes our reality.

 

You can't define what reality is without first figuring out what it is not. You can't filter out a possibility simply because it's widespread or causes hostility. That's not the fault of the topic so much as it is those discussing it.

 

But of course it's not the only possibility. While many try to rely on logic, science and math to explain the universe and what's possible there's still the distinct possibility (maybe we should be playing a drinking word with how often this word comes up in my posts ) that there are things that none of the existing methods can explain away. A missing variable that could change a crucial equation, a test that can't be performed because of actions or variables that are impossible to use and could change the outcome of an experiment completely...there's too much unknown to expect we have what it takes to understand everything.

 

I fully agree with the idea that people can affect reality. Not necessarily in the sense that they create their own personal hells and whatnot but also in the sense that we can affect probability simply by acknowledging it's existence. We can't actively change probability but have you ever thought "maybe I won't win like I think I would" and then actually lost a gamble? It could be explained away as simple math but if there's a force behind it like the infamous persona of fortune Lady Luck then math goes completely out the window, or needs to change to take into account "her" influence and judgment.

 

Reality is both easy yet impossible to define. If everything is as we see it then there's nothing much to explain. But let's say we are the only one who sees the world as it is and the person or even object next to us is experiencing reality in a completely different way...

 

For example: Imagine if reality to inanimate objects is that they are the living creatures while humans and animals are merely the instruments in which they communicate and get around. The roles are essentially reversed but we live in a completely different plane of existence where the two forms of life cannot even comprehend the other, let alone communicate.

 

Topics like these get my brain activity up but I'm horridly understudied as far as established theories, methods and theologies are concerned so I never get very far before I start going in circles.

[Cleverclover 1,526]

 

 

Granted, you don't know enough about the world. My point, though, is different - even if it were perfect, some would still refuse to go for the reason that it doesn't truly exist.

 

Well, I will say that if I were to find out tomorrow that this life is nothing more than a simulated reality, I still don't believe that I would choose to leave it for the "real world." It would simply require me to let go of too much, and to start all over as though I had just been born. 

 

It's not living in a simulated world that bothers me. It's living in a world that I'm unfamiliar with. 

 

 

 

To give another example: Imagine you lived a long and wonderful life, with many good friends and a delightful significant other. Then, the day of your death, it turns out they're all actors paid for the job. None of them were "actually" your friends. How would you feel about this?

 

 

Ehhh....this scenario doesn't really work. Surely, after spending so many years with me, these people would no longer have to actually pretend to be my friends, right? Surely, my significant other would not have to pretend to love me, right?  

 

Unless they were emotionless androids, of course, but if that were the case, why would they need money at all? 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

 

 

It's not living in a simulated world that bothers me. It's living in a world that I'm unfamiliar with.

 

 

So in the scenario of the actual Matrix, you would take the blue pill? Knowing that the world you live in is an illusion?

[Discordian 6,015]

So in the scenario of the actual Matrix, you would take the blue pill? Knowing that the world you live in is an illusion?

What good is reality if it's worse than the illusion? In a lot of ways the Matrix is more paradise than Zion ever could be even without the machines constantly hounding them. The world is broken. There's nothing they can do to fix that.

[Thunderchild 875]

 

 

So in the scenario of the actual Matrix, you would take the blue pill? Knowing that the world you live in is an illusion?

 

Without wishing to butt in, I started a thread on this subject after watching The Matrix a while back-asking whether people would plug in and live in Equestria rather than here. The responses were fairly divided, but most people seemed to lean toward it. I was left wondering whether it was because Bronies in general don't feel like they fit in here in the world, or just that the concept of actually being able to interact with the characters was more attractive than 'real life'-all the while having the knowledge that your physical body was atrophying in a tank somewhere.

 

It brings up another point though-many folks believe that we are spirit beings-and that the body is just a vehicle while they are here on earth. It is more understandable that these folks would be more open to living in an altered consciousness-as they are not identifying their physical bodies as themselves, but rather as a car they drive.  

Edited March 21, 2015 by Thunderchild

[Blaze Bronson 343]

Like dreams? To clarify: by "external reality," I mean external to the mind. I'm quite convinced my own mind exists, by Descartes' reasoning.

Without a source unfortunately, I think the senses we feel inside of our dreams comes from signals in our brains, not from within our "mind"

 

That's funny, I responded to an assertion like this recently. Read this thread.

I read through the arguments there, and it seems people misunderstood.

Yeah, if the people running the matrix is using a analog computer, or a computer that is somehow able to write endless Pi, then we can't prove the matrix.

But if we prove it to stop at some point, we have found a fault in the matrix, which means there is a limit to their computers.

We probably won't find it though, because they are using such amazing computers 

Edit: seems OP of that thread thinks that the mere existence of Pi is a prof, which only profs that their computers are better, or that this actually is reality. Which again doesn't prove anything.

Edited March 21, 2015 by Blaze Bronson

[SCS 7,537]

I believe that a relative definition best fits reality. If you perceive it, it's real within your frame of reference. That doesn't necessarily mean it's real within anyone else's frame of reference, though, which is essential to understand for any practical purposes. However, on a fundamental level I think everything is real. 

 

At least in the form we currently exist, life revolves around perception. What we perceive is what we believe to be real. On a fundamental level, you perceive the reality of the shoes you put on in the morning the same way you'd perceive something you saw in a dream. It's all real to you, and therefore it exists.

[Mysterious Grepper 89]

Without a source unfortunately, I think the senses we feel inside of our dreams comes from signals in our brains, not from within our "mind"

 

I read through the arguments there, and it seems people misunderstood.

Yeah, if the people running the matrix is using a analog computer, or a computer that is somehow able to write endless Pi, then we can't prove the matrix.

But if we prove it to stop at some point, we have found a fault in the matrix, which means there is a limit to their computers.

We probably won't find it though, because they are using such amazing computers 

Edit: seems OP of that thread thinks that the mere existence of Pi is a prof, which only profs that their computers are better, or that this actually is reality. Which again doesn't prove anything.

 

I don't mean that it is a proof of the universe running in a computer simulation, I just mean that the assertion is unfalsifiable. It can't be proven, it can't be disproven, at least currently.

[Cleverclover 1,526]

 

So in the scenario of the actual Matrix, you would take the blue pill? Knowing that the world you live in is an illusion?

 

 

 

What's the alternative? Living in a world where I'll never see nor feel the sun again? Living in a world where I'll mostly be living in fear for the rest of my life? Living in a world devoid of many, many things that I enjoy? 

 

Uhh, yeah, that's pretty much a no-brainer for me. There's a reason why Morpheus was so vague when he was first explaining the Matrix. 

[Steel Accord 6,660]

Without wishing to butt in, I started a thread on this subject after watching The Matrix a while back-asking whether people would plug in and live in Equestria rather than here. The responses were fairly divided, but most people seemed to lean toward it. I was left wondering whether it was because Bronies in general don't feel like they fit in here in the world, or just that the concept of actually being able to interact with the characters was more attractive than 'real life'-all the while having the knowledge that your physical body was atrophying in a tank somewhere.

 

It brings up another point though-many folks believe that we are spirit beings-and that the body is just a vehicle while they are here on earth. It is more understandable that these folks would be more open to living in an altered consciousness-as they are not identifying their physical bodies as themselves, but rather as a car they drive.  

 

"My ally, is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. It's energy, surrounds us, and binds us. Luminous beings are we not this crude matter."

~Master Yoda

 

As both a man of faith as well as a transhumanist, this is my bread and butter. I'm completely fine with my body image and my life as it is, but hey, we can always do better right? Surely the whole of human history has been an endless and evolving pursuit of bettering our lives.

 

If my mind is loaded to a virch space via destructive uploading, it retains all of my memories, personality traits, and feelings. So why isn't it me? I would upload for the same reason I say yes to the "would you go" question that gets tossed out every month or two amongst the fandom. Equestria is an ideal world and a virch environment modeled to be it in every way would be just as ideal. My body is atrophying? *Checks hooves and wings* Seems fine to me. 

 

Plus it would still be possible to communicate with the meatspace, perhaps even with a method like Sunset Shimmer's book or Spike's fire. Write up a message, "dear family, found my special talent, job's going great, even met a nice girl" roll it up, toss it over to Spike, he does his thing, and then on Earth;

 

"You got mail!"

What's the alternative? Living in a world where I'll never see nor feel the sun again? Living in a world where I'll mostly be living in fear for the rest of my life? Living in a world devoid of many, many things that I enjoy? 

 

Uhh, yeah, that's pretty much a no-brainer for me. There's a reason why Morpheus was so vague when he was first explaining the Matrix. 

 

Hey, I'm not saying it's wrong. I think you have an interesting answer to the overall question in that you don't care about the objective reality as much as what reality you're comfortable with. It's not a perspective I share but it's interesting as most of us are either on the "this is real" or "there is no real" side whereas you're somewhere in the middle.

 

Morpheus though wasn't trying to trick Neo or anything. He explained that the Matrix was a prison for the mind and whatever one's feelings are on the morality of it are, that is what it was designed for. (Now one could swap the term for "sanctuary" of the mind but the principal is the same.) Morpheus gave Neo a chance and was quite clear there would be no turning back. Even before Neo took the pill, Morpheus stopped him,

 

"Remember, all I offer is the truth, nothing more." So I don't think Morpheus' intentions were at all sinister.

 

I myself would take a third option. Take the red pill and then bolt out the door. I wouldn't fight to destroy or escape the Matrix, but to change it. Smith said that the Matrix was once a kind of utopia but our minds rejected it. I call bullshit on that, I think Smith was just lying to further break Morpheus' resolve. How about a world where the Matrix is still what it is, but we're all like Neo? We have all the cheats. What do the machines care if we all live in our own little personal heavens?