Comment on Chad Diogenes
Nougat@fedia.io 7 months agoThe point about "are we in a simulation?" is not that we are (setting aside the whole technological singularity thing for the moment), but that we could be. The common sense thing only says that we're more likely not, but does not at all say that we definitely are not. "Could be" still remains.
Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee 7 months ago
Moore’s point is that we shouldn’t let the inability to eliminate that “what if,” which was specifically designed to be non-disprovable, actually affect ontology. That problems and questions created by philosophers basically just to stump philosophical methods should be all but ignored since, by design, there clearly can’t be an answer except that one thing is by far most likely, and the other thing cannot matter because we can’t prove or act upon it or treat it as anything other than a manufactured source of doubt/skepticism.
exocrinous@startrek.website 7 months ago
Objective reality doesn’t exist, and that’s a good thing, because it means our entire universe is subjective, and therefore, malleable to our perceptions. It means that with a big enough idea and a mind on which to balance it, we can move the earth.
orphiebaby@lemm.ee 7 months ago
I think, therefore I am. An objective reality exists, because you exist. The question is, how much of reality can you perceive, and to what limit?
exocrinous@startrek.website 7 months ago
My existence is subjective. Therefore any reality whose existence is assumed on my basis is also subjective.
Nougat@fedia.io 7 months ago
It is still important to understand that the only thing which can be known about reality with complete certainty is:
We cannot know with certainty the nature of that reality. We can only know our perception, and even if we accept that we are perceiving reality (which is most likely, but not necessarily, true), our perceptions of that reality are incomplete and flawed. That's a pretty important part of the nature of being.