atinymonkey Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by NavajoEverclear So this field of thinking----- do you know of any already established group i could contribute to, or must i be the first to dive down the rabbit hole? You can drop a stone a thousand times, you will never know it will not one time fall up instead of down. You may think you know, but what you think does not have power over the truth, the truth is above you. Youve been playing that enter the matrix game, haven't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 22, 2003 Author Share Posted July 22, 2003 That may be your faith but as far as can be absolutely prooven it is exactly as likely. Or if you like the word evidence better, as far as there is any substantiated evidence it is exactly as likely. I'm sorry it sounds i am trying to take away your freedom of belief, but my real intent is to show you that your freedom is endless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 We know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by NavajoEverclear I do believe my own understanding of the principal is quite primitive, it would be easier to find one who has taken the idea deeper. Yes, any of the empiricists, but Karl Popper is the generally accepted chappy. two points he makes that may be of interest to you - (i) Scientific theories are general propositions about (groups of) empirical phenomena, which can't be proven by evidence, but can be disproven. (ii) It is logically impossible to assign a 'probability of being correct' to such a statement using a finite sample of evidence (NB this is different from significance testing, which is about the probability of individual results coming about due to chance rather than the sought-after causality). these points are purely logically, so they cannot be refuted. as they form the basis of the scientific method, it is daft to suggest that the scientific method is a matter of faith. scientific conclusions, on the other hand, can be the subject of belief. However, i think the average scientist's attitude is better described as "provisional acceptance". For those in the habit of posting pseudo-scientific theories, remember that Popper's theorems do/ allow hypotheses to be certainly rejected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 23, 2003 Author Share Posted July 23, 2003 i dont see how anything can be prooven wrong either. Yes the matrix has influenced my thinking, but actually that thing with the stone, is something i thought about completely independantly before seeing that segment on the video game. I used a pencil in my theory (of coarse it could be anything, its the concept that matter of coarse), and then when i saw that, it was so radical because i absoluletly agree. I guess i mentioned the rabit hole because it partially is something i feel. It would be much easier if there was a path already laid for me to follow to find that which i vaguely imagine. I think though i have found i must dig some of the way on my own to build the character to survive the journey. Where my mentality diverges from the matrix is i hope these things must not be kept in darkness and secrecy, that wouldn't really be a solution to the world i know there must be more to. Well this thread did not give me what i originally wanted, but i have learned something more useful than that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skye Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 i dont see how anything can be prooven wrong either. A hypothesis can be disproven if stated in certain ways. Saying, "Stones usually fall down" can't be disproven, whereas saying, "Stones always fall down" can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Originally posted by NavajoEverclear i dont see how anything can be prooven wrong either. An example of a hypothesis statement: I always eat roast beef. An example of a counterstatement, which disprooves it: I had chicken kiev last night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Of course complications can arise. Like "That wasn't chicken :D" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 23, 2003 Author Share Posted July 23, 2003 ah that makes sense(the 'always', and the chicken last night). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 EDIT: whoops, missed say's and MrL's posts. I'll leave this anyway 'cos it adds detail. "2+2=5" is clearly wrong, by the definitions of 2,+,= and 5. "I am a rhino" is clearly wrong, because the term 'rhino' describes an empirical phenomen, the features of which i do not have. "e=mc^3" is wrong, because it claims to describe all cases of the mass/energy relation, but if you actually measure that relation in any specific case it does not fit with that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 24, 2003 Author Share Posted July 24, 2003 ok i am getting the idea of certain things that can be disproven, but i still feel it is potentially debatable. How do you know you are not rhino plugged into the matrix and illuded to think you are human. I guess you could say you appear to not be a rhino, but i still refuse to give my surity to just about anything, until i am sure, and i am not sure you are not a rhino. I am not sure what you appear to be either, perhaps i am looking at you in the wrong way, and if i were to think about it propperly the truth of all human impersonating rhinos would be revealed. Wasn't e=mc^2 derived mathmetically (because i doubt einstien did any nuclear experimentation), well then i guess i agree with that. I do believe it is lazy of me to be so unsure, i am ready to set down some solid beliefs sometime soon. Believe me it is on my to do list. Actually though there are some very solid beliefs i do have, that simply need to take into more action. But you probably dont care anyway, and that may be good. Sayanara----- do you realize you are shaking the very foundations of space time continium by changing your avatar? Devestation and death shall surely soon plague our planet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 We can't be sure we aren't rhinos plugged into a matrix of some sort, but since there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that we are it is not really worth consideration. It was a difficult decision laying off the banana - he did rightly point out that all those comments about him in the trheads will no longer make sense, but I think he's happier and better off at the retirement home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 24, 2003 Author Share Posted July 24, 2003 it may be pointless to make this point again, but according to the theory there is exactly as much evidence of matrixplugged rhinos as there is evidence for anyting. Dont get me wrong that i AM unsure, but my belief that nobody is really a rhino is my own faith, it is not invariably (or to any degree of viability to be exact) supported by any evidence. Lets lay this thread to rest when someone says---- this is true, but i believe as i do because i want to, or for whatever reason you believe what you do. The reason lies in your own head only, sense does not exist, it is fabricated by those who must as are we constantly making choices. Ressurect the Bananna! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 NavajoEverclear's problems are purely philosophical. Soon he will drop his eggs and they will hatch and all will be well. Or he'll apply Occam's Razor. One of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giles Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Originally posted by NavajoEverclear ok i am getting the idea of certain things that can be disproven, but i still feel it is potentially debatable. How do you know you are not rhino plugged into the matrix and illuded to think you are human. I guess you could say you appear to not be a rhino, but i still refuse to give my surity to just about anything, until i am sure, and i am not sure you are not a rhino. I am not sure what you appear to be either, perhaps i am looking at you in the wrong way, and if i were to think about it propperly the truth of all human impersonating rhinos would be revealed. Wasn't e=mc^2 derived mathmetically (because i doubt einstien did any nuclear experimentation), well then i guess i agree with that. I do believe it is lazy of me to be so unsure, i am ready to set down some solid beliefs sometime soon. Believe me it is on my to do list. Actually though there are some very solid beliefs i do have, that simply need to take into more action. But you probably dont care anyway, and that may be good. Sayanara----- do you realize you are shaking the very foundations of space time continium by changing your avatar? Devestation and death shall surely soon plague our planet The important thing about the viewpoint i've been articulating is that statements are empirically (and/or logically) defined in the first place. Any statement without empirical or logical content is entirely meaningless. If something in a simulation is indistinguishable by any means from being in 'reality', then obviously there is no empirical or logical way to define 'reality' as seperate from the simulation, so any statement which depended on the distinction would neccesarily be meaningless. For example, "We don't live in reality, but in a simulation completely indistinguishable from reality", is like saying, "We don't live in reality, we live in reality, which is exactly like reality". Such meaningless statements are obviously excluded from any scientific model. I feel at this point i should point out that rigorous, reasonable and useful epistemologies (or indeed, languages) aren't neccesarily the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted July 25, 2003 Author Share Posted July 25, 2003 i did not entirely understand what you just said but i wil reply according to what i do understand. You may have never been in reality, how do you know this is indistiguisable from it. As for saying that this is a form of reality, and experiments in it are at least consistent with this illusion---- this is not neccisarily so. Past occurace is not precedant for future in an unknown system. Reality may be entirely deceptive, the stone COULD fall up. I dont believe that the depressing truth is we are doomed to be decieved, i mean to say we should be careful how we think, lest we allow ourselves be decieved. The purpose of the uncertainty theory is to show there is no reason to make choices according to anything other than your own best judgement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 25, 2003 Share Posted July 25, 2003 Allow me to simplify: If we are not in the "real" reality, and have no means to detect the "real" reality or distinguish it from our own, then this is our reality. It's entirely subjective. The "if" is just not relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now