there is this theory that we are all brains in a jar hooked up to a machine that is giving us dreams. However this also does not explain how we can have dreams if reality is too a dream. This argument if assumed true beats all other arguments. A valid argument is based on valid information and facts. The conclusion should be objective not subjective. Saying "I believe he is guilty because I hate him" is not a good argument in court. It is also not a good argument as to why this person needs to be convicted. However if we assume the brain in the vat theory is the ultimate truth we have just destroyed this concept. Since we have just made all objective material subjective. Meaning that we can no longer have intellectual debate or discussion since the entire premise it was built on has just been destroyed. However is it fair to assume this kind of thing automatically truth? Is there undeniable evidence that this is fact and if there is not is it fair to say its fact?

Edited April 10, 201411 yr by Marshalscienceguy

We can't currently determine if we are in a simulation or not, unless we find that the simulation have some errors pointing to our reality being a simulation or the "programmer" wants us to know and we find clues left for us on purpose.

 

The facts are that we don't have any evidence at all, in either way.

 

However even IF we live in a simulation, we are still subjected to the laws of nature in this program and should therefore also continue to follow our moral and ethical code as if our world was real.

 

If someone cause you to suffer, you will still experience suffering equally much even if you are a part of a program in a simulation or a brain in a vat subjected to false stimulation.

But according to physical theories a brain in a vat is exactly what we are. It's just that we call the vat a skull.

Edited June 1, 201411 yr by PeterJ