[jjacob]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

The next person who mentions The Matrix in a philosophical context I will shoot in the kneecap with extreme prejudice.

Heh, what? I just wondered if the popularity of the third option was afflicted by the Matrix in any way, what with all the insane pop culture we live in.. so.. please don't kneecap me :eek:

[ConcreteRancor]

Since the universe is infinite, probability states that everything that can be imagined DOES exist somewhere, whether in our "visible universe," or outside of our current limits of sight. (Since light can only travel so fast, there must therefore be much more way, way out there that we can't see simply because the light hasn't been given enough time to reach us.) Therefore, even if our world does not exist where we believe it to exist, it must exist somewhere.

It's also neat to apply that theory to Discworld and think that there might be a flat world being carried on the back of a giant turtle out there.

[UPtimist]

Well, even if there was a world like the Matrix (or a Sims world) where we were, that world would still exist, and since it's *this* world, it exist. But of course if it's just is this the real world, with no other worlds (I bet you'll understand what I mean ), that's impossible to tell...

Wow... I've never said anything more clearly...

[mag]

Originally Posted by Jackal

And again you've got me completely backwards. I said nothing even remotely like "I exist as a thinking thing", because that I CAN'T know.

Actually, that's the only thing you can know. An illusion only exists in your mind. Therefore, if you are an illusion, you only exist in as much as you are a thought in my mind. Since anything my senses tell me about the outside world could be nothing more than an illusion, the only thing I can be absolutely sure of is that I am thinking. Cogito ergo sum. I think, therefore I am.

Of course, this is assuming that thought itself is not an illusion.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

Since the universe is infinite, probability states that everything that can be imagined DOES exist somewhere, whether in our "visible universe," or outside of our current limits of sight. (Since light can only travel so fast, there must therefore be much more way, way out there that we can't see simply because the light hasn't been given enough time to reach us.) Therefore, even if our world does not exist where we believe it to exist, it must exist somewhere.

Yes, but probability is based on the workings of the universe that is in question. So if the universe is not real, how do you know that probability is real?

Originally Posted by UPtimist

Well, even if there was a world like the Matrix (or a Sims world) where we were, that world would still exist, and since it's *this* world, it exist.

Okay, forget about The Matrix. That's not what this is about. The question is not, "Are we living in an imaginary world inside the real world?" The question is, "Is there a real world at all?" Since we're a part of that world, it's impossible for us to know.

mag

[Kingzjester]

You know, mag, there was 400 years worth of philosophy and science AFTER René. I'd venture to say that those people who continued and built up on what Descartes said had SOMETHING RELEVANT to say.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by mag

An illusion only exists in your mind.

Glad we now agree that it exists.

Of course, this is assuming that thought itself is not an illusion.

Exactly. And since this topic is based on eliminating assumptions, what I said stands. I never bought into Descartes' reasoning, frankly. If you're prepared to go for pure abstraction, then the concept of oneself as a thinking being is just as susceptible to being an illusion as anything else. His famous line works better as "If I think, therefore I must be". Then again, you might just as well substitute "fish" for "think".

[UPtimist]

Originally Posted by mag

Okay, forget about The Matrix. That's not what this is about. The question is not, "Are we living in an imaginary world inside the real world?" The question is, "Is there a real world at all?" Since we're a part of that world, it's impossible for us to know.

mag

I just said something like the Matrix, it really has nothing to do with Matrix actually, that was just a good example of the type of world I was referring to...

And well, I do too say it's impossible to know (everything is always possible, so you can't actually know anything...)

[mag]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

You know, mag, there was 400 years worth of philosophy and science AFTER René. I'd venture to say that those people who continued and built up on what Descartes said had SOMETHING RELEVANT to say.

You're about the last person I expected to come to that realization. But hey, since you're so well versed in philosophy maybe you'd care to provide a counterargument for a change.

Originally Posted by Jackal

Exactly. And since this topic is based on eliminating assumptions, what I said stands.

How do you figure? In order to say that the universe exists, you have to (A) assume that what your senses are telling you is real and/or (B) assume that your own thoughts are real. Either way, you have to make some assumption.

Originally Posted by Jackal

If you're prepared to go for pure abstraction, then the concept of oneself as a thinking being is just as susceptible to being an illusion as anything else.

Yes, but that only further reinforces the idea that you can never know whether anything is real. So you kind of just proved my point.

mag

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by mag

How do you figure? In order to say that the universe exists, you have to (A) assume that what your senses are telling you is real and/or (B) assume that your own thoughts are real. Either way, you have to make some assumption.

No I don't. Man, you have a short memory. All I said was that it existed in SOME form, or else this thread wouldn't be happening. I'm making no assumptions about what form that is. Even if everything we perceive is an illusion, it still exists to experience as an illusion.

Yes, but that only further reinforces the idea that you can never know whether anything is real. So you kind of just proved my point.

I didn't prove your point, because we're barely speaking the same language. I've never once used your definition of "real" in this discussion.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

Since the universe is infinite, probability states that everything that can be imagined DOES exist somewhere, whether in our "visible universe," or outside of our current limits of sight. (Since light can only travel so fast, there must therefore be much more way, way out there that we can't see simply because the light hasn't been given enough time to reach us.) Therefore, even if our world does not exist where we believe it to exist, it must exist somewhere.

Our universe is not infinate, but it is expanding. And probability doesn't state that, it dictates that since our universe was once created out of one extremely small particle, it's possible that more (if not an infinate number) of those particles "boomed" into an expanding universe, and since these would boom in the same way, there would be infinate universes parallel to ours. Also, there's not that much we haven't been able to see theoretically, it's just that what we see, is mostly ancient history, if a relatively new star at the edge of the universe stopped emitting light we wouldn't know it for.. well you get the idea. Makes you wish light travelled faster don't it

edit: Kingzjester you beat me to it but I thought about posting something pretty much like your reply (about Descartes), freaky..

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by Erkki

First define existence. How would you define it in such a way that would leave an option for us to not exist?

Mag, please try to answer this, otherwise your discussion with Jackal is pointless. I agree with him -- this thread here and anything else you can experience exists in SOME FORM, but it most certainly EXISTS.

How would you define existence so that it
1) goes with the original question of this thread and is not more specific
2) leaves an option of this world not existing

[mag]

Originally Posted by Erkki

Mag, please try to answer this, otherwise your discussion with Jackal is pointless. I agree with him -- this thread here and anything else you can experience exists in SOME FORM, but it most certainly EXISTS.

How would you define existence so that it
1) goes with the original question of this thread and is not more specific
2) leaves an option of this world not existing

Now there's the question, isn't it? Because depending on how you define existence either argument could be correct. That's probably the biggest flaw in this argument. Perhaps the world does exist in some form, as you say. But really existence is nothing more than a concept, an idea. So when you say, "Does the world exist?" you are already presupposing its existence when you say "the world." If existence is just an idea, then we also have to consider the possibility that it is a faulty idea.

But I would not be so bold as to try to define the term "existence." Such is a much larger undertaking than I am interested in taking on.

mag

[ConcreteRancor]

Think of it this way:

Imagine our universe. Put aside that it may or may not be real for a moment. Now, if our universe is expanding, then that means that it has a finite area. It may then be reasonable to think that alternate universes are not "parallel," on some other plane, but rather adjacent, simply being outside the finite area of our universe, and expanding in much the same way.

Now, in any one universe, there is, say, a 50-50 chance of an atom at any point in space existing or not existing. The chances of enough atoms existing around a certain point in order to form a celestial body is extremely small, leading to the relative sparseness of such bodies compared to the empty space in our universe. In our universe, because of its laws of physics, we find that atoms exist in certain patterns. But what if "physics" is just the result of random movements of atoms happening to follow a certain artificial pattern? Yes, the chance of this is extremely small, but perhaps our own universe inhabits that small percentage. There are also exactly equal chances of finding a universe where everything is exactly the same except you ate eggs for breakfast this morning instead of waffles, finding a universe where every living thing resembles a floating, thousand-tentacled squid-chicken, or finding a universe where there exists a flat world carried on the back of a turtle.

Applying this to other universes "outside" our own finite, expanding universe, we can determine that EVERYTHING can happen somewhere, provided that there are infinite universes to choose from outside our own.

So what if our plane of existence isn't real? What if our universe and all the other ones "outside" are just a dream or simulation? Well, SOMETHING'S got to do the dreaming or simulating, and the random placement of matter can then be applied to THAT plane of existence, (using whatever serves for atoms there,) and if THAT plane's just a dream, then so on down the line. No matter what plane of existence is the REAL one, there are infinite possibilities of matter placement in the universes on that plane, and so we or exact copies of us must exist SOMEWHERE, if not here specifically.

[Zanthia]

It sounds like Plato's proof to infinity of the universe: if universe is finit, imagine getting to the very end and then spread your hand. That way you are making universe bigger(for your hand is in the universe). You can do that to the enternity.

Does world exist? What about you? Do you exist? Can you prove me that you really exist?

[BenjaminBunny]

I believe in self-fufilling prophecy. In other words, we are what we think we are. I voted for "other".

[Wormsie]

Ideas don't exist?

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by remixor

Flame war?

You were doubtful?

[jjacob]

ConcreteRancor, you are making little sense. First you state that because of the infinity of our universe, our world must exist somewhere else in our universe, in some other galaxy (atleast that's what I read into your previous post), and that we simply can't see it because light of it hasn't reached our planet yet. Now you suddenly accept other universes are adjacent instead of parallel? Wouldn't that mean that our universe will at some point collide with another universe?
The going theory (which does get updated each time man discovers something unknown) is that other universes are parallel in that they are impossible to see and impossible to reach. The whole notion of "finding" another universe is bullshit (light does not even escape our -expanding- universe). Most likely each universe carries its own set of physics, as any slight elemental difference in the first particle boom would result in a major difference in how that universe develops. Light could never escape or travel between universes. It's more likely that other universes are fundamentally so different from ours, that we would in any case never be able to exist there.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

Now, in any one universe, there is, say, a 50-50 chance of an atom at any point in space existing or not existing. The chances of enough atoms existing around a certain point in order to form a celestial body is extremely small, leading to the relative sparseness of such bodies compared to the empty space in our universe. In our universe, because of its laws of physics, we find that atoms exist in certain patterns. But what if "physics" is just the result of random movements of atoms happening to follow a certain artificial pattern?

So by your logic, 50 percent of our universe contains/is atoms? Then you have no idea how empty our universe is. In fact, it is believed that actual matter only makes up for a small amount of the weight of the universe. We measure this by seeing how fast our sun moves through the galaxy (crazy like 200 KM/s or something), and looking at the distorted image we get from gravitational lenses (which tell us how the light we get from other galaxies is bent) we can see there's actually five times more matter unaccounted for. This means most of our universe's weight is composed of dark matter (which are no atoms).

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

There are also exactly equal chances of finding a universe where everything is exactly the same except you ate eggs for breakfast this morning instead of waffles, finding a universe where every living thing resembles a floating, thousand-tentacled squid-chicken, or finding a universe where there exists a flat world carried on the back of a turtle.

I'll admit there are equal chances of finding these universes, because, again, the whole notion of finding another universe is bullshit. Just accept that they're out of our reach, forever, no matter how fast we can travel.

Originally Posted by ConcreteRancor

So what if our plane of existence isn't real? What if our universe and all the other ones "outside" are just a dream or simulation? Well, SOMETHING'S got to do the dreaming or simulating, and the random placement of matter can then be applied to THAT plane of existence, (using whatever serves for atoms there,) and if THAT plane's just a dream, then so on down the line. No matter what plane of existence is the REAL one, there are infinite possibilities of matter placement in the universes on that plane, and so we or exact copies of us must exist SOMEWHERE, if not here specifically.

From Einstein to Plato, doesn't really matter what you put in your cocktail, eh?

[Wormsie]

I'm really disappointed of you, guys. I was away for a week, and nobody bothered to mock me because I misspelled "exist".

This is a new record, I believe.

Spoiler:

Unfunny fact: I wrote "I was awake for a week" first.

[Mattsius]

YOU MISSPELLED "EXIST"!!! EVERYBODY POINT AND LAUGH!!!


Wait a second...