Philosophy: we aren't living in the Matrix

[Independent voter]

Short video, like 10 mins.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. The author says we aren't living in the Matrix or a simulation. Why? Because we can't comprehend things we haven't seen or experienced. He says imagine aliens living on Mars, imagine they spill some paint on a piece of paper and it forms the shape of a tree but they can't know it's a tree because there are no trees on Mars.

And then the author somehow turns this thought experiment into proof that we don't live in a simulation.

Why does he assume the people in the simulation are the same creatures that created the simulation? Maybe the creators of the simulation have trees in their world?

I think I'm missing something, maybe a lot of somethings.

[Blueobelisk]

The argument is retarded. "I can't imagine what something else is so we can't talk about it." I guess we should just stop talking about the fourth dimension, too, then.

[Deleted]

No human can confirm the existence of anything else. The best he can do is being as insane to believe he actually exists...

[Sunseeker]

This "proof" is founded on so many logical fallacies it makes my brain hurt.

[The Stormbringer]

People can imagine plenty of things that don't exist. Also, with a true simulation of the universe, you should only need to know some crazy advanced physics to get things cooking, no programming in sentient life required. Though, I imagine good simulations would have the ability to toggle life on and off, or increase the rate at which it appears, or tweak other variables.

[Felya]

The argument is retarded. "I can't imagine what something else is so we can't talk about it." I guess we should just stop talking about the fourth dimension, too, then.

He is saying that the concept of being hooked up to a computer doesn't work, because you are arguing what the "computer" defines you to argue. If you see a still life of a tree, what makes it different than an abstract painting?

- - - Updated - - -

People can imagine plenty of things that don't exist. Also, with a true simulation of the universe, you should only need to know some crazy advanced physics to get things cooking, no programming in sentient life required. Though, I imagine good simulations would have the ability to toggle life on and off, or increase the rate at which it appears, or tweak other variables.

That contradicts the matrix. It has to exist in some form, on the matrix database. Otherwise, you are claiming independent thought, while being fed by a "computer". That's a contradiction...

[Fencers]

It's an argument similar to what Augustine conceived of God- God supposedly being greater than imagination.

The problem lies in language. We can conceive of things that are impossible and without reference. We do not have to have the label attachment of 'trunk' to imagine a creature with a long snout like an elephant. Nor do we need to reference objects by their label.

Beyond imagining is not possible because we can imagine anything without language. We often contextualize imagination by language, however. Therein is where we get to effects of causation.

[Creotor]

Seems to go like this:

if you don't know what both the simulated and real are like, you cannot compare. Since you cannot compare, you cannot know.

He doesn't make the claim that we do NOT live in a simulation, just that it can't be proven, according to the thesis/argument/theory/hypothesis or w/e that is that was put forward by that philosopher.

[The Stormbringer]

He is saying that the concept of being hooked up to a computer doesn't work, because you are arguing what the "computer" defines you to argue. If you see a still life of a tree, what makes it different than an abstract painting?

- - - Updated - - -

That contradicts the matrix. It has to exist in some form, on the matrix database. Otherwise, you are claiming independent thought, while being fed by a "computer". That's a contradiction...

How is it a contradiction? Just because the Matrix MIGHT exist doesn't mean random, independent thought also cannot exist. Haven't you heard of imagination? Hallucination? 'Glitches in the Matrix' even? Random data can become an idea.

Also, when I say 'things that don't exist' I mean 'things that we as human beings don't know exist'. A simulation of the universe could easily pluck info from one galaxy and drop it into the brain of a sentient being in another via a dream or something.

Seems to go like this:

if you don't know what both the simulated and real are like, you cannot compare. Since you cannot compare, you cannot know.

He doesn't make the claim that we do NOT live in a simulation, just that it can't be proven, according to the thesis/argument/theory/hypothesis or w/e that is that was put forward by that philosopher.

So, pretty much the god argument, right? Can't prove, can't disprove, etc.

[Creotor]

How is it a contradiction? Just because the Matrix MIGHT exist doesn't mean random, independent thought also cannot exist. Haven't you heard of imagination? Hallucination? 'Glitches in the Matrix' even? Random data can become an idea.

Also, when I say 'things that don't exist' I mean 'things that we as human beings don't know exist'. A simulation of the universe could easily pluck info from one galaxy and drop it into the brain of a sentient being in another via a dream or something.



So, pretty much the god argument, right? Can't prove, can't disprove, etc.

I think so, but maybe it did mean something else after all, /shrug.
In either case, I'm with Hiram on this, there's no proof the whole world is not just inside my mind, or w/e it should be called and since it can't be proven or disproven, I try not to give a shit.

[May90]

Short video, like 10 mins.

I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. The author says we aren't living in the Matrix or a simulation. Why? Because we can't comprehend things we haven't seen or experienced. He says imagine aliens living on Mars, imagine they spill some paint on a piece of paper and it forms the shape of a tree but they can't know it's a tree because there are no trees on Mars.

And then the author somehow turns this thought experiment into proof that we don't live in a simulation.

Why does he assume the people in the simulation are the same creatures that created the simulation? Maybe the creators of the simulation have trees in their world?

I think I'm missing something, maybe a lot of somethings.

Haven't watched the video, but this reasoning is plain wrong. Just because we can't comprehend something, doesn't mean that it isn't true! We can't comprehend quark-gluon plasma, as it is way too alien compared to anything we've ever dealt with in our life - yet the experiments demonstrate that it likely is a real condition of matter. Similarly, we can't comprehend a 4-dimensional Minkowsky space with our mind, and yet this is exactly the space we live in.

The only way I can see this argument making sense is by assuming the old philosophical position of "extreme solipsism", according to which only our mind exists, and everything that isn't contained in our mind right away doesn't exist. This position is quite hard to justify when we encounter new evidence that goes against everything we've believed to be true though...

[Rudkobing]

Holodeck disengage.........
/holodeck turning off

Oh vey.......

I guess we live in the "Matrix".

[Felya]

How is it a contradiction? Just because the Matrix MIGHT exist doesn't mean random, independent thought also cannot exist. Haven't you heard of imagination? Hallucination? 'Glitches in the Matrix' even? Random data can become an idea.

'Glitch in the matrix' is the exact problem. What tells you it's a glitch and not intended outcome?

Also, when I say 'things that don't exist' I mean 'things that we as human beings don't know exist'. A simulation of the universe could easily pluck info from one galaxy and drop it into the brain of a sentient being in another via a dream or something.

It would still be defined by the matrix. When you say Galaxy, how do you tell there is such a thing or the matrix? It's an argument about predisposition (programming) of God (the machine) and failed under similar weight.

So, pretty much the god argument, right? Can't prove, can't disprove, etc.

Yes... Are you acting on free will, or as Descartes put it, the devil's machinations. It's all a need to belong to a greater cause and futility of life.

[Macaquerie]

Eh, the whole notion of living in a simulation is sort of fundamentally bullshit since it's an unfalsifiable claim and anything that could conceivably disprove it could just also be part of the simulation. And it is also one of those things that quasi-intellectual internet philosophers like to ponder to make themselves seem more sophisticated, while not being a source of any kind of intellectual enrichment.

[Taeron]

I'm no expert in philosophy. Very much a student. However, I find it's quite good for teaching you "how to think", rather than "what to think".
When it comes to dealing with claims (i.e. anyone claiming anything), the philosophical approach is quite easy and similar to the scientific method in some ways.

Consider TRUTH. Think of truth as universal and undeniable. It's never "relative". We are led to the truth by a system of evidence, and while its not perfect, its the best system we have.

When ever presented with a claim, the first thing I always think is, "is it true". I said it was simple right?
The answer is always a yes, or a no, never an "in-between". For the answer to be yes, there must be empirical evidence.

I will believe any claim, provided there is enough evidence to support it as truth.

There's no need to muddy the waters with this "lack of knowledge/context" stuff, because its very hard to prove that something does NOT exist, or that something ISNT happening.

I present to you my claim that "Cow's can fly". Is it true? I cannot show you any evidence, so no. Easy.
You then present your claim that "Cow's can't fly". Is it true? You throw a cow off a cliff and claim this to be evidence. I simply retort "oh.. the cow just decided not to fly today", or "oh its just THAT cow that cant fly", or "oh cows only fly at 5pm Fridays" etc etc. Much harder.

"We are living in the matrix". Is it true? No.

[Elim Garak]

Simulation is just a different, sciency sounding word for God. Avoid as plague. People are trying to brainwash you.

[Kaleredar]

And maybe we're all the dream of a sleeping butterfly.


No need to waste brain power on such pointless endeavors. Too much of what people pass of as "philosophy" is based around trivial thought experiments or the opinions of stuffy men who have been dead for decades or even hundreds of years.

[Elim Garak]

Pretty much but it doesn't carry the religious aspect but yeah it's pretty analogous.

Neither did the first attempt at explaining the creation back in the cave days, but then someone screamed in horror: "WE MUST PLEASE THE CREATOR" and thus religions were born.

If more people get on this simulation train, I guarantee you some one will ask "What should we do to please to administrators? What is their goal and how can we help them achieve it? Here's what I think it is."

[Kokolums]

I think the very first intelligent lifeform to arise in the universe is most likely to believe they are in a matrix because it will see a universe that is mysteriously devoid of life when that should not be the case. There's an incredibly low chance that any given intelligent lifeform is the first one in the history of the universe. But, there MUST be a first...

Younger civilizations that peer out into the universe and see a wide array of lifeforms are much less likely to believe they are in a matrix.

[Taeron]

The most highly debated and controversial topics in philosophy are typically about things we will likely never know.

Can you provide an example?