'Why?' A man-made question with a never-ending answer.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Against my better judgement, I will respond and ask you where you get the reasoning as to why you think that existence if a massive shared hallucination?

You sound concerned, which is why most people shouldn't asks these questions in the first place. For you, my advice is you need to think the answer to "Why?" Is simply "Because" and go back to entertaining yourself.

All better now!

Really? Because I thought it would produce a paradox given your reasoning so far. If thinking something eventually makes it the truth, then therefore thinking that everything you think is wrong would eventually produce a paradox, where everything you think is wrong because you think it to be so. If that isn't the case, then merely thinking something has no influence on truth, apart from the truth of merely what you are thinking.
------ It doesn't produce a paradox. Can't you tell we're in a reality you CANNOT control by merely thinking anymore? Imagine how we got here.

If you want me to connect the dots, you only have to ask "Is it possible for someone who gets whatever they want and wish for, to eventually sink into a quagmire of a reality where they inadvertently wished for the wishes to take longer to become true?" Especially easy to answer that question if you imagine this person wanted to erect a mental buffer to slow wishes down to prevent them from dying the moment they wished they were dead, say from being embarrassed. Then, you could also wish that your wishes could be manipulated while en route to your position, so you could change them in case you didn't want them.

A latency delay between your desires and their production is only natural.

But if I did think that, then it would become the truth, and therefore I would be affirmed in my thoughts by my thoughts becoming reality, right?

Also, if I think really hard about a vanilla ice cream cone for long enough, will one appear in front of me with no physical explanation?
------ You're correct about the first sentence, but what if we've reached a point where you no longer have more than 50% of your own brain to wish with, and the wishes of your other brain cells are frustrating you? (Other people, for example.) Also, you cannot control your own Id, probably because you wished for that perhaps? The turning into reality point will rely upon, and demand, convincing even your own subconscious Id.

And in regards to Vanilla Ice cream, it WILL appear. But you'll have gone and got it, of course. I don't understand why you are unwilling to connect the dots.

Perhaps at some point, the dots will connect for you, and someone will bring you the ice cream. But you'd never mentally invest that far into this, and you know it.

You have to accept that you're in control but not in control. That is the answer. EDIT: For only just the current hallucinatory moment in this world only of course, this can change if you wish it changes! By no means don't let anyone shackle you down, I'm sorry I didn't inset this edit sooner.

Also, in FURTHER REGARDS TO THE VANILLA ICE CREAM as well as how we discussed the Id of your mind, the more you doubt that this would ever work WHILE YOU WERE WISHING FOR IT TO APPEAR would count against you, so it would never appear at all if you didn't try hard enough...

And that's all because you wanted to hallucinate it be that way. Ta-daa!

In conclusion, there's a reason why successful people advise you to actually envision your achievement of success in real terms and conditions and realistic scenarios. That's what anyone would advise anyone to do in the middle of a massive shared hallucination to obtain what they wanted.

[Phantombeard]

The answer is simple, In the beginning. One day a bird flew over a rock and shit on it. Then a storm came and lightning struck the shit on the rock and out popped a human being. There is your answer. Take it as you will.

[spinner981]

You sound concerned, which is why most people shouldn't asks these questions in the first place. For you, my advice is you need to think the answer to "Why?" Is simply "Because" and go back to entertaining yourself.

All better now!

But if I did think that, then it would become the truth, and therefore I would be affirmed in my thoughts by my thoughts becoming reality, right?

Also, if I think really hard about a vanilla ice cream cone for long enough, will one appear in front of me with no physical explanation?

[spinner981]

No.

However, I will appear in front of you - with no physical explanation - to silently stare and judge you for wishing for vanilla in the first place.

What can I say? I am a traditionalist and I have taste. There's a reason why its still on top after all.

[Gheld]

It should be mentioned that there's also no reason to assume that intelligent life is less ordered than less intelligent life.
'
In the path of Ockham's razor it comes out as a reaosnable assumption that either A. Everybody has free will, or B. Gheld is the only free thinking being in all of existence. Both are more probable than nobody having free will. And A. is the most probable, because B requires assuming that my experience is unique.

Aka "non freewillians" are full of it.

[spinner981]

It should be mentioned that there's also no reason to assume that intelligent life is less ordered than less intelligent life.
'
In the path of Ockham's razor it comes out as a reaosnable assumption that either A. Everybody has free will, or B. Gheld is the only free thinking being in all of existence. Both are more probable than nobody having free will. And A. is the most probable, because B requires assuming that my experience is unique.

Aka "non freewillians" are full of it.

Occam's Razor is a bit silly from my perspective. Whichever theory requires the least number of assumptions? Doesn't that just leave room to divide or combine different assumptions? Are we to include the other base assumptions necessary to each assumption made? Like "Assuming that reality exists." and "Assuming that this entire line of thinking isn't just everyone involved attempting to troll the others while unbeknownst to them that the others are also trolling them."

Just seems too easy to label whatever you want as 'simple' or 'complex' to make whatever theory you want fit into Occam's Razor.

Why is the assumption of everybody having free will more 'probable' than nobody having free will?

[Thoughtful Trolli]

ON A FINAL NOTE THAT'S EXTREMELY NECESSARY WARNING DANGER:::

If you wish TOO HARD, you can make your wishes come true by DAMAGING YOUR OWN BRAIN.

Wishes like this will let you walk through walls, but only because you've damage your own brain so much you really believe its happening, while everyone else simply agrees with you and asks you to take your special pills again.

In the end you WILL GET what you deeply desire no matter how hard it is or how hard you desire it, but once you realize this warning, would you be willing to go completely insane to get to the magical world you've been yearning for? Because then of course this unfalsifiable proves true, as you will be in your much better, happier life, but it will be a hallucination caused by damaging your own brain by wishing too much.


It should be mentioned that there's also no reason to assume that intelligent life is less ordered than less intelligent life.
'
In the path of Ockham's razor it comes out as a reaosnable assumption that either A. Everybody has free will, or B. Gheld is the only free thinking being in all of existence. Both are more probable than nobody having free will. And A. is the most probable, because B requires assuming that my experience is unique.

Aka "non freewillians" are full of it.
------ This sounds like something someone who's desires to hold onto his own belief that his free will exists would say. Of course we won't be able to change your mind about it since you're not in control of yourself yet.

In regards to "no reason to assume that intelligent life is less ordered than less intelligent life." You might be confused by the fact that our total goal of progression is to transform the effort-demanding tasks into effortless tasks, the final transformation of which would be the elimination of life. Life's a glitch, because sentience is a lie. But again you can do whatever you want with this belief, and I personally opt to invest in the glitch, as if we're going to be "fixed" by sliding into a permanently successful unconsciousness, then there's no reason to belief that we could perpetuate this glitch forever and so we might as well invest in the glitch as having the highest value, sort of like betting everything on the guy you don't want to win, so either way you win.

Occam's Razor is a bit silly from my perspective. Whichever theory requires the least number of assumptions?
------ It can be silly but most hallucinations invest in this, so it works more often than not. Get it?

[Kapadons]

Why is the basis for nearly every science discovery ever.


Why not is the basis for nearly every technological advancement ever.

[spinner981]

ON A FINAL NOTE THAT'S EXTREMELY NECESSARY WARNING DANGER:::

If you wish TOO HARD, you can make your wishes come true by DAMAGING YOUR OWN BRAIN.

Wishes like this will let you walk through walls, but only because you've damage your own brain so much you really believe its happening, while everyone else simply agrees with you and asks you to take your special pills again.

In the end you WILL GET what you deeply desire no matter how hard it is or how hard you desire it, but once you realize this warning, would you be willing to go completely insane to get to the magical world you've been yearning for? Because then of course this unfalsifiable proves true, as you will be in your much better, happier life, but it will be a hallucination caused by damaging your own brain by wishing too much.

Sounds like some Inception level stuff.

[Nanaboostme]

but it would eventually end with "I / we don't know".

I missed this part and totally agree with you and seems to be the closest to as the final answer.

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Sounds like some Inception level stuff.

That's why its dangerous to think about it to begin with and most people settle on "Because."

I might have done many people who read this a disfavor, setting them afloat in an ocean which can only continue if you now move your arms voluntarily, realizing that before, there was a piece of your own brain you didn't know about doing all the swimming for you. Like "now you are breathing manually." kind of crap. But right now I'm a bit pissed myself so I don't fucking care if this comes to haunt anyone. You're the morty I shoved into roy, I'm the rick.

If I could help you return to a more peaceful state of mind, you should imagine I am a troll full of bullshit, and laugh at me. The end.

EDIT: Btw, the effect this is causing is known as disassociation disorder. It's why Leonardo Decaprio's wife killed herself; "This isn't the most real reality!" It's important to come back, it helps to think of people you love to come back.

It's hell if the only person you love leaves you.

It's a pandemic if you realize every single other human mind on this planet has had this same experience but nobody is willing to talk about it because they don't want to go back into the ocean again.

[Pandorox]

We're ever evolving beings searching for knowledge. "Why" has led us to the top of the foodchain. We dominate the ecosystem through this one simple question.. "Why?"

[Dedweight]

The final answer to the question "Why?" is simply "Because."

Only to be followed by yet another "Why?"

[Thoughtful Trolli]

Only to be followed by yet another "Why?"

If you want it that way, I guess.

[Nanaboostme]

No, since just asking 'why' has no real content.

There, saved you a whole project.

Well the project is a short story based two characters of Man of Science vs Man of Faith, so ultimately I want it to be open-ended and not leaning more towards one side. So you actually helped me more profoundly than you exaggerated.

[Nynax]

Okaaaaaaaaaaaaaay. Geez.

Bringing some of this conversation back "down to Earth." I think it's very important to note that "why?" is what separates humans as a species, and that it is very different from the question of "what?" There are plenty of animals that ask "what?" when trying to figure something out, like a dog "what happens when I roll the ball? Oh a treat comes out!" "What?" is a very if-than question that many animals use, through much trial, to learn new behaviors.

On a pragmatic level (not meaning-of-existance level) "why?" is very much a question of "how?" And it is the understanding of "how" that ultimately lead to the development of civilization and science, as we learned how the world around us functioned purely buy asking "why?" first.

And maybe that can be an angle for your project. When asked why the stars in the sky move, the Man of Faith declares "Well because the Gods made it so, so that we may understand the seasons and harvest our fields!" The Man of Science, however, only continues the question "Why do the stars move? And notice how the Sun and Moon move differently. Why is that, what is their relation? Maybe it's not the stars that are moving?" And the scientist continues to ask until he feels he can understand "how" it works.

[spinner981]

Well the project is a short story based two characters of Man of Science vs Man of Faith, so ultimately I want it to be open-ended and not leaning more towards one side. So you actually helped me more profoundly than you exaggerated.

Why are they necessarily two opposing sides?

[Surfd]

<snip> Giant Wall of Mental Masturbation </snip>.

Wow, that was deep man. Utterly pointless, but deep.

[Garnier Fructis]

Why are they necessarily two opposing sides?

Well, he could be speaking of something with more sides, like an octagon.

[spinner981]

Well, he could be speaking of something with more sides, like an octagon.

If science and faith were opposing sides of an octagon, what would be the other six sides? If they were midway points between a complete reliance on science and a complete reliance on faith (say, North and South such as on a compass, with the other sides being East, West, N-east, N-west, S-east and S-west), what would differentiate the east side from the west side, or the N-east side from the N-west side? Perhaps it would be more like a line, with each extreme on each end, and the closer to the center the more balanced the two are.