The Absolute = The Truth
Reality, here, is not either.
I think so, Truth is an absolute description of a reified utilitarian of reality . That there isn’t one is not the point, social awareness requires such, as ‘understood’ in terms anyone can understand, either latently, or patently.
The mixup occurs because the inherent supposition of reality often clashes with that which is exhibited as not supported by utilitarian principles of understanding.
That is why the truth, such as that of the assumed common good, has an assumed derivation into all aspects of life, whereas, that assumption is never deminstratsble, yet it is a necessary and binding assumption.
Let me ask you:
If somewhere way out there in the vast emptiness of space, there was a tiny subatomic particle floating around and someone said, “There is a small particle floating around”,
[list]a) would that person be telling a truth?
b) Is his statement “true”?
c) what is the real situation being described in his statement?[/list:u]
Huh? Truth is utilitarian in its very essence as undeniable. We do not have truth here.
JSS,
A truth is the whole story. A true is not, it’s more like a yes or no.
I am attempting to bring out the English distinction between “truth” and “reality”, for sake of a non-English born reader.
Reality is only a true (ah, checked the box). Okay, carry on then JSS.
There is no reason to suppose that all the above would be a description. I can only talk about the first one, (a) , because the truth and falsity of the subsequent have to primarily to do with that.
How is it absolutely confirmed, that the tiny particle is not an embedded piece of flint in the eye?
This happens all the time in all kinds of situations.
This is another way of interpreting it, however, James compelling argument rests on a naively assumption of the reality of absolute objectivism.
Due to the stipulated hypothesis:
“If somewhere way out there in the vast emptiness of space, there was a tiny subatomic particle…”
The questions were not about “If someone speculated that there was a particle….” The questions are asking about the given situation that there WAS a particle.
The biggest problem for people with the simulation hypothesis is determinism in that it gets rid of that precious delusional concept of free will.
I think the simulation hypothesis is possible but that more information is needed to make any kind of accurate inclination towards it. I’ve certainly have entertained the notion.
Once again determinism gets a horrible wrap because not enough people understand what it is.
It doesn’t mean we’re all a bunch of predetermined drones. You must remember that all individuals are not determined in the same exact very way. There are variables inside other variables concerning determinism and they’re all different in conflict with one another.
Within determinism there is some allowance of independence because of random chaotic flux. Not everything is particularly uniform.
Determinism merely means that whatever is, was caused by something prior to it. It has nothing to do with being uniformly coded.
A simulation would proposed the same state of every action being the result of something prior. Most of the time, the something prior would be an algorithmic result of the prior state of mind of the simulated subject. But on occasion, the programmer would have to step in and alter that result such that the algorithm was disabled.
My argument is that if such as simulation effort was to be perfect, every intervention that the programmer makes would result in a vast flood of new needed interventions. With billions of people as subjects to control, the need for intervention would necessarily become infinite.
It is just an issue of math. Such a perfect simulation is mathematically impossible.
In the real world, such simulations (people being hypnotized into their behavior), have a great deal of slop that is handled via other means because the perfect simulation architect cannot be designed nor created.
There are a variety of films depicting this scenario:
[list]The Matrix
13th Floor
The Adjustment Bureau
.
. [/list:u]
There is a program or design in the hypothetical universal simulation to some degree but it doesn’t mean that there is a central programmer and designer. I have to dig a bit but there was an interesting quote from Stephen Hawking to this effect. A simulation doesn’t require a central programmer or designer.
In a simulation everything is not uniformly coded or organized. On this we agree with one another.
Truth is the exact opposite of an absolute, it is like a flow of bubbles.
The only thing absolute about it is it’s lack of absolutity.
Trixiebelle wrote
MM wrote
I’ve been reading into this hypothesis for several days now and I also like Carleas am coming into conflict with many underpinnings of this belief. When it comes down to it in quantum physics it is one of idealism versus materialism where everybody knows the kind of philosophical materialist that I am. So, I am taking a direct stance against this hypothesis.
I’ll write more about this in the thread at a later time.
It seems this quantum physics notion of simulism is built upon neoplatonic bullshit.
Okay dude, please start a thread explaining your issues with hypnosis. I might or might not agree. But realize that such is NOT a novice issue with me. Nor is quantum physics (seemingly totally unrelated to hypnosis … although not unrelated to bullshit).
Let’s talk about the question whether the simulation hypothesis resp. the simulationism has much in common with Platon’s idealism (Platonism, Neo-Platonism, … and so on).
Well, it’s what I brought up earlier …
So Plato turns away from the shadows, and suddenly abstracts “shadowness”…
Now what’s to keep Plato from thinking he’s a shadow not only to others, but himself?
Assuming Plato is obsessed with these forms…
How does Plato resolve inverse Turing tests (why are we not simulations)?