A colleague and I were discussing what we perceive to be reality and how to prove things, and he tried saying how we could never know things for sure. He gave four examples.
-First, when it comes to optical illusions on paper like circles that appear to be rotating due to the way our eye perceives them, he said “How do you know that this isn’t true?”: there is no such thing as an optical illusion, and there are actually super thin nano-tech motors that have been covertly developed inside the paper that rotate the circles, and they are able to correspond themselves wherever someone draws them on the paper, and they cannot be detected because all observation devices have little chips inside to deceive the observer?
-Second, Again with nanobots, how do you know for certain that toilet cleaner formulas kill grime with chemical formulas, instead of having undetectable nanobots that eat away the grime and are flushed down the toilet and recycled and used again for the same purpose?
- Third, how do you know for absolute certainty that there are not several virtually-undetectable government wiretaps in your bedroom? You may have no reason not to believe they do, but you also have no reason to believe that they don’t, for whatever purpose
-Fourth, how do you know that we ourselves do not live in some sort of artificial reality similar to “The Matrix”. You may not be able to prove that we do, but you cannot prove that we don’t, either.
Though many of these statements might seem absurd, there really is no easy way to prove that it is crap. So here’s the question: How would you go about disproving the alternative claims made here if you have it proposed to you in a philosophy class? If you could please address these scenarios separately when explaining, as opposed to being general about all of them.
I suppose the main thing that baffled me was the “you can’t prove it, but you can’t disprove it either” idea. How does that idea work?
- Red
- 42
- Muzak Had A Baby And They Called It Disco
- hello
(In other words, why bother?)
Our universe and everything in it including all sentient being are a “software”(the best available term) simulation being run on an incredibly advanced computer of alien origin.
Prove or disprove this.
I know you said not to be general, but there really is one answer: Occam’s Razor. The best solution is to pick the explanation that requires the fewest assumptions after taking into account all the known evidence. This is a well known tool, both in philosophy and science. If everything could exist and happen in the matrix, or without the matrix, then you prefer the latter because it doesn’t add complexity and assume a computer (since the existence of the computer moves the “from whence” question up one level, where the hell did the computer simulating our world come from?).
I guess this pretty much sums up my answer as well.
Perception IS reality, and everyone’s is different from anyone else’s. Some people firmly believe in the ubiquity of nanobots and others don’t. That their existence can’t be proven or disproven doesn’t matter. We see the same phenomenon at work in religion and politics. The best anyone can do is to accept that their own reality is valid, and also not the only one.
(Researcher note: subject 599875-G is coming too close to invalidating the double-blinded protocol. Suggest wiping personality sim and replacment with clear copy.)
It is not proven until someone presents objective, falsifiable evidence that it is true. Until then, it doesn’t exist. There is no need to disprove anything. Nothing exists until it is proven.
Not until he gives us the access codes.
Oops, did I say that out loud?