The quotes around “proof” in the title of this thread shows that this is well understood, and the loose use of the term “prove” here ignores extreme skepticism. Having suffered through a Theory of Knowledge class ruined by a couple of extreme skeptics, my solution to the problem is tarring and feathering all such, and then letting them have a splendid debate about whether their experience was an illusion or not. 
:smack:
That sounds like, in a response to Berkeley’s idealism, Johnson kicks a stone and claims, ‘I refute it thus’…
Humorous, but no cigar.
Solipsism, brain in a vat, everything is a dream. So what? Where’s the utility in such an epistemology? What does it tell you will happen when the falling piano reaches you? Are you willing to test it?
It has nothing to do with utility. It has everything to do with what is the case. If the self is a mere composite of ideas, believes and sensation etc., and the self, non-self is consciousness it would be substantial to know that. I think the idea that there is no world, no universe, no others etc. is most profound indeed. Where’s your wonder?
As it was intended to be. The point is, you can’t go anywhere from solipism. It’s worthy of a “wow, dude, that’s deep!” during a sophmore year bull session, but that is about it. That we can’t prove things about the physical world is no surprise to anyone.
Keynes’ first book was on how we can use an analogy of probability in deciding how much we should believe in things. The fact is, we continually do experiments testing to see if the world seems real. All of these allow the proposition that the world is real to be falsified. The billions of successful experiments gives us a strong level of confidence that the world is real. That this is all a simulation implies that first of all, there are no bugs in it, and second of all, there is some reason for the simulation to be far more complex than it has to be. If we’re the purpose, why wait 14 billion years of simulated time to inject us? If the purpose is to model the end, why not adjust the constants so the end comes faster? Why make the simulated universe so big?
I’m not saying I can prove the universe isn’t a simulation, just that for all practical purposes the proposition is pointless.
Is this an admission that it has no utility? I’m not denying the possibility of your claim. I just don’t see any utility in holding it. How would it change your actions? What doors would it open up? Why is this unprovable possibility any more valuable than any of the infinite other unprovable possibilities?
Prove it.
Huh?
Isn’t there wonder enough in the physicalist universe? Why do you want to eliminate its possibility?
For me the point is that before anyone specifies that I must provide objective proof that God exists in order to be considered “rational,” then that person is equally responsible for providing objective evidence that she or he exists. That sounds fair to me.
That person cannot prove to me that she or he exists. I cannot prove the existence of God. We’re even.
Do you often have arguments with imaginary people?
Why would we do experiments to see if the world ‘seems’ real? We don’t have to, the world seems real. Or more precisely, a collection of an indefinite number of observations appear to constitude a world that is there independent of any observations.
You went from ‘seeems’ real to ‘is’ real. Was that an error?
What do you mean by bugs? Do you mean that if this is a simulation/illusion, that there’s no indication in this illusion that it is an illusion?
It’s not about pratical purposes. It’s about understanding the nature of self and its relation to othere selves and a world and whether these distinctions are merely of a pratical nature.
I’m not making any claims. I’m saying as you and others are, X might be the case.
You’re realy stuck on this utility thing aren’t you?
Let’s see, how would knowing that this existence is an illusion, meaning for one thing that there is no individual self, change the actions of this self that does not act? Ummmm
I don’t know that it is unprovable, but it appears to underline all else.
Prove what? There’s probably a misunderstanding here. “…It has everything to do with what is the case. …” means, What is the case? What’s going on? etc. It’s an inquiry.
Part and parcel of the wonder of the physical universe is the wonder of whether or not there is such a thing.
I can see you have never been treated in a navy hospital as a married [female] dependent. I took to showing up on teh verge of the ambulance ride just so they would believe me when I said I was ill. Nothing like the opinion held by pretty much every military doc I ever saw that all wives are hypochondriacs looking for attention because hubby has been away at sea for a month.
You’re making a tentative claim that X might be true. As might be X[sub]1[/sub], X[sub]2[/sub], X[sub]3[/sub], … X[sub]∞[/sub]. Any particular reason to latch onto the one? (Yep, it’s that utility thing again. It’s a major flaw in your presentation.)
And yet you are able to respond (somewhat) to my meaning with your own. (Alan Turing would be intrigued.)
Try spending a day not believing in any of it.
As others have said, it’s about evidence. There’s a lot of evidence for me existing - you can see me, you can touch me, you can hear me. You and somebody else could see me independently and your descriptions of me would corroborate. I have mass, I affect the physical world. I can push over a chair. I can punch you in the face, and you’ll definitely feel it. As I said, a lot of observable, testable evidence for my existence. There’s little to no evidence of the G-man.
I suppose you can take the position that ‘there’s no proof of anything’. This sort of philosophical skepticism is an exercise in nihilistic futility and serves no real purpose (because nothing is real, of course!) besides being existentialist fodder for sophomores and stoners.
Why are you mixing objective evidence in one part of your sentence with objective proof in the other? If you have as much objective evidence for God as we do for the existence of other people, there would be no debate. I don’t have objective evidence for the existence of James Bond - should I believe in him nonetheless?
Our experiences in the world are the experiments, which we do like it or not.
I said increases the level of confidence that the world is real. We have perfect confidence that it seems real, which is a subjective judgement anyhow.
Ed Fredkin said that miracles might represent bugs in the simulation program. A bug would be an inconsistency.
I don’t see any understanding gained, just mental masturbation.