Philosophy Now Forum

Where do you have this criterium of "copied and simulated" from ?

Is it your own baby ?

A_part_of_existence wrote: 2) How do we hypothetically doubt the reality of something? If the thing in question could be copied or simulated, then its reality is doubtable.

I would question this, if something can be copied or simulated, there must be an original that is copied or simulated and that would prove the existence of the original. I believe this constitutes a flaw in this 'given' that refutes the rest.

It has just occurred to me:

Platonic forms can be copied and the real things derive from them.

The form of triangle is copied and becomes a triangle in the real world.

So the abstract idea of a triangle can be copied and is therefore NOT real.
Whereas all the copies of this form, existing in front of our eyes, cannot be copied and are therefore real.

I am finite and my emotions are finite too.
Therefore I can be copied and simulated. And my emotions too.
Therefore I am not real. And neither are my emotions.

It THAT what you are saying ?

Whilst I am saying hypothetically you can be copied or simulated, I am not saying that you are a simulation or copy for sure. I am saying that there is a hypothetical possibility that you may be a copy or a simulation and because of this, you are not indubitably real.

Instead of "Therefore I am not real. And neither are my emotions." I am essentially saying "Therefore I may not be real." But we need something indubitably real.

Where do you have this criterium of "copied and simulated" from ? Is it your own baby ?

Yeah

It has just occurred to me:

Platonic forms can be copied and the real things derive from them.

The form of triangle is copied and becomes a triangle in the real world.

So the abstract idea of a triangle can be copied and is therefore NOT real.
Whereas all the copies of this form, existing in front of our eyes, cannot be copied and are therefore real.

I'm not sure I understand your point. Could you please expand on it?

thedoc wrote:

A_part_of_existence wrote: 2) How do we hypothetically doubt the reality of something? If the thing in question could be copied or simulated, then its reality is doubtable.

I would question this, if something can be copied or simulated, there must be an original that is copied or simulated and that would prove the existence of the original. I believe this constitutes a flaw in this 'given' that refutes the rest.

I think that if something can be copied or simulated, then the reality from which it is copied or simulated from, must be able to accommodate the copy or simulation in question. For example:

If I see a unicorn in a dream, then all the simple ideas and core attributes that make up a unicorn (3-dimensionality, shape, colour, etc.) must be accommodated by the reality on which my dream is dependent on (it must have at least 3 spatial dimensions or more). If it's logically impossible in the real world, then it is impossible in the simulative realities that are wholly contingent upon the true reality.

For example, I know that I will never dream of a square-circle. Existence can't accommodate such absurdity; therefore in no level of reality will such a thing be.

So, If anything can be copied or simulated, then we can be certain that the reality from which it was copied or simulated from, can accommodate it. But my point is that the specific thing in question may not have a duplicate feature in reality. There may be no unicorns in reality, or we may not be featuring in the true reality (this may just be a simulative world). Therefore we cannot be indubitably real and may have no counterpart in reality.

On this basis, I think premise 2 holds.

Do you use the word "real" in the sense of something like "authentic" or "unique" ?

Nietzsche is real because authentic and unique, whereas a person without a pronounced personality is not real ? Or not yet real ?

Bravo for the courage to offer some product of your own thinking.

Do you use the word "real" in the sense of something like "authentic" or "unique" ?

I don't think I've explained well enough what I mean by real.

Essentially, I think that if there is existence, then there is reality. Reality can be simulated (dreams, matrix worlds, imagination etc.,)

Our world, is real to us. It may or may not be the original reality (as in we may be part of a matrix world) but it is our reality. The problem is, we don't know for sure if our reality is the original reality or a simulation of it.

Interestingly, we have items of thought (they exist in our mind) that cannot be limited to a simulative reality. Furthermore, they cannot be simulated. So the only logical option left, is to associate them with the original reality. As in omnipresence cannot be limited to a simulative reality otherwise it is not omnipresent.

If something exists, and it cannot be part of a simulative world and it cannot be simulated, then what other hypothetical option is there than to associate this thing with the original reality?

Nietzsche is real because authentic and unique, whereas a person without a pronounced personality is not real ? Or not yet real ?

Let's say Nietzsche is unique and authentic. Does this say anything about whether he is a part of the original reality? He could be unique in our reality, but if our reality is a simulation of another reality, then Nietzsche is not part of the original reality. All we can say is that if our reality is not the original reality, then the original reality must be able to accommodate our reality (as in the original reality must have at least 3 spatial dimensions for ours to be able to have it and so on)

duszek wrote:Bravo for the courage to offer some product of your own thinking.

Thank you!

A_part_of_existence wrote:1) If something is indubitably real, then it's reality is absolutely immune to doubt
2) How do we hypothetically doubt the reality of something? If the thing in question could be copied or simulated, then its reality is doubtable.
3) Given 2, that which cannot be copied or simulated is indubitably real
4) the only items that cannot be copied or simulated in anyway are: omnipresence (substance) omnipotence and omniscience
5) Given 4, that which is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, is indubitably real.

That which is indubitably real, is the first item of knowledge.

Total irrelevant questions!
Only if we have a mental problem then we should question what is real or not, else it a good waste of time to sit and navel gaze over this nonens topic.

HexHammer wrote:

A_part_of_existence wrote:1) If something is indubitably real, then it's reality is absolutely immune to doubt
2) How do we hypothetically doubt the reality of something? If the thing in question could be copied or simulated, then its reality is doubtable.
3) Given 2, that which cannot be copied or simulated is indubitably real
4) the only items that cannot be copied or simulated in anyway are: omnipresence (substance) omnipotence and omniscience
5) Given 4, that which is omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient, is indubitably real.

That which is indubitably real, is the first item of knowledge.

Total irrelevant questions!
Only if we have a mental problem then we should question what is real or not, else it a good waste of time to sit and navel gaze over this nonens topic.

So...everything is real and I shouldn't question what is real or not? That's ridiculous.

I should add that by "true reality" I mean "original reality". Dreams are real when we experience them but we cannot be certain that our dreams or even our waking experiences are not a simulation of some aspect of the original reality.

A_part_of_existence wrote:So...everything is real and I shouldn't question what is real or not? That's ridiculous.

I should add that by "true reality" I mean "original reality". Dreams are real when we experience them but we cannot be certain that our dreams or even our waking experiences are not a simulation of some aspect of the original reality.

So in order to accuse my post of being ridiculous, you must prove it wrong istead of making a whiney emotional outburst, defeat me intellectually, not with nonsen and babble.

A_part_of_existence wrote: Interestingly, we have items of thought (they exist in our mind) that cannot be limited to a simulative reality. Furthermore, they cannot be simulated. So the only logical option left, is to associate them with the original reality. As in omnipresence cannot be limited to a simulative reality otherwise it is not omnipresent.

If something exists, and it cannot be part of a simulative world and it cannot be simulated, then what other hypothetical option is there than to associate this thing with the original reality?

How do you decide whether something can or cannot be part of a simulative world and whether it can or cannot be simulated ?

Do you have any criteria ?
Do you have any examples to illustrate the two options ?

HexHammer wrote:

A_part_of_existence wrote:So...everything is real and I shouldn't question what is real or not? That's ridiculous.

I should add that by "true reality" I mean "original reality". Dreams are real when we experience them but we cannot be certain that our dreams or even our waking experiences are not a simulation of some aspect of the original reality.

So in order to accuse my post of being ridiculous, you must prove it wrong istead of making a whiney emotional outburst, defeat me intellectually, not with nonsen and babble.

If you make an objection to the premises posted, then I might be able to respond. But I can't respond to the following which you wrote:

Total irrelevant questions!
Only if we have a mental problem then we should question what is real or not, else it a good waste of time to sit and navel gaze over this nonens topic.

duszek wrote: How do you decide whether something can or cannot be part of a simulative world and whether it can or cannot be simulated ?

Do you have any criteria ?
Do you have any examples to illustrate the two options ?

I think the only items of thought we have that can't be limited to a simulative world are:
existence, reality, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience.

My reason for highlighting the above is that by definition, those items cannot be limited to a simulative world because that would lead to a paradox.

If something is omnipresent (it's in everything and encompasses everything) then it must feature in reality as well as every simulative world.

If something is omnipotent, then it can do all things doable in existence. If such a thing does not have reach or access to the entirety of existence, then how can it be omnipotent? In other words, omnipotence is paradoxical unless the entity in question is omnipresent and omniscient (it must know how to do all things in order to be able to do all things)

The same applies to omniscience. If something does not have access or reach to the entirety of existence, then how can it know all that there is to know in existence? So I think the entity in question must be omnipresent in order to be omniscient.

So omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience are logically tied to each other such that if you remove one of these traits from the entity in question, then the other traits become paradoxical.

Interestingly, omnipresent has essentially the same definition as existence: Everything that exists is within existence. That which is omnipresent is in everything and everything is in it. Existence encompasses all things. That which is omnipresent encompasses all things.