We know that we must differentiate between appearance and reality. An apparently single stationary solid object is really many moving particles with spaces between them. Reality becomes conscious of itself by appearing to itself but in different ways. Appearances to a bat are different from appearances to a man. In fact, human beings often seem to perceive different realities. Physically, we inhabit a material reality. Psychologically, we inhabit a perceived and apparent reality. If we discovered that what we had thought to be a material reality was on the contrary a virtual reality, this would be just another level of the reality-appearance distinction.
Andrea above the Old Pier Bookshop thinks that there is evidence that we are in a virtual reality. Part of the argument is probabilistic. If there is one primary reality that contains many virtuals each of which also contains many virtuals, then it is more probable that we are in one of the virtuals than in the primary. Our apparent reality has remained consistent for a very long time or at least seems to have done but, if our memories are revisable, then we don't know whether they are reliable.
8 comments:
That's similar to the argument that everything around you is a dream. Non-falsifiable, therefore meaningless.
Apparently, there is some slight evidence. I found some by googling.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't believe one bit we are in a virtual reality. Your speculations, and Andrea's opinion, reminds me of the views of the Anglican Bishop Berkeley, who wondered if a tree actually falls in a forest if no one was there to see it fall. An absurdity which Dr. Sam Johnson irritatedly said he refuted by kicking a rock.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Berkeley was a philosophical idealist. I am a philosophical materialist. Whether we are inside a virtuality is matter of evidence. Some people say there is some. "Not believing one bit" is the wrong way to approach any alleged evidence.
Paul.
a matter
Besides, using virtualities as settings for stories faces a problem -- the results aren't 'real'. No real death, no real suffering.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: No, some absurdities deserve only a Johnsonian brushoff. A current example being the "transsexual" lunacy.
Mr. Stirling: I agree, but virtualities can be useful as training tools.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But I was referring to the question of whether there is any empirical evidence that we are living inside a virtual reality. We already know that reality and appearance differ so no theory should be ruled out before looking at any evidence.
I do not understand the transsexual issue. We need a lot more dialogue and understanding before we dismiss as absurd an issue that clearly does affect and concern a lot of people. (I think that the basic problem is that the world is so divided that massive polarizations occur across a range of issues.)
Paul.
Post a Comment