Is reality fake?

[Luziyca]

Because we are able to think independently, then that means that we are conscious. Unless we are in another state of being ... U+1F626

We may be conscious, but for all we know, we can just be brains stored in a leaky jar in an abandoned hospital.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because we are able to think independently, then that means that we are conscious. Unless we are in another state of being ... U+1F626

We may be conscious, but for all we know, we can just be brains stored in a leaky jar in an abandoned hospital.

But you do take the existence of a brain for granted, even if you think reality is not real, why?

[The Holy Empire of the Spaghetti Monster]

Because we are able to think independently, then that means that we are conscious. Unless we are in another state of being ... U+1F626

We may be conscious, but for all we know, we can just be brains stored in a leaky jar in an abandoned hospital.

Well, I hope my jar isn't too leaky...

[Ifreann]

We may be conscious, but for all we know, we can just be brains stored in a leaky jar in an abandoned hospital.

Well, I hope my jar isn't too leaky...

Your jar is a colander.

[Sanctissima]

Oh god, Sollipsism.

No, reality is not fake. The universe we live in is very much real.

[Escape from Trump]

Reality is, by definition real. So the real question is, what is reality?Does it even exist? Yeah, okay, that's two questions, but that's not the point. Well, what clearly distinguishes reality from fantasy is that fantasy was created by reality, usually a person in reality. This can still mean there are lther realities- ones that weren't created from this one.

[Luziyca]

No, screw Cartesian metaphysics.

Bad Luz, Bad.

Why would Cartesian metaphysics be bad?

We may be conscious, but for all we know, we can just be brains stored in a leaky jar in an abandoned hospital.

But you do take the existence of a brain for granted, even if you think reality is not real, why?

Because we have to be on some storage format. Without a brain, we would not be here.

Oh god, Sollipsism.

No, reality is not fake. The universe we live in is very much real.

What makes you think that the universe is real?

[Australian rePublic]

Something just occurred to me, don't you think if we were in the Matrix, the AIs would be thinking "Oh shit, they're on to us, better do something about this"

Well, I don't need a blue pill

Do you perhaps require a yellow pill?

[Sanctissima]

Oh god, Sollipsism.

No, reality is not fake. The universe we live in is very much real.

What makes you think that the universe is real?

Because I have no reason to believe it is not.

[Luziyca]

Something just occurred to me, don't you think if we were in the Matrix, the AIs would be thinking "Oh shit, they're on to us, better do something about this"

Maybe they want us to find the truth, so to help them find out whether their reality is fake.

What makes you think that the universe is real?

Because I have no reason to believe it is not.

But you have no reason to believe that it is, either.

[Sanctissima]

Because I have no reason to believe it is not.

But you have no reason to believe that it is, either.

I have every reason to believe that it is. Everything I can see, feel, smell or otherwise interact with is indicative of reality. The only thing that isn't is a philosophical thought experiment.

[Jamzmania]

Yes... or is it really no?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

No, screw Cartesian metaphysics.

Bad Luz, Bad.

Why would Cartesian metaphysics be bad?

But you do take the existence of a brain for granted, even if you think reality is not real, why?

Because we have to be on some storage format. Without a brain, we would not be here.

Oh god, Sollipsism.

No, reality is not fake. The universe we live in is very much real.

What makes you think that the universe is real?

Because it relies on a flawed dualism contortion.

I mean, your way is averting the problem of mind-body dualism by deducting that, because the mind is data, there is a place where said data is stored. According to this, we call this storage space the brain.

However, if reality didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to tell for certain that the only certainty is that your brain exist as a form of data storage for your mind. Because such a material certainty exist, we can thus say that reality exists.

[Luziyca]

Well, I hope my jar isn't too leaky...

Your jar is a colander.

Blame Trump for the cutbacks.

But you have no reason to believe that it is, either.

I have every reason to believe that it is. Everything I can see, feel, smell or otherwise interact with is indicative of reality. The only thing that isn't is a philosophical thought experiment.

But there is a chance that they are just figments of your imagination, just like the text that you read on this page. It is possible that we are just hallucinating reality as we know it.

[Leolucia]

[Sanctissima]

I have every reason to believe that it is. Everything I can see, feel, smell or otherwise interact with is indicative of reality. The only thing that isn't is a philosophical thought experiment.

But there is a chance that they are just figments of your imagination, just like the text that you read on this page. It is possible that we are just hallucinating reality as we know it.

Possibly, but the likelihood of that is so infinitesimally small that I hardly consider it relevant.

[Luziyca]

Why would Cartesian metaphysics be bad?


Because we have to be on some storage format. Without a brain, we would not be here.


What makes you think that the universe is real?

Because it relies on a flawed dualism contortion.

I mean, your way is averting the problem of mind-body dualism by deducting that, because the mind is data, there is a place where said data is stored. According to this, we call this storage space the brain.

However, if reality didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to tell for certain that the only certainty is that your brain exist as a form of data storage for your mind.

I concede on the point that it would be difficult to prove that the only certainty is the storage space.

But without a storage space for our experiences of reality, there is no reality whatsoever. We need some place to store it.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because it relies on a flawed dualism contortion.

I mean, your way is averting the problem of mind-body dualism by deducting that, because the mind is data, there is a place where said data is stored. According to this, we call this storage space the brain.

However, if reality didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to tell for certain that the only certainty is that your brain exist as a form of data storage for your mind.

I concede on the point that it would be difficult to prove that the only certainty is the storage space.

But without a storage space for our experiences of reality, there is no reality whatsoever. We need some place to store it.

And thus reality must exist if there needs to be, by necessity, a material storage space.

So objective reality must exist because the causality rule of your argument dictates that by necessity there must be a reality.

[Purple Empire]

Because it relies on a flawed dualism contortion.

I mean, your way is averting the problem of mind-body dualism by deducting that, because the mind is data, there is a place where said data is stored. According to this, we call this storage space the brain.

However, if reality didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to tell for certain that the only certainty is that your brain exist as a form of data storage for your mind.

I concede on the point that it would be difficult to prove that the only certainty is the storage space.

But without a storage space for our experiences of reality, there is no reality whatsoever. We need some place to store it.

Simulated reality logica. Maybe all laws of nature doesn't exist in the 'real', non-simulated reality. We don't know...

[Luziyca]

I concede on the point that it would be difficult to prove that the only certainty is the storage space.

But without a storage space for our experiences of reality, there is no reality whatsoever. We need some place to store it.

And thus reality must exist if there needs to be, by necessity, a material storage space.

So objective reality must exist because the causality rule of your argument dictates that by necessity there must be a reality.

That reality does not need to be in the same space as this reality, though.

[Aigania]

It is not solipsism to question the nature of reality.

It is true that Elon Musk have made comments in that direction, but he is hardly alone in the scientific community.

Testing the hypothesis physically

"A long-shot method to test one type of simulation hypothesis was proposed in 2012 in a joint paper by physicists Silas R. Beane from the University of Bonn (now at the University of Washington, Seattle), and Zohreh Davoudi and Martin J. Savage from the University of Washington, Seattle.[12] Under the assumption of finite computational resources, the simulation of the universe would be performed by dividing the continuum space-time into a discrete set of points. In analogy with the mini-simulations that lattice-gauge theorists run today to build up nuclei from the underlying theory of strong interactions (known as Quantum chromodynamics), several observational consequences of a grid-like space-time have been studied in their work. Among proposed signatures is an anisotropy in the distribution of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, that, if observed, would be consistent with the simulation hypothesis according to these physicists[13]. A multitude of physical observables must be explored before any such scenario could be accepted or rejected as a theory of nature.[14]."

Taken from wikipedia, approach with caution. The real frightening thing it that

1) We can formulate such a question.
2) We can devise methods for in a falsifiability test.

Besides the recent observation data from Planck observatory that support the holographic principle.

http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10 ... 118.041301

Scary or a reflect of the thinking of a society dominated by information technology tools?

[Union of Despotistan]

Brexit passed, the Cubs won the World Series, Trump won the US Presidency.

Next thing up is the Berenstein bears.

[San Marlindo]

The Mandela effect lends credence to this theory that the perception of facts and reality are different for every individual.

Truth is, there is a difference between generally accepted fact and fact itself.

This affects the information we have and in turn how we perceive situations around us.

Just because something has been generally accepted as fact does not mean it is true. In my lifetime I have been (inadvertently) guilty of propagating myths that were republished as fact. And I have also witnessed cover-ups on a national scale designed to alter global perception of the truth back when I worked in human rights under a brutal Third World regime. That's one reason I find the X-Files entertaining, even if I don't believe in aliens.

I actually saw this happen: human rights organizations including the one I worked for held a conference with representatives of a donor state to report an atrocity. The idea was that they would then go to the local regime and pressure them over said atrocity. A rep from UNHRC was also present during these meetings. What happened instead was the UN remained silent on the issue and the media outlets in the country of the donor government reported the regime propaganda about the specific incident instead. This information was subsequently taken up by major news outlets in the US and EU. The misinformation was reported on the BBC. Then it appeared on Wikipedia, with multiple sources to back it up. As of yesterday it has been repeated in several thesis papers available online and one published book.

The donor government knew the truth. I was there when the facts were offered to their ambassador. And yet we never heard back from them and they allowed the media outlets in their country to believe the brutal dictatorship over civil society. Why?

Well, a few months later, the regime signed a lucrative new trade deal with said donor government. In global diplomacy, the truth is the first casualty.

Now whose version of events are you going to believe? Me, someone you've never met, a random man posting online, or the multiple credible news sites, the book published by a distinguished professor, and the thesis papers? It doesn't matter that I know the truth. I'm not credible by comparison. You'll believe the falsehood instead and gladly accuse me of being a liar because I don't have sources on my side. Brilliant, isn't it?

As noted in the OP, the more blatant phenomenon of fake news is on the rise. And the Internet has played a key role in that. As part of my aforementioned old job I used to do a lot of fact-checking. Here's something else I learned: information that is freely available on the internet gets repeated more often than information published in say, an obscure print academic journal even if the latter is more accurate.

This goes back to my original example: as more and more sources echo the inaccurate or skewed Internet information, that becomes accepted fact as opposed to reality. Since more sources repeat the inaccuracy, it would be logical to regard them as a truth.

Ergo, we all have a certain number of falsehoods floating around in our brain mixed in with all the credible information.

Ergo, none of us has a clear picture of the truth and thus, a clear perception of reality. Facts are fickle and can always be manipulated. Take everything you hear or read with a grain of salt.

I never forgot that lesson.

[Philjia]

Who cares? It's real enough.

[Luziyca]

The Mandela effect lends credence to this theory that the perception of facts and reality are different for every individual.

Truth is, there is a difference between generally accepted fact and fact itself.

This affects the information we have and in turn how we perceive situations around us.

Just because something has been generally accepted as fact does not mean it is true. In my lifetime I have been (inadvertently) guilty of propagating myths that were republished as fact. And I have also witnessed cover-ups on a national scale designed to alter global perception of the truth back when I worked in human rights under a brutal Third World regime. That's one reason I find the X-Files entertaining, even if I don't believe in aliens.

I actually saw this happen: human rights organizations including the one I worked for held a conference with representatives of a donor state to report an atrocity. The idea was that they would then go to the local regime and pressure them over said atrocity. A rep from UNHRC was also present during these meetings. What happened instead was the UN remained silent on the issue and the media outlets in the country of the donor government reported the regime propaganda about the specific incident instead. This information was subsequently taken up by major news outlets in the US and EU. The misinformation was reported on the BBC. Then it appeared on Wikipedia, with multiple sources to back it up. As of yesterday it has been repeated in several thesis papers available online and one published book.

The donor government knew the truth. I was there when the facts were offered to their ambassador. And yet we never heard back from them and they allowed the media outlets in their country to believe the brutal dictatorship over civil society. Why?

Well, a few months later, the regime signed a lucrative new trade deal with said donor government. In global diplomacy, the truth is the first casualty.

Now whose version of events are you going to believe? Me, someone you've never met, a random man posting online, or the multiple credible news sites, the book published by a distinguished professor, and the thesis papers? It doesn't matter that I know the truth. I'm not credible by comparison. You'll believe the falsehood instead and gladly accuse me of being a liar because I don't have sources on my side. Brilliant, isn't it?

As noted in the OP, the more blatant phenomenon of fake news is on the rise. And the Internet has played a key role in that. As part of my aforementioned old job I used to do a lot of fact-checking. Here's something else I learned: information that is freely available on the internet gets repeated more often than information published in say, an obscure print academic journal even if the latter is more accurate.

This goes back to my original example: as more and more sources echo the inaccurate or skewed Internet information, that becomes accepted fact as opposed to reality. Since more sources repeat the inaccuracy, it would be logical to regard them as a truth.

Ergo, we all have a certain number of falsehoods floating around in our brain mixed in with all the credible information.

Ergo, none of us has a clear picture of the truth and thus, a clear perception of reality. Facts are fickle and can always be manipulated. Take everything you hear or read with a grain of salt.

I never forgot that lesson.

Indeed.

Alas, I am talking about reality itself, although your statement blew my mind.

Who cares? It's real enough.

Or is it?