It is impossible to step out of the real world

[F1fan]

Dear @F1fan,

The production of science is a creative process requiring imagination, open-mindedness and passion as well as methodology and critical thinking. To belittle the creativity of the process but admire its result, does not make sense.

No good science limits itself by only thinking within the box. There would have been little progress and no paradigm shifts, if it did.

Humbly,
Hermit

I agree. I said nothing that suggests I disagree. Germ Theory was laughed at before the microscope was invented.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Matter can be converted to radiation. Both have energy as one of their properties. But only matter has rest mass. That seems to be what confuses people. E=mc² does not mean mass and energy are interconvertible, or alternatives. It means they go hand in hand. When you add energy to a system its mass increases.

I do not mind their going hand in hand. Amounts more or less the same thing - breaking of electroweak symmetry in a Higg's field which exists throughout the space (Wikipedia, thanks).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I agree. I said nothing that suggests I disagree. Germ Theory was laughed at before the microscope was invented.

Yeah, but e.g. for humans I have a book with 5 different ways to treat people regarding your claim about emotional intelligence and no, they are not the same. And yes, it is not alternative woo-woo.
The problem is this. If you can isolate a single cause and effect, it is easy.
For humans in a society, there is the systemic level, the cultural values, the individual history of the person and their skills and cognition. Their local environment and how they are treated and what the professionals take for granted.

Have you ever heard of over-reduction. To eliminate several cases of cause and effect and not consider all and in the end to reduce a complex matter do to one cause and effect as even a category.

So for all humans there is no universal same set of identical cause and effect.
Whether that is relevant to what is actually behind your words as the actual usage, is something else.

 

[F1fan]

Well, your example of traffic could also apply for a certain subvariant of a Boltzmann Brain existence.
So no, just because you die, doesn't mean that you are in a real world.

So here it goes and since I know how assumptions work I will try to state them all.

There is no way to know if you are a Boltzmann Brain or not, because if you are, your experiences are caused by you being a Boltzmann Brain.

How many people do you think go about their daily lives regardless of being uncertain? How many people see this as an actual problem?

All scientific claims on whether these Brains are speculative or not all rest on different assumptions about how the universe work.
So here is what I assume that you need to test. You have to test if your experience of e.g. a car means that the car in itself is a car and not a simulation of a car.
You have to test that, because since you use critical thinking you are not allowed to claim something without testing it.

And how can it be tested if the experience of testing might be simulation? Here we enter the secular definition of faith, as humans all ovr the planet have faith that their exveriences are genuine as they experience it. All six families that lost loved ones in the school shooting in Nashville are living a simulation? Are their loved ones really dead? Where do you draw the line of testing what our senses inform us about versus getting on with life?

So here are the actual assumptions.
You could be a Boltzmann Brain.
You could be a simulation on a computer, which came into being like a Boltzmann brain.
You could be turned off as a simulation by by the main operating system of the computer, if you "break the rules". I.e. traffic as per your example.

So please give evidence that you are real and not a simulation on a Boltzmann Brain computer. Remember evidence. Not that it doesn't make sense to you, because that is the same for both cases. Evidence, factual evidence.

You want evidence that your assumptions of a possible simulation isn't true? Well your assumptions make that impossible.

these are your assumptions for you to test. I suggest you stop eating and drinking and see if your simulation continues beyond kidney failure.

BTW if you can that, give evidence, then you are the first human in recorded history to do that.

Right, your whole speculation is a mental trap, much like Buddhist koans, it's more a mental exercise than a serious question. When you have bills to pay this question of yours has no relevance. Let's note this is your issue, not mine. You trying to drag me into your doubt and questioning is more important to you than me. That you engage with me and others suggests you have some acknowledgement that you are a real being as observed by other real beings, and have a brain capable of confusing itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Gaudapada also made this comparison between dream consciousness and waking consciousness and the falsity of both in his Mandukya Karika.

The right honorable acharya, Gaudapada, was a theist. Lot of woo in what he wrote. He is a stop in journey to Advaita. My homage to him.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How many people do you think go about their daily lives regardless of being uncertain? How many people see this as an actual problem?

And how can it be tested if the experience of testing might be simulation? Here we enter the secular definition of faith, as humans all ovr the planet have faith that their exveriences are genuine as they experience it. All six families that lost loved ones in the school shooting in Nashville are living a simulation? Are their loved ones really dead? Where do you draw the line of testing what our senses inform us about versus getting on with life?

You want evidence that your assumptions of a possible simulation isn't true? Well your assumptions make that impossible.

these are your assumptions for you to test. I suggest you stop eating and drinking and see if your simulation continues beyond kidney failure.

Right, your whole speculation is a mental trap, much like Buddhist koans, it's more a mental exercise than a serious question. When you have bills to pay this question of yours has no relevance. Let's note this is your issue, not mine. You trying to drag me into your doubt and questioning is more important to you than me. That you engage with me and others suggests you have some acknowledgement that you are a real being as observed by other real beings, and have a brain capable of confusing itself.

Yeah, you decide what has relevance and not and you only use factual evidence and not your individual subjective psychology as for how you cope. I get it. You don't in fact judge other humans based on your cognition. And that is not what you do in your post.

So of course as for scientific facts and measurement standards you can do that using science and not philosophy for what makes a serious question serious?
So what hard science do you use to measure that? What scientific theory do you use? And so on?

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, but e.g. for humans I have a book with 5 different ways to treat people regarding your claim about emotional intelligence and no, they are not the same. And yes, it is not alternative woo-woo.
The problem is this. If you can isolate a single cause and effect, it is easy.
For humans in a society, there is the systemic level, the cultural values, the individual history of the person and their skills and cognition. Their local environment and how they are treated and what the professionals take for granted.

If they didn't we would still be living in caves. Cause and effect has a consistency that humans have relied on reliably since humans evolved into a stable species. Let's note that early humans surely recognized simple cause and effects before they developed any philosophy that suggested otherwise.

I don't see any advantage to what you seem to be suggesting. As it is you are just promiting excessive skepticism that would mean all human progress come to an immediate stop. No science, no medicine, life as we know it comes to a stop because we are paralized by doubt.

Have you ever heard of over-reduction. To eliminate several cases of cause and effect and not consider all and in the end to reduce a complex matter do to one cause and effect as even a category.

I have not. But if there are people using this apvroach then they will surely show us their results.

But do you care? It could all be simulated, right? To hell with everything. You can't know anything. Once again paralized.

So for all humans there is no universal same set of identical cause and effect.

If you have doubts, then show your work that cause and effect isn't reliable or consistent. In your world does mixing chlorine and sodium ever result in something other than table salt? Your world's alternative facts is nothing that you have presented, so I'm not convinced.

Whether that is relevant to what is actually behind your words as the actual usage, is something else.

I follow the Occam's Razor scenario. Alternatives as you suggest are not evidenced.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, you decide what has relevance and not and you only use factual evidence and not your individual subjective psychology as for how you cope. I get it. You don't in fact judge other humans based on your cognition. And that is not what you do in your post.

You make it sound like I choose Coke over pepsi. I follow what the observations reveal. And this is a bit snarky brining up me being judgmental as you condemn me for following an approach that is consistent with what we sense of the universe.

So of course as for scientific facts and measurement standards you can do that using science and not philosophy for what makes a serious question serious?
So what hard science do you use to measure that? What scientific theory do you use? And so on?

Science has this figured out. I defer to how science approaches explaining how the universe works, as it works, and is successful. It is you that has problems with this. It has nothing to do with me.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If they didn't we would still be living in caves. Cause and effect has a consistency that humans have relied on reliably since humans evolved into a stable species. Let's note that early humans surely recognized simple cause and effects before they developed any philosophy that suggested otherwise.

I don't see any advantage to what you seem to be suggesting. As it is you are just promiting excessive skepticism that would mean all human progress come to an immediate stop. No science, no medicine, life as we know it comes to a stop because we are paralized by doubt.

I have not. But if there are people using this apvroach then they will surely show us their results.

But do you care? It could all be simulated, right? To hell with everything. You can't know anything. Once again paralized.

If you have doubts, then show your work that cause and effect isn't reliable or consistent. In your world does mixing chlorine and sodium ever result in something other than table salt? Your world's alternative facts is nothing that you have presented, so I'm not convinced.

I follow the Occam's Razor scenario. Alternatives as you suggest are not evidenced.

You don't see it as see. You understand it. It is the weird effect of: I see a cat versus I see how 2+2=11 works. It is not the same.

As for the world I have faith without evidence that it is real and I act so.
That is all, I am just honest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You make it sound like I choose Coke over pepsi. I follow what the observations reveal. And this is a bit snarky brining up me being judgmental as you condemn me for following an approach that is consistent with what we sense of the universe.

Science has this figured out. I defer to how science approaches explaining how the universe works, as it works, and is successful. It is you that has problems with this. It has nothing to do with me.

So how do you observe relevance? What does it look like? And so one for the 5 senses and their different experiences or if you like sense-datum.
The same with successful? What does it look like?

 

[F1fan]

You don't see it as see. You understand it. It is the weird effect of: I see a cat versus I see how 2+2=11 works. It is not the same.

I see that 2+2=4. My cat told me.

As for the world I have faith without evidence that it is real and I act so.

Senses don't provide you evidence? Then how can you act at all? So your visual sensory data doesn't provide evidence of your environment? If you walk into a building do you trust that the door is real and not a wall that your eyes and brain confuses as being a door? If so, isn't that evidence that the door is where it is?

That is all, I am just honest.

No doubt about this? What if you are mistaken and don't know it?

 

[F1fan]

So how do you observe relevance?

What does it look like? And so one for the 5 senses and their different experiences or if you like sense-datum.
The same with successful? What does it look like?

What shape and color is relevance?

Relevance is a quality of statements.

Your questions are all out of context to be serious.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I see that 2+2=4. My cat told me.

Senses don't provide you evidence? Then how can you act at all? So your visual sensory data doesn't provide evidence of your environment? If you walk into a building do you trust that the door is real and not a wall that your eyes and brain confuses as being a door? If so, isn't that evidence that the door is where it is?

No doubt about this? What if you are mistaken and don't know it?

What shape and color is relevance?

Relevance is a quality of statements.

Your questions are all out of context to be serious.

Yeah, you are the scientific objective standard for being serious and you see that because your cat told you that.
So how come you are the standard for the quality of statements?
What is your evidence for that?

And, yes. I use evidence and know it limits.

 

[Aupmanyav]

How many people do you think go about their daily lives regardless of being uncertain? How many people see this as an actual problem?

And how can it be tested if the experience of testing might be simulation? Here we enter the secular definition of faith, as humans all ovr the planet have faith that their exveriences are genuine as they experience it. All six families that lost loved ones in the school shooting in Nashville are living a simulation? Are their loved ones really dead? Where do you draw the line of testing what our senses inform us about versus getting on with life?

You want evidence that your assumptions of a possible simulation isn't true? Well your assumptions make that impossible.
these are your assumptions for you to test. I suggest you stop eating and drinking and see if your simulation continues beyond kidney failure.

Right, your whole speculation is a mental trap, much like Buddhist koans, it's more a mental exercise than a serious question. When you have bills to pay this question of yours has no relevance. Let's note this is your issue, not mine. You trying to drag me into your doubt and questioning is more important to you than me. That you engage with me and others suggests you have some acknowledgement that you are a real being as observed by other real beings, and have a brain capable of confusing itself.

All people disregard uncertinties and go about their life.
According to Advaita reality, there are no families, no school, no Nashville, no shooting. It is all the play of force fields. They do exist in our illusion (simulation is not the correct word for it because it hints at a simulator). Illusion ends with death, there remains none to experience the illusion.
Yeah, perception is nothing other than illusion. Bills also are illusion and so is our paying them. That is how our perception and the illusory world is.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The right honorable acharya, Gaudapada, was a theist. Lot of woo in what he wrote. He is a stop in journey to Advaita. My homage to him.

I'm currently studying the Mandukya Karika. I have read much of what he wrote aside from that.

That aside, if my understanding is correct, he was Shankara's guru's guru, and an inspiration of Advaita as we know it.

 

[exchemist]

I do not mind their going hand in hand. Amounts more or less the same thing - breaking of electroweak symmetry in a Higg's field which exists throughout the space (Wikipedia, thanks).

Not really. The point is energy is not stuff. It’s just a property like mass, or momentum. Properties have to be properties of something.

So it makes no sense to say anything is made of energy. That’s like saying it is made of the colour green. It’s a category mistake.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Not really. The point is energy is not stuff. It’s just a property like mass, or momentum. Properties have to be properties of something.

So it makes no sense to say anything is made of energy. That’s like saying it is made of the colour green. It’s a category mistake.

Well, if we are to play how language "cheats", then there are no things, because things are not things. They are a category we place on a set of experiences.
Then there are empty words derived from cognition. Like existence, it has no properties.

In fact you can rewrite how we talk about the world as not made of things, but experiences, what we can control and how, what we can't control, because we get a different experience.
And how certain words have no objective referent, but are cognitive. Like all negatives and positives. They happen in the mind. And the most funny one. The world is not physical. Physical is a word that relates to certain behaviors and experiences.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm currently studying the Mandukya Karika. I have read much of what he wrote aside from that.

That aside, if my understanding is correct, he was Shankara's guru's guru, and an inspiration of Advaita as we know it.

True. I will say that he is not just a stop, but an important stop in study of Advaita.

 

[F1fan]

Yeah, you are the scientific objective standard for being serious and you see that because your cat told you that.
So how come you are the standard for the quality of statements?

Where did I ever claim any such thing?

All I am saying is that the method and approach of science is reliable and consistent, and that means it is wise to follow.

What is your evidence for that?

Irrelevant given I made no such claim.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Not really. The point is energy is not stuff. It’s just a property like mass, or momentum. Properties have to be properties of something.

So it makes no sense to say anything is made of energy. That’s like saying it is made of the colour green. It’s a category mistake.

Mass and momentum are properties of what exists, Brahman. How do we visualize space with nothing other than fields?
If there was ever a true representation of existence, it is this: Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

Krishna needed just one verse to describes existence:

"avyaktādīni bhūtāni, vyakta-madhyāni Bhārata;
avyakta-nidhanāny eva, tatra kā paridevanā."

(All created things are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when dissipated, O descendant of Bhārata; So what need is there for lamentation?)