Odds are we're living in the Matrix and religion is false

[Valjean]

Odds are we're living in the Matrix and religion is false

But what if a major tenet of the religion is that we're living in the Matrix, that the world we perceive is actually Maya (illusion)?:sarcastic

The Standard Cosmological Model posits that 95.1% of the universe is entirely imperceptible to us, consisting of dark matter and dark energy.

Relativity and Quantum mechanics describe realities unlike that presented by our senses, and interpreted by our minds, counterintuitive, seemingly impossible realities.

Speaking of our senses, they're pretty narrow spectrum. Even our major sense detects only a tiny sliver of the known electromagnetic spectrum.

Our minds can only picture three of the who-knows-how-many dimensions making up reality.

The world we perceive is an abstraction, a simulation cobbled together in our minds from electrochemical sensory inputs. It's not really real. Plato's cave and The Matrix are apt analogies, it seems to me.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Well simply because you can only percieve a small fraction though doesn't mean what you do percieve is not real.

 

[Valjean]

It's still an abstraction. It still violates reality as described by physics. It's still an abstract simulation.

Plus, you can't pick three words out of War and Peace and expect to have a realistic understanding of the novel.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It's still an abstraction. It still violates reality as described by physics. It's still an abstract simulation.

Plus, you can't pick three words out of War and Peace and expect to have a realistic understanding of the novel.

Right but using your example war and peace has a meaning to convey. If we go with the assumption that there is more to know then I agree it is an abstraction. But if the universe has no "meaning" then what you percieve is real, seeing more of it doesn't change it's value...if that makes sense.

 

[Willamena]

The argument goes like this:

- there is only one "real" universe
- there's no known limit on the number of "simulated" universes
- there's no known reason why a universe simulation couldn't itself contain simulated universes (etc., etc., ad infintum)
- therefore, there may be uncountably many "fake" universes but only one "real" one.
- therefore, the odds that the universe we're in is the "real" one is incalculably small.

Depends on how you define "universe." And "real." What is a "fake universe" and how would it differ from the real universe?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Okay... the title was a bit of hyperbole.

Some theorists are saying that the odds are almost certain that we live in a universe simulation. The argument goes like this:

- there is only one "real" universe
- there's no known limit on the number of "simulated" universes
- there's no known reason why a universe simulation couldn't itself contain simulated universes (etc., etc., ad infintum)
- therefore, there may be uncountably many "fake" universes but only one "real" one.
- therefore, the odds that the universe we're in is the "real" one is incalculably small.


I was thinking about it, and a similar argument applies to religion. Let's assume that it's possible that evidence for the truth of religious claims might exist, and that it points to a particular religion.

- maybe it's evidence of the truth of that religion (whatever it is)
- maybe it's been put in place as a ruse to deceive us by the "real" gods (maybe Satan, Loki, or some other evil or trickster god)

So... even for the religion that has the best case for it, there's only one way for it to be right and incalculably many ways for it to be wrong. Therefore, the odds are strongly against even the most well-supported religion being correct.

Thoughts (on either argument)?

And after all this you claim that people who believe in God and hence religion believe in fairy tale

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I think the first argument would simply imply that reality itself is subjective. There is only one real universe, and that's the universe one exists in, so in a way all universes are real, however all universes are simulated.

 

[Straw Dog]

I think the first argument would simply imply that reality itself is subjective. There is only one real universe, and that's the universe one exists in, so in a way all universes are real, however all universes are simulated.

But is it purely subjective? Or do certain external influences exert a certain degree of control? Why do they have influence?

Personally, I believe that all perspectives are relative to a real context. Perspectives can be more useful, beautiful, social, etc., but they cannot be more real. Every perspective is equally relative to a real context.

 

[Valjean]

Depends on how you define "universe." And "real." What is a "fake universe" and how would it differ from the real universe?

There is one "Real," objective reality, and several subjective realities.

A "fake universe" would be the one you experienced last night during REM sleep -- subjectively real, objectively unreal.
In the morning, on waking, the subjective Nature of your dream state became obvious, and you found (find) yourself embedded in another world that, again, seems real subjectively but does not correspond with the reality described by physics.

There are different realities in different levels of consciousness. Each seems organized, consistent and "real" while you're experiencing them, but if you wake to a more expanded consciousness their subjectiveness and 'unreality' become glaringly obvious.

 

[nazz]

Okay... the title was a bit of hyperbole.

Some theorists are saying that the odds are almost certain that we live in a universe simulation. The argument goes like this:

- there is only one "real" universe
- there's no known limit on the number of "simulated" universes
- there's no known reason why a universe simulation couldn't itself contain simulated universes (etc., etc., ad infintum)
- therefore, there may be uncountably many "fake" universes but only one "real" one.
- therefore, the odds that the universe we're in is the "real" one is incalculably small.


I was thinking about it, and a similar argument applies to religion. Let's assume that it's possible that evidence for the truth of religious claims might exist, and that it points to a particular religion.

- maybe it's evidence of the truth of that religion (whatever it is)
- maybe it's been put in place as a ruse to deceive us by the "real" gods (maybe Satan, Loki, or some other evil or trickster god)

So... even for the religion that has the best case for it, there's only one way for it to be right and incalculably many ways for it to be wrong. Therefore, the odds are strongly against even the most well-supported religion being correct.

Thoughts (on either argument)?

What do real and simulated really mean in this context? (to paraphrase Morpheus) Are our perceptions of a real universe really real or simulated? Does "real" mean not made by something else?

[youtube]aVLexf_dyCM[/youtube]
Matrix - What is Real.wmv - YouTube

 

[Willamena]

There is one "Real," objective reality, and several subjective realities.

A "fake universe" would be the one you experienced last night during REM sleep -- subjectively real, objectively unreal.
In the morning, on waking, the subjective Nature of your dream state became obvious, and you found (find) yourself embedded in another world that, again, seems real subjectively but does not correspond with the reality described by physics.

There are different realities in different levels of consciousness. Each seems organized, consistent and "real" while you're experiencing them, but if you wake to a more expanded consciousness their subjectiveness and 'unreality' become glaringly obvious.

It's not "fake," it really was a dream. It was in this (the only) universe.

 

[Mycroft]

There is one "Real," objective reality, and several subjective realities.

What do you mean by the word 'real'?

 

[Valjean]

It's not "fake," it really was a dream. It was in this (the only) universe.

I don't quite catch your meaning, Willamena.
I think of "Fake" as inconsistent with reality as described by physics.

What do you mean by the word 'real'?

"reality" (small 'r') is our experience of the world we live in. In dreams it's self-generated, without sensory input. In waking-state it incorporates the electrochemical inputs of our senses.
There's a hierarchy of these subjective realities, each increasingly congruent with the capital 'R', objective reality of physics, cosmology or cosmic consciousness (red pill-).

 

[Willamena]

I don't quite catch your meaning, Willamena.
I think of "Fake" as inconsistent with reality as described by physics.

Dreams are genuinely dreams. There is no requirement for the dreaming world to be the waking world, so to say the dream is "not real" (fake) because it's not the waking world is to say that it's supposed to be something it's not. But it's not--it's not supposed to be something it's not. It really is dream.

To say that each "level" of dreaming/wakening recognizes the prior as more "unreal" because it has compared "that" to "this" and found it lacking in "this" is not realistic.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't quite catch your meaning, Willamena.
I think of "Fake" as inconsistent with reality as described by physics.

"reality" (small 'r') is our experience of the world we live in. In dreams it's self-generated, without sensory input. In waking-state it incorporates the electrochemical inputs of our senses.
There's a hierarchy of these subjective realities, each increasingly congruent with the capital 'R', objective reality of physics, cosmology or cosmic consciousness (red pill-).

what do you mean by the word 'reality' and the word 'experience' of the word 'objective' and 'conscioussness'?

(bear with me, this is going somewhere).

 

[Thief]

Ok....fine....
Fake, simulated, unreal.....
Each implies Something Greater making a deception.
Something Greater deliberately presenting to your mind a false perception.

THAT would be false.

This reality is real.
That you lack the ability to properly perceive it is not His fault.
That you have your own set of internal influences upon your perceptions.....

When do we get to see the whole picture?
As soon as we lay down to die.
The chemistry will fail.
Gravity will lose it's grip.
You are then free to leave this 'reality'.

But then again...
I believe the peace in the afterlife is guarded.
Not all are allowed to continue.

As for dreams....anyone know the movie?...'What Dreams May Come'
I see it as a similar take on this same topic.
What if your dreams...good or bad...become your reality?
What if other souls can interact or invade your reality?

Might be better to have Something Greater in charge.