Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Are We Real?
20 Answers
My Question is Simple?
Do We Exist? Are We Real?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Marty_Pellow. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
hello!
Um... in answer to your queston it depends on what you mean. I think if you are happy and live every moment to the full, and truly get the most out of our experiences then does it really matter!?
But, if you want a more intellectual look in to it, then greek philosophers are the guys to ask! e.g. Decartes said " I think, Therefore I Am" he said if he doubted the existance of everything, and everything he knew, what was left....nothing...but something HAD to be doing the doubting and so therefore YES we fo exist!
hope that helps and is not too boring! i just learnt that in my philosophy classes and thought i would share it with you!
Vix
-- answer removed --
If we're not real, can I wipe that smug-permanent-grin off your face with my fist, Marty Pellow?
Ever since your grinning self-satisfied, extremely wet,wet,wet cover of "With a little help from my friends" I've wanted to do it - but then, it may not be real. Thank god.
-
And what's this to do with Film & TV?
Since reality is demonstrably hard, the most reasonable interpretation of its nature is objective realism. Illusionism remains theoretically possible, but only in this form: the world is a perfect simulation of objective reality.
People often argue for illusionism on the grounds that it cannot be disproved. The deadly flaw in such arguments now becomes apparent. When stripped of obfuscation, their core is this: illusionism is possible, therefore reality is, or at least might be, subjective or chaotic. But this ignores the fact that the only illusionism which is possible is hard illusionism , which so closely mimics objective reality as to be indistinguishable from it.
We have now arrived at a basic axiom of the nature of the world: reality is hard. And the most natural explanation of this is that it is real, and objective.
The theoretical possibility that reality is an illusion remains, but if so it is so hard that it may as well be real. Furthermore, a hard illusion requires a hidden reality behind it, of at least the same fundamental complexity as the apparent reality it simulates. Clearly, in the absence of any evidence or any way to test it, such an hypothesis serves no function at all. My question to those who propose such fancies as "we are mere bugs in a cosmic computer program" is this: why should I believe that? The answer: none.
People often argue for illusionism on the grounds that it cannot be disproved. The deadly flaw in such arguments now becomes apparent. When stripped of obfuscation, their core is this: illusionism is possible, therefore reality is, or at least might be, subjective or chaotic. But this ignores the fact that the only illusionism which is possible is hard illusionism , which so closely mimics objective reality as to be indistinguishable from it.
We have now arrived at a basic axiom of the nature of the world: reality is hard. And the most natural explanation of this is that it is real, and objective.
The theoretical possibility that reality is an illusion remains, but if so it is so hard that it may as well be real. Furthermore, a hard illusion requires a hidden reality behind it, of at least the same fundamental complexity as the apparent reality it simulates. Clearly, in the absence of any evidence or any way to test it, such an hypothesis serves no function at all. My question to those who propose such fancies as "we are mere bugs in a cosmic computer program" is this: why should I believe that? The answer: none.
1 to 20 of 20
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Religion & Spirituality16 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News25 mins ago
