Does the universe exist? - General

Space Is a lie

[QUOTE=Ziks;34950123]The difference is that I am not saying that the scenario I gave is certain. He, however, was.[/QUOTE] So, what you mean by that "single moment" is your lifetime, right? I mean, what else?

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34958041]So, what you mean by that "single moment" is your lifetime, right? I mean, what else?[/QUOTE] No, by single moment I was using the time frame you are aware of. So I meant that this exact moment was the only one you exist for.

[QUOTE=Ziks;34958203]No, by single moment I was using the time frame you are aware of. So I meant that this exact moment was the only one you exist for.[/QUOTE] .. What?

[QUOTE=Ziks;34918771][B]TL;DR[/B] How do you know that your mind wasn't created a [I]fraction of a second[/I] ago, and will cease to exist soon after?[/QUOTE] My mind was created a fraction of a second ago? No.. My mind, and stuff, was created about 20 years ago. And it will cease to exist "soon" after, which means many more years for me. Not seconds or fractions of a second. But still even a whole whopping 50 years is a fraction of time, but that's not what you are after.. I'm not quite sure what you are after though.

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34972511]My mind was created a fraction of a second ago? No.. My mind, and stuff, was created about 20 years ago. And it will cease to exist "soon" after, which means many more years for me. Not seconds or fractions of a second. But still even a whole whopping 50 years is a fraction of time, but that's not what you are after.. I'm not quite sure what you are after though.[/QUOTE] I don't think you quite understand the concept we are discussing

What is the point in debate threads like these? There is absolutely no way to disprove that it doesn't, and the majority of FP haven't even finished high school yet, let alone have the knowledge to try and tackle this kind of question.

By the way, it is falsifiable if you can demonstrate that a sufficiently small amount of time isn't enough for consciousness.

[QUOTE=Ziks;34973120]I don't think you quite understand the concept we are discussing[/QUOTE] Yeah pretty sure I don't.

Nonexistence is a false property of metaphysics. To be discussing something, it must exist, even if it is only abstract. Fictional characters, for example, exist, but they do not have the property of being physical objects. So, The Universe exists. It doesn't address the simulation idea though.

[QUOTE=macerator;34975023]Nonexistence is a false property of metaphysics. To be discussing something, it must exist, even if it is only abstract. Fictional characters, for example, exist, but they do not have the property of being physical objects. So, The Universe exists. It doesn't address the simulation idea though.[/QUOTE] If my instantaneous consciousness scenario is correct then we are not discussing the universe right now. No one is imagining it, it doesn't even exist as a concept.

[QUOTE=macerator;34975023]Nonexistence is a false property of metaphysics. To be discussing something, [b]it must exist, even if it is only abstract. Fictional characters, for example, exist, but they do not have the property of being physical objects. [/b] So, The Universe exists. It doesn't address the simulation idea though.[/QUOTE] You know, that (bolded) is exactly what I tried to say about God's existence in some other debate. An abstract entity that exists.. fictional characters, there are many good ones. But they said it didn't make any sense, so I don't know. Not sure what you mean by the 3rd line there besides from Universe existing, but I see what you mean otherwise in terms of what appears to be philosophy.

[QUOTE=Ziks;34974219]By the way, it is falsifiable if you can demonstrate that a sufficiently small amount of time isn't enough for consciousness.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=matsta]I'd say that if we were created a fraction of a second ago then none of the rules of physics that we know apply, because we are supposed to have discovered them more than a fraction of a second ago.[/QUOTE] Explain to me how can you ever demonstrate something if you take into account that all the results of our empiric investigations could be false.

[QUOTE=Lilyo;34949840]What evidence do you have that you are only thinking for a single moment and then either simply ceasing to exist or your consciousness collapsing into unintelligable chaos, instead of thinking continually? You see how that works?[/QUOTE] It doesn't work like that; by questioning our motivation for thinking X, it makes no difference to question our motivation for thinking Y. He's not making a positive assertion that there is such a state of affairs; he's merely commenting on how the possibility of such an occurrence flags up the apparent lack of justification we possess behind believing in time/persistence. It annoys me how people disregard thoughts like this just by saying "ITS UNFALSIFIABLE THEREFORE MEANINGLESS" or "IT DOESN'T MATTER!" or any response like that. Nobody makes these claims expecting them to change anyone's beliefs; it's merely to entertain an interesting thought. It's not very constructive to dismiss an idea because you don't see the relevance. (not aimed at lilyo) [editline]3rd March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=macerator;34975023]Nonexistence is a false property of metaphysics. To be discussing something, it must exist, even if it is only abstract. Fictional characters, for example, exist, but they do not have the property of being physical objects. So, The Universe exists. It doesn't address the simulation idea though.[/QUOTE] The majority of contemporary metaphysicians don't believe in abstract entities. [editline]3rd March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;34975154]You know, that (bolded) is exactly what I tried to say about God's existence in some other debate. An abstract entity that exists.. fictional characters, there are many good ones. But they said it didn't make any sense, so I don't know. Not sure what you mean by the 3rd line there besides from Universe existing, but I see what you mean otherwise in terms of what appears to be philosophy.[/QUOTE] Nobody took the claim seriously because it made the whole idea of existence way too liberal and abstract objects don't sit well in almost every metaphysicians ontology. For most of us, existence is restricted to objects in spacetime.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34980033]Nobody took the claim seriously because it made the whole idea of existence way too liberal and abstract objects don't sit well in almost every metaphysicians ontology. For most of us, existence is restricted to objects in spacetime.[/QUOTE] Yeah probably, so you think it's bad if you go all liberal with the existence of fictional characters and abstract objects? And about the metaphysicians.. I don't know any, but maybe they just see abstract and fictional objects shit as abstract and fictional, and that's it. :P

To me, it's the kind of thing that you just can't answer. Maybe, what we think it's proof is only us fooling ourselves (perhaps we'll realize this in the future, but maybe not, who knows). It's like if we actually live in the Matrix, we can't know for sure.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;34980033]It annoys me how people disregard thoughts like this just by saying "ITS UNFALSIFIABLE THEREFORE MEANINGLESS" or "IT DOESN'T MATTER!" or any response like that. Nobody makes these claims expecting them to change anyone's beliefs; it's merely to entertain an interesting thought. It's not very constructive to dismiss an idea because you don't see the relevance. (not aimed at lilyo)[/QUOTE] Being unfalsifiable doesn't mean it is meaningless. There are some pretty good questions that are unfalsifiable (empirically), but you can "work them out" another way. But my point in saying that it is unfalsifiable is that it is really [I]more[/I] than unfalsifiable. It is something you can't even work with. (unworkable?, lol) [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] And perhaps there is a problem in perspective if you are trying to justify this view with any knowledge of physics. And that is my biggest complain.

[QUOTE=matsta;34984622]Being unfalsifiable doesn't mean it is meaningless. There are some pretty good questions that are unfalsifiable (empirically), but you can "work them out" another way. But my point in saying that it is unfalsifiable is that it is really [I]more[/I] than unfalsifiable. It is something you can't even work with. (unworkable?, lol) [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] And perhaps there is a problem in perspective if you are trying to justify this view with any knowledge of physics. And that is my biggest complain.[/QUOTE] I don't think unfalsifiable statements are meaningless, I was just quoting a popular response by the logical positivists.

[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;34982945]To me, it's the kind of thing that you just can't answer. Maybe, what we think it's proof is only us fooling ourselves (perhaps we'll realize this in the future, but maybe not, who knows). It's like if we actually live in the Matrix, we can't know for sure.[/QUOTE] I find these kind of theories interesting, like Matrix or Back to the Future because it clearly shows the film industry affects our thoughts about these kind of things, like our existence.

To be fair, this kind of philosophy existed way before the Matrix.

Of course it did, but now it influences us even more. Besides, I only used that as an example.

A philosophy where we are all actually plugged into some gel-type container, basically thinking up our world like in Matrix, existed way before film industry? Well yeah.. Some idea like that probably existed before, but it doesn't make it any less crazy. (Not that our world as is isn't crazy enough. :P)

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;34989873]A philosophy where we are all actually plugged into some gel-type container, basically thinking up our world like in Matrix, existed way before film industry? Well yeah.. Some idea like that probably existed before, but it doesn't make it any less crazy. (Not that our world as is isn't crazy enough. :P)[/QUOTE] Not in a gel-type container, but "fooled by an evil spirit", which I think is just as crazy. [editline]4th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Robbobin;34986936]I don't think unfalsifiable statements are meaningless, I was just quoting a popular response by the logical positivists.[/QUOTE] I didn't said you did, I just said this question is 'worst' than unfalsifiable.

[QUOTE=matsta;34998719]Not in a gel-type container, but "fooled by an evil spirit", which I think is just as crazy.[/QUOTE] And this leads me to the conclusion that PEOPLE are crazy.

[QUOTE=matsta;34998719]I didn't said you did, I just said this question is 'worst' than unfalsifiable.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure if it is; generally when philosophers talk about something being unfalsifiable, it's because it's literally impossible to falsify even in theory when you grant hypothetical omniscience. The only thing that's really of a lower order than unfalsifiable theories is one that's nonsense even grammatically (but not according to the logical positivists). [editline]5th March 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Bat-shit;35004280]And this leads me to the conclusion that PEOPLE are crazy.[/QUOTE] Descartes didn't believe this; he merely argued such a scenario was [I]possible.[/I]

[QUOTE=Bat-shit;35004280]And this leads me to the conclusion that PEOPLE are crazy.[/QUOTE] Like most philosphers, Descartes was just providing an example where it could be possible. edit: oops, already covered by the post above.

As far as true existence I can only discern one thing, using the famous proof: I think therefore I am. I can only discern that I myself exist, everything else is assumption from what I understand to be my senses. However those could be invariably linked to more factors than just the physical. Quantum physics asserts that everything at one point was touching, and by way of super-position everything is still technically touching. Forever linked. So from these two things, the logical ultimate proof of self existence and the empirical understandings of science, I discern that the universe itself does not exist. Only I do, everything else is a byproduct of the consciousness. Individuality can be explained by different universes guided by the difference in ego. I am you, excluding my ego. Ego is just boiled down to the sense of self and self preservation. Any action I take against another conscious being is truly an act against myself. Keep in mind I use existence as a word to describe true reality, everything still exists under the common use of the word existence.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;35007377]I'm not sure if it is; generally when philosophers talk about something being unfalsifiable, it's because it's literally impossible to falsify even in theory when you grant hypothetical omniscience. The only thing that's really of a lower order than unfalsifiable theories is one that's nonsense even grammatically (but not according to the logical positivists).[/QUOTE] I didn't mean to 'classify' this question in a category that is 'worst than unfalsifiable', but I am saying that because I think that these is a kind of question you have to answer [I]before[/I] answering everything else. That's what I meant to say really, you can't work out this question with a 'system' that didn't implicitly answered this question beforehand, so you not only can't [I]proof[/I] this question with a system, but have to assume the answer before making any system because if you didn't, then your system would be founded on nothing.

That's radical skepticism and unprovable because it's an isolated system.