Reality: Difference between revisions
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Fractalguy (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Reality-consciousness-subjectivity.jpg|thumb|[[Simulation Theory|It's not a simulation]]]] | |||
[[metaculture]] assumes the truth of [[wikipedia:Philosophical_realism|philosophical realism]], or more specifically [[wikipedia:Scientific_realism|scientific realism]]. <blockquote>''"[[Life]] is not a [[Problems|problem]] to be solved, but a reality to be experienced."'' -[[wikipedia:Søren_Kierkegaard|Soren Kierkegaard]]</blockquote>The reasons for the acceptance of scientific realism are: | |||
[[ | * No counter-example has ever been found to disprove the existence of an independent reality that conforms to the [[laws of physics]]. | ||
* Alternative theories of reality assert the unverifiable, like [[Simulation Theory|simulations]], [[supernatural]] or [[wikipedia:Extra_dimensions|extradimensional]] beings that cannot be observed within the [[material]] [[universe]]. | |||
* What do you have more confidence in--the existence of [[objective]] reality? Or that the complex [[philosophical]] arguments against it are right ''and'' you have understood them correctly? | |||
* You eventually have to [[The Gambler|bet on which reality is most likely]]. That we live together in a [[universe]] that exists independently of us and conforms to the [[laws of physics]], or we live in a [[simulation]] or a [[Literalism|literal]] interpretation of [[scripture]] or some unknowable and eternally confusing plane of existence that is completely [[subjective]]. | |||
Given these options, [[The Gambler|the safest bet]] is obviously [[wikipedia:Scientific_realism|scientific realism]]. | |||
[[wikipedia:Reality|Reality]] is real. [[Evidence-Based Best Practices|Now deal]]. | |||
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/20014151 Get the much more detailed version of this argument]. | |||
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3DlhNgeqZk||center|What is Scientific Realism?|frame}} | {{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3DlhNgeqZk||center|What is Scientific Realism?|frame}} | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
{{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQN3RH_xWJg||center|Tame Impala - Reality in Motion|frame}} | {{#ev:youtube|https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQN3RH_xWJg||center|Tame Impala - Reality in Motion|frame}} | ||
Latest revision as of 01:44, 16 February 2025
metaculture assumes the truth of philosophical realism, or more specifically scientific realism.
"Life is not a problem to be solved, but a reality to be experienced." -Soren Kierkegaard
The reasons for the acceptance of scientific realism are:
- No counter-example has ever been found to disprove the existence of an independent reality that conforms to the laws of physics.
- Alternative theories of reality assert the unverifiable, like simulations, supernatural or extradimensional beings that cannot be observed within the material universe.
- What do you have more confidence in--the existence of objective reality? Or that the complex philosophical arguments against it are right and you have understood them correctly?
- You eventually have to bet on which reality is most likely. That we live together in a universe that exists independently of us and conforms to the laws of physics, or we live in a simulation or a literal interpretation of scripture or some unknowable and eternally confusing plane of existence that is completely subjective.
Given these options, the safest bet is obviously scientific realism.
Get the much more detailed version of this argument.