Is Anything Real? [V sauce]

[JACK-2]

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

You beat me to it.

Ok, let's go forth here. I'll let you get the ball rolling.

Watching video now.

[JACK-2]

Let me know when you're done.

[JACK-2]

@6:47 he pretty much agree's with me.

SPOILER: Click to show

Science cannot prove reality is really real.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I'm about to go to sleep but I wanted to put this video up here as well. I just got into it but it looks very good.

Aug 21, 2014 23:48:19 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

@6:47 he pretty much agree's with me.

SPOILER: Click to show

Science cannot prove reality is really real.

Did you see what he said about solipsism? People believing what they want to believe.

Proving something in general and proving it to someone are two different things. If someone believes mashing is good in SF I can't really prove to them that it isn't based on their viewpoint. Same thing here. I can't control what others think nor do I want to lol.

[JACK-2]

He said the samething about realism, that it's a belief. That's all I wanted to say.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well as the first vid was saying, those facts are open to how people interpret them, so if a person wants to say "everything is all a dream" and believes it, then I can't convince him otherwise, no more than I can convince a Wolverine fanboy that Wolverine loses. They just believe what they want. I don't believe it throws out all evidence based on that. As you could say that about anything. It was a neat video. I need to finish up Stephan's now.

Ok I'm watching his video now. I don't see where he says realism is a belief. He's saying there's philosophy and 3 different views or arguments of reality.

1. One that everything is an illusion. This argument has no rational or objective basis and can't be debated since you have no premise to really debate, you have to accept some logic (which I already said). Saying this takes away all the point out of a debate. You can have a discussion about reality, but not a debate about that.

He also says that how would you know if everything is an illusion for everyone? Maybe everything is only an illusion for you. I know the rules of gravity, mass, inertia apply to not only me, but to everyone. When I get in my vehicle, every car on the road respects these laws. Engaging in a debate with someone who believes there is no reality is a pure contradiction. The fact that you acknowledge my presence and debate with me is a contradiction in your own belief. If I'm a figment of your imagination, why argue with me? If I'm not real, why bother debating with me? If the senses don't exist why are you using my senses to discuss with me? It would be like asking you to get in my vehicle to prove vehicles don't exist.

Anybody who puts forth the argument that nobody exists has already invalidated their argument in short. They've rejected their own premise.

The alternate argument is the Matrix argument. That there several consciousnesses for which reality is an illusion. If the minds are separated and everything is an illusion there is also no point of debate. If everything that connects the mind is an illusion then debating is pointless because using senses would invalidate it. It would be like me proving that you had a dream last night a sparrow. There is no real hypothesis to prove since everything in reality which is consistent or not is a basis of proving it.

2. The second argument is that senses have value but that they're less important than a "higher" value (usually some religion or some sort). A realm that is not accessible by the senses.

If we have a banana, how do we know if it's real? You have a collection or atoms and energy, but how do you know it's real? The third way would be using the scientific method to prove it. Everything that goes into that concept of a banana has to be consistent with all bananas, you can't have a bananas for wings for instance.


The second ideal is that a banana exists because before we were born that there was a perfect banana existed that we knew about, but once we were born we lost all of that knowledge outside of a residue. Once we experience it we have access to our knowledge that existed before we were born (that we lost). Bear with me here, this is how people validate the existence of a creator.

The question is how do we know if this is true? It's easy to prove a banana is there unless you go by the crazy illusion theory. We know that a banana exists because of it's properties that constitute a banana. We can test it and see it. If you hold up a cup and say it's a banana it wouldn't hold up because a cup doesn't have the properties of a banana.

Well how do we know a higher world exists? What criteria would we have to know a higher world exists? We can prove a banana exists because it's falsifiable. Just like things like gravity.

If a person can't say "The belief that a higher world doesn't exist if the following conditions are met." They're essentially saying "Believe me because I say so". There is no debate here. You can't communicate a higher realm, you can emotionally project it via faith or something, but it's not falsifiable. If you believe you believe, you don't you don't. You're not asking or showing any evidence. No logic because it cannot be. There has to be a criteria to whether it can be proven or disproven.


3. The third reality is the epistemology approach. Things exist that or matter energy, etc. They have an objective criteria that can be tested and measured, or disproven. Color is wavelength. Even if people see different colors, colors are wavelengths for instance. I'm sure this is pretty straightforward here. This is relevant to true and false and arguments of the such.

I think he was more elaborate and did a much more detailed job explaining things than the first video.