Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Norman Samish writes:
>
>
>> In a discussion about philosophy, Nick Prince said, "If we are living
>> in a simulation. . ." To which John Mikes replied, "I think this is the
>> usual pretension. . . I think 'we simulate what we are living in'
>> according to the little we know. Such 'simulation' - 'simplification'
>> - 'modeling' - 'metaphorizing' - or even 'Harry Potterizing' things we
>> think does not change the 'unknown/unknowable' we live in. We just
>> think and therefore we think we are." This interchange reminded me of
>> thoughts I had as a child - I used to wonder if if everything I
>> experienced was real or a dream. How could I know which it was? I
>> asked my parents and was discouraged, in no uncertain terms, from
>> asking them nonsensical questions. I asked my playmates and friends,
>> but they didn't know the answer any more than I did. I had no other
>> resources so I concluded that the question was unanswerable and that
>> the best I could do was proceed as if what I experienced was reality.
>> Now, many years later, I have this list - and Wikipedia - as resources.
>> But, as John Mikes (and others) say, I still cannot know that what I
>> experience is reality. I can only assume that reality is how things
>> appear to me - and I might be wrong.
>
>
> I think the young Norman Samish got it right:
>
> (a) I used to wonder if if everything I experienced was real or a dream.
> How could I know which it was?
>
> (b) I had no other resources so I concluded that the question was
> unanswerable and that the best I could do was proceed as if what I
> experienced was reality.
>
> To "know the truth" is to become godlike, standing outside of the world
> and seeing everything for what it really is... and even then you might
> ask yourself whether you really are omniscient or only *think* you are
> omniscient. The best we can do in science as in everyday life is to
> accept provisionally that things are as they seem. There is no shame in
> this, as long as you are ready to revise your theory in the light of new
> evidence, and it is certainly better than assuming that things are *not*
> as they seem, in the absence of any evidence.
>
> Stathis Papaioannou
Well said. I would only add that we need not take things as they seem
simpliciter, but rather as they seem to us on reflection and as our senses
are extended by our instruments.
Brent Meeker
Thirty one years ago, Dick Feynman told me about his 'sum over
histories' version of quantum mechanics. "The electron does anything it
likes', he said. "It goes in any direction at any speed, forward or
backward in time, however it likes, and then you add up all the
amplitudes and it gives you the wave-function."
I said to him, "You're crazy." But he wasn't.
--- Freeman J. Dyson, 'Some Strangeness in the Proportion' 1980
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Sun Aug 13 2006 - 12:18:00 PDT