4 ms·

> I've tripped many times and none of what I saw was real, and everything I saw when I wasn't tripping was real. How would you possibly verify this claim? Wha

> I've tripped many times and none of what I saw was real, and everything I saw when I wasn't tripping was real. How would you possibly verify this claim? What is reality if not your perception of it? Does objective reality exist? How do you know anything is objectively real and not a product of some brain process? All of those are long-standing philosophical questions. Here's [1] a quick intro on the problem space I found. [1] https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#SH2a https://iep.utm.edu/objectiv/#SH2a

TchoBeer 5y ago
>How do you know anything is objectively real and not a product of some brain process? If that's true, then I know that brain processes are real.
fsh 5y ago
Ancient Greek philosophers could not measure anything, so this idea was at least somewhat plausible. Modern philosophers have no such excuse. We can simply measure the temperature of the water buckets and accept that our hands are very poor thermometers. Leaving aside the very difficult issue of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, the last 200 or so years of science have clearly demonstrated that objective reality exists.
- staticman2 5y ago
  Ancient greek's could surely measure some things, how else did they build those buildings? You've declared we can measure everything important so reality is objective, but quantum physics suggests the things we can't measure may be astronomically large. The physicists who subscribe to the many world's theory believe there's a near infinite assortment of humans we cannot percieve or effectively measure, for example, and our own experience of self is inaccurate as we don't percieve ourselves to be branching in time. I don't think measurements solve the problem of the uncertainty of reality.
- TremendousJudge 5y ago
  >We can simply measure That "simply" is doing a lot of work there. Measurement is never simple, or correct. Yes, it's much, much more precise than it was in the past, but it's never exact. Until May 2019, the magnitude of many of the units composing the SI system of measurement, including most of those used in the measurement of electricity and light, were highly dependent upon the stability of a 142-year-old, golf-ball-sized cylinder of metal stored in a vault in France. The mass of this cylinder drifts when compared to copies, and nobody knows why. Yeah, the effect is super tiny, but the measurements are demonstrably _not precise_
  - fsh 5y ago
    Of course measurements are always imperfect. The point is that an objective reality exists that can be measured. Which piece of rock we use to compare other masses to does not change that.
    - TremendousJudge 5y ago
      I agree that in usual practice, we can assume that there is a measurable, objective reality. However, once you get to the limits of human knowledge, everything starts shifting like quicksand and it becomes less obvious that there's an objective reality that we all share.
    - malermeister 5y ago
      How does that in any way prove your point? What if all the measuring devices, their history, this very conversation, what if all of that was a hallucination? How would you know? How do you propose we definitely prove it isn't?
- Der_Einzige 5y ago
  Oh really? So you mean things like the no-cloning theorem, no-copying theorem, the whole idea of quantum indeterminacy, and the fact that actual randomness exists gives you evidence for objective reality? Actually, it's exactly the opposite. A =/= A. Even if there was objective reality, it's not available to us. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
  - fsh 5y ago
    The measurement problem is indeed profoundly weird and nobody has a good explanation for it. However, I doubt that you are going to be able to resolve quantum effects when discussing the temperature of two buckets of water.
  - jklinger410 5y ago
    You've got mounds and mounds of evidence for an objective and constant reality, and a few conundrums to unravel, and you then say "we don't know anything!" That's completely irrational. It sounds to me like you are looking to find data to fit your theory, you are HOPING we are in a simulation, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I find this whole conversation so incredibly funny. Go tell a person serving a life-time jail sentence that what they are experiencing is not an objective reality. Day in and day out, the same cell, the same 24 hour cycle. A gazelle being eaten alive by a group of hyenas. A person jumping off a building to commit suicide. All of these things are simply illusions created by something, who knows what. Even though we don't know anything about THAT part, you are certain of it. You've seen some goofy particles and have some fun mental puzzles to unlock so yeah, none of it is real!
    - EricDeb 5y ago
      There's undoubtedly shared aspects of reality and I don't think anyone seriously thinks psychedelics can produce water in a desert. I think the main benefit is psychedelics show you a different mental perspective on objective/shared reality and can shift your ego/identity in a radical way temporarily. Reality is "subjective" in the sense that your beliefs/identity/ego/brain-chemistry make up a huge part of your experience and those aspects can be altered dramatically. Telling someone serving a life sentence that could actually be useful to them. You see a lot of them turn to religion. That being said I eyeroll as well when someone says we're probably living in a simulation, but there is a lot we still don't know lol
GoblinSlayer 5y ago
Brain doesn't have resources to simulate reality all the way down.
- SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
  The brain does have the resources to do so, actually. This is variously called dreaming, psychosis, or similar.
  - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
    Dreaming is a limited simulation, not on the level of reality.
    - malermeister 5y ago
      How do you know? We haven't even established what reality is or whether it exists. For all you know, this entire argument could be a figment of your imagination and so could your perception of the rest of reality.
      - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
        We established the magnitude of the avogadro number, objects so complex have no chance to fully fit in imagination.
        malermeister 5y ago
        So you're saying the fact that your imagination is limited is proof? I believe in myself more than that, sorry. [also again, how do you know the Avogadro constant is real?]
        GoblinSlayer 5y ago
        Beliefs have no effect on reality, sorry. Not sure what you mean by real there, the Avogadro number expresses precision at which you need to simulate reality to get something believable and a brain simply isn't big enough for this in purely quantitative terms.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

TchoBeer 5y ago

>How do you know anything is objectively real and not a product of some brain process? If that's true, then I know that brain processes are real.

fsh 5y ago

Ancient Greek philosophers could not measure anything, so this idea was at least somewhat plausible. Modern philosophers have no such excuse. We can simply measure the temperature of the water buckets and accept that our hands are very poor thermometers. Leaving aside the very difficult issue of the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, the last 200 or so years of science have clearly demonstrated that objective reality exists.

staticman2 5y ago
Ancient greek's could surely measure some things, how else did they build those buildings? You've declared we can measure everything important so reality is objective, but quantum physics suggests the things we can't measure may be astronomically large. The physicists who subscribe to the many world's theory believe there's a near infinite assortment of humans we cannot percieve or effectively measure, for example, and our own experience of self is inaccurate as we don't percieve ourselves to be branching in time. I don't think measurements solve the problem of the uncertainty of reality.
TremendousJudge 5y ago
>We can simply measure That "simply" is doing a lot of work there. Measurement is never simple, or correct. Yes, it's much, much more precise than it was in the past, but it's never exact. Until May 2019, the magnitude of many of the units composing the SI system of measurement, including most of those used in the measurement of electricity and light, were highly dependent upon the stability of a 142-year-old, golf-ball-sized cylinder of metal stored in a vault in France. The mass of this cylinder drifts when compared to copies, and nobody knows why. Yeah, the effect is super tiny, but the measurements are demonstrably _not precise_
- fsh 5y ago
  Of course measurements are always imperfect. The point is that an objective reality exists that can be measured. Which piece of rock we use to compare other masses to does not change that.
  - TremendousJudge 5y ago
    I agree that in usual practice, we can assume that there is a measurable, objective reality. However, once you get to the limits of human knowledge, everything starts shifting like quicksand and it becomes less obvious that there's an objective reality that we all share.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    How does that in any way prove your point? What if all the measuring devices, their history, this very conversation, what if all of that was a hallucination? How would you know? How do you propose we definitely prove it isn't?
Der_Einzige 5y ago
Oh really? So you mean things like the no-cloning theorem, no-copying theorem, the whole idea of quantum indeterminacy, and the fact that actual randomness exists gives you evidence for objective reality? Actually, it's exactly the opposite. A =/= A. Even if there was objective reality, it's not available to us. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-cloning_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_indeterminacy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
- fsh 5y ago
  The measurement problem is indeed profoundly weird and nobody has a good explanation for it. However, I doubt that you are going to be able to resolve quantum effects when discussing the temperature of two buckets of water.
- jklinger410 5y ago
  You've got mounds and mounds of evidence for an objective and constant reality, and a few conundrums to unravel, and you then say "we don't know anything!" That's completely irrational. It sounds to me like you are looking to find data to fit your theory, you are HOPING we are in a simulation, and throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I find this whole conversation so incredibly funny. Go tell a person serving a life-time jail sentence that what they are experiencing is not an objective reality. Day in and day out, the same cell, the same 24 hour cycle. A gazelle being eaten alive by a group of hyenas. A person jumping off a building to commit suicide. All of these things are simply illusions created by something, who knows what. Even though we don't know anything about THAT part, you are certain of it. You've seen some goofy particles and have some fun mental puzzles to unlock so yeah, none of it is real!
  - EricDeb 5y ago
    There's undoubtedly shared aspects of reality and I don't think anyone seriously thinks psychedelics can produce water in a desert. I think the main benefit is psychedelics show you a different mental perspective on objective/shared reality and can shift your ego/identity in a radical way temporarily. Reality is "subjective" in the sense that your beliefs/identity/ego/brain-chemistry make up a huge part of your experience and those aspects can be altered dramatically. Telling someone serving a life sentence that could actually be useful to them. You see a lot of them turn to religion. That being said I eyeroll as well when someone says we're probably living in a simulation, but there is a lot we still don't know lol

GoblinSlayer 5y ago

Brain doesn't have resources to simulate reality all the way down.

SamoyedFurFluff 5y ago
The brain does have the resources to do so, actually. This is variously called dreaming, psychosis, or similar.
- GoblinSlayer 5y ago
  Dreaming is a limited simulation, not on the level of reality.
  - malermeister 5y ago
    How do you know? We haven't even established what reality is or whether it exists. For all you know, this entire argument could be a figment of your imagination and so could your perception of the rest of reality.
    - GoblinSlayer 5y ago
      We established the magnitude of the avogadro number, objects so complex have no chance to fully fit in imagination.
      - malermeister 5y ago
        So you're saying the fact that your imagination is limited is proof? I believe in myself more than that, sorry. [also again, how do you know the Avogadro constant is real?]
        GoblinSlayer 5y ago
        Beliefs have no effect on reality, sorry. Not sure what you mean by real there, the Avogadro number expresses precision at which you need to simulate reality to get something believable and a brain simply isn't big enough for this in purely quantitative terms.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]