> You don't know what definite descriptions are ? No, I don't. Obviously. Wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description https://en.wikipedia.org/w

> You don't know what definite descriptions are ? No, I don't. Obviously. Wait: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description Ah, you meant unambiguous description. As a computer programmer, I'm actually quite familiar with the concept. I just didn't know your particular jargon. That said, I'm still confused: which description were you referring to? Could you quote it explicitly? > No wonder you all soak this shit up. Have you read Bostrom's simulation argument paper? I have, a while ago, and as far as my anthropic intuitions and my knowledge of probability theory are concerned, the argument is sound. On the other hand, I'm not quite sure which of the 3 propositions is most likely. I doubt this counts as "soaking shit up". --- > It's fascinating to me that I restate exactly an explicit plot device of the film (decision keeps you in the Matrix, not "pills"; decision determines one's fate: "Neo"); you recapitulate it back to me; then you call it magic. Are you sure you replied to the correct comment? We're not in the "The Matrix" thread, we're in the "Simulation Argument" thread. Now, if we take the film literally, well… the pill does have a role beyond being a really cool symbol. Granted, Neo's decision come first. Which lead him to move his (virtual) arm, and take the damn (virtual) pill, which can then act as the usual applied phlebotinum. An ordinary causal chain if you ask me. http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinum http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinu... But the actual "Matrix" Bostrom's paper is speculating about is an ancestor simulation, in which we're actually programs. Assuming the simulation have no bug, there's no getting out of it, short of being copied by the Matrix Lords in the level above us, and transferred in another substrate, possibly another such simulation. And there is certainly no getting out by sheer force of will. --- By the way I'm still not sure what you actually meant. Recall what you wrote in your first comment: > Generally, whether or not we are in the Matrix is our Decision to make. (i.e. It is not something we "discover" in the usual sense of the term.) This doesn't look like you're talking about getting out. It looks like you're talking about… well… modifying the Territory by redrawing the Map. I hope you don't actually think that it's remotely possible, or I'll mark you off as a relativist who failed forever at Philosophy —regardless of your credentials. So, just to be clear, please answer these two questions with a yes, no, or a probability. (i) Assuming we're living in a simulation, do you believe we could get out of it just by meditating? (ii) Do you believe that depending on how we meditate, we could make it so we were never (respectively allways) in a simulation to begin with? --- > Are you trolling me ? One requirement I have of trolls is that they be funny, or at least intellectually familiar with the topic. This is a forum of mostly computer people, many of which are close to the web start-up world. This is not a forum of philosophers familiar with academic jargon. And on your first comment… epistemic; cohere; phenomenological; modality; gestalt; conceptual substrates; Decisions; Principles; Predictions. (The last three are capitalized, so I assume they mean something special.) Seriously, what did you expect?