Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> Quentin, Bruno:
> Quentin Anciaux wrote,
> >Another thing is, if you are part of a computation, and somehow someone 
> >succeed to throw you out of it and tells you that now you are in the real 
> >world... How could you know this one is real (despite the fact that you know 
> >the preceding wasn't in front of evidence showed to you) ? If the first 
> >wasn't real, then why this would be ? why a primary real would exists in 
> >this system ?
> If it is *possible* that we are living in a simulation, then we cannot be 
> sure that we aren't. However, we assume that we aren't because there is no 
> reason to think that we are. This is not to say *what is the case* (because 
> only a god outside of reality could actually know this), but rather what we 
> should *tentatively believe* is the case. The world looks flat, so we should 
> believe it is flat, but if evidence arises suggesting we are wrong, we should 
> change this belief.
> Stathis Papaioannou

Just a thought, I'm sure not that original, on Simulation vs. Reality?:
That we should believe that the world we are in is "real", seems to be
almost a tautology.  ("Believe" is a loaded word that we don't think
about much of the time that we use it.  "Believing" in something means,
or at least implies, acting as if it's real.)  Or at least this is
equivalent to saying that we should not be paranoid (or "it would be
paranoid to be paranoid"), or "we should not be afraid that belief in
the reality of our world is a dangerous belief".  Perhaps it is
equivalent to faith in conservation/induction.  But again, faiths last
only as long as the thing we're putting our faith in, like having faith
in a chair by sitting on it.  What does the word "should" mean in the
context of believing?  Yes, in the global universe of truth the ideal
would be to believe in *all* truth, to be aware of *all* reality, but
this is impossible.  (Some here would say that all reality is nothing,
but I disagree, but that's not my purpose here.)  So we have to settle
for a belief in local truth, not necessarily relative truth (that could
be false from a different perspective), but local/limited.  It seems to
be a pragmatic (or qualia?) based concept:

1. We should believe in whatever is worth believing in.
2. (True) reality is (defined as?) what is worth believing in.

Hence, we should believe in reality.  :)


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to