Those dratted laws of intelligible thought keep intruding into my thoughts. The law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle for dichotomies, the law of the included middle for continua, and the law of rational inference.

The symbolic representation of something cannot be the something so represented. The mental model of something cannot be the something so modeled. In some sense, I sense such external reality as may (or may not?) actually exist through having internalized external reality in symbolic form. The consequence of this may be the core existential human enigmatic tragedy, if there be any such.

Throughout my life, a consistent pattern has been present, one which I find at every scale of observation I have ever attained, and in every event of my life. This pattern has been totally pervasive throughout my life, and I have a wild guess that, were I able to describe said pattern with any modicum of useful accuracy, it would be a pattern which, in one way or another, everyone has encountered.

In my life, and I can tell of no other life because, of other lives I can tell only that which I have been able to take into my life, this pattern is the best candidate I have yet found for a mental model of external reality. Of course, the best model I have yet found may be riddled with absurd contradictions which have eluded my attention.

Nonetheless, fool that I be, I here plunge ahead, into the abyss.

(The title, for now, of the abyss): A private (subjective) notion of public (objective) reality.

To begin, that a notion of public, and therefore, objective reality may exist in some useful way may be a useful or a useless notion, albeit one which may be subjected to logical hypothesis testing in order to discern whether it is, or is not, a form of testable hypothesis. The notion is of a working hypothesis which, in being tested, may be found to be a working or a not-working hypothesis.

The fact (if it be a fact) that the words I am writing appear on the display of the computer I am using in writing them is not evidence that the words exist nor evidence that the computer and/or its display exist; however, the notion that they do not exist is tenuous at best for me, because I allow existence to exist only as non-existence. Were non-existence to exist, what would be its inescapable structures, functions, and properties, if any?

Perhaps direct observation would be useful. Direct observation? What is direct observation?

My private notion of direct observation is that it is observation (sensation, perception, interpretation, noting, and retrieval of what has been noted) in which interpretation is minimized to the greatest attainable extent and degree found possible.

To illustrate, suppose something happens such that a person becomes aware of the happening. According to my sense of reality (which I readily allow may be only nonsense and totally unreal), the word "happenings" is synonymous with "observable events."

Five core qualities are found associated with every event I am able to retrieve, throughout the whole of my retrievable (rememberable) life. They are:

Change happens; this being useful evidence that existence exists.

Change itself happens to change; this being useful evidence that Interdependence of changes which happen also happens.

Change is structured; this being useful evidence that Order is an aspect of changes which happen.

Change happening "now" adds to change which previously happened, this additive aspect of change is what allows evaluation of change and is useful evidence of Value.

Change accumulates as superposition of all changes which have already happened; this is evidence that the process of change is inherently of Incompleteness, a necessary aspect of the evidence that existence exists as process, said process being of accumulating complementary order which is comprised of accumulated disorder.

Put in a sequential list, the five core qualities are:

Change, Interdependence, Order, Value, and Incompleteness.

I observe afore-described existential process to have three identifiable classification categories.

There are changes which have not yet happened.

There are changes which are in the process of happening.

There are changes which have already happened.

Changes which have not yet happened may be thought of as of the future, or as of possibilities (and also of impossibilities?).

Changes which are in the process of happening may be thought of as the present, or as of probabilities.

Changes which have already happened may be thought of as the past, or as actualities.

The process through which possibilities become probable and probabilities become actualized may usefully be deemed the process of existence, whereby existence comes to exist through creatively evolving.

In some forms of pre-modern, pre-postmodern, pre-scientific jargon, possibilities not yet probable may have been named "spirit."

In some forms of pre-modern, pre-postmodern, pre-scientific jargon, probabilities not yet actualized may have been named, "father."

In some forms of pre-modern, pre-postmodern, pre-scientific jargon, actualities already actualized may have been named "son."

In my view, the name of something is never the something named.

Changes which have not yet happened, changes which are happening, and changes which have already happened, as best I can discern, comprise a process phenomenon which pervades the whole of observable existence, in every observable detail of existence.

Perhaps I am not a capable or competent observer, and my observations are only of error. If that be so, then I have no means of escape from such error, and, thus, error is itself objective reality?

Perhaps I read too much of W. R. D. Fairbairn's work regarding Object Relations.

I encourage those so inclined to diligently object to my effort directed toward figuring out whether objectivity is in any way at all possible, or probable, or actual.

janekane (imported) wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2011 2:53 am Those dratted laws of intelligible thought keep intruding into my thoughts. The law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of the excluded middle for dichotomies, the law of the included middle for continua, and the law of rational inference.

The symbolic representation of something cannot be the something so represented. The mental model of something cannot be the something so modeled. In some sense, I sense such external reality as may (or may not?) actually exist through having internalized external reality in symbolic form. The consequence of this may be the core existential human enigmatic tragedy, if there be any such.

Throughout my life, a consistent pattern has been present, one which I find at every scale of observation I have ever attained, and in every event of my life. This pattern has been totally pervasive throughout my life, and I have a wild guess that, were I able to describe said pattern with any modicum of useful accuracy, it would be a pattern which, in one way or another, everyone has encountered.

In my life, and I can tell of no other life because, of other lives I can tell only that which I have been able to take into my life, this pattern is the best candidate I have yet found for a mental model of external reality. Of course, the best model I have yet found may be riddled with absurd contradictions which have eluded my attention.

Nonetheless, fool that I be, I here plunge ahead, into the abyss.

(The title, for now, of the abyss): A private (subjective) notion of public (objective) reality.

To begin, that a notion of public, and therefore, objective reality may exist in some useful way may be a useful or a useless notion, albeit one which may be subjected to logical hypothesis testing in order to discern whether it is, or is not, a form of testable hypothesis. The notion is of a working hypothesis which, in being tested, may be found to be a working or a not-working hypothesis.

The fact (if it be a fact) that the words I am writing appear on the display of the computer I am using in writing them is not evidence that the words exist nor evidence that the computer and/or its display exist; however, the notion that they do not exist is tenuous at best for me, because I allow existence to exist only as non-existence. Were non-existence to exist, what would be its inescapable structures, functions, and properties, if any?

Perhaps direct observation would be useful. Direct observation? What is direct observation?

My private notion of direct observation is that it is observation (sensation, perception, interpretation, noting, and retrieval of what has been noted) in which interpretation is minimized to the greatest attainable extent and degree found possible.

To illustrate, suppose something happens such that a person becomes aware of the happening. According to my sense of reality (which I readily allow may be only nonsense and totally unreal), the word "happenings" is synonymous with "observable events."

Five core qualities are found associated with every event I am able to retrieve, throughout the whole of my retrievable (rememberable) life. They are:

Change happens; this being useful evidence that existence exists.

Change itself happens to change; this being useful evidence that Interdependence of changes which happen also happens.

Change is structured; this being useful evidence that Order is an aspect of changes which happen.

Change happening "now" adds to change which previously happened, this additive aspect of change is what allows evaluation of change and is useful evidence of Value.

Change accumulates as superposition of all changes which have already happened; this is evidence that the process of change is inherently of Incompleteness, a necessary aspect of the evidence that existence exists as process, said process being of accumulating complementary order which is comprised of accumulated disorder.

Put in a sequential list, the five core qualities are:

Change, Interdependence, Order, Value, and Incompleteness.

I observe afore-described existential process to have three identifiable classification categories.

There are changes which have not yet happened.

There are changes which are in the process of happening.

There are changes which have already happened.

Changes which have not yet happened may be thought of as of the future, or as of possibilities (and also of impossibilities?).

Changes which are in the process of happening may be thought of as the present, or as of probabilities.

Changes which have already happened may be thought of as the past, or as actualities.

The process through which possibilities become probable and probabilities become actualized may usefully be deemed the process of existence, whereby existence comes to exist through creatively evolving.

In some forms of pre-modern, pre-postmodern, pre-scientific jargon, possibilities not yet probable may have been named "spirit."

In some forms of pre-modern, pre-postmodern, pre-scientific jargon, probabilities not yet actualized may have been named, "father."

In some forms of pre-modern, pre-postmodern, pre-scientific jargon, actualities already actualized may have been named "son."

In my view, the name of something is never the something named.

Changes which have not yet happened, changes which are happening, and changes which have already happened, as best I can discern, comprise a process phenomenon which pervades the whole of observable existence, in every observable detail of existence.

Perhaps I am not a capable or competent observer, and my observations are only of error. If that be so, then I have no means of escape from such error, and, thus, error is itself objective reality?

Perhaps I read too much of W. R. D. Fairbairn's work regarding Object Relations.

I encourage those so inclined to diligently object to my effort directed toward figuring out whether objectivity is in any way at all possible, or probable, or actual.

In the end, your observations, whatever or however they are made, rely on your brain to interpret and give them meaning, if in fact those observations have any meaning. As those who have taken hallucinogenic drugs can testify, this processing can change the interpretations making the input have a new and totally different meaning. Which one is correct? Perhaps the drugs only allow one to observe what is really happening which is in reality blocked by our processing, until the drugs are taken. There is no way to know. Self-observation is certainly no proof of existence.

What if you are a creation in my universe? You did not exist in my universe before I met you here. It is possible I created you at that moment, complete with your memories of having lived this life that you talk about. But the fact that you remember it, does not mean it happened. it only means you have memories of it happening. So, it is possible that you do not really exist in any real universe, but only in my universe. And when I am not conversing with you, it is possible you do not exist at all.

If you do not exist, me living an ethical life, is also just an illusion.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:13 pm In the end, your observations, whatever or however they are made, rely on your brain to interpret and give them meaning, if in fact those observations have any meaning. As those who have taken hallucinogenic drugs can testify, this processing can change the interpretations making the input have a new and totally different meaning. Which one is correct? Perhaps the drugs only allow one to observe what is really happening which is in reality blocked by our processing, until the drugs are taken. There is no way to know. Self-observation is certainly no proof of existence.

What if you are a creation in my universe? You did not exist in my universe before I met you here. It is possible I created you at that moment, complete with your memories of having lived this life that you talk about. But the fact that you remember it, does not mean it happened. it only means you have memories of it happening. So, it is possible that you do not really exist in any real universe, but only in my universe. And when I am not conversing with you, it is possible you do not exist at all.

If you do not exist, me living an ethical life, is also just an illusion.

Elizabeth

The question of illusion and reality is very old. It is one of those thought experiments with no answer, made to make you think, without there being the possibility of a conclusion.

The question I find more meaningful, is what do you do and how do you act should this be proven true?

No matter which way I put my mind to the task, no matter who is creating the universe, no matter who's dream it is, we still have to act like this is the only universe we have, and continue to act as though the universe is real.

Regardless of who the dreamer is, even the dreamer seems not to have control over the physical laws of this dimension. The dreamer is just as much a prisoner of this reality as those he dreams. Acting as though nothing matters and there are no consequences still won't help you overcome this reality. No matter how much you desire to fly, jumping off a skyscraper is still a bad idea without a parachute.

By every value we've learned to measure, we've never had a single demonstrable example of reality altering spontaneously to suit someone's whims. The only thing that changes is interpretation.

From this I take we have very malleable, creative minds. Hence, everyone is capable of seeing something differently from everyone else when presented with the same data.

But what if all that is a very convincing illusion? What if I really am a product of your dream? What if you are a product of my dream? Does that information do either one of us any good?

Would you act any differently if you found out definitively that you were actually a product of my delusion? All the consequences would remain the same for you. Your laws of reality wouldn't change, only the knowledge that you are a product of my dream. No matter how hard you try, you cannot change the universe around you, except by the methods of hard work and time you use right now.

Even for me, knowing that I am the dreamer, and everyone exists only in my own mind, I still can't change any of the laws of my universe. Consequences remain the same. If I jump off a building I would still die. If I offend someone, they would still be offended, and treat me like they were offended by me. My reality stays exactly the same regardless of my new knowledge. No matter how hard I try, I cannot change the universe around myself, except by the methods of hard work and time I use right now.

Even though we know the universe is an illusion, we are still faced with exactly the same problems we had before we knew that fact.

So what do we do?

My answer is to act as though the universe exists, and treat you like you exist. I treat my universe like it exists, and my reality as though it exists. What other choice do I really have, when the consequences aren't any different for me regardless of real or imagined reality.

If my reality is imaginary, it is still my reality.

If my reality is real, it is still my reality.

If you imagined me into existence, my reality is still my reality.

If I imagined you into existence, your reality is still your reality, and you are still a part of my reality.

In none of these "realities" can I do anything to change the world I am forced to interact with. I can't wish change, I can only work with the universe I have, and through work and time accomplish my goals. Same as if my universe is real.

I see no way to distinguish between being inside the dream reality, and existing in a real reality. I see no way my acting any differently will help me, when the only new knowledge I have, is that the universe is real, or the universe is a dream. Because all the consequences of my actions stay the same regardless of my knowledge of being real or imagined, my actions, and decisions must also stay the same regardless of that knowledge.

Note that when you spoke of ethics being selfish, I heartily agreed with you. If your entire world exists only inside your own mind, then you'd best work to create the best world you can for yourself. Depending on how you define harm for yourself, and if you seek to reduce harm for yourself, then what you choose as the least harm for your world, ultimately best serves you.

If your universe is real, and is not a product of someone's imagination, then you would still want to create the best world for yourself. You would do best to work to create the best world you can for yourself. Depending on how you define harm for yourself, and if you seek to reduce harm for yourself, then what you choose as the least harm for your world, ultimately best serves you.

What you do in either reality is exactly the same. You are still left with exactly the same tools for interacting with your reality regardless of real or imagined.

Ultimately if the universe is real or imagined it does not matter. We can't change it either way.

"Dream" or "Real" become simple labels, and don't change how we act and interact with the reality we perceive.

So I won't disagree with you. Your reality is totally imagined, and a fellow named Harvey Spitwell is the dreamer. Nothing you do will alter the consequences of this reality. If you kill Harvey Spitwell, someone else will instantly become the dreamer, and reality will go on exactly as it always has. All the laws of this reality will remain exactly the same as they are now.

Now that you know the truth, what will you do with this information?

Me? I'm going to do what I've always done. Pretend this reality is real, and deal with things as they come. My reality, however I define it, is still my reality. I'm stuck with it, so I'll do my best to deal with it.

You guys are amazing! This is all more complicated than Inception

Cainanite (imported) wrote: Wed Oct 05, 2011 7:50 pm The question of illusion and reality is very old. It is one of those thought experiments with no answer, made to make you think, without there being the possibility of a conclusion.

The question I find more meaningful, is what do you do and how do you act should this be proven true?

No matter which way I put my mind to the task, no matter who is creating the universe, no matter who's dream it is, we still have to act like this is the only universe we have, and continue to act as though the universe is real.

Regardless of who the dreamer is, even the dreamer seems not to have control over the physical laws of this dimension. The dreamer is just as much a prisoner of this reality as those he dreams. Acting as though nothing matters and there are no consequences still won't help you overcome this reality. No matter how much you desire to fly, jumping off a skyscraper is still a bad idea without a parachute.

By every value we've learned to measure, we've never had a single demonstrable example of reality altering spontaneously to suit someone's whims. The only thing that changes is interpretation.

From this I take we have very malleable, creative minds. Hence, everyone is capable of seeing something differently from everyone else when presented with the same data.

But what if all that is a very convincing illusion? What if I really am a product of your dream? What if you are a product of my dream? Does that information do either one of us any good?

Would you act any differently if you found out definitively that you were actually a product of my delusion? All the consequences would remain the same for you. Your laws of reality wouldn't change, only the knowledge that you are a product of my dream. No matter how hard you try, you cannot change the universe around you, except by the methods of hard work and time you use right now.

Even for me, knowing that I am the dreamer, and everyone exists only in my own mind, I still can't change any of the laws of my universe. Consequences remain the same. If I jump off a building I would still die. If I offend someone, they would still be offended, and treat me like they were offended by me. My reality stays exactly the same regardless of my new knowledge. No matter how hard I try, I cannot change the universe around myself, except by the methods of hard work and time I use right now.

Even though we know the universe is an illusion, we are still faced with exactly the same problems we had before we knew that fact.

So what do we do?

My answer is to act as though the universe exists, and treat you like you exist. I treat my universe like it exists, and my reality as though it exists. What other choice do I really have, when the consequences aren't any different for me regardless of real or imagined reality.

If my reality is imaginary, it is still my reality.

If my reality is real, it is still my reality.

If you imagined me into existence, my reality is still my reality.

If I imagined you into existence, your reality is still your reality, and you are still a part of my reality.

In none of these "realities" can I do anything to change the world I am forced to interact with. I can't wish change, I can only work with the universe I have, and through work and time accomplish my goals. Same as if my universe is real.

I see no way to distinguish between being inside the dream reality, and existing in a real reality. I see no way my acting any differently will help me, when the only new knowledge I have, is that the universe is real, or the universe is a dream. Because all the consequences of my actions stay the same regardless of my knowledge of being real or imagined, my actions, and decisions must also stay the same regardless of that knowledge.

Note that when you spoke of ethics being selfish, I heartily agreed with you. If your entire world exists only inside your own mind, then you'd best work to create the best world you can for yourself. Depending on how you define harm for yourself, and if you seek to reduce harm for yourself, then what you choose as the least harm for your world, ultimately best serves you.

If your universe is real, and is not a product of someone's imagination, then you would still want to create the best world for yourself. You would do best to work to create the best world you can for yourself. Depending on how you define harm for yourself, and if you seek to reduce harm for yourself, then what you choose as the least harm for your world, ultimately best serves you.

What you do in either reality is exactly the same. You are still left with exactly the same tools for interacting with your reality regardless of real or imagined.

Ultimately if the universe is real or imagined it does not matter. We can't change it either way.

"Dream" or "Real" become simple labels, and don't change how we act and interact with the reality we perceive.

So I won't disagree with you. Your reality is totally imagined, and a fellow named Harvey Spitwell is the dreamer. Nothing you do will alter the consequences of this reality. If you kill Harvey Spitwell, someone else will instantly become the dreamer, and reality will go on exactly as it always has. All the laws of this reality will remain exactly the same as they are now.

Now that you know the truth, what will you do with this information?

Me? I'm going to do what I've always done. Pretend this reality is real, and deal with things as they come. My reality, however I define it, is still my reality. I'm stuck with it, so I'll do my best to deal with it.

What an outstanding post. I agree with a lot of what you are saying here. And I am sure you have already surmised that I understand that regardless of who's in who's dream, it is totally irrelevant because no matter what, this is the only universe I have. The point I am getting at is that if this is not my dream, than I never had a choice, in anything. As with the universe, I did not create the rules of my existence and seem to have no power to change it. It would appear that no matter what I do, the mass of an electron does not change. If this is the case, then I will have precisely the ethics I was supposed to have and my views on ethics are completely irrelevant.

I see the possibilities like this:

1. I am but one of many sentient beings in a universe, that has a reality that is independent of my or anyone Else's thoughts. In this scenario I am independent from other sentient beings and control my own ethics.

2. I am a sentient being and the universe exists only in my mind. Either I am a projection in a projected universe, or I am a person being given inputs that make me believe I am a person in the universe. In this universe I am merely a cog in the machine. While I exist as a living being, my life and my universe may or may not actually exist. Under this scenario choice is but an illusion since I can't even know if my universe if real or not. In this universe my ethics have been decided for me.

3. I believe myself to be a sentient being, however I am only a character in your universe. My feelings of being an individual and having my own unique history is again an illusion. I will exactly the ethics your universe requires me to have. I will believe those ethics to be my own, just as my history, but both never existed as independent thoughts.

4. There is no independent reality, there are no real sentient beings, we all see the universe as we believe it to exist, but everything is just holographic projections. Whatever reality turns out to be, this is not it. In this scenario I also do not have control over my ethics, but believe I do.

Now putting it altogether with evidence that there is no independent reality, and observations that seem to suggest that the observer plays a part in the outcome of what reality is, and it really seems like a conundrum. If our reality can be affected by things not in our reality and our reality can be affected by our thoughts, as an observer? It becomes difficult to accept that I am a sentient being in a real reality where what I think about ethics are indeed my own thoughts.

Regardless of where my programming comes from, as far as I can tell, this is the only universe I have and it appears that others have the same right to exist that I do. And as you pointed out, it really does not matter who's reality it is because there is no alternative. I must accept the rules of this universe with it's occupants, even if they only exist in my mind. But no matter how hard I want to take the credit for my ethics, I did not create them, and I don't seem to have the ability to change them. They seem to be an innate part of me. Knowing this helps my accept that others need not be like me and I do not need to be upset about it. They have no more choice than I do.

Elizabeth

You speak to the Illusion of Choice.

For me that question is about as relevant as the question of a real or simulated universe.

If my universe is simulated, and I am simulated, why do I have the illusion of choice at all? If everything is already decided for me, and the ethics I have are already decided for me, why bother with such a complex simulation, when a better/simpler simulation could achieve the same results? Does the programmer of our reality already know the outcome the programmer wants? Or, is the programmer using our simulated reality to "see what happens".

If the programmer is using this reality to achieve a predetermined goal, then the illusion of choice serves no purpose. It seems like a waste of programming complexity. Giving each program a memory that only runs in one direction (backward into the past) would be a programming error. For the best most obvious results you would program your inhabitants of the simulation with a memory that goes both into the past and into the future, so that the program knows what to do and when to do it, to achieve the goal the programmer decided upon in the beginning. This would also vastly simplify your programming language, because you would no longer have to manipulate the programs through complicated social dynamics, and uncertain outcomes. It would be simpler to program each inhabitant with their goals (choices) ahead of time. Knowing what will happen in each instance will assure your outcome of the simulation.

If the programmer is using this reality as a true simulation, to figure out what might happen, then programming us with choices becomes more understandable. The programmer does no know what we will decide ahead of time. Part of the simulation is to model uncertainty. If this is the case, then having each program within the simulation make their own choices, works toward the very purpose of the simulation. Giving us memories that only remember the past, and not the future, forces us to make those uncertain choices.

I remember watching the "making-of" documentaries for The Lord of the Rings movies. They used a lot of computer simulations to create the big battle scenes. Weta Digital used a program called Massive. In the Massive program the programmers could decide exactly what they wanted each character to do in any given scene of a battle sequence. When they told their simulations to attack, they all did, in perfect unison. Peter Jackson did not like the result. It looked too much like a computer generated effect. The programmers solved this, by giving each of the characters within the simulation, choice. The programs themselves, could now decide when they attacked, if they ran at an enemy, or away. They could decide what weapon they could attack with, and which attack to use. The result was a much more realistic battle sequence for the movie. The actions of the CG characters also surprised the programmers by often doing things the programmers did not expect. Sometimes entire battalions would break and run. Some would attack too soon. Some wouldn't attack at all, but run around the battle field in moronic circles. Most of those "errors" made it into the final movie, because it was the most realistic reactions of the characters in the Massive program. The programmer could later go into the program, and see why each of those CG characters made the choices they did, but the choice itself was a complete surprise to the programmer.

They way I look at it, the programmed characters were given a real choice, in which even the programmer could not predict. If one were to put themselves into the digital shoes of the Weta character, it would be making a choice based on their own values to decide what action to take, even if that action was contrary to the purpose of the simulation. Even though it was a simulated reality, the choice was still real.

Even knowing how the simulation works, and knowing how to program for choice, does not invalidate that a choice was being made, and that the choices made were a complete surprise to the programmer.

I admit, the comparison to a rather simple program like Massive has its faults when you scale up for the size of our universe. In the Massive program, the programmers knew ahead of time what options the character had to choose from. They programmed those options into each character, it was which option they would choose that was unexpected.

Are our options real? Who knows? Are our choices between those options real? Yes.

Even the Holographic Universe Theory, which you have talked about to some degree, does not imply a creator, or programmer. It could be that our simulated universe has come to be spontaneously. Whether or not there is a programmer for our simulated reality, does not take away from the fact that a simulation is running, and the occupants of that simulation are making choices, between different outcomes.

Whether our universe is a computer simulation, or a physical simulation, our choices still matter, and are unpredictable to those outside our own perspective. Whether there is a creator, or a programmer, choice still exists. Just because something was created, does not mean that the creator knows how everything will play out. Just like the programmers of that Weta simulation, a creator could place values upon different options to try and influence the choices being made, but the choice itself is up to the program, not the programmer. The choice is still real.

For me, knowing all that, says that the only thing we can be absolutely sure of being real, is our choices. My body may not really be here. You might not really exist. My universe could all be just in my own mind. However, I am still being bombarded with new knowledge every second I live, that I did not know before. I can only come to know that which I learn. I can choose options based on what I learn. What I learn might not be real. It might be a false reality, placed before me by an outside programmer. My choice between those options,(options either real or manufactured) remain my own. It is the only real thing I can be sure of.

I would alter the famous quote, "I think therefore I am," to "I choose therefore I exist."

Your choices matter. Your ethics matter.

Even if our universe is not real, you still choose between options. Choosing between those options affects the universe and outcome around you. Whether or not this is all based in perception, you still have your perception offering you choices.

Your perception is your reality. Your choices based on that perception changes your reality, and your changed reality alters your perceptions, allowing you to make different choices based on what you learn. Therefore, your choices help create your reality.

As hard as you try, you cannot control all of reality through your choices. You cannot know everything. Reality will never be exactly how you want it.

I interpret that fact several ways.

1. My reality is a created simulation. Because I am dealing with a reality I did not create, but I can influence that reality, then my choices have meaning. Because my reality is made for me, and I am choosing options based on what is placed before me, I can deduce there are two intelligences in the universe, mine, and the creator. I didn't have a choice in what reality I would experience, but can still affect it in a small way, and that has meaning to both myself and the creator. My choices have meaning

2. My reality exists, and I am choosing options based on what is placed before me, and there are multiple intelligences in the universe, me, you and everybody else. We didn't create the universe, but through our choices, each of us alters the reality in small ways. Our choices have meaning to everyone sharing reality, because we all affect it in our small ways. My choices have meaning.

3. I am the only being, and my reality is all in my own mind. I am insane, and am blocking information from myself, so I don't know everything all at once. Because I don't know everything all at once, I am free to make choices without foreknowledge. It only matters to me what I choose, but because it matters to me, then my choices have meaning.

4. I am a figment of your imagination, and my choices are illusory. In that reality, I don't know I am a figment, and I still make choices that are important to me, because they are important to you. My choices still have meaning.

In janekane's Hypothesis about avoidable mistakes, he asked if someone could point out a mistake they made that could have been reasonably avoided. For an avoidable mistake to be real, the subject would have had to be able to describe how that mistake could have been reasonably avoided based on what was known at the time.

I imagine a valid reasonable example of how such a mistake would be interpreted by the subject. The subject, would explain the mistake. Let's say, walking through the wrong door.

"Had you ever walked through that door before?"

"Yes. It was a big problem. I knew I'd never do that again."

"Why did you walk through it again?"

"I don't know. It doesn't make sense."

"Were you being careful not to walk through that door."

"Yes. I was being very conscious not to choose that door. I didn't want to go through that again."

"Why did you go through that door?"

"I don't know. I didn't want to go through it. I was aware of where the door was and was avoiding it, but I went through anyways."

"Is it possible you subconsciously wanted to go through that door?"

"No. I was trying to go through another door, but I was suddenly going through THAT door. I didn't choose it. It doesn't make sense."

"How could you have avoided going through that door?"

"I could have not gone through it."

"Why didn't you?"

"Because I didn't."

If the above example were a true experience, then janekane's hypothesis could have been proven wrong. The subject's choice to not go through that door did not matter. One could argue that an outside force made the choice for the subject. Nothing the subject chooses to do can alter that reality. Nor can any choice the subject makes in the future prevent him from going through that door in the future. Even though the subject knows how to avoid the door, and is actively choosing not to go through the door, he still goes through the door. The mistake is proven avoidable, but is still not avoided.

In reality, there are infinite choices the subject could make to avoid that door. It could be as simple as not going in that building again. The subject could move to another city. Board the door up. The choices go on and on. Reality seems to rejects the notion of an avoidable mistake that is impossible to avoid. A mistake becomes avoidable when we are able to choose to avoid it. Something that is unavoidable exists because we have not chosen to avoid it. In order to choose, we need information. With new information, new choices become possible.

Choices matter because they allow us to alter our world, even if they are in extremely small ways. It seems apparent that there is no outside force changing our choices for us, or an avoidable mistake that is impossible to avoid would be a real thing.

Our choices and our ethics(which are choices based on what we perceive as our values) are real things. It is possible that what we are perceiving is being altered in an effort to affect our choices, but even that allows that our choices matter.

That we choose proves we matter, and that we exist because it affects our universe. How we choose, are our ethics. The process by which we choose the greatest benefit over the greatest harm ( a selfish endeavor based on how we want our own universe to be) is how we define meaning for that existence.

Our choices prove we exist. How we choose is the meaning.

We both exist, and there is meaning to our existence.

Whether we exist in a simulation or not. Whether someone is trying to influence our perceptions from within this universe or without, does not change that we exist. Our choices are real.

True. I can't prove you are real. I can't prove this universe isn't holographic, but I do know my choices matter to me. If everything I am and experience isn't real, my choices still are.

A hologram may not be a real object, but it is still a real hologram. If that hologram makes a choice that affects it's holographic universe, then that choice has real consequences (if only for the holographic universe). The choice is still real.

As I can only act as though my universe is real, and I know that my choices are still real, then the process of ethics become all the more important.

Those choices are the WHY of the universe.

As in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, what we don't know is the question being asked. The question being asked of our universe exists outside our universe. What is the purpose of our "simulation"? I haven't the foggiest idea where to start looking. All I know, is that if there is a question being asked, then making choices seems to be an important part of that function of answering. It is extraordinarily reasonable, that the creator of our universe doesn't know everything either, and is looking to us to answer things for Him.

It could be our creator has no more idea of what is right and what is wrong than we do. If that is the case, then the purpose of our lives may be to look for all the answers we can. If that is the case, then our ethics are inextricably tied to our very existence.

The meaning of life is to search for what is ultimately right, and ultimately wrong, knowing we can never answer, until we know all that can ever be known. Until we can achieve that goal, we can only continue to learn, and continue to choose, until we eventually know all there is, and all the possible outcomes, and the picture of right and wrong finally coalesces. Until we become infinite beings with infinite knowledge of all outcomes, then this remains impossible. As time only goes in one direction, then we are only now learning how to become that infinite being. Our choices are our learning.

Our choices are the steps we take upon the road of answering the ultimate question. What that question turns out to be, we will only know when we know all there is to ever know.

For the other dyslexics too -

Will the most wordiful authors please include a synopsis.



Dyslexics believe in Dog. Quite ethical too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ISzf2pryI

I do NOT believe in Dog,

I really don't have a deity maybe I will be like Geo. Carlin who believed in Joe Pesci only I think I will believe in MOI.

or

As we say at the home IOM.

River

My most basic synopsis breakdown;

1. We exist. Choices matter.

2. Ethics are choices, based on what we think is right, and what we think is wrong.

3. Because we can't know everything, we will never know what is 100% right, only what causes the least harm.

4. When we become omnipotent, and know everything, then we will truly know

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Tue Oct 04, 2011 7:11 pm [quote="Cainanite (imported)" time=131

7652200]
the difference between right and wrong.
[/quote]


5. Ethics are the search for the answer of what is right and wrong. Not the actual answer to what is right and wrong.

6. Perception is the only reality we have.

7. Consensus and compromise are the tools we use to find a balance between different perceptions.

8. Ethics function by choosing the least harm, based on the consensus and compromise between perceptions.

9. When we learn something new, our perceptions change.

10. When perceptions change, what we perceive as harmful changes.

11. We are still learning.

12. Ethics will always be changing, because we are always learning new things.

Now I'll attempt to merge all of those things into one big gobbledygook sentence.

Ethics are choices about our perceived consensus reality, and what different people perceive through compromise as harmful, allowing that no-one can know everything, time moves in only one direction, and new information can affect perceptions as time moves into the future, in an effort to determine right from wrong, while knowing that the search cannot produce a single unified answer to right and wrong until all knowledge that is knowable is known and all outcomes can be predicted and that nothing new can ever be learned within the confines of a universe that is accepted as real, but that the most desirable outcome remains that which inflict the least perceived consensus harm for the largest consensus group, and continuing to allow for changes and additions in knowledge as time moves into the future, to change the definition of ethics and the definition of perceptions of harm.

Do you see why people struggle with this crap? That sentence is CRAZY hard to work out. Too many things to think about in one single idea.

Moi,

I hope that helped, but I doubt it.

If people knew how to explain this simply, it would be simple, and there wouldn't be such debate about it.

I read 1-12 but dissolved in your paragraph.

Seems most self evident except the conflict of individual good vs social good not found.

again.

Moi