• Nougat@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    The point about “are we in a simulation?” is not that we are (setting aside the whole technological singularity thing for the moment), but that we could be. The common sense thing only says that we’re more likely not, but does not at all say that we definitely are not. “Could be” still remains.

    • Please_Do_Not@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 months ago

      Moore’s point is that we shouldn’t let the inability to eliminate that “what if,” which was specifically designed to be non-disprovable, actually affect ontology. That problems and questions created by philosophers basically just to stump philosophical methods should be all but ignored since, by design, there clearly can’t be an answer except that one thing is by far most likely, and the other thing cannot matter because we can’t prove or act upon it or treat it as anything other than a manufactured source of doubt/skepticism.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        It is still important to understand that the only thing which can be known about reality with complete certainty is:

        • There is isness. Reality exists.

        We cannot know with certainty the nature of that reality. We can only know our perception, and even if we accept that we are perceiving reality (which is most likely, but not necessarily, true), our perceptions of that reality are incomplete and flawed. That’s a pretty important part of the nature of being.