Can Science Prove...

[CynthiaCypher]

...that reality is real?

Someone pointed out to me when I asked the science otakus whether science could be used to prove once and for all that we are not living in simulation that I did not ask a fair question because science cannot prove a negative.

So I now present to you a different question: Can science prove that reality is real?

It is a pressing question.

 

[Desert Snake]

No, it can't.

 

[viole]

...that reality is real?

Someone pointed out to me when I asked the science otakus whether science could be used to prove once and for all that we are not living in simulation that I did not ask a fair question because science cannot prove a negative.

So I now present to you a different question: Can science prove that reality is real?

It is a pressing question.

Simple logic should suffice.

The answer is yes, because if it weren't real, it would not be reality, by definition.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Willamena]

Can science prove that reality is real?

No. No, it can't. But that doesn't actually mean anything. No one can prove nonsense.

Someone pointed out to me when I asked the science otakus whether science could be used to prove once and for all that we are not living in simulation that I did not ask a fair question because science cannot prove a negative.

So I now present to you a different question: Can science prove that reality is real?

It is a pressing question.

It's not about proving a negative (reality is entirely positive).

It's just that they have to use reality to prove, and proving itself is reality. So if reality is the tool and the result, what is the measure? Reality?

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Simple logic should suffice.

The answer is yes, because if it weren't real, it would not be reality, by definition.

Ciao

- viole

What if it is a simulation?

 

[Iti oj]

No. No way to independently verify it or side of our observations and senses. It's treated as an axism

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Under what basis are you measuring reality? Or better yet what just be absent in our senses to make it not reality?

 

[Ouroboros]

...that reality is real?

Someone pointed out to me when I asked the science otakus whether science could be used to prove once and for all that we are not living in simulation that I did not ask a fair question because science cannot prove a negative.

So I now present to you a different question: Can science prove that reality is real?

It is a pressing question.

The word "reality" means something that is "real". So if reality is reality then reality is real. No science needed. The proof is in the pudding, in your own contemplation and understanding of what reality is.

 

[Ouroboros]

What if it is a simulation?

Then the simulation is real. If the simulation isn't real, then it's not a simulation. At some point, there must be something that's real, or the word reality wouldn't have any meaning.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Simple logic should suffice.

The answer is yes, because if it weren't real, it would not be reality, by definition.

Ciao

- viole

What is reality though? How can logic and science prove something that we cannot even define? We think we perceive reality, but many times we only perceive what we want or expect to perceive, and we are just flat-out wrong on many occasions. How do you define reality when you take the question from your society to one that is completely different?

 

[idav]

...that reality is real?

Someone pointed out to me when I asked the science otakus whether science could be used to prove once and for all that we are not living in simulation that I did not ask a fair question because science cannot prove a negative.

So I now present to you a different question: Can science prove that reality is real?

It is a pressing question.

Whats not real about a simulation being run. If something in the simulation detects stuff in the simulation, it is real. What we can't prove is that this substance we interact with is the real substance or merely a simulated substance. Like the character in my game may experience shooting guns and driving cars but are simulations of real cars and guns from this reality. I think experiencing in itself is enough to say reality is real, to what extent is debatable.

 

[viole]

What is reality though? How can logic and science prove something that we cannot even define? We think we perceive reality, but many times we only perceive what we want or expect to perceive, and we are just flat-out wrong on many occasions. How do you define reality when you take the question from your society to one that is completely different?

Well, if someone hits me on the head with a hammer, that does not necessarily mean that this is what I want to expect. It is reality, nevertheless.

And I am sure that any society will agree that someone hit me on the head with a hammer.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

What if it is a simulation?

Then, it depends on the skills of the programmer that engineered the simulation. If she is good, then no way, I am afraid.

But then again she could be a simulation, too. So, if she is bad and we find out that we are a simulation will not help, ultimately, to reach a higher knowledge of what reality really is.

In other words, reality, is not certain. Nothing is really certain or knowable with certainty.

So, we have two choices:

1) we admit agnosticism about everything
2) we pragmatically settle for knowledge of what we see and call it reality, with the possibility of being wrong

Your call

Ciao

- viole

 

[FearGod]

...that reality is real?

Someone pointed out to me when I asked the science otakus whether science could be used to prove once and for all that we are not living in simulation that I did not ask a fair question because science cannot prove a negative.

So I now present to you a different question: Can science prove that reality is real?

It is a pressing question.

We don't need science to prove reality but the right question is can science find out how reality did exist ?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well, if someone hits me on the head with a hammer, that does not necessarily mean that this is what I want to expect. It is reality, nevertheless.

And I am sure that any society will agree that someone hit me on the head with a hammer.

Ciao

- viole

But how do you know it was a hammer? What if it was only something that looked like a hammer? What if you was hit and didn't see anything and this piece of your reality is entirely missing? As for another society, even here some will say hammer, some a pry-bar, nightstick, and someone may even think it was a baseball bat.

 

[viole]

But how do you know it was a hammer? What if it was only something that looked like a hammer? What if you was hit and didn't see anything and this piece of your reality is entirely missing? As for another society, even here some will say hammer, some a pry-bar, nightstick, and someone may even think it was a baseball bat.

Then, I would tell them to go play baseball with it.

Ciao

- viole

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

...that reality is real?

Someone pointed out to me when I asked the science otakus whether science could be used to prove once and for all that we are not living in simulation that I did not ask a fair question because science cannot prove a negative.

So I now present to you a different question: Can science prove that reality is real?

It is a pressing question.

No! Science makes the assumption that reality exists.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

...that reality is real?

Someone pointed out to me when I asked the science otakus whether science could be used to prove once and for all that we are not living in simulation that I did not ask a fair question because science cannot prove a negative.

So I now present to you a different question: Can science prove that reality is real?

It is a pressing question.

Possibly?

That's kind of like asking "could humanity ever make a piece of string long enough to circle the Universe"? Probably not with today's technology, but how are we to say what is possible with greater technology, or greater string, or a better understanding of the Universe?

Quantum physics already raises some pretty astonishing questions about what the nature of reality actually is, and whether it is an objective truth or merely the result of our perceptions acting upon a wave of countless probabilities. There's no reason to assume it couldn't solve these and other mysteries at some point in the future.

 

[Sir Doom]

...that reality is real?

Someone pointed out to me when I asked the science otakus whether science could be used to prove once and for all that we are not living in simulation that I did not ask a fair question because science cannot prove a negative.

So I now present to you a different question: Can science prove that reality is real?

It is a pressing question.

Yes. Reality only has one quality. That it is real. Proving this is as easy as reading the definition and/or observing people using the term to that effect.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

Yes. Reality only has one quality. That it is real. Proving this is as easy as reading the definition and/or observing people using the term to that effect.

It could be a simulation.