Imaginary Friends

[SalixIncendium]

Philosophic question that we play with from time to time. Is Life simply God's dream? Are we just characters in his mind?

♫ Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream. ♫

 

[Clara Tea]

When I minored in philosophy, I learned that there was an entire branch of philosophy dedicated to this question (do we exist or not). It is called "existentialism."

Descarte argued "I think, therefore I am."

I prefer to argue "I don't think, therefore, I am not." I would like that on my tombstone.

Plato (Allegory of the Caves) described life as imperfect knowledge of the world. He said that gaining knowledge is like living your life in a cave with your back to the cave opening, and seeing shadows of the real world on the wall. When one turns around, and sees the vibrant colors of reality, one tends to reject their existence (because one has no experience with reality). But, Plato argued, when one adjusts to the bright light and colors, one accepts knowledge. The acceptance of knowledge (and growth of wisdom) works in the same way. We slowly accept truth.

If the world was set up to fool us, someone might have set it up (unlikely to have set itself up). Is God running a virtual reality game with us?

Consider the idea that a wild animal hunts and captures prey, then eats it alive (panther and water buffalo, for example). The poor water buffalo is screaming in agony as it is being eaten alive. Would a loving God do that?

But, if all that we see is a mere holodeck (Star Trek), and just a projected image of reality, then God wouldn't be cruel for allowing one creature to eat another.

However, the perception of cruelty is just as cruel as reality. For example, if you think that you see a loved on brutally murdered, you would grieve just as hard as if they were actually killed.

So, even if God was running some virtual reality game with us, it would still be cruel of God to make imitation stink, murder, and other horrors.

 

[Polymath257]

If it cannot be refuted, then how have you arrived at the conclusion that it's nonsense?

Well, partly in the determination of what it means to be a sensible proposition. In particular, the non-existence of a possible refutation is enough to show it is nonsense.

 

[Polymath257]

The OP is not solipsism.

The self, the I is real in Solipsism. Everything else is imagined and therefore, unreal.

The OP is about an imaginary questioner asking for proof from other imaginary entities. That is, proof that there is no one asking the question.

Once again, I wonder what you mean by the term 'real' if your own existence doesn't qualify.

 

[Polymath257]

This is what I mean by not real. Also, it's not solipsism. Solipsism is the position that only I am real, after Descartes famoys "I think therefore I am" assertion. But the way things are going, I don't assert that I myself expect to last. Therefore only God is real.

Why do you identify 'real' with 'lasting'? It seems to me that a great deal of very real things don't last for long.

 

[Polymath257]

Differ with you. Real is physical energy and nothing else. Physical world is an appearance in our mind.

Energy is just *one* property of things physical. Other properties, like momentum, spin, charge, isospin, etc, are also relevant and real.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Well, partly in the determination of what it means to be a sensible proposition. In particular, the non-existence of a possible refutation is enough to show it is nonsense.

Therefore, anything that cannot be refuted with objective evidence is nonsense, correct?

 

[Polymath257]

Therefore, anything ineffable is nonsense?

Yes, to speak of that which cannot be spoken of is nonsense.

To claim meaning in something which has no effect is also nonsense.

At least, that's how I see it.

 

[Polymath257]

Therefore, anything that cannot be refuted with objective evidence is nonsense, correct?

Not quite.

For example, mathematics cannot be refuted by objective evidence. But it is a formal system with internal rules in which 'provability' and 'testability' are identified.

There is a test procedure for claims in math and accepted axioms upon which to base proofs.

I would say that in the 'real world', the possibility of objective evidence is what determines whether something is nonsensical or not.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Yes, to speak of that which cannot be spoken of is nonsense.

To claim meaning in something which has no effect is also nonsense.

At least, that's how I see it.

I realized my error in my original question and rephrased above.

Thank you for clarifying that this is your view and not a universal truth.

 

[Polymath257]

I realized my error in my original question and rephrased above.

Thank you for clarifying that this is your view and not a universal truth.

As Pontius Pilate said, "What is truth?".

 

[SalixIncendium]

Not quite.

For example, mathematics cannot be refuted by objective evidence. But it is a formal system with internal rules in which 'provability' and 'testability' are identified.

There is a test procedure for claims in math and accepted axioms upon which to base proofs.

I would say that in the 'real world', the possibility of objective evidence is what determines whether something is nonsensical or not.

So we've whittled it down to something that is not provable or testable is nonsense.

My personal experiences are neither testable nor provable by you, so are they therefore nonsense?

 

[SalixIncendium]

As Pontius Pilate said, "What is truth?".

Good point. "Definitive fact" might have been a better choice of words.

 

[Polymath257]

So we've whittled it down to something that is not provable or testable to be nonsense.

My personal experiences are neither testable nor provable by you, so are they therefore nonsense?

I disagree that they are not testable by others. They are aspects of the state of your brain, which is an objective thing. At this point, we may not be able to read thoughts by brain scans, but that seems (for good or bad) not too far in the future.

Even without brain scans, your experiences have effects on your behavior and are thereby testable.

 

[Polymath257]

Good point. "Definitive fact" might have been a better choice of words.

And how does the adjective 'definitive' affect the word 'fact'? And how does one determine something to be a 'fact'?

 

[epronovost]

We often see atheists talking about religious beings as imaginary friends.

But what if we've got it backwards? What if God is the only one real, and the physical world and all the people in it are imaginary?

How would you go about proving that you're not a schizophrenic hallucination of a disturbed God? How do you prove you're real?

Does it make a difference to you that you are an hallucination conjured by God or real and him being an hallucination? There is no practical difference between the two.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Energy is just *one* property of things physical. Other properties, like momentum, spin, charge, isospin, etc, are also relevant and real.

Yeah, being attributes of energy, wave or particle, they are real.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Why do you identify 'real' with 'lasting'? It seems to me that a great deal of very real things don't last for long.

Mayflies.

If you remember the analogy, mayflies are doomed to live and die in about a day. Not only that, they take two weeks to hatch meaning it takes them long to be BORN than it does to live their entire life. Plus they aren't even a unique birth, but one in 50 to 10,000. The only impressive thing about them is how much they get done in one day. But I'm sure there are some loser mayflies that can't manage in that one day.

Mayfly Life Cycle: Introduction, Life Cycle.

I'm not advocating for some immorality elixir though, part of our problen as humans is that we don't know how to live meaningfully.

Sure, you could have something incredibly meaningful happen to you in your just under 100 or so years on this Earth. You could die on a cross for a bunch of sins. Or you could commission the Great Wall be built (Qin Shih Huang Di). Or have the Taj Mahal built. Or you could be a writer like me.

But few people even care for my books. If the internet were to go offline, most of the point of my life is gone. I define myself then, by the friends I've left behind. But one that meant to me most seems to completely hate me now. When I think of those who would mourn me, it ends with my immediate family probably. My brother is in Texas, my sister is an hour from us but sorta cold anyway, and now she's phobic about germs.
Nobody would read my books, and if the internet server on Amazon even goes down, which the video above says it would in roughly a day without people managing it (not just people around, but a society who knows how to do all this stuff), then I have the only copy. So attempting to make an impact by creating or writing something... nah I don't see my life as living up to its span.

When I think of God, I don't think of an old man, but a woman perpetually in her thirties, standing in a white room near a bed. As she sleeps, the world appears before her. She is a very lonely woman, living in a white space. She can manifest any books or movies to watch while she's awake, but mostly what she does is lucid dream, and hope that one day when she awakes, she won't be alone. Strong motive for creating the universe, no? And she's probably dreamed many times without success. Her doomed creation is obsessed with following rules and being good or something. Or being successful at a job. Not one of them understands that the point is to be real.
Why do I choose this image? Because I identify with it. If we needed something to do, I could usually play a game or watch a movie. But I never really had friends my own age since I was about 11.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why do you identify 'real' with 'lasting'? It seems to me that a great deal of very real things don't last for long.

Yeah, that for me, is a 'real' problem, if we find that energy in any case can fold up into nothing, Zero-energy universe. Creatio ex-nihilo. If we do not have that, then the problem of origin remains for God as well as a universe. Where did it arise from?

 

[Samantha Rinne]

If we assume that God is eternally that aforementioned adult woman, then what we are talking about is someone who exists out of both time and other existence.

That is, the absolute era before even time began, she was, and in fact appeared exactly like she does today. There is no beginning or end because for her, she has always been in this place without time. When the universe unravels, she will not have one grey hair on her head.

Also, creation does not happen ex nihilo. If you weave a dress, you need materials. We see creation ex nihilo once in the entire Bible. When God says, "Let there be light." In other words, God creates materials when before there were none, and everything that exists is a product of a light show.

Remember, immortality and eternity are two different things. Immortality means that I eat a peach and live until there's really no existence left. Eternity means I wasn't created by anything, I don't age, and nothing can kill me either.

If God were to cave the whole thing in tomorrow, she would still be sitting in her white space looking pained at having failed once again to find any friends. The question is then... yup, one day to live scenario. How would you spend your last day?