You can't have perfect knowledge through science

[Willamena]

So, you chose to remain ignorant about how limited our so called common sense really is?
Well, I guess that's your prerogative.

I prefer to think of it as "open".

 

[atanu]

Making me resort to a dictionary is not "clarifying".

However, I don't disagree.

ha ha. You can't deny that you learned one or more new words.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Do you think that you say what you say by first keeping your sense aside, common or not? :areyoucra

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

If you are not sarcastic always then we could have better exchange of course.

The idea of what is common and what is uncommon may be varying from person to person and from time to time in same person. But what Godel proves is not without using his common sense.

I'm not disagreeing with Godel's theorem.
My comment was not about that, but rather about the shortcomings of what we generally consider common sense, which, by the way, seeing as it is an acquired feature, necessarily varies from person to person.

 

[Willamena]

Nope, but if you are thinking of equivalents of the Matrix hypothesis, there is absolutely no reason to think that observable reality is not, in fact, reality.

The Matrix was real.

I guess people missed that part of the movie.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I prefer to think of it as "open".

Not accusing you of anything, but people often misunderstand what it really means to be open minded.

Here is an explanation:
[youtube]T69TOuqaqXI[/youtube]
Open-mindedness - YouTube

 

[jarofthoughts]

The Matrix was real.

I guess people missed that part of the movie.

The Matrix series was complete mess, but the Matrix hypothesis (also known as the Simulation hypothesis) is a philosophical concept, which, while interesting, has little in the way of empirical backing.
In either case, I've had those discussions too many times already and I'm not terribly inclined to rehash them.

 

[Willamena]

The idea of what is common and what is uncommon may be varying from person to person and from time to time in same person.

But it isn't. It's the sense of the 'commoner'.

 

[atanu]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I expected that.

I'm not disagreeing with Godel's theorem.
My comment was not about that, but rather about the shortcomings of what we generally consider common sense, which, by the way, seeing as it is an acquired feature, necessarily varies from person to person.

What you are saying is included in what was said already:

The idea of what is common and what is uncommon may be varying from person to person and from time to time in same person. But what Godel proves is not without using his common sense.

 

[Willamena]

The Matrix series was complete mess, but the Matrix hypothesis (also known as the Simulation hypothesis) is a philosophical concept, which, while interesting, has little in the way of empirical backing.
In either case, I've had those discussions too many times already and I'm not terribly inclined to rehash them.

The Matrix itself (regardless of "hypothesis") is an analogy of the mystic outlook. That is a philosophical concept. The first movie wasn't "a mess," it hit its mark, quite well indeed. The sequels are doubtful (evidenced by mystics on this forum equiring what it was about).
I have no idea what "empirical backing" would entail, and apart from David Hume, I don't really care. I think David would have loved the movie.

 

[atanu]

But it isn't. It's the sense of the 'commoner'.

I agree.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I expected that.

What you are saying is included in what was said already:

Well, if you're unable to communicate clearly, then I suppose you'll just have to work on that. :sarcastic

 

[jarofthoughts]

The Matrix itself (regardless of "hypothesis") is an analogy of the mystic outlook. That is a philosophical concept. The first movie wasn't "a mess," it hit its mark, quite well indeed. The sequels are doubtful (evidenced by mystics on this forum equiring what it was about).
I have no idea what "empirical backing" would entail, and apart from David Hume, I don't really care. I think David would have loved the movie.

Well, I tend to agree a lot with Hume, so I have no problem with that.
And yes, the first movie was a lot more coherent than the following two.

 

[atanu]

1.

The idea of what is common and what is uncommon may be varying from person to person and from time to time in same person. But what Godel proves is not without using his common sense.

2.

I'm not disagreeing with Godel's theorem.
My comment was not about that, but rather about the shortcomings of what we generally consider common sense, which, by the way, seeing as it is an acquired feature, necessarily varies from person to person.

3.

Well, if you're unable to communicate clearly, then I suppose you'll just have to work on that. :sarcastic

I do not mind working on my shortcoming. Thanks. But you may work on curbing your easy sarcasm that inhibits comprehension.

Now tell me what is that you do not follow in 1 above. I can see that you have merely reworded a part of 1 in 2, leaving out the crucial part.

(Your comment "Common sense is quite regularly crushed under the weight of scientific facts." was under discussion).

 

[atanu]

And yes, the first movie was a lot more coherent than the following two.

Can you kindly summarise your understanding of the film and its philosophy?

 

[PolyHedral]

The Matrix series was complete mess, but the Matrix hypothesis (also known as the Simulation hypothesis) is a philosophical concept, which, while interesting, has little in the way of empirical backing.

However, the fact that it cannot be refuted is interesting on its own.

 

[Phasmid]

The scientific method is based on a flawed axiom that we can know the reality through our senses.

[youtube]guGFz8mgDY4[/youtube]
Ren goes mad - YouTube

 

[jarofthoughts]

However, the fact that it cannot be refuted is interesting on its own.

Indeed, and as I've said earlier (in a different tread), it's a conversation everyone should have.
Once.
But after that, like many other unfalsifiable notions, it tends to get old.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Can you kindly summarise your understanding of the film and its philosophy?

I'd rather not, seeing as I'm not terribly interested in discussing the Matrix hypothesis.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I've kind of done that conversation to death many times before...

 

[jarofthoughts]

I do not mind working on my shortcoming. Thanks. But you may work on curbing your easy sarcasm that inhibits comprehension.

Now tell me what is that you do not follow in 1 above. I can see that you have merely reworded a part of 1 in 2, leaving out the crucial part.

(Your comment "Common sense is quite regularly crushed under the weight of scientific facts." was under discussion).

I could perhaps have been more forthcoming in defining what I meant.
So we might find that you're not the only one who has to work on their communication skills.
I meant that I find that Godel's theorem is largely correct, or at least, that I can find no immediate fault in it.
However, I do not agree that we should attribute this to what we normally refer to as 'common sense', thus maintaining the argument that 'common sense' is quite limited in it's application when it comes to understanding and determining reality.
Hope that was a bit clearer.

 

[PolyHedral]

Indeed, and as I've said earlier (in a different tread), it's a conversation everyone should have.
Once.
But after that, like many other unfalsifiable notions, it tends to get old.

However, since simply leaving it open a possibility means that reality is, eventually, analyzable by science. It's impossible to do magic on a computer, and so anything a computer can do, can be studied.