Okay, but it’s not about the real you. It’s about a version of you who’s only ever lived inside a windowless room and so has never seen what happens outside. Something enters the room. Are you able to determine whether or not that thing existed before it entered? Are you able to determine whether or not that thing will continue to exist after it leaves? Are you able to determine what it was or will be doing outside?

Okay. Presumably someone has to bring me food and drink and take away my waste. Do they come in to the room or push it in through a hatch. Do we talk - can I talk? Has this gone on since I was born, or how old was I when I was imprisoned here? Do I have access to books and videos and music? Do I know why I am imprisoned here? Is it for ever, or indefinitely or for a fixed term. All that makes a difference, doesn't it?

What exactly is the phenomenon that metaphysics is addressing? If it’s something like the surprise that there is something rather than nothing, why should we treat that surprise as indicating a real problem? — Banno

I agree that surprise of the existence of something rather than nothing doesn't indicate a problem. In my view, the root phenomenon that metaphysics is addressing is the unknown answer to a physics question. In the early days of the universe, after the Big Bang, and cosmic inflation, there was a plasma phase that evolved into the creation of atoms, during which matter and antimatter came into existence. They weren't equally balanced and matter eventually overcame antimatter. Since they were created at the same time from the same source, they should have been equal, which would have meant the universe would be empty of all matter. (matter + antimatter = no matter + energy) Metaphysics, along with physics, is trying to interpret the initial imbalance since it allowed the creation of what we have now. Physics is looking in one direction, metaphysics is looking in a different direction.

So physics presents us with mathematical models of how the early universe might have been, used to interpret the experimental results. These interpretations work within the world, hopefully providing us with cogent explanations. They are physical, not metaphysical.

What does metaphysics present us with? In which direction does it look?

Still, it could be a collective dream. It really could be. We don't know. :grin: — frank

That's one of those vacuous merely logical possibilities that are best ignored, because even in the unlikely event that it were true (which we could never know) it would be a difference that makes no difference.

That's one of those vacuous merely logical possibilities that are best ignored, because even in the unlikely event that it were true (which we could never know) it would be a difference that makes no difference. — Janus

Ah, the sound of intellectual impotence. It's uninteresting. It's unimportant. It's irrelevant. Why in the name of John Locke should I be concerned about what you find to be uninteresting?

There are a lot of reasons to doubt the validity of the universe, but the majority of us hold on to its validity. What is the reason we hold onto the validity of reality even though there are numerous reasons not to?

I expect it to be success-related— if we don't behave in a way where the reality of the matter is true, we might veer onto the wrong path, and not have a successful mentality. However, it's perfectly fine to believe that this is not valid, and still behave as if it were; we can still succeed with outstanding questions.

We must act as if others, when they leave our view, still continue existing— this is because if we don't, we won't be accurately making changes.

There is no evidence that the Status Quo hasn't ever been what is recorded about it in history.

There is at least something about reality that we can hold onto. Whether it is fake or not— it, at least, acts true. If we want to immerse ourselves in its validity, we can; we lack evidence of something being invalid.

Perhaps the wild card is that it is a simulation, acting valid but is truthfully something compact and efficient.

I propose that the validity of reality, whether fake or not, supports those who behave as if it were with one hundred percent return for what they give.

To conclude, reality doesn't mean valid, it means that which encompasses the experience, or order, of all or a particular group, or person. You may question reality, but if you don't hold onto it, you may be taken by surprise when the reality of the matter interdicts you.

Ah, the sound of intellectual impotence. It's uninteresting. It's unimportant. It's irrelevant. Why in the name of John Locke should I be concerned about what you find to be uninteresting? — frank

You don't have to find the same things I do uninteresting. In fact I didn't say those merely logic possibilities are uninteresting anyway, so you are putting words in my mouth. I said they are vacuous, meaning they possess no content which could inform us, so for the purposes of metaphysical speculation, they are best ignored (unless it can be shown that they yield any material that should be taken into consideration.

In fact it is you attempting to impose your values on me, with the slur "intellectual impotence" just because you think I don't find the same things interesting that you do. Why should I be concerned about what you find interesting, especially if you cannot demonstrate that it contains anything worth taking seriously because it is something the truth of which might actually be determined?

.

Hu? Something to do with wearing sunglasses?

That's correct.

:lol: They're not real sunglasses and it's not a real sun in Matrixland.