The proposition is, without Ockham's razor, the chances that this is reality is the same as it being an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole
The proposition is, without Ockham's razor, the chances that this is reality is the same as it being an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole
...there is equally no evidence this is reality... — Down The Rabbit Hole
If you have toothache, what good is the idea that it is an illusion? — SolarWind
This comes up from time to time. But if this were so, that is, if everything you see and experience is an illusion, then what happens when you have what people normally call an "illusion"? Would this be an illusory-illusion or an illusion-illusion? — Manuel
We could be completely involved in an illusion; the last fleeting ideas of a dying mind. Really, since we are all in it, who would know? — Book273
Is there any way to determine, at least in principle, whether or not we live in an illusion as opposed to what you call "reality?" If not, then there is no difference between the illusion and reality. If reality is an illusion, the illusion is reality. — T Clark
...right up until the truck hits you.
What this shows is that you have lost track of what is to count as evidence. — Banno
None of our experiences can be trusted as evidence that this is reality as those experiences would be the same if this was an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole
None of our experiences can be trusted as evidence that this is reality as those experiences would be the same if this was an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole
A "dream within a dream". Have you seen the film Inception? — Down The Rabbit Hole
None of our experiences can be trusted as evidence that this is reality as those experiences would be the same if this was an illusion.
— Down The Rabbit Hole
Being hit by a truck is the same if it were real or an illusion? How do you know that? Wanna give it a test? — Tom Storm
Our experience as to its realness is the same. Because, by definition, we wouldn't be able to tell an illusion from reality. — Down The Rabbit Hole
You cannot reliably work out the probability of the illusion's origin, while in the illusion. You would need the illusion to be a copy of reality.
Ockham's razor aside, there is no reason to believe that this is reality over an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole
It's less probable, there are less step involved in thinking that this is "normal" reality vs. an illusion. — Manuel
Who cares? It's real enough. — khaled
(Assuming that our rules of logic are the same in the illusion and reality) I think that's the only reason reality is more probable - because there are less steps involved.
If a doctor told me that I have a terminal illness with a standard 50% survival rate but on this occasion it would be more because "there are less steps involved". This wouldn't be enough for me to believe that I wasn't going to die from it. Why should it be enough for us to believe that we are in reality? — Down The Rabbit Hole
I think Manuel correctly comes from the opposite direction of false until proven true. However, I will make one precondition to this rule. At the end of any claim, a person must implicitly mean "so far as I know" because, of course, no one can know what they do not know. That is to say, some things are beyond our current knowledge, or beyond our capacity to know, and we cannot know what these things are. If you knew what they were, then you could no long say that you don't know them.
There is not any evidence, so far as I know, to support the view that our world is an illusion. The only reason we even believe it is a possibility is because "we don't know what we don't know," it is a question that we can neither prove or disprove and therefore it could be true. However, how can you attribute any sort of likelihood to such a thing? Likelihoods are based on evidence. When there is no evidence, where does that leave us? Certainly not at a 50/50. — Andrew F
I don't understand what you are getting at with the analogy. Illusion-based world or not, you'd still have 50% chance to die. The "less stepped involved argument" was merely an illustration of one problem: — Manuel
But that's the point. It could be all that and much more. But why add to our situation if something can be satisfactorily stated without recourse to further complications? I don't see how postulating an illusion can help clarify the status of reality. — Manuel
Likelihoods are based on evidence. When there is no evidence, where does that leave us? Certainly not at a 50/50. — Andrew F
I was comparing the chances of this being reality to that of surviving the terminal illness.
"Less steps" aside, there is the same amount of evidence that this is reality as it being an illusion (zero).
So if the doctor said that you had a better chance than the standard 50% survival rate, solely on the basis that there are less steps involved in surviving, would this be enough for you to believe that you are not going to die? If not, it's equally not good enough reason to believe we are experiencing reality.
However, an illusion wouldn't have to share the same rules of logic as reality. The "less steps" argument could mean nothing in reality. — Down The Rabbit Hole
That equation of Real and Illusory may be true in one sense, but it seems to be based on a loose use of terminology. I prefer to make a comparison between Real and Ideal. That's because everything you "know" is a mental construct, a Subjective Idea, not a direct perception of Objective Reality. Kant's Transcendental Idealism used the terms Phenomenon and Noumenon to describe what we perceive (appearances) and what we imagine (noumena) to be really out there in the world.The proposition is, without Ockham's razor, the chances that this is reality is the same as it being an illusion. — Down The Rabbit Hole
If a doctor said I have a better chance of surviving if I do what? If I do something that takes less steps than doing what is usually done? Is that more or less what you are getting at? — Manuel
He'd have to give some evidence that the option with less steps actually improves my odds of surviving. If he doesn't then that argument carries no force. — Manuel
But that's the point, can you give me any evidence that an illusion makes some aspects of reality more plausible? — Manuel
Ahh, but if we are in an illusion we have no evidence as to the steps that would be in the real world. So to make the thought experiment fair, all we have to rely on in both cases is the fact that there are fewer steps. If it isn't enough for us to believe that we're not going to die, why should it be enough for us to believe that we are in reality? — Down The Rabbit Hole
No, all I can say is that the odds that we are in an illusion are similar to those that we are in reality. This is not a common view. — Down The Rabbit Hole
In both cases illusion and reality, the doctor says I have 50% chance of dying in a week. — Manuel
It does if there is an equal amount of evidence. There is no evidence that this is an illusion, but there is also no evidence that this is reality — Down The Rabbit Hole
I think you misunderstand the move Down The Rabbit Hole is making. He is using the analogy with the doctor to show the weakness of Ockham's Razor in his original post. Ockham's Razor was originally formulated as "entities should not be multiplied without necessity," but it is often used in metaphysics today as "simpler is better." If you are presented with two options that seem equally likely, in Rabbit Hole's example the options are living or dying from the terminal illness, you would not think that one is more likely than the other just because it is simpler (Ockham's Razor). In the same way, it does not seem like the simpler option when it comes to illusion or reality would be any more true just because it is simpler. I haven't mentioned Ockham's Razor yet because as Down The Rabbit Hole has pointed out it is not an immutable law and so it doesn't make much sense to appeal to it as such. — Andrew F
I was thinking of getting Hoffman's book a while back, but the reviews were terrible. — Down The Rabbit Hole
I suspect that the reviews you referred to were negative, due to the slightly New-Agey tone of his book. New Age guru, Deepak Chopra, was much more positive : “A masterpiece of logic, rationality, science, and mathematics. Read this book carefully and you will forever change your understanding of reality, both that of the universe and your own self.”I was thinking of getting Hoffman's book a while back, but the reviews were terrible. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Things looks like either we are in an infinite number of hypothetical worlds or in the real world. So it's not even that there's an equal chance of either being the case, there's an infinite number of options on one side and only one option on the other. — Manuel
The book is fine. I mean, I think it's good to put idealism back on the table. The main problem with the book has to do with him saying that science does not tell us about the nature of reality. But he relies on science to lead him to his idealism.
But I did not think the book terrible, even if it was not persuasive to me. You might like it, or not. — Manuel
Doesn't look likely we are in the real world then? :grimace: — Down The Rabbit Hole
A lot of the bad reviews might be people that don't agree with his conclusions. I don't think this is good reason for disliking a book though - I am happy with a book that is well written and challenges my worldview. — Down The Rabbit Hole
...by definition, we wouldn't be able to tell an illusion from reality. — Down The Rabbit Hole
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.