All well-informed, rational people will have shared goals and ideas about how to morally accomplish them. Hence, conditional oughts can be normative and culturally useful for defining culture-independent moral systems. — Mark S

To the best of my knowledge conditional oughts/moral beliefs are DEFINED by one's culture and/or system of beliefs, they don't and can't exist independently.

I mean think of it for a second, what use is "morality" to some agent or group of agents (ie an individual or group of them) who's primary purpose isn't self survive and/or needs to know what actions are "good" for themselves and their community.

It is a given that bias is built into morality and it is more or less just as simple as that. One can try to talk about moral systems that are either less bias or try to be less bias but to talk about a truly "Objective Morality" is a foolhardy endeavor. I think the last philosopher that tried to do that was Immanuel Kant with his Critique of Pure Reason and even back then he was laughed at by his fellow philosophers.

IMHO it might be useful to read up on what Søren Kierkegaard had to say about morality in order to get a better handle on the whole subjective/objective morality problem, but of course that is just my opinion.

So here we have a truth not dependent on anything else for being true. — Benj96

"The only truth that there is, is that there is no truth" - anonymous

Anyone that seriously studies philosophy should be cautious of any so called "truths", "objective morality", or claims by those that know the will of all-knowing, all-powerful good "God", Descrates "I think therefore I am" isn't a truth since it obviously doesn't prove anything. It doesn't explain what it really means for one to think, or what it means for one to exist. For example if someone "exists" merely as a computer simulation instead of an actual physical person this simulation could be just one of of thousands of other processes that are sharing the same resources. If for some reason this simulation only had a few nanoseconds during any given second could you say such a person actually exists if it takes several centuries to process the thought "I think therefore I am" where as a regular human being processes such a thought in a couple seconds.

Ai is non-intentional, how would it generate intent to pose any sort of threat to man? — invicta

What if a given AI (or AIs) is being guided by or used by any given individual? While it is a given that current machines themselves can not create things like computer viruses or hack into computer system they can be used by humans to help them commit such acts.

Even if a machine currently do not have the capacity of generating intentions (or more accurately capable of the human like thought process in order for them to have intentions), it is almost a given that they don't need to be able to do so if they can instead be used by human beings who are capable of using said machines for their own intentions.

"Why posit an ultimate ground? Is not what is sufficient? Is the world too imperfect for it to exist without it depending on something else? Does being ungrounded cause vertigo? A yawning abyss one is too fearful to approach?" – Fooloso4
From the thread “Inmost Core and Ultimate Ground”
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/14220/inmost-core-and-ultimate-ground

Monism: the idea that only one supreme reality exists. Why posit monism?

Science
Science tends towards monism. There are unnumbered physical objects but they are all composed of about 92 naturally occurring elements, which at one time were thought to be composed of 3 elements (proton, neutron, electron) but are today believed to be based on the 17 entities of the Standard Model. Science is searching for a “theory of everything” which unites quantum mechanics and relativity. If found, a theory of everything might provide a monist theory of all physical objects.

Philosophy
From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on Plotinus
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus
A central axiom of that tradition was the connecting of explanation with reductionism or the derivation of the complex from the simple. That is, ultimate explanations of phenomena and of contingent entities can only rest in what itself requires no explanation. If what is actually sought is the explanation for something that is in one way or another complex, what grounds the explanation will be simple relative to the observed complexity. Thus, what grounds an explanation must be different from the sorts of things explained by it. According to this line of reasoning, explanantia that are themselves complex, perhaps in some way different from the sort of complexity of the explananda, will be in need of other types of explanation. In addition, a plethora of explanatory principles will themselves be in need of explanation. Taken to its logical conclusion, the explanatory path must finally lead to that which is unique and absolutely uncomplex. — Art48

IMHO, Monism contradicts common sense as well other things such as concept of dukkha taught in Buddhism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Du%E1%B8%A5kha

If "God" or something like "God" did exist, it pretty much begs the question as to why he/she/it would also allow dukkha to exist. In the West this issue is similar to the issue know as the "problem of evil".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil

I could be wrong, but religions based on Monism allow religions based on such teaching to have more power and control than religions NOT based on Monism. One only has to look at the difference between Abrahamic religions (the three most influent Monotheistic religions in the world) and compare them to non-monotheistic religions to see this difference.

Monism type religions are a means and a way to allow those in power to control those beneath them much like the totalitarian societies in George Orwell's book "1984" control the people beneath them. The only difference I see between them is Monism mostly rely on religious beliefs to control people where as the totalitarian societies rely on technology and psychology to control theirs.

I've been trying to keep up with everything in Ukraine but I will admit I haven't really read a lot of the recent posts in this thread so I apologize if I'm posting something someone else already covered.

I just wanted to point out a recent news article on CNN:

Fighting Wagner is like a ‘zombie movie’ says Ukrainian soldier
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/01/europe/ukraine-soldiers-fighting-wagner-intl-cmd/index.html

In the article a Ukrainian soldiers mention the following "During a recent battle, soldiers say they were surrounded by Wagner attackers 'climbing above the corpses of their friends' to overrun Ukrainian positions".

While reading it it reminded me about a World War II story about German surrounded on all sides and being attacked by waves of Russian soldiers who would often attack in what was described as in in total disregard for the loses that they would suffer, nor would the Russians attacking would have much regard for their own lives. I will have to admit that when I read about it, it was a comic book I picked up when I was a teenager or in my early twenties:

Witches' Cauldron: The Battle of the Cherkassy Pocket
https://www.amazon.com/Witches-Cauldron-Cherkassy-Heritage-Collection/dp/B086WPF716

Here is a wiki link about the battle if anyone is interested in it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Korsun%E2%80%93Cherkassy

I guess what I'm trying to say is that while reading the comic I thought to myself how horrible it must have been to be on either side because it was almost literally "Hell on Earth" as the title of the comic book describes. The only thing that eased my mind while reading it was that it happened during World War II and I assumed that it was highly unlikely that any modern country would try to fight a war in the same manner again.

Unfortunately, it sounds likely in some of the worse places in the war in Ukraine, the same thing is happening all over again. :(

Philosophy is just a form of critical thinking. Unfortunately, not a lot of people know how to do it well nowadays as we are too often forced to act without really thinking about what we are doing. This is likely more true for people in the US than other places in the world.

I am a happy practitioner of OSINT (Open Source Intelligence) gathering. And from these activities, I've observed a rather stark increase in the total volume of voices that are in support of the neo-Luddite worldview; especially on YouTube, Twitter and Reddit. Ironies aside, I am curious about what genuinely motivates the neo-Luddite perspective. And I would like to hear from the thoughtful minds on this Internet forum, as to what they think are the motivating forces underpinning "it".

So my inquiry in, "What motivates the neo-Luddite worldview?" — Bret Bernhoft

I could be wrong but I don't know of a any culture or society in history being really anti-science/anti-technology. Part of the issue is if any large group within a society is too against technology they run the risk of being marginalized by others that are not opposed to technology. Look back at history when there has been contact between two societies when one was more advanced then the other such as when the Europeans came to America. While the Indians may have frowned on some of the ways of the Europeans, they also understood that if they didn't adapt and start using the more advanced weapons of the Europeans they would be at a great disadvantage whenever there was conflict.

I will admit that I'm not quite as informed about the issues around Luddism or neo-Luddism, but I'm guessing that it is partly motivated by those that use technology to marginalize or disenfranchise certain people/groups in society and make their lives worse than it already is. If this is even partly correct then it may be partly about political/social issues about how technology is being used to undermine those less fortunate in society than the fact that such technology exist and is being used.

I believe history of the last few hundreds of years is littered with examples of those that have profited in exploiting new technology but at the same time have twisted the arms of others in their attempts to increase profit.

Like the old saying goes "Power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Alienation, comrade – compunded by anthropogenic climate change, technocapitalist "progress" (re: automation) is politically incompatible with global population growth (re: maximizing surplus labor). It seems to me that various anti-modern, anti-tech movements such as Greens & Neo-Luddites for at least the last half-century or so have mostly ignored the other driver of (mass) alienation which is overpopulation. — 180 Proof

Is overpopulation really an issue or is it something that is to thought to be an issue? I could be wrong but there are some people that claim that in the developed world there is actually an issue with negative population growth and the lack of young people entering the work force may become a real issue in the coming years. Of course these people could be wrong but it seems there is a disagreement as to whether the problem is either with either overpopulation or with negative population growth.

Who knows if there are ghosts, aliens, or practically infinite number of unknown things in this mostly unknown world?

Its like if a deep sea fish claimed there is no such thing as animals that can fly or no such thing as animals that can live outside of water, or no such thing as technologically advanced talking apes who built technology with which they can fly.

The knee jerk sceptics have been holding back scientific and technological advancements, thinking they are protecting it — Yohan

I more or less agree. Although we have come a long way over the last few hundreds of years. I agree that we are far from knowing about everything about the world around us.

And you conclude from this what exactly? — Xtrix

I basically conclude that I saw something that was unlike things that I have seen before. Obviously seeing something (as well as others seeing it) for just a second or two isn't enough to draw any conclusion. To be honest I would like to know of a real scientific explanation for such things.

And it's also true that Ouija boards don't move on their own. — Xtrix

Yes, of course they don't just move on their own but the question is what makes them move. I know that it is a given that people who have never used a Ouija boards (or more specifically never used it where it seems like it is moving on it's own) think that people are deliberately moving the plank, but those that have used it and the plank seems to move on it's own I'm sure would like to know what is causing it to do so. I could speculate that perhaps people that use it in the way were it moves on it's own are somehow subconsciously making it move but I'm pretty sure even that would be pretty hard to explain how that happens.

Stop with the victim act. I never said I considered it heresy — in fact I’ve said I think many people who make such claims are sincere.

And yet: there are no zombies. There are no ghosts. There are no goblins. — Xtrix

And yet you are not willing to consider me to be sincere when I have made such claims. The funny thing is you are so busy attacking straw men (with your arguments arguing against goblins and zombies which I have said nothing about) that you don't even know what I'm saying. All I said was I was at a cemetery on night (the actual cemetery happened to be Union in CT which has a history of things happening), one of the people I was with decided to walk further in than the rest of us, and when I shined a flashlight on him for a brief second I could see what appeared to be a combination of white and black shadows surrounding him and then they where gone. To me it would have been nothing more than a "trick of the light" (other than perhaps the sensation that there was a crowd surrounding the guy in the cemetery), except the person that brought us there said "Yes" when I asked him if he saw what I saw and he was visibly shaken from the experience.

If you are bothered by me saying that I saw "something that looked like a ghost" then perhaps if all I say is that I saw something that looked like shadows near my friend in Union cemetery maybe you can be at piece with that. It is something that transpired in hardly more than a second.

So they can move “on their own”, but that’s not magic?

Again: ouija boards don’t move on their own. There’s no evidence for this, and it contradicts everything we know about the world and physics — Xtrix

Do you know how many physical phenomena there are where something is able to move do to physical forces we can not see? For instances there is magnetism that allow objects to be either drawn together or apart by "invisible forces that can not be seen by the naked eye".

Just because we don't know how a physical phenomena works doesn't mean that it is caused by "magic".

True, I’m not very open minded when it comes to childish nonsense.

But you have every right to go on believing in fairytales. That’s your business. — Xtrix

I see nothing in my statements to believe I am proposing childish claims, and the only reason I think you feel this way is because you have something against what I'm trying to say.

All I have been trying to say is that I (as perhaps well as others) have from time to time seen/experienced various physical phenomena that have yet to be explained by our current understating of science and the world around us. I see nothing to be quite outlandish in such claims as you say there to be.

The evidence that belief can affect healing on a personal level is so overwhelming that it has been incorporated into science by giving the effect a name - 'the placebo effect'. If it turns out that thinking hard can make spoons bend, it will likewise become a recognized scientific fact, and given a suitable name - 'the Geller cutlery phenomenon', or whatever. Science is very open minded, and whatever can be demonstrated will be accepted.

Whenever things are consistently weird, they get renormalized. Inconsistent weirdness is dismissed.

One thing that I find odd though, is the lack of robust physicalists on the 'simulation' thread. Because if we are living in a simulation, all bets are off. The programmers can stop the program, change something and restart it. They can insert superman, or an intermittent fault to prevent the bomb exploding, or add a world teacher here and there. They can program the blindness of simulated observers to certain phenomena, or absolutely anything at all. Only those of us who have operators in the programmer's world could possibly know about such things. Funny how the old stories become believable when couched in familiar cultural language. — unenlightened

Your right! Thanks for bringing it up! :D

I don't know if the "placebo effect" shows some kind of physical phenomena that can not be explained by current science. I always thought that it merely showed a tendency for the body to "react" toward a underlining issue in a similar way a drug would do if a person took it. However the one thing I can not recall while reading about the placebo effect is how doctors/scientist think it actually works.

I could be wrong but with the brain in a vat problem we can never know whether we are in a simulation or not. The only thing we can do perhaps is notice/perceive where our waking reality is more stable/consistent than in our dreams. To be honest when I hear things about quantum physics it kind of makes me nervous since there are times I would like to understand if there are cracks in out reality but other times it is unsettling how ..different the quantum world is from what we expect from things that physically exist.

There are no ghosts. There are no zombies. There are no goblins. — Xtrix

Ok, ok, just chill. It is a given when I say "I and other people say a ghost" it is a given that we saw something that "looked" like a ghost, just like in certain photographs there can be some kind of strange or phantom like images that other people say looks like ghosts to them. You don't need to have such a knee jerk reaction just at the mention of someone saying that see or hear something weird and liken it to something else that other people have reported to experiencing in the past.

It isn't heresy for someone to merely comment on the things they have seen in heard in their lifetime.

As I mentioned before there are many cases of people seeing something in the sky and saying that it look like a UFO and just like it shouldn't be taboo for someone to say they saw something like a UFO it shouldn't be taboo for someone to say they saw something like a ghost. Especially now that the government has actually admitted that they see UFOs so often that it is something they might need to address as an issue.

I have used them and watched others use them. It’s long been a claim that they have magic powers.

They don’t. — Xtrix

Since I have already stated that Ouija boards don't use magic, to try and counter my position by stating they are not magical is nothing more than a straw man argument.

No, it can’t. It’s not plausible, it’s not possible, it’s not worth wasting time on. — Xtrix

I'm not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to read/post to this thread. If you are unhappy about it I'm sure there are other things you can do with your time.

Yeah, and maybe Santa really does exist after all. Maybe there really is that teapot orbiting Mars. Maybe I can fly like Superman. — Xtrix

On the other hand, maybe trying to be a little more open-minded about certain things may not be something that a person such as yourself is ready for and/or might help you in your life.

As the old saying goes, you can bring a horse to water but you can't make them drink.

While this isn't exactly what this thread is about, it is similar in that it is an issue in that people have been injured in a way that has yet to be explained:

I'd say that it's far more likely you've had an auditory or visual hallucination. I hear the voice of my dead grandmother sometimes, in passing. I'm not lead to believe that therefore she's in the next room, or is haunting me from the grave.

True, perhaps the laws of physics suspended for you momentarily -- but I wouldn't take that possibility very seriously. If I said to you that I had a friend who claimed he could fly, would you take this seriously?

Ouija boards don't move on their own. I stopped believing in fairytales and magic when I was a child. I recommend you do as wel — Xtrix

In my first encounter with ghost I would have wrote it off as a hallucination/trick of the light if the person next to me didn't see it as well. To be honest all that happened was for a brief second or two I could see a dozen or so white or dark shapes that looked like people that where surrounding one person that was hanging our in a cemetery when I used a flashlight on them. After that they were gone. The other person that was there that saw it was in no mood to stay there any longer, and he really didn't want to talk about it much.

As with Ouija boards, how do you know whether they move on their own or not if you haven't even used them or seen other people try to use them? If you have ever tried to use them it is likely that you would realize there is a big difference in how it feels when someone is deliberately moving it themselves and when the plank is moving on it's own. To me I'm guessing it is plausible that even if one isn't deliberately moving one, it could be done through a subconscious act.

And even at that there is also the issue of psi-wheels which can be moved without someone touching them and/or even putting their hands near them. It is one thing for something to move when your hands are either on or near something but it is something else for it to move on its own just by someone trying to make it move.

While I agree one shouldn't believe in fairly tales and/or "magic", I think it is best for one to be opened minded enough to realize that not all the things that associated with "magic" are really magic at all but perhaps are caused by some kind of physical phenomenon we have yet been able to identify and understand.

I think there can be, even if very rare, occasions and events that seem to be as some paranormal event happened or someone had psychic abilities. With people really believing it and not being some charlatans. Religious people would talk about miracles. These events have extremely low probability of happening, yet they happen. Somebody feeling that a loved one is in danger and does something to help the person and the person actually has been peril and the actions help that person. Or something like that. Totally possible.

The simple example that we can understand is winning in the lottery. Getting a multi-million win in a lottery is extremely improbable, yet enough play these games that someone wins it. Hence when we understand probability theory there's nothing astonishing in that one or two players get the big bucks as so many play. It would be for us something out of the normal if we would have only 5 people playing a lottery (like here getting 7 numbers right out of the numbers between 1 and 40, which has a probability of 1 to 15 million or something close to that) and one or two of them got the full jackpot. The probability would be so low that any Rand experiment, if happened to be conducted, would have serious problems to counter it.

So what's the error?

I think the simple fact is that we don't notice just how large the sample size is. If our story is some "Middle aged woman in Utah in 1932 had a psychic experience..." we can be sure that there have been a huge number of middle aged women and not only in Utah every year when the astonishing consequence of events hasn't happened. Yet people do dream of being in contact with others, alive or the dead, and then things turn out to be so. It's basically just like people who see omens of what the future will bring then look for those things they are waiting to see.

Or to put it another way: how many times your mother or grandmother has been worried that something has happened to you, when nothing has happened to you? Has that every happened to you? — ssu

I agree. I think there are similar issues with other phenomenon, such as the "Wow Signal".



It has long been regarded as an interesting signal captured (while searching for potential signals indicating intelligent life) but because it has never been found again (along with other issues) it has been dismissed as many something that may indicate intelligent life out there.

I think that with certain phenomenon, either the resources/time we spend trying to understand them isn't enough for get a good idea of what we are dealing with and/or our testing methods are not good enough for the job.

I could be wrong but there often seems to be either some kind of bias for people that are trying to prove something or bias by those who wish to prove something that isn't true. I think the problem is described as "cherry picking" were someone decides to either include or exclude certain data they have collected which allows them to sometimes fudge the final numbers to be more what they want them to be.

I remember when I took an introductory course in statistics, one of my final projects was to show whether there was some kind of relationship between two things. The one I choose to do was whether there was relationship between how well the stock market would do one year with how well it would do the next. Basically it the idea was if the stock market did really good one year whether or not it was likely to do not so good the next. When I first plugged the numbers into the software program I had it came out that there was no relation, however when I changed the data sets I worked with (such as excluding the years after 1990 when people just kept on putting money into the market), the program said that there was a statistical relationship between the two. In my final report to the teacher I explained to the teacher that while I couldn't show a statistical relationship if I feed in all the data sets, I could get a statistical relationship if I was selective with which years I included.

I'm guessing that there was a relationship most of the time, but because some years are so chaotic in the stock market that sometimes such relationship may not work if people are to "enthusiastic" with trying to invest in the market.

↪dclements

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/1980/evidence-of-consciousness-surviving-the-body/p1 — fdrake

Thanks. :D

Speaking about extraordinary evidence I wonder if anyone here has heard about the story of Ted Owen, a guy who use to call himself the "PK man"?

Ted_Owens/Pk-Man
https://www.amazon.com/PK-Man-True-Story-Matter/dp/1571741836
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Owens_(contactee)

While his story sounds similar to that of those who are typical con-men/attention seekers, his claims and the events that happened in his life are hard to spin as merely a set of "coincidences" and potentially show perhaps a darker side of psychic abilities. Such as the possibility of someone being able to down a plane merely on a whim.

The reason for not believing in these claims is the same for everything else: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan was right. So there's no sense wasting time about it simply because we'd like to believe in it. — Xtrix

While it is a given that this would not be considered "extraordinary evidence" to you, what would you say about those of us who have ever seen something like a ghost, and/or been able to get am Ouija board or Psi wheel to move on it's own. While it is a given ANY event where someone has seen a ghost could be merely a trick of the light and/or mind (and Ouija board/Psi wheel movements could be caused normal physical phenomenon), those of us who have had brushes with that which seems not so easy to explain are perhaps on better footing to question the current status quo on what is or isn't possible and it is almost a given that we see the world differently than people like you.

Personally I can say I have seen ghosts or at least something like a ghost twice (on the first time I saw ghosts I asked the person next to me if they saw what I saw and he said "Yes"), been able to operate a Ouija board on several occasions, and been able to get a Psi wheel to move even when I was several feet away from it. I know me saying this to you probably doesn't mean anything to you, but for a moment try to imagine what such experience would mean to someone who has. Can you at least say that it is possible that me and you are like two of the blind men who are trying to "look" at a elephant for the first time and both experiencing a different part of it?

Sam26 's arguments about out of body experiences can be quite convincing. Have a look in their post history if you're interested. — fdrake

Could you provide an actual link to the comment you are talking about?

I think they can and should be dismissed as utter nonsense, if what's claimed is that because something is unidentified or unexplained, it must be a sign of alien life, supernatural forces, or magic.

The reason for not believing in these claims is the same for everything else: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Carl Sagan was right. So there's no sense wasting time about it simply because we'd like to believe in it. — Xtrix

How about just requiring just enough evidence for merely ordinary claims? Did Benjamin Franklin require to provide "extraordinary evidence" when he discovered electricity?

While you are claiming that those who believe there might be some truth to psychic abilities/paranormal are biased for believing in such things, it is plausible that some people like you are are biased when dismissing such thing when you say they require "extraordinary evidence". As far as I know in science when one merely postulates a possibility to any physical phenomenon one doesn't have require ANY proof if they are merely providing a potential possibility to be examined.

By expecting those who are trying to explained unknown phenomenon in ANY scientific field to provide an unreasonable amount of data you (or anyone else doing this) are in effect merely trying to maintain the current status quo in order to prevent people from being able to come forward with ideas to challenge that which is the accepted "truth".

Thankfully, it is unlikely that very few people like you are ever put in positions where you are in charge of reviewing anything to do with reviewing real scientific work on such subjects and/or if you are it is highly likely that there would be ways around your attempts to be a s-pipe for such research.

They aren’t.

Yes, everything we know about the world could be mistaken. But I think it’s obvious people want to believe in magic, and that delusion, trickery, and irrationality help fill that void.

That 33% of respondents said “yes” is embarrassing. — Xtrix

There is a difference between what is typically considered to be "magic" and something that is a physical phenomenon that we have yet to understand. I could be wrong but certain fields like hypnosis used to be consider merely pseudoscience until they were understood better. Even recently the government acknowledged that not all unknown/unexplained aerial phenomenon are caused by something along the lines of confused pilots, pranksters, or swamp gas as there have been too many documented evens by either Airforce or Navy pilots who have seen/videoed such craft to be able to merely dismiss them.

I just remembered this. A possible scientific explanation for ESP and a worrisome sign for the future. — T Clark

I'll have to try to read up on such technology. It kind of reminds me of how back around 2010 Popular Science wrote an article about "The Best 10 Jobs to the Future".

The Best 10 Jobs to the Future
https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-08/10-best-jobs-future-0/

Most of them were just wild fantasies of what people might be doing in the future, however the technology to make such things possible are several hundred years from where we are now. However there was one job that although it is sounded almost as wild and craze as the others the technology was just around the corner. That job was the "Forecaster of Everything". In a way it wasn't something exactly new since statistics (and perhaps other things as well) have been used for a very long time in helping us see a little bit into the future. However a new technology called data science is being used to help us see into the future and/or glean information that might not be otherwise possible.

Can information gained through data science related technology be used by a person (or persons) in a way that makes it seem like they have powers similar to ESP? I don't really know, but I'm guessing it is unlikely that with what is available that it is possible. However in the next 20 to 50 years with some supercomputers coming closer and closer to having the same computational powers of the human mind, it is a given that new possibilities will open up and make it more easier to predict what will or will not happen in the future.

I don't know if you ever heard of a series called "Person of Interest", but I guess you could say it is about a billionaire programmer and an ex-US spy working together to try and stop various threats. On of the interesting aspects of the show is the programmer uses a computer (which is given the uncreative name of "the machine") that supposedly is constantly evaluating terra-bytes of seemly unimportant data about things going on around the world, and/or things that would have little meaning to the rest of us but when put through several algorithms it can locate terrorist and/or other issues before they even happen. Of course it is almost a given that such technology does not exist or at least nobody is claiming to have a system that can do anything like it.

Person of Interest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_Interest_(TV_series)
Person of Interest- The Machine
https://personofinterest.fandom.com/wiki/The_Machine

A similar work of fiction is a movie called "Minority Report". The only major difference is that instead of using a machine to predict the future there are three individuals known as "Precogs" that are "sensitive" to certain events (such as crimes where someone murders someone else) and they have visions of it before it happens. With Minority Report that is the additional problem of a concept of "pre-crime" where the police uses some kind of system of predictive policing to charge people with crimes before they are able to commit them. Of course there are many potential moral dilemmas that come with individuals or institutions having access to information about future events that the rest of us don't have and what they actions they can take when they know it.

Minority Report
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_Report_(film)
Precogs
https://minorityreport.fandom.com/wiki/Precogs
Precrime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Minority_Report#Precrime
Predictive policing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_policing

Hopefully I haven't strayed too far from the original issue I posed in the OP.

"Psychic" abilities are real, but depending on where you're coming from your perspective must be shifted so you can not only recognize the phenomenon but understand it.

Some people will not even see what is happening to be able to understand it. In the video dclements posted, the people who contacted JREF were either rejected, couldn't deliver, or never showed up. Sometimes a person will have a static idea of what it's supposed to be. But unless they are seriously dedicated they may never see that specific demonstration and not recognize the more mundane but real manifestations of "psychic" abilities. — Shed

One of the things I heard that were not allowed are the so called "Psi Wheel".

Psi wheel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psi_wheel



While it a given that it is feasible that one could try to cheat while moving such a wheel, I think a demonstration where someone is able to move a Psi wheel seems so trivial that Randi didn't want to bother with it and/or have to figure out how it is caused by known physical phenomenon. It is also possible that part of the problem may be that there seems to be a lot of people able to make a Psi wheel move but not all the time. Because of this, it could be just a headache for Randi and others to have to deal with such claims and/or have to deal with someone who could make it move one day but not others.

To me it seems like it is kind of a head scratcher that there is phenomenon that is fairly common that can't be explained by no known physical phenomenon, but is not really bothered with by the scientific community as a whole.

Insoafar as there is corroborable evidence, they are; lacking corroborable evidence, they are not (i.e. indistinguishible from fictions). — 180 Proof

I agree the corroborating evidence isn't enough to show that any hypothesis yet made is accurate enough to explain the physical phenomenon well enough or that any claims about it (such as people being able to talk to the dead, predicate the future, etc.) is hardly anything more than pure fiction.

However there still remains a problem that certain physical phenomenon happen that is observed that defy what we know. A similar problem exist with the "UFO phenomenon". For years people have claimed (and even have videoed) situations where they see something in the air that is unlike any other aircraft made on earth yet there has never been any concrete evidence of UFOs, except perhaps the videos create and made public recently by the US Air Force. Even at this time they are not saying that such phenomenon are "really" UFOs, all they can note is that such aerial craft move and operate in a way that no aerial craft made on earth (or any known craft made on earth) can do things that such craft do.

I don't know but maybe part of the problem with UFO's is that "IF" there happens to be other being that come to our planet to observe us it is plausible that they have enough technology available to them that it often makes it hard for us to know about there presence. Or even "IF" we did uncover such evidence it is also plausible that any government that has access to such evidence would want the general public to know about it.

While the UFO phenomenon and the psychic/paranormal phenomenon both seem to have problems where people observe "strange things happening", yet there never seems to be a way to show how such events are either based on known physical phenomenon or some kind of mental delusion that causes someone to think they are seeing something that isn't there.

I recommend a book by Martin Gardner - "Science, Good, Bad, and Bogus." It discusses many claims of scientific proof for psychic powers which have been shown to be false. Sometimes the problem was caused by bad science performed in good faith, but often it was a case of fraud. It's a good book. Gardner focuses on the types of errors investigators make in psychic experiments. — T Clark

Thanks. :D

When I have a chance I will try to check it out. If you can can you give me a short summary of what the book is about?

I agree that it's plausible; we can't prove psychic/paranormal abilities are impossible. On the other hand, we've had centuries to uncover positive proof and what do we have so far? No much. So I'm skeptical. — Art48

I could be wrong but there have been certain physical phenomenon that not well understood until either around 200 years ago or even a hundred years ago. Maybe psychic/paranormal is just another physical phenomenon that we just haven't been to figure out yet.

Your responses to me here all fall under the category of denying that there is an invariant guarantor of truth to base any axiom or definition on. What you're failing to notice in each case, is that this is self-refutational, and that is the basis for accepting that there are such self-justifying means for ruling the truth or falsehood of propositions that cover all cases. — Hallucinogen

I agree. Under the paradigm/narrative I choose to believe in, I dismiss all axioms and believe them to be false. It isn't that I believe that others who choose to believe that are axioms to be true are not rational human beings, it is only that I believe that they mistakenly follow other paradigms that are less accurate than if they didn't believe in axioms. Think of such self evident truths such as "God exists", "this is a war of Good vs Evil", etc. that have often proposed by those in power and realize that practically ALL of THEM are based on one's own beliefs and desires and almost always have nothing to do with how things really are.

Because of this I choose to separate facts/data from that which could be moral decisions/moral perceptions of the world. While facts/data can say that we have never witness an event/process in the physical world (or at least one that has ever been recorded), it isn't necessarily a given that causality relationships can never be broken nor our perceptions based on such experience should be completely trusted. I don't know if you ever hear of something called the "Black Swan Theory" but it talks about some of the issues I'm trying to get you to understand since it talks about the issue of problems that are caused when we assume our experiences can always predicate what future events may hold

Black_swan_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan_theory

The presence of an interaction itself is what defines being real - is the feature that a real thing has - proposing interacting with an unreal thing is an oxymoron/self-contradiction. For something to not be real means for it to be incapable of changing anything in reality. This very point is pretty much in the OP. — Hallucinogen

I realize and understand the rules of causation/processes pretty well. Our world is made up of countless processes each in itself created from an endless succession of other processes that created it. The problem with such an idea is that it is merely a mental model of the world we live in and it isn't a given that it describes the world we live in. For example, we know that 1+1 equals 2 which in itself may seem like it is a truth, but it is only truth in out mind. We may make as many mental models of the world around us that we choose, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking our mental models we choose to create and the reality outside of minds are the same thing. After all neither "1" nor "2" actually represent anything in the world outside of us beyond the labels we choose to give things.

Also take for example Descartes's "I think therefore I am". It assumes that a "thinking thing" which is able to question whether it exist has to exist in order to postulation such a question. However, it doesn't address the issue of how such a thing exist (whether it is just a brain in a vat or an actual being able to observe reality) nor what reality really is (ie whether the brain in the vat or person is at least experiencing something that is similar to reality, or if reality is something completely different from what is being experienced). Last of all it can't even tell whether it exist the moment before or the moment after it postulates such question (ie that statement can not disprove that it isn't merely a simulated AI that wasn't "turned on" just seconds before the question nor that it won't be turned off in a second after postulating such matters). It isn't even a given that such thoughts are actually continuous, nor the "I" is really a true separate being from other beings potential beings being processed by something like a powerful AI simulating multiple personalities at the same time. Since the statement "I think therefore I exist", really can't tell us what the true nature of "I", "exist" (or existence), or "think" it is just another meaningless axiom postulated by someone who doesn't understand the problems/difference between our mental models of the world and the world outside of ourselves.

All of these objections ultimately stem from you thinking that true might not under all circumstances be the negation of false, which is the general form of what you've said here, including insinuating that what is real could turn out to be, or interact with what is, unreal. It is for systematic reasons that anyone holding the position you are holding about true definitions ends up contradicting themselves in any claim they make about those definitions or about what can be known using them. These errors perpetuate because you are not noticing them. — Hallucinogen

The only confusion here is from you not understanding the paradigm I have been trying to describing to you. Or as Kahashi might put it:

I'm telling you this because you don't get it. You think you get it, which is not the same as actually getting it. Get it?“ — Hatake Kakashi,

The only difference between my view/paradigm and yours is that I don't mix facts/mere data and/or mental models with what the world may actually be. I can more or less perceive the world just as you choose to but can also choose to see it from different paradigms as well. Take a moment to think about this axiom:

"The only truth (axiom) is that there is no truth (or 'true axiom")"

It may seem contradicting at first, but is merely saying that the fact that it is "raining on Tuesday" (or similar facts clumped together) can be used to create a axiom that is true, nor can our ability to make mental models of the world or say things like 1+1=2 can be used to create an axiom that is true either. It really isn't quite as confusing or contradicting as you think it to be if you choose to not want it to be.

All I have been doing is explain a different kind of paradigm then you are use to seeing things from. Once you are able to understand this, it should come quite so hard for you see what I have been saying.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QHa1vbwVaNU

Is the multiverse science fiction only? Sabina seems to think so. — TiredThinker

The idea that there might be multi-universes is better than what we once had which was just there was a "big-bang" and there was nothing (or at least nothing to openly speak about) before it and/or anything that could have been created by something else. The problem with this kind of thinking is that didn't really allow for the discussion about anything we don't know about or even the problems with the given model.

For example, a few years ago I was on another forum trying to discuss what was going on with our universe the moment before (ie. time zero seconds passing in the start of our universe, which is (right before the big bang) and the person the created the opening post of the thread accused me of heresy since it was considered inappropriate to talk about such things in scientific circles even if the discussion was on a philosophical level. In a nutshell it was a bit of a headache for me because I believed that at least in philosophy anything can be considered and/or discussed where as the other forum member strongly disagreed. At least nowadays, it is less likely someone else would have to deal with this particle headache in such discussions although it is also less likely that such a person would want to create a thread for such a discussion.

While science fiction and other kinds of speculation often gets a bad rap from the "scientific elites" that are more focused on the facts and what we already know, it does provide a kind of fertile ground for people to create and share ideas as to what may be. For some science fiction isn't merely some kind of fertilizer for where futures ideas and theories to grow from, but it is actually on the vanguard of what the future will be for society, philosophy, and science itself.

While science fiction and other crack-pot ideas may sometimes be at best the red-headed stepchild of science, for others it is what true science is all about - experimentation and the expansion of our understanding into the unknown and the potential cost of one's own reputation among the scientific community as society as a whole. Those that are willing and able to open the door into theories and knowledge of areas not yet ventured make it potentially easier for others to then also venture down the same path. Sometimes the difference between sane/insane or fiction/non-fiction or really what is either accepted or not accepted) may just be how many have been down certain paths and documented them for those who choose to also venture them as well.

It you want proof of this just look at the history of Abrahamic religions. Often in the it's beginning, it's followers were labeled as heretics and their beliefs as mere fiction, but as time passed Western civilization more or less choose to accept such beliefs as "true" and "rational", although in modern times it is not so much so as it might have once have been. If Abrahamic religions didn't exist (or perhaps in areas where it hasn't been accept yet) such beliefs are considered non-sense and/or mere fiction.

Without institutions and/or other things to back certain pre-existing ideas or beliefs, there is hardly anything to separate what we consider to be fact and that which is fiction. What is even worse is with certain kinds of propaganda being spewed from various political and special groups nowadays it can be hard for the general public to be able to separate certain facts and fiction from each other.

If you think either "there's nothing outside of everything" or "anything that interacts with what is real must also be real" is a nonsequitur, then you're free to try and explain why they are. — Hallucinogen

It isn't a given that the statement "there's nothing outside of everything" or your other statement "anything that interacts with what is real must also be real" are true so therefore trying to state that it is a given either one of them to be true is a non sequitur fallacy.

The problem with your statement "there's nothing outside of everything" is that it isn't a given that the way you think what "everything" is and means is actually the way it really is. Are you talking everything in this universe or about everything in this universe and ALL other universes? If you are talking about ALL other universes (if there happens to be such things) then it is obvious that you nor anyone else in this universe (who has no experience with interacting this other universe) has any authority to speak about how this other universe operates since we know nothing about it. Even with this universe, human beings have a very limited knowledge on how things actually operate and the rules that most be followed.

For example if the world we live in was nothing more than a computer simulation, the line between what is real and that which isn't real would be more or less non-existent since everything that we thought to be "real" would be merely an illusion and the laws of causation could be broken with ease.

The same problem exist with your other statement "anything that interacts with what is real must also be real". All you are really doing is saying is that "YOU" define something that is "real" to be something that interacts with something else that is real. But what if the thing that is being interacted with in the first place isn't even "real" but only thought of as real in the first place? You are assuming that what you perceive to be "real" and that which is real are one and the same when it isn't a given that it is.

You are assuming that the axioms that you are postulating to be true and self evident, but like pretty much all axioms that anyone postulates they are only true because one believes them to be true. However if someone else chooses not to subscribe to the paradigm you choose to believe in, then there is nothing wrong with them disagreeing with what you choose to follow. And that it is why your statements are not anything more than a non sequitur since it is supported only by your own opinions and how you choose to see and/or define the world around you.

Anything which physically interacts, or interacts in any way, with our world, is real enough to interact with it, and so must be contained within reality to affect the rest of what we know to be reality. Proposing that something unreal is affecting reality is just a contradiction (because it affecting anything would make it real), like claiming something can exist and not exist simultaneously. This places imaginary things in the same reality as anything physical, since what we imagine affects our actions and physical reality from moment to moment.

This principle is not hasty, rather, it is one which covers any alternative scenario you could come up with and renders the question of what can exist to be quite simple, contrary to the claim that the subject is complex due to having no clear principle of what may be known or unknown and having to rely on rules of thumb taken from experiment. — Hallucinogen

I disagree. What we know about reality is merely based on our observations and while our observations have allowed us to be able to predict what reality is and how it behaves, but it isn't without it's flaws.

This kind of problem was debated between Hume and Kant and his law of causation. To be honest I don't have the time to go into this subject that far other than to say that you are trying to deal with a subject that is far more complicated than you realize and your oversimplification doesn't touch on the real issues in this subject. What you are trying to state is merely you opinion on this matter and those with more experience in this philosophical topic understand it is better to just say either "they don't know" or "we don't know" (as the human species) enough about the true nature of reality to confidently claim what reality is.

Because you are confusing what is merely your opinion is to be something that is factual (ie it is perfectly reasonable to claim we don't know what the nature of reality is instead of assuming we know enough about it to say we know the difference between what is real and what is not real and being able to define it), your argument is a non sequitur fallacy because what you are trying to state does not necessarily follow what you are trying to prove and you are confusing what is merely your opinion with factual information.

Um..Ok. :meh:

Most interesting.[/i]

The survivors probably lied about drawing lots - any detective worth his salt can figure that out.

Danke for bringing that to my attention. This reversion to basic instincts is well-documented. A reminder of our animal ancestry/heritage - we're all just one bad day away from becoming the guy you don't wanna meet in a dark alley. I hope some of us can keep their sanity & humanity despite.
— Ms. Marple — Agent Smith

It reminds me of a quote from the Joker said while being interrogated in prison.

Their morals, their code; it's a bad joke. Dropped at the first sign of trouble. They're only as good as the world allows them to be. You'll see- I'll show you. When the chips are down these, uh, civilized people? They'll eat each other. See I'm not a monster, I'm just ahead of the curve.
- Joker

They used to draw lots you know ... shipwreck survivors ... to decide who was gonna die so that the others could feed — Agent Smith

Is this just something they did when the survivors where willing to be civil about the situation and accept their fate? For some reason I imagine sometimes the stronger/more vicious survivors would decide to kill some of the other survivors so they wouldn't have to bother having to test their luck with drawing straws or whatever.

In one of Stalin's gulags created during his collectivization plans prisoners where placed on a barren island without food/other supplies. They didn't bother drawing lots since there was no food and so they had to come up with ..alternative plans on how to survive on a island with no found coming to the island and no way to grow or scavenge food on the island to feed themselves. Needless to say, it wasn't a great plan since their opinions were very, very limited

How likely do you think this is? What are the major arguments for and against the idea of a simulation? Would you mind personally if it were? And do you think a simulation must be determined (programmed) or could it allow for free will (a sort of self coding open-simulation) ? — Benj96

We don't have technology advanced enough to create a simulation potentially good enough to trick the human mind so it is not really here or there for us to try to predict what such a simulation would be like. The only thing we do know is that it will be awhile before we get there and it is likely that "if" a good enough simulation is built, it is almost a given the human mind wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

I don't know about other people but I think it is a given that almost all people need an "escape" from reality from time to time whether it be watching tv, reading a book, drinking, playing video games, going to a strip club, etc., etc. where our minds are not dong something productive. However to be trapped in some place which isn't "real" can be scary, especially if such place isn't that pleasant to being with. The only thing I can associate with such a possible experience is sometimes when I'mtrapped in a dream, I know I'm in a dream, and I can't wake up and sometimes these dream are at the same time unpleasant in other ways.

I guess if a simulation (or something else that is similar to a dream like world) was pleasant enough it might not make that much of a difference as long as didn't have anyone on the outside that was in some way dependent on me. There are several variables to such a situation but it is kind of safe to say that someone that stayed in a simulation too long there would be problems if they also had a real world to contend with, and if a so called brain in a vat (BIV) lived it's entire existence in such a place it would likely be as content (or as much as the simulation choose to let them be) unless for some reason they found out that they were actually just a BIV. I don't know the psychological term or condition when someone goes from being in something like a fantasy world to something like the day to day world we like in, but I'm guess it would be something like an extreme version of culture shock.

Back in the 90's there was a video game called "Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri" that kind of dealt with the potential social, technological, political, etc. issues with potential future technology. One of those technologies was called the Mind/Machine Interface. The reason I think it is worth mentioning MMI is that it is almost given that some form of MMI would need to be created before it would be possible to have any kind of simulated world you mentioned in your OP. Also the old X-box 360 had a game called "Remember Me" where in a future dystopian world people could record and play back memories - either for themselves or other people. Obviously there would be good and bad things that could happen with such technology.

Brain–computer interface
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain%E2%80%93computer_interface

While I don't know what kind of world it will be like when we get around to creating real viable MMI that everyone can use, but it is almost a given that it will create as many (or likely much more) problems than when people started being able to use personal computer. While I know there are many authors wrote books and several movies where made on the subject of MMI, I think you get the general idea without me having to go too far on the subject.

Alpha Centauri Mind/Machine_Interface
https://alphacentauri.fandom.com/wiki/Mind/Machine_Interface
Alpha Centauri quote for MMI
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/alphacentauri_en/images/6/66/Mind_Machine_Interface.mp3/revision/latest?cb=20211006173731

Intro to Remember Me video game


Remember_Me_video_game
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remember_Me_%28video_game%29

When you imagine a baseball, ok its imaginary. But its still real as far as it goes. Its just you can't do with an imaginary baseball the same things you can do with a baseball that exists in consensus reality. — Yohan

No, that is not how it works. A real baseball is a real object where as an imaginary is merely an abstract object. An idea or concept is not the same thing as something that actually exists and it is improper to say that they are "real". It is often important to know the difference and be clear when talking about such things and use proper nomenclature in order to reduce potential confusion.

And this is where all the problems lie. It makes us wholly existential and not just causal. It is our fall into time. Exile from Eden. We make the cultural standards and personal reasons to meet those standards. We just aren’t caused but have reasons for why we do something. We know we could do otherwise but we also know doing so might lead to future negative consequences.

Being caused to do something is instinct, or conditioning. Having reasons is based on self-aware goals. “I need to get to X”. “I want to get Y accomplished”. Sometimes we are not aware of why we want X. Schopenhauer’s theory of a general Will fits. Survival, comfort-seeking, boredom, embedded in cultural and symbolic thought. — schopenhauer1

I agree. Your statement reminds me of the kind of stuff Immanuel Kant wrote about in his life. If you haven't read any books about him I suggest that you should because I believe it is likely you share some of the same thoughts as he did and his work might help you with some of your questions.

Also I suggest that you may want to read up on "Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind " as it talks about possible issues with how early humans became "sentient" and how being sentient may be a byproduct of evolution (ie something that is counter-productive) and not something that is as useful as we often think it to be.

Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origin_of_Consciousness_in_the_Breakdown_of_the_Bicameral_Mind

Having reasons is a burden. It means we choose to do something and we think it leads to various consequences for doing so. It isn’t just an impulse that drives us with absolutely no awareness. — schopenhauer1

You are correct in many ways, being sentient can often be more of a problem than it is helpful.

Man isn't really driven as much as obtaining a reward and satisfying our desires as much as we are driven to try to avoid as many negative consequences as possible, and in that way we are really not that different than animals when you think about it. Even our efforts to obtain "positive consequences" are really nothing more than an effort to avoid the negative ones (ie by going after thing that give "positive results" one doesn't have to make as many decisions that might involve negative consequences). As far as I know neither animals or human's with our "sentience" can easily bypass the biofeedback loop that revolves around the pleasure/pain principles that evolution has hardwired into our brains and bodies which isn't all that different than a controller built into an electronics system. We like to believe we have free will but it is a given that we are still chained to the system that evolution choose to give to us.

Whether it is possible to be able to use high capacity thinking without the problems that come with sentient is something I don't think anyone knows.

Suppose that all that exists forms a set. Call this set E. It follows from the powerset axiom that there'd exist a powerset of E, P(E). Recall that from Cantor's theorem, the cardinality of a powerset is strictly larger than its set. But the cardinality of P(E) can only be greater than E's if there exists elements in P(E) that are not members of E. Though if there exists things that are not members of the set all of that exists, then the set of all that exists is not the set of all that exists.

By proof from contradiction, we're allowed to suppose that our premises are at fault by entailing a contradiction. We're left with:
1. There is no set of all that exists
2. There is no powerset for every set

Since the powerset axiom is ubiquitous in various mathematical set theories, we're only left with (1). This is to say that there does not exist a set of all that exists. — Kuro

I'm sorry but I'm not familiar with the math you are talking about and what the meaning of "set", "powerset", or other terms you are using. Because of I don't know if it is proper for one to say something like "Suppose that all that exists forms a set" and then label a set "E".

I could be wrong but as far as I know there is no mathematical formula's or functions that can be used in such a way. If there is I would like to know them.

I'm looking for the name of an informal fallacy where you're arguing with someone who changes what they mean by a certain term between statements. It's similar to moving the goalposts, only within the argument rather than after the conclusion. It's also similar to Motte and Bailey, but not the same in that the Motte and Bailey is about switching a controversial claim for a popular one, rather than being about an argument.

It's a definitional fallacy but I don't know which.

Here's an example.

YOU: Reality equals everything and there's nothing outside everything, so reality is self-changing. — Hallucinogen

There is a problem with your statement, your claiming reality to equal everything but also stating that it is "self-changing" which is ambiguous. Unless you can clarify what you mean by "self-changing" one can not really confirm or deny if it actually applies to reality.

Also it should be noted that your definition of "reality" is really just that merely what you define it to be and not really anything more than that and if someone wishes to define "reality" another way they may choose to do so. It is a given that such arguments over nomenclature can get pretty confusing by it is a given it is just something we have to put up with when we play our word games with each other.

My guess in this argument the "YOU" in this conversation is likely you speaking to someone else who you have labeled as "SOMEONE" in your post. By your definition, "reality" isn't just the physical things we know, but also everything else that we don't know that can somehow physically interact with what we know to be physical. It is kind of hard to define what might exist outside of what we know to exist that could physically interact with out world (perhaps supernatural/paranormal phenomenon or exotic matter that seems to both exist and not exist at the same time perhaps) but it is kind of "OK" to assume that as soon as we discover some thing that exhibits many or most of the traits of what we are use to with other "physical matter" than we can more or less assume that it "exists" in some way and part of our "reality". However there are a few catches with such an assumption.

The first catch is that we have to know enough about it to know whether or not it really exist. Take for example ghosts. People have claimed to see them but we don't have enough scientific proof to show that they really exist or if they are all hoaxes and/or tricks of the mind. The second is that in order for something to "exist" it must have the same attributes as something that is physically real. For example, ideas exist as both something projected in our minds and also can be constructed/written down on paper but they do not necessarily exist as a physical thing. In a way your position/argument takes care of this issue by implying that "reality" is only the things that "physically exist", however there is a bit of a gray area as to where exactly the line is where things that don't really exist and those that do.

As far as I know there is no scientist that can truly define where this line "is" (at least with potential unknown "exotic" matter) since nobody can be sure what attributes really defines ALL matter that does exist verses that which does not.

Because of this your position or definition of "reality equals everything and there's nothing outside everything" could be considered a hasty generalization because you are likely trying to oversimplifying a very complex topic to a point where what you are saying and thinking don't properly address issues in such a topic.

Hasty generalization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faulty_generalization#Hasty_generalization

Please don't think I'm trying to say you are "wrong" when you say "reality equals everything and there's nothing outside everything" since such a statement is correct in many ways, I'm just trying to say that it is a lot more complicated then one can just put in a few simple statements as you have tried to do.

It is possible that the other person is also incorrect in some way and made a logical fallacy of their own, but between the ambiguous comment about a "self-changing" reality and hasty generalization regarding reality equals everything it wouldn't be too surprising that someone might just be confused about what your position is or means. I hope this helps you with the problem you defined in your OP.