Does the past is real?

[imitator]

Thank you for putting that so succinctly. That is exactly the point I was trying to make earlier when I got in so much trouble with the religious misunderstanding. By framing the theory in such a way that everything is consistent with everything we observe today and everything we can project into the past, it is impossible to DISPROVE the theory that the past was somehow manufactured.

But to me, the fact that a theory cannot be disproved, does not necessarily make in plausible. The problem with these kinds of theories is that they bring in an element that is not necessary. They make things more complicated than they need to be. If you say the universe came into being, proceeded according to physical laws that have remained unchanged over time, life eveloved, I was born, and my life is pretty much like I remember it, that is the most simple explanation. If you say that it only seems like that is what happened, all the evidence is consistent with that model, but actually the universe was created 5 minutes ago and all your memories were implanted, then you have brought in the element of whatever force did the creating and implanting. The second model is so much more complicated than the first, that is seems implausible, even if it cannot be disproven.

Exactly.

"The abscence of evidence is not the evidence of absence."

Just because we cant disprove something doesnt mean it is true, but on the same note, just becuase we cant prove something doesnt mean its not true.

5 min theory, Thursdayism, Dreamer theory, all these things... they are possibilities. But the problem with them is we will never be able to prove them to be true. It doesnt mean they arent true, and arent real possibilities, but in most situations they are not brought up because of their very nature, and the fact that they usually bring a discussion to a halt. You cant really argue these kinds of ideas and theories, they are built almost with that very principle in mind.

As far as them being implausable, Im not sure I agree with that so much. What makes them that way, besides peoples misconceptions and ignorance? The very idea of them is that they are incredibly plausible, because they cant be proven and within them they contain everything needed to work. But we cant ever really call them fact, because there is no way to prove it. But idk if Id say it makes them implausable persay. I may have misunderstood what you were saying though... if thats the case, my apologies.

[dragonrider]

Its a balancing act, we need to be questioning everything around us, but we also need to be able to still be functional in whatever reality we may be in.

That is another very good point. I find these kinds of discussions very interesting as a philosophical exercise. But as a practical matter, you pretty much have to live your life as if everything you experience is real! Don't tell the IRS, "Taxes, like all reality, are an illusion." Otherwise you will soon experience the "illusion" of prison.

[imitator]

That is another very good point. I find these kinds of discussions very interesting as a philosophical exercise. But as a practical matter, you pretty much have to live your life as if everything you experience is real! Don't tell the IRS, "Taxes, like all reality, are an illusion." Otherwise you will soon experience the "illusion" of prison.

The problem is, over time, people took the balancing act needed as a sign that proper questioning and debate was a problem, and discarded it.

The average person doesnt take much time to really question much in their life, at least here in the states. What was a proper balancing act of questioning things while still being functional in "this" reality, has turned into no questions and accepting this reality and going about life.

Its really hard, in most anything, but especially with this situation, to find people who are "moderate" in their actions, who are able ot balance the two, instead of going to the extreme on one side or another.

[dragonrider]

As far as them being implausable, Im not sure I agree with that so much. What makes them that way, besides peoples misconceptions and ignorance? The very idea of them is that they are incredibly plausible, because they cant be proven and within them they contain everything needed to work. But we cant ever really call them fact, because there is no way to prove it. But idk if Id say it makes them implausable persay. I may have misunderstood what you were saying though... if thats the case, my apologies.

I don't think you misunderstood me, but I don't mean to say "implausible" as a way to diminish the discussion of these kinds of ideas.

I meant I find these kinds of theories unlikeley to be true because they bring in an element that is not necessary to explain the phenomenon. But that is exaclty why they are interesting! My gut feeling is that the simplest theory is usually correct, but it is an interesting philosophical exercise to think about an alternative explanation that is constructed in such a way that it cannot be disproved, but intruduces an unexpected element.

That is why movies like Blade Runner and the Matrix are so interesting. They question the very nature of our reality, but are constructed in such a way that you cannot fault their logic.

[dragonrider]

Not to get off topic, but can I have a bite of that delicious-looking baby sandwich?

[jdmarcus59]

Kk while reading your post! i was impressed, then it happened....

let me explain it to you how i thought (in my head) hmmm this kid has some real facts to prove his side of the arguement..WAIT :wtf: WHAT THE FUCK!

after i read that you believe no one is this dumb... i lost all respect for your answer... why is it that he questions what you call reality, as conspicuous. He has a right to question what he thinks is questionable. NOW you have a right to debate his answer, but soon as you cut him down by sayig thinking that is "dumb" you lose all your credibility.

For you AMAZING question, i dont have an answer for you. I believe the past is real but how it got there i have no fucking clue. now i am a christian and believe in god, but the fact that he woke up one day said BOOM water boom trees, BOOM mountains, BOOM homosapiens (not what they were called when they first began on earth) who have such complex functions that millions of years down the road we still wouldnt even understand most. seriously think of the brain.. FUCK are you kidding me SOO CRAZY. i just can comprehend what happend years before us to invent electricity, space travel AMAZING!!!

so next time you give a GREAT answer (much props), just dont get negative..

:bigsmoke: -STAY LIT, QUESTION EVERYTHING!

hey some one else from washington, interesting post.

[jdmarcus59]

simple and to the point, I Think There for I am..............lol

[imitator]

I don't think you misunderstood me, but I don't mean to say "implausible" as a way to diminish the discussion of these kinds of ideas.

I meant I find these kinds of theories unlikeley to be true because they bring in an element that is not necessary to explain the phenomenon. But that is exaclty why they are interesting! My gut feeling is that the simplest theory is usually correct, but it is an interesting philosophical exercise to think about an alternative explanation that is constructed in such a way that it cannot be disproved, but intruduces an unexpected element.

That is why movies like Blade Runner and the Matrix are so interesting. They question the very nature of our reality, but are constructed in such a way that you cannot fault their logic.

Ah ok, I understand what you were saying a bit better now.

Personally I feel that both theories you mentioned before though both have the same amount of elements to explain everything. One is saying that the world/universe/life was created a long time ago, and over time all these things happened, and thats where we are right now. The other is saying, 5 minutes ago this was all created, and all these things that you think have happened were given to you at the time of creation to give the illusion of a past.

I really do enjoy philosophical debate on these subjects, because there is no definite right or wrong, just a universe full of possibilities. No one is able to take a "moral" highground so to speak in regards to the subject, as the only thing that matters is how well you can explain what you are talking about. It puts everyone on even ground, if they are willing to truely take part in the conversation...

[imitator]

simple and to the point, I Think There for I am..............lol

But is that true?

Descartes was very flawed in his logic and methodology when he came up with "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum".

He used too many assumptions, and chose to not even consider some aspects simply because they would have been difficult to address.

Dreamer theory is a lovely example of this. If we are a part of some great beings dream, then everything we think is actually just part of the dreamers dream, and we didnt think it, he did. Therefore, your thoughts do not prove your existance, in that situation.

Still, the excercises that he used to reach that conclusion were good excercises for everyone to do at least once in their life. The entire excercise was remarkable, but his conclusion, and the ideas he used and discarded in order to reach such a conclusion were very flawed imo.

[imitator]

Not to get off topic, but can I have a bite of that delicious-looking baby sandwich?

That would be my sandwich sir, although I can give you the recipe for making your own.