I think "real" is very close in definition to "most-common". If one person sees a ghost, but 99 people do not see the ghost, then the ghost is declared to be unreal; despite the experience of the first person. — Bird-Up
This is fallacious thinking. Suppose there's a group of people X, Y, and Z and X observes something, say W. The relevant probability for W being real - as in existing independently of X's mind and thus perceivable by both Y and Z, is 50%. The same probability applies to Y and Z i.e. both of their perceptions have a 50% chance of being real.
The probability that all of them, X, Y, and Z, are hallucinating i.e. W isn't real = 50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5%. Decidedly a lower probability that W isn't real than if only X observed W.
However,
The probability that all three of them, X, Y, and Z, are perceiving something real = 50% * 50% * 50% = 12.5%. As you can see, that all three, X, Y, and Z are observing W paradoxically reduces the probability of W being real.
Also, if my math is correct, the probability that X, Y, and Z are perceiving something not real = the probability that X, Y, and Z are perceiving something real = 12.5%. Having more observers didn't help.
The probability that three people are hallucinating the same thing is a lot lower than 12.5%. — RogueAI
Probably, the practical need for an invariant standard - measure (ratio) - lead to a 'speculative' search for a guarantee for all 'values' and 'limits' in every area of culture and endeavor. Later on, perhaps, a (conceptual? theoretical?) criterion for distinguishing between 'presence and absence' (and, more concretely, discerning facts from fictions) ...I know this is like the largest question there is, but how did we even come up with the concept of "real?" — TiredThinker
The real is that which hurts you badly, often fatally, when you don't respect it, and is as unavoidable as it is whatever preceeds-resists-exceeds all[ (of our) rational categories and techniques of control. — 180 Proof
Last night I saw upon the stair
a little man who wasn't there...
You really need specific numbers? Do you think multiple people hallucinating the same thing happens regularly? Or is it a very rare thing? When's the last time you had a hallucination? When's the last time you and two other people had the exact same hallucination? — RogueAI
The probability that three people are hallucinating the same thing is a lot lower than 12.5%. — RogueAI
The relevant probability for W being real - as in existing independently of X's mind and thus perceivable by both Y and Z, is 50% — TheMadFool
Wait wait wait -- please tell me this is the probability because either it's real or it's not. Did I get it? — Srap Tasmaner
Really? What is the probability aliens will land on the WH lawn tomorrow? Isn't that really unlikely? Yes. Do you need me to do calculations for you on that? No. — RogueAI
What is the probability aliens will land on the WH lawn tomorrow? — RogueAI
Anything wrong with it? — TheMadFool
That it is wrong is a fact; it's a bizarre misapplication of the principle of indifference, but a mistake that looks like it's worth understanding. I'm going to think about it a bit. — Srap Tasmaner
I began with not knowing whether X is real or not i.e. I admitted to not knowing whether it's more/less likely to be real. — TheMadFool
3 is the correct choice. The probability for a single individual that what s/he's observing is real/not is exactly 50%. — TheMadFool
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.