Go on. How does this make one re-examine our place in the world, one's concept of self and identity, and elementary philosophies of truth and reason? Does it at all?

As somewhat of a non-traveler these days, for all I know, the entire world outside of my tri-county area may not exist. Of course, I know this to be false. I have friends in other parts of the world, I've traveled to places before, I can track shipments for packages that travel to and fro as well as watch live webcams of places. But for many practical intents and purposes, it's like the world outside our own little spheres of interaction may or may not exist.

I doubt I'll ever step foot in the White House, for example. So, at least for my existence, it's as if the place does not exist, never did, and never will. Yet it does, surely. Might I ask: is Schrodinger's cat involved here in any way? :smile:

Suppose when people say "real" or "fake" they mean something that exists in the manner in which we do, that can either be touched, felt, observed, or otherwise "experienced". There was a thread here about (or touching on) such differences between "existing" and "real". I forget the relevant quote at the moment but something along the lines of "unicorns are imaginary, but exist and are real". I've likely butchered the original quote in my misrememberance but it was something along those lines. Reminds me of the proofs thread where something can be factually false whilst simultaneously being valid and sound. A bit hard to grasp and easily dismissed as nonsensical.

What do you mean, man?

Try living in a picture of a house for a week, and get back to us.

Try living in a picture of a house for a week, and get back to us. — unenlightened

Yo mamma is so fat, her picture weighs 10 pounds.

What I mean by this is that we draw a false distinction between that of real and fake. The matrix did exist, as a server in a computer. The matrix's computer existed in the physical world, and by proxy, the matrix itself existed in the physical world. The term "fake" is misleading because everything exists in a sense. Any thought you have exists as neurons in your brain. If we live in a simulation, it would also be the real world, because the simulation exists in the real world. — Hyper

Welcome.

This is something that get's discussed fairly often here on the forum, generally without consensus, because everyone has a different idea of what "real" means. I am interested in Taoist philosophy. The first verse of the Tao Te Ching, one of the founding texts, says "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." My understanding of the meaning of those lines is that things don't really become "real" until we name, conceptualize, them. That seems consistent with what you have written. Imaginary things are as real as material things because they are both brought into existence as concepts.

On the forum, getting everyone to agree on the definition of the central ideas of a discussion is often neglected and often impossible. That is the cause of a lot of derailed discussions here. I think we'll probably see that in this discussion.

That made me think of this. It's from Woody Allen's 1966 "What's up Tiger Lily" and is badly edited.

https://clip.cafe/whats-up-tiger-lily-1966/this-shepard-wongs-home/

If we live in a simulation, it would also be the real world, because the simulation exists in the real world. — Hyper

Circular reasoning & compositional fallacy.

The term "fake" is misleading because everything exists in a sense.

So how do you designate the distinction between a copy / counterfeit and the original? or distinguish a fictional account from a nonfictional account?

Anyway, consider "Meinong's Jungle" ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meinong%27s_jungle

Try living in a picture of a house for a week, and get back to us.
— unenlightened

Yo mamma was so fat, her picture weighed 10 pounds. — T Clark

:lol:

Things that aren't real aren't meaningfully different than things that are real.
What I mean by this is that we draw a false distinction between that of real and fake. — Hyper

The paper of a fake bill is real, but that doesn't mean that the bill is real. Real money is meaningfully different from fake money.

The term "fake" is misleading because everything exists in a sense. — Hyper

Everything doesn't exist in the same sense. For example, money is made of social agreements, paper is made of cellulose fibers. They exist in very different senses.

An original work of something is produced in a particular context, a plagiarized version is produced in another context in which the producer has knowledge of the original version. A fake is always different from the original (regardless of practical distinguishability).

If we live in a simulation, it would also be the real world, because the simulation exists in the real world. — Hyper

All the same, the electric events in a computer are real in one sense, but the simulation in the computer is real in another sense. You conflate the two different senses in which they are real, and get a fallacy of composition.

The first verse of the Tao Te Ching, one of the founding texts, says "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." My understanding of the meaning of those lines is that things don't really become "real" until we name, conceptualize, them. — T Clark

My understanding of those lines is that, the moment you try to speak of or name the Tao, you have automatically failed. Because words are limited, and limiting, while the Tao is infinite. Any attempt to use words to describe the Tao is an attempt to limit it. Which is impossible, so you cannot be talking about the Tao.

My understanding of those lines is that, the moment you try to speak of or name the Tao, you have automatically failed. Because words are limited, and limiting, while the Tao is infinite. Any attempt to use words to describe the Tao is an attempt to limit it. Which is impossible, so you cannot be talking about the Tao. — Patterner

I don’t see that your understanding contradicts mine.

I'm not sure I know how you mean it, or in how many ways. But I think living in the Matrix would be just as real as living in the real world. You are presented with any number of choices every day, ands you choose. Regardless of what system you exist within, you have your sense of right and wrong, likes and dislikes, desires and fears. If you were a sadist in the Matrix, you wouldn't be a saint when you unplugged, or vice versa.

I don’t see that your understanding contradicts mine. — T Clark

No. Just different focus.

I think living in the Matrix would be just as real as living in the real world. — Patterner

You're on the way...

No. Just different focus. — Patterner

Right, appearances (as set against reality) are still really appearances. Radical skepticism sets in when one supposes that appearances can be completely disconnected from "reality," but this position has to suppose much about the "reality" of the "relationship between reality and appearance," to really get off the ground.

Radical skepticism collapses when it "goes all the way " into positing that there is "only appearance," and no reality. Yet, if there is only appearance, then the dichotomy collapses and appearances are reality.

But, in the modern context this distinction has become pernicious because instead of the more fundemental "reality versus appearance" distinction we get the "subjective versus objective" distinction, which often comes with a lot of extra baggage, the main one being the idea that we don't every experience anything directly, but rather "experience our experiences." So one doesn't experience an apple, but rather experiences the experience of experiencing an apple. And so who knows what the apple is really like? We don't even know the apple's appearance, but only our own experience of its experience. This extra regress is how you can start to slide towards appearances having an arbitrary and unknowable relationship with reality.