For Descartes against the recent study that debunks the simulation theory

Isn't it pretty intuitive that if mathematics is not compete, then reality is not a computation? Algorithms are small. They are not even sufficient to explain all the truths in their own domain. Reality is bigger than any algorithm.

Here's the paper. Might be worth a closer examination, maybe a walk through.

The devil will be in the detail.

Finally! These words are like balm for the soul:

We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity,” says Dr. Faizal. “Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone. Rather, it requires a non-algorithmic understanding, which is more fundamental than the computational laws of quantum gravity and therefore more fundamental than spacetime itself.”

I'll use this here on the forum whenever someone proposes another “Theory of Everything.”

The paper looks like the final nail in the coffin of positivism, but it seems like the guys are 100 years too late

Quoting Banno

Isn't it pretty intuitive that if mathematics is not compete, then reality is not a computation? Algorithms are small. They are not even sufficient to explain all the truths in their own domain. Reality is bigger than any algorithm.

You seemingly misunderstand not only Descartes’ “dream argument” but even the aforementioned study. The former in no way entails that all aspects of reality can be described through computations alone, just as the latter (“We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity.”)

Thus, again, this study in no way even begins to challenge, let alone refutes, the Cartesian “dream argument.”

Quoting blazed2today

You seem to misunderstand not only Descartes’ “dream argument”

I've a rough idea.

The paper doesn't mention Descartes, nor dreams.

I'm not at all sure why you want to introduce these seemingly oblique notions. Indeed, since the dream argument is about whether what we perceive is real, and this article is about computability, it seems to me that you are talking about something quite different to the article.

Now both the dream argument and the present article stand against the theory of everything as a reasonable supposition, albeit from very different standpoints.

So perhaps they are not entirely at odds?

(Edited)

Quoting blazed2today

Nay, they can’t say that it’s impossible without contradicting themselves. For, they ground their very own work on the existence of such a transcendent realm;

well of course you can't disprove God without a doubt...you can always say something like "well, the universe is controlled by algorithms we don't understand..."

Quoting blazed2today

That is to say, in no way can it refute that reality is merely a dream that’s generated from a transcendent realm by a superior mind, who’s equipped with “non-algorithmic understanding.” Nay, they can’t say that it’s impossible without contradicting themselves. For, they ground their very own work on the existence of such a transcendent realm; hence, they assert, “… what physicists call a Platonic realm—a mathematical foundation more real than the physical universe we experience. It’s from this realm that space and time themselves emerge.”

I think this is right, and I have my own thoughts on why I find the article unconvincing, which may or may not be similar. Any simulation doesn’t have to simulate reality, it only has to simulate our, my, experience of reality. You can no more disprove simulation theory than you can solipsism.

Reply to blazed2today
I forgot to say—welcome to the forum.

Reply to blazed2today

(2021)
Quoting 180 Proof

We can't tell the difference between reality and illusion.
— Agent Smith
On the contrary, I think we can (with this rule-of-thumb): [ ... ]

Reply to T Clark

Quoting T Clark

I forgot to say—welcome to the forum.

I appreciate that. Thank you.

Quoting T Clark

Any simulation doesn’t have to simulate reality, it only has to simulate our, my, experience of reality.

I’ve seen others make the same, or a very similar, reply in defense of the simulation theory, namely, that it doesn’t entail that the baseline reality is one; yet it does it appear that if it’s held that reality is ultimately a simulation, this falls in the face of the study. But, admittedly, I’ve never deeply pursued the simulation theory, & so I wouldn’t be the one to uphold & defend it on such grounds against the aforementioned study. Although I shouldn’t be said to be against hearing someone pursue this course of thought who’s more knowledgeable about the simulation theory.

Quoting 180 Proof

We can't tell the difference between reality and illusion.
— Agent Smith
On the contrary, I think we can (with this rule-of-thumb): [ ... ]

Contrary to popular belief, Descartes doesn’t say that we can’t obtain certainty about reality. Indeed, he very much emphasizes the point that he has a method (hence, his “Discourse on the Method”) to determine what can’t even be possibly doubted to be real.

Quoting Banno

The paper doesn't mention Descartes, nor dreams.

Never said that it does.

Quoting Banno

I'm not at all sure why you want to introduce these seemingly oblique notions. Indeed, … , it seems to me that you are talking about something quite different to the article.

The study is about the simulation theory, the precursor of which, so people who’re in the Western tradition often say, either rightly or wrongly, is the Cartesian “dream argument.” This thread is just to deny that if the study is right, then the latter is false is somehow implied thereby.

& so, no, why should it seem that I’m talking of quite different things here, when both are about our understanding of reality?

Quoting Banno

Now both the dream argument and the present article stand against the theory of everything as a reasonable supposition, albeit from very different standpoints.

Again, you seemingly misunderstand not only the study but also Descartes’ “dream argument.” The former stands against there being a theory of everything that can be derived from computation alone, & not against a theory of everything per se (“Therefore, no physically complete and consistent theory of everything can be derived from computation alone. Rather, it requires…”). & the latter just mistrusts the senses in the achievement of it, not one per se (“[i]Whatever I have up till now accepted as most true I have acquired either from the senses
or through the senses. But from time to time I have found that the senses deceive, and it is prudent never to trust completely those who have deceived us even once[/i].” [from “The Mediations”]).

Quoting Banno

So perhaps they are not entirely at odds?

Yes, perhaps… given that I happen to point out, in the O.P., one of the major reasons why it is that they can’t be, namely, a true understanding of reality requires, in both, something deeper or more fundamental than spatiotemporality.

Quoting ProtagoranSocratist

well of course you can't disprove God without a doubt...you can always say something like "well, the universe is controlled by algorithms we don't understand..."

Your reply is somewhat ambiguous, in my opinion.

Are you saying, in opposition to or against the aforementioned study, that one can eventually describe all phenomena through computations or algorithms grounded in the laws of physics & they’re just not currently known? Or are you saying that one can doubt that they certainly understand the universe, & so you don’t oppose the Cartesian “dream argument” because it hasn’t been nor can it ever be demonstrated to be false, i.e., disproven?

Clarification would be nice here on that head.

Reply to blazed2today I was only saying that belief in God is similar to the idea that "everything is a simulation", in the sense that 1) it can't be proven or disproven 2) it does imply some sort of a grand scheme or creator. If it's a literal simulation, maybe some God or alien race is running the simulation...if we are speaking in impersonal algorithms (without external begins), that could mean any type of design pattern, the whole idea really is kinda vague.

Quoting blazed2today

you seemingly misunderstand not only the study but also Descartes’ “dream argument.”

Meehhh not so sure that's me.

I'll leave you to it. the article needs a deeper dive than is provided here.

Quoting blazed2today

That is to say, in no way can it refute that reality is merely a dream that’s generated from a transcendent realm by a superior mind, who’s equipped with “non-algorithmic understanding.”

I think you took the wrong lesson here. We cannot make any truth claims about things we cannot know. That's all that means. No matter what we learn this fact will never change.

Quoting ProtagoranSocratist

I was only saying that belief in God is similar to the idea that "everything is a simulation", in the sense that 1) it can't be proven or disproven 2) it does imply some sort of a grand scheme or creator.

I think this is exactly right under the condition that you are correct when you say neither God nor the simulation can be proven or disproven, even in theory. I’m not sure that’s true, but I’m pretty sure it hasn’t been proved untrue by the article linked in the OP.

Cited Article:The research hinges on a fascinating property of reality itself. Modern physics has moved far beyond Newton’s tangible “stuff” bouncing around in space. Einstein’s theory of relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics. Quantum mechanics transformed our understanding again. Today’s cutting-edge theory—quantum gravity—suggests that even space and time aren’t fundamental. They emerge from something deeper: pure information.

This information exists in what physicists call a Platonic realm—a mathematical foundation more real than the physical universe we experience. It’s from this realm that space and time themselves emerge.

Here’s where it gets interesting. The team demonstrated that even this information-based foundation cannot fully describe reality using computation alone. They used powerful mathematical theorems—including Gödel’s incompleteness theorem—to prove that a complete and consistent description of everything requires what they call “non-algorithmic understanding.”

Think of it this way. A computer follows recipes, step by step, no matter how complex. But some truths can only be grasped through non-algorithmic understanding—understanding that doesn’t follow from any sequence of logical steps. These “Gödelian truths” are real, yet impossible to prove through computation.

Here’s a basic example using the statement, “This true statement is not provable.” If it were provable, it would be false, making logic inconsistent. If it’s not provable, then it’s true, but that makes any system trying to prove it incomplete. Either way, pure computation fails.

What the research proposes is a domain of abstract mathematical structure—symmetries, constraints, and relations—from which the behaviour of physical systems can be modelled as if they emerge. That’s “transcendental” in the Kantian sense: what must be the case for the observations to be possible at all, even though they are not themselves empirical objects but deductive conjecture.

That is a claim about formal structure, not about mind as such.

The OP, however, imports a completely different meaning of “transcendent”: the Cartesian/theistic sense of a superior Mind imagining or dreaming the world into being.

These two senses of “transcendent” are not even in the same ontological category.

So the move from:

“Physics appeals to a Platonic realm of mathematical structure”

to

“Therefore physics presupposes a transcendent mind capable of generating reality like a dream”

is an equivocation. The terms “transcendent” and “transcendental” are being blurred together (a distinction which Kant took considerable pains to differentiate.)

Mathematical Platonism ? Cartesian idealism.

Quoting blazed2today

I’ve seen others make the same, or a very similar, reply in defense of the simulation theory, namely, that it doesn’t entail that the baseline reality is one; yet it does it appear that if it’s held that reality is ultimately a simulation, this falls in the face of the study.

Sorry, I’m lost. I don’t understand the argument you’re making. My argument isn’t in defense of simulation theory. I’m only saying the linked article doesn’t disprove it.

Quoting blazed2today

But, admittedly, I’ve never deeply pursued the simulation theory, & so I wouldn’t be the one to uphold & defend it on such grounds against the aforementioned study. Although I shouldn’t be said to be against hearing someone pursue this course of thought who’s more knowledgeable about the simulation theory.

It’s not something I’ve studied either, but I don’t think it takes a lot of study to see the holes in the argument in the linked article.

By the way, if you like science fiction, I recommend a book called “NPC” by Jeremy Robinson. I really like the way he deals with this subject.

Quoting Wayfarer

the move from:

“Physics appeals to a Platonic realm of mathematical structure”

to

“Therefore physics presupposes a transcendent mind capable of generating reality like a dream”

It has always struck me that the only place platonic forms could exist would be in the mind of God.

Reply to T Clark I don’t think Plato himself said that. His ‘demiurge’ was not strictly speaking the same as the biblical creator. Those conceptions came much later with the absorption of Platonism into theology. And I’d be wary of the implications of ‘place’ as it introduces a spatial dimension which doesn’t necessarily pertain to abstractions, which don’t exist in space-time. But agree, ‘mind of God’ is a potent metaphor. Even Steven Hawking, an avowed atheist, used it.

(Also - I never took the idea of universe as simulation the least seriously, so the fact that it’s been ‘disproven’ doesn’t much impress me. But I really like the style of the argument.)

Quoting Wayfarer

I don’t think Plato himself said that.

No, as far as I know, he didn’t and I wasn’t trying to claim he did. It was my own inference and it still makes sense to me.

Reply to T Clark Me too but I’m also aware that may be a metaphorical expression.

Besides - the article says ‘ We have demonstrated that it is impossible to describe all aspects of physical reality using a computational theory of quantum gravity.’ I had thought that Heisenberg had arrived at the same realisation a hundred years ago in respect of the fundamental particles of physics.

Quoting Wayfarer

Me too but I’m also aware that may be a metaphorical expression.

I think I take it a bit more literally—If there is no God, there are no forms.

Reply to T Clark Many would agree with you.

Reply to T Clark the thing is, there must be some pretty wild "algorithms" that underlie existense that we don't understand and never will, but seems rather silly for anyone to claim they're being generated by a computer or god...

Quoting ProtagoranSocratist

the thing is, there must be some pretty wild "algorithms" that underlie existense that we don't understand and never will, but seems rather silly for anyone to claim they're being generated by a computer or god...

Here’s what I wrote in my first post in this thread:

Quoting T Clark

Any simulation doesn’t have to simulate reality, it only has to simulate our, my, experience of reality.

I don’t understand how what you wrote addresses what I wrote.

Quoting T Clark

I don’t understand how what you wrote addresses what I wrote.

It doesn't have to: i was just expanding on what i was saying in response to the OP, since you were expanding on what i said...i didn't even read your first post in the thread...

Quoting Banno

Meehhh not so sure that's me.

I'll leave you to it. the article needs a deeper dive than is provided here.

That you’re bowing out is understandable given your noted misjudgments thus far. Anyhow, do as you feel. Take care.

Quoting T Clark

Sorry, I’m lost. I don’t understand the argument you’re making. My argument isn’t in defense of simulation theory. I’m only saying the linked article doesn’t disprove it.

When you said that, Quoting T Clark

Any simulation doesn’t have to simulate reality, it only has to simulate our, my, experience of reality.

This appeared to me to be your counter or defense against the study; in other words, you’re saying that the latter case is still acceptable, contra the study.

Also, I wasn’t making any argument, I was just relaying that I’ve seen people who hold to the simulation theory counter or reply to the study in a similar way, that is, they say that “their experience of” reality is a simulation, not necessarily the baseline reality or reality itself.

Quoting T Clark

It’s not something I’ve studied either, but I don’t think it takes a lot of study to see the holes in the argument in the linked article.

I’m personally not so sure. I think that it requires a good amount of studying of the simulation theory in order to advance it justifiably against serious objectors.

Quoting T Clark

By the way, if you like science fiction, I recommend a book called “NPC” by Jeremy Robinson. I really like the way he deals with this subject.

Thanks for the recommendation. My list of books that I intend to read is already pretty long, but I just may have to check that out some time in the not so distant future. So, yeah, thanks again.

Quoting Philosophim

I think you took the wrong lesson here. We cannot make any truth claims about things we cannot know. That's all that means. No matter what we learn this fact will never change.

That’s all what means? Indeed, that part of the O.P. that you’ve quoted & are replying to here just points out that because the researchers’ understanding of reality has recourse to a “Platonic realm,” or to something which is deeper or more fundamental than spacetime itself, this as such precludes them from controverting the Cartesian “dream argument,” which also has recourse to something deeper or more fundamental than spatiotemporality.

So, your reply appears to be quite misplaced.

Quoting ProtagoranSocratist

I was only saying that belief in God is similar to the idea that "everything is a simulation", in the sense that 1) it can't be proven or disproven 2) it does imply some sort of a grand scheme or creator. If it's a literal simulation, maybe some God or alien race is running the simulation...if we are speaking in impersonal algorithms (without external begins), that could mean any type of design pattern, the whole idea really is kinda vague.

So, to make sure, again, are you, in opposition to or against the study, (1) saying that the simulation theory hasn’t been disproven by the study? Also, (2) that Descartes’ “dream argument” can neither be disproven nor proven & therefore as such it stands unchallenged in your view?

Quoting Wayfarer

What the research proposes is a domain of abstract mathematical structure—symmetries, constraints, and relations—from which the behaviour of physical systems can be modelled as if they emerge.

The research concludes that a true understanding of reality must appeal to something deeper or more fundamental than spacetime itself, which Descartes’ “dream argument” doesn’t contradict but rather openly admits.

Quoting Wayfarer

That’s “transcendental” in the Kantian sense: what must be the case for the observations to be possible at all, even though they are not themselves empirical objects but deductive conjecture.

The OP, however, imports a completely different meaning of “transcendent”: the Cartesian/theistic sense of a superior Mind imagining or dreaming the world into being.

The terms “transcendent” and “transcendental” are being blurred together (a distinction which Kant took considerable pains to differentiate.)

All of this is really just a verbal quibble, which is ultimately insignificant.

My use of “transcendent” simply means what’s not contained within the phenomenal world, which applies both to Kant’s a-priori forms of sensibility, i.e., the pure forms of space & time aren’t themselves phenomena, & any mind within the Cartesian “dream argument,” i.e., the mind isn’t a sensuous phenomenon. So, your differentiation here is honestly inconsequential.

Yet your invocation of Kant is odd, seeing as his whole philosophy is based or hinges on the “ding-an-sich,” which is “transcendent” in the way that you insist on taking it. Thus, even in Kant, as with the study & Descartes’ “dream argument,” the transcendent is indispensable.

Quoting Wayfarer

So the move from:

“Physics appeals to a Platonic realm of mathematical structure”

to

“Therefore physics presupposes a transcendent mind capable of generating reality like a dream”…

Mathematical Platonism ? Cartesian idealism.

I never made such a move, nor did I claim that mathematical Platonism is equivalent with Cartesian idealism. If you carefully re-read the O.P., along with what else has been said in this thread, it should be obvious that my point is simply that the researchers’ appeal to the Platonic realm, or to something deeper or more fundamental than spacetime itself, rather than being in opposition to Descartes’ “dream argument,” is quite compatible with it.

Reply to blazed2today Yes, well, if you're saying that their research disproves the 'simulation' idea, but not, in principle, Descartes 'dream' argument, I guess I can see that, although I'm struggling a bit to see the point.
'

Quoting Wayfarer

… but not, in principle, Descartes 'dream' argument, I guess I can see that…

Well, then, Wayfarer, I’m glad that you can see that now.

Quoting Wayfarer

… although I'm struggling a bit to see the point.

As I expressed to another member, Quoting blazed2today

The study is about the simulation theory, the precursor of which, so people who’re in the Western tradition often say, either rightly or wrongly, is the Cartesian “dream argument.” This thread is just to deny that if the study is right, then the latter is false is somehow implied thereby.

Reply to blazed2today Fair enough. I'll concede that.

For what it's worth, I think the Cartesian 'dream argument' is defeated in principle by Kant's 'refutation of idealism' in the B edition of COPR. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Quoting Wayfarer

Fair enough. I'll concede that.

Well, alrighty then. :cool:

Quoting Wayfarer

For what it's worth, I think the Cartesian 'dream argument' is defeated in principle by Kant's 'refutation of idealism' in the B edition of COPR. But that's a whole other can of worms.

Ah, Kant. He certainly does open up quite a few can of worms, doesn’t he? Although I appreciate your willingness to engage, & I’m a little tempted to discuss his supposed refutation of it with you, I think that I’ll leave that alone for the moment. However, I just might take up the point with you some other time, perhaps in another thread. Cheers. :up:

Quoting Wayfarer

I think the Cartesian 'dream argument' is defeated in principle by Kant's 'refutation of idealism' in the B edition of COPR.

You know what? If you like (no insistence at all), you can state why you think that that’s the case, & I’ll make sure to eventually to address your argument (I don’t want to say that I immediately will because I’d like to mull over your posts rather than engage in a crossfire or speedy exchange). Yet it’s up to you if you’d like that, no insistence or pressure at all.

Quoting blazed2today

So, to make sure, again, are you, in opposition to or against the study, (1) saying that the simulation theory hasn’t been disproven by the study? Also, (2) that Descartes’ “dream argument” can neither be disproven nor proven & therefore as such it stands unchallenged in your view?

I'm not opposed to the study, it seems they are saying that nature itself is not algorithmic, which i'm sure is possible to prove to an extent...i'm just saying that it's completely impossible to prove that the universe is not a simulation for the same reasons that it's completely impossible to prove that there isn't a god or deity. Both arguments are extra-sensory in nature, implying some other existence we are unaware of.

The descarte dream argument was also made by some asian philosopher as well, but our intuition and experience can show us the difference between waking experience and a dream...but not necessarily, so descarte is correct. For example, there have been times recently when i will think something i saw in a dream is a memory i had, then ill remember it was in a dream. It's usually inconsequential, but during one college course i had a long time ago, I thought that I read the section the teacher wanted us to read in class, but when i got to class, i realized i only dreamed that i read the section in the book...it's not like it would have helped me much to have realized it was a dream during the day, as i undoubtedly had other classes and duties, but i've seen multiple examples from my life how a dream can at least appear like it actually happened....

Reply to blazed2today I'm mainly going on the SEP entry Refutation of Idealism. After the first edition of COPR came out, Kant was annoyed by the fact that many critics accused him of rehashing Berkeley. So he included this refutation in the B edition. A truncated version is that ' I can be aware of having experiences that occur in a specific temporal order only if I perceive persisting objects in space outside me by reference to which I can determine the temporal order of my experiences.' Because, in a dream, one is not aware of objects 'persisting in space outside me', then this refutation also tends to undermine Descartes 'dream' argument - which is not co-incidental, as the whole thrust was to call into question the kind of solipsism that both Descartes and Berkeley can be accused of.

Quoting ProtagoranSocratist

I'm not opposed to the study, it seems they are saying that nature itself is not algorithmic, which i'm sure is possible to prove to an extent...i'm just saying that it's completely impossible to prove that the universe is not a simulation for the same reasons that it's completely impossible to prove that there isn't a god or deity. Both arguments are extra-sensory in nature, implying some other existence we are unaware of.

Do you think that a “round square” is an impossibility? If so, then, well, obviously it’s not impossible to know what isn’t the case in the “extra-sensory.”

Quoting ProtagoranSocratist

but not necessarily, so descartes is correct.

Good to know that you see yourself in agreement with him.

Quoting Wayfarer

A truncated version is that 'I can be aware of having experiences that occur in a specific temporal order only if I perceive persisting objects in space outside me by reference to which I can determine the temporal order of my experiences.' Because, in a dream, one is not aware of objects 'persisting in space outside me', then this refutation also tends to undermine Descartes 'dream' argument - which is not co-incidental, as the whole thrust was to call into question the kind of solipsism that both Descartes and Berkeley can be accused of.

I only have a somewhat vague recollection of Kant’s work, as I once did rank his philosophy highly but now don’t so much & forsook much of it because his procedure at times appears so artificial, not to mention his errors, contradictions. Yet I’ve been reminded here why I turned away from most of his philosophy. His arguments & understanding of things can be quite ill-formulated.

As in this one. His objection isn’t just flawed, it backfires on himself all the worse.

For, he himself doesn’t grant that any empirical phenomena can exist independently of the mind or subject. So, it’s to be asked, by “perceive persisting objects in space outside me” does he mean that we perceive something that’s independent of the mind or subject? If so, he contradicts himself. If not, then, well, he’d be denying that we perceive anything that’s independent of the mind or subject, which is right in line with the Cartesian “dream argument.”

So, again, not only is his objection flawed, it backfires on him & ends up being in line with Descartes’ “dream argument.”

Quoting blazed2today

That’s all what means?

Its all the dream argument ever meant. "You can't know the truth of what is outside of the realm of experience". No study about our universe will ever refute this.

Quoting blazed2today

Do you think that a “round square” is an impossibility? If so, then, well, obviously it’s not impossible to know what isn’t the case in the “extra-sensory.”

but you're taking one example and over-generalizing; to know a round square exists or not, you just need to create it yourself. Not so simple with the other examples...(god and universe as simulation)

Quoting ProtagoranSocratist

but you're taking one example and over-generalizing; to know a round square exists or not, you just need to create it yourself. Not so simple with the other examples...(god and universe as simulation)

How can creating it yourself prove that it doesn’t exist? That would be absurd. Moreover, just because I can’t create something doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist, e.g., I can’t create myself, yet that doesn’t mean that I don’t exist.

So, obviously, neither way can be said to be how we know that a “round square” can’t exist; which, again, reveals that it’s not impossible to know what isn’t the case in the “extra-sensory.”

Quoting Philosophim

Its all the dream argument ever meant. "You can't know the truth of what is outside of the realm of experience". No study about our universe will ever refute this.

I can’t tell, is this supposed to be you opposing the Cartesian “dream argument”? If we can’t know the truth of what’s outside of the realm of experience, then, by that, one can’t truly know that there’s anything outside of the realm of experience at all. So, we can doubt it altogether, since one can doubt the truth of what one can’t know. Thus, we arrive at Descartes’ doubt, such that this may merely be all a dream, i.e., we arrive at Descartes’ “dream argument.”

So, yeah, I don’t see how this can be an objection to it, if it’s even supposed to be an objection?

Quoting blazed2today

How can creating it yourself prove that it doesn’t exist?

I was saying the opposite.

Quoting blazed2today

So, yeah, I don’t see how this can be an objection to it, if it’s even supposed to be an objection?

Nope, I'm not objecting to it. Just noting that whether the universe is real or a simulation, the outlook still applies.

Reply to blazed2today Quoting blazed2today

Never said that it does.

Were you to treat the paper seriously, you would have a much more interesting thread.

Quoting Banno

Were you to treat the paper seriously, you would have a much more interesting thread.

Although I wouldn’t state that I have a perfect understanding of it, who’s to say that I don’t treat it seriously? On the contrary, far from it being the case that I don’t take it seriously & dismiss it, I welcome it & all of its implications. Yet, again, this in no way affects the Cartesian “dream argument,” which is ultimately all that matters here.

Quoting Philosophim

Nope, I'm not objecting to it.

Good to know that you don’t deny it.

Quoting Philosophim

Just noting that whether the universe is real or a simulation, the outlook still applies.

I’ll keep in mind that you made note of that.

Quoting ProtagoranSocratist

I was saying the opposite.

You clearly said, Quoting ProtagoranSocratist

to know a round square exists or not, you just need to create it yourself.

That’s a conditional statement (which is made more obvious if one adds “in order” to the beginning of it), wherein what succeeds the comma is the antecedent & what precedes it is the consequent. Thus, literally, your statement is, “you just need to create it yourself IN ORDER to know a round square exists or not.” So, no, you weren’t saying the opposite. You were saying an absurdity, which I questioned.

Quoting blazed2today

wherein what succeeds the comma is the antecedent & what precedes it is the consequent. Thus, literally, your statement is, “you just need to create it yourself IN ORDER to know a round square exists or not.” So, no, you weren’t saying the opposite. You were saying an absurdity, which I questioned.

In my opinion, this is a great deal more absurd than my proposition...who was asking you to break things down grammatically? Is this part of the simulation we were discussing earlier, some glitch in the matrix that caused you to start barking in grammatical structure?