How does "I think therefore I am." Work with the "This world is a computer simulation." Theory? Not the matrix idea where everything around you is fake, but that everything you know including you is not real. I guess you'd have to define "real", right?
>>763342
It doesn't, really. I feel like the flaw in "I think therefore I am" is the assumption that thoughts are necessarily not external. The mind could be an unthinking observer, which has thoughts paraded in front of it indistinct from any other sort of information. I think that the unthinking observer is as little as you can reduce being to, since otherwise you have nothing rather than something, which there obviously is (even if that something is illusory, or created by the observer itself)
Of course, if we're going down the line of thinking that everything is unreal, there's no reason to assume logic is valid. It could simply be the system that the simulation deceives you into believing is consistent.
>>763391
>The mind could be an unthinking observer,
Sure, but it would still have to exist to even be an observer. Hence: I think, therefore I am.
>otherwise you have nothing rather than something, which there obviously is (even if that something is illusory, or created by the observer itself)
Congratulations, you've summed up pretty much exactly what Descartes meant.
It basically comes down to abandoning babys first solipsism.
>none of this could be real!
Fails to even define what "real" is or why being in a "computer simulation" would change anything.
>>763424
I'll admit to being a plebeian retard and only having read books on Descartes rather than what he wrote.
What is thought here, then? Does it just mean sensation?
"I think i think, therefore i think i am" is the revision
>>763342
I think a computer simulation would be a real thing.
>>763441
No, a better definition could be "what is known". "I think therefor I am" is something known a priori, meaning it is known without any reference to the outside world.
>>763451
Fact: Quantum physics proves the simulation theory
"Matrix" thought experiments are idiot fodder for intro philosophy courses
>>763455
Gotcha. I guess my confusion came from the fact that I thought that the statement was about existence in general rather than about mental existence.
It doesn't really. If reality is a computer simulation, then your thoughts would still be evidence that you indeed are, you would just be a component of a simulation.
>>763471
I'm barely literate on the subject, but from what I've heard that is a misunderstanding.
>>763497
That's just propaganda from the zogxs
>>763471
Fact: You have never done a shred of quantum physics in your life.
>>763506
Fact: You are brainwashed.
>>763471
I have fuck-all clue about QM and the state of modern day physics but there's this video that makes me feel a little tingle running down my spine everytime I watch it. I can't find it but this one is related (and the negro with birdnest hair here is the same one in the original video I saw it being mentioned).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvMlUepVgbA
>>764503
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4NkItgf0E
Dumb frogposters
>>763342
Just because the universe is a simulation doesn't mean that what it simulates can't be said to exist.
>>763342
I am
I am part of the world
the world exists
I feel like if we were aware that we are in a simulation, that the simulation is now void, as a valid experiment in creation and should, logically, force reboot. This assumes that the simulation is being observed by someone and isn't just free running until it reaches a projected conclusion (which is very possible, within the scope of the theory).
But why not program that kind of fail safe into the simulation? Unless the intent is for us to become aware of our simulation existence, transcend it, then create a simulation of our own in order to perpetuate existence.
![20120229[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/bSibFGC.gif "20120229[1].gif")
>>763497
>>763506
>>764503
I'm not sure whether it's a simulation, but a fair case can be made that it is.
>>764597
Yes, but don't pretend speculative philosophy is quantum mechanics.
>>764618
Quantum mechanics will make a leap in its progress once it accepts the undeniable truth that the underlying structure of our reality is thinking substance, and it is emanated from The One.
The problem is uneducated faggots like you (and 99% of /his/) try to "debate" and "discuss" Descartes without having read a single book. Literally all of what you know of Descartes comes from that one phrase, "I think, therefore I am." You should ask yourself why am I making this shitty thread?
>>764668
>I have no clue what I'm talking about, but it sure won't stop me from talking
Give a single example how some QM equation would change if people accepted that.
>>764685
QM doesn't deal in equations, it deals in sophistry and unfalsifiable assertions, which is why string theory is still around. If QM simply admitted to the fact it would then be able to throw in itself for the mental feelsgood bullshit that is conceivable by the human mind, and what better than to believe that the universe is an emanation from the Holy Monad and we are His Own living in it.
>>764698
>QM doesn't deal in equations
So you're saying Dirac didn't predict the positron by describing the electron?
>>764698
>QM doesn't deal in equations
Holy shit, you're a literal retard.
I'm done.
>>764698
>hurr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation
>>764721
So you're saying that all of QM is string theory and M-brane theory?
>>764723
No, I'm saying that all QM is bullshit (of course, string theory is bullshit but not all bullshit is string theory).
>>763342
The external world or matter can only be experienced to our internal world or mind. Thus "I think, therefore I am".
Reality is a construction of mind and arguably an illusion.
>>764724
That proves nothing. Light isn't phenomena that occurs only in the quantum level, or we wouldn't be able to perceive it. It's like saying dropping a book is proof that gravity occurs at quantum level; there is no actual connection.
>>764739
How about you actually read the link, you moron?
>>764748
It has over 500 words. Give me the tldr
>>764727
This is demonstrably false. They existence fo the Higgs boson is falsifiable with our current technology, as is the existence of almost every other particle described by the standard model.
>>764760
You're making a leap of faith to protect your positivist position of a Godless universe.
Admit that determinism doesn't exist anywhere but in the macro level and that science cannot accurately describe reality at all; that science is only there to confirm what theologians and new-agers have been saying all along.
>>764751
The observed way that polarization of light works cannot be explained by the equations of classical mechanics. So we look at a mathematical model that actually can accurately describe how it works, and call that model "quantum mechanics". Then we look at some other experiments, also unexplained by classical equations, and find that our new mathematical model fixes the problems in the old there too.
Quantum mechanics is mathematical model that can easily be falsified (something you observe doesn't fit what the math predicts? There, falsified!). Only it hasn't been. Moreover, it has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophical assertions about what substance metaphysically composes reality. It's also perfectly conceivable by the human mind, if you know how to do calculus and solve differential equations and a bit of linear algebra, you can learn all the basics in a week or two. It is just math - math that works.
>>763342
I think therefore I am does not guarantee what form the thinker truly is. It is meant to asert only that some sort of entity is thinking or conscious to observe the thought. Thus this thinker or observer must exist in some form. A massive computer simulation would still.. Exist.
>>764777
Why do you lie to me man? we both have the information disposable at a few clics. Why not just admit that QM only works backed up by just theories?
>>764784
Okay, so you're just trolling. Fuck off.
>>764786
Accusing the other of committing one's crimes. Classy.
Why do """"scientists" always get jumpy when you mention that word? is it because they know that all they've got is a theory (a geuss)?
>>764777
>>Quantum mechanics is mathematical model that can easily be falsified (something you observe doesn't fit what the math predicts? There, falsified!).
do not hesitate to question your fantasy of empirical proof.
>>763342
Is this the most misused and most misunderstood quote all times while also being used so much?
Go read Descartes. "I think therefore I am" isn't a reasoning, it is a conclusion of a long argument about illusion of reality.
