Subj : Possible Worlds
To   : Steven Van Vliet
From : Stewart Honsberger
Date : Tue Oct 30 2001 01:31 am

Hello Steven!

Oct 30 2001 03:53, Steven Van Vliet wrote to Stewart Honsberger:

 SH>>{tugging collar} Well gawrsh..

 SH>>Seeing as it's possible that our world doesn't exist

 SVV> How is it possible that our world doesn't exist when our existence 
 SVV> is shown by this very written intercourse between us two existent 
 SVV> beings?

Our existance has also been shown to possibly be a form of energy. If we're 
truly energy-based beings - does such a thing as "physical existance" really 
exist? (Or, does it exist in the world as we know it?).

I tend to take the word of the deity-supporters somewhat differently - if it is 
possible that some supreme being, or say, perhaps a supreme race of beings 
exists - is it not possible that we are merely a science experiment?

Based on human observation, I can't help but strengthen my resolv that we're in 
a petrie dish somewhere.

 SVV> Or is this an illusion?

 SVV> If it's an illusion...whom is experiencing same?

 SVV> US perhaps? :-P

 SVV> Meaning WE EXIST!

If our consciousness of our own existance is artificial - can we prove that we 
exist on a physical plane?

Consider (I know, this is a painful analogy for me to type) the creation of 
A.I. on computer systems. We may, perhaps, make the A.I. system aware of its 
'container' - but to what degree will the A.I. "exist"? Suppose we made a world 
for it, and made it aware of a physical existance - would that, then, make it 
"exist" to the same degree as humanity?

(I'll stop before the "Matrix" comparisons come flying forth ... :> )

 SH>>(is it possible for (for lack of a better word) phantom beings to be 
 SH>>conscious of their physical surroundings? What is 'physical', as we know 
 SH>>it? But, enough about me ... )

 SVV> Well, if we are "phantom beings" that are somehow deluded into thinking 
 SVV> what we see is real doesn't equate to our not existing. It only equates 
 SVV> to our perhaps existing as something beyond what we perceive.

I've considered that for quite some time. The capacity of our brains, as it 
stands, can't possibly be large enough to fully understand the level of 
existance above that of our own.

I steadfastly refuse to believe that this universe was created for the benefeit 
of humans to romp across its acres.

 SVV> We STILL clearly exist.

 SVV> We modem, therefore we are. :-P

LOL..

 SVV> Philosophy is SUPPOSED to be the search for TRUTH.

So is science, and religion. :>

 SVV> On here it is rendered to the search for fantasy, most oft.

If we're truly incapable of finding the truth of what we are - would not 
fantasy be the only recourse?

 SH>>Heck - we could possibly exist!

 SVV> We DO exist.

 SVV> We have proof.

 SVV> Again, our written intercourse proves it.

For all we know, it could be a collective dream somebody's having in which 
we're the players.

 SVV> The silly assed thought that ANYTHING "logically" posited DOES exist is 
 SVV> an absolute without basis though.

I don't like absolutes, period.

 SVV> So the answer to the initial question at top is clearly "no". Especially 
 SVV> since "logically possible" isn't defined.

Granted - it left too much open. Logic to some is a very interesting 
experience.

[Stewart Honsberger] [blackdeath@softhome.net] [http://blackdeath.2y.net/]

   "In /1984/, Huxley added, people are controlled by inflicting pain.
    In /Brave New World/, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure.
    In short, Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us. Huxley
    feared that what we love will ruin us." -- Neil Postman

--- Msged/LNX 6.1.0
 * Origin: Stewart's Echomail Node-Holder (1:229/604)

.