Look, I get that the assumptions are big. Yes. They are big assumptions. But, keep in mind, the fact that 2. says 'indistinguishable' does not necessarily mean 'exactly the same,' merely that in our limited capactity we would not be able to distinguish a difference(let's not argue semantics).
The problem is that in order to be even marginally indistinguishable from reality, you'd have to live in a VR from the day of your birth, otherwise you'd know when you entered it. So for all intents and purposes, indistinguishable would mean 'exactly the same'. Yes, I realize that you are proposing this outlandish scenario to make a philosophical point, but if the scenario is internally contradictory, then no point can be established.
But anyhow, despite my previous statements, you continue to attack the assumptions as if I care how realistic they are. Keep in mind that sometimes, in order to make your points be understood, you may have to give up ground.
Well, I gave up ground. I said that I accepted your premise that the realities were indistinguishable. Then I pointed out that such an assumption leads to circular logic, because now you tell me they are not 'exactly the same', which means that they are, at least potentially, distinguishable.
Say you were debating abortion with a pro-life person. They say 'Abortion is murder.' Now, if you assume that there is nothing you can possibly say to change that fundamental belief, in order to continue to debate the issue you can accept their claim for the time being and move on. 'Ok, Abortion is murder. But...'
Exactly what would you debate with a person that has made that fundamental(ist) assumption? You can talk about the meaning of murder or anything else you like, but assuming that person is never willing to change their definition of what is murder, then you are wasting your time. One of the purposes of logic is to show if the assumptions are valid or self-contradictory, wouldn't you say? To claim a that two situations are both different and indistinguishable is a violation of logic.
You seem to have never gotten past that first issue of accepting some assumptions, even though you disagree with them, and moving beyond that. Which is sad...
Of course the assumptions are silly, but after you chided me, I went to work on the logic problem, even given those silly assumptions. And it fails. You don't seem to understand that, which is sad...
I'm not sure what you are saying here. Perhaps it is semantics again on the whole meaning of 'indistinguishable.' Is it so hard to imagine people creating a virtual world that is realistic enough that the user is incapable of knowing for sure if he is in the real world or the virtual one? Is that too difficult to concieve?
As I say, you would have to have a virtual world where the person was in it from birth, or else he would rember entering it. And you would have to have, as you suggest, thousands of them. Either that, or you would have to have a virtual reality where the person forgot actual reality once they entered the virtual world. Any other situation, and the realities are easily distinguishable. Are you telling me you don't see the circularity in that assumption?
How about this then. There is a world where people give birth to themselves. Is that so hard to conceive? Or is it, perhaps, circular.
Perhaps you are arguing that two identicle things cannot exist? How about electrons? Identicle twins? I can't distinguish between them...does that mean they can't exist?
Two identical things
can exist, but it would be impossible, by any means, to tell them apart. You use identical twins as an example. Good, let's go with that. Sure their DNA is identical (at least, at the moment the egg splits), but what about their experiences? Suppose one is on top of the other more often in the womb? How can you be sure they get the exact same amount of nutrition? What if the birth of one was easy but the other was difficult? Of course, once out of the womb, their experiences diverge greatly. A person is not just a product of his genetics, but also of his experience. So are identical twins really identical? I'll bet their mother can tell them apart. I'll bet a psychologist can too.
As far as electrons, I don't know. Maybe they are identical. But suppose you had a 'virtual' electron that was identical to a real electron in every feature. How could you ever say that there was a virtual electron? It is identical in every way.
I think you are saying that once two of something exists, then they are 'distinguishable' even if they are identicle, and hence awareness of two realities means they can't be the indistinguishable, which just seems like a bizarre abuse of the word choices I've selected rather than addressing the real issues.
You're very close. If two things are identical, then, by definition, they cannot be distinguished.
So let's just say there are virtual realities that are similar, but not identical to actual reality, but some simple people can't tell the difference. How then could these simple people ever suppose that their virtual reality was anything but real? They are too simple to pick up the clues. Their V-occam's razor would say that the virtual reality they lived in was real, because, being simple, they would dismiss any other realities, even if they were aware that they were possible. They would be ignorantly certain that their reality was actual.
Um...wrong. Dead wrong. For a while we were only aware of one planet, does that mean we weren't allowed to theorize the existence of others?
LOL. Are you saying that other planets are other realities? Get serious. In fact, my main point is that by learning about your reality, you find the clues to distinguishing between AR and VR. Would a virtual reality have planets to be discovered? No, it is the
potential ability to distinguish between AR and VR that makes the scenario you describe internally contradictory. The fact that we didn't/don't/maynever uncover that distinction is moot. It is potentially distinguishable, or else, it is identical.
We are allowed to postulate the existence of other realities, but that postulation doesn't go anywhere until, at some point, we establish grounds to test their existence.
Oops. You just violated assumption 2 again. If you can establish grounds to test their existence, then they are not indistinguishable. But if you are lacking the means to test for this, then there is, by definition, no way to test whether your reality is real or virtual, so occam's razor would tell you that it was real, even if it was not.
Yes it does. We can postulate whatever we want.
LOL. Yes, you have me there. But that does not make it either true or logical. Frankly I'm glad, or there wouldn't be any sci-fi (which I love). But that does not mean that I accept your conclusion of the thought problem you have proposed. It is neither true nor logical. Good stuff for a novel. Have you considered becoming a writer?
And I don't really understand what you are saying here.
I hope I've clarified it with this post. If a person cannot distinguish reality from VR (or dreams or visions or whatever) then it is impossible to prove to them that their VR is not real, because they can't distinguish it.
But let me offer the olive branch. I don't want you to get angry at me. I am one of the only ones here trying to discuss your scenario with you. Yes I disagree with your conclusion (not the conclusion in the scenario, but
yours) but it does not mean I don't respect the thought that you have put in into it. Call me a devil's advocate if you like, but I took you seriously and responded with serious objections.
Let's have a beer and discuss it as friends.
)