this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2024
625 points (83.0% liked)

Comic Strips

12020 readers
2171 users here now

Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.

The rules are simple:

Web of links

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Enkrod@feddit.de 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Bah, if a theoretical agent had any interaction with reality, we should find evidence of some kind of interaction. If we don't then there are three possibilities: 1. It doesn't exist, 2. It doesn't interact with reality. If it doesn't interact with reality, it isn't real in any meaningfull way. If it isn't real, it doesn't exist. 3. We can't find where and how it interacts with reality, in that case it is the ever diminishing god of the gaps.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I agree that having not seen any meaningful interaction with reality that it shouldn't be included in any theory about how things work. However, I feel it's a logical jump to claim that this is proof it doesn't exist.

[–] Enkrod@feddit.de 1 points 5 months ago

Hmmm... I don't think it is proof either. But it is imho the strongest possible indication of nonexistence.

For me to accept the possible existence of something, the possibility would have to be shown first. And I am at the moment convinced that the existence of anything without interaction with reality is impossible. Because I think existence is defined by interaction with reality.

Everything else would be apart, seperate from reality: not real.