3 deleted 1 character in body
source | link

Any time you look at philosophical views on what is real, you'll find Plato somewhere in the mix. Arguably, in his cosmology, there are both Real and unreal things in the world, but his classification of which is which is less arbitrary than yours at least seems to be. For Plato, things like Truth, Beauty and Goodness are Real; lies, ugliness and evil are illusions. Or, to put it another way, all and only Good things are Real.

Your own perspective seems closer to one hinted at by contemporary philosopher Nick Bostrom in his "simulation" theory, that postulates we all exist inside a computer simulated world. In a deliberately simulated world, some parts, which will be interacted with, might be "real" (at least by the standards of the simulation) meaning they are actually simulated. Others may just appear to exist, to make the simulation appear larger than it is. Similarly some people in such a world might be fully simulated, others might be "avatars", directly controlled by the simulators, and others might be "zombies" --background figures with no actual consciousness or agency.

In the simulated world, the reason for this ontological parsimony is clear: It is a savings on resources to fake up the parts of the simulation that receive the most scrutiny more convincingly than others. If it would take, as seems reasonable, a universe's worth of resources to actually simulate an entire universe, then it might be ana necessity for a simulation to appear more complex than it actually is, at least if it is being simulated in a universe like the one being simulated. If, on the other hand, the world is in the mind of God, who presumably has infinite resources, then why would God cheat? As Descartes concluded in his Meditations, we must assume a good and honest God who is not deceiving us, because without such an assumption, we can never actually know anything.

Any time you look at philosophical views on what is real, you'll find Plato somewhere in the mix. Arguably, in his cosmology, there are both Real and unreal things in the world, but his classification of which is which is less arbitrary than yours at least seems to be. For Plato, things like Truth, Beauty and Goodness are Real; lies, ugliness and evil are illusions. Or, to put it another way, all and only Good things are Real.

Your own perspective seems closer to one hinted at by contemporary philosopher Nick Bostrom in his "simulation" theory, that postulates we all exist inside a computer simulated world. In a deliberately simulated world, some parts, which will be interacted with, might be "real" (at least by the standards of the simulation) meaning they are actually simulated. Others may just appear to exist, to make the simulation appear larger than it is. Similarly some people in such a world might be fully simulated, others might be "avatars", directly controlled by the simulators, and others might be "zombies" --background figures with no actual consciousness or agency.

In the simulated world, the reason for this ontological parsimony is clear: It is a savings on resources to fake up the parts of the simulation that receive the most scrutiny more convincingly than others. If it would take, as seems reasonable, a universe's worth of resources to actually simulate an entire universe, then it might be an necessity for a simulation to appear more complex than it actually is, at least if it is being simulated in a universe like the one being simulated. If, on the other hand, the world is in the mind of God, who presumably has infinite resources, then why would God cheat? As Descartes concluded in his Meditations, we must assume a good and honest God who is not deceiving us, because without such an assumption, we can never actually know anything.

Any time you look at philosophical views on what is real, you'll find Plato somewhere in the mix. Arguably, in his cosmology, there are both Real and unreal things in the world, but his classification of which is which is less arbitrary than yours at least seems to be. For Plato, things like Truth, Beauty and Goodness are Real; lies, ugliness and evil are illusions. Or, to put it another way, all and only Good things are Real.

Your own perspective seems closer to one hinted at by contemporary philosopher Nick Bostrom in his "simulation" theory, that postulates we all exist inside a computer simulated world. In a deliberately simulated world, some parts, which will be interacted with, might be "real" (at least by the standards of the simulation) meaning they are actually simulated. Others may just appear to exist, to make the simulation appear larger than it is. Similarly some people in such a world might be fully simulated, others might be "avatars", directly controlled by the simulators, and others might be "zombies" --background figures with no actual consciousness or agency.

In the simulated world, the reason for this ontological parsimony is clear: It is a savings on resources to fake up the parts of the simulation that receive the most scrutiny more convincingly than others. If it would take, as seems reasonable, a universe's worth of resources to actually simulate an entire universe, then it might be a necessity for a simulation to appear more complex than it actually is, at least if it is being simulated in a universe like the one being simulated. If, on the other hand, the world is in the mind of God, who presumably has infinite resources, then why would God cheat? As Descartes concluded in his Meditations, we must assume a good and honest God who is not deceiving us, because without such an assumption, we can never actually know anything.

2 added 790 characters in body
source | link

Any time you look at philosophical views on what is real, you'll find Plato somewhere in the mix. Arguably, in his cosmology, there are both Real and unreal things in the world, but his classification of which is which is less arbitrary than yours at least seems to be. For Plato, things like Truth, Beauty and Goodness are real,Real; lies, ugliness and evil are illusions. OrOr, you mightto put it another way, all and only Good things are Real.

Your own perspective seems closer to one hinted at by contemporary philosopher Nick Bostrom in his "simulation" theory, that postulates we all exist inside a computer simulated world. In a deliberately simulated world, some parts, which will be interacted with, might be "real" (at least by the standards of the simulation) meaning they are actually simulated. Others may just appear to exist, to make the simulation appear larger than it is. Similarly some people in such a world might be fully simulated, others might be "avatars", directly controlled by the simulators, and others might be "zombies" --background figures with no actual consciousness or agency.

In the simulated world, the reason for this ontological parsimony is clear: It is a savings on resources to fake up the parts of the simulation that receive the most scrutiny more convincingly than others. If it would take, as seems reasonable, a universe's worth of resources to actually simulate an entire universe, then it might be an necessity for a simulation to appear more complex than it actually is, at least if it is being simulated in a universe like the one being simulated. If, on the other hand, the world is in the mind of God, who presumably has infinite resources, then why would God cheat? As Descartes concluded in his Meditations, we must assume a good and honest God who is not deceiving us, because without such an assumption, we can never actually know anything.

Any time you look at philosophical views on what is real, you'll find Plato somewhere in the mix. Arguably, in his cosmology, there are both Real and unreal things in the world, but his classification of which is which is less arbitrary than yours at least seems to be. For Plato, things like Truth, Beauty and Goodness are real, lies, ugliness and evil are illusions. Or, you might put it, all and only Good things are Real.

Your perspective seems closer to one hinted at by contemporary philosopher Nick Bostrom in his "simulation" theory, that postulates we all exist inside a computer simulated world. In a deliberately simulated world, some parts, which will be interacted with, might be "real" (at least by the standards of the simulation) meaning they are actually simulated. Others may just appear to exist, to make the simulation appear larger than it is. Similarly some people in such a world might be fully simulated, others might be "avatars", directly controlled by the simulators, and others might be "zombies" --background figures with no actual consciousness or agency.

Any time you look at philosophical views on what is real, you'll find Plato somewhere in the mix. Arguably, in his cosmology, there are both Real and unreal things in the world, but his classification of which is which is less arbitrary than yours at least seems to be. For Plato, things like Truth, Beauty and Goodness are Real; lies, ugliness and evil are illusions. Or, to put it another way, all and only Good things are Real.

Your own perspective seems closer to one hinted at by contemporary philosopher Nick Bostrom in his "simulation" theory, that postulates we all exist inside a computer simulated world. In a deliberately simulated world, some parts, which will be interacted with, might be "real" (at least by the standards of the simulation) meaning they are actually simulated. Others may just appear to exist, to make the simulation appear larger than it is. Similarly some people in such a world might be fully simulated, others might be "avatars", directly controlled by the simulators, and others might be "zombies" --background figures with no actual consciousness or agency.

In the simulated world, the reason for this ontological parsimony is clear: It is a savings on resources to fake up the parts of the simulation that receive the most scrutiny more convincingly than others. If it would take, as seems reasonable, a universe's worth of resources to actually simulate an entire universe, then it might be an necessity for a simulation to appear more complex than it actually is, at least if it is being simulated in a universe like the one being simulated. If, on the other hand, the world is in the mind of God, who presumably has infinite resources, then why would God cheat? As Descartes concluded in his Meditations, we must assume a good and honest God who is not deceiving us, because without such an assumption, we can never actually know anything.

1
source | link

Any time you look at philosophical views on what is real, you'll find Plato somewhere in the mix. Arguably, in his cosmology, there are both Real and unreal things in the world, but his classification of which is which is less arbitrary than yours at least seems to be. For Plato, things like Truth, Beauty and Goodness are real, lies, ugliness and evil are illusions. Or, you might put it, all and only Good things are Real.

Your perspective seems closer to one hinted at by contemporary philosopher Nick Bostrom in his "simulation" theory, that postulates we all exist inside a computer simulated world. In a deliberately simulated world, some parts, which will be interacted with, might be "real" (at least by the standards of the simulation) meaning they are actually simulated. Others may just appear to exist, to make the simulation appear larger than it is. Similarly some people in such a world might be fully simulated, others might be "avatars", directly controlled by the simulators, and others might be "zombies" --background figures with no actual consciousness or agency.