whch unprovable philosphy is more likely?

[WorldIsMine]

you know what's REALLY cool, when you consider that last thursdays, solipsism, and reality as a simulation could all be true

[unoduetre]

I know you didn't. It's irrelevant whether or not you were actually successful. That's the point, and why your time machine test would mean nothing regardless of what you remembered having been the results.

I think having Thursday as a specific date is a bit suspicious at least.

You don't know that the Wednesday you're in is actually real and exists at a point before Thursday, or if it's a false reality created after Thursday that you've traveled to.

[mention=1400]Citizen[/mention]

Oh, so you've made a distinction between "true reality" and "false reality". If there is experience, it's reality. One can classify it in a different ways of course. But it's undeniable that what is experienced is reality. (It's of course a matter or how the words are used and what you understand by "reality" etc.) At some level it cannot be explained in words. E.g. no number of words would be able to explain to a person who has always been blind what the word "red" means.

Can be a dream, can be fake, but the experience is there.

Look Citizen! Look, don't talk! Look!

[unoduetre]

Considering Thursday only exists in one of the many calendars used in our world and it was created at the time more for political reasons than any other I find the idea of the philosophy remotely being true idiotical.

If perhaps whomever created the idea used something reasonable for the name, I might consider it. But I suppose idiots are popular and so are their ideas.

I think you're confusing words with what they refer to. The word "Thursday" was invented at some point. But maybe not Thursday (a particular day).

[unoduetre]

you know what's REALLY cool, when you consider that last thursdays, solipsism, and reality as a simulation could all be true

Yes! (Assuming someone can explain to me clearly what solipsism is of course. )

[WorldIsMine]

Yes! (Assuming someone can explain to me clearly what solipsism is of course. )

another you, would

you could be a fragment of yourself, and yourself coudl be all

[Citizen]

Oh, so you've made a distinction between "true reality" and which is "false reality". If there is experience, it's reality. One can classify it in a different ways of course. But it's undeniable that what is experienced is reality. (It's of course a matter or how the words are used and what you understand by "reality" etc.)

Yeah, you're right, it is reality regardless. Instead of "false" I should have said something else, "artificially created" maybe.

Though the actual point you glossed over is that you don't know when said reality came into existence. Just because you think you're currently existing within a point in time before Thursday (or whatever dumb, arbitrary moment in time the hypothetical creation point is set at) occured, that doesn't mean you actually are. It could be a reality created afterwards that only seems like it's an earlier point in time.

[unoduetre]

another you, would

you could be a fragment of yourself, and yourself coudl be all

It reminds me that "me" can be considered as a 4D creature (3D + time). Or not. Is "me" 10 years ago the same "me"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus

[unoduetre]

Yeah, you're right, it is reality regardless. Instead of "false" I should have said something else, "artificially created" maybe.

Though the actual point you glossed over is that you don't know when said reality came into existence. Just because you think you're currently existing within a point in time before Thursday (or whatever dumb, arbitrary moment in time the hypothetical creation point is set at) occured, that doesn't mean you actually are. It could be a reality created afterwards that only seems like it's an earlier point in time.

I'd like to point to your attention the following. Which time do you use? What does it mean "was created afterwards"? I think you imagine something like an external time and internal time. So the creator is inside an external universe with its own time and the creator creates another universe inside the external universe (internal universe) with its own time.

But the creator also creates Thursday and all following days. The creator can create them at the same time or not. It doesn't matter. All of that happens in the external time and uses the creator's external calendar. But the internal time is a totally different thing and one should not confuse them.

[unoduetre]

So e.g. the creator could have created the whole world on (external) Sunday, but the world will have (internal) Thursday, (internal) Friday, …

And it must have (internal) Wednesday ("artifical" or "real", whatever), because I moved to this day. So the creator must create (internal) Wednesday as well.

[Ryuuko]

Read the D&D spell by the same name.

Though perhaps, it's why I see it the way I do and perhaps it's not how it is intended to be seen.

[unoduetre]

Read the D&D spell by the same name.

Though perhaps, it's why I see it the way I do and perhaps it's not how it is intended to be seen.

Do you have a link?

[Ryuuko]

Yes! (Assuming someone can explain to me clearly what solipsism is of course. )

I'm fairly sure Thursday is used because of the day it represents not it's origin. A day of Thunder

[Ryuuko]

Do you have a link?

http://therafimrpg.wikidot.com/solipsism

[unoduetre]

http://therafimrpg.wikidot.com/solipsism

OK. I have a funny mental exercise.

Normally you call some experiences "dreams" and some "reality" and some "illusions" etc.

Let's call everything "illusion".

Do your experiences change because you called them differently?

How I understand it is that people treat certain experiences differently. E.g. if you categorize some things as "illusions" you do not act on them in the same way. E.g. if you waited on the crossroads and you saw green light, but you thought it's an illusion, you wouldn't walk.

But you still see the green light, however you classify it.

So if you start calling (some or even all) experiences illusions your attitude towards them changes. But you are the master of your attitude. You can have any attitude towards experiences as you please. But it doesn't change the experiences themselves (with some very special exceptions e.g. the Necker cube, but it's still not based on attaching a different name).

[unoduetre]

[mention=705]Ryuuko[/mention]

It was a very sensible thing in that spell description. A good catch!

I think there are also types of solipsism which do not agree, e.g. they claim that people should act on their "illusions" etc. Probably as many solipsist philosophers as many kinds of solipsism.