English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

21 answers

No. This is the primary problem with epistemology -- we must assume that our senses are reliable axiomically, because to do otherwise we must accept that we can know absolutely nothing.

The Cogito, "Cogito Ergo Sum," "I think therefore I am," was shown to be axiomic as well by Jean-Paul Sartres. The best example of this proof is the 'brain in a jar' scenario:

I assert you are a brain in a jar connected to a large computer that is feeding you nerve impulses designed to create your senses. Prove to me this is wrong.

It is non-falsifiable, and therefore you cannot prove it's wrong.

2006-10-30 02:03:45 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

If it was an illusion... what then?

What is the difference between illusion and reality when all that you have ever referred to as reality is revealed to be an illusion? Are they not then one and the same?

That is part of the truth of the nature of the Universe: to realise that it makes no difference. Reality is what you perceive... and not what actually is. If anything, what actually is doesn't even exist as an entity; perception is everything.

What this Universe is that we are living in doesn't matter.
The fact is that it does what it does, and its consistant in doing it.... and if you think too hard into its nature you'll only give yourself a headache because you cannot see outside the Universe to compare it to anything else.


So effectively.... yes, we live in an illusion, but its no more or less real than anything else.

2006-10-30 02:06:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

life is a what if concept it has always been that way too. you can disprove that the world is a illusion or you can prove it is but that doesnt change the fact that some scientist say grass isnt really green or the trees are not really brown. it is the idea and perspective of the persons mind that makes things real or not.

2006-10-30 02:05:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If it were an illusion, you would still bear the illusional consequnces of your illusional actions. therefore this illusion becomes a reallity for all, causing it to be actual reality.


In the end, this world is not an illusion, whether it is created in that manner or not. Basically what I guess is the point, an illusion would be liken to mental software, and software is real.

2006-10-30 02:15:57 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Nope.

The dilemma is any measuring device we could in theory use to prove the world is not an illusion could also be illusionary.

2006-10-30 02:08:32 · answer #5 · answered by Lunarsight 5 · 1 0

Maybe not an ultimate proof, if you're going to think that instruments of measurement are also illusions. Anyway, I'm taking my life as if it were for real...

2006-10-30 02:02:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

"I refute it thus!" look it up!

Edit:

On the grounds that its unlikely here you go.....

57. Refutation of Bishop Berkely
After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus."
Boswell: Life



And what is stunning to me is that some people thought the ideas in The Matrix were original when they were in fact centuries old.

2006-10-30 02:01:34 · answer #7 · answered by fourmorebeers 6 · 0 1

won't be able to be finished. right this is why. it relatively is logically impossible to tutor the greater obtrusive proposition via ability of much less obtrusive propositions. "Being is" is the main obtrusive proposition. A = A is the 2d maximum obtrusive. All different propositions, alongside with something and each thing that must be supplied to you in evidence are much less obtrusive to you than your guy or woman existence. it relatively is why Ayn Rand makes "Being is" and A = A the uncomplicated axioms of Objectivism. i ought to offer a lovable answer -- like this -- anticipate they are an phantasm, hence you won't be able to in all probability anticipate something different than an illusory answer good? And who cares with reference to the logical content fabric of an illusory answer, to an illusory question posed to an illusory universe exterior of the questioner? no longer me, no longer you, no longer them (nicely, there is not any them, good?) Reductio advert Absurdum, hence "Being is" Quod Erat Demonstratum. Now can i do the Lobster Quadrille?

2016-10-21 00:02:52 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I think everything is an illusion.it doesn't want to trick you.It only depend on your mind that how you want to accept it.
There can be 10 meaning for each 10 person.
there is not tow people like each other in the world.

2006-10-30 03:50:48 · answer #9 · answered by Farnaz 1 · 0 0

No there is no proof. The 'illusion' of this world is that each person's perception of what is around them is their 'reality' and so therefore, none of it really exists except through their own senses, so none of it is really 'real'. It's all subjective.

2006-10-30 02:12:48 · answer #10 · answered by a_delphic_oracle 6 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers