What's essentially true is virtual reality.?

Question

Technology to wipe out truth is now available. Not everybody can afford it but it's available, when the cost comes down look out!

This is a quote from Bob Dylan. It has hung around at the back of my mind for the last 14 years and it seems to become more relevant as time goes by. Any thoughts?

Answer 1

The reality that is in our minds and we're just this close to making it acutal reality, except for that one little thing that holds us back: insecurity, self-doubt, lack of support.

Answer 2

Everything can be true within virtual reality. Objects can pass through each other. Pigs can fly. You can use cheat codes to help get an edge. Of course , this really depends on the virtual reality you are in.


Philosophically, virtual reality is a construction of objects with conditions - a metaphysical construction aided by computer technology. Within the construction, a new reality is created. The rules of our reality need not apply to the virtual one. So truth becomes a contruct of design. But like actual reality, a user walking through virtual reality has to discover the truth unless that user is also the programmer, in which truth is already know.

Answer 3

This could be a realistic way to look at things, but you must not forget that all this development has been with wellbeing of sort in the mind. If for instance USSR piled up atomic weapons then the objective was not merely to destroy America, but also to protect USSR. The ingredient of self-preservation has never gone out of the mind of mankind. During Cuba missiles crises, for instance, the two supper powers came very close to starting a nuclear war, but the actual war never happened. It was the peak of the cold war, and it stayed and then ended that way; a cold war turned into a hot war. Why? The reason is that human race is not suicidal but only crazy about progress as if it has been displaced into primitiveness from some excellence in existence that it wants to reach again. And in its efforts to do just that there is pursuit for power and superiority, for where there no one knows where everyone is heading everyone can claim to know the best route.

And then if I were a devil’s advocate, I would say that human race failed to show courage there, and to do what it said it could. The entire business of war, missile attacks and the supper seniority stuff, very cunningly, was turned into projects of space explorations and into a race to get to the Moon … lets not fight … lets have a race instead and see who wins … pathetic!

Answer 4

Have you been watching The Matrix again and forgotten about Descartes?

Simplysahid, I can't believe you think having nukes protects anything! America has more than 10,000, didn't stop 9/11. Israel has them too, they have rocket attacks, suicide bombers in buses and cafes, etc all the time. the reason we didn't get blown to hell in the Cuban Missile Crisis was pure dumb luck and the ability to reign in the hard-liners a bit. The space race was a part of the cold war and a way to show national superiority not only in doctrines (communism vs capitalism) but also missile technology. If you can build rockets to put men into space you can build ICBMs.

Answer 5

i'm of the opinion that the finding of an implied "impressive to privateness" is a incorrect interpretation. i think of there rightly would desire to be a impressive to privateness, yet on the comparable time i do no longer purchase into the concept that its a technique or the different generated via the collective air of secrecy of alternative constitutional amendments. with regard on your comments, i might prefer to point out, at first, that there is a distinction between arguing that "commonplace welfare" means that the government is obligated to grant social welfare classes, and easily arguing that the government is authorized to enforce such classes no rely if it is arguably interior the ultimate pastimes of the rustic as an entire. with regard to the 2nd modification, once you get impressive right down to it it is notably complicated to argue that the splendid to bear palms would be in any way limited in the technical bounds of the form. the difficulty is that via analyzing the 2d as forbidding any and all varieties of regulations on weapons and different weapons, we land up interior the placement of the two having to get rid of or dramatically adjust the 2nd modification, in the different case enable all and distinctive with the components to very own regardless of form of weapon they like; be it a pellet gun, an AK47, or a nuclear missile. it sort of feels unclear that the founding fathers - or all and distinctive of their impressive concepts - might prefer to allow any given maniac to have any form of weapon they'd prefer. yet on the comparable time, it sort of feels no longer likely that shall we've the potential to come back to 3 contract on the thank you to amend the form, as a manner to extra useful legitimize the mandatory regulations without leaving room to prohibit weapons completely. the only answer we are left with then is to proceed to faux that there is a few constitutional room for gun administration rules, and attempt to maintain those rules at a point that respects the splendid to gun possession mutually as proscribing get entry to to weapons which, interior the incorrect palms, could be extra probably to harm a democratic society than safeguard it.

Answer 6

What's essentially true is virtual reality but basically nothing exists in this time frame.

Answer 7

Truth and Reality are two myths you have dreamed up to comfort yourself as you contemplate Life in The Plenum Void.

Answer 8

God help us! thats what i say!