• Enkrod@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 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.