Quote from: macsga on August 08, 2015, 10:02:13 AM

The most philosophical question of all times though, would have been, if we're on a loop. We actually maybe are, but as a scientist, I can only accept whatever I can measure; so it's a possibility but not certainty. . . .

Your limitations on what you will and will not "accept" (macsga) are wholly arbitrary unless you have disproved the unfalsifiable hypothesis cited below.

Quote from: Merriam-Webster, "Solipsism"

a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing;

Quote from: macsga on August 08, 2015, 10:02:13 AM

. . . On the other hand, in QM there's no certainty at all; meaning that we can never be sure if we are able to observe ALL the possible "reality" but only a fraction of it (the one we actually observe). . . .

You merely presume that knowledge even could correspond to "[veridical] observ[ation]" (macsga).

Quote from: username18333 on July 31, 2015, 05:07:14 AM

Under philosophical hyperrealism, knowledge consists of determinate symbols. Heisenberg, however, found that existence is indeterminate (see above). Analogically, therefore, a symbol approximates the real as a secant line (think: change in 𝑦 over change in 𝑥) that passes through the mathematical points (𝑎, 𝑓(𝑎)) and (𝑥, 𝑓(𝑥)) approximates the tangent line (think: change in 𝑦 over no change in 𝑥 [i.e., zero]) that passes through the like point (𝑎, 𝑓(𝑎)).

Quote from: username18333 on July 29, 2015, 05:36:36 AM

Fundamental Theorem of Hyperrealism

Code:

Knowledge : Existence : : Hyperreal : Real

Quote from: macsga on August 08, 2015, 10:02:13 AM

. . . Here's a nice experiment that proves it:

An "experiment" (macsga) cannot prove.

Quote from: username18333 on August 03, 2015, 12:47:31 AM

Proof only exists in purely axiomatic systems (e.g., mathematics). Empirical systems have but evidence, since observation must be assumed to be veridical (should one aim to avoid solipsism). Therefore, you have not proven anything (that genuinely corresponds to the observable universe). Furthermore, your hypothetical is so far abstracted from reality that its meaningful connections to reality, if any, are not at all apparent (which, according to your criticism of my use of language, is entirely the fault of yourself).

Regardless, I have shown that - at least, within the context of your hypotheticals - reality has to be framed around money (perhaps, via a plutocratic hyperreality) for it to be anything but an instrument of augmenting the abuse of scarcity to one's (perhaps, a plutocrat's) advantage.