Why Everything You Believe is Probably a Lie

Just for fun, here's little bit of philosophy for you:

I've decided that the physical world is probably an illusion. Like the matrix, maybe, except that if you were to somehow "wake up" you wouldn't still be in a physical world like this one. You probably do not have a body. The basic laws of physics and everything you've come to believe about the world is probably false. You are probably being deceived.

How do I come to this belief? I'll take you through three steps. First, let me explain how it is at least conceivable that the physical world does not exist. To do this, we must simply imagine a possible explanation for how this could be the case. There are several possibilities, but the simplest is that there is a greater being who is deceiving you. This being could have any number of motives for presenting you with the illusion of a physical world, some benevolent, some malevolent, some that have nothing to do with you. If we cannot prove that a being capable of deceiving us in this way could not possibly exist, we must allow that it is possible that the physical world is an illusion.

Second, let me claim that this scenario is more than just an obscure possibility. In fact, I would go so far as to say it's at least as likely that the physical world does not exist as that it does. Do you disagree? Can you explain why it is more likely than not that the physical world exists, or to put it another way, that a powerful deceiver does not exist? So far as I can tell, there is no compelling argument against the existence of the deceiver. Since most, if not all, of our knowledge is derived from our experiences in the physical world, I cannot imagine an argument for the physical world's existence that does not presuppose that it exists. (All such arguments would be circular reasoning.) If we can make no arguments either for or against the existence of the deceiver, we cannot attach a probability to it's existence. All we can say is that to the best of our knowledge, it is equally possible that the deceiver does or does not exist.

But if we can't develop an argument for the physical world existing, maybe we can develop an argument for it's non-existence. We could do this is we could find an inconsistency in our belief that the physical world does exist. Let me tell you about the mind-body problem. Most people believe that there is both a physical world and a non-physical world (I'll call it this the spiritual world). The spiritual world we know very little about. Some believe that it contains God or gods, angels, demons, ghosts, etc., while others believe that the spiritual world is limited to our minds. Our minds are distinct from our brains. Our brains are the physical stuff - neurons and whatnot - that control our bodies, and our minds are the conscious part of us - metaphorically "the ghost in the machine" - and contains our conscious minds, our spirits or souls (if you believe such things exist), and possibly what we call our hearts. It seems to us that mind and body (or spiritual and physical) are distinct substances. Our bodies exist in space, have mass, and are perceptible by various senses and instruments. Our minds are totally different - they are not perceptible by any physical means - and yet they seem to interact somehow to our brains. (For example, willing my fingers to move affects my body, and drinking alcohol affects my mind.) And this is what really stumps philosophers: how is it possible that two totally distinct substances (mind and body) causally interact? Many people have suggested solutions to this problem, for example that our brains somehow generate consciousness as a side effect of , or that we are entirely physical beings and the mind is an illusion, but all such theories are flawed or inadequate. However, the theory that the body is an illusion solves the mind body problem nicely. To put it another way, the belief that you have a body which is of different substance from your mind is flawed. Unless we can explain how the mind and body could interact, the weight of evidence is against the existence of the physical world. Interesting, eh?

Disclaimer: My philosophy text tells me that this view is called idealism, and that it has "few if any serious defenders" today. I don't see why it's not a good theory (except that it's a little counterintuitive) but I suppose the fact that all the smart people who think about such things disagree with me suggests that I'm likely wrong. (If you can explain to me why I'm wrong, please do.)

Oh, and I'm really not sure what the applications of this belief would be, if any. Just so we're clear, I'm not saying that if you put your "body" in front of a "bus" you won't be "killed", I'm just saying that your pain and death (along with anything you may experience afterwards) would also be illusory. But I don't know what you should or could do differently if you were to adopt the belief that the physical world probably doesn't exist. Well, maybe I do, but my thoughts aren't fully formulated, so I'll leave that part for another day.

November's up on my Journal.

2 comments:

Jacob said...

Thanks Soren. (Btw, I didn't know you were a saint! Though it's well deserved, I'm sure.) I like the idea that the stuff that doesn't matter doesn't matter. Good for Kant for pointing that out. Your suckieness, inaccuracy and length are forgiven. (Who am I to withold forgiveness from a saint?)

Anonymous said...

I agree with Soren; if our reality is an "illusion" that is so complete that we can never ever wake up from it, then the illusion is, for all practical purposes, reality. As to if I can prove your idea false... no I can't but I can offer some other thoughts.

#1) While you are right that we can not assign a probability so something we can not observe (ie the "deciever") the principle of Occam's Razor (the simpest solution is usually the best") suggests to me that probabily of the "deciever" existing and creating "reality" is needlessly complex (as it would need a whole other reality, that which the deciever inhibits"). Thus, probability would seem to lie with the non-existence of the deciever.

The mind-body problem is certainly an interesting one. I can think of two solutions. One is the materialistic one (matter is everything) which postulates that the mind is merely part of the biology of the brain. All neuroscientists would agree that here is much about the brain that we don't know. We know that affecting the physical brain (ie alcohol) does affect the mind, so perhaps one day we will find the mind as part of the brain.

The other solution is the Christian one (or, to be more accurate, "a" Christian one, since not all Christians would agree.) This proposed the existence of the soul or spirit, which can no tbe destroyed. The mind would then be part of this spirit. I like the way C.S. Lewis describes humanity, as a "hybrid" between the animal and the spiritual.

I'm sure there are other posited solutions to the mind-body, problem, but I don't know them and I'm too lazy to look them up.