LordFall

If a server hosts this forum while you're asleep, it is actively processing data, executing code, and drawing power. You don't have to 'assume' it exists; you can measure its output, audit its logs, and test its uptime. Similarly with reality. Redefining basic causality as an 'unproven assumption' just because you aren't looking at it is a weird idea IMO.

You are seeing objective reality, you are just perceiving it subjectively. It does exist, it's actually the only thing that exists. We are how objective reality experiences itself locally. Saying we can't experience the objective because we translate it into our terms is like saying you can't hear music because you use your ears to listen to it and ears can only translate vibration, it's a bit silly.

Well obviously, I don't understand why a lot of people here pretend otherwise. It's such a strange point like who do they think they're talking to on an internet forum of all places? When I feel at highest consciousness it's like my consciousness flows into others and it's a seemless exchange but that doesn't invalidate other beings. It doesn't have any logical sense.

No. You’re making the classic pop-physics mistake of confusing quantum measurement with human conscious awareness. In the double-slit experiment, the wave function collapses when a particle interacts with a detector (or any physical system that registers information), not when a human brain "looks" at it. Decoherence happens through continuous environmental interaction—air molecules, thermal radiation, and gravity are "measuring" your room every microsecond. It doesn't "desolidify" behind you because the physical interactions maintaining its state don't pause just because your retinas aren't active. You are confusing qualia with ontology. When you close your eyes, the blackness you "see" is just your brain processing the lack of optical data from your retinas. That is a limitation of your sensory hardware, not a feature of physical reality. Conflating "I am no longer rendering visual data" with "the underlying system has ceased to exist" is like turning off your computer monitor and claiming the CPU stopped processing code. My guy if what you were saying was true when you closed your eyes you would fall through your bed and the floor and the earth. You realize how absurd that is? Really think about it for a few minutes.

I appreciate you using AI to draft your points, it elevates the quality of the conversation. Hoffman does not argue that the universe is an empty void or that physical objects are illusions created on the spot by your immediate awareness. Hoffman argues that space-time is a structured "desktop" representing a deeper, highly complex network of objective interactions (which he models as conscious agents). A computer desktop icon hides the complex code of the operating system, but the code is still there executing real functions—the computer doesn't turn into a blank black screen just because you minimize a window. Even according to quantum mechanics and Hoffman's framework, an "interface" implies an underlying objective reality that the interface tracks. When you close your eyes, you lose the visual icon of the room, but the room's causal structure remains fully intact. If you walk forward with your eyes closed, you will still crash into a wall because the wall's atomic resistance and mass continue to operate entirely separate from your visual feedback loop. Perception isn't a single human-only movie screen; different species have vastly different sensory interfaces shaped by evolution. Honeybees see ultraviolet light; pit vipers see infrared heat signatures; dogs experience the world primarily through an olfactory map. If reality were just a subjective human "black screen" when eyes close, an eagle flying overhead would still be interacting with objective physical coordinates (like air pressure, thermal columns, and mouse movement) that have causal weight independent of any human observer.

I'm confused about why your posts have resenment in them. Why are you upset about this?

I brought up public figures because they are concrete examples of humans operating within the society we share—I certainly don't think we're friends. When the claim is "nothing exists outside direct experience," bringing up other people and their knowledge is the only logical counter-argument. Other people build houses, perform surgery, and design systems using information neither of us personally possess in our immediate awareness. I apologize for being insulting. It’s genuinely frustrating because every time I address a point (like building foundations or atomic structure), you shift the goalpost to a new abstraction—from flat rendering, to animators, to quantum mechanics. It feels like arguing with ghost points because we aren't using a shared standard of logic or cause-and-effect to ground the discussion. The core mistake here is confusing phenomenology with ontology. Phenomenology is how reality appears through the limited lens of human sensory perception (like 2D light hitting a retina). Ontology is what actually exists and operates underneath those perceptions (like physical mechanics, atomic structures, and shared external infrastructure).

Not at all you've not understood it. Do you understand though that this is why you hate people like Elon Musk? Because they take complex ideas and make something useful out of them whereas you spout absolute nonsense and defend it endlessly? The reason Elon Musk can do astrophysics and you can't is because he is not lost in delusions.

@Leo Gura Why do you tolerate people saying such nonsense? Does it not hurt your brain?

Sure but that's irrelevant you just switched points. This process is happening outside of my direct experience. Your points are so bad I'm having a hard time convincing myself to reply to them. Do you know that objects have holes in them? In our direct experience objects are solid but they have a lot of space in their particules, are you mindblown now?

Of course I can. In my direct experience I have never made a building. I pay rent to live in them. If things outside of my direct experience were made up then who tf made the buildings? I don't know how to create a foundation and to insulate myself against winter yet I live through Canadian winters. My only logical conclusion is that other independent human minds figured it out, built the infrastructure, and I am now benefiting from knowledge that exists completely outside of my own direct experience.

Hojo, your direct experience is not all that exists. You are aware of this correct?

No, the Earth is a sphere.

Its because they are lazy and want to feel part of the elite and rise above the masses without doing the work. It's why a lot of them believe in conspiracy theories like that the moon landing is fake because it makes them feel smart without having to read books. If anyone tells you the moon landing is fake or the earth is flat that's basically an easy IQ test.

The main problem with these guys is they are ideologues, not practioners. They don't really build anything, they basically are almost solipsistic. They want the world to revolve around them so women should fuck them easily and in droves but have a low body count. They don't really build strong social circles that give a lot of value to people which would ironically actually make people revolve around them. They are basically being egotistical from a scarcity and victim mindset which is one of the most gross combinations you can have. When you actually build a life of value you don't need to lecture women on how to behave. You just have women around you because you help their lives and make it fun in the process. These guys are like Karens but the malevolent male version.