Apologies to the Moderators if this thread goes where the one in the ST:XI forum did, but I am attempting to address the ideas that I believe intrinsical wanted to discuss seriously - and ultimately, as they apply to Star Trek:
It is important to apply the definitions of "real" and "unreal" as granularly as possible, lest one make the mistake of classifying a larger whole as one or the other, when parts are not the same classification.
Three examples:
1. A particular rock that can be held in your hand is real. No (rational) argument against that.
2. Overall, someone might say that "Wrestling is fake (not real)." But, the participants are real people, in a real place, taking real actions - that are scripted to generate a perception of a soap-opera-like drama that is not real.
3. Super Mario World is not real. Aside from the vaguest notion that there is, at any given time while the game is running, a pattern of electrons inside the console that might be considered to temporarily form something "real" that still isn't the same as what one is perceiving on the screen, Mario and friends are, at best, virtual. There's real code, a real console, real programmers, and a real electron flow. But Peach is not real.
Also, one can bring to bear the "Cone of Influence" concept put forward by Prof. Hawking in one of his books, the idea that things are as "real" to you as the amount of influence they can actually exert on you, directly or indirectly - although I daresay I'm about to abuse the hell out of the way he meant it....
Suppose I were to tell you about my friend Stuart, who, when we were in Jr. High used to make perverted double-entendres all the time. And also, I were to tell you about Walt, another friend I had back then who caught hell because he was still peeing his bed at that age. Let's say I told you long involved stories about the times that I was around both of them, and stuff we would do.
After I told you those stories, both Stuart and Walt would be equally real to you, and equally likely to bear on your thinking. At least, until this sentence, where I reveal to you that Stuart was a real person, and Walt was not.
Some would speculate that this is the actual influence that gods have on people - but we might oughta leave that alone for now.
And then, to use the "Cone of Influence" in more of the way that Hawking intended, I will mention that the branching path theory of quantum mechanics adds the idea that anything that is possible is real on some other branching pattern from the start of the universe. BUT - since they can't actually exert any influence on you, they are for all intents and purposes still not real.
It is nice to think, though, as long as one doesn't overemphasize the matter in one's life, that on some relatively close by branch(es) of the quantum tree of existence, all of our friends from Star Trek are real. And maybe someday, we can discover a way to cross branches, and meet them.
Seems unlikely, and needlessly complicated even if possible, though. Better that we work hard to make our world more like the good parts of theirs - whether theirs is real or not.
It is important to apply the definitions of "real" and "unreal" as granularly as possible, lest one make the mistake of classifying a larger whole as one or the other, when parts are not the same classification.
Three examples:
1. A particular rock that can be held in your hand is real. No (rational) argument against that.
2. Overall, someone might say that "Wrestling is fake (not real)." But, the participants are real people, in a real place, taking real actions - that are scripted to generate a perception of a soap-opera-like drama that is not real.
3. Super Mario World is not real. Aside from the vaguest notion that there is, at any given time while the game is running, a pattern of electrons inside the console that might be considered to temporarily form something "real" that still isn't the same as what one is perceiving on the screen, Mario and friends are, at best, virtual. There's real code, a real console, real programmers, and a real electron flow. But Peach is not real.
Also, one can bring to bear the "Cone of Influence" concept put forward by Prof. Hawking in one of his books, the idea that things are as "real" to you as the amount of influence they can actually exert on you, directly or indirectly - although I daresay I'm about to abuse the hell out of the way he meant it....
Suppose I were to tell you about my friend Stuart, who, when we were in Jr. High used to make perverted double-entendres all the time. And also, I were to tell you about Walt, another friend I had back then who caught hell because he was still peeing his bed at that age. Let's say I told you long involved stories about the times that I was around both of them, and stuff we would do.
After I told you those stories, both Stuart and Walt would be equally real to you, and equally likely to bear on your thinking. At least, until this sentence, where I reveal to you that Stuart was a real person, and Walt was not.
Some would speculate that this is the actual influence that gods have on people - but we might oughta leave that alone for now.
And then, to use the "Cone of Influence" in more of the way that Hawking intended, I will mention that the branching path theory of quantum mechanics adds the idea that anything that is possible is real on some other branching pattern from the start of the universe. BUT - since they can't actually exert any influence on you, they are for all intents and purposes still not real.
It is nice to think, though, as long as one doesn't overemphasize the matter in one's life, that on some relatively close by branch(es) of the quantum tree of existence, all of our friends from Star Trek are real. And maybe someday, we can discover a way to cross branches, and meet them.
Seems unlikely, and needlessly complicated even if possible, though. Better that we work hard to make our world more like the good parts of theirs - whether theirs is real or not.
