>How do I know that this world isn't all a dream?
Pain.
>Does God exist, and is it possible to prove it?
Then why are Mahabharata and Ramayana epics(which happened in real-time) instead of legends?(which... never actually happened)
>Is it possible to do absolutely nothing?
Yes, after few months of death you are(physically) doing nothing
>What if I wasn't walking around in a body, but was really just a brain in a jar that thinks it has a body?
Well, the brain controls the body's things so it **has** a body
>What if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
Yes it does, because if you take an audio of the tree falling with noise-cancelling headphones, it still makes a sound
There is a very simple way to convince yourself that our entire reality is an illusion. Heat up an iron until it’s good and hot. Press it against your hand. Endure it—pain is an illusion. Have you got a burn already? Endure it; your eyes are lying to you—it’s an illusion. Burned right down to the bone? Endure it. That way, you’ll be absolutely certain that reality is nothing but an illusion, a figment of the imagination. It’s all very simple.
Five questions of my own:
1. Is it worse to lose 10–1 or 5–0?
2. Is it good to have a high pain tolerance?
3. When is quantity more important than quality?
4. Who is more powerful between a genius and a monster?
5. Is it worse if a bad person thinks that they are a good person or if they know that they are bad?
"Is it worse to lose 10–1 or 5–0?"
* 5-0 is worse: 10-1 gives hope.
"Is it good to have a high pain tolerance?"
* Too high or too low are both bad. Pain serves a purpose. Too much pain is unbearable.
"When is quantity more important than quality?"
* Many cheap items are often better than a few high quality items.
The first cars were very expensive and very high quality.
Then Ford and Volkswagen came up with a cheaper car in larger quantities.
"Who is more powerful between a genius and a monster?
* The genius outsmarts the monster. Odysseus outsmarted the cyclops.
"Is it worse if a bad person thinks that they are a good person or if they know that they are bad?"
* It is the same. Bad is bad. The belief is irrelevant.
There are murderers who recognize being bad, but are proud of it.
There are murderers who believe they are doing well.
How do I know that this world isn't all a dream?
Let all your phenomenological conscious experience be a dream. That dream is reality. If reality is, in itself, a dream in itself, just repeat the process eternally. The phenomenological conscious experience remains the same.
---
Does God exist, and is it possible to prove it?
"God". Semantics... What are the properties of "God" and how these properties are entangled to your phenomenical experiences? Let "God" be the entity that garantizes consistency in reality. Let reality be the inter-determination of your phenomenical experiences and external non-phenomenical experiences. Let that inter-determination be integrated by "transduction". Reality exists. Therefore, "God" exists. Clarify "God" first and ask again.
---
Is it possible to do absolutely nothing?
No.
Analitically: Descartes proved that syntax proves syntax... paraphrasing: "I am, I exist". Phenomenical conscious experience proves semantics. "I experience qualia, therefore, I exist with the property of qualia". Syntax is proved. Semantics is proved. A unifying consistent bottom-up theory that unifies syntax and semantics must necessarily exist, because reality exists (addressed before). Therefore, it is not possible to do absolutely nothing. My interpretation of Heraclitus: “If movement is an illusion, then the illusion must have the propery of movement to generate the illusion of movement. If the second order illusion generates the property of movement in the first order illusion, the second order illusion must have the property of movement to generate blah blah blah...”.
Empirically: mass-energy conservation, since 1932.
---
What if I wasn't walking around in a body, but was really just a brain in a jar that thinks it has a body?
This question is redundant having answered the previous ones.
---
What if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
This question goes directly into the mind-body problem, probably the most important open problem in, at least, analytical analysis (let’s assume this post is boosting everyone’s morale to fight and mitigate x-risk and let’s keep science aside, the last just for the sake of brevity). If you followed through the answers to the previous questions, then you can conclude that if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, it makes a sound. My recommendation: immerse yourself deeply with discipline in Bayesian Epistemology and, if you do agree to the answer this epistemological paradigm gives, then we can apply Aumann's Agreement Theorem and discuss.
---
Hope this comment was useful. Good luck,
(@)tpr: 5. Was meant as, 'Is it more likely that a bad person will stop being bad if they know or do not know that they are bad?'
"Is it more likely that a bad person will stop being bad if they know or do not know that they are bad?"
* I guess the same.
A person who did something bad once is more likely to stop if he knows than if he does not.
A bad person is a person who does bad things repeatedly.
Then it makes no difference.
So this forum is dead but I‘m still going to respond because why not.
@tpr
„It is the same. Bad is bad. The belief is irrelevant.
There are murderers who recognize being bad, but are proud of it.
There are murderers who believe they are doing well.“
First of all, bad is nothing definite, it‘s a term related closely to morality/ethics and can be defined differently, aside from that it doesn‘t really matter for the point I want to make.
You said the belief is irrelevant and I have absolutely no idea how you came to that conclusion.
In this scenario I might even argue that the belief is possibly even MORE relevant than being „bad“.
Why is that?
Relevancy is closely related to the impact of the relevant object or being.
The belief of the „bad“ person will change his behaviour, therefore it cannot be irrelevant in the sense of relevancy itself, only to you and your actions.
So, to make this short: Everything that has an impact is relevant to something in some way, so belief cannot be irrelevant.
There is only bad, and good, and indifferent behavior.
There are no intrinsically bad, or good, or indifferent persons.
A person is bad if he or she repeatedly shows bad behavior.
A person is good if he or she repeatedly shows good behavior.
What behavior is good or bad is subject to discussion, but let us agree murder is bad.
A person who thinks about murder or believes person X should be murdered is not bad as long as he or she does not act.
@tpr
Just because somebody goes against somebody else’s moral they’re not „bad“ as many people call it. To another person with other moral and/or other priorities, this person might act good.
I don’t think the term „bad“ should really be used in this context because it interferes with many theories about moral and ethics as already mentioned.
Also you did not respond to my main point but okay...