Zap reward, I'd like to find a universizable definition of "real". Let's set aside our bias of bitcoin being real for a minute. I'll zap anyone with an actual response or thoughts on , and I'll boost it en Mañana so I can collect as much insight as possible.
In the physical realm, you know something is real because you can touch it, but is that inadequate? You could say this is Tiger woods PGA winning golf club, but that requires some context in which you know that its real; a famous painting might be based off a chain of custody, appraisers, certificates of authenticity which are equally flawed; I know that this is wine, but is it really a Wenzlau pinot noir 2017, or a forgery; this looks like a golf club, it feels like a golf club, but when I hit a ball the head snaps off, that's not real right? Its not impossible perse, but it might depend on degrees of trust and your subjective experience.
In the digital realm, I could say this movie is real because I can watch it; I could say this video of matt Odell is real; I can know a picture of a politician with 17 fingers getting arrested is fake; a pirated copy of a movie is still the real movie. So what's the defining characteristic? Again maybe the degrees of trust and subjective experience are what makes a thing real.
Maybe I'm mixing up some metaphysical layers, committing a logical fallacy, or linguistic mess. It seems like a universizable definition of realness at least depends on degrees of trust and subjective experience, what do you guys think?
/ Geist
npub1u3…g0nsw
2023-08-28 01:00:01
Author Public Key
npub1u3ud495fjw9xf0lfjezu4l2rvkccn58dyr9w9e8f4jkr3xz590nqtg0nswPublished at
2023-08-28 01:00:01Event JSON
{
"id": "8df867f5bd10db5aaf01c5aae7d930f7878ac7a0f972cfe72bdf5646d8a3447c",
"pubkey": "e478da9689938a64bfe99645cafd4365b189d0ed20cae2e4e9acac3898542be6",
"created_at": 1693184401,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [],
"content": "Zap reward, I'd like to find a universizable definition of \"real\". Let's set aside our bias of bitcoin being real for a minute. I'll zap anyone with an actual response or thoughts on , and I'll boost it en Mañana so I can collect as much insight as possible.\n\nIn the physical realm, you know something is real because you can touch it, but is that inadequate? You could say this is Tiger woods PGA winning golf club, but that requires some context in which you know that its real; a famous painting might be based off a chain of custody, appraisers, certificates of authenticity which are equally flawed; I know that this is wine, but is it really a Wenzlau pinot noir 2017, or a forgery; this looks like a golf club, it feels like a golf club, but when I hit a ball the head snaps off, that's not real right? Its not impossible perse, but it might depend on degrees of trust and your subjective experience.\n\nIn the digital realm, I could say this movie is real because I can watch it; I could say this video of matt Odell is real; I can know a picture of a politician with 17 fingers getting arrested is fake; a pirated copy of a movie is still the real movie. So what's the defining characteristic? Again maybe the degrees of trust and subjective experience are what makes a thing real.\n\nMaybe I'm mixing up some metaphysical layers, committing a logical fallacy, or linguistic mess. It seems like a universizable definition of realness at least depends on degrees of trust and subjective experience, what do you guys think?",
"sig": "2f1b0a8f840c2bcfedb36a9727407da05adff6a6a4c8cc2a6c694e395cb822d5a4e6da8c08ca2fcbab265b018da99b703bb171a415599adf3db3652b07422898"
}