> You don't know what definite descriptions are ?

No, I don't. Obviously. Wait:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definite_description Ah, you meant
unambiguous description. As a computer programmer, I'm actually
quite familiar with the concept. I just didn't know your particular
jargon.

That said, I'm still confused: which description were you referring
to? Could you quote it explicitly?

> No wonder you all soak this shit up.

Have you read Bostrom's simulation argument paper? I have, a while
ago, and as far as my anthropic intuitions and my knowledge of
probability theory are concerned, the argument is sound. On the other
hand, I'm not quite sure which of the 3 propositions is most likely. I doubt this counts as "soaking shit up".

---

> It's fascinating to me that I restate exactly an explicit plot device of the film (decision keeps you in the Matrix, not "pills"; decision determines one's fate: "Neo"); you recapitulate it back to me; then you call it magic.

Are you sure you replied to the correct comment? We're not in the "The
Matrix" thread, we're in the "Simulation Argument" thread.

Now, if we take the film literally, well… the pill does have a role
beyond being a really cool symbol. Granted, Neo's decision come
first. Which lead him to move his (virtual) arm, and take the damn
(virtual) pill, which can then act as the usual applied phlebotinum.
An ordinary causal chain if you ask me.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AppliedPhlebotinu...

But the actual "Matrix" Bostrom's paper is speculating about is an
ancestor simulation, in which we're actually programs. Assuming the
simulation have no bug, there's no getting out of it, short of being
copied by the Matrix Lords in the level above us, and transferred in
another substrate, possibly another such simulation. And there is
certainly no getting out by sheer force of will.

---

By the way I'm still not sure what you actually meant. Recall what
you wrote in your first comment:

> Generally, whether or not we are in the Matrix is our Decision to make. (i.e. It is not something we "discover" in the usual sense of the term.)

This doesn't look like you're talking about getting out. It looks
like you're talking about… well… modifying the Territory by redrawing
the Map. I hope you don't actually think that it's remotely
possible, or I'll mark you off as a relativist who failed forever at
Philosophy —regardless of your credentials.

So, just to be clear, please answer these two questions with a yes,
no, or a probability. (i) Assuming we're living in a simulation, do you
believe we could get out of it just by meditating? (ii) Do you believe
that depending on how we meditate, we could make it so we were never
(respectively allways) in a simulation to begin with?

---

> Are you trolling me ? One requirement I have of trolls is that they be funny, or at least intellectually familiar with the topic.

This is a forum of mostly computer people, many of which are close to
the web start-up world. This is not a forum of philosophers familiar
with academic jargon. And on your first comment…

epistemic; cohere; phenomenological; modality; gestalt;
conceptual substrates; Decisions; Principles; Predictions. (The last three are
capitalized, so I assume they mean something special.)

Seriously, what did you expect?