Non-existence

[Tiberius]

If reality is not as it appears, science would not produce results.

So are you kind of ruling out the fact that it could all just be a MASSIVE concidence then? Lol.

EvF

There's a point where massive coincidence doesn't work as an explanation any more; I think science passed that mark a few hundred years ago...

[Edwardo Piet]

Yes lol... (obviously a joke on my part) hehe.

If you were to believe in something as conicidental as a concidence that insane, heck - you might as well believe in God!

EvF

[dagda]

The evidence for a reality that is as it appears is the success of science in telling us about reality. We make accurate predictions based on this science, and they hold true.

If reality is not as it appears, science would not produce results.

So we are left with the conclusion that reality must be as it appears because it appears to be reality? I am not very sure if I know what you mean by this. This looks to me like you are saying that there are no contridictions-e.g. random scenery changes-hence reality as we know it must be real. I take this as evidence that reality is stable-not quite the same thing when you really think about it, and I don't see how it proves anything beyond stability.

[Tiberius]

No, I'm saying that science works on the assumption that reality is as it appears, and that by observing it we can learn from it. The success of science is the ultimate test (and conclusion) of this first assumption. If reality wasn't as it appeared, science would have failed; experiments would not have given any results.

I'm not saying it's proof, but it certainly beats the odds of coincidence.

[dagda]

Ah, but here we have the problem. Science works within, not beyond, the material universe. Any flaw or blemish, if you will, that exists in that universe will not be discovered by science in its present form because the blemish will appear, and be disguised, in the results of the scientific enquiry, not through coincidence, but because science is working with the 'contaminated' factor-e.g. the 'fake' universe-or in other words, a flaw in the core function will replicate in all other results. Hope that is clear.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Ah, but here we have the problem. Science works within, not beyond, the material universe. Any flaw or blemish, if you will, that exists in that universe will not be discovered by science in its present form because the blemish will appear, and be disguised, in the results of the scientific enquiry, not through coincidence, but because science is working with the 'contaminated' factor-e.g. the 'fake' universe-or in other words, a flaw in the core function will replicate in all other results. Hope that is clear.

It's clear that it's rubbish because, and non of you have adequately dealt with this yet, if the universe is virtual you have a more complex universe because a virtual universe must be "hosted". That means a real universe is simpler and therefore a more realistic assumption.

Kyu

[Violet]

---

Religion is almost always untrue... yet it makes a huge difference in our practical reality. It does not have to be true, proven, or even logical to make a difference... yet it effects all of our lives in many aspects.

True. I'm still interested in the truth of the matter though. And I do think that on the whole religion does more bad than good.

'so until proven it's just semantic'... can you prove anything without logic?

I'm referring to his argument, how the scenario he was describing appeared to make no actual difference to the one I believe in, and the only difference was he was using different labels.

To dismiss logic as something non-important

Which I'm obviously not doing. I'm saying that even logic itself you have to believe in or not, hence you have to either have the experience that it works which is evidence. As we do so as we grow up, our experience tells us the world is logical.

All beliefs are based on Evidence or lack thereof (Faith), evidence is rational, faith isn't. By definition. If you have a reason to believe something is true then that=evidence. If you don't then the only alternative is faith, in which you'd be believing without reason=irrational.

You are EvidenceVsFaith... and all of your views are strictly non-religious... yet you would seem to suggest that logic is irrelevant as evidence,

No. I'm saying that it seems as though the logic he's speaking of either 1. Makes no actual difference to the world I believe in and the only difference is the labels or 2. Is flawed due to the fact that when he gets to the 'God part' it's a non-sequiter or flawed in some other way.

Refusal to discuss that which does not concern oneself rationally, is responsible for a great deal of injustice in our world.

I'm not refusing to discuss. Far from it - I'm happy to contuine discussing anything here with anyone. In fact, I've never once wanted to end a discussion on these forums or been the first to 'agree to disagree', I'm happy to discuss any subject indefinitely here - it's no trouble for me.

How, in a logical community, could such a lapse of reason occur that people of unusual color, sex, and deformities be given unfair treatment?

I don't see how this is relevant to what I said?

It could not happen... if ours was a "semantic" world. But ours is not a semantic world... ours is a world populated mostly by non-thought, and mistake.

I agree, the world is not just a matter of semanitcs. And what I was saying was that the world JP was describing was exactly the same I was describing it seems but he was just using different labels, hence "a semantic thing" - to say everything is 'not real' when he hasn't described it to be any different to if it's real...when he hasn't qualifed the actual difference=a semantic thing. You can say that reality is 'real', 'not real', or 'bazon on toast' untill you actually qualify a difference you're giving nothing but different labels. It's just a semantic thing in that case.

hence All of our knowledge is the assumption that we are right... and we are often wrong.

Well I don't assume I am right - I know I could be wrong about anything that I believe to be right.

Recognize this fact, and your brain won't cement its misinformation into your 'database'. Lack of recognizing this truth is one of the easiest ways to lose, or at least stall, one's ability to learn...

Sure - I don't know what you're referring to though lol.

Evidence deals with the truth of beliefs.

If something gives credence to a belief being more likely to be true than not, then that is by definition: Evidence.

EvF

---

Yes, i agree with most of that Sorry, i mistook you with Kyu while reading >.< He *is* refusing to consider the uncertainty of our existence, i am sorry i linked his statements to you.

---

However that may be, dagda, is not one equal to one in that 'beyond space' as well? After all... if one is not equal to one, the universe must become either a single mass, or an eventual nothingness.

The equality of one and one is the reason science exists, therefore science is likely applicable to the beyondiverse\.

[dagda]

Ah, but here we have the problem. Science works within, not beyond, the material universe. Any flaw or blemish, if you will, that exists in that universe will not be discovered by science in its present form because the blemish will appear, and be disguised, in the results of the scientific enquiry, not through coincidence, but because science is working with the 'contaminated' factor-e.g. the 'fake' universe-or in other words, a flaw in the core function will replicate in all other results. Hope that is clear.

It's clear that it's rubbish because, and non of you have adequately dealt with this yet, if the universe is virtual you have a more complex universe because a virtual universe must be "hosted". That means a real universe is simpler and therefore a more realistic assumption.

Kyu

Kyu, whta you are doing here is creating my argument for me so that you can dismantle the thread. Stop making this something it is not. I never said that the universe was virtual. This thread is about finding proof for your 'theory' not mine.

Even if that were not the case, your post takes as its proof that a 'virtual' universe would be to much like hard work hence we should ignore the possibility. Sorry, lathargy is not a proof.

---

'The equality of one and one is the reason science exists, therefore science is likely applicable to the beyondiverse\. '

Intresting idea. I had not thought about this. The only problem I can see is that if the byondiverse (I like that, hope you don't mind me using it) is equal to this universe, then it would be hard to distinguish one from the other in scientific results-we would just assume that the readings were anomalies from our own universe hence the reading would slip under the radar.

[Violet]

Nothing happens without a cause, therefore all effects can be linked to their causes, even our very existence. Science no longer allows strange things to go unexplained... all things can be proven by one equaling one (and all the subsequent mathematics that logically follow). It might be difficult to identify the possibly differing physics of another realm (multiple string theory for instance), but the fact remains that it exists, and if it exists it can be identified.

You look into a tent, and you can usually see easily wether a bull is in it or not... however the small mosquito may go unnoticed for quite some time within the tent. Basically, the reading may escape us for a long time, but we would eventually identify it for what it is.

[Kyuuketsuki]

Yes, i agree with most of that Sorry, i mistook you with Kyu while reading >.< He *is* refusing to consider the uncertainty of our existence, i am sorry i linked his statements to you.

Um no! Not refusing to consider it ... rejecting it as an assumption of equal validity.

Kyu