"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."

[Polymath257]

Well, you are a skeptic, so you know that universal skepticism is one way to do it.
Let me explain it.
You have 3 people.
One like you who claims to know what the universe is as W and not Z. (Stands for different facts)
Another one who claims to know that the universe is Z and not W.

Well, one of them don't know what the universe is, but is still in the universe, right?
Well, it then follows that you don't need to understand what the universe is to live in it. You just have to have beliefs which to you appear to work. They don't even have to true, just appear to you to work.
I am the 3rd person. I don't know what the universe is.

Which is why the scientific method is so important: test those ideas, trying to show them *wrong*. If you consistently fail, then they 'work' in the sense required for science. Refusing to test the ideas or adjust beliefs based on those tests doesn't lead to ideas that 'work' in the relevant sense.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, and thus a universe without beings to know it is there, it is then not known that it is there.

Sure. But that is not our universe.

 

[Polymath257]

So something as subjective which is not in the objective reality, how does that actually exist?

No. The idea of it does, but not the referent of that idea.

Or is e.g. harm something that doesn't actually exist?

Harm exists as an opinion in a brain.

If so, what are you talking about with say morality, if it doesn't exist?

Morality exists as an opinion in a brain (or distributed over many brains).

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah, so the universe is the same regardless of being a simulation or not? Is that your claim?
BTW look up the cosmological principle.

It is irrelevant to us whether it is a simulation or not *until* we have actual evidence of it being so. And, until we have such evidence, it is unreasonable to conclude it is a simulation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Which is why the scientific method is so important: test those ideas, trying to show them *wrong*. If you consistently fail, then they 'work' in the sense required for science. Refusing to test the ideas or adjust beliefs based on those tests doesn't lead to ideas that 'work' in the relevant sense.

Well, here is a test for you regarding a simulation as a variant of a Boltzmann Brain universe.
You are the only conscious observer, the rest of your we is not that, since you are running on a computer as conscoius and they are only simulated by the computer along with rest of the universe as you percieve it.
Now test if they are conscious or not as part of objective reality.
Bonus test - test how long the computer has power, before it runs out of power.

 

[gnostic]

Yeah, you don't understand the problems with epistemolgy.

So an atheist who know that for how to know as such in regards to the universe
versus an atheist how don't understand the limit of knowledge know in the same sense as for the universe.

That is so because the only people who have problem with knowledge are not rational objective atheists. They, the atheists, are special and all the same for how they undetstand the universe, science, knowledge and so on.
Well, no, you afre not special and neither am I. And I cope differently than you, because in some cases we have different cogntion.
And your cognition is not objective, absolute, universe or objectively rational for all humans.

Why are you bringing up atheism into this?

The only focus of atheism is that people (atheists) these people question the theists’ beliefs in their deities. The atheists themselves, either don’t believe in any god, or they lack the belief - nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism is no more science than theism or agnosticism. The only questions they deal with, are those relating to the existence of any deity…and again, nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism have no position in science, not in the science of universe (physical cosmology), not in any physics, not in biology, and so on.

You bringing up atheists on the subject of the Universe, is simply dishonest strawman claim.

Being atheists are not job or career positions, Mikkel. Stop equating atheist with scientist, and stop equating atheism with science.

You are as bad as any creationist with this level of dishonesty.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. The idea of it does, but not the referent of that idea.

Harm exists as an opinion in a brain.

Morality exists as an opinion in a brain (or distributed over many brains).

So are ideas as ideas in objective reality?

 

[F1fan]

Here is the problem. You only accept positive proof.

How exactly is it a problem?

And when you say "positive proof", do you mean facts and valid data? Can you please try to avoid all this tricky language?

But if there is no positve proof, then your bias result in that you can't understand that.

What bias stems from a lack of evidence? Are police and prosecutors biased because they lack evidence that you killed a guy? Should they assume you did kill the guy and arrest you anyway?

You don't seem to acknowledge that reasoning and science has to follow evidence.

If there is no strong objective knowledge, but you only accept that, then you can't understand if there is none.

But there is objective knowledge. There are many facts and constants that we are certain about. This is how we can apply them to do tests and learn more about how things are.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why are you bringing up atheism into this?

The only focus of atheism is that people (atheists) these people question the theists’ beliefs in their deities. The atheists themselves, either don’t believe in any god, or they lack the belief - nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism is no more science than theism or agnosticism. The only questions they deal with, are those relating to the existence of any deity…and again, nothing more, nothing less.

Atheism have no position in science, not in the science of universe (physical cosmology), not in any physics, not in biology, and so on.

You bringing up atheists on the subject of the Universe, is simply dishonest strawman claim.

Being atheists are not job or career positions, Mikkel. Stop equating atheist with scientist, and stop equating atheism with science.

You are as bad as any creationist with this level of dishonesty.

Because @F1fan always bring up theists as if they are the only relevant people with "wrong beliefs".
His safe zone is theists.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How exactly is it a problem?

And when you say "positive proof", do you mean facts and valid data? Can you please try to avoid all this tricky language?

What bias stems from a lack of evidence? Are police and prosecutors biased because they lack evidence that you killed a guy? Should they assume you did kill the guy and arrest you anyway?

You don't seem to acknowledge that reasoning and science has to follow evidence.

But there is objective knowledge. There are many facts and constants that we are certain about. This is how we can apply them to do tests and learn more about how things are.

No, there can be no objective knowledge as knowledge if that require a subjective mind to know as such.

 

[Polymath257]

So it follows that for 2 in effect contradictiory claims about universal knowledge, they are both true and both different persons know as know.

Wrong. One person knows because the evidence supports their belief and the other does not know because it doesn't.

But that can't be the case if you want to use logic, so one of them doesn't know.

Yes, one of them does not know.

I just do that and claim I don't know.

OK, but we *can* know, based on evidence, that some ideas are wrong.

 

[Polymath257]

There can't be as known an in the strong sense independent objective reality, if it requires at least one mind.

Sure: to know means there is a knower. That doesn't mean existence requires knowledge of existence. it just means that knowledge of existence requires someone who knows it.

 

[Polymath257]

No, there can be no objective knowledge as knowledge if that require a subjective mind to know as such.

The whole point of objective knowledge is that it is not reliant on any single mind, but it is the consensus of those minds that have thoroughly tested the relevant ideas.

 

[F1fan]

No, there can be no objective knowledge

So this claim of yours can be rejected since it denies its own content.

as knowledge if that require a subjective mind to know as such.

That is why the scientific method exists, and very strong standards are applied to experiments.

Have you never taken an experimental science course? I did. We learned how to identify and control for variables.

 

[Polymath257]

Well, here is a test for you regarding a simulation as a variant of a Boltzmann Brain universe.
You are the only conscious observer, the rest of your we is not that, since you are running on a computer as conscoius and they are only simulated by the computer along with rest of the universe as you percieve it.
Now test if they are conscious or not as part of objective reality.
Bonus test - test how long the computer has power, before it runs out of power.

As an untestable hypothesis, this is eliminated from consideration as a scientific question. Until it *is* testable, it is simply meaningless.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That I am observing the universe through through my senses via conscious awareness in no way means that the things that I am observing and the features thereof are dependent on me the observer. In fact all the knowledge gained from such observations show otherwise.
10 litres of water take 30 minutes to boil whether I am looking at it, or in another room watching tv. Etc.
Hence your proposition is refuted by the observations themselves.

My proposition is that the object, the observer, and the act of observation are inseparable, and the distinctions between them arbitrary.

That your experiment with boiling water requires an observation to confirm it, whether by one observer or several, does not refute the proposition, it supports it.

 

[F1fan]

Because @F1fan always bring up theists as if they are the only relevant people with "wrong beliefs".
His safe zone is theists.

Notice I say that it is SOME theists. And I acknowledge that some theists get science right. These are observations, not judgments. It's notable that there are no atheist creationists, and that is because creationism is a religious framework, and is a huge liability for those who adopt it, and try to defend it. I don't see you pointing out this cultural bias to what can be known about biology, and other sciences.

 

[George-ananda]

"Reality is not what you perceive it to be. Instead, it's what the tools and methods of science reveal."​

I think I got a problem with that quote. The quote is based on a materialist assumption.

In my philosophy of Advaita Vedanta, Consciousness/Brahman is fundamental and the ultimate reality, but it is not revealed by the tools and methods of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Wrong. One person knows because the evidence supports their belief and the other does not know because it doesn't.

Yes, one of them does not know.

OK, but we *can* know, based on evidence, that some ideas are wrong.

Evidence that they are wrong as wrong. And no, not your cognition. Actual evidence as per observation.

 

[Polymath257]

Evidence that they are wrong as wrong. And no, not your cognition. Actual evidence as per observation.

Huh?