mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Can you explain more?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What is Your Disbelief?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Can you explain more?
Tomef
Well-Known Member
What are you on about Mikkel? This has nothing to do with anything I said. I don’t know if you are being obtuse, or stubborn, or if you just can’t think past your own obsessions.
Can you make a language, e.g. for use in a video game?
Yes
Would that language be fundamentally different to human languages in some sense, or would it be more or less the same? I.e. would it follow rules that we would recognise as being part of how a language works, grammar, syntax, morphology and so on?
беспокойный путешественни
All gods are great.
All the faiths and religions I know share the common knowledge ("assumption") that there is a reason for everything that happens.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, your understanding is daft.
Because the world is not just words. So again words are signs, have meaning and referents. Referents are a part of how words work. And the universe is a far as I can tell as self-refering word as the word is a part of the universe.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Not mine. It is just happening. The reason is something I create for me to cope.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Ideas are non-physical
Do you not believe in ideas???
The problem is that physical itself is an idea for the modern science use.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
Missing the point again, Mikkel.Well, your understanding is daft.
So again words are signs, have meaning and referents. Referents are a part of how words work. And the universe is a far as I can tell as self-refering word as the word is a part of the universe.
In the game, you have to build a house. You go to buy a hammer, using the word for hammer to identify the thing you want to buy, in the shop, in the game. You notice there are also books for sale. You buy one. When reading it later, you notice that the book has the word for hammer in it.
As a person playing the game, you are aware this is a game. When you get round to building your house, do you use the hammer you bought to bang in a nail, or do you use the word hammer, in the book, to bang in a nail? What informs your decision?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, the hammer, the nail and the house is not all of the world. In effect you are stating something which is in practice objective. But that is not so for all of the human world.
So your example is limited for a certain aspect of the world.
Science is not all, but can't be avioded,.Philosophy is not all, but can't be avioded. Religion is not all, but can't be avioded.
None of these can be avioded if you want a complex understand of the world and humans in it as parts of it.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
Again - nothing to do with the point.
You use the hammer because, according to the rules of the game, the hammer is what bangs in nails.
You use science to address certain topics because, according to the rules of the universe, insofar as we understand them, following them has certain effects. You can bang in a nail in the ‘real’ world with a hammer, and not with a word, as in the game. Whether or not these have ‘objectively real’ referents beyond what those are commonly assumed to be is an entirely different question, and irrelevant when it comes to distinguishing the effects of a hammer and a word.
It is no different, in principle, when distinguishing between science, philosophy and religion. You cannot prove the existence, or non-existence of god using science. Religion forbids the open-ended nature of philosophical questions. And so on. According to the rules, these are different domains, and quite obviously so. They may overlap, in the way that a hammer and a slipper overlap. You can use a slipper to have some effect on a nail maybe, but ultimately it’s not the right tool for the job.
Whether or not any of these things is ‘objectively real’ in your sense has nothing to do with it. You use the hammer in the game because you know that the hammer in the book is fictional. In life, people use prosthetic limbs because they know that those help them to walk, and they know that the claims about gods that make limbs grow back if you ask them are fictional. Those are the rules. You know there is a difference between playing a video game and eating a plate of eggs, regardless of whether either of them is real, or not. Whether or not any of those things have ‘referents’ beyond the experience of living according to those rules is an entirely separate question.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I got the problem now. You cannot prove the existence or non-existence of what objective reality is other than not your mind.
So can you prove anything about objective reality other than it being not you mind?
Tomef
Well-Known Member
No, you didn’t.
The problem is, you don’t understand the difference between these two questions:
1) Is there an objective reality?
And
2) Are things different?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
But things require an objective reality or they are not things.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
Nope, in that case they are not objectively real things. The noun dog refers to my actual dog and the dog I dreamt about last night. The difference between them is that my actual dog eats, barks, snores etc, whereas the dog in my dream will never do any of those things or appear in the same form, ever again. But a noun, according to the rules, names a thing. A thing exists according to the rules, not according to whatever you mean by objective reality.
You can perform this experiment. Take a hammer, a nail, a piece of wood, and a piece of paper with the word ‘hammer’ written on it. Try first to bang the nail into the wood using the piece of paper. Then the hammer. You will discover that the fictional hammer, represented by the word ‘hammer’ is not an actual hammer. Why? because, according to the rules, fictional hammers are not the same as actual hammers. It makes no difference whatsoever if these two things are the result of code or of a physical universe. Things, as far as we know, are defined entirely by our understanding of them. We understand that a hammer and a fictional hammer are different.
Anything else is just a confusion of your own mind.
Ideas are non-physical
Do you not believe in ideas???
Ideas are information. Do you think the information stored on you computer is store in a non-physical format?
Your thoughts, which you express here on RF are now physically stored in computer memory somewhere. You could retrieve this thought, physically stored on computer memory years later. Every thought you express here changes the physical structure of computer memory somewhere, in several places actually. This is all obvious to anyone with some understanding of computer science.
Without this physical storage of your thoughts expressed here, they could not exist. Could not be received and decoded by anyone.
Why would you think your brain needs to or can operate any differently?
Tomef
Well-Known Member
Your own posts prove you wrong. If there are no things, there is no basis for you writing anything. If your words are not words because there is no objective reality, then you are unable to do what you are actually doing. A word is a thing. Here you are using things to say there are no things.
No
The RF server has information not ideas
The information is a representation of ideas
Ideas are not zeros and ones
They are a part of the noosphere
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, I get it. There are only objective real things or imagined ideas.
But that your dog is an actual dog is without proof just as God is without proof. You are doing philosophy and in effect religion for your claim that there is an actual dog.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
Jesus Christ Mikkel, who says there’s an actual dog? Totally irrelevant point.
real hammer / fictional hammer - different
real dog / dream dog - different
These are different. Being objectively real has nothing to do with it. Real means ‘according to the rules’. If I don’t feed my dream dog, nothing happens. If I don’t feed my real dog, different result. Why? Because different rules apply in dreams than in everyday life, as I live it. Whether or not ‘everyday life’ is a physical reality, a coded universe, a fiction of my imagination, or anything else, it still has rules that distinguish between different things. A fictional hammer and an actual hammer are different regardless of whether they are actual products of a physical universe or of code, or of my imagination. They are defined as such by a set of rules in any of those scenarios.