What is Your Disbelief?

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Yeah, I believe that objective reality is real, fair, orderly and knowable. But I can't prove it. Hence it is faith and belief, but not supernatural, but in effect natural.
2a: an inanimate object distinguished from a living being
b: a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity
c: the concrete entity as distinguished from its appearances
d: a spatial entity

Definition of THING

an object or entity not precisely designated or capable of being designated; an inanimate object distinguished from a living being; a separate and distinct individual quality, fact, idea, or usually entity… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

A word and a hammer is not the same thing as it is different definitions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

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.

Definition of REAL

having objective independent existence; not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine; also : being precisely what the name implies; occurring or existing in actuality… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[Tomef]

A word and a hammer is not the same thing as it is different definitions.

Finally you get the point! According to a set of rules, these are different, as there is a difference between a fictional god, in a book, and the possibility that some sort of god type being we know absolutely nothing about might exist.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Finally you get the point! According to a set of rules, these are different, as there is a difference between a fictional god, in a book, and the possibility that some sort of god type being we know absolutely nothing about might exist.

Yeah, I don't do the world as a set of rules as you use the words.

 

[Tomef]

Definition of REAL

having objective independent existence; not artificial, fraudulent, or illusory : genuine; also : being precisely what the name implies; occurring or existing in actuality… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

I’m not talking about what is real, you Danish spanner. I’m talking about things being DIFFERENT to each other. Things in a video game, in a dream, in a supermarket are DIFFERENT to each other. They can be DIFFERENT without being REAL.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, I don't do the world as a set of rules as you use the words.

Yes, you do. You just formed a sentence. That is following the rules.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’m not talking about what is real, you Danish spanner. I’m talking about things being DIFFERENT to each other. Things in a video game, in a dream, in a supermarket are DIFFERENT to each other. They can be DIFFERENT without being REAL.

Then it doesn't matter what it is, because it could be a dream as a Boltzmann Brain universe.

And what is a thing? And how do you know that there are different things?

 

[Nakosis]

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

The "noosphere" has nothing to do with the non-physical storage of information.

The information is a representation of ideas

Yes, information is a representation of ideas physically stored which you/your brain then decodes. Same as any physical CPU in any computer system. Why do you think any non-physical component is necessary?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, you do. You just formed a sentence. That is following the rules.

But the world is not just a language game.
Imagine only makes sense a belief about something not real.

 

[Eddi]

The "noosphere" has nothing to do with the non-physical storage of information.

It is the realm of ideas that is distinct from any physical realm

It is things that exist mentally rather than physically

Yes, information is a representation of ideas physically stored which you/your brain then decodes. Same as any physical CPU in any computer system. Why do you think any non-physical component is necessary?

Ideas can be represented within the workings of a brain or in a computer

However those representations are not the ideas

Do you define a dog as being the letters D O and G placed together in a certain sequence?????

A mental existence is just as much of an existence as any physical existence

You've just developed a personal dislike for the notion that's all that's going on here

 

[Tomef]

Then it doesn't matter what it is, because it could be a dream as a Boltzmann Brain universe.

And what is a thing? And how do you know that there are different things?

You know there are different things, because you use different things. You think - you and think are different things.

You don’t get the point. Any variation on ‘real’ performs to certain rules. The universe, if physical, operates according to some set of rules - although we only have a partial understanding of what this means, and what the rules are, in some sense it operates in a certain way, and not in a different way. If it’s a video game, or a realm of imagination, it still operates according to certain rules. Those rules require differences. You (thing) think something - words, images, whatever (things). Those other things are ‘not you’, they are different. You perceive a carrot and a rabbit. You perceive them as different. You don’t see two identical objects. According to the rules, one hops and lives in a burrow, one grows in the ground and absorbs sunlight, Maybe, presumably, these are physical objects, but regardless of whether they are or not, they are still DIFFERENT. Different to your perception, different in your imagination, different in code, different in physical reality, they are different in any possible scenario, either in the sense of being actual objects or imagined things your brain perceives them as different, The question of what they represent, are they actually really IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION,

 

[Tomef]

But the world is not just a language game.
Imagine only makes sense a belief about something not real.

The words represent what we think of as reality (don’t bother pointing out it’s not we, it doesn’t matter). By using them, we acknowledge that that reality, whatever it is, functions in accordance with certain rules, insofar as we show our understanding of it by using words. By using words, you acknowledge that they need to be understandable by following rules and referring to concepts, ideas and things that can be conveyed to someone else with the same understanding. It makes no difference what the nature of those things is, whether or not they are ‘objectively real’, by using words to refer to them, you acknowledge that in some sense they exist. By using different words, you acknowledge that different things exist. The question are things different and are things objectively real are DIFFERENT QUESTIONS,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You know there are different things, because you use different things. You think - you and think are different things.

You don’t get the point. Any variation on ‘real’ performs to certain rules. The universe, if physical, operates according to some set of rules ...

There is no proof that the universe is physical. That is an imagined idea like God and it is an daft idea to consider it a fact.

The problem is that it is not certain that there is only one set of rules.
For your idea of rules, you must proven that there is only one set of rules. Nobody has been able to do so in recorded human history. If you are the first one, leave this forum. Write it all down and contact all orginasations that could promote that set of rules.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The words represent what we think of as reality (don’t bother pointing out it’s not we, it doesn’t matter). By using them, we acknowledge that that reality, whatever it is, functions in accordance with certain rules, insofar as we show our understanding of it by using words. By using words, you acknowledge that they need to be understandable by following rules and referring to concepts, ideas and things that can be conveyed to someone else with the same understanding. It makes no difference what the nature of those things is, whether or not they are ‘objectively real’, by using words to refer to them, you acknowledge that in some sense they exist. By using different words, you acknowledge that different things exist. The question are things different and are things objectively real are DIFFERENT QUESTIONS,

See above.

 

[Balthazzar]

I don't believe in anything non-existent, but if the non-existent comes to be existent, then I might believe in what I now do not believe in. This is what it sounds like you're suggesting in your op, only you utilized the term non-physical to connote what I view to be non-existent. I guess because experience is real and if I am able to experience it, then it exists if only as an experience.

Honestly though, I don't believe in lots of things some people believe in. If it's evident enough to warrant belief, I would be more apt to believe. If not, then the doors still there in case it's something to be revealed later in life. There's still room for more data.

 

[firedragon]

What I don't believe exists is anything non-physical. Simply because I have no reason to believe in anything non-physical.
How I define physical is anything which can be detected by our senses or can affect something which we can detect by our senses.

Therefore anything claimed as supernatural or divine is imaginary to me. I understand other people believe in a reality which includes spiritual/non-physical elements. However in an argument or discussion these non-physical concepts have no significant meaning or explanatory value.

I don't mean this offensively, one has to choose for themselves what they are willing to accept. However this is how my mind works in discussions.

You have given your subjective opinion? What's the actual discussion point if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Tomef]

For your idea of rules, you must proven that there is only one set of rules.

Why? That’s total bollocks. One set of rules applies to languages in general, different sets of rules apply to individual languages. The same is true for anything else. There might be some set of overarching rules that govern everything, but that is an unknown. You don’t need to know that to follow any other set of rules, like the rules you followed in writing your above sentence,

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why? That’s total bollocks. One set of rules applies to languages in general, different sets of rules apply to individual languages. The same is true for anything else. There might be some set of overarching rules that govern everything, but that is an unknown. You don’t need to know that to follow any other set of rules, like the rules you followed in writing your above sentence,

Yeah, but your rules for words are still not all of the world and can be done differently in the end for how to make sense as being a human.
People still believe differently than you, not matter how much you claim you have the correct set of rules for actual and imagine in effect.

That is the actual falsification of your belief system. Namely, that there are other ones in the world.

 

[Tomef]

The problem is that it is not certain that there is only one set of rules.

The problem about what? Not anything relevant to the point, According to the rules we both know and understand, there are differences between what we experience, like eating cake or drinking tea, and reading about those things in a book. Reading about a cup of tea, and drinking a cup of tea are, according to the rules, different things. It makes no difference whatsoever if those things are real or not, they are different whatever context you put them into. The same is true for fictional characters and people we interact with. Those are different experiences. If the world is purely imaginary, then a fictional character is an imagined imaginary character in an imaginary world full of imaginary real people. Still different things,

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, but your rules for words are still not all of the world and can be done differently in the end for how to make sense as being a human.
People still believe differently than you, not matter how much you claim you have the correct set of rules for actual and imagine in effect.

That is the actual falsification of your belief system. Namely, that there are other ones in the world.

You really don’t get it. Language is one example of one set of rules, Another rule is that a person and a fictional character are different, regardless of the context, they are different concepts, real or not, Difference is factual. That is not ‘my set of rules’. Are you saying that you think a person in a book, someone who never existed outside of the words on the page, is the same thing as a person who is alive and thinks? If you think they are the same, explain why, if you think they are different, on what basis do you think they are different? According to what rules?