Faith, Reason, and Self-evident truths

[Jester]

This is currently being discussed in the Holy Huddle room, but for those non-Christians who wish to participate, I'm adding the topic here.

Is there proof, reasonable evidence, some evidence, etc for the existence of reality?

Or:

Must we accept some things on a non-rational basis?

Or:

Do you have some response not mentioned above?

[FinalEnigma]

Okay, support that claim. I challenge you to prove to my satisfaction, that I do not exist.

[Sjoerd]

Okay, support that claim. I challenge you to prove to my satisfaction, that I do not exist.

Okay, but it will be a bit on the philosophical side. I will start a new thread there.

[Thought Criminal]

if the universe exists solely inside the minds of observers then explain how we could possibly all have the same perceptions of it.

We all? You wish. You and Thought Criminal and everyone else are just aspects of my mind.

The trick to using Occam's razor is to hold the handle, not grip the blade until you bleed.

A hypothesis cannot be so simple as to fail to account for the facts. Consider these two:
a) Things seem to be physical and external because it is largely the case.
b) Things seem to be physical and external, but they're not, for reasons I can't think of.

The error hypothesis has to explain the fact and content of the error in order to have any chance at parsimony.

Of course, what makes this truly sad is that you're doing the same thing Jester did not long ago: argue for something you don't for a moment believe in an attempt to "win". You should be ashamed of yourself.

TC

[Sjoerd]

Of course, what makes this truly sad is that you're doing the same thing Jester did not long ago: argue for something you don't for a moment believe in an attempt to "win". You should be ashamed of yourself.

For the record, I think that solipsism is a valid philosophical stance but also one that is empty, one that gives you a cold sense of utter loneliness if you really embrace it. I have no problem in believing things that are contradictory if that's the only way to explain everything, such as this paradox or the particle-wave duality. I started a thread on solipsism on the Philosophy forum, and although I won't deny that I did it gleefully, I never posted anything I don't believe in.

Please take it easy. You have a sharp mind and you should be able to find plenty of arguments against my posts instead of against my person.

[Thought Criminal]

For the record, I think that solipsism is a valid philosophical stance but also one that is empty, one that gives you a cold sense of utter loneliness if you really embrace it. I have no problem in believing things that are contradictory if that's the only way to explain everything, such as this paradox or the particle-wave duality. I started a thread on solipsism on the Philosophy forum, and although I won't deny that I did it gleefully, I never posted anything I don't believe in.

Please take it easy. You have a sharp mind and you should be able to find plenty of arguments against my posts instead of against my person.

It's worthless precisely because it's empty; it explains nothing. For that matter, contradictory beliefs are necessarily invalid. If you have no problem with false beliefs, then you're wasting your time pretending your beliefs are true.

Your posts lack substance, and this reflects on your person. You cannot disassociate yourself from what you say and do.

TC

[Sjoerd]

It's worthless precisely because it's empty; it explains nothing. For that matter, contradictory beliefs are necessarily invalid. If you have no problem with false beliefs, then you're wasting your time pretending your beliefs are true.

Your posts lack substance, and this reflects on your person. You cannot disassociate yourself from what you say and do.

TC

I would suggest to read a bit more on quantum mechanics before calling contradictory beliefs false. Or have another look at one of those images that are two things simultaneously.
And I never asked anyone to accept all my beliefs. I am always willing, for the sake of an argument, to limit myself to a subset and ignore the other ones for the time being.

[Thought Criminal]

I would suggest to read a bit more on quantum mechanics before calling contradictory beliefs false. Or have another look at one of those images that are two things simultaneously.
And I never asked anyone to accept all my beliefs. I am always willing, for the sake of an argument, to limit myself to a subset and ignore the other ones for the time being.

I think you know far too much science to blithely invoke QM in support of this sort of nonsense, so I'm going to politely overlook your lapse.

Instead, I'm going to remind you that self-contradictions are necessarily false.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I would suggest to read a bit more on quantum mechanics before calling contradictory beliefs false. Or have another look at one of those images that are two things simultaneously.
And I never asked anyone to accept all my beliefs. I am always willing, for the sake of an argument, to limit myself to a subset and ignore the other ones for the time being.

I think you know far too much science to blithely invoke QM in support of this sort of nonsense, so I'm going to politely overlook your lapse.

Instead, I'm going to remind you that self-contradictions are necessarily false.

TC

Very well. I am going to remind you that "Schroedinger's cat is alive" and "Schroedinger's cat is dead", which are clearly self-contradictory statements, are nevertheless believed to be true by modern QM, though usually on a more microscopic scale.
Now *prove* to me that self-contradictions are necessarily false.

[Thought Criminal]

I would suggest to read a bit more on quantum mechanics before calling contradictory beliefs false. Or have another look at one of those images that are two things simultaneously.
And I never asked anyone to accept all my beliefs. I am always willing, for the sake of an argument, to limit myself to a subset and ignore the other ones for the time being.

I think you know far too much science to blithely invoke QM in support of this sort of nonsense, so I'm going to politely overlook your lapse.

Instead, I'm going to remind you that self-contradictions are necessarily false.

TC

Very well. I am going to remind you that "Schroedinger's cat is alive" and "Schroedinger's cat is dead", which are clearly self-contradictory statements, are nevertheless believed to be true by modern QM, though usually on a more microscopic scale.
Now *prove* to me that self-contradictions are necessarily false.

See, this is exactly the sort of abuse of QM that I was talking about. QM is a probabilistic theory. Except in cases where P=0 or P=1, it only tells us what the probability of the outcome is.

So in the case of a particle that will turn out to be an electron or a positron, it can tell us the odds are 50/50, but can't tell us which way it'll be. This is a limitation of QM, not support for half-electron/half-positron particles.

TC

[Sjoerd]

I would suggest to read a bit more on quantum mechanics before calling contradictory beliefs false. Or have another look at one of those images that are two things simultaneously.
And I never asked anyone to accept all my beliefs. I am always willing, for the sake of an argument, to limit myself to a subset and ignore the other ones for the time being.

I think you know far too much science to blithely invoke QM in support of this sort of nonsense, so I'm going to politely overlook your lapse.

Instead, I'm going to remind you that self-contradictions are necessarily false.

TC

Very well. I am going to remind you that "Schroedinger's cat is alive" and "Schroedinger's cat is dead", which are clearly self-contradictory statements, are nevertheless believed to be true by modern QM, though usually on a more microscopic scale.
Now *prove* to me that self-contradictions are necessarily false.

See, this is exactly the sort of abuse of QM that I was talking about. QM is a probabilistic theory. Except in cases where P=0 or P=1, it only tells us what the probability of the outcome is.

So in the case of a particle that will turn out to be an electron or a positron, it can tell us the odds are 50/50, but can't tell us which way it'll be. This is a limitation of QM, not support for half-electron/half-positron particles.

TC

That's what I call QM abuse. Let me quote Schroedinger himself:

The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts

The wave function is not some statistical function based on the behaviour of many particles. It describes the entire state of the system. As long as the wave function has not collapsed, the cat is both living and dead.