4 ms·
And if everyone has “beliefs” then you have set a very low bad for what qualifies as belief. Sure, if you look at what qualifies as a belief, it's pretty rando
by joe_the_user 5y ago
And if everyone has “beliefs” then you have set a very low bad for what qualifies as belief.
Sure, if you look at what qualifies as a belief, it's pretty random.
My view of the cosmos is that it is a computer simulation.
It seems like the main thing this shares with religion is that it's wholly unverifiable. If you develop it in common with others and perhaps add rituals, you could qualify it along with Pastafarians [1]. But Pastafarian know it's a joke.
I might have some wholly unverifiable beliefs but I don't have a commitment to maintain such beliefs. That's where I'd locate the difference.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
- ukj 5y agoIt is 100% verifiable AND falsifiable. You can verify that Physics is captured in Mathematics. Mathematics is a Turing-recognisable language. If the universe is Physical then it is computable. This is a trivially true belief (see Church-Turing-Deutsch principle). You can falsify my belief by producing Physics in language other than Mathematics. Of course, as an instrumentalist/physicist, I don’t care if my beliefs are “actually true” as long as they work.