3 ms·

> there is no reason You have a method to prove nonexistence do you?

adrianN 2y ago
Having proof of nonexistence is completely different from having no reason to believe in existence. There is an infinite number of nonexistent things you might want to believe in. How do you choose which one you like? In my opinion the things where you have no proof of existence and which you define to be causally independent from the universe are the least interesting things to believe in. For example I believe extraterrestial intelligence exists even though I have to proof for it.
- mistermann 2y ago
  Demonstrating that "is" derives from Belief, not Truth. Which I'm ok with, if it is realized. Otherwise, I consider (and therefore believe, but do not know) the risk to be high enough that something should be done about it. Not so unlike how normal people are passionate about others getting their vaccinations.
  - adrianN 2y ago
    „Is“ is a model that is indistinguishable from truth.
    - mistermann 2y ago
      How could you possibly obtain accurate information about the distinguishing abilities of all Humans?
      - adrianN 2y ago
        They are irrelevant for the question of this thread. No human can observe unobservable things by definition.
        mistermann 2y ago
        > They are irrelevant for the question of this thread. Then why did you mention it? And, you made a claim in response to my question...so what gives? This technique seems a bit unfair. Regardless: is relevance objective? How is it measured? Also: note that "are" is a conjugation of "is". This creates a bit of an epistemic problem does it not (considering your comment above)? > No human can observe unobservable things by definition. Religion is a classic counterpoint to this. Nonexistence is another. Relevance is another. Omniscience another. There are tons of examples, with new ones coming online every day! Plus: does defining reality to be a certain way necessarily mean it takes on that form, or might it only cause it to appear to have taken on that form?

Having proof of nonexistence is completely different from having no reason to believe in existence. There is an infinite number of nonexistent things you might want to believe in. How do you choose which one you like? In my opinion the things where you have no proof of existence and which you define to be causally independent from the universe are the least interesting things to believe in. For example I believe extraterrestial intelligence exists even though I have to proof for it.

mistermann 2y ago
Demonstrating that "is" derives from Belief, not Truth. Which I'm ok with, if it is realized. Otherwise, I consider (and therefore believe, but do not know) the risk to be high enough that something should be done about it. Not so unlike how normal people are passionate about others getting their vaccinations.
- adrianN 2y ago
  „Is“ is a model that is indistinguishable from truth.
  - mistermann 2y ago
    How could you possibly obtain accurate information about the distinguishing abilities of all Humans?
    - adrianN 2y ago
      They are irrelevant for the question of this thread. No human can observe unobservable things by definition.
      - mistermann 2y ago
        > They are irrelevant for the question of this thread. Then why did you mention it? And, you made a claim in response to my question...so what gives? This technique seems a bit unfair. Regardless: is relevance objective? How is it measured? Also: note that "are" is a conjugation of "is". This creates a bit of an epistemic problem does it not (considering your comment above)? > No human can observe unobservable things by definition. Religion is a classic counterpoint to this. Nonexistence is another. Relevance is another. Omniscience another. There are tons of examples, with new ones coming online every day! Plus: does defining reality to be a certain way necessarily mean it takes on that form, or might it only cause it to appear to have taken on that form?