h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Your definition of belief is only one possible definition. The term is often used to indicate an idea that is held to have at least some value, but not necessarily accepted as a truth. And certainly it doesn't always indicate an idea of an absolute truth.

On the contrary, I would not expect the term to be used in describing an absolute truth (even if one did exist!). Believe is much more often used to describe something that you feel is probably right. My dictionary uses the term opinion in the first definition of belief.

Perhaps you are right, and in my own roundabout fashion I thinkt hat is what I am getting at. The point I think I was trying to make here is that we are often frightfully fond of our beliefs and opinions and really would be a lot better off recognizing them for what they are. It is the difference between a close minded and open minded system. I think there are many ways to deal with ineffible topics short of resorting to a position of belief: thinking, discussing, considering, weighing, pondering, hoping, wanting, arguing, or what have you; it seems there is a social fiction perpetrated that humans have a right to have really ridiculous opinions about things and to ignore any outside influence that might affect said opinions. My point is, maybe there's a better way of mucking around with the collision of contrary viewpoints besides the generally insular methods humans tend to rely on.

All Hail TGMofR&PofIT

Reading your home page and the forum 'Belief' you may be interested in the forums 'Mountains' and 'Superrationality' in Guide Researcher 'Serendipity' 's page.

Is a chair more or less of a chair when it's a : sedia / sella / stuhl / chaise ?... the point I am making, with trepidation and limited understanding of the physics of the Universe and from a more philological angle, is the word 'CHAIR' is only 'local' code for something we happen, as most know it, to sit on. Before man organised woody atoms into a four pronged object, it was probably just something which was sat upon. Naming something makes living a little easier but creates problems with BELIEF because belief is a creation of Man and can be disputed whereas a FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH is something which is true whether man exists or not.

Perhaps we should start a forum on 'Bantering semantics' ?

minus-one

Welcome to my page, and thanks for the suggestions; I will check out the forums you mentioned as soon as I can.

I'm not sure you can distinguish FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH from BELIEF, because in a superdeterministic sense it is meaningless to speak of a universe in which humans do not shape reality into conceptual models within their neurosomatic systems. All things spoken, thought, known, and believed by men have been electrochemical transasctions occuring withing biological computers. You can take the universe out of the man but not the other way around. I recognize this is an anthropic argument; I guess I'm saying is that we will never be able to know or understand what you describe as a FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH because it presupposes a condition that is not the case as long as the question remains relevant.

Thanks for taking the time to reply,

I'm not sure that I understand what you mean by 'superdeterministic' or 'anthropic'? (anthropomorphic?)
Determinism implies that human action is not free but is determined by external forces acting on the will. Does the prefix 'super' imply a 'super' being, a god (or God for those who incline in this direction) exerting an influence, or just a view from outside human existence? Or are you implying as in 'anthropic', that if Man didn't exist the Universe ceases to exist?
I had imagined that one of aims of the language of Physics was to understand the how, why and what (fundamental truths?) of the Universe? (42 in h2g2!) As humanity moves along its destined (pre-?) path and we accumulate more understanding, beliefs surely will alter as fundamental truths are uncovered? A belief can be held which is patently not true but surely a fundamental truth exists and is unalterable whether we know it or not? The major problem it seems to me is the very thing you mention: many beliefs are treated as fundamental truths, and are considered unalterable. This says more about Humanities inability to accept change in a supposedly (see Serendipity's Scale Universe) changing Universe than it does about either belief or fundamental truth and here the word 'anthropic' may be appropriate.
I am thinking about 'reality' in the context of 'f/truth' but fear that it will only lead to Schrodinger, Heisenberg, particles/waves, of which my knowledge is vague. As usual it seems it will all depend upon where you stand as to how things look or are!

Interesting though..

minus-one

Interesting how these discussions always wind up coming back to particle physics I think it would be much easier at this point for me to refer you elsewhere... click the link near the top of my page and visit the article on 'free will'. One of the discussions related to that article, freewill and superdeterminism, expresses my views on this succintly as I am able to at the moment.. it's a pretty long read though

Ah yes, one other thing to mention; you did say that you felt that advances in physics will take us away from our current views of the world. I agree. My contention is that the 'trickle-down' effect is not great enough, though. Very few people actually see relativity, chaos theory, or quantum uncertainty for what they portend for our view of the universe... reality itself is in question. We are slow to accept the implications, but I think an understanding of this new cosmology is vital for the survival and direction we must take as a species. I have reasons for thinking so but they are a bit much to go into at the moment

cheers

Hi guys. I don't want to impose, but I really enjoyed your entry, as well as the ensuing conversation. Did you ever consider the massive, and immediate implications sciences like nanotechnology will have in the next 20 years? There seems to be no hiding from that, and it is indeed questionable if mankind will ever develop the kind of cognitive skills necessary to deal with an environment that is rapidly 'liquifying'!
At the moment philosophy seems to be the direction my entries are gravitating in. I have prepared a few on the topics of Godel's inconsistency theory, and on memes. Would you care to take a glance? I'd really appreciate well thought-through criticism from a philosophical (or at the very least sceptical) angle.
Chris

In my opininion every belief is a system of self-perpetuating ideas. Science itself would also fall under this denominator.
My point is, all rational thought must have a substrate, a (random?) seed. Of course this very same substrate may also impose important restrictions on the development of the system that relies on it.
However I do think several 'beliefs' should be able to co-exist and inspire the intellect, whether they be dogmatic or empirical.
This leads to an idea which I call schizoculture, but unfortunately I don't have the time now to elaborate (or bore you with)...
Chris

If we could, for a second, consider 'belief' to mean 'accepting without sufficient evidence'... I try hard not to believe in anything.

'Belief' as in religous belief, I hold to be exactly the same as the above belief, except one would spend a little more time accepting religious beliefs. In this sense, I haven't believed in anything for a long time.

'Belief' as in 'accepting that something is the most likely hypothesis', of course, is a part of every day life... but I prefer to call it 'opinion', 'cause I then I can state that I don't believe anything at all.

26199