| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"raven1" |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2003 12:00:23 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Beliefs = Reality? |
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:57:16 +0200, True-Sceptic <anyname@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Belief = Reality
What we believe with absolute certainty becomes real to us.
Which statement is complete and utter rubbish, and the foundation of
everything that's wrong with the "new age movement", for a start. You
can believe all you want that you aren't subject to gravity; a simple
step off a balcony will very quickly correct your misguided notion.
The Universe is not only not concerned with our beliefs; it isn't even
aware of them (or anything else, as far as can be determined), and no
amount of mysticism disguised as modern psychobabble will make things
otherwise.
In fairness, the problem is a failure to distinguish between the
subjective (this is "true" to me, which can cover everything from
personal opinions and preferences, to outright delusions) and the
objective (this is "true" for everyone; ie: f=ma, E=mc^2, if you step
off a cliff you'll fall, not remain suspended in mid-air like the
Roadrunner because you never studied law), or even to recognize that
such a distinction exists; this probably is related to the obvious and
odious narcissism that permeates the whole "new age movement" in
general; rather than subject one's beliefs to critical scrutiny, the
new-ager falls back on cop-outs like the above, or claims that all
beliefs are entitled to the same level of respect, which is absolute
horseshit, and no more deserving of respect than any other idiotic
religious claim.
.
|
|
| User: "Ann" |
|
| Title: Re: Beliefs = Reality? |
03 Aug 2003 12:16:47 PM |
|
|
Hi Raven1,
thanks for your generous attempt to "correct my misguided notions".
Before we begin, let me remind you that insulting language and abusive
assertions are no arguments but mere distractions in the Usenet
discussion. They do not belong to the scientific style, either. If I
had to choose between your 'tolerance' (i.e. declaring the opposition
to your beliefs "complete and utter rubbish, modern psychobabble,
obvious and odious narcissism, and no more deserving of respect than
any other idiotic religious claim" in other words an "absolute
horseshit":) and the "new age movement" I'll choose the latter.
Next I'll decipher what were you trying to tell us with the passionate
tone "of a man who accepts what he sees" and who 'knows' the ultimate
truth :)
MORPHEUS: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who
=09 accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up.
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, raven1 wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:57:16 +0200, True-Sceptic <anyname@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Belief =3D Reality
What we believe with absolute certainty becomes real to us.
Which statement is complete and utter rubbish, and the foundation of
everything that's wrong with the "new age movement", for a start. You
can believe all you want that you aren't subject to gravity; a simple
step off a balcony will very quickly correct your misguided notion.
The magic word is 'levitation', some yogi can do it and for that miracle
they need a heavy dose of non-Western belief.
You may 'know' that yogis also defy other rules of our consensus
reality. They can consciously control their heartbeat, they can even stop
their heart and breathing (and whatever else that is necessary) for a
couple of days and be buried under the ground. These were controlled
natural experiments that started with beliefs (words) and then some
exercise (repetitions). And they are well documented. The reason they do
not make it to the biology textbooks is called "rejection without proof"
("the fundamental characteristic of Western science."). Some inventive
scientists and historians simply decided that the evidence was
anecdotal. Was it a coincidence?
What do you think, wasn't that an objective
"failure to distinguish between the subjective (this is "true" to me,
which can cover everything from personal opinions and preferences, to
outright delusions) and the objective"?
They looked at themselves and decided that those miracles are very
difficult, i.e. impossible for an 'average' and 'normal' human being. And
they rejected them. The next step was to infer that it was impossible also
for "ALL men by nature", using the induction method of Aristotle, Webster
Unabridged:
Induction
3. (Philos.) The act or process of reasoning from a part to a
whole, from particulars to generals, or from the
individual to the universal; also, the result or inference
so reached.
Induction is an inference drawn from all the
particulars. --Sir W. Hamilton.
Induction is the process by which we conclude that
what is true of certain individuals of a class, is
true of the whole class, or that what is true at
certain times will be true in similar circumstances
at all times. --J. S. Mill.
It was one example how our beliefs determine what we call 'reality'. You
shouldn't be surprised that the classical Greeks lived in a different
'reality', we may read Homer for instance. And the rumour has it that they
couldn't see the irrational numbers in Nature outside, how stupid and
delusional of them. Religious people also view the world differently (from
another viewpoint) and as a byproduct may witness many miracles and
failures of the so called ultimate theories, rules and laws of physical
nature. It is their choice and I see no reason why should they be deprived
of this fundamental human right - the right to choose what to believe in,
the right to be the sole masters of their own soul.
There was one other institution that "wished us to do the right thing",
trying to educate us in the right theory and the single truth and burning
the rival books. A dogmatic movement fighting against our free will, those
who defended the freedom of their choice were declared pagan skeptics and
'had to' die. In the middle ages, the name of that dogma preserving
institution was the Inquisition. It is not that dissimilar to modern
scientists in the new ages. Of course, the means were different, but what
about the goal? Wasn't it to reject anything (and anyone:) hostile to its
divine truth?
You see, dogmatic religion and science have something in common, they
protect the fittest surviving theory (theirs:) of the time at all
costs. 'Tolerance' is a word foreign to them. No wonder, they had a common
scholastic teacher, catholics and scientists alike worship not only their
respective Gods (Lord Nature) but also embraced the wisdom of the
Godfather of science Lord Aristotle. And he was a master of words able to
produce absolute certainty in our gullible hearts and minds. Later his
"metaphysics" scholastics became the official scientific style.
Let me make one final note on the yoga example above. Can it 'really' be
that our firm beliefs (or the things we are convinced to know with 100%
certainty) shape reality. What is 'real'? Where is 'reality'? Only outside
of us? Are you 100% sure?
MORPHEUS: Your appearance now is what we call residual self image. It
=09 is the mental projection of your digital self.
Neo's hands run over the cracked leather of the chair.
NEO: This...this isn't real?
MORPHEUS: What is real? How do you define real? If you're talking
=09 about what you can feel, what you can smell, what you can
=3D=3D=3D>=09 taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals
:)=09 interpreted by your brain.
Any true scientist assigns "by nature" a probability of absolute and total
zero (0.000 000 000 000 ... zeros till the end of infinity) to the
possibility that reality can be also 'within'. Within us, inside our
mind. If on the other hand, it is true what they say ("the informant is
real":) that such a nullified zero doesn't really exist in Nature then we
will put another "real" number 'infinitely' close to the absolute
zero. Tiny but positive, like 0.000 000 000 000 000 000 001.
Since there is evidence both for 'independent reality outside'
(i.e. against 'within') and against it (i.e. for 'within') we do not have
sufficient information to reject any of those extreme assumptions. The
sober and balanced approach is to not exclude any of the possibilities
("without proof") until new information arrives.
=09=09 The nature of miraculous reality
Basically, most of the miracles I've heard about (Jesus for one, and I'll
come to science in a moment:) start with "absolute certainty", a faith
beyond any doubt is needed. Usually, we need to be prepared for the
miracle (reality). How?
With words. We hear first the description of the guru, or some modern God
(a Nobel price laureate:) whom we trust completely. Then we imagine those
words. Though it may still not be enough, reality has to be verified,
i.e. we need repetition of the experiments (e.g. we exercise to
levitate:). After enough repetitions and reiterations we form the habit of
perceiving reality in the new way, or as Einstein put it, "the illusion of
reality" becomes "persistent".
Therefore, we identified at least three elements for the magic of reality:
1. Words (descriptions)
2. by someone who can be trusted (parent, teacher, master, guru, would-be
god, Nobel scientist), i.e true faith and belief beyond any doubt
3. reiteration (of mantras:) and repetition (of experiments and tests:)
In other words, "in the beginning was the Word", go figure.
The Universe is not only not concerned with our beliefs; it isn't even
aware of them (or anything else, as far as can be determined), and no
amount of mysticism disguised as modern psychobabble will make things
otherwise.
"No amount of mysticism", are you 100% percent sure about that? Do you
know of any "mysterious" scientist, the greatest among them, maybe? Is "the
Universe" really "not aware of us"?
Wow, that's a wild assumption and I can easily show it to you: Look
around! What do you see in that universe called the Earth? We and the peak
of our civilisation is evident everywhere, Nature is very well aware of
the concrete industrialisation and our machines. Whether the nature of the
Universe is conscious or not is a puzzle I'll leave to you. To me the
assertion that "the Universe is not even aware of our beliefs" is a bit
extreme. Why? Because how we act, what we do in life is influenced by what
we believe.
Moreover, we are still not sure about the whereabouts of 'reality'. Where
is this Nature, only outside or also within, are we not part of the
Universe, and isn't it part of us?
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us Universe, a part
limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and
feelings as something separated from the rest... A kind of optical
delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison
for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for
a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves
from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace
all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
=09=09=09=09=09=09 Albert Einstein
Anyway, your wish is to talk about the "concerns of the Universe" so let's
do it. The first test is: can you trust your eyes?
Do you 'know' that space-time bends? How do you know it?
Can parallels meet and straight lines bend?
Yes and No, isn't it, depending on what we believe (the axiom of
choice:). If we like Newton (Euclid:) parallels could never meet and the
effect of gravity is caused by a 'force'. If we choose to believe Einstein
instead (and general relativity, non-Euclidean geometry) then we suddenly
realize that
"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."
=09=09=09=09=09=09 Albert Einstein
All of an amazed sudden it turns out that there is no force, "there is no
spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only
yourself." (the spoon boy from "the Matrix") And professors in theoretical
physics suddenly "recognised" their "outright delusions" and started to
"distinguish between their subjective personal preferences" for the
Newtonian 'force' "and the objective" space-time of Einstein. Here is how
a co-founder of the string-field theory put it:
However, the quantum theory stands in sharp contrast to Einstein's
general relativity ... In other words, we can now replace the clumsy
concept of a "force" with the more elegant bending of space
itself. We now have an entirely new definition of a "force." It is
nothing but the byproduct of the warping of space.
In the same way that a marble moves on a curved bed sheet, the earth
moves around the sun in a curved path because space-time itself is
curved. In this new picture, gravity is not a "force" but a byproduct
=3D=3D> of the warping of space-time. In some sense, gravity does not exis=
t;
what moves the planets and stars is the distortion of space and time.
=09=09=09 http://www.flash.net/~csmith0/theryall.htm
You read that?: "gravity does not exist". A miracle, isn't it. And
probably it has nothing to do with our subjective perception and
beliefs:). It must have been always there, outside, but our imperfect
(classic Greek or Newtonian) eyes were then too "dim-witted" to bend in
unison with the "distortion of space and time". Do you believe that?
Let us go back to the initial question, tell me the objective truth: Can
parallels meet? Can straight lines bend or not?
Remember, there is one objective truth only, so you have to fix your
physical reality (and yourself:) by giving me a definite, certain
answer. Because I "desire to know" :)
=09=09=09 Can we trust our eyes?
To say 'Yes' is a choice, a "personal opinion and preference" for the
"delightful sense of sight" (Aristotle). "In fairness, the problem is" a
matter of personal choice and belief.
If we decide that we have perfect eyes and forget about the illusions of
the eyesight (the alleged continuous motion in the movie made of discrete
shots on the tape, the real 3D people on the flat TV screen, the perfectly
round 'o' and circle in Nature or on the screen that is actually made of
teeny-weeny dots) we become empirical scientists and believe in the
objective and independent Nature outside. It is also a choice for the
power of the 'force' and the infinitely straight line, for Euclid, da
Vinci (the "linear perspective") and Newton.
On the other hand, if we are skeptical we wouldn't trust our divine senses
that much. We will recognise that our perception and belief of what is
real and what we 'know for sure' plays an important role in the
'objective' description we give to our experience. We start to doubt our
eyes; spoons, lines and "space itself bend". It is a choice for
'non-Euclid' and Einstein (and Plato, if you like, and especially his
skeptical successors in the Academy). The universe becomes a mystery:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It
is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this
emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand
rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
=09=09=09=09=09=09=09 Albert Einstein
You see where the real "problem" is: we have to make up our mind for one
(what about none, what if we do not rush to reject but balance in the
middle until new information arrives:) of the two alternatives: the
absolute certainty of the scientific (and religious:) dogma or the skeptic
disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge.
If you call the latter a "complete and utter rubbish" resulting from and
"obvious and odious narcissism", an "absolute horseshit" comparable only
to an "idiotic religious claim" then you've probably made up your mind,
you chose the scholastic certainty. Which is fine with me, as long as you
do not try to impose the physical extreme on everybody else. Actually, it
is a brave act to acknowledge that people are different and have the right
to choose in what world to live and imagine in their minds.
NEO: Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.
That choice reminds me of the mathematicians' axiom of choice.
=09 http://www.math.vanderbilt.edu/~schectex/ccc/choice.html
The Axiom of Choice (AC) was formulated about a century ago, and it
was controversial for a few of decades after that; it may be
considered the last great controversy of mathematics. It is now a
basic assumption used in many parts of mathematics. In fact,
assuming AC is equivalent to assuming any of these principles (and
many others):
...
- Any product of compact topological spaces is compact. (This is
now known as Tychonoff's Theorem, though Tychonoff himself only had
in mind a much more specialized result that is not equivalent to
the Axiom of Choice.)
AC has many forms; here is one of the simplest:
Axiom of Choice. Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we
can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other
words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property
that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S.
The function f is then called a choice function.
In effect, when we accept the Axiom of Choice, this means we are
agreeing to the convention that we shall permit ourselves to use a
=3D=3D> choice function f in proofs, as though it "exists" in some sense=
,
:) even though we cannot give an explicit example of it or an explicit
algorithm for it.
{Yeah, even in mathematics we have to make a choice to assume this or that
and is it so difficult to see why Einstein exclaimed: "As far as the laws
of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are
certain, they do not refer to reality." Now "dodge this"}
The "existence" of f -- or of any mathematical object, even the
:) number "3" -- is purely formal. It does not have the same kind of
solidity as your table and your chair; it merely exists in the
=3D=3D> mental universe of mathematics.
Many different mathematical universes are possible. When we accept
! or reject the Axiom of Choice, we are specifying which universe we
shall work in. Both possibilities are feasible -- i.e., neither
!=3D=3D> accepting nor rejecting AC yields a contradiction; that follows
from models devised by G=F6del and Cohen. Some mathematicians have
further investigated what happens when we reject AC but accept some
weakened variant -- for example, CC (Countable Choice), which
permits a sequence of arbitrary choices. However, most "ordinary"
mathematicians -- i.e., most mathematicians who are not logicians
or set theorists -- accept the Axiom of Choice chiefly because
their work is simpler with the Axiom of Choice than without it.
{This is skeptical balance in the middle: "both possibilities are
feasible, neither accepting nor rejecting AC yields a contradiction". It
only allows for magic, therefore mathematicians have proven that magic is
possible. Now remains the rest of the scientists to catch up. Note how the
author below cleverly avoids using the word 'reality', he's not sure, I
guess. Instead he talks about "everyday ordinary experience" as if we hear
Einstein and the "persistent illusion of reality". Reality as a habit (of
speech:), a funny idea.}
A few pure mathematicians and many applied mathematicians
(including, e.g., some mathematical physicists) are uncomfortable
with the Axiom of Choice. Although AC simplifies some parts of
mathematics, it also yields some results that are unrelated to, or
:) perhaps even contrary to, everyday "ordinary" experience; it
implies the existence of some rather bizarre, counterintuitive
objects. Perhaps the most bizarre is the Banach-Tarski Paradoxical
Decomposition. Banach and Tarski used the Axiom of Choice to prove
that it is possible to take the 3-dimensional closed unit ball,
B =3D {(x,y,z) =CE R3 : x2 + y2 + z2 < 1}
and partition it into finitely many pieces, and move those pieces
in rigid motions (i.e., rotations and translations, with pieces
permitted to move through one another) and reassemble them to form
two copies of B.
A miracle, isn't it. But what is of interest to me is the following
sub-quote that gives "freedom to the people":
Many different mathematical universes are possible. When we accept
=3D=3D> or reject the Axiom of Choice, we are specifying which universe =
we
shall work in. Both possibilities are feasible -- i.e., neither
accepting nor rejecting AC yields a contradiction;
It seems our friends have reinvented the wheel and proved the simultaneous
existence of parallel separate "universes", as many as the different
points of view (doesn't it remind you of general relativity).
Imagine that the physical world we were educated to see now is only one of
the many possible universes. If we collectively choose to believe in one
of them ("reality - the dream of the mad philosopher") we jump into
it. First in our mind, and then ... As you suggest, independent people
have varying "personal opinions and preferences". Therefore, they may
choose to believe in different 'gods', i.e. parallel realities may
peacefully coexist in our minds. Some of us will believe in Christ, others
in Einstein, third in the super-stringed 10-dimensional "theory of
everything" and so on. A tolerant possibility, I shall admit.
Does something bother you in the above paragraph? Be honest :)
In fairness, the problem is a failure to distinguish between the
subjective (this is "true" to me, which can cover everything from
personal opinions and preferences, to outright delusions) and the
objective (this is "true" for everyone; ie: f=3Dma, E=3Dmc^2, if you step
off a cliff you'll fall, not remain suspended in mid-air like the
Roadrunner because you never studied law), or even to recognize that
such a distinction exists; this probably is related to the obvious and
odious narcissism that permeates the whole "new age movement" in
general; rather than subject one's beliefs to critical scrutiny,
the new-ager falls back on cop-outs like the above, or claims that all
beliefs are entitled to the same level of respect, which is absolute
horseshit, and no more deserving of respect than any other idiotic
religious claim.
Yeah, you provide one (the most convincing:) example of your objective
truth - "if you step off a cliff you'll fall". Observe that at least in
some movies it is not always the case:
INT. MAIN DECK (Nebuchadnezzar)
Everyone is gathered behind Tank watching the fight, like watching a
game of Mortal Kombat.
MOUSE: Jesus Christ, he's fast. Take a look at his neural kinetics,
=09 they're way above normal.
INT. DOJO
Morpheus begins to press Neo, countering blows while slipping in
several stinging slaps.
MORPHEUS: What are you waiting for? You're faster than this. Don't
=09 think you are, know you are.
Whack, Morpheus cracks Neo again. Neo's face twists with rage as the
speed of the blows rises like a drum solo.
MORPHEUS: Come on. Stop *trying* to hit me and HIT me.
Wham. A single blow catches Morpheus on the side of the head. {A
second freezes Morpheus on the wall. And just as we expect the
finishing blow merciful Neo restrains his fist}
INT. MAIN DECK (Nebuchadnezzar)
MOUSE: I don't believe it.
INT. DOJO
NEO: I know what you're trying to do.
Morpheus smiles.
MORPHEUS: I'm trying to free your mind, Neo, but I can only show you
=09 the door, you're the one that has to walk through it. Tank,
=09 load the jump program.
INT. HOVERCRAFT
{Mouse is uneasy, the rest} exchange looks as Tank grabs for the
disk.
INT. CONSTRUCT - ROOFTOP - DAY
Morpheus and Neo are again in the white space of the
Construct. Beneath their feet, we see the jump program rush up at
them until they are standing on a rooftop in a city skyline.
MORPHEUS: You have to let it all go, Neo, fear, doubt, and
=09 disbelief. Free your mind.
:)=3D=3D> Morpheus spins, running hard at the edge of the rooftop. And
no jumps. He sails through the air, his coat billowing out behind him
fall like a cape as he lands on the rooftop across the street.
NEO: Whoa.
Neo looks down at the street twenty floors below, then at Morpheus an
impossible fifty feet away.
NEO: Okie dokie. Free my mind.
INT. MAIN DECK (Nebuchadnezzar)
They are transfixed.
MOUSE: So what if he makes it?
TANK: No one's ever made the first jump.
MOUSE: I know, I know. But what if he does?
APOC: He won't.
MOUSE: Come on.
Trinity stares at the screen, her fists clenching as she whispers.
TRINITY: Come on.
EXT. ROOFTOP (Jump program)
NEO: All right, no problem. Free my mind. Free my mind. All right.
He takes a deep breath. And starts to run.
Summoning every ounce of strength in his legs, Neo launches himself
into the air in a single maniacal shriek-
But comes up drastically short.
=3D=3D> His eyes widen as he plummets. Stories fly by, the ground rushing=
up
fall at him, but as he hits, the ground gives way, stretching like a
:) trapeze net. He bounces and flips, slowly coming to a rest, flat
INT. MAIN DECK
They break up.
MOUSE: Wha...what does that mean?
SWITCH: It doesn't mean anything.
CYPHER: Everybody falls the first time. Right, Trin?
But Trinity has already left.
Neo's eyes open as Tank eases the plug out. He tries to move and
groans, cradling his ribs. While Tank helps Morpheus, {Neo tastes
blood in his mouth. He checks with two fingers and they are indeed
red.} Neo stares at the blood.
NEO: I thought it wasn't real.
MORPHEUS: Your mind makes it real.
NEO: If you're killed in the Matrix, you die here?
MORPHEUS: The body cannot live without the mind.
Therefore, some people fall (Neo) some don't (Morpheus). In the movie
actually, we were prepared to expect 'the worse'. Neo didn't "have the
look of a man who would leave this place only in victory or death".
"Fear, doubt, and disbelief", he couldn't "let it all go".
Why do I like this fictional story from an unreal movie? Because it
reminds me that even this 'obvious' fact of the unavoidable fall has to be
verified, I mean, we still don't know what comes first: our belief in the
inevitable fact or the fact.
You assert they are independent but can you prove it. For now it is only
an assumption (that was in fact rebutted in "the Matrix":). Do you 'know'
of someone who has fallen without the necessary belief in falling and
without being observed by someone else who believes in gravity? (observers
and testers are not that independent, why not trust social scientists and
quantum mechanists; the rumour has it that they have discovered a weird
effect: the 'independent' wishes of the scientists may influence directly
the outcome of the experiment, i.e. reality, go figure:)
This would be a true test of your independence ASSUMPTION, a gravity
disbeliever to fall in sterile conditions: without any observing subject
around, without any curious true believer in gravity. That is the truly
independent and objective (non-subjective) scientific experiment, do you
know of any? How? :) :)
Not an easy test to design, isn't it. We reached the limits of empirical
science - the confines of reason.
Apart from the alleged independence between belief and fact I can also
question your (belief in the:) induction method. I dare to question your
"conclusion that what is true of certain individuals of a class, at
certain times is true of the whole class, in similar circumstances at all
times.". Am I delusional to doubt almighty induction?
if you step off a cliff you'll fall
Come on, can you prove that general statement to me. Actually, was your
choice of a certain fact arbitrary?
Did you know that it is a version of the deadly syllogistic example given
by Aristotle? It's purpose is to shock the soul and scare the listener to
death until we stop thinking and accept what is being said. And the
rhetoric Master knew it. It was no coincidence of random Nature that
Aristotle chose exactly death in order to sell to us his "mortal" idea of
a syllogism (theorem:). He didn't prove the assumptions, though, he just
told us how to start from an absolutely truthful premise and reach a
truthful conclusion. Here is the original example of the Architect:
(i) Every Greek is a person.
(ii) Every person is mortal.
(iii) Every Greek is mortal.
Simple and beautiful, isn't it: from (i) + (ii) logically follows
(iii). And if we are a "Greek person" with a lot of reason (haven't tamed
it yet) we'll have to agree, and even more. Sad but 'true', we had to
obey. Poor Greeks! :)
The 'dark' statement, is quite general, indeed. It doesn't say which is
the "mortal" thing (ego, soul, matter), so we conclude by impression that
everything in a "Greek person" is mortal (in the matrix of words and
reason; beyond the Word we just cannot tell or say, we cannot
'know':). Whatever we think we are is irrelevant, it has to die. We have
no choice, "that is the sound of inevitability."
INT. SUBWAY STATION - DAY
Agent Smith is about to press the attack when he hears something.
From deep in the tunnel, like an animal cry; a burst of high-speed
metal grinding against metal.
The sound of an on-coming train.
Agent Smith grabs hold of him, lifting him into the air, hurling him
against the curved wall of the train tunnel, where he falls inches
from the electrified third-rail.
{Neo is again on his hands and knees, blood spits from his
mouth. The Master Agent watches him from above like an emperor.}
Train nears. Neo tries to get up. Agent Smith jumps down onto the
tracks and grabs Neo in a choke-hold forcing him to look down the
tracks.
AGENT SMITH: Do you hear that, Mr. Anderson?
They hear again a high-speed metal grinding against metal.
AGENT SMITH: That is the sound of inevitability.
Agent Smith tightens his hold. Neo is unable to breathe. The train's
headlight burning a hole in the darkness. Neo sees it coming and he
starts to fight.
AGENT SMITH: That is the sound of your death.
Agent Aristotle produced certainty in our hearts and minds and we believed
his theorem, we accepted his truth. And his assumption, of course, that
there exists such a thing as a universally "truthful premise". And ... (as
long as we are in the consensus construct of the Architect we 'have to'
obey his universal law. A funny joke, isn't it)
To be honest, I can now understand the "mortal" choice of Aristotle: there
were not so many things in Nature that he could claim with absolute
certainty. Can you? But he needed to find this "truthful premise", so he
looked around and chose the most 'natural' thing that will stand the test
of time (yeah, he was preparing himself for eternity, the immortality of
the fame).
His example of a syllogism is valid as long as we assume (believe:) the
premises in (i) & (ii) are absolutely true, with 100% certainty. But how
do we know?
Empirical inference? Induction? Observing the past is not enough in this
case (if we don't believe in the method of philosophical
induction:). Think of it, we cannot know for sure until the person
actually 'chooses' to die. Until then it is an almost sure hypothesis, the
"person" is only "a potential" mortal "system" of bodily "functions":).
The thought above is actually an interesting journey. Telling a living
person that he is doomed, a mortal system that is going to die is an act
(a medical one, one might say:). The one who says or types it has made a
conscious choice to do so, "the informant is real". We may have many
reasons to want to reinvent the dead wheel: compassion, information,
education, psychiatry, science, research, progress, medicine, social
planning. To me they are irrelevant. I see it as an aboriginal bone we
give to each other and shock our souls. I perceive it as a suggestion from
someone who "wishes us to do the right thing". A prophecy that has yet to
be fulfilled by our true faith.
If we believe in it it will surely happen
What if we don't believe in it? "Honestly, we don't know". Perhaps, maybe
no one has ever tried it yet, what if "no one has ever done anything like
this". Because it is such an easy thought, I can only conclude that we are
facing another paradox of reason. That scientists believe in death is
obvious, but why should religious people do it? Or perhaps they don't?
A major disappointment here. Christians (the ones I know) choose death
with the glimmer of hope for resurrection. But the idea is accepted, the
word 'death' is there, deep inside. Some Eastern schools choose death for
different reasons, they have the hope (belief) for reincarnation and a
second (or twentieth) happier life. Again, by doing that they do not
reject the idea of 'death', on the contrary, the word buried itself all
the deeper. We can apply the same logic to the other universal laws,
"borders, rules and controls". For example, gravity. Einstein told us that
"in some sense, gravity does not exist", "there is no invisible force", it
is us who bend, "it is nothing but the byproduct of the warping of space".
And what about the "fall from the cliff"? When we say "if you step off a
cliff you'll fall" we probably mean it for all mankind and all living
creatures. But what if (before the evolution began:) there were people
with wings? What if once upon a time humans could fly?
A myth, a fairy tale, a lie? How do you know?
How could you know about all people in all time? Your 'knowledge' that
"you'll fall" is based on inference, an induction. Maybe you saw someone
falling (in a movie:) and generalised that it has to be the case for
everyone, for every person in every possible point of space-time. But how
do you know? How could you?
Before it actually happens it is merely a true faith, a belief beyond any
doubt. Not a fact.
=09=09=09=09 A legend
:) And maybe it is this conviction of ours that makes us actually fall,
maybe that firm belief in the law of gravity is what the yogis fight when
they 'learn' to levitate. Only a conjecture, but shouldn't be
excluded. And when they "let it all go: fear, doubt and disbelief" and
gain enough confidence in themselves they can demonstrate also to the
hesitant disbelievers. They can also make us see, like the skinny boy that
bent the spoon.
I have the suspicion that the most confident soul wins and imposes her
version of reality on the credulous 'witnesses'. If the guru is confident
she can make us see whatever she wants, all we need is a bit of doubt in
our dogma, a slight hesitation. If on the other hand, we are also dead
certain in our gravity dogma then what? Pure magic: if we remain silent
each of us may 'see' his or her own reality (in our mind:). The scientist
may see someone falling while the yogi may see something else (he may
enter another world:). And the lethal outcome is not sure. Of course, the
panicked witness usually 'unconsciously' tries to impose his reality by
crying and yelling at the sight of the levitating yoga, which may shock
his certain soul (and eventually make him comply, i.e. fall:).
End of the joking legend, back to the
independent and verifiable reality outside.
=09=09=09 A little reality check
Have you ever tried to "subject your beliefs to critical scrutiny"? "In
fairness"? "Know thyself". Here is a simple conundrum.
Do you believe in the truthfulness of the TV news and the mass media?
Do you know which of the information we are told is "objectively true for
everyone"?
How do you 'know'?
We see all kinds of fairy-tales on the TV screen but which of them are
absolutely and universally "true for everyone", that we cannot be sure
(don't worry, I'll prove it:). We cannot be 100% percent certain in the
objectivity of the news. Think of it: how can you check that something is
"objectively true for everyone"?
If you are not an omniscient God the only other way I see is through
scientific inference by induction. That is, you have to believe in the
Aristotelian method of holy generalisation in order to 'know' it or to
claim it with the absolute certainty of the religious fanatic. Well, here
is the disappointment: the method often fails. While some doctors thought
it was impossible to control our pulse (without any external pills or
other 'help') other 'field workers' in India and possibly elsewhere have
shown that this was not "true for everyone". It turned out a subjective
medical opinion, far from universal objectivity. And so is with the most
biology and medicine textbooks.
=09=09=09 Man on the Moon
Next I will give you a nice example of the un-verifiability of the mass
media truth. The idea struck me while I was reading yesterday's post of
Sir Winston (Subject: More Missing Postings). I found the alien evidence
amusing but it still doesn't reject (even confirms:) the witty hypothesis
of simultaneous parallel realities: we see what we would like to see. When
we like them (and believe) we may see the extra-terrestrials. If we choose
so. But ETs were not my point, further down his letter (77%) I read a line
"that was so stunning I sat in a mortified silence for about half an
hour...". Here is the jolly question:
=09=09 Do you know that we were on the moon?
How do you know? From the TV, maybe :) From the independent press and the
objective media?
Raven1: Ann, this is insane. Of course, we've been on the moon, everyone
=09'knows' that. Ask a child and it will parrot the names of the
=09first cosmonauts. There are films, documentaries, photographs.
That is, many words are written on this issue that collectively comprise
what we call a voluminous documented evidence. What can we reply to it:
Ann (smiling): Yeah, photographs. Never heard of faked photographs or
=09 movies? Actually, this is all that is done in the factory
=09 of illusions Hollywood. They know how to do it.
The only ones who could 'know' it for sure are the cosmonauts
themselves. And honesty is the pre-requisite. They are the first ones to
talk to. But can we?
As a matter of fact, one might conceive of a situation where even they
couldn't know. Theoretically it is possible to create an illusion of such
a gigantic scale, although it seems less likely to me. But also here
someone (the Creator) should know. In this hypothetical scenario that
would be the designers of the experiment or the training simulation. We
have to talk to the people who actually made the photographs, films and
other recordings that were later disseminated by the credulous press. In
general, the most reliable source is the first one (usually the military)
who provided the precious information and the shocking news. He (and the
film makers) would know whether the terrain was authentic and the pictures
real:
Now the length of time I spent in America was only two
hours. During about an hour of this time a Ne-ro guard was
assigned to my house arrest custody as I awaited the return
flight in Washington's Dulles Airport. We had the following
conversation:
=09 "So you're into UFOs are you?" the guard asked.
=09 "Yes." Obviously, I was on my way to a UFO Conference in Tampa,
=09 Florida.
=09 "Well y'know, I knew this top mil-tary ge-eral with a very high
=09 security clearance, y'know about the levels of security
=09 clearance?"
=09 "The thirty-eight levels above top secret?"
=09 "Yeah, well, I knew this mili-ary g-neral he had a very high
=09 level of clearance not exactly thirty-eight but he told me he
=09 had been shown small alien beings they keep in cryogenic
=09 storage. They were like foetuses. Like foetuses. Exactly like
=09 foetuses."
=09 "Uh, where are they kept?"
=09 "March. March Air Force Base. That's in California."
=09 "S'pose I thought Wright Patterson was the base....."
=09 "Wright Patterson is where they keep the hardware from UFO
=09 crashes March is where they take bodies."
=09 "So particular bases have specific functions for specifically
=09 UFO capture, all nice and ready for when it happens next."
=3D=3D=3D>=09 "Yep. An' y'know what? We were never on the moon. It was al=
l
=09 faked. (JW That may or may not be true.) They were right down
:) :)=09 here in an underground base."
=09 That was so stunning I sat in a mortified silence for about half
=09 an hour...
=09 Conspiring to hide all of this from the world!
=09=09 Excerpt from:
=09=09 Date: Sat, 2 Aug 2003
=09=09 From: John F. Winston
=09=09 Subject: More Missing Postings.
You see, even John got afraid at the thought and typed "(JW That may or
may not be true.)". Whereas, it might be the only true information from
his Washington's Dulles Airport conversation with the guard. We see and
hear what we would like to see. John was interested in aliens, while we
are searching for the "truth for everyone", reality:). Like, when was the
first time we touched the Moon.
So tell me what do you think, are you sure we've been on the moon?
Best,
Ann
.
|
|
|
| User: "CoffeeFiend" |
|
| Title: Re: Beliefs = Reality? |
05 Aug 2003 02:18:37 PM |
|
|
Ann wrote:
Hi Raven1,
thanks for your generous attempt to "correct my misguided notions".
Before we begin, let me remind you that insulting language and
abusive assertions are no arguments but mere distractions in the
Usenet discussion. They do not belong to the scientific style,
either. If I had to choose between your 'tolerance' (i.e. declaring
the opposition to your beliefs "complete and utter rubbish, modern
psychobabble, obvious and odious narcissism, and no more deserving of
respect than any other idiotic religious claim" in other words an
"absolute horseshit":) and the "new age movement" I'll choose the
latter.
Next I'll decipher what were you trying to tell us with the
passionate tone "of a man who accepts what he sees" and who 'knows'
the ultimate truth :)
MORPHEUS: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who
accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up.
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, raven1 wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:57:16 +0200, True-Sceptic
<anyname@hotmail.com> wrote:
Belief = Reality
What we believe with absolute certainty becomes real to us.
Which statement is complete and utter rubbish, and the foundation
of everything that's wrong with the "new age movement", for a
start. You can believe all you want that you aren't subject to
gravity; a simple step off a balcony will very quickly correct your
misguided notion.
The magic word is 'levitation', some yogi can do it and for that
miracle they need a heavy dose of non-Western belief.
So... how many people do you know who can levitate while meditating ?
Considering the amount of people currently living by eastern belief
systems, somebody ouh to have reached the sufficient level of
enlightenment. And I don't see why they shouldn't be able to demonstrate
their abilities to the scientific community. Sure, it would be hard at
the beginning and you would get a few funny looks, but if you would
demonstrate your abilities time after time to many people, it would
become undeniable. Also, If one can levitate, could one use their minds
to indirectly influence other things also. Furthermore if it is
possible, then why didn't the ancient eastern civilizations put it to
use, such abilities would be very handy.
I am not saying it is impossible, however it is highly unlikely. It is
more likely that the levitating monks were just cleaver magicians of
their times.
PS There are no such things as miracles, only things we are unable to
explain. Everything is a part of the objective reality that is the
universe. That doesn't mean that by playing by the rules we can't do
some amazing things that seem supernatural. ;-)
You may 'know' that yogis also defy other rules of our consensus
reality. They can consciously control their heartbeat, they can even
stop their heart and breathing (and whatever else that is necessary)
for a couple of days and be buried under the ground. These were
controlled natural experiments that started with beliefs (words) and
then some exercise (repetitions). And they are well documented. The
reason they do not make it to the biology textbooks is called
"rejection without proof" ("the fundamental characteristic of Western
science."). Some inventive scientists and historians simply decided
that the evidence was anecdotal. Was it a coincidence?
So... why don't the yogis demonstrate their abilites again, if they can
do it ?
What do you think, wasn't that an objective "failure to distinguish
between the subjective (this is "true" to me, which can cover
everything from personal opinions and preferences, to outright
delusions) and the objective"?
They looked at themselves and decided that those miracles are very
difficult, i.e. impossible for an 'average' and 'normal' human being.
And they rejected them. The next step was to infer that it was
impossible also for "ALL men by nature", using the induction method
of Aristotle, Webster Unabridged:
Induction 3. (Philos.) The act or process of reasoning from a part to
a whole, from particulars to generals, or from the individual to the
universal; also, the result or inference so reached.
Induction is an inference drawn from all the particulars. --Sir W.
Hamilton.
Induction is the process by which we conclude that what is true of
certain individuals of a class, is true of the whole class, or that
what is true at certain times will be true in similar circumstances
at all times. --J. S. Mill.
It was one example how our beliefs determine what we call 'reality'.
You shouldn't be surprised that the classical Greeks lived in a
different 'reality', we may read Homer for instance. And the rumour
has it that they couldn't see the irrational numbers in Nature
outside, how stupid and delusional of them. Religious people also
view the world differently (from another viewpoint) and as a
byproduct may witness many miracles and failures of the so called
ultimate theories, rules and laws of physical nature. It is their
choice and I see no reason why should they be deprived of this
fundamental human right - the right to choose what to believe in, the
right to be the sole masters of their own soul.
There was one other institution that "wished us to do the right
thing", trying to educate us in the right theory and the single truth
and burning the rival books. A dogmatic movement fighting against
our free will, those who defended the freedom of their choice were
declared pagan skeptics and 'had to' die. In the middle ages, the
name of that dogma preserving institution was the Inquisition. It is
not that dissimilar to modern scientists in the new ages. Of course,
the means were different, but what about the goal? Wasn't it to
reject anything (and anyone:) hostile to its divine truth?
Oh please... ?_?' Once again, there is nothing stopping you from
empirically demonstrating that what your belief is compatible with the
objective reality. However if it relies on the argument "you can't
prove a negative" then it has no place in the framework of empirical
science. Secondly, science doesn't claim to be in the posession of the
ultimate truth, like many fundamentalist religious folk do. After all,
Einstein manage to thriumph because of the emprical nature of science,
despite his ideas going against the grain.
You see, dogmatic religion and science have something in common, they
protect the fittest surviving theory (theirs:) of the time at all
costs. 'Tolerance' is a word foreign to them. No wonder, they had a
common scholastic teacher, catholics and scientists alike worship not
only their respective Gods (Lord Nature) but also embraced the
wisdom of the Godfather of science Lord Aristotle. And he was a
master of words able to produce absolute certainty in our gullible
hearts and minds. Later his "metaphysics" scholastics became the
Only in this day and age, the fittest surviving theories are the ones
that actually work and are useful and model the objective reality
accurately. Only the fundamentalists tend to whine about
it when it isn't compatible with their belief systems and ironically
often go for the "everything is subjective" argument, to put their own
delusions on merit with scientific theories.
Let me make one final note on the yoga example above. Can it
'really' be that our firm beliefs (or the things we are convinced to
know with 100% certainty) shape reality. What is 'real'? Where is
'reality'? Only outside of us? Are you 100% sure?
We are all apart of the objective reality, it's just that we may not be
aware of it, and believeing that we are doesn't make it so. That is
where empirisicm makes its enterence as the filter and "glue" between
the objective reality and the beliefs/models we have about it. And I
think it's the best guide we have, not a perfect one, but it has the
good track record :)
Of-course you can always say things like "The whole universe was created
a few seconds ago as it is" or that we are all just brains in jars
connected to a simulation. In fact, there are as many unfalsifialbe
assertions out there as we can think of... each one no more valid than
the other, so I do not bother myself with such things.
Yes, I am an materialst, a positivist and an atheist... so sue me :-)
I snipped the rest as I don't have any more time, but I have a feeling
it all pretty much boils down to the statement above. Next time, if you
want to get your point across do us a favor and put it in a more
coherent and precise form... pretty please.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Beliefs = Reality? |
06 Aug 2003 09:57:15 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 19:16:47 +0200, Ann wrote:
The magic word is 'levitation', some yogi can do it
Except they can't.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Beliefs = Reality? |
03 Aug 2003 03:05:25 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 19:16:47 +0200, Ann <aon2@hotmail.com> wrote:
The magic word is 'levitation', some yogi can do it and for that miracle
they need a heavy dose of non-Western belief.
Really, that says it all.
<snip remaining twaddle>
<plonk>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "CoffeeFiend" |
|
| Title: Re: Beliefs = Reality? |
05 Aug 2003 12:09:38 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
* ARRG! I hate it when I forget to wrap *
The Universe is not only not concerned with our beliefs; it isn't
even aware of them (or anything else, as far as can be determined),
and no amount of mysticism disguised as modern psychobabble will make
things otherwise.
Well... if you think about it, everything is apart of the universe,
including us and other lifeforms, so each conscious entity in the
universe is the universe beeing aware of itself :-D
Otherwise I agree.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CoffeeFiend" |
|
| Title: Re: Beliefs = Reality? |
05 Aug 2003 12:07:42 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003 09:57:16 +0200, True-Sceptic <anyname@hotmail.com>
wrote:
The Universe is not only not concerned with our beliefs; it isn't even
aware of them (or anything else, as far as can be determined), and no
amount of mysticism disguised as modern psychobabble will make things
otherwise.
Well... if you think about it, everything is apart of the universe,
including us and other lifeforms, so each conscious entity in the
universe is the universe beeing aware of itself :-D
Otherwise I agree.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
