Do you mean something that is physical?

we could start with physical examples and test it vs. my statement in the first post...but I think the correct word is tangible.

but really its simple if you believe something is there it is...if you don't then its not...for those that 'didn't' believe a hole was there it wasn't when they are on the ground with a sprained ankle they obviously believe there is a hole.

edit: I see how earlier you were asking 'why' you would do that. Why you would all of a sudden conjure up a hole when you previously didn't believe in one. This is a different matter, to answer that shouldn't help or hinder the supporting points.


it doesn't have to be physical it can be anything. If you believe love can build sand castles then it can.

If you believe the world is flat then it will be and all the math and science will suggest that it is.

I think I understand what you mean and I disagree based on everything we've come to understand about logic and causation, at least as it pertains to the physical world. In fact, all the major strides in science and technology have been dependent on our assumption your premise is false. OTOH, your arguement could certainly work for subjective beliefs such as love, trust etc. In that case belief is probably all that matters.

If you understood what I was saying then I think that is the response you would give so I think you get what I'm saying at least somewhat which is helpful

But my assumption says if science believes I am wrong then I am. My assumption also allows for the possibility that I am correct even though science can prove me wrong (thats all just a belief too).

Remember that science 'worked' when the world was flat...even though the outer limits of science obv didn't make sense. We have the same deal today, science 'works' except the outer limits don't make sense.


This is just stating a belief that will now have evidence to back it because you accept its true.

also I think you were referring earlier to kind of saying that I need to disprove our current way of thinking or living to show mine is correct. and that i have burden of prove that the old way is wrong.

But the old way is not wrong so I don't have to disprove it. I'm saying that my way includes the old way and explains why they can co exist.

The old way of thinking, say the scientific way, is used to disprove me by saying the scientific way works and is right, therefore I am wrong. But that doesn't disprove me. It just proves the scientific way works...which should be true under the science way (causation etc), but can also be true under my way.

My proof I'm right is that I can never be proven wrong without the assumption I am wrong, which from what I am saying will always produce a false negative.

Not sure what you mean by it "worked." If you mean gravity, for example, then of course it worked. That we did not (and still do not) fully understand it does not make it work any differently.

nono... im saying the scientific method worked...I mean maybe that specific term was invented later, I wouldn't know...but people could navigate and do astronomy and do math and physics....yet the world was not flat it was round.

Even with what we see as a misguided truth for their basis, they were still able to function and reason related things and events.

Our science is no different today, I'm sure we can all admit there are limits to the models we use to understand and they are prob dead wrong at the ends of what we know. Yet so much of our science 'work's.

So to bring it back together there is no way to prove the earth actually wasn't flat just like there is no way to prove that a tree that no one hears fall makes a sound.

What misguided truth? First of all. nobody in the time period you are talking about believed the earth was flat. The scientific method has always worked. Theories get developed based on empirical observations that seem to explain how things work. Theories tend to stick around--so long as they are useful--until conflicting evidence arises. You seem to have a pretty profound misunderstanding of science and truth.

Also, if you're trying to say, "Well, I believe a giant pink invisible unicorn is orbiting the earth, and it exists to me because there is no way to scientifically discredit my claim," then LOL whatever. I think a better term for that is psychosis, not universal truth.

I'm lost and I give up. Sorry...

actually now I think I understand what you mean.

It's a very nice idea.

Okay, so if I look up a random wiki article on something that I have no idea about... I have no idea what the word is... I've never heard it before, I don't know what it means and moreover I have never bene exposed to the kind of idea in the wikipedia article, then why exactly is that wikipedia article as it is, and not something else? It would seem that the "forcing of choice (like the collapse of the wavefunction in QM)" is biased towards something and it is not obvious why. Unless you are saying that we already have the knowledge (in the universe) locked up in our brains but we don't know which part of the brain all the knowledge is stored...

I'm not sure what you are saying here. What time period am I talking about, I thought I was talking about a period when the earth was flat?

But we don't always go straight ahead, sometimes we have to go back and change some things we mistakenly thought were true.

There would have been a bunch of science, maths, physics, to change once the world was believed to be round. Maybe we didn't have those names for those things but people have been doing maths etc. for thousands of years.

Same thing when we discovered the properties of light, the way we looked at the universe changed.


Its not because there is no scientific claim. Anything you see in life you believe it...look for something you don't believe....it won't be there, ever. Then change your belief...so you actually think something is there...and then tell me if you see it.

Believe you see a giant pink 'visible' unicorn, not just say you believe but actually believe it, and it will be there and you will point it out to me and tell me all about it.

There is nothing else that goes on but things the brain believes.


Yes they become the same thing by societies definition

oh no!!!

Wait, what, really?


A funny thing happens when you start to understand what I am saying, you can answer this for yourself and know the kinds of things I will say. But I still think this question has you thinking half in the old way and half in my way. Does the brain say "Wait a minute, but what about this thing I 'found' that doesn't jive with the 'universal truth'?" Isn't that just another manifestation of the mind? I don't even have to address the words of the article because we can come up with 1000's of things and even if they disprove me I can still be right.

But as for something that seems external like randoms articles of information, thats really a trick. If what we believe is true becomes true then we could give it any answer we want.

But if we think of color, do we actually see different colors...or do we see in different shades of black and white and the brain tells us we see 'color'? Your questions suggest we 'see' color...but I think both ways are actually the same thing.

So seeing new random external info, is also just the brain saying it sees it. And later you can say, "Yes but I can use this info and do stuff with it" but there is no escape from being able to say the brain is just tell itself its working.

I don't think you can separate those things, just like you can't separate yin/yang

It sound like you are starting to answer your self here, many philosophers etc. talk about hidden inner potential, god or the key is within us, we only use a small percent of our brain etc. We could go on and on about finding the universe in a grain of sand or whatever.

The interesting thing if you understand my 'belief' or truth comes from choice-less awareness. What would happen if you trained the mind not to form these beliefs, and neither accepted nor denied anything...sort of a darkness. This scares religious people because having there belief is the opposite of this. Choice-less awareness is a word I learned from Jiddhu Krishnamurti through Bruce Lee.

Bruce also wrote or quoted this, "The way to transcend time lies through proper use of the mind and will" And I think with my original saying for this thread that time travel makes complete sense and becomes obvious.

Trip much?

Maybe it's because you hold a belief that the world you live in includes potholes and so, in terms of probabilities, you have subconsciously assigned a value/frequency to encountering them, and therefore periodically you will.

That's a thought. But it wasn't actually the presence of the hole that twisted my ankle, it was my ignorance of it. Not realizing there was a hole allowed my timing to be off a bit causing me to land wrong on my foot, twist my ankle, lose my balance and tumble. Had I believed it was there I could have easily adjusted my stride to compensate. So any belief, subconscious or otherwise, would not have resulted in the fall. It was actually my disbelief of the hole that lead to the unfortunate event.

If your idea were true, I think babies would begin walking much sooner in life because they've had little time to form many beliefs about the world.

Yes, but if there was no hole to begin with, nothing would have occurred. Also, as far as babies walking are concerned, they learn to walk generally about the time your beliefs say it is possible.

That's a true statement, but I I've shown that belief had nothing to do with it's presence, by showing my disbelief in it is what actually caused the fall. If what OP claims is true, my disbelief would have prevented it's presence and the fall, and babies would never fall down either.

Yes, I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that your "greater" belief about holes in the ground would trump your belief in the moment. I am speaking to your underlying belief about reality.

Right, that seems to be sort of the theme here. It's so vague though, and nobody has been able to describe how or why my underlying belief can magically go back in time and create a hole in the ground before I stumble over it. Isn't it much simpler and more likely there was actually a hole there the entire time, and I simply didn't see it?

My only point was that in science, nothing is really ever true. Scientific theories can (practically) only be disconfirmed, not confirmed. It's a one-way street.

That's a rather innaccurate/ignorant view of scientific theories. Scientific theories are there so that we can try to predict, to our best knowledge at the time, what will happen given initial/boundary conditions. That's the whole point of science. Best guess (at the time).

My point is that, although science does not say what is absolutely true, there is no meaning behind thinking in this way. It is more meaningful to think of science as "best guess".

I don't know. Again, I guess it goes back to what you believe and how you believe time "functions" and what it is and isn't.

this truth would be the one thing that can be confirmed and the only thing, because even when it proves it self wrong it still self admits that it 'works'. So again when people show that its wrong with their sort of 'evidence' they are really just using the 'magic' or whatever to make it wrong. And then everything else because a changeable reality so nothing can ever be 'right' or 'wrong'