Believe being the operative word here. If you take a look at the plethora of human beliefs you will instantly realize the belief and truth aren't necessarily linked.
The only thing that can be known to exist on an empirical level are your very own thoughts (though that could even be...
Well the alternative to solipsism would be a universe that was not effected by the beings observing it. What you are saying about the universe being innately linked to the processes of the mind could in fact mean there is no universe at all, simply the mind. Because if the processes are all...
You are advocating Solipsism. Which is fine, but know that if everything exists only on an intellectual level, then that proves nothing about an 'actual' universe.
You're teetering on the brink of describing Solipsism. In that case, the only thing that can be proven to exist is the mind and nothing else. Any theories of science would be irrelevant if that were true.
Quantum Electrodynamics, for example, is still a representation. It's a way we...
There is no such thing as a triangle. There are ways of relating to space by categorizing it from a Euclidean perspective... but that's just a classification of the observed system. If an object has a shape in which we would label as a triangle, that is irrelevant to the actual object...
True, but all you're describing is perfection within the definitions given by specific human-made notions... whether those be geometry or QED. A triangle actually exists no more than a probabilistic electron cloud does. They are representations and not actual truisms. To define the universe...
I think perfect is a difficult word choice to use. If two electrons are entangled in a quantum sense, what essence of them is 'perfect?' A triangle in geometry can be considered perfect if it fits a definition within the realm of geometry to a certain degree. But how does one label the...
I may be misunderstanding you, but these two statements seem contradictory. Could you please elaborate to help me follow your line of logic?
Shallow? As in a moral sense? I do not follow. I don't think the universe cares as much about morality as humans do.
Well this is getting a bit off topic, but I understand what you're saying. Ideas though, are human constructs, not properties of the universe. They are comprehensions that are understood. The Pythagorean Theorem is a human notion. An observation and way of explaining relations of human...
Sick is your opinion, but I don't go so far as Descartes when he spoke of Solipsist beliefs. Is it wrong to build ideas on previous philosophies and ideas? You are suggesting you've uniquely come up with every idea you've ever had?
Einstein could not have made SR and GR without Newton's...
That person was referring to a cliched and diluted use of Occam's Razor. I'm not saying nature is necessarily simple. There is very clear evidence that the universe exists (and does so in a very complex way). But to propose any alternative without proof is just as viable as any other...
I'm not saying it's not valid, but that theory is responsible for finding the proof. The proof that the universe exists is readily available, an alternative proof is not. I am simply applying Occam's Razor to the equation and not adding speculative complexities.
Well, in essence is that wrong? Yes it could have... but the reality is it didn't. The reality then is that only the 1 was reality. The 2 was simply a possibility.
But my point about the universe is different. I am attempting to point out that there is no proof for something to 'not exist'...
Your Fnord Bunnies actually help my hypothesis. I'm saying the universe exists and there is observable evidence for that, I then stop there and cease all assumptions. There is no observable evidence for anything other than an existing universe... including your Fnord bunnies. (however cute...