I don't agree with you. Their truth is not philosophical or empirical truth.Truth is truth. There is no separate religious truth and factual truth or rational truth or empirical truth. Religions claim a lot of things e.g. the Biblical God created the world in six days. — Truth Seeker
It doesn't matter what Buddha taught. We notice how the historical buddhism has been, and is now in reality.I am talking about what Buddha taught. Not what different schools of Buddhism teach. — Truth Seeker
You are talking about totally different kind of truth which is in the Bible, i.e. the religious truth. It is not the factual or rational or even empirical truth.On the contrary, religions claim to be true. "Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6, The Bible (New International Version). — Truth Seeker
There are so many different schools of Buddhism. They all claim totally different things.No, Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths and they are based on empirical observations. — Truth Seeker
In that case, truth or falsity don't belong to religious domain. Rejecting religions solely on the basis of lack of truth is not reasonable.Most religions rely on faith instead of evidence. — Truth Seeker
Most religions including Buddhism have been for the believers' wishing good fortune, prosperity, good health, good luck and better afterlife and rebirth after their deaths, rather than academic or philosophical debates on the universe or self.Buddhism is an exception in that Buddha's original teachings are based on what is empirical. — Truth Seeker
When did you first wake up from the American dream? — an-salad
How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? — Truth Seeker
The current western narrative at least focuses on the contradictions in religion, signifying a turn in the Dialectical battle in which Science has only recently made headway, but continues to face threats (Fanaticism, Theocracolies, Fundamentalism and Traditionalism). — ENOAH
I don't know anything about Islam, Hindu, Buddhism or Christianity, but I used to think there might be something that is more than what non-believers see and believe.The believers of a particular religion believe their religion is true. This also spread their beliefs to their children. There is often a steep penalty against leaving the religion one is born it. For example, leaving Islam is punishable by death. This is how religions survive for thousands of years. — Truth Seeker
It seems to be sure that one thing common in religions is that it is beyond the rational thinking system. You kept brining in religions into your threads, so I was expecting that you might be saying something more significant than religions are fiction. Claiming that religions are fiction without solid arguments has no significance in philosophical discussions.Whether or not I believe in them, religions exist and billions of people believe in them and live their lives according to them and happily kill others for them. — Truth Seeker
The questions here are, then, what is purpose (in itself), where does it come from, what is its ground? Or, what exactly gives it all meaning, makes it all worthwhile? — tim wood
Hindus believe their holy books are true. Just as Christians, Muslims and Jews believe their holy books to be true. Only the nonbelievers disbelieve the holy books of all religions. The holy books of all religions are self-contradictory and mutually contradictory. I have studied most religions. — Truth Seeker
If all the religions are fiction as you claim, then why do they keep believing in them for thousands of years?Most "Hindus" would say, [and I currently generally agree,] that vis a vis the only ultimate reality, everything projected into the world [as a representation of/by Mind] is ultimately a fiction and yet we have been deceived by it. And not just for a few millenia, but since the dawn of human history [as opposed to prehistoric human animals] — ENOAH
Philosophy of Religion doesn't deal with the legitimacy of the claims made by the religion. Philosophy of Religion is mainly interested in the linguistic and conceptual analysis of the religious scriptures and expressions.Isn't there a whole branch of philosophy called the Philosophy of Religion? — Truth Seeker
It's written in their holy book. I don't agree with them. I think all religions are fiction made up by people. — Truth Seeker
Might I suggest, respectfully, the illusion that you might not have any illusions? — ENOAH
We don't have the means to test the simulation hypothesis. — Truth Seeker
Hypothetical talks are interesting even though they are not philosophical statements. I am a big fan of science fiction. — Truth Seeker
Imagination is a powerful mental event, which is a vital concept for providing us with the answers to the discussions. For example, isn't imagination the source of the idea of Cause and Effect in Hume?Fair enough. I'll do my best to comply because I respect the value in that. Please assure me you don't mean to exclude the imagination. — ENOAH
Of course, we all co-exist in this universe communicating and sharing the ideas and information via language and actions.Also, please keep in mind that even the dogs are permitted the scraps off their masters table. — ENOAH
All bivalent systems of predicate logic only have (by definition of bivalent) two
Boolean values of True or False with nothing in between. What you have been
saying is the same as saying 2 == 5. — PL Olcott
That's cool.No apology is needed for your delayed reply. — Truth Seeker
Death cannot be the exit from the simulation at all, because no dead person has ever survived after their deaths. Once a person dies, he / she never comes back to reality or empirical world at all. They just totally cease to exist eternally.Death could be the exit from this simulation. — Truth Seeker
You could try to prove their existences. I doubt anyone can prove it, but it doesn't mean that you cannot prove it. If you still believe in the possibilities of the existence of an infinite number of universes, why not try to prove it first?What if there are an infinite number of universes? If so, the one-in-infinity possibilities would be real in at least one out of the infinite number of universes. — Truth Seeker
You need to read up QM then.Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then there could be an infinite number of universes. — Truth Seeker
If an infinite number of universes existed, it would be in the mind of the believer. Never in the physical world.Unfortunately, we have no way to test this hypothesis. — Truth Seeker
For some unknown reasons, you changed the subject to Functions. There are differences in functions of math, and functions in computer programming. Can you explain the difference?They call functions of the Boolean type predicates in all orders of predicate logic. Functions of any other type are called functions. Predicate: >(5,2)==TRUE Function: +(5,2)==7 — PL Olcott
Could you please explain that in plain English? And how is it related to our discussion?Predicate: >(5,2)==TRUE Function: +(5,2)==7 — PL Olcott
I didn't say we can eliminate the idea of simulation. We could be aliens experiencing a simulation of what it is like to be a human on Earth. Death could be the exit from this simulation. — Truth Seeker
Looks like I didn't understand him. — Truth Seeker
Instead of a three values system with {True, False and Nonsense} I have bivalent systems of logic that derive a type mismatch error for any expression that is not a proposition. — PL Olcott
It is a Boolean valued system. When epistemological antinomies are involved they must be rejected
as a type mismatch error because that have no Boolean values. — PL Olcott
Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTNvcy5LZPo where Elon Musk explains why he thinks we are living in a simulation. I don't agree with him. — Truth Seeker
Elon Musk thinks that our perceived world is a simulation created by our descendants. I wish we knew more. — Truth Seeker
I have found that line of reasoning ineffective so I switched. We have to resolve my prior reply before you can begin to understand my updated reasoning. — PL Olcott
I don't think that you can find any source that ever says anything like that for bivalent systems of logic. I don't think you can find any sources that say anything like that for (a) propositional logic (b) FOL, (c) SOL, (d) HOL.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle only works in bivalent logic. — PL Olcott
I wish we knew more. — Truth Seeker
Are you talking about the untestable hypothesis that our perceived world could be a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion? Then they are untestable ideas. If we could test them then the results would be in the "matter of facts" but we can't test them. — Truth Seeker
Nonsense !! Nonsense is just a colloquial expression saying, no you are bloody wrong mate.{Nonsense} is a stipulated term of the art of my formal three-valued formal system of logic
having values of {True, False, Nonsense} that only applies to expressions such as this: — PL Olcott
Many Wiki pages and Youtube videos are rubbish. Don't trust and worship them as if they are the bible. Think with your own mind, and if it doesn't make sense, then you should be able to say "Nonsense mate. This is what I think, because of this and that." As I said before, they may slag you for saying what you think is true, but at least you know you have been thinking with your own mind, rather than parroting what the Wiki pages and Youtubers said, or joined the herd of the inauthentic comedians seeking pleasure out of attacking the authentic self thinking man.The Strengthened Liar and Paradoxes of Incompleteness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LWQPGjAs3M — PL Olcott
Boolean values are properties of every Proposition
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language, semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary bearer of truth or falsity. Propositions are also often characterized as being the kind of thing that declarative sentences denote. — PL Olcott
Science-fiction is fun. — Truth Seeker
It's not a belief. It's an imaginative exploration of a hypothetical situation. This is what science-fiction writers do. This is why I said "What if". — Truth Seeker
Boolean values are applicable up to FOL, but FOL cannot express the full complexities in the world. Hence you are going up to HOL, which has the extended truth values, and can describe more complex states of the real world.A currently unknown Boolean value is still a Boolean value.
No such thing as a neutral Boolean value. — PL Olcott
In HOL, "What time is it?" would be translated into computable format, and can be processed for the proper truth values."What time is it?" has no Boolean value.
Contradiction proves False. — PL Olcott
Nonsense is not a logic world. It is an ordinary linguistic expression to mean False with added stupidity and foolishness connotation.{Nonsense} is reserved for expressions that cannot be true or false. — PL Olcott
What if I exist as an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe? — Truth Seeker