Note however, that fictional or hypothetical constructs do exist, just they exist as fictional or hypothetical constructs. What all this means is the truth can only be pursued for that which exists.
So, the fiction/hypothetical constructs do NOT correspond to anything in reality, but the REPRESENTATION of the fiction/hypothetical constructs corresponds to the bit of the brain which hold them, correct?
Whether or not my reality is independent of myself is irrelevant to my worldview, as I have no way of telling for sure one way or the other.
Hm to check
Reality independent of perceptions:
Brain in a jar
Boltzmann brain (random particles forming to become a brain that thinks chaotic thoughts and disappear)
Dependent of perceptions:
What our senses tell us right now
What science as a body of literature tells us (?)
How would you talk about Carl Sagan's invisible dragon in the garage, who (coincidentally) cannot have any test falsify it?
You answered this later, it's irrelevant. So does that mean you can't place it into either
Even if I hallucinated a flying teapot, that teapot would exist in some way.
So, I'm taking it to mean that the teapot exists encoded in your consciousness correct?
Hm, this might be confusing, would you be fine writing like this? You've referenced exist so far, which I think means two different things: Exists as an object in reality, exists as a representation in your brain, which is an object in reality. Would you mind referring to them as Exists::Reality or Exists::Representation? I mean, it's kinda unwieldy but otherwise I start getting really confused. (You've been clear so far, there's no point of confusion yet, this is just to head off future disputes)
If however, we find that one of the properties of the Higgs-Boson construct does not fit with what we observe, we can say that the Higgs-Boson does not exist as defined outside of being a hypothetical construct.
Like here! So what you're saying is...
Higgs-Boson::Theory Construct doesn't exist when you find one of the properties is different from Higgs-Boson::Observed right?
So at this point, I'll say that something is relevant if it can either proven to exist, or able to be proven or disproven to exist at some future point, without change from outside our ability to influence.
Assuming that this means what I think it means, I guess when I say I'm a reductionist, one of my beliefs is that irrelevant things do not belong in any discussion of truth.
It is more likely that a stone exists than it is that a blue stone exists. And following that, it is more likely that a blue stone exists than it is that a round blue stone exists.
Oh man the conjunctive rule in probability *squee* YES YES YES. YESSSS.
*Ahem*
So, let me explain how my view relates to that.
What's irrelevant, nonetheless, has a nonzero KC value.
We know the truer our statements given a set of observations are the more our KC value is minimized.
When we postulate what's irrelevant, we HAVE to add it onto the KC value of whatever else we have.
Therefore any statement with irrelevant statements in them are less true than statements without them.
As a sanity check, adding relevant statements doesn't necessarily have this flaw, because the minimum possible KC value also increases, because we have more observations.
3: Truth remains truth regardless of time passed.
So, what I would say is that reality remains reality regardless of time passed hm.
Do you acknowledge a difference between truth and reality? How would your version of truth apply to the coinflipping situation I said earlier?
--
You're messing with me! You're messing with me, aren't you!?
You're making fun of me, aren't you!? Aren't you!? You definitely are! I'll murder you!