Believable existance
 

Just a quick poll. Post your opinions if you want, although it is welcome to know.

Of course. Since when does something's existence require belief? The earth was still round when everyone knew it was flat. The physical elements still existed when everyone knew that things were made out of earth, air, fire and water, etc etc etc.

There is no good way to show that Earth was never flat... perhaps our beliefs have retroactively changed the past, and there existed an actual time when Earth was flat?

Kant's epistemological model speaks of noumena and phenomena. The phenomenal world is how the world appears to us, whilst the noumenal world is what the world actually is. We know nothing of the noumenal world, save that it exists, it is what we perceive, and that logically generable properties and similarly trivial properties apply to it. Given this framework for reality, it is entirely possible that our scientific observations (the laws of physics are but exercises in mathematics and pattern recognition) do not always accurately approximate the real world.

Having said that, I do believe that certain things are not contingent upon the veridical nature of the noumenal world. One plus one is always two, for instance. (If you are tempted to raise a counterexample featuring a different number base, don't. You know what I mean here.) Basic axioms, and statements that may be derived from them, are necessarily true. Whilst the laws of physics can differ between theoretical realities due to varying physical constants, mathematics remains invariant across the spectrum of alternate universes.

The veracity of axioms and their logical progeny, then, always exists regardless of belief.

I now quote Rogue49, quoting Philip K. Dick:

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.
- Philip K. Dick

yes, it would exist.

there are lots of facts that we dont know about the universe, so that doesnt mean they dont exist.

It might not exist for certain but it is possible that it does. Just because no one believes it exists doesn't mean that it actually doesn't.

Lots of Materialists here. Unsurprising.

We are co-creators here in this three dimensional realm. Imagine. Image in. Belief creates. In mythology, the gods left our dimension because people stopped believing in them. Any invention was created from belief. I am not saying that if you or I stopped believing in something it would disappear but if all of us believed in something, really believed it would materialize. This I know from experience.

existence isn't subjective. I chose to ignore your question because of the way you put it.
This doesn't provide enough information for an answer. Something has to exist for it to exist... it doesn't matter if anyone believes in it. It may not exist for those people that don't believe, but that doesn't negate it's existence.

For instance... If everyone was an atheist, god wouldn't exist as far as we're concerned... but god would have to exist in the first place for it to matter, and even if he did, he obviously doesn't care if we believe in him or not.

"I choose to ignore your question" is the best response but wrong...
something still exisists weather or not anyone believes it does.

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?... who cares if it made a sound, it still fell.

interesting answers. Thanks.

Erhm... the tree still made a sound, just that no one was around to hear it ;)

:thumbsup:

Neils Bohr would disagree. The tree hasn't fallen until someone has seen it on the ground! And that fucking cat isn't dead till someone says it is!

Of course I wouldn’t agree. Sure, we can't PROVE that reality isn't contingent on our experience of it, but such a stance always strikes me as being exceedingly narcissistic!

We don't need to believe in stuff for it to exist.

it might, but its feelings would be really hurt - and it would definitely have very poor self-esteem.

You're thinking of Schroedinger's cat, nothing to do with Neils Bohr.

I've always thought it extremely egotistical to suppose that nothing has happened until someone observes it. Existence is independent of observers or their mindsets.

You need to add an "undecided" button...as this question caused all kinds of thought processes in my head that kept contradicting each other

It's a concept taken to extreme.

And re-enforces our arrogance.

The universe is not centered about humanity.

Not to sound like an arrogant fuck, but do you even know what you're talking about?

I am NOT talking about Schroedinger, I am talking about Neils Bohr and the "Copenhagen Interpreation" of quantum physics, also supported by Heisenberg, Pauli and John von Neumann.

Schroedinger, OPPOSED this interpretation and devised the imfamous though experiment to show the consequences of such a belief, although the experiment could not in fact PROVE it to be wrong.

(BTW I do not accept Neils Bohr's interpretation, I side with Einstein and Schroedinger)

It's been a dozen years since someone stole my copy of John Gribbin's In Search of Schroedinger's Cat. If you're offended by my forgetting it was called "the Copenhagen Interpretation" and who was on which side, tough shit for you.

not offended, just would prefer that you would get your facts right before telling me that I am wrong. Surely a reasonable request?

I didn't say you were wrong. You misread.

Just forget it. Not worth getting worked up over.