"Why not stop wasting our time by watching, preaching, commenting, reading, and/or buying books on these subjects and wondering whether infinity exists, and actually do something more useful, something that will help all the characters with whom you are stuck inside of the same game?"
The author completely missed the point. It is through the thought of such questions that we are coming closer to the possible truth. While helping others is completely meaningless, because the others might not even exist (see solipsism) and even if they did the actual helping would create small differences that would be completely different in the indirect future. And I came to this conclusion using thought of such questions.
Dealing with solipsism is your problem, if you exist. :)
But let me give you another answer, solipsism is easily testable, each of us can test it for himself, regardless of the possibility that maybe other entities are not real.
Fastest would be to stop breading, if you hold your breath long enough you will find out.
But let’s take less harmless test, fire the matches and try burning your hand. Does it hurt?
Probably, at least in my case it hurts, and I have memory it does. That means that regardless of the fact that you are only “real” being, you will still experience everything exactly as everything is real, you are bound by the laws of this world or the Maya (Illusion) how Hinduism teaching call’s it. Meaning even in the case that all people around you/me are puppets they can still hurt you/me.
Now real question is this: by testing and learning rules of the world, what are you going to do with your time here?
The fact that this illusion has an effect on the person, doesn't mean that it has a worth.
Now with what an consious being will do is completely subjective, and product of universal reactions.
A Meaning, a reason for its existence, or a specific reason to be interested in it.
- The fact that this illusion has an effect on the person, doesn't mean that it has a worth.
You said it does not worth. Then I have ask you to define "worth" you said:
- A Meaning, a reason for its existence, or a specific reason to be interested in it.
So I am asking you what is your reason for existence, if you think that you are only real why keep existing?
Both existing and not existing are meaningless, anything in the universe or a possible multiverse is meaningless, which includes the interactions that I do, which includes the stop of my existence. So either way it is, is pointless.
Thank you, although I understand my articles can be somewhat misleading, all my stories exist in greater context of previous articles, and the need for system change. But for that you would need to read all previous articles, and slowly you would get where I am heading.
Although I think for myself that I have scientific mind I do not like rigid approach, nether I have dismissed the possibility about discussion about those subject, I am pro lateral thinking in relax and creative environment. Militant atheist or religious environment where only goal is to ridicule other side because of their belief I do not grasp as helpful, and also I am afraid that similar approach does not solve problems but rather create more of them.
I will write in future about that, how often we argue about something we either do not have any knowledge, or we argue because "someone" has offered us a limited number of choices, and we convinced ourselves that what is offered is the only thing that is.
Like when you were a little kid and all you could see on TV were Mars or Snickers bars advertisement, and you will start arguing, with your similarly aged 6-7 years old friend from the next door, what chocolate bar is better, and then argument will heat up, you will start calling him names, and saying no I am right you do not know anything, maybe you will even fight with him. Until one day, your dad takes you to the near supermarket and you realize that there are hundreds of different chocolate bars, then at the same time you feel overwhelmed, sad and ashamed because you were fighting with your friend about something that is not important, and what really is important you have endangered with that silly fight.
You should look into logical positivism. It holds that any statement whose truth cannot be determined a priori or a posteriori is meaningless (although it has an issue in that the description of the philosophy itself would fall into the meaningless category). A statmemt like "God exists," as you described, cannot be known through experiment or deductive reasoning. So, the phrase itself is meaningless, as is all religious discussion. Language produces the illusion that "God exists" is a true or false statement by not differentiating between the existence of a dog (pretty obvious) and that of an all powerful, perfect being.
Personally, I dislike logical positivism. It seems like something of a cop-out, but I can see its appeal and utility in some questions. In this instance though, I think the discussion itself has an intrinsic benefit. Even meaningless statements can provide knowledge, if only through linguistic irregularities. That's he entire point behind "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." It is meaningless, and yet still a valuable part of linguistics discussion. Of course, there that sentence and "God exists" differ some, but I think there is enough overlap for at least some valuable discourse. Also, logical positivism does nothing against prudential arguments like Pascal's Wager, because the statment "It is beneficial to believe God exists" could be determined experimentally (though maybe not yet). So, not all discussion of religion would be meaningless.
Lastly, there's no way you're in my philosophy class, is there? Because you seem to be keeping pace with our discussions surprisingly well.
No I am not in your class, but thought of synchronicity made me laugh a bit, thank you.
Probably it is the zeitgeist "a spirit of the time" or like Germans like to call it leitmotiv. We live in times, as Louis C.K. said "Everything's amazing, yet no one's happy" we face same issues, living on the 3rd rock from the Sun.
I agree with you but that is the thing, debating is good my positions was that arguing is what bothers me. Point in time when sides get inflamed with emotions, raising hostility about some opinion. I do not perceive that as helpful, it is not scientific and it is not nice. Additionally what is annoying is that polarisation pumping effect in order to make a profit or fame...
Probable cause can be also desire to win the argument, reinstating “Alpha male/female” position (being better than someone else), I could not care less about those things, if I can learn something from someone, he/she is very welcomed to transmit any cognitive package, and I will spend time to think about it.