The belief would be that your senses aren’t being actively deceived. Also, that you’re not a Boltzmann brain hallucinating in the void.
I personally believe all the axioms of science apply. It’s still fun to poke at them.
Comment on big facts
lime@feddit.nu 3 hours agoi don’t believe in wifi, just like i don’t believe in trees. i know they’re there.
cynar@lemmy.world 3 hours ago
lime@feddit.nu 2 hours ago
the atheist says “i will not believe”. the agnostic says “i can not believe”. one is as dogmatic as the beliefs they purport to refute, the other lacks the capacity for dogma, as belief for them is simply not possible.
cynar@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
Belief in a null is a lot more reasonable than belief in something so powerful it can pretend to be a null.
Belief that I am not in a Truman show like environment is a lot more reasonable (without evidence) than belief that I am in a Truman show, and they are doing a perfect job.
That doesn’t mean I don’t try disproving the null hypothesis.
LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 51 minutes ago
I don’t think reasonable is even it, it’s just a helpful assumption.
If “they” are doing a perfect job, there’s nothing you can do, so you might as well assume they’re not and play your role.
lime@feddit.nu 1 hour ago
a hypothesis based on established facts is no longer belief but extrapolation.
Grail@multiverse.soulism.net 3 hours ago
Oh, you’re a solipsist? You believe reality is an illusion and trees don’t really exist? I’m somewhat similar, I’m an antirealist. I recognise that reality is an illusion, but I still choose to believe in it until it can be overthrown. If we teach enough people how to reshape their beliefs and perceptions, then we can decide for ourselves whether trees exist. But at present, I need to believe in trees in order to inhabit consensus reality and communicate efficiently with the people who live here. It’s cool that you don’t believe in trees, though!
lime@feddit.nu 3 hours ago
no