The time-wasting part would be thinking about something that is unknowable in the hope of getting to the truth about it. — Janus

I agree. It is futile.

I am glad you love the idea. It's a pity that this can happen only in our imagination.

But if there were two all-powerful beings, wouldn’t the power of one be a limit on the power of the other, so that there were no all-powerful beings? — Fire Ologist

I could give each all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful being a unique omniverse with an infinite number of universes. I imagine this would prevent any conflicts between them.

And if a being could only make the perfect choice, would there ever be any option or choice to make? Wouldn’t that mean such beings had no reason to ever choose, as each “choice” was really just a seeking of the knowing the one way to act? — Fire Ologist

I don't know. I am not all-knowing so it is impossible for me to know what that is like in practice.

And if you didn’t already know the right way to act, knowing the perfect choice (as when you pause to consider options), how can you say you are all-knowing? — Fire Ologist

I imagine an all-knowing being does not need to ponder which choice to make.

But that said, people are so damn intolerant, willing to act unreasonably, self-centered, and just plain hurtful, it’s worth thinking about how to change this without losing the real circumstances that beg us to tolerate differences, to be patient enough to find reasonableness, to consider others before ourselves and seek to help others instead of hurt them. — Fire Ologist

Why are people the way they are? I think it is because of their genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. Our choices arise out of the dynamic interactions of our genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences. We are not free from these determinants.

I wouldn’t change the world. If I could change myself, and we all could, this world could be good enough. — Fire Ologist

You can change yourself. We all change as we age. We learn new skills, we learn from mistakes, etc.

I agree.

Hey, should we start a thread for that? Everyone can pick his/her time in history and place and say what should be changed, why, and how? — Athena

Thank you for the proposal. I have created such a thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15185/changing-the-past-in-our-imagination

I loved Genghis Khan, the early Nintendo game. I loved that we could save the game and repeat a part of it if things went really wrong. I also liked how it expanded my ideas of what is important and how to balance everything. — Athena

If you loved that game you are likely to love Civilization VI.

Surely, if I am the only entity in existence, my memories would go as far back as I want them to go?
— Truth Seeker

Surely not. — Lionino

I don't understand your reply. Please explain. Thank you.

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. — Corvus

How could religions be true when they contradict themselves and contradict each other and contradict what we know from evidence-based research? Please see https://www.evilbible.com and https://skepticsannotatedbible.com

Solipsism will most likely never be defeated, perhaps only become obsolete. — Lionino

If solipsism is true, why do I have memories starting from age four to the present? Surely, if I am the only entity in existence, my memories would go as far back as I want them to go?

Thank you for the link. The article reminded me of laboratory experiments where mice stimulate the pleasure centres in their brains until they die. What I want to do is different from both what the article says and what the lab mice did. I want to make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful because such beings would not harm others and would not be harmed by others. Such beings can will themselves to be forever happy. Of course, the scenario is impossible in the real world. It's nothing but wishful thinking.

I agree with you.

If all the religions are fiction as you claim, then why do they keep believing in them for thousands of years? — Corvus

The believers of a particular religion believe their religion is true. They also spread their beliefs to their children. There is often a steep penalty against leaving the religion one is born in. For example, leaving Islam is punishable by death. This is how religions survive for thousands of years.

But if you just label all the religions are fictions, then people might wonder what was the point of you even mentioning them in your posts. — Corvus

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.

Here are some new core beliefs for me:

1. Live and help live, live and love.
2. Help all, harm none.
3. Life is worth living despite the negative aspects.
4. We work together to save and improve all lives.
5. We can't change the past, but we can learn from the past and change the future for the better by making wiser choices in the present.

There are many hypotheses that can't be tested e.g. simulation hypothesis, illusion hypothesis, dream hypothesis, hallucination hypothesis, solipsism hypothesis, philosophical zombie hypothesis, panpsychism hypothesis, deism hypothesis, theism hypothesis, pantheism hypothesis, panentheism hypothesis, etc. Just because a hypothesis can't be tested it does not mean it is true or false. It just means that it is currently untestable.

If these "hypotheses" are untestable then not only can they not be proven, but even their likelihood cannot be established, so of what possible significance could they be to our lives? Even if they were true what would that change? On what basis are they even interesting? Why should we waste any time or energy concerning ourselves with them? — Janus

They have no significance. Even if they were true, we wouldn't know it. I found it interesting to think about these unlikely scenarios but that doesn't mean everyone will find it interesting. We shouldn't waste time and energy concerning ourselves with them.

I think there is a world independent of my mind. There are also other human bodies and minds. We can form very accurate models of our environment using our sensory perceptions.

I agree with you. There is no reasonable ground for solipsism.

My position has changed totally from what I said in my original post in this thread. By reading the replies I have become convinced that we can know some things objectively.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I agree that the movie is a work of fiction.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. My primary desire is to make all organisms forever happy (including the dead ones and the never-born ones) but this is impossible for me to do. I can't do any of the things I really want to do e.g. prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths and make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful. I suffer constantly from chronic pains. I also suffer from CPTSD and Bipolar Disorder. If I could cure myself of all my illnesses that would be the preferred outcome, but I can't cure myself. My death would be a relief from my constant suffering. However, I am not going to self-terminate because I have a duty of care to others.

Here's why we cannot be brains in a vat; https://iep.utm.edu/brain-in-a-vat-argument/ — jkop

Thank you for the link. What a fascinating article!

I agree.

1. If it is a fiction, then why people have been deceived by it for so long time? 5000 years? Surely it takes 5 minutes for ordinary folks to know it is a fiction.

2. If it is a fiction, then what is a philosophical point of it? — Corvus

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.

Isn't there a whole branch of philosophy called the Philosophy of Religion?

Some "core beliefs" which I try to live by:

Do no harm as in: What I find harmful, I try not to do to anyone'.

Have courage as in: I expect the best, prepare  for the worst and try to  accept whatever comes.

Trust evidence as in this motto: In Nature We Trust. — 180 Proof

I love your core beliefs. They are much more helpful than mine. I am working on replacing my core beliefs with helpful ones. Thank you for sharing.

Thank you for your kind wishes and understanding.

I agree. Ever since I watched the movie "The Matrix" I have been troubled by how to tell what is real and what is not.

I agree.

I agree.

I agree that there are no reasonable grounds to think that I am in the Matrix. I also agree that there are no reasonable grounds to think that solipsism is correct. I also agree that there are no reasonable grounds to think that we live in a simulation. I am currently going through a depressive episode which affects my concentration and comprehension so I didn't understand everything you said and everything in the links you shared. I don't know if I will ever get better but if I do, I will re-read everything to see if I understand them.

We don't know anything objectively. We may believe that we do but this is a delusion. Everything we know is subjective. There are two kinds of subjective truths:
— Truth Seeker

You open by claiming that believing objective knowledge is a delusion. If all knowledge is subjective, how can you assert that objectivity is delusional? Maybe that's just your particular problem, not shared by other people.

As a rule of thumb, sweeping generalities ("we don't know anything objectively") should be viewed with suspicion. — BC

I am happy to view it with suspicion. I am almost 100% certain that solipsism is incorrect. However, in the one-in-infinity case that solipsism is correct, then only I exist and everyone and everything else is part of a hallucination or dream or illusion or simulation I am experiencing.

We don't know anything objectively.
— Truth Seeker
False. Some obvious examples – "We know objectively" that no individual was born before her parents were born. "We know objectively" that we are natural beings whose existence is both consistent with physical laws and inseparable from nature itself. Also "we know objectively" that we cannot in any way know at any time 'all that is knowable'. — 180 Proof

I have no way to know that children, parents, the universe, the laws of physics, etc. are real. What if solipsism is true and I am the only being that actually exists and everything else is part of a hallucination or dream or illusion or simulation I am experiencing?

I agree with you. What if everyone and everything is part of a bubble of solipsism?

Thank you for your reply and recommendation. What are your core beliefs?

The reason I haven't taken my life is that would harm my family. I have a duty of care to them. I have a duty of care to all living things. I do my best to save and improve all lives, but I can't save and improve all lives despite my best efforts. 99.9% of all the species to evolve so far on Earth are already extinct. The remaining 0.1% will also die.

Thank you for your advice. You are lucky that you are not me and have not lived my life.

I don't know. I can't figure out the whole truth about reality. I wish all living things were all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful.

I understand that. My question is, do you think that my comment is contradictory with the OP? — Lionino

I am confused. I don't know. I wonder about solipsism. I can't prove or disprove it. I wonder about the Simulation Hypothesis. I can't prove or disprove that either. How would I know anything objectively? By "objective" I mean external to my mind or minds in general. By "subjective" I mean internal to my mind or minds in general.

That knowledge happens inside our heads doesn't matter, because that is included in the definition of "know" already. — Lionino

I understood the point you made and I realised that it is true. That's why I agree with you.

I agree.

I agree.

Why would anyone leave Bangladesh? — Athena

Different people have left Bangladesh for different reasons. Some have left to have a better standard of living in another country. Some have left because their lives were threatened in Bangladesh. Some have left to earn more money for their family. Some have left to have better education.

I think of Bangladesh as very exotic and with a rich history. — Athena

When I think of Bangladesh, I am flooded with sorrow about all the suffering, inequality, injustice and deaths. Please see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attacks_by_Islamic_extremists_in_Bangladesh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Bangladesh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991_Bangladesh_cyclone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floods_in_Bangladesh

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Liberation_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970_Bhola_cyclone

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Plassey

In 1617, the Christian King James I of England & VI of Scotland, the one who authorised the King James Version of the Bible, offered friendship to the Muslim Emperor Jahangir. In return, Jahangir granted trading permission and tax-exempt status to the English East India Company. In 1757, the East India Compay stabbed the natives in the back and took power using deception, bribery and violence. The Company forced local farmers to grow cash crops instead of food crops. During the 1769 to 1773 famine, they increased tax 3 to 4 times the original tax - one would think the Company would remember that they were given tax-exempt status by Jahangir and consequently would give the natives a tax-exempt status but they did the very opposite. 10 million out of 30 million Bengalis died in that famine alone. Of course, there were many more famines during the British Rule:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_major_famines_in_India_during_British_rule

I would love to go back in time and prevent all suffering, inequality, injustice, and deaths. I would love to make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful but I can't.

What grounds, Seeker, do you have to doubt that "two bananas in a fruit ball" refers to more than just your "subjective sensory perception"? — 180 Proof

in 1999, I watched a movie called "The Matrix". Please see https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0133093 Have you seen it? If you have not, I highly recommend that you do. Ever since then, I have been wondering if the things I see, hear, touch, taste, and smell are really there or if they are a simulation. I can see the two bananas in my fruit bowl. I can touch them. I can peel them and eat them and experience their sweet taste. All of these are subjective experiences. How do I know that I am not in the Matrix?

By "subjective" I mean internal to minds. By "objective" I mean external to minds. How can we really know what is and what is not external to my mind? Solipsism can't be proven or disproven. The simulation hypothesis can't be proven or disproven.

Thank you for your detailed reply. I agree with you. By "objective" I mean "external to minds". By "subjective" I mean "internal to minds".

If objective knowledge is knowledge without reference to a mind, then it follows that no knowledge could ever be objective. — Count Timothy von Icarus

I totally agree with your statement above.