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. — Truth Seeker

Most "Hindus" would say, [and I currently generally agree,] that vis a vis the only ultimate reality, everything projected into the world [as a representation of/by Mind] is ultimately a fiction and yet we have been deceived by it. And not just for a few millenia, but since the dawn of human history [as opposed to prehistoric human animals] — ENOAH

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

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

Philosophy of Religion doesn't deal with the legitimacy of the claims made by the religion. Philosophy of Religion is mainly interested in the linguistic and conceptual analysis of the religious scriptures and expressions.

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.

It's written in their holy book. I don't agree with them. I think all religions are fiction made up by people. — Truth Seeker

Two questions come up to mind.

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?

Under what ground and evidence Hindus believe the universe is illusion and things have immortal souls which reincarnate according to karma? Do you agree with them?

Might I suggest, respectfully, the illusion that you might not have any illusions? — ENOAH

Sure, I am not ruling out possibility of illusions in life and the world.

You are welcome. It sounds traumatic especially for a young child.
I have never been kidnapped. So it is hard to imagine how it would be like to go through experience like that.

I have not read much in Religion, so the Hindu system is unfamiliar to me. Would it be similar to Buddhism? I recall some Buddhism scripture saying "Seeing colour is seeing emptiness" or something like that.

Neither am I. But we are in the Philosophy forum, and can try learn to philosophise by reading books and discussing the topics.

You listed illusion as one of the possibilities for the idea of Self. I think it is somewhat meaningful concept. In my time of childhood, I had been living with the 100% of illusions on the world, life, other people and the Self.

I believed Santa Claus was real.
I believed people live forever.
I believed if people die, then they come back to life in a few days of rest, after seeing the same action movie actor being killed in a movie, then a few weeks later, he was back in another movie fighting the gangsters.
I believed that old folks are born old, young folks like me are born young, and it will be like that forever.
I believed that my parents might be God, because they could buy me nice things.
I believed that the world is the size of my town where I lived.
I believed that when I am asleep, the world disappears, and I am the centre of the universe.
... etc etc.

Those were some of my childhood illusions, which were all proven to be false, as I was growing up. I am not sure what other illusions I might still have.

We don't have the means to test the simulation hypothesis. — Truth Seeker

Philosophy doesn't dirty its hands doing tests. That's the job of science.
Philosophy inspects the problems, investigates, analyses, reasons, argues, criticises and come to the conclusions.

There is no such things as Empirical Logic. We apply our reasoning to the empirical events or objects. The way you apply your reasoning to the events, objects, formulas or statements, be it inductive or deductive is called Logic.

Hypothetical talks are interesting even though they are not philosophical statements. I am a big fan of science fiction. — Truth Seeker

We shouldn't stop at hypothetical talks, but once certain presumptions are agreed, then we could move on to the reasoning on the presumptions, arguments and finally the conclusions can be induced from the arguments.

For instance, what does simulations have as the properties? If somethings is a simulation, then it must have a simulator (God?), simulated (people or you), and observers of the simulation. Simulations also can have hypotheses, forecasted processes and the results. Do we have some or all of these elements / properties on the simulation of life in this universe?

Fair enough. I'll do my best to comply because I respect the value in that. Please assure me you don't mean to exclude the imagination. — ENOAH

Imagination is a powerful mental event, which is a vital concept for providing us with the answers to the discussions. For example, isn't imagination the source of the idea of Cause and Effect in Hume?

Also, please keep in mind that even the dogs are permitted the scraps off their masters table. — ENOAH

Of course, we all co-exist in this universe communicating and sharing the ideas and information via language and actions.

Hypothetical talks are not philosophy, and they belong to mysticism or esotericism. Philosophical discussions are based on logic, reasoning, facts and the critical investigation on the facts, premises and conclusions in the issues for the verified truths.

All bivalent systems of predicate logic only have (by definition of bivalent) two
Boolean values of True or False with nothing in between. What you have been
saying is the same as saying 2 == 5. — PL Olcott

I never said that. You keep misinterpreting me.

Anyhow it shows you that bivalent logic is not useful and incapable for the real world uses in describing the complexities of the structures, events and objects.

Not sure if your previous post was about the function call in Prolog, but it didn't look like the standard way of using function calls in the other PLs, hence I asked you about the difference between math functions and programming functions.

No apology is needed for your delayed reply. — Truth Seeker

That's cool.

Death could be the exit from this simulation. — Truth Seeker

Death cannot be the exit from the simulation at all, because no dead person has ever survived after their deaths. Once a person dies, he / she never comes back to reality or empirical world at all. They just totally cease to exist eternally.

What if there are an infinite number of universes? If so, the one-in-infinity possibilities would be real in at least one out of the infinite number of universes. — Truth Seeker

You could try to prove their existences. I doubt anyone can prove it, but it doesn't mean that you cannot prove it. If you still believe in the possibilities of the existence of an infinite number of universes, why not try to prove it first?

Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct then there could be an infinite number of universes. — Truth Seeker

You need to read up QM then.

Unfortunately, we have no way to test this hypothesis. — Truth Seeker

If an infinite number of universes existed, it would be in the mind of the believer. Never in the physical world.

They call functions of the Boolean type predicates in all orders of predicate logic. Functions of any other type are called functions. Predicate: >(5,2)==TRUE Function: +(5,2)==7 — PL Olcott

For some unknown reasons, you changed the subject to Functions. There are differences in functions of math, and functions in computer programming. Can you explain the difference?

Predicate: >(5,2)==TRUE Function: +(5,2)==7 — PL Olcott

Could you please explain that in plain English? And how is it related to our discussion?

I didn't say we can eliminate the idea of simulation. We could be aliens experiencing a simulation of what it is like to be a human on Earth. Death could be the exit from this simulation. — Truth Seeker

Sorry for my late reply. I have been busy with the work, and had no time for reading posts.

It sounds too far-fetched to say that we could be aliens experiencing a simulation of what it is like to be a human on Earth, when you were born from your own parents, and been brought up by them going through the state education system, and been living a normal human life on Earth.

There is no logical, empirical or physical ground for that beliefs, unless you remember something realistic experience of yours such as being thrown into the Earth from the outer space, or landed somewhere on Earth via UFO etc.

The belief could be interesting in SF, but without any evidence or ground, it would run the risk of committing self-deception.

Looks like I didn't understand him. — Truth Seeker

Thank you for your confirmation. It's good that we can eliminate simulation from the idea of self and life. We can move on to the other mental states or events such as illusion, dreams, hallucinations and hypotheses for the investigations.

Instead of a three values system with {True, False and Nonsense} I have bivalent systems of logic that derive a type mismatch error for any expression that is not a proposition. — PL Olcott

It is a Boolean valued system. When epistemological antinomies are involved they must be rejected
as a type mismatch error because that have no Boolean values. — PL Olcott

You are confusing between HOL and Computer Programming. In HOL, there is no such things as Boolean values. There are {Truth, False, Unknown, Contradiction, Neutral}, and they are the values of logical interpretation.

Boolean is a type of data in programming language. Boolean type value is not True or False, but "1" or "0", and certainly never have anything to do with "Nonsense".

Please see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTNvcy5LZPo where Elon Musk explains why he thinks we are living in a simulation. I don't agree with him. — Truth Seeker

He is not saying life is simulation. He is saying that civilisation is simulation, because it is such a short time of history compared to the whole universe.

All civilisation will end, and they could end anytime. We could be living in a simulation, and this is his point. It sounds like a metaphor.

Elon Musk thinks that our perceived world is a simulation created by our descendants. I wish we knew more. — Truth Seeker

Under what basis and evidences, life could be a simulation? Simulation sounds like you have control in starting and ending the simulation, and also being able to rerun the simulation whenever you wanted. Recall when you are playing the Role Playing Computer games? You can control what RPG you want to play, and Exit anytime when you don't want to play any more?

But there are many things in life you have absolutely no control such as being born, ageing and death. How could life be a simulation, if you don't have any control over these things?

I have found that line of reasoning ineffective so I switched. We have to resolve my prior reply before you can begin to understand my updated reasoning. — PL Olcott

Please reread my post above.

I don't think that you can find any source that ever says anything like that for bivalent systems of logic. I don't think you can find any sources that say anything like that for (a) propositional logic (b) FOL, (c) SOL, (d) HOL.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle only works in bivalent logic. — PL Olcott

You should read some good Mathematical Logic books, not the Wiki pages.
But think about it even with your common sense. The world contains more problems, structures, events and objects than things that are just True or False.

For simplest example, when you see a formula, X > 3, that is not true or false until you know the value of X. Until that moment, X > 3 remains unknown.

If you say, "It is raining now." then it could be True in your town, but it could be false for someone living in some other part of the world, because it could be sunny. So your statement is contradictory when looking from both areas of the world.

Some statements or formula depicting the real world structure, events or objects can be unknown, neutral or contradictory. You don't simply reject that as nonsense. You accept them as true, false, unknown, neutral or contradictory depending on the given formula, statements, and analysis.

I wish we knew more. — Truth Seeker

Yeah interesting stuff actually.

You are welcome my friend.   Having agreed the OP is not testable or verifiable in formal logic, we still can keep discussing it under philosophy of psychology.  People dream and have illusions, and it is also part of human mental events.

Under what circumstances do humans have illusions, hallucinations, simulations and dreams?
Some mental events seem to be conscious and self-induced nature such as the simulated perceptions, simulated thinking or making up the hypotheses for the scientific experiments in order to seek pleasure or as part of religious ceremonies or to find some scientific truths via coordinated experiments.

However, some mental events are unconscious and out of one's control such as dreaming, hallucinations or illusions.  These mental events seem to occur from drug inducements, hypnosis, during sleep or simple misunderstanding and misperception of the world objects, events and structures.

How does one's idea of self relate to the mental events?  Do some mental events have any deeper significance in religious meanings or esoteric nature?  Have some world famous artists' creations based on this type of mental events? 

There is a lot of meat in the OP from the perspective of philosophy of psychology.

Are you talking about the untestable hypothesis that our perceived world could be a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion? Then they are untestable ideas. If we could test them then the results would be in the "matter of facts" but we can't test them. — Truth Seeker

Ok your point accepted. :cool:

{Nonsense} is a stipulated term of the art of my formal three-valued formal system of logic
having values of {True, False, Nonsense} that only applies to expressions such as this: — PL Olcott

Nonsense !! Nonsense is just a colloquial expression saying, no you are bloody wrong mate.

The Strengthened Liar and Paradoxes of Incompleteness
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LWQPGjAs3M — PL Olcott

Many Wiki pages and Youtube videos are rubbish. Don't trust and worship them as if they are the bible. Think with your own mind, and if it doesn't make sense, then you should be able to say "Nonsense mate. This is what I think, because of this and that." As I said before, they may slag you for saying what you think is true, but at least you know you have been thinking with your own mind, rather than parroting what the Wiki pages and Youtubers said, or joined the herd of the inauthentic comedians seeking pleasure out of attacking the authentic self thinking man.

Boolean values are properties of every Proposition
A proposition is a central concept in the philosophy of language, semantics, logic, and related fields, often characterized as the primary bearer of truth or falsity. Propositions are also often characterized as being the kind of thing that declarative sentences denote. — PL Olcott

A truck load of strawmen here. I didn't deny Boolean values, but I was simply saying that in FOL and HOL, you have the extended truth values including Boolean.

Science-fiction is fun. — Truth Seeker

Science-fiction must have a plot, and the characters as well as the storyline. The OP seems to lack all the essential elements of qualifying for SF.

If you read Hume, he says all human knowledge is either in the domain of "matters of facts" or "relation of ideas - geometry, arithmetic or algebra". In which category of human knowledge do simulation, illusion, hallucination, hypotheses and dreaming belong to?

It's not a belief. It's an imaginative exploration of a hypothetical situation. This is what science-fiction writers do. This is why I said "What if". — Truth Seeker

Science-Fiction sounds acceptable. :)

I agree. — Truth Seeker

:nerd: :ok:

A currently unknown Boolean value is still a Boolean value.
No such thing as a neutral Boolean value. — PL Olcott

Boolean values are applicable up to FOL, but FOL cannot express the full complexities in the world. Hence you are going up to HOL, which has the extended truth values, and can describe more complex states of the real world.

"What time is it?" has no Boolean value.
Contradiction proves False. — PL Olcott

In HOL, "What time is it?" would be translated into computable format, and can be processed for the proper truth values.

{Nonsense} is reserved for expressions that cannot be true or false. — PL Olcott

Nonsense is not a logic world. It is an ordinary linguistic expression to mean False with added stupidity and foolishness connotation.

What if I exist as an immaterial soul that is experiencing the illusion of being in physical body on a physical planet in a physical universe? — Truth Seeker

If you could provide some evidence or arguments for your "What if" presumption and imagination, then we could further analyse if the what if claim is justified.

But without that, it would be just your unverified and irrational belief, which sounds like the beliefs or stories belonging to in the realm of esotericism, science fiction, or religious beliefs. It would be difficult to discuss under philosophical investigation.

No it is not. This is wrong. Confidence is informed by fear, yes. And fear is the patterns you are referring to as experience. But it also includes BEING in those situations. So, it can be hard to speak of single emotions rather than all together in experience. — Chet Hawkins

I disagree. How can a confidence backed by empirical experience and evidence can be related to fear? You might have fear when you assert something you don't have concrete knowledge, evidence or experience, so you don't know what you are talking about.

None-the-less in every bivalent system of logic we must be able to reduce every variable to a Boolean value. Your reply did not seem to understand that. — PL Olcott

Your reply merely stated that variables in higher orders of logic represent more complex things than in Propositional logic. — PL Olcott

You are still under confusion, or don't want to see the real point. We have not been only talking about bivalent system of logic here. If you can recall the OP is about HOL. Not 2000 year old propositional logic. Hence it was necessary and relevant considering and looking into the multifaceted nature of truth, which are in the domains of FOL and HOL.

This is contrasted with the more commonly known bivalent logics (such as classical sentential or Boolean logic) which provide only for true and false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic — PL Olcott

You have been reading too much Wiki pages, and they can lead you to the wrong places unfortunately.

A three-valued logic system that can easily handle self-contradictory expressions would have the values of: {True, False, Nonsense}. — PL Olcott

If some thing is Nonsense, then it is equivalent to False. In FOL HOL, truth values can be far more than just 3 above you listed. : {True, False, Unknown, Neutral, Contradiction}

Everything you claimed as possible i.e. dreaming, being under illusions, hallucinations and simulations are all possible, if and only if you physically existed in the real world. That is the precondition for all the possibilities you listed.

Exactly! I would say that I rest my case, but you are still not getting it.

Confidence IS NOT knowing. Firstly, it cannot be, because one cannot actually know. One only believes. So, confidence is exhibited as 'They who do not know, but believe strongly anyway'. Of course immoral fear types will chafe and call that incoherent. They are not really right, but this is the hubris of relatively high awareness or let's say a facility with awareness. — Chet Hawkins

Perhaps we are just keep missing each other's point. It is understandable that it can happen. After all we have different ways looking at things in the world, and I am not aware of the contents in your mind what is going on, and you must be the same.

Confidence in the linguistic expression is based on the empirical experience and evidence from the real world events and observations, hence it can be said with most certainty.

What if I am in a special dream which lasts six hours of actual time but 100 years of experiential time? What if I am an alien with this technology that lets me dream I am a human? — Truth Seeker

If you provide some evidence for your presumption, and if they were convincing enough, then I might say "ok maybe, but are you sure?" Without the evidence or arguments, I would say "Nah, impossible" :D

I am not convinced. I think that it is extremely unlikely that my perceived reality is a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion but it does not mean that there is not even a one-in-infinity chance of it being a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. — Truth Seeker

Logically possible, metaphysically maybe, but physically impossible.

The Variables of propositional logic and every other order of bivalent logic must have a Boolean value. — PL Olcott

Variables in propositional logic is for the whole sentence, not the elements in the sentence, hence its limitation. You are still talking under the propositional logic domain only.

When you widen the scope into predicate logic, FOL and HOL, the concept of truth and falsity has multifaceted nature. FOL enables you employ the variables for the individuals and subjects. HOL can deal with the variables for the relations, operators and properties within the sentence.

I am surprised that you have not watched The Matrix, Predestination and The Truman Show. They are such excellent movies for philosophical discussions. You can watch all of them on YouTube. — Truth Seeker

But watching movies bores me to death. I would rather read or go for a walk, or do workouts :D

What if I am in a dream that lasts my entire lifetime? What if my death is the only way to wake up from the dream? — Truth Seeker

It is impossible for dreams last more than a night, because you would have to wake up in the morning for the real life. Biologically and physically, if your dreams lasted more than 3 days, then you would get exhaustion not having consumed the real food and drinks, your body will not last in the real world, making your dreams evaporate.

What if I am in an illusion that lasts my entire lifetime? What if my death is the only way to break the illusion? — Truth Seeker

No illusions or dreams last one's life time. If it did, then it would be reality. Not illusions or dreams.

I will either find out when I die or I will just cease to exist when I die. — Truth Seeker

What if, death and dyings are illusions and dreams?

If your experience lasted more than a day or two, then you can safely conclude that it was a reality, not dreams or illusions.