Human Evolution

[Bradskii]

The only hocus pocus cross eyed-ness creeping in here, comes from your own attachment to the notion that things exist independently from your mind. All I have to do is to ask you to describe why you think that, and the objective evidence for the mind dependence immediately pours forth from your own fingertips .. putting lie to the claim.

That's what my 'Empire State building' dialogue demonstrates.

Can you clear something up for me?

You are the last surviving person. You are looking at the moon. And then you drop dead. No more minds left. The moon hasn't changed at all. How did it not exist independent of a mind?

 

[Estrid]

Hmm (I generally agree) .. I'd express that slightly differently, though:
- scientific laws are already expected to be provisional and subject to change with new objective data and;
- if some notion can be demonstrated as contradicting the rules of logic, then its false under those rules, whereas it can still be claimed as true, out of personal choice. (I guess that's what you mean by 'faulty' there, eh?)
An argument can still be logically valid, but can also be traced back to a believed-in posit .. so that's where the first condition of my test of a belief kicks in: held as being true out of preference, that does not follow from objective tests.
The definition is phrased for the sole purpose of being an objectively test criteria admissable to the scientific testing process.

I think we're both in agreement there anyway(?)

I said it shorter

 

[doubtingmerle]

Selfsim,

Do you or do you not think the Big Bang happened? Why do you keep on talking about the Big Bang, but refuse to tell us if you think it happened?

While we are on the subject, how old do you think the universe is? Your views are extremely cryptic, but they are sounding more and more like young earth Creation. Can you tell us, please, how old you think the universe is?

Are you a Creationist in Humanist clothing?

So, you agree that 'the laws of nature' haven't always existed in nature, as compared with your original claim of:Further, you also agreee that 'the laws of nature' are contextually dependent and subject to change?

All the evidence indicates the laws of physics have been the same for all the observable universe. The first second or so of the Big Bang that may have initiated aspects of our physics, but since then, the evidence indicates the laws of physics have been constant as far as we can tell.

The fact that ice behaves different form steam does not mean that the laws of physics change.

I largely agree that it would be pointless to assume our (collective) senses 'deceive' or 'fool' us. The hidden assumption there, of course, is that there is some mind independent 'thing' we can access independently from our own senses, which must be 'true', for the purpose of performing comparisons which would lead us to such a conclusion(?)

No, the universe that is independent of our minds is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on the abundance of evidence we receive through our senses that tells us there is a real world out there that works in specific ways.

Yes .. with the 'physics' you refer to there, being demonstrably contextually dependent and subject to change with new objective data ... along with: 'the physics' you refer to there, of course, being demonstrably yet another testable model developed by human scientific thinkers, because of that.

Huh? The point is that the starlight of the distant stars indicates that it was produced with the same physics as exists today around us as far as we can tell. That voids the view that nature does not act independently of humans minds. The nature of those distant stars clearly works independently of human minds.

And the fact that we are learning more about how actual physics works does nothing to void the fact that stars are producing starlight independent of human minds.

I'm quite clear about there being *zip* objective evidence for the idea that 'actual physics' exists independently from human (scientifically thinking) minds.

Flapdoodle.

Distant stars act independently from human minds.

So your conclusion that we have a 'limited understanding' assumes the independent existence of some other kind of, presumably, transcendently superior understanding then, eh?
How does that idea come about then, eh?

No. The fact that we have a limited knowledge of the universe does not prove there is a God.

Are you a Intelligent Design proponent, trying to sneak in Creationism while pretending to be Humanist? That certainly is what your posts look like.

 

[SelfSim]

Can you clear something up for me?

You are the last surviving person. You are looking at the moon. And then you drop dead. No more minds left. The moon hasn't changed at all. How did it not exist independent of a mind?

What you mean by 'moon', (in the present, external to the hypothetical), hasn't changed sure .. however, I observe that its you, in the present, external to the hypothetical, that is communicating that meaning to me and then miraculously asserting the moon as 'not having changed' in the hypothetical, so I observe/conclude that there are now at least two minds miraculously embedded in your hypothetical scenario .. and therefore its not truly not mind independent.
After all, that's what mind independent means, doesn't it? And hypotheticals require the presence of a mind too, because .. well, that's what a hypothetical implies, doesn't it?

 

[Bradskii]

What you mean by 'moon', (in the present, external to the hypothetical), hasn't changed sure .. however, I observe that its you, in the present, external to the hypothetical, that is communicating that meaning to me and then miraculously asserting the moon as 'not having changed' in the hypothetical, so I observe/conclude that there are now at least two minds miraculously embedded in your hypothetical scenario .. and therefore its not truly not mind independent.
After all, that's what mind independent means, doesn't it? And hypotheticals require the presence of a mind too, because .. well, that's what a hypothetical implies, doesn't it?

Allright...the moon is there before minds evolve. Does it change in some way as they do?

 

[Shemjaza]

Who is Ayn Rand?

Right wing, capitalist, atheist thinker and novelist.

Coined the term Objectivism, which is loosely a kind of capitalist, libertarian take on Nietzsche.

Given her abrasive opinions I'm surprised she has as many fans as she does.

 

[SelfSim]

Selfsim,

Do you or do you not think the Big Bang happened? Why do you keep on talking about the Big Bang, but refuse to tell us if you think it happened?

While we are on the subject, how old do you think the universe is? Your views are extremely cryptic, but they are sounding more and more like young earth Creation. Can you tell us, please, how old you think the universe is?

Are you a Creationist in Humanist clothing?

RE the underlined bit: Hardly!

That aside now: goodness me! How many times do you expect me to answer that same set of questions? I'd say this is probably your third or forth(?) repeat of it!!

My opinion is irrelevant to the scientific perspective I'm presenting. You may not like that .. but I have good reasons for not playing your game by turning this into yet another belief based argument.

I can either choose to believe the science or not believe it .. it doesn't impact the science.
I support science and its defining method ... and in doing that, I choose to neutralise my own beliefs about it when I'm discussing how a scientific thinker goes about his/her business.

No, the universe that is independent of our minds is not an assumption. It is a conclusion based on the abundance of evidence we receive through our senses that tells us there is a real world out there that works in specific ways.

Everything you receive through your senses, once expressed using the meanings conveyed by human language, becomes a model. (I can't think of any exceptions to that at the moment, just off hand).
Its those models which get tested (and leads to the objective evidence you're referring to there). The 'thing itself' (eg: the universe, etc) never gets tested .. only its ever the descriptive models (or meanings) which get tested. (Eg: light as a photon or an EM spectrum, are models, planets, moons, stars, galaxies, rocks humans, lions, tigers, dark matter, dark energy, bacterium, viruses, etc, etc are all (testable) models).

If however, you expect me to accept that the universe exists independently of any human minds, whatsoever, then cite the mind independent objective test which produces the abundant evidence you claim there.
Good luck .. I predict you will fail miserably in doing that).
Do you get what 'mind independence' means, yet?

Huh? The point is that the starlight of the distant stars indicates that it was produced with the same physics as exists today around us as far as we can tell.

Agreed .. no arguments there.

That voids the view that nature does not act independently of humans minds. The nature of those distant stars clearly works independently of human minds.

Nope .. not when the nature of those distant stars is expressed as an objectively testable model, it isn't.

Are you a Intelligent Design proponent, trying to sneak in Creationism while pretending to be Humanist?

Emphatically no. (Not that that would make any difference whatsoever to the objective perspective of what I've presented, if I were). 'Intelligent Design', 'Creationism' and the type of 'Humanism' you presented in your US Humanist's Manifesto link, are based on beliefs.

That certainly is what your posts look like.

They may look like that to you .. because you are not thinking scientifically (which is obvious to me).

 

[SelfSim]

Allright...the moon is there before minds evolve. Does it change in some way as they do?

Sure .. there's evidence the Moon was a God going back in human history, isn't there(?)
The Moon is now an astronomical body. Similar to the way Pluto is now no longer a planet (or a Roman God) .. its a dwarf planet at the moment.
How can what those things are, change that radically if they were always truly mind independent things?

 

[Bradskii]

Sure .. there's evidence the Moon was a God going back in human history, isn't there(?)
The Moon is now an astronomical body. Similar to the way Pluto is now no longer a planet (or a Roman God) .. its a dwarf planet at the moment.
How can what those things are, change that radically if they were always truly mind independent things?

Those are people's idea of what the moon is. Thinking the moon is made of cheese doesn't change what the moon actually is. It is what it is whatever we think of it. Indeed, even if there was no-one to think of it.

You seem to be saying that how the moon is perceived is dependent on a mind. Which is an obvious tautology. But a changing perception doesn't affect whatever it is we perceive. We just perceive it differently.

 

[SelfSim]

Those are people's idea of what the moon is.

We are discussing 'what the moon is', aren't we?
Whether its an idea or not, is irrelevant.
That its a person having an idea is relevant.

Thinking the moon is made of cheese doesn't change what the moon actually is.

Ok so if someone thinks/thought that the moon was made of cheese, one would ask 'why do you think that?'
We would then see before our eyes/ears, the evidence of them using their mind in coming up with their reasons (which are most likely going to be untestably belief based, given the objective evidence for it being composed of similar materials as the Earth is).
Either way, both the objective method and the belief method for coming up with 'what the moon is made of' demonstrate the presence of an active, (healthy) human mind, with no evidence for a truly mind independent moon.
That's the whole shebang, in a nutshell.

It is what it is whatever we think of it. Indeed, even if there was no-one to think of it.

Which is a self contradictory claim. I mean, who's doing the thinking then? Perhaps some invisible elf or something?

You seem to be saying that how the moon is perceived is dependent on a mind.

No ... the moon there, describes our perceptions .. nothing more. There is no need to add your beliefs about what may/may not have caused those perceptions .. that is totally superfluous because there is no objective test that any such thing objectively exists independently from the perception which, once described using language, becomes a model, (either a believed one, or a testable one).

But a changing perception doesn't affect whatever it is we perceive. We just perceive it differently.

Well the trouble everyone here is having is an extreme reluctance to let go of the fixed, frozen in belief that their perceptions are 'of a something' which is believed to exist independently from their minds, rather than just focusing on the perception and the description of it.
So a changing perception, in that example, does affect 'what something is' .. I'm saying the evidence shows that 'something' is a model created by a human mind and not some mind independent 'thing'. All of science's models are testable things.

I understand this is an extremely difficult concept for most of us to get .. but it dispenses with a majorly inconsistent notion that science is somehow dependent on the existence of mind independent things .. (it isn't) .. which if accepted, allows the introduction of beliefs, (usually philosophical, belief based ones), into the objective test method .. which then renders it as being unable to logically distinguish them from objectively testable notions.

 

[Bradskii]

We are discussing 'what the moon is', aren't we?
Whether its an idea or not, is irrelevant.
That its a person having an idea is relevant.
Ok so if someone thinks/thought that the moon was made of cheese, one would ask 'why do you think that?'
We would then see before our eyes/ears, the evidence of them using their mind in coming up with their reasons (which are most likely going to be untestably belief based, given the objective evidence for it being composed of similar materials as the Earth is).
Either way, both the objective method and the belief method for coming up with 'what the moon is made of' demonstrate the presence of an active, (healthy) human mind, with no evidence for a truly mind independent moon.
That's the whole shebang, in a nutshell.

Which is a self contradictory claim. I mean, who's doing the thinking then? Perhaps some invisible elf or something?

No ... the moon there, describes our perceptions .. nothing more. There is no need to add your beliefs about what may/may not have caused those perceptions .. that is totally superfluous because there is no objective test that any such thing objectively exists independently from the perception which, once described using language, becomes a model, (either a believed one, or a testable one).

Well the trouble everyone here is having is an extreme reluctance to let go of the fixed, frozen in belief that their perceptions are 'of a something' which is believed to exist independently from their minds, rather than just focusing on the perception and the description of it.
So a changing perception, in that example, does affect 'what something is' .. I'm saying the evidence shows that 'something' is a model created by a human mind and not some mind independent 'thing'. All of science's models are testable things.

I understand this is an extremely difficult concept for most of us to get .. but it dispenses with a majorly inconsistent notion that science is somehow dependent on the existence of mind independent things .. (it isn't) .. which if accepted, allows the introduction of beliefs, (usually philosophical, belief based ones), into the objective test method .. which then renders it as being unable to logically distinguish them from objectively testable notions.

I don't think this is any more than 'It doesn't exist unless someone thinks about it'. I wasn't thinking about my wife earlier. Did she cease to exist umtil a mind contemplated her existence?

 

[SelfSim]

I don't think this is any more than 'It doesn't exist unless someone thinks about it'. I wasn't thinking about my wife earlier. Did she cease to exist umtil a mind contemplated her existence?

Nope .. you're still not there.
So what you mean when you use the word 'exist' in those sentences .. did you think up that meaning, or was it automatic .. like a perception? It doesn't matter really because either way, both require a human mind because that's what minds do (ie: perceive, communicate via our shared meanings, and thinking).
There's no evidence there that what you meant to convey when you used the word 'exist', is in any way independent from some other human mind, or your own. If so, then where's the mind independent test and its evidence? If there isn't any, then why do you think it all exists independently from the human mind which is observably just conveying its meaning for the word 'exists'?

Science starts with an observation or a perception .. and so does thinking .. all it takes is a human mind.

I had no idea your wife existed until you just conveyed that meaning to me. I had no other possible way of knowing that. Its possible someone called @brad's wife existed but she was unknown to exist as far as I knew. Now I know that she does according to the meaning of 'exists'. Now I'm thinking about her ... all courtesy of my human mind .. and yours conveying a meaning via the word 'exists'.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't think this is any more than 'It doesn't exist unless someone thinks about it'. I wasn't thinking about my wife earlier. Did she cease to exist umtil a mind contemplated her existence?

So I have another response. Its unclear to me but you may be querying the amazing persistence and consistency of your wife .. both in your memory of her current state of health, (ie: she's 'alive'), and in the persistently consistent image of her face, which you recognise everyday, etc.

If so, then I'd agree with you .. that consistent persistency is amazing and remarkable .. a mystery one might even say .. one well worthy of objective investigation ..

 

[Bradskii]

So I have another response. Its unclear to me but you may be querying the amazing persistence and consistency of your wife .. both in your memory of her current state of health, (ie: she's 'alive'), and in the persistently consistent image of her face, which you recognise everyday, etc.

If so, then I'd agree with you .. that consistent persistency is amazing and remarkable .. a mystery one might even say .. one well worthy of objective investigation ..

This is somewhat like the brain in a vat position. In that how do we know we're not in that situation. Or is it Laplace's Demon? Or are we players in some cosmic video game? Or philosophical zombies? It's not unreasonable to suggest such things. Or to suggest that things don't actually exist without a mind to conceive them.

But that's as far as it can go. They are interesting philosophical positions. Period. You may as well suggest that you have an invisible, undetectable dragon in your basement and ask me to take you seriously.

I won't.

 

[doubtingmerle]

I understand this is an extremely difficult concept for most of us to get .. but it dispenses with a majorly inconsistent notion that science is somehow dependent on the existence of mind independent things .. (it isn't) .. which if accepted, allows the introduction of beliefs, (usually philosophical, belief based ones), into the objective test method .. which then renders it as being unable to logically distinguish them from objectively testable notions.

Sounds like the wedge strategy to me.

When I give a mainstream statement of agnosticism about what caused the physics that was behind the Big Bang, you respond with "????????!!!". With such a strong denial of my position, one would think you might have an alternative position to suggest. But we find nothing. You appear to deny the Big Bang happened, and repeatedly refuse to answer when I ask you if you think it happened. You say nothing exists in the universe outside of a mind. You suggest that this could be a transcendent mind. Which sure sounds like theism and even Intelligent Design.

: goodness me! How many times do you expect me to answer that same set of questions? I'd say this is probably yourThis third or forth(?) repeat of it!!

I would like you to answer once.

I have asked you multiple times and you refuse to tell us if you think the Big Bang happened. You go to outrageous extremes to attack mainstream explanations of the Big Bang. Is that because you have a different view of the Big Bang, or is it because you deny the Big Bang altogether? You refuse to answer. All of which looks like a sneaky attack strategy against mainstream science and humanism, all while publicly claiming to be humanist.

My opinion is irrelevant to the scientific perspective I'm presenting. You may not like that .. but I have good reasons for not playing your game by turning this into yet another belief based argument.

If you are going to respond to a mainstream argument with, "????????!!!", then one would think your alternative to that argument would be relevant.

I can either choose to believe the science or not believe it .. it doesn't impact the science.

If you choose not to believe the science, we would like to know that.

I support science and its defining method ... and in doing that, I choose to neutralise my own beliefs about it when I'm discussing how a scientific thinker goes about his/her business.

Intelligent Design proponents "support science" also, but deny much of what science concludes.

Everything you receive through your senses, once expressed using the meanings conveyed by human language, becomes a model. (I can't think of any exceptions to that at the moment, just off hand).
Its those models which get tested (and leads to the objective evidence you're referring to there). The 'thing itself' (eg: the universe, etc) never gets tested .. only its ever the descriptive models (or meanings) which get tested. (Eg: light as a photon or an EM spectrum, are models, planets, moons, stars, galaxies, rocks humans, lions, tigers, dark matter, dark energy, bacterium, viruses, etc, etc are all (testable) models).

OK. But that does not mean the thing itself does not exist outside of the humans studying it.

If however, you expect me to accept that the universe exists independently of any human minds, whatsoever, then cite the mind independent objective test which produces the abundant evidence you claim there.

I could cite most any peer-reviewed study. All evaluate the mind-independent universe we live in. If the universe is just a figment of people's imagination, how is it so consistently observable?

'Intelligent Design', 'Creationism' and the type of 'Humanism' you presented in your US Humanist's Manifesto link, are based on beliefs.

Non only do you continue to attack mainstream science views of the Big Bang, while putting no substitute in it's place, you also attack the Humanist Maifesto, while putting no humanist view in its place. When I asked you if you had something positive to say about humanism, you came up with nothing. I am curious how you can identify as a humanist, yet relentlessly attack humanism, and not even say anything positive about humanism when asked.

 

[doubtingmerle]

You may as well just say that a logically self-contradictory thing is impossible, as to go through all these changes. It doesn't apply to God, so why bother to say he can't?

I say that it cannot possibly be true that 2 +2 = 53,567, regardless of whether God exists.

You say that God "invented" the fact that 2 + 2 <> 53,567, and that God could not have possibly have invented it such that it equaled 53,567.

If God cannot possible have invented otherwise, then why give him credit for inventing that fact? Are we supposed to be impressed with that feat?

2 + 2 <> 53,567. If you want to claim that God invented this, don't be surprised that people are not impressed with the great inventive feat that you claim here. If God stated this, all he did was state the obvious.

Math exists. We didn't need God to invent it. We don't need to posit a God to tells us that 2 + 2 will not equal 53,567.

 

[doubtingmerle]

there are only two kinds of things —those with intent, and mechanical fact.

False dichotomy.

There are also electrical facts. So maybe there are 3 kinds of things?

And there are also jokes. Maybe its 4 kinds of things?.

And there are also politics, words, clowns, and metaphors.

Need I go on?

A mechanical fact, such as the Universe itself, does not come into being without cause.

The universe is a combination of all that exists, including matter, energy, and the interacting forces.

We know what caused the observable universe -- the Big Bang.

Nor can it be eternally self-existent as it depends on principles from outside itself to control its changes. (A computer follows a program).

If we define the universe as all matter, energy, controlling forces, etc., then that could overall set could be self existent. It would change with time, but the overall set could be self-existent.

Also, by reason, the fact that 'changing things' (becoming) demands 'something eternal' (that doesn't become).

How do you know this?

Can you describe this sum total that is not just mechanical fact?

Everything. All matter. All energy. All forces. All physical interactions. All physical phenomenon. Everything.

 

[SelfSim]

Sounds like the wedge strategy to me.

When I give a mainstream statement of agnosticism about what caused the physics that was behind the Big Bang, you respond with "????????!!!". With such a strong denial of my position, one would think you might have an alternative position to suggest. But we find nothing. You appear to deny the Big Bang happened, and repeatedly refuse to answer when I ask you if you think it happened. You say nothing exists in the universe outside of a mind. You suggest that this could be a transcendent mind. Which sure sounds like theism and even Intelligent Design.

Rubbish.

I have asked you multiple times and you refuse to tell us if you think the Big Bang happened. You go to outrageous extremes to attack mainstream explanations of the Big Bang.

More rubbish. The LCDM model is our best tested cosmological model .. end of story.

Is that because you have a different view of the Big Bang, or is it because you deny the Big Bang altogether? You refuse to answer. All of which looks like a sneaky attack strategy against mainstream science and humanism, all while publicly claiming to be humanist.

More rubbish .. l have answered multiple times. You just don't like honest answers.

If you choose not to believe the science, we would like to know that.

What I choose to believe or not believe is my own business .. and not yours. That doesn't change them being nothing more than beliefs. I know what my beliefs are .. do you know yours?

Intelligent Design proponents "support science" also, but deny much of what science concludes.

I couldn't care less what ID proponents believe .. does that now make you happy for some reason? What is that reason?

OK. But that does not mean the thing itself does not exist outside of the humans studying it.

Correct (from your frozen-in paradigm). But there's no way substituting that 'unknown' with some preferred belief is, in any way, consistent with the scientific method, or its conclusions.

I could cite most any peer-reviewed study. All evaluate the mind-independent universe we live in. If the universe is just a figment of people's imagination, how is it so consistently observable?

Easy .. the universe isn't 'just a figment of people's imagination' and mind independent universes can't be studied or observed. There .. done!

Non only do you continue to attack mainstream science views of the Big Bang, while putting no substitute in it's place, you also attack the Humanist Maifesto, while putting no humanist view in its place.

How can it be 'an attack' if its 'a nothing'? Your Humanist Manifesto was a declaration of what that type of Humanist believes. I choose to neutralise beliefs for the purpose of getting on with the science which that type of Humanist chooses to believe in. I can't see your problem with that. What, exactly, is your problem with that?

When I asked you if you had something positive to say about humanism, you came up with nothing. I am curious how you can identify as a humanist, yet relentlessly attack humanism, and not even say anything positive about humanism when asked.

Once again, 'a nothing' can't simultaneously be 'an attack' can it(?) ... Y'know, something along the lines of the, (rather naive but outwardly fair enough), law of non contradiction: 'Nothing can both be and not be'.
Where's your evidence that I 'attacked' Humanism?

 

[SelfSim]

This is somewhat like the brain in a vat position. In that how do we know we're not in that situation. Or is it Laplace's Demon? Or are we players in some cosmic video game? Or philosophical zombies? It's not unreasonable to suggest such things. Or to suggest that things don't actually exist without a mind to conceive them.

Thank you for acknowledging that a minimal philosophy of science is a reasonable position.
The scientific position doesn't claim 'that things don't actually exist without a mind to conceive them', (ie: rule out such notions on the basis of objective test results), and so, neither am I implying that.
That being said, I'm also prepared to demonstrate is that science doesn't depend on that notion, in any way, whatsoever. The idea that it does, is just a bogus argument.

Science aims at maxmising utility value for humans. Most of that other stuff you mention above there, is just idle nonsense, (IMO), of little utility value with perhaps, the exception of Laplace's Demon .. which served, (at best), as a catalyst for provoking an ultimately useful human counter-reaction amongst scientific thinkers, leading on to the development of Statistical Thermodynamics.

But that's as far as it can go. They are interesting philosophical positions. Period. You may as well suggest that you have an invisible, undetectable dragon in your basement and ask me to take you seriously.

I won't.

And that's fine by me .. except where I see arguments being cited as being 'scientific positions' which rely solely on the true existence mind independent things, (aka: posits), or as being 'what physical reality truly is', etc. That represents dragging science into a position of belief in the existence of universal truths .. which is not in the slightest way of practical use, particularly in discussions about science and religion.

 

[Bradskii]

Thank you for acknowledging that a minimal philosophy of science is a reasonable position.
The scientific position doesn't claim 'that things don't actually exist without a mind to conceive them', (ie: rule out such notions on the basis of objective test results), and so, neither am I implying that.
That being said, I'm also prepared to demonstrate is that science doesn't depend on that notion, in any way, whatsoever. The idea that it does, is just a bogus argument.

Science aims at maxmising utility value for humans. Most of that other stuff you mention above there, is just idle nonsense, (IMO), of little utility value with perhaps, the exception of Laplace's Demon .. which served, (at best), as a catalyst for provoking an ultimately useful human counter-reaction amongst scientific thinkers, leading on to the development of Statistical Thermodynamics.

And that's fine by me .. except where I see arguments being cited as being 'scientific positions' which rely solely on the true existence mind independent things, (aka: posits), or as being 'what physical reality truly is', etc. That represents dragging science into a position of belief in the existence of universal truths .. which is not in the slightest way of practical use, particularly in discussions about science and religion.

I think my response would be that, just as if we are brains in a vat, we may as well carry on as if we are actual players in a real universe. Anthing else is an interesting philosophical adventure but has no practical purposes at all.

'We're going to send people to Mars'.
'Well, you might think you're doing that but we might just be...yadda, yadda, yadda...'
'Thanks for your input. We'll bear that in mind. In the meantime, we're going to build the spaceship anyway'.
'Well, you might think you're building a spaceship...'
'Yeah, we got that. Thanks for your time.'