What do you believe is true even though you can't prove it?

simu

The people behind this website asked the above question of 100 prominent thinkers of our time.

I haven't quite read all 60,000 words of the answers yet but from what I've read so far, this provides an insight into some of the most baffling questions we face at present. It's also interesting how people deal with working in fields where it's pretty much impossible to prove anything for certain but where you need some sort of foundation for your theories.

I'm also curious what answers boards users would give to this question! (I'm not giving my answer just yet because it's something that requires quite a bit of thought). I suppose it's easy for a person to say that they don't believe in any thing at all and that was my initial response however, being honest about the way I conceive of and act in the world, that's not true.

Tiriel

wow thanks for that Simu really interesting site. I like the post by Randolph Nesse M.D.

I can't prove it, but I am pretty sure that people gain a selective advantage from believing in things they can't prove. I am dead serious about this. People who are sometimes consumed by false beliefs do better than those who insist on evidence before they believe and act. People who are sometimes swept away by emotions do better in life than those who calculate every move.

It's interesting.. I think that people who have beliefs.. maybe don't know themselves exactly what they believe in.. but have spiritual beliefs none the less.. feel a sense of security that people without such beliefs do not feel. This is just in my own personal experience. A friend of mine does not believe in any God or Creator.. or any religion. However he almost wishes he did have a genuine belief in something and almost feels cheated that he doesn't. hmm.. I dunno!!

Miles

How about global warming and population density will be a major problem.

SkepticOne

I think that most of what people believe they can't prove. If I say that I believe the next bus will be in ten minutes, then I can't prove it but it is reasonable to say it nevertheless. What would proof in this case consist of? I think when you express belief you are expressing that you have a reasonable degree of confidence that something is the case.

Fysh

Not strictly something I actually believe, but...an aspect of the mind-body problem that I always used to like was the possibility that everything that we perceive as the "real" world is in fact a construct created either by external entities or by our own brain, to entertain us. I favoured the latter because, by implication, all people who I disagreed with were in fact the product of my own brain, therefore technically no matter what the argument, I was always in the right

As for things I genuinely believe but can't prove:

that there is no intelligent designer behind our universe
that our intelligence will eventually prevail species-wide, but probably not without some enormous catastrophe
that there are other intelligent cultures outside our galaxy
that there will never be a Grand Unified Theory Of Everything (bit of a physicisty thing there, but it also has a similar application to maths)

elivsvonchiaing

Fysh wrote:

As for things I genuinely believe but can't prove:

that there is no intelligent designer behind our universe
that our intelligence will eventually prevail species-wide, but probably not without some enormous catastrophe
that there are other intelligent cultures outside our galaxy
that there will never be a Grand Unified Theory Of Everything (bit of a physicisty thing there, but it also has a similar application to maths)

1. Unknowable tbh!
2. Probaly likely :eek:
3. More thank likely but how will we ever know?
4. This has already been computed : 42 :eek:

ecksor

The standard mathematical answer would have to be the consistency of euclidean geometry (and a host of other formal systems we use). In the vein of the person quoted who believes there is a selective advantage in believing in things that aren't proven, there was an interesting snippet in the New Scientist quite recently demonstrating the power of intuitive reasoning over logical reasoning and how it's surprisingly accurate (I say surprisingly because it has been demonstrated so clearly on many occasions that it has a powerful ability to mislead a person spectacularly in many areas).

Fysh

Fysh wrote:

As for things I genuinely believe but can't prove:

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

1. Unknowable tbh!
3. More thank likely but how will we ever know?

Uh...I have the sneaky feeling you may have missed part of my post, quoted above

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

4. This has already been computed : 42 :eek:

Strictly speaking not a grand unified theory, just an answer to an unspecified (or, if you've read Mostly Harmless, perhaps not so unspecified) question...

Meanwhile, in topic-land:

Just thought of an addition to the list:

I also believe we will eventually overcome the limitations of our brain's structure, and will probably find startling solutions to seemingly impossible problems through the use of differently-constructed brain-machines.

Tiriel

Fysh wrote:

I also believe we will eventually overcome the limitations of our brain's structure, and will probably find startling solutions to seemingly impossible problems through the use of differently-constructed brain-machines.

that's interesting. I actually just read an article somewhere recently that people use different areas of their brain in different ways according to personal interests and intelligence. To test how people use their brain ask them a mathematical question.. note which direction the person looks while solving the problem.
Then ask the person an opinion based question such as their favourite music or food.. and note their reaction again. This apparently points to the area of the brain in use.. or at least differentiates that the person uses different areas or the same area to come up with the answer. I've only tried it on a couple of people and one looked in two different directions while the other always looked right..

it's an interesting theory.. but of course how accurate who knows!!!

elivsvonchiaing

Fysh wrote:

As for things I genuinely believe but can't prove:

that there is no intelligent designer behind our universe
that our intelligence will eventually prevail species-wide, but probably not without some enormous catastrophe
that there are other intelligent cultures outside our galaxy
that there will never be a Grand Unified Theory Of Everything (bit of a physicisty thing there, but it also has a similar application to maths)

Slavishly believe contrary - The designer/creator/creatrix of our universe exists and has a serious substance abuse problem in a higher dimension

We will not prevail - intelligent robots will - if we make it that far - before there's another 250M BCE event.

So has that cheered 'ya up? Let's duke this out on the cheerfulness forum - aw rats there isn't one :rolleyes:

elivsvonchiaing

Special Relativity - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bikini atoll kinda sold this to me While your posting wasn't on boards- happy 100th Albert <edit definitely needed an Albert Einstein Smiley here!>

simu

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

Special Relativity - Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Bikini atoll kinda sold this to me

What exactly are you saying here? I'm afraid I don't quite understand.

BEAT

I am at work so I wont bother trying to read that article yet, but one thing that came straight to mind that I believe which you cant prove:
The age old question about God and Religion...
For years I struggled with trying to find some meaning behind it all and researched every religion I came across finally coming to a conclusion that I am happy with and truley believe, even though I am technically Catholic I dont practice anymore because of my revelation.

I believe that there is some sort of higher power...though I will not name it God or Goddess becuase those are man made names.
I do not Believe that Jesus was the son of God literally, I believe that term was taken out of context and actually means that he is one of God's children as we all would be.
I believe that the Church was created for more than one reason and one of them was primarily a business decision, a great way to get money from people without having to give them something tangible.
Buying someones faith is the business of most churches today I believe.

I also believe that If the church and religion didnt exist the world would be in a constant state of chaos because there wouldnt be that element of hope there for so many that need it.

I do not think any less of someone who believes in the church or in God and Jesus, If it works for them then great. I do not personally need to believe in these man made inventions to feel good about myself and about the way I choose to live my life.

I consider myself a spirutual person in that I feel I have been enlightened in my knowledge and that Nature is the ultimate synopsis of creation and where I find my solace.

I do not need an explanation from anyone else or proof to believe what I believe, because when it comes down to it who can really prove these things? if it cant be proved who is to say it is fact anyway?

There is power in belief no matter what you believe in

GuanYin

Fysh wrote:

I also believe we will eventually overcome the limitations of our brain's structure, and will probably find startling solutions to seemingly impossible problems through the use of differently-constructed brain-machines.

Can we call them Cylons? Can we? huh huh? can we?

Really cool site, not impressed with their choices of "great thinkers" though.

I believe that the use of scientific jargon has held technology back about 50 years....

But seriously, I'd be inclined to believe that our subconcious mind has a far greater control over our life than we realise and that when we finally unlock its secrets, we will learn an awful lot about mental health and disease.

elivsvonchiaing

simu wrote:

What exactly are you saying here? I'm afraid I don't quite understand.

While we can harness mass-defect in nuclear weapons - this does not prove E = MC^2, the yield may well look like E = MC^2 it just doesn't prove its universally true.... But I believe it is!

Fysh

elivsvonchiaing wrote:

While we can harness mass-defect in nuclear weapons - this does not prove E = MC^2, the yield may well look like E = MC^2 it just doesn't prove its universally true.... But I believe it is!

Well, in fairness to the theory, there's more evidence that it's an accurate description than just the yield of atomic bombs. There are experimental observations of particle showers in the atmosphere whose lifetime clashed sharply with what would be expected from laboratory experiments - however, using the theory to account for the slowdown of time due to the speed they travel at, the expected and observed results match much more closely.

elivsvonchiaing

Fysh wrote:

Well, in fairness to the theory, there's more evidence that it's an accurate description than just the yield of atomic bombs. There are experimental observations of particle showers in the atmosphere whose lifetime clashed sharply with what would be expected from laboratory experiments - however, using the theory to account for the slowdown of time due to the speed they travel at, the expected and observed results match much more closely.

Yes this is a good point - but only verifies Special Relativity and does not prove it universally true!

Dades

Hmmm. I believe very little that can't be proven (at least by someone smarter than me and to my satisfaction...)

But a couple of things I do believe:

1 We are not the only "intelligent" species to live or have lived in this universe.

2 That we have huge untapped ESP powers. I'm not talking about the con artists double guessing audience members - but a whole mind link up. If we don't wipe ourselves out one day maybe it will develop.

3 That people who drive BMWs are shorter on average than others.

bus77

I believe Martin Luther King had himself shot.