The Afterlife

[anotherlife]

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

Agreed to a point. I believe science can explain everything we observe, meaning everything inside the Natural Universe. What it can't do is explain what came before existence; what is outside that Natural Universe.

science | Definition of science in English by Oxford Dictionaries
The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

By definition, anyone who tries to define spiritual existence or God using science is not comprehending the differences between the physical universe and what is beyond it.

No, because the definition in your post doesn't restrict the scientific method to physical applications only. In physical applications as well as paranormal applications, the scientific method is sometimes inadequate. Scientific mysteries exist. Even science has developed a model for example, where life is represented as a process mostly outside the observable physical universe, thus converging with religion, and all this supported mathematically.

I've been involved in paranormal psychological studies. There is nothing there. Makes for good reality TV shows though!

After you mix it with marketing and organize studies to profit, you have diluted the whole thing to the point that you original question is now just a needle in a haystack. So everything disappears. This is why conspiracy theories are written too, they hide things excellently.

Proof is proof. There's no proof of the paranormal. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Like 90 % of everything never gets proof. Then even those that do, can easily lose their proof. For example, the Volyager space crafts seem to over act the laws of gravity. Proof is always a fragile thing forever.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"The problem with science is that all of its instrumentation is only electromagnetic, including all its mechanical devices, so it cannot detect anything more than materialism"


Why is that a problem? Seems to me that has actually worked out very well for us. The "problem" was when we DIDN'T have science, and so any fool could make any magical, nonsensical claim he wished, and there was no way to tell if he was lying or not. Like, demons causing disease. Or claiming one is the "Son of God".

Science is not designed to deal with non-deterministic, magical nonsense. Nothing is, because there is no way of knowing any claim you make about this non-deterministic, magical nonsense is right or wrong.

The problem is that this is not sufficient. You expect science to explain everything that is observed. Well, science has failed in that.

False, you are misrepresenting me. And you are wrong in what you said anyway. No, I don't think science does or will explain every observation. And the fact that it hasn't is not a failure, because that was never a stanndard of success.

By the way, you think God molests collies. Why do you think god molests collies?

What are collies?

They are dogs. And, apparently, your god has forsaken them.

I'm teasing, of course. I'm just being facetious to make a point about misrepresenting others.

Okay, then make your statement again, because I think I interpreted it like everyone else would.

You said that the problem with science is that it can only deal with materialism. I agree, but I disagree that it's a problem. And I will add that dealing with anything "non-materialistic" is all utter nonsense, as there is no way to test these claims. Therefore, there is no way to tell if anyone is right or wrong. Therefore, the person who claims his houseplants talk to him is no more right or wrong than someone who believes in a zombie king from the bible, and never will be.

 

[anotherlife]

The problem is that this is not sufficient. You expect science to explain everything that is observed. Well, science has failed in that.

False, you are misrepresenting me. And you are wrong in what you said anyway. No, I don't think science does or will explain every observation. And the fact that it hasn't is not a failure, because that was never a stanndard of success.

By the way, you think God molests collies. Why do you think god molests collies?

What are collies?

They are dogs. And, apparently, your god has forsaken them.

I'm teasing, of course. I'm just being facetious to make a point about misrepresenting others.

Okay, then make your statement again, because I think I interpreted it like everyone else would.

You said that the problem with science is that it can only deal with materialism. I agree, but I disagree that it's a problem. And I will add that dealing with anything "non-materialistic" is all utter nonsense, as there is no way to test these claims. Therefore, there is no way to tell if anyone is right or wrong. Therefore, the person who claims his houseplants talk to him is no more right or wrong than someone who believes in a zombie king from the bible, and never will be.

I find that the scientific method is applicable and useful outside the realm of science. Apart from this, I think you are pointing to the proposal that every reality is subjective. Talking plants are real for some and zombie kings are real for others. The problem with reality is that it can't be explained away, even with a gun.

So how much convergence of individual realities do we demand before we declare something true? And what profile do we want that convergence be of? The fact is that there is a significant statistics of after life reports that everyone can read, and even discounting the hoaxes and conspiracy theories, the statistics is still significant.

Everything I wrote in the beginning of this thread is such a physical fact.

 

[anotherlife]

Just because you can't turn something into a repeatable experiment, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Scientifically, if you imagine the physical universe as a canvas in a greater theater structure, and physical life as shadows projected on the canvas, then you acquire the possibility that someone walks up to the canvas and touches your shadow. If that shadow is you physical life, then you have just experienced a ghost from the afterlife.

You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, because you can't control the ghost, as you can't force the person to touch your shadow again or to touch everybody's shadow like he touched yours.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

False, you are misrepresenting me. And you are wrong in what you said anyway. No, I don't think science does or will explain every observation. And the fact that it hasn't is not a failure, because that was never a stanndard of success.

By the way, you think God molests collies. Why do you think god molests collies?

What are collies?

They are dogs. And, apparently, your god has forsaken them.

I'm teasing, of course. I'm just being facetious to make a point about misrepresenting others.

Okay, then make your statement again, because I think I interpreted it like everyone else would.

You said that the problem with science is that it can only deal with materialism. I agree, but I disagree that it's a problem. And I will add that dealing with anything "non-materialistic" is all utter nonsense, as there is no way to test these claims. Therefore, there is no way to tell if anyone is right or wrong. Therefore, the person who claims his houseplants talk to him is no more right or wrong than someone who believes in a zombie king from the bible, and never will be.

I find that the scientific method is applicable and useful outside the realm of science. Apart from this, I think you are pointing to the proposal that every reality is subjective. Talking plants are real for some and zombie kings are real for others. The problem with reality is that it can't be explained away, even with a gun.

So how much convergence of individual realities do we demand before we declare something true? And what profile do we want that convergence be of? The fact is that there is a significant statistics of after life reports that everyone can read, and even discounting the hoaxes and conspiracy theories, the statistics is still significant.

Everything I wrote in the beginning of this thread is such a physical fact.

No, talking plants are never real. If someone thinks they are, they are wrong. Just as you can think it's "real" that fire won't burn you. It will still burn you, no matter what you believe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just because you can't turn something into a repeatable experiment, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Scientifically, if you imagine the physical universe as a canvas in a greater theater structure, and physical life as shadows projected on the canvas, then you acquire the possibility that someone walks up to the canvas and touches your shadow. If that shadow is you physical life, then you have just experienced a ghost from the afterlife.

You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, because you can't control the ghost, as you can't force the person to touch your shadow again or to touch everybody's shadow like he touched yours.

"You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, "

I disagree. We can do clinical, repeatable studies of dementia, hallucination, of foolong people and being fooled, and of people confusing dreams or delusion for actual memories. People have done many studies on fooling people into believing something.

 

[anotherlife]

What are collies?

They are dogs. And, apparently, your god has forsaken them.

I'm teasing, of course. I'm just being facetious to make a point about misrepresenting others.

Okay, then make your statement again, because I think I interpreted it like everyone else would.

You said that the problem with science is that it can only deal with materialism. I agree, but I disagree that it's a problem. And I will add that dealing with anything "non-materialistic" is all utter nonsense, as there is no way to test these claims. Therefore, there is no way to tell if anyone is right or wrong. Therefore, the person who claims his houseplants talk to him is no more right or wrong than someone who believes in a zombie king from the bible, and never will be.

I find that the scientific method is applicable and useful outside the realm of science. Apart from this, I think you are pointing to the proposal that every reality is subjective. Talking plants are real for some and zombie kings are real for others. The problem with reality is that it can't be explained away, even with a gun.

So how much convergence of individual realities do we demand before we declare something true? And what profile do we want that convergence be of? The fact is that there is a significant statistics of after life reports that everyone can read, and even discounting the hoaxes and conspiracy theories, the statistics is still significant.

Everything I wrote in the beginning of this thread is such a physical fact.

No, talking plants are never real. If someone thinks they are, they are wrong. Just as you can think it's "real" that fire won't burn you. It will still burn you, no matter what you believe.

I think this logic fails, because even if everyone on Earth believes that talking plants are real, it may still be false, and even if nobody believes that talking plants are real it can still be true. Same is true for the fire. Many martyrs of Christianity didn't experience the burning even when they were totally crispy.

 

[anotherlife]

Just because you can't turn something into a repeatable experiment, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Scientifically, if you imagine the physical universe as a canvas in a greater theater structure, and physical life as shadows projected on the canvas, then you acquire the possibility that someone walks up to the canvas and touches your shadow. If that shadow is you physical life, then you have just experienced a ghost from the afterlife.

You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, because you can't control the ghost, as you can't force the person to touch your shadow again or to touch everybody's shadow like he touched yours.

"You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, "

I disagree. We can do clinical, repeatable studies of dementia, hallucination, of foolong people and being fooled, and of people confusing dreams or delusion for actual memories. People have done many studies on fooling people into believing something.

But this doesn't cover every story of the afterlife, in fact doesn't cover a large statistics of them.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They are dogs. And, apparently, your god has forsaken them.

I'm teasing, of course. I'm just being facetious to make a point about misrepresenting others.

Okay, then make your statement again, because I think I interpreted it like everyone else would.

You said that the problem with science is that it can only deal with materialism. I agree, but I disagree that it's a problem. And I will add that dealing with anything "non-materialistic" is all utter nonsense, as there is no way to test these claims. Therefore, there is no way to tell if anyone is right or wrong. Therefore, the person who claims his houseplants talk to him is no more right or wrong than someone who believes in a zombie king from the bible, and never will be.

I find that the scientific method is applicable and useful outside the realm of science. Apart from this, I think you are pointing to the proposal that every reality is subjective. Talking plants are real for some and zombie kings are real for others. The problem with reality is that it can't be explained away, even with a gun.

So how much convergence of individual realities do we demand before we declare something true? And what profile do we want that convergence be of? The fact is that there is a significant statistics of after life reports that everyone can read, and even discounting the hoaxes and conspiracy theories, the statistics is still significant.

Everything I wrote in the beginning of this thread is such a physical fact.

No, talking plants are never real. If someone thinks they are, they are wrong. Just as you can think it's "real" that fire won't burn you. It will still burn you, no matter what you believe.

I think this logic fails, because even if everyone on Earth believes that talking plants are real, it may still be false, and even if nobody believes that talking plants are real it can still be true. Same is true for the fire. Many martyrs of Christianity didn't experience the burning even when they were totally crispy.

No, utter nonsense. What you are now attempting to do is paint any truth as subjective, and therefore "all truth is equally subjective". No, houseplants do not talk, no matter what anyone believes. And claiming there is a non-zero probability that is false is not the same as saying it is subjective. While humans long ago accepted that nothing could ever be "100% known", we also correctly surmised that some things are so well proven that we shpuld proceed as though theyvare fact. Like, evolution. Evolution is a fact, regardless of what you or I believe.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just because you can't turn something into a repeatable experiment, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Scientifically, if you imagine the physical universe as a canvas in a greater theater structure, and physical life as shadows projected on the canvas, then you acquire the possibility that someone walks up to the canvas and touches your shadow. If that shadow is you physical life, then you have just experienced a ghost from the afterlife.

You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, because you can't control the ghost, as you can't force the person to touch your shadow again or to touch everybody's shadow like he touched yours.

"You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, "

I disagree. We can do clinical, repeatable studies of dementia, hallucination, of foolong people and being fooled, and of people confusing dreams or delusion for actual memories. People have done many studies on fooling people into believing something.

But this doesn't cover every story of the afterlife, in fact doesn't cover a large statistics of them.

Saying all yhe stories are untestable nonsense does, in fact, cover all the stories.

 

[anotherlife]

Okay, then make your statement again, because I think I interpreted it like everyone else would.

You said that the problem with science is that it can only deal with materialism. I agree, but I disagree that it's a problem. And I will add that dealing with anything "non-materialistic" is all utter nonsense, as there is no way to test these claims. Therefore, there is no way to tell if anyone is right or wrong. Therefore, the person who claims his houseplants talk to him is no more right or wrong than someone who believes in a zombie king from the bible, and never will be.

I find that the scientific method is applicable and useful outside the realm of science. Apart from this, I think you are pointing to the proposal that every reality is subjective. Talking plants are real for some and zombie kings are real for others. The problem with reality is that it can't be explained away, even with a gun.

So how much convergence of individual realities do we demand before we declare something true? And what profile do we want that convergence be of? The fact is that there is a significant statistics of after life reports that everyone can read, and even discounting the hoaxes and conspiracy theories, the statistics is still significant.

Everything I wrote in the beginning of this thread is such a physical fact.

No, talking plants are never real. If someone thinks they are, they are wrong. Just as you can think it's "real" that fire won't burn you. It will still burn you, no matter what you believe.

I think this logic fails, because even if everyone on Earth believes that talking plants are real, it may still be false, and even if nobody believes that talking plants are real it can still be true. Same is true for the fire. Many martyrs of Christianity didn't experience the burning even when they were totally crispy.

No, utter nonsense. What you are now attempting to do is paint any truth as subjective, and therefore "all truth is equally subjective". No, houseplants do not talk, no matter what anyone believes. And claiming there is a non-zero probability that is false is not the same as saying it is subjective. While humans long ago accepted that nothing could ever be "100% known", we also correctly surmised that some things are so well proven that we shpuld proceed as though theyvare fact. Like, evolution. Evolution is a fact, regardless of what you or I believe.

This is all about belief. Every truth is about belief. Even 1+1 is a belief only, because unless you are a machine, you don't arrive at it logically, but just compare the problem with what you were told for it before. So it is all subjective. It is by choice that you decide to accept or deny that plants talk, and it is subjective what you base your decision on, such as various statistics of other people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I don't believe anything. Believing is thinking I know something I don't.

When I find out the truth, I'll then know.

Some people believe based on available information. The mind is a funny thing. There are things I believe - even simple things like whether or not the person in the office is having an affair. NOMB, but, still, the mind keeps going.....

The biggest problem is that people are born into religion, taught to believe without any knowledge at all. Once you've been indoctrinated then your mind is much more open to believing rather than knowing. But also to reject for no reason to.

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

How many people do you think believe simply because they've been told to believe?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You said that the problem with science is that it can only deal with materialism. I agree, but I disagree that it's a problem. And I will add that dealing with anything "non-materialistic" is all utter nonsense, as there is no way to test these claims. Therefore, there is no way to tell if anyone is right or wrong. Therefore, the person who claims his houseplants talk to him is no more right or wrong than someone who believes in a zombie king from the bible, and never will be.

I find that the scientific method is applicable and useful outside the realm of science. Apart from this, I think you are pointing to the proposal that every reality is subjective. Talking plants are real for some and zombie kings are real for others. The problem with reality is that it can't be explained away, even with a gun.

So how much convergence of individual realities do we demand before we declare something true? And what profile do we want that convergence be of? The fact is that there is a significant statistics of after life reports that everyone can read, and even discounting the hoaxes and conspiracy theories, the statistics is still significant.

Everything I wrote in the beginning of this thread is such a physical fact.

No, talking plants are never real. If someone thinks they are, they are wrong. Just as you can think it's "real" that fire won't burn you. It will still burn you, no matter what you believe.

I think this logic fails, because even if everyone on Earth believes that talking plants are real, it may still be false, and even if nobody believes that talking plants are real it can still be true. Same is true for the fire. Many martyrs of Christianity didn't experience the burning even when they were totally crispy.

No, utter nonsense. What you are now attempting to do is paint any truth as subjective, and therefore "all truth is equally subjective". No, houseplants do not talk, no matter what anyone believes. And claiming there is a non-zero probability that is false is not the same as saying it is subjective. While humans long ago accepted that nothing could ever be "100% known", we also correctly surmised that some things are so well proven that we shpuld proceed as though theyvare fact. Like, evolution. Evolution is a fact, regardless of what you or I believe.

This is all about belief. Every truth is about belief. Even 1+1 is a belief only, because unless you are a machine, you don't arrive at it logically, but just compare the problem with what you were told for it before. So it is all subjective. It is by choice that you decide to accept or deny that plants talk, and it is subjective what you base your decision on, such as various statistics of other people.

"This is all about belief. Every truth is about belief."

No, no it isn't. I could prove this universal statement wrong any of a trillion ways. This is utter nonsense. And, there is no way you really believe it, anyway. You, sir, are a physical , deterministic system, bound by all the same physical laws as any other. No amount of belief or disbelief will change this. Now, if you would like to add a layer of magic, feel free. But certain things stand true, regardless of your belief or disbelief.

 

[anotherlife]

Just because you can't turn something into a repeatable experiment, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Scientifically, if you imagine the physical universe as a canvas in a greater theater structure, and physical life as shadows projected on the canvas, then you acquire the possibility that someone walks up to the canvas and touches your shadow. If that shadow is you physical life, then you have just experienced a ghost from the afterlife.

You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, because you can't control the ghost, as you can't force the person to touch your shadow again or to touch everybody's shadow like he touched yours.

"You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, "

I disagree. We can do clinical, repeatable studies of dementia, hallucination, of foolong people and being fooled, and of people confusing dreams or delusion for actual memories. People have done many studies on fooling people into believing something.

But this doesn't cover every story of the afterlife, in fact doesn't cover a large statistics of them.

Saying all yhe stories are untestable nonsense does, in fact, cover all the stories.

Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.

 

[anotherlife]

Some people believe based on available information. The mind is a funny thing. There are things I believe - even simple things like whether or not the person in the office is having an affair. NOMB, but, still, the mind keeps going.....

The biggest problem is that people are born into religion, taught to believe without any knowledge at all. Once you've been indoctrinated then your mind is much more open to believing rather than knowing. But also to reject for no reason to.

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

How many people do you think believe simply because they've been told to believe?

Pretty much every student in elementary school or middle school or home school, even high school, and now even college mostly.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why not just accept you don't know?

And why not keep an open mind on what you don't know?

Who siad I wasn't keeping an open mind?

Saying "I don't know what happens in the afterlife, there are many possibilities, but I won't say one is right" is keeping my mind open.

Okay, okay, I was't implying anything. Just suggesting that accepting what you don't know is good but one should also keep an open mind about what actually is possible.

I know. The problem is most people aren't like that. They decide what they want the truth to be.

Scientists too decide what they want the truth to be. That is why science moves in trends. By the way, everything I wrote in this thread is a physical fact.

There was an interview with Ricky Gervais and he was asked what the difference between science and religion were.

He said, if someone writes a religious book and someone burns all the books, then the religion is dead, if someone burns all the science books, these books will be written again, because what is in those books is going to be found out again and again and again by other people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just because you can't turn something into a repeatable experiment, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Scientifically, if you imagine the physical universe as a canvas in a greater theater structure, and physical life as shadows projected on the canvas, then you acquire the possibility that someone walks up to the canvas and touches your shadow. If that shadow is you physical life, then you have just experienced a ghost from the afterlife.

You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, because you can't control the ghost, as you can't force the person to touch your shadow again or to touch everybody's shadow like he touched yours.

"You can't turn this into a repeatable experiment, "

I disagree. We can do clinical, repeatable studies of dementia, hallucination, of foolong people and being fooled, and of people confusing dreams or delusion for actual memories. People have done many studies on fooling people into believing something.

But this doesn't cover every story of the afterlife, in fact doesn't cover a large statistics of them.

Saying all yhe stories are untestable nonsense does, in fact, cover all the stories.

Even those doctors themselves say that they are on a case by case basis. That is essential.

They are only saying that no two brains are exactly alike. They are not saying that some delusions "are actually real". they are not saying that, "Hey, this guy seems otherwise normal, maybe there is truth to his claim that his houseplants talk to him". No, a clinical diagnosis is what it is, and it is based on empirical evidence.

Delusions, hallucinations, lying, and false memories are all much simpler explanations for deviant beliefs and claims than introducing magic or the idea that all truth is subjective. In fact, doing so explains exactly nothing at all.

 

[anotherlife]

I find that the scientific method is applicable and useful outside the realm of science. Apart from this, I think you are pointing to the proposal that every reality is subjective. Talking plants are real for some and zombie kings are real for others. The problem with reality is that it can't be explained away, even with a gun.

So how much convergence of individual realities do we demand before we declare something true? And what profile do we want that convergence be of? The fact is that there is a significant statistics of after life reports that everyone can read, and even discounting the hoaxes and conspiracy theories, the statistics is still significant.

Everything I wrote in the beginning of this thread is such a physical fact.

No, talking plants are never real. If someone thinks they are, they are wrong. Just as you can think it's "real" that fire won't burn you. It will still burn you, no matter what you believe.

I think this logic fails, because even if everyone on Earth believes that talking plants are real, it may still be false, and even if nobody believes that talking plants are real it can still be true. Same is true for the fire. Many martyrs of Christianity didn't experience the burning even when they were totally crispy.

No, utter nonsense. What you are now attempting to do is paint any truth as subjective, and therefore "all truth is equally subjective". No, houseplants do not talk, no matter what anyone believes. And claiming there is a non-zero probability that is false is not the same as saying it is subjective. While humans long ago accepted that nothing could ever be "100% known", we also correctly surmised that some things are so well proven that we shpuld proceed as though theyvare fact. Like, evolution. Evolution is a fact, regardless of what you or I believe.

This is all about belief. Every truth is about belief. Even 1+1 is a belief only, because unless you are a machine, you don't arrive at it logically, but just compare the problem with what you were told for it before. So it is all subjective. It is by choice that you decide to accept or deny that plants talk, and it is subjective what you base your decision on, such as various statistics of other people.

"This is all about belief. Every truth is about belief."

No, no it isn't. I could prove this universal statement wrong any of a trillion ways. This is utter nonsense. And, there is no way you really believe it, anyway. You, sir, are a physical , deterministic system, bound by all the same physical laws as any other. No amount of belief or disbelief will change this. Now, if you would like to add a layer of magic, feel free. But certain things stand true, regardless of your belief or disbelief.

Yes to most but no because we don't know all physical laws and forces and we don't know the relationship between physical forces that determine me and the unknown forces that also determine me plus alter the physical forces.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The biggest problem is that people are born into religion, taught to believe without any knowledge at all. Once you've been indoctrinated then your mind is much more open to believing rather than knowing. But also to reject for no reason to.

If information from other lives were made available in your current life, then every current life would be ruined and would lose its meaning and purpose.

So you are stuck without knowledge. So the only choice you have is some belief system that you can pick from other people's assembly.

Why not just accept you don't know?

Because I can't accept that people invalidate other people's observations in the physical sense, only because they themselves haven't observed it. That is too unscientific.

How many people do you think believe simply because they've been told to believe?

Pretty much every student in elementary school or middle school or home school, even high school, and now even college mostly.

Yeah, we make kids believe, we put them into churches, they see all these people around them believing this stuff, so they believe too.

How many of them have actually felt anything? How many of them have actually had any reason to believe that anything they have been told is true?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, talking plants are never real. If someone thinks they are, they are wrong. Just as you can think it's "real" that fire won't burn you. It will still burn you, no matter what you believe.

I think this logic fails, because even if everyone on Earth believes that talking plants are real, it may still be false, and even if nobody believes that talking plants are real it can still be true. Same is true for the fire. Many martyrs of Christianity didn't experience the burning even when they were totally crispy.

No, utter nonsense. What you are now attempting to do is paint any truth as subjective, and therefore "all truth is equally subjective". No, houseplants do not talk, no matter what anyone believes. And claiming there is a non-zero probability that is false is not the same as saying it is subjective. While humans long ago accepted that nothing could ever be "100% known", we also correctly surmised that some things are so well proven that we shpuld proceed as though theyvare fact. Like, evolution. Evolution is a fact, regardless of what you or I believe.

This is all about belief. Every truth is about belief. Even 1+1 is a belief only, because unless you are a machine, you don't arrive at it logically, but just compare the problem with what you were told for it before. So it is all subjective. It is by choice that you decide to accept or deny that plants talk, and it is subjective what you base your decision on, such as various statistics of other people.

"This is all about belief. Every truth is about belief."

No, no it isn't. I could prove this universal statement wrong any of a trillion ways. This is utter nonsense. And, there is no way you really believe it, anyway. You, sir, are a physical , deterministic system, bound by all the same physical laws as any other. No amount of belief or disbelief will change this. Now, if you would like to add a layer of magic, feel free. But certain things stand true, regardless of your belief or disbelief.

Yes to most but no because we don't know all physical laws and forces and we don't know the relationship between physical forces that determine me and the unknown forces that also determine me plus alter the physical forces.

But now you are changing lanes. Where before you claimed that there was a non-physical we don't understand, you bmnow claim that we simply don't or may not understand all that is physical. Surely you see these are very differwnt claims. I would not disagree with the second. Maybe their are higher spatial dimensions, and their brief interactions with our observable dimensions may appear as magic to us, but actually aren't. This is a fun topic, really.