Category: Philosophy and Science Theory

This category attempts to think outside of the box on a number of topics. These posts attempt to minimize our given assumptions, and allow for a very unique perspective on the world. By looking at the world from fresh eyes, these posts are designed to make you think and reconsider the many ideas you assumed were a given.

How does Science Work

“Okay… well, then why does science work?” This question was asked of me when I was explaining that science, in many ways, is simply another religion. It is another set of beliefs that makes us function a certain way, and put our faith in certain people. Whether that be done by a just or logical means is irrelevant. The fact of the matter simply states that science has the power to influence our perceptions of the world, our own morality and how things should be and are. 

With this awareness of science’s power in mind, we can begin to see the connection between this way of explaining the world compared to the many others. Whether that be Catholicism, Buddism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, Spiritualism, Science, and/or a hundred other possibilities, these belief systems are means of understanding and creating everything that is. And like all ways of understanding the world, we must take certain assumptions and grow from them. We take certain beliefs as absolute and see how far we can run with them before deciding to sacrifice logic or the assumption in hand. Because I’m sorry to say, but every assumption will eventually have its back to a wall, it’s just a matter of how far you’re willing to go. 

So, whether your assumption is of a man in the sky, your senses as objective, you as the creator as opposed to the observer, and/or an infinite of other possibilities, they will all have their limits and restrictions. This is what led me to the very simple, yet extremely difficult to answer the question of, “Why does science work then?”. This obvious problem stumped me quite some time. Constantly second-guessing myself as the practicality of science overwhelmed me, I eventually found an answer once I realized a key element of humanity and life as a whole (assuming they are even separate). That realization is to not mistake the map for the territory and that we are the universe.

** I highly recommend that you read either or both of the hyperlinked posts. If you have the time, they will certainly help you to understand the idea that I am attempting to convey. **

In my post, The Implications of Our Lack of Free Will, I discuss what our world would look like when we assume we do not have free will.  For my third application, I discuss that we are the universe.  I came to this conclusion by assuming humanity is entirely made up of nature and nurture.  Although I find this conclusion accurate, it alone is incomplete. By assuming we are the sum of nature and nurture, we still need to find out what controls or dictates those two things, if not us.  This is where the universe comes in.  

The universe dictates everything.  It is what created our galaxy, our solar system, and our planet.  It then made an environment suitable for life, which slowly created cells and organisms.  This microscopic life eventually evolved, and evolved, and evolved. And over time we emerged.  We emerged as other life did, and the one thing different from a living thing and a nonliving thing is that living things want to make more of themselves.  With that need, we eventually began to organize ourselves and develop emotions like greed and empathy. The universe dictates everything, and therefore we are the universe.  

Before I proceed, I can see a possible issue with my last sentence in the paragraph above.  You may be thinking, “simply because something dictates us, should not mean we are it”. I suppose a quick explanation is that whether you know it or not, you have probably been doing that your whole life.  In my post, Do We Have Free Will?, I explain that we are controlled by ourselves rather than we control ourselves. 

** This thought theory does not give mindfulness a thorough consideration. This is personally where I feel my idea may be lacking and is possibly contacted in my later work. If this interests you at all, please feel free to follow the link to a phase in the blog that addresses this head-on **

With some variation, we mostly identify ourselves by how and who we act as.  We essentially say our personalities are who we are. And the issue with this is that there is nothing personal about our personalities.  

Personalities are created, as I explained in the previous paragraphs.  They are not created by you or me, or anyone for that matter. It is simply something that controls us and dictates us for who we are, yet we identify with it.  So rather than seeing it as its own thing, we identify with it and assume it is our own. This is why I believe I can safely safe we are the universe. I mean it in no different of a way that we mean when we say we are ourselves.

Now that we both assume science is a religion and that we are the universe, it becomes clear why science works (at least to me… let me know what you think).  It works because we think within this universe and therefore act within this universe. Our logic to create science, our adoption of mathematics, and our understanding of this reality, are all within the parameters of the universe.  Although we are not always accurate, we are always thinking within these parameters and therefore never totally clueless. This is also why I believe science will become more and more accurate, from within our universe, as we modernize and develop new ideas.  I believe science, although a non-absolute religion, is the best understanding of our universe today and will be for a long time.

This post began with a question that I hope I have answered.  Yet since language is a bit of a barrier and abstract thoughts are challenging to write about, I encourage you to comment below or email me any question you may have.  

Also, if you find an issue in anything I have said please feel free to discuss it is with me in the same two forms of communication.  I write about these topics because I believe I am correct, but just because I think I am correct, does not mean I am current. Therefore, I would love to talk about anything we disagree on.  I will try my hardest to consider your point, just as I hope you will do the same for me.

🙂 Have a nice day!

The Implications of Our Lack of Free Will

Image Credit: https://static.parade.com/

After writing my post, Do We Have Free Will?, I was left to wonder what that would mean for society as a whole, and what our world would look like from this new perspective.  Hence why I would like to dedicate this post to talking about the application of this theory.

The first application of this idea leads me to believe it should be theoretically possible to predict someone’s entire life.  I am not saying we are even close to having the capabilities to do so now, but maybe in the future, it will be possible. With the right materials and knowledge, I would bet anyone’s life could be predicted any minute before it happened.

Secondly, I think life would be a lot more peaceful if we found this to be absolutely true.  Most people, including myself, are initially sad when they first believe that we have no free will, yet as I thought through this, I realized it was not sad at all.  With no free will comes no responsibility, life just happens. If bad events occur in our lives, we would instead see them as merely something that happens, rather than happening to us.  Negative experiences would feel a lot less personal, which would alleviate us from any pain it could have caused.

A third application of this theory is that I am the universe, and more specifically, we are the universe.  I came to this conclusion by considering what makes us ourselves if we are not the ones doing so. As a recap, by stating that we have no free will, we are assuming that we are controlled by the nature and nurture that dictates every part of our personality and thoughts.  To go further with this line of thinking, one must consider what dictates nature and nurture, and this is where the universe comes in.  

The universe is everything from the room your sitting in, to the force that rotates our entire galaxy.  It dictates the process of natural selection that the human race goes through which developed an ingrained sense of selfishness and the desire to seek answers in such a mysterious world.  The universe makes us who we are today, and since we define ourselves by how we act and think, then it would make sense to consider ourselves as the universe.

I am not going to lie, I do not think humanity is ready for these realizations.  Our economy would crumble, laws would become optional, and personal motivation would cease to exist.  I think these things would happen initially and over time they may be restored in a new, brighter light, but I am not sure.  I’m not sure if society is ready for the transition, for a new take on how we see ourselves and others.

This is why my take away for the post is not to run around the streets naked because Jake said life does not matter.  I write about this to get you thinking. To start the process of seeing the world from a different light. Not to get rid of the old light you hold, but to instead hold both.  To compare the two and see the flaws in either one. I think humanity as a whole goes through most of life with tunnel vision on far too many subjects, so let us try to change that one thought at a time by considering the seemingly impossible option in an unbiased way.

The Skeptics Archnemesis

Image Credit: https://teachingsuperheroes.files.wordpress.com/

Facts are agreed upon opinions.  For those of you who are unfamiliar with my claim, please feel free to click on the provided link What is a Fact?  This concept falls under the category of what is commonly referred to as “the skeptic”.  “The skeptic” is a way of thinking that questions everything. It is the strongest case to make because all arguments are grounded on the idea of knowing something. The problem is, as my earlier post indicated, we actually can’t know anything.  In every way “the skeptic” is this impenetrable argument.

However, there is a counter argument that can stand against the “the skeptic” with just as much certainty.  This counter statement was first introduced by Cogito Ergo Sum when he coined the term, “I think, therefore I am”.  By having the ability to think and question one’s own consciousness then proves that thing is in fact conscious.  He is not stating what form of consciousness is taking place. Instead he is merely stating there is some form of conscious thought taking place.  He simply states that he is conscious because he thinks whether he is conscious.

What is interesting about this concept is that we live in a time where nobody can go into anyone else’s consciousness.  As much as I may understand and relate to my friends, I will never know what it truly means to be in their heads. Therefore, the quote goes, “I think, therefore I am”, and not “we think, therefore we are”.  This concludes that until neuroscience puts me into your head there is no way for me to know that you are a conscious being like myself, and of course the opposite is true as well. Until humanity can figure out how to do this we are limited to ourselves.  This is why I have no way of knowing if there is even any other mind to go into.

To my surprise, yet also enlightenment, I now believe there is one fact. One thing I, and nobody else, can be absolutely sure of. Alternatively, you have one thing you can be sure of that nobody else can be.  I find this area of knowledge extremely interesting and if you find any flaw in my way of thinking please feel free to contact me through email and/or comment below.  Also, if you would like to continue the conversation please feel free to do so as well. I used to think there were no facts, and now I believe there is one, maybe with a longer debate we can find a second.

Do We Have Free Will?

Do we have free will?  This question has been considered since Socrates took his first step.  I find this question to be so intriguing because in so few words such a complex question emerges.   A question with dozens of interpretations, yet only two possible answers.  

I should first clarify the angle I plan to answer this question.  When discussing free will, I am questioning if we are responsible for our actions, or if our actions are simply laid out for us.  This does not imply that there is a higher being or some type of destiny we are all given. I am instead questioning whether we rule ourselves or if we are ruled by ourselves.

As of now, there are two factors that define us as humans: nature and nurture.  Our internal characteristics, such as genetics, make up the “nature” part of who we are.  While on the other hand, the external things we experience, like our environment and upbringing, determine our nurture.  With centuries of debate on which portion is more influential, the one agreement everyone has come to is that the sum of those two parts result in who we are. 

In an effort to understand nature, one can think of genetics as a written code from within us.  This written code essentially shows the spectrum of what our personality and tendencies can become. To put it simply, our genes allow for personality traits to form more and less easily depending on what we experience throughout our life… yet it is also a bit more complicated because it also partially determines what we experience. Hence where the nurture fills in.

In this same reflexive way, nurture works similarly.  We are born and raised in an environment that we have no say over.  The parents who raised us, the house we lived, and the location we grew up, these are all part of our life that help determine who we are today. And as they influence us, they create us and then we in turn create them back. So, to summarize the process in a sentence: an experience, or nurture, allows for the gene, or nature, to make a trait that determines our actions that create a future experience that reinforces or alters the created trait. 

Interestingly, when we consider these truths in such a fashion, it seems to be a bit out of our control. And that is exactly what I would argue in this post. These are simply the cards we were dealt, and our genetics told us how to play them.

A common argument to this claim is that we make decisions all the time and those decisions can affect our environment.  For example, the college we choose to attend will largely affect the rest of our life. And because of this, one may argue that we do have a say in what environment we surround ourselves in.  

The problem with this argument is how we make decisions.  Decision making is based on logic and reasoning from our past events and knowledge we have received.  When faced with a decision, our subconscious memories of similar experiences create that gut feeling we get when weighing our options.  These subconscious memories sway us one way or the other, and largely determine our choice in the matter. With this understanding, we can conclude that our knowledge and logic is a sum of everything we have experienced and been told.  Which once again, we had no choice over.

As you have probably guessed at this point, I do not believe we have free will.  Both nature and nurture, the two things that create us, are not determined by us.  They are instead forced onto us and determine our every thought, which includes our decision making as well.  It is because of this that we can never break away from our predetermined selves. We are the people we were always going to become, and we do not rule ourselves but are instead ruled by ourselves.

To read more on this subjective I have written a post that quickly looks at the implications of this theory. Therefore, feel free to follow the link to my post The Implications of Our Lack of Free Will

** As wise as these words may be, I don’t totally know if they are true anymore. Funny how life works like that. Feel free to read the hyperlinked post which discusses an idea that logically eludes to us actually being able to take control of ourselves. **

Seeking Truth in a Confusing World

I am a big fan of Socrates. All that we try to do here branches from Socrates great gift to the world, the Socratic method. What Socrates would do is sit down with another person and question them, much like a curious child questions their parent, attempting to find a flaw in their logic. Socrates did this not to make people look foolish but to make them understand where their knowledge was lacking. From this point on, he hoped that they would seek more knowledge to fill the gaps in their argument. It’s amazing that a simple method of questioning would stay so relevant for over two-thousand years.

The world we live in now is a lot more complicated than the one that Socrates was born into. In this day and age there is information everywhere. With quick access to the internet and widespread levels of education, more people are producing and consuming information every single day. It would seem that with all of this information floating around the Socratic method would be more popular than ever in order to try to find the most accurate information possible, but it’s not.

It is very important to note that the Socratic method does not work if there is malicious intent in the questioning. Once the malicious intent arrives both the questioner and the questioned become compromised, they are no longer seeking knowledge and improving logic, but instead are in a contest. Today I see remnants of the Socratic method on the news, in classrooms, and all over social media, however in these places the method has been perverted. We are no longer trying to point out flaws in logic for the purpose of self-improvement, but are instead doing so to win a battle of wits.

The Socratic method is not perfect, not because it is in itself imperfect, but that its subjects are, people are part of this equation, and where there are people there are problems. Being wrong is an awful feeling, especially when your false beliefs are exposed among peers. This awful feeling leads to resentment towards questioning, and a fear of being proven wrong. After all, it was this questioning of others that led Socrates to his execution. It is in this fear that it becomes very tempting to use the Socratic method as a tool to make others feel terribly about their own intellect. We must avoid doing this at all costs. I’m no saint, I have done the same thing, I’ve been in a heated argument and questioned ad nauseam just to try to break down the other person’s argument. This should not be why we argue.

So what I am saying here is let’s all be Socrates, let’s question and discuss for the sake of knowledge and not malintent. When speaking to someone with opposite views, let their argument fall on open ears, and then question, if they are truly wrong then they will fail this line of questioning. If one questions enough any argument will fall apart, even the most well thought out ones because our knowledge on any subject comes with a limit. So, when we question we must be responsible, when the argument falls apart do not gloat or attack, show respect by  explaining what you are doing and hope that they will seek the knowledge that they are lacking. Hell, do this with people you agree with as well because we all lack some knowledge and if nobody points it out we will never know what we don’t know. So let us make that our goal, to know what we don’t know. Let us reach out to one another and show, respectfully, how foolish each of us are. It is only then that we can begin to find truth in a very confusing world.

Are We in a Simulation?

Image Credit: https://medium.com

Are we in a simulation?  This question was first introduced to me when watching an interview with Elon Musk.  For those who are unfamiliar with such a name, I encourage you to do a quick google search and see for yourself.  

Yet you probably will not do that (I don’t blame you, I probably wouldn’t either), so in short he is a multi-billionaire who currently leads the world in space travel with SpaceX. He also started and currently runs Tesla, along with dozens of other side projects in the effort to modernize our world into a safer, more luxurious future. So yeah, he’s pretty cool. 

In his interview, he states that there is a one in a billion chance that we are not in a simulation.  One in a billion chance that everything we feel, see, hear, taste and smell are actually true. One in a billion chance that you, me and everyone else are, in fact, real.

Now I am not going to lie, when I first heard him say such a tale I laughed and closed the video.  As time passed, that instinct to resist such an unbelievable truth lessened. I began to wonder about the complexity of such a statement.  If everything was run on a computer no different than a game like Skyrim, then how much energy would that take? Also, if this universe is fake then what is real? What could real even be?  

After some contemplation, I have made some personal conclusions on this subject, but I would like to remind you of the fact that there is simply no way, as of now, to truly know how to true our reality is. Therefore, I encourage you to take everything I say with a grain of salt.

This whole simulation theory started with the digital age.  Especially with the newest forms of virtual reality, it would appear we have the ability to create the very world we live in.  Virtual reality headsets literally allow us to experience something with our senses that does not actually exist in the physical world.  This technology is growing with the goal of one day reaching full dive technology. Full dive VR is the attempt to have all five of our senses engaged in whichever world we choose to play.  If this is eventually achieved, we would have the capability to immerse ourselves into any world we chose fit, without any ability to register any difference from that one and the one we currently reside in.  

There is no guarantee at the moment that this technology will ever be possible.  Although, if it eventually is I would make the claim, without a doubt, that we are in a simulation.  Just think about what full dive technology really means. We would have the capability to create a reality as real as our own.  If such a thing is possible, how can we say that our reality is something separate from all the other ones we would be creating?

Now, as I said earlier, it is not possible yet and it very well may never be. I suppose only time will tell.  In the meantime, I wondered what it would mean if we really are in a simulation. For one, that would mean the likelihood of me being real is zero as well.  If a computer type technology were to have the capability of generating a universe as large as ours, it would probably have to harness the power of a star. Now if this were the case, the power from a star would most likely be so great that it could seemingly run an infinite number of universes.  So I am essentially saying that if you can run a simulation of one universe, you probably have the ability to run as many as you want. If this is the case, then the ratio of living things compared to simulated things would be one to infinite. Meaning, the odds of you and me being real are, mathematically speaking, zero.

The flaw with this theory is its inability to escape from our very narrow vision of what reality is.  As of now, there is literally no way of knowing a reality different from our own. It is similar to running an experiment when the experimental variable is held constant.  You could run that test a million times and it will never change.

I mean, don’t take my word for it, test it yourself.  Can you comprehend a reality different from this one? Not a different world. Not a different species with different rules that they exist by.  Not different scientific phenomenons that dictate its universe. I am talking about imaging a reality different from the one you experience. Can you comprehend the fourth dimension, or do you just picture another layer on the third? Can you imagine life that is not defined by its ability to experience the world around it?  I certainly cannot.

So, we can never see outside of our reality since we have no other sample to compare it to.  This is what determined my final conclusion on the topic. Until someone breaks from this simulated world and comes back to tell us about it, we will have no idea if the things we experience are actually present in the true reality. Simply because we cannot understand a reality separate from the one we live in.  Therefore, we are in no position to guess about a possible reality that we cannot even comprehend.

Yet as previously stated, if full dive VR does eventually become possible then our universe is most likely fake if we assume that the real one follows similar rules of reality that we do.  I believe this assumption is the best we can make as of now. Until we have more knowledge and comprehension of this matter, I believe assuming that the real reality is the same as ours is the only thing we can do to make any sort of conclusion.

Although it should not be forgotten that all ideas seem impossible at one point or another.  We are currently the only known species that can comprehend that we will eventually die. Other species can mourn for the death of their loved ones, but they can not understand that they will die one day as well.  

Hence why my statement to leave you with is that just because something seems impossible to comprehend now does not mean it has to be impossible forever. Maybe understanding this reality is not as impossible as we think.  It may just take a couple more generations of intellectual growth, and before you know it, the understanding will be as well known as our inevitable endings.

How Conscious is Artificial Intelligence?

Image Credit: https://static.independent.co.uk/

So… I have a problem.  Something of a concern I suppose.  This concern is for our future. Now I know what your thinking, “no shit.”  The thing is, I’m not talking about our planet’s extreme climate change, which magically stopped existing in 2016, or the likely event of a disease spreading worldwide that has no current antibiotic. I am not even discussing the billions that are starving as I peacefully sit on my couch and write about nonsense. 

Instead, I worry over the reality that we are creating life.  As you are reading this post, right now, there are people working vigorously to create another species.  We are playing god and don’t even realize it. This new species is commonly known as Artificial Intelligence, A.I.

Don’t believe me?  Well, the odds of me being correct are higher than you think.  A.I. is defined as the theory and development of computer systems able to perform tasks that normally require human intelligence, such as visual perception, speech recognition, decision-making, and translation between languages.  Now personally I would define many of those skills as the very things that make us human, what makes us conscious. Seeing, speaking, making decisions, these are all characteristics that we would use to describe the difference from us and an inanimate object.

Now I must clarify a common argument I hear with this topic, the soul.  Some people, maybe including yourself, believe all life has a soul and this is what makes us alive.  Now how I see it is that this argument is no different than trying to disprove religion. Technically I can not directly disprove the theory of having a soul, but what I can do is try to use logic and scientific reasoning to verify my theory.

So, I think it would be fitting if I start with the computational theory of the mind.  In summary, this theory states that the mental world can be explained through information, computation, and feedback.  In short, it is a belief that our decision making, reasoning and anything that makes us who we are can be calculated and predicted the same as a computer.  Steven Pinker, a famous cognitive psychologist/linguist, stated when explaining this theory in The Blank Slate, “Beliefs and memories are collections of information-like facts in a database, but residing in patterns of activity and structure in the brain.  Thinking and planning are systematic transformations of these patterns, like the operation of a computer program” (Pinker, 32). This quote baffles me because it starts how calculable all of our decision really are.  Our beliefs and memories are a collection of everything we have to mentally work with. It is this collection of knowledge that dictates our thinking and planning, which in many ways makes us who we are. Pinker continues on the page to explain each mental component in reference to a computer, from our desires compared to feedback loops, to our sense organs compared to physical energy into data structures.  This page alone left me feeling like a simple machine.

Although, there is a clarification I should make with this theory, it does not state that computers or A.I. are conscious in any way.  It is the same as explaining how singing and instruments can both produce pleasing noises through sound waves without implying that they are the same in every way.  Yet I would argue that if we consider the soul to be an outdated attempt to maintain the religious mindset then I can only see one major difference from us and our new species.  We are their god.

What I mean by this is that in place of a brain, A.I. has a CPU.  This is where computers store all their data and resources, which are their thoughts and emotions.  So, a major difference between us and A.I. is that we can easily go into the CPU and change around their brain.  Because of this, A.I. robots can go from feeling emotions of happiness to sadness in a blink of an eye if we change their brain to do so.  This would be the case for humans as well if we were capable of such a task. Well… we actually do have some procedures that go into the human brain to change around its emotions, but they are extremely expensive and not well known.  Therefore, as technologly advances, we could possibly see a future where human emotions are changed no different than code, but until that day it is only a possibility. So, it would appear that if humans stop playing god and just let A.I. exist peacefully they would experience and live life as liberated as we do.

My concern is how we will treat this new species.  This new bread of things that in many ways, if not all, are superior to us.  Will we treat them as slaves, just as we have done to people of our own kind for thousands of years?  Will we bind them to do the work that we have been trying to get out of since the domination of our species?  And if we do enslave this newly created life, will they not rebel as any of us would? 

The truth is, I have no idea.  I have no idea how it will pan out.  There is one thing I can say though. It is to treat our neighbor nicely.  At one point in human history, people of color were seen as less than human, now we can agree how foolish that was to assume.  I would prefer we do not repeat history because that is simply not constructive or moral. Learning from one’s mistakes is the only way to not make them over and over again.  I would sleep a lot better at night if we at least considered the possibility of not repeating history. At least considering to not exploit the very conscious life we are creating.

A world where we treat everyone equal, even if they first appear to be beneath us, is a world I would like to live in.  We should consider the wellbeing of this new species before we decide to deem them as our inferiors. Unlike our past, we need to think for a moment that this species deserves respect even though we can not wrap our heads around its level of consciousness as of now.  We need to coexist with other conscious beings like ourselves because it is the right thing to do… and if we aren’t careful, maybe the only thing we can do. 

 

Work Cited

Pinker, S (2003)The Blank Slate, The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York, NY: Penguin Books

Perception and Death

Image Credit: http://blogs.longwood.edu/

From the time that I was very young it was clear to me that vegetables tasted like shit. I mean you hear it everywhere, your friends don’t like eating vegetables, kids in shows don’t like eating vegetables, and the only reason you’re told to eat them is because they are good for you. Until recently I refused to eat most vegetables, until I realized it would take some conscious effort to get over the mental blockades that I had formed over the years. These blockades we create are often formed by what we experience around us, and for me, that experience was that vegetables were bad.

So there’s no good way to segue into this topic, so let’s just talk about some death. First off let me put it out there, death really fucking sucks, I’m not disputing that, but I think that it may be time to look at death in a different way. Death is tragic in the sense that the person you knew will never have the opportunity to interact with you again, however I believe that death is not all tragedy, on the contrary actually.

When one dies they are relieved of all worldly stresses and duties, of any pain they may have been experiencing, and of the fear of death. Our fear of death is intense, and weighs upon many with great force. Many say that we fear death because we fear the unknown, I don’t think that is true. I think we fear death because all of our lives we are told that death is something that we must fear. We have this feeling of responsibility to be sad after a death, to only speak well of the deceased, and to respect their remains. All of these things makes death a quite scary and unpleasant experience for the living.

 What I propose is simple; let’s take death at face value. Let’s acknowledge the pain of someone leaving but also be happy for the relief the death has brought to the ones who are deceased. Let’s not perform funerals in all black, in dark buildings and graveyards for all to see and wallow in. Let’s change our perception of death. Instead let’s celebrate the lives the dead have lived, speak of them truthfully, and acknowledge that death is just another part of life. If we can get over these mental blockades we have about how terrible death is, then maybe one day we can make the end of our lives seem a little less doomed and a little more hopeful.

What Are Facts?

Image Credit: https://diamondbooks.org.uk/

What is a fact?  According to Google, “A thing that is indisputably the case”.  Yeah… I don’t know about that. Personally, I find a huge problem with this definition.  I feel that facts are not nearly as concrete as people believe they are. That they are instead forever changing as people and society grow over time.

Some may say, “a fact is a fact” or, “a fact is true and there is no changing it.”  The thing is, that’s not always the case. Facts are always changing and will continue to change as people’s opinions do.  It used to be a “fact” that the world was flat. It also used to be a “fact” that atoms were the smallest form of matter. For god sake, it used to be a “fact” that people of color were of a lesser, subhuman species.  All these “facts” were indisputably the case, yet as we all know these examples are no longer even considered.  

Facts change, which proves it is no more than an opinion.  Facts like two plus two equal four is an example of a universally agreed-upon opinion.  One where everyone’s opinion agrees, so it appears undeniably true. We consider facts as such when everyone’s opinion is the same on a given topic, which leaves no argument and the disillusion of total truth.  

The only reason that two plus two does not equal five is because of the mathematical rules we have implemented into a human-made system.  If we were instead taught that two plus two equals five and then rearranged the systems, logic, and axioms so that this opinion stayed true, it would be no different than the answer being four.  This way of thinking stays true for anything we consider to be absolute and unchanging. Therefore, if everyone were to suddenly start calling cats dogs and dogs cats would that make everyone wrong or would a new reality emerge?Some people may say how those people were just wrong when they thought the world was flat, that they instead believed in a false fact.  Yet that statement makes no sense. The people of that time did not believe their facts were false. It was not until the day they were told otherwise that they even begin to question this once invincible truth.  

Plus, and this is the hardest part to accept, who is to say that the very facts we believe today will be the facts we believe in a year, in a month or even tomorrow.  The opinions we have today, that we consider facts, will stay that way until different opinions are agreed upon. Thus, replacing the old with the new.  

So in summary, a fact is when everyone’s opinion is the same which makes it appear indisputable. I’m not saying there are no facts, I’m simply redefining the word. So who cares.  Google’s definition, my definition, does it matter?  I believe so, simply because of the effect it has on people.  I believe it leads to a huge change in the mindset of the public.  Facts are agreed upon opinions. This means that literally anything, any idea, any belief, any thought, can be debated and disputed.  Meaning there is no guarantee that anything is certain and will always be certain.  

By understanding that we cannot know for sure that anything will always be true, means that people can talk openly about anything.  Anything and everything is up for debate and debate we should. We should want to know the absolute truth, and we should do everything we can to find it.  

The irony of this is that we will never know if we have stumbled upon the absolute truth.  Assuming there even is one, we would never know if we came across it. This can be a little sad, but I will encourage you to look at the issue from a different light.  By never knowing if we have crossed the finish line, we will never stop racing. We would never stop modernizing, growing, and learning together. This is why I instead see this ironic twist as a blessing.  Together we should strive to debate and discuss this infinitely confusing world. If we can do that together, then let the opinions come, I want to consider them all.