BAM! Text Wall!

You're welcome to not agree if you wish. I think it's somewhat humorous however that you then give specific examples illustrating the failings of science - and yet, you'll choose to believe in it as being an absolute system anyway.

What do you call a person who KNOWS something doesn't work, but chooses to believe in it anyway?

Science is useful, but it's no more correct than any other method for describing the world. Your thought pattern actually makes the case for will even more strongly. Nobody can be FORCED to believe anything they don't wish to. We like to think that if something is reasonable, then naturally other people will agree with us. When they don't, we think we just need to make the logic clearer. But the truth is that there is no universal logic. People are really completely capable of believing whatever they want. The recent post on this site with the spinning woman illustrates this perfectly. People can look at the same thing, and see completely different images. I really don't know how you can try to hold to an absolute view of reality with situations like that, but it's your prerogative. I can't MAKE you change, no matter how obvious it is. Your will allows you to view the world however you wish. If it makes you feel better to believe that the world is scientific... well, feel better.

--------------
And secondly, as I catch up to some of the posts here... It IS true that every day you see things you don't believe, and believe things you don't see. When you watch TV, or see a magician, or go to a movie, etc... you perceive things, but you don't even consider that they are real for a second. Seeing is not believing. Secondly, you can't see China right now, but you still believe it exists. You believe I exist, etc, etc... Once again, seeing is not believing.

If I wanted to, I could choose to believe that you are a robot. Nothing you or anyone else can do can force me to believe otherwise. Another example: Imagine for a second that right now you are in fact in a hospital bed somewhere and unconscious. All of existence might just be dreams and hallucinations. One day you will wake up to the "real" world, and forget all this. How do you know that you are in fact not drugged up and comatose somewhere? You don't. You just don't want to think that, so you don't. We can't spend all of our time worrying about whether reality is real... if it isn't, there's nothing we can do about it. So we might as well cope as best we can. But nothing can be proven beyond doubt, besides your own existence, and to yourself.

 

He's called Meee and in your first textwall here you provided reasonable explanation why I won't be needin matches in (hopefully) near future, thanks.

 

lol, I like you

 

Yeah, debate time! Awesome! I can't stick around long, though, so I'll have to refute your points quickly ;D

It's impossible for US, that much is for sure. But consider the idea of the Laplace Demon. If there were a being that understood all laws of reality and all past and present events, given enough "time", it could theoretically predict the future. It would KNOW that it's possible to build a flying machine, because it knows all the laws of reality. It would also know that humans aren't smart enough to do it yet, because it knows all past and present events.

Laws of reality don't change, our perceptions of them do. The world was never flat, we're just stupid. We can't predict the future, but that doesn't mean it's not predictable.

*Beep*. Penalty for Romanticism. Many goals you fail to accomplish are simply because you can't. I will concede that MOST goals, you can attain on your own accord, because we tend to set ourselves reasonable goals. But if a chronically obese child has the dream of winning the Olympic 500m, then no matter how hard he tries... sorry. [/tangent]

If that were true, I'd have the power to fly at this point. :good: I just want to reaffirm that the main point of my second post is that taking responsibility for our actions is not only a pre-requisite to living in a determinist universe, it may actually be ONLY compatible with living in a determinist universe.

Anyway, my main point about your first post:

Nope. It wasn't impossible for heavier than air machines to fly. It was impossilbe for heavier than air machines to fly at this point in time. Laplace's Demon would know that, because of the laws of aerodynamics and the nature of matter, it was theoretically possible, but we humans were too stupid at the time.

That's it for now... I've still got your second post to cover. This is only really to define topics. (Sorry if I missed any, feel free to bring them up again and slap me in the face with them, laughing hysterically.) We can always get into the thick of things later.


Second post!

In fact, you could almost say that nobody could CHOOSE to believe anything they don't want to, either...

Disagree. You can no more choose to believe that I'm a robot than I could choose to stop being male. Sure, you can run around saying "so-and-so" is a robot, but we all know you're smarter than that. You'd never actually believe that I were a robot. Why?

Past and Present Events: We've talked as humans, I've presented my own ideas in a very non-robotic way, we exist in a social context next to each other, you relate your conversations with my much more to conversations with other humans than with robots, etc.

Laws of the Universe: The way I talk is decidedly human. No being that we can concretely believe exists could build a robot as sophisticated as I. Should something like that even happen, the chances of it coming and posting on a Starcraft forum are far too slim to be legitimately considered, etc.

The ONLY way that you would believe that I were a robot would be if you saw some evidence of it. At which point, it would just prove my point even more. The evidence that you saw would become another past event, that would add to the equation and make you change your opinion. But as of right now, you can't believe I'm a robot. It's not in your head. Just like I can't believe that a certain woman is spinning counter-clockwise... I'm not sitting here, thinking, "Oh, I'm going to make it seem like she's spinning clockwise now." It just HAPPENS. I don't choose to see it like that. It just happens, because that's how the laws of the universe, along with past and present events, have decided I am going to see it.


Again, sorry if I missed anything that was important. I tried to keep this decently organized considering my rush.

 

Questions: If a mutation or anomaly occurs within the reasonable rationale of this thesis/essay will it result in an absorption and thus reaction of change within the essay or will it infinitely multiply the possibility of more anomalies and thus more possibilities? Do you believe this has already occurred? Lastly, is the idea of a mutation the whole basis of the ideal view of this essay/thesis on free will?

 

Great. I typed a response, and my computer lagged it into oblivion. Spectacular. Anyway, the gist of what I said was:

Well, I don't really see how a straight mutation of anomaly could agree, and personally don't believe it would under the strictest definition of the terms. But, if I'm working under the hypothesis that they would, then it would seem like it would depend what kind of anomaly it was. Some would throw the entire notion into chaos, generating endless non-possibilites that serve nothing and solve less. Others would require only a slight shift in reasoning in order to be fully absorbed by the idea,
Do I believe this has already occurred? I don't see how it could. The only thing I could think of which would be vaguely similar to this is if I add to the theory, which I have been considering doing with the concept of Ethical Focusing, but I'm still debating with myself whether this is a legitimate notion or merely a by-product. If I do end up legitimizing it in my mind, that I suppose you could stretch that out to be that sort of anomaly.
Lastly, no, no I do not. ;D

EDIT: 200th post! I'm still a youngin here, for god's sake.

 

Interesting point on the society and criminality thing, recently in Jefferson county Colorado, a man was beaten to death by a foster child, he had been in and out of foster homes for most of his junior life, and had not developed the ability to bond to other human beings, perceiving that they would leave him after he did bond, so he didn't. He was tried as an adult (not sure of age but was under adult) and many articles criticized this, saying that it was Jefferson counties' ineptitude to raise the child that caused the death. The child now serves 25+ to life.

I believe in nurture/determinism. If their was such a thing/person/thing that could calculate your behavior, it would have to take all information, by the second into account, even then there would be an unknown x-factor affecting the outcome.

As for nurture I believe strongly in it, while of course genetics etc can affect you, it will be overpowered by upbringing, such as a rich child being forced into the slums, he gains a new perspective on the poor and new survival methods.

We have 2 foster kids in my house, only on the first night did the 3 year old cry (other is 1). He seems also to have methods to avoid punishment, when you attempt to scold him, he smiles and looks away with a "I cant understand you" look, we have taken remedies against this behavior. That behavior he developed, I doubt it was a genetic thing, passed through generations of foster kids. (I sometimes worry about them I think, should I comfort them more, or should I distance myself try to make the inevitable breakup less severe)

I read the whole thing, was highly enlightening, I took it as a challenge to read all of it.

 

And I would claim that there is no such thing as laws of reality. All 'laws of reality' are is our minds attempt to deal with our own existence. Our options are insanity or agree on some rules with our community... so most ppl make the compromise.

Not true. Because if he wanted to win the Olympics, he wouldn't be fat in the first place. And secondly, if he was fat, and decided to gain a new goal - he would find a way to stop being fat.

Once again not true, because you may think flying would be cool. But you don't really think it's a possibility. Your brain defeats you before you even make the attempt. As another poster pointed out, if bumblebees listened to scientists, they couldn't fly either.

So you support the idea of truths deriving from potential future events? If an asteroid had hit Earth and wiped mankind out, there would never have ever been heavier than air machines. But we're here, and so they exist. At some future date, people may figure time travel out... so therefore time travel is true? It's a possibility. You can't just pick and choose which possibilities you'll accept.

Or rather, you can... which is pretty much the point, lol.

But wanting is a choice. =P Come on now, don't try to be that slick...

I don't need a reason, lol. If I want to believe you're a robot, you can't stop me. Scary ain't it?

^ Normally, we call people who choose to believe what they want despite all evidence to the contrary insane. Essentially, we say: 'you won't agree with me - then your thoughts don't count!' People are deathly afraid of being considered insane. So we conform. But really now, you can't make people agree with your views. When you realize this, you'll worry for a bit if you're the insane one. Truth is, we're all insane.

 

Natural Science works under the approach that there is a "Truth", one big world-formula that can explain any event in the universe in a calculatable form. Yet we have not found that yet, for example current theories can´t define the state of the universe before it´s beginning. If there really was a "big bang" what caused it? "laws of reality" change because every earlier approach was proven wrong. The world was never flat. That Human science is failable doesn´t mean it is the universes fault.

Your approach is basically the fictionaly universe of Planescape (try out the game Planescape: Torment it´s a gem). In that universe all rules of reality are democratic. If enough people believe in something that thing becomes true.
And unlike Bizarro_Paragorns idea belief can change, this is actually a core part of the game. People can change their belief, that doesn´t mean it is easy. It in fact changes the person itself fundamentaly.
In the game this also changes the world itself to reinforce that point.

But even outside of the game people can change their belief. B_Ps approach is surprisingly fitting since I personally remember at one point of may life to contemplate the possibility that I am the only "real" person and everyone was a robot or an alien or something. I had no proof that was true yet I also had no proof that everyone else was human.
On top of that I didn´t know if I was real or a robot that was programmed to think it was a human - that would also imply that I could not think of any way to prove that since I would have been build unable to do so.

I still have no proof one way or another but I choose to believe that I and everyone else is human. But since I can consider that possibility I can deduce it is unlikely that I am a robot. Unless that was allowed in my programming to "prove" my humanity.... But being robot or not is independant of my belief in it. If I am a robot that wouldn´t change no matter how shure I am that I am human.



My point is that our universe works in a way that is independant from our observation, actually our observation is dependant on the universe (detrementic). Even if you somehow manage to abandon reasoning and trick yourself into thinking you can fly doesn´t mean you can (drugs are a popular aproach), who doesn´t remember the picture of the drugged guy jumping from a roof?

Nate seems to argue the inverse idea: The universe works in the way we look at it/belive it to be/want it to be (ultimate will). In that universe you can punch through a wall by trying really really hard or to make the point regrow legs by ignoring anyone who tells you that they won´t grow back.

Edit: Summary for Textwall haters: I disagree with Nate that the universe is defined by our observation and with Bizzaros theory that we can´t change beliefs.

 

If it's true, it all comes down to beating the crap out of your subconciousness and forcing it into submission - It's not you who has to believe it possible but your subconcious mind (it's the thing that made you choose soup over salad).

 

Very good synopsis Unentschieden.

And as a bit of clarification, I'm not claiming really that the world was at one type flat, instead of round. I'm saying the world is neither flat or round or any other concept we come up with to try to understand it. I think we are inherently incapable of fully understanding existence. The universe exists in more dimensions than we can comprehend... so we make due as is easiest for us.

Which means if you can make it easier for yourself and others to believe, for instance, that you can fly - than to deny that belief... then you can fly.

If you think about it, scientists tell us really incredible things on a regular basis. They tell us about things, that we would consider impossible. But because they describe it a certain way, we usually, pretty quickly change our beliefs to fit whatever they say. 200 years ago, if I told someone that it's possible to use a device to communicate instantly with people in any part of the globe, they'd have called me insane and locked me up. Nowadays, nobody blinks at the thought. Now I know some people on here are quite intelligent and understand how radios, cell phones, etc work. But I also know that there are some people on here that haven't really examined the technology in depth. They just know that everybody else says it works, so they believe it does too.

@ Meee - that's pretty much how I see it too. Except, I don't think there's a separation really between who I am and my subconscious mind.

 

Maybe I stated it wrong, what I meant was difference between subconcious and concious mind. Actually I think that both of them combined make us - us.

 

I had a great day yesterday,
I went to the toilet and i saw 2 poos in the toilet sorry not 2 but 3 poos.
When this happened i started to flushed the toilet and the the flushed ACTUALLY sounded like a flush!

-= End of Transmission =-

By the way what is this topic about?

 

Well, one of the laws of reality is "We Exist." If all these laws are are attempts to deal with our own existence, then wouldn't that be a self-defeating statement? Some laws do exist, we're just too dumb to understand them.

Why wouldn't he be fat? Chronic Obesity isn't a choice under any rules of the universe, it's something you're born with, a disease. What about that kid in the hospital who wants to play QB for the Dallas Cowboys? It's sad, yes, but it's a completely unattainable goal. My friend played basketball in high school, and because in High School being 6 foot is considered tall, he played centre. He used to say he was going to play in the NBA someday. Unfortunately, he peaked at 6 foot 1, never getting taller. That's a goal he'll never be able to attain. A centre who's 6 foot 9 is considered too short to be a threat, nobody is going to take a 6 foot 1 centre, no matter how hard he works. Not to mention he has genetic knee problems, so can't jump worth beans.

And if mental patients listened to you, they'd be soaring through the skies. There's a few documented studies right here in Quebec of patients who were convinced they could fly. They even put forth descriptions of what it was like when they flew. They've done exactly what I can't do--- Suspended their disbelief. Unsurprisingly, they still can't fly.

No, I don't. I support the idea that we're idiots. Consider Laplace's Demon, and assume he lives on an Island in the Pacific that no one knows about. He would know, at that time, that heavier than air machines are possible on this planet, because he understands all the mechanics behind it. We, on the other hand, would not. He could build one, with the right material. But to us (unless we saw his), they'd still be an impossibility. But like I said, we're idiots.
Jump ahead to this point in time, and we can say the same thing. If time travel is possible in some undiscovered way or form, Laplace's Demon would know, because he would understand the method. He would know that it was impossible, or that it was possible, depending. We, on the other hand, only know that it is a possibility. He would know a "Yes" or a "No". We would only know a "Maybe".
Just because our little species was wiped out and never managed to build a heavier than air machine doesn't mean the laws of aerodynamics no longer apply.

According to you

Right, if you want to. But you don't. And you never will, unless you see some evidence indicating that I am, or evidence indicating we're all robots, etc. Some past event that would change your character to one that is more accepting of the idea of me as a robot.

Amen, brother.

Actually, I completely agree with you. The universe definitely works in a way that is independent from our beliefs, 100%. I even use a similar argument to your flying one above in my response to Nate.
And I'm not saying you can't change beliefs. I'm saying your beliefs are changed as a sidenote rather than as a focal point of your life. Your beliefs are shaped by your genes (not so much), your upbringing (mainly), and how you let your upbringing alter your character.
I mean, think about it. Have you ever straight up just made the decision "Okay, I'm gonna believe this now"? Of course not, that's ridiculous. All you really do is build a character, build a personality, that is more inclined to certain beliefs, and then it falls into place without further help from you.
Beliefs can change, but it takes more than a random choice. Your brain needs to be able to consider past and present events to compare the two contrasting beliefs, THEN it can make a choice.

Word.

Definitely. We're far too stupid to fully understand existence. But there are certain basic things that we can know. Je pense, donc je suis. The famous "I think, therefore I am." I know I'm here. I'm not so sure about you, but I know I'm here, whereever "here" is.
Then there are more complex things. I know that the world in this universe it takes the rough shape that we have termed "sphere." By our own definition, it is roughly a "sphere."

See above.

Right, because our perceptions were wrong. Hence why we're dumb. Laplace's Demon wouldn't have laughed at you. He'd know you were right.


-Meee-
You would like Freud. Have you ever read up on the idea of the Id, Superego, and Ego? Seems like it would be right up your alley.

 

Any disease can be handled. We know this is true, because some people manage to beat illnesses - it doesn't matter what the illness is, some people beat it. Your belief is that those people are just lucky and had nothing to do with their improvement.

I don't see how that makes sense however given our knowledge of placebos, and secondly - if a person was overweight and started working out and dieting, you'd say they have a better chance of losing weight than a person who just sits around and waits for the universe to change them, yes? You're willing to accept that a person can change their condition with effort... and that's what I'm saying. If the fat kid doesn't want to be fat - he will find a way to stop being fat.

About the flying people - how can you really say what they were thinking? I could tell you that I fly on a regular basis, you wouldn't believe me. So why do you believe mental patients are telling the truth when they say they positively believe they can fly? Answer: it fits with the world image most comfortable for you. Your brain can cope with existence better if there are rules and when people try to break the rules, it doesn't work. So you automatically believe descriptions of examples supporting that image, and automatically discredit descriptions that run counter to it. It wouldn't matter how adamant I was that I can and do fly - you would never believe me. But if someone else enters and says they read that same report about the mental patients, you'll assume they're telling the truth. When in fact, they may not.

Do you see how your brain is pre-programmed to believe certain things? How it automatically rationalizes opinions which agree with it, and discredits those that don't - regardless of truth?

lol, well I agree with you on this one. But I think Laplace's Demon would be an idiot too. Provided it was a third-dimensional creature, because literally anything is possible. Hence the phrase, "mathematical impossibility" - which means, the chance is so remote that it we can safely say it won't happen... but it's still not absolute.

And maybe I do want to believe you're a robot - just to spite you. =P Metal-head.

Not really. I think of it like this. Right now we laugh at the people in generations past who thought the world was flat. In another 100 or 1000 years or whatever, if mankind is still around - they'll be laughing at us for thinking the world was a sphere. And the bigger joke is that they still won't be right.

It's all perspective. From a persons perspective in generations past, you looked at the ground and it appeared flat, so it was reasonable to assume it was in fact flat. Now we have the perspective of global travel and space exploration, so we look from that vantage point and say the world is a sphere. But just like a fish can't comprehend that the world doesn't end with his fishbowl - we're still in the fishbowl. We just got dumped from the little baggy they give you at the pet store, into the fishbowl. Now we think we have this "greater" understanding. But we really don't. We still have no clue. We still don't understand. And we never will.

As many intelligent people have realized; the more you learn, the more you learn there is to learn.

 

     (I cant believe i am entering this debate but here goes) Bizzaro while i agree with most of what you have posted. I still have a hard time saying anything anything is predetermined as long as random chance exists in the system. While people can still judge an others actions by what has happened nothing can completely understand the future (including Laplace's Demon) as long as you believe random chance exists. For example lets assume a 20 sided dice is completely random and cant be predetermined.  Now each time an event happens lets say either a 1 comes up or any other number on the dice comes up. It would be pretty easy to guess the first event will not show a 1 (95% actually). But it would harder to say the next 10 events would come up without showing a one (60%). Now if you try and say that in the next 1000 events there wont be a one you would be almost guaranteed to be wrong (The odds are .00000000000000000000005% actually) even though for any individual event you would say its most likely a one wont come up. Now while i know this is a very basic example and you could argue that Laplace's Demon wouldn't assume there would be zero ones he would still have to figure out which events were going to come out as a one to be able to predict the future and make assumptions about what is going to happen in the future.

  Now how much this effects our world is completely dependent on much random chance exists in it and how it plays a part in it. But nothing can really be predicted until all of the random chance in the system has been resolved. Now assuming our universe will last forever and random chance is a some what integral part of it the random chance will never be completely resolved it will only be resolved for events that have already happened.

@Nate I wouldnt say that humankind couldnt ever understant the universe but its more likely if we ever did we wouldnt know it. How could we?

Also

A men to that.

 

good point Kerwyn... *powers up*

 

@ Bizzaro: If that was true and any change in character/personal belief has to be a result by a external source how do self help groups work? Maybe you just were not clear enough on that point? Or I misunderstood you...

@NateSMZ: No matter what the Pharmaceutical industry tells us, Medicine is always "just" an aid for our own Immune system. Placebos aid us on a psychological level, a not unsignificant factor.

Laplaces Demon could not exist in our plane-he would have to be a 4 or moredimensional being. A 3 dimensional being (like us) is unable to know both exact speed and position of a object - on the molecular level.
Look at it like this: To see everything on a 2 Dimensional Plane (a picture for example) you have to be a 3 Dimensional being looking "from the top". A 2 dimensional being would equal to a point in the picture.
As such the Demon could see not only the state of our world right now but also the future and the past. (if time is the 4th dimension).
We are not 4dimensional since we can see and move only left and right, up and down, forwards and backwards but not yesterday and tomorrow.

 

They are lucky, in a loose sense of the word. Any disease can be handled, sure. But not removed as a figure in the universal operation. Someone suffering from chronic obesity can "handle" it, sure, but he sure can't win the Olympics with it.

Placebos are only effective on mild illnesses. All those experiments that you hear of placebos curing cancer are one in a million experiments, and the only reason you heard about them is because they worked. For each one of those, there's a thousand others where giving someone a sugar pill to cure Multiple Sclerosis accomplished nothing.

Chronic Obesity. I'm not talking about a fat kid. I'm talking about someone who was born with hyperactive glands. They're just like that. It's physically impossible for these people to slim down with our current knowledge. Maybe sometime in the future, we'll be able to help them, but for now, no amount of dieting or excercise can help them. They just ARE. Saying they can find a way to stop being fat is like saying a dwarf can find a way to stop being short.

Generally, when someone tells everyone they can fly, and that they'll prove it, then proceeds to leap off a building flapping their arms, you assume they weren't kidding.

Yep.

Err...you're going to have to explain to me why you would think Laplace's Demon could be an idiot. Keep in mind that it...
1- Knows and understands all Laws of Reality and the Universe
2- Knows and understands all Past and Present events.
3- Does not affect Past, Present, or Future events.

It DOES explain my irrational hatred of magnets...

Not really. I think of it like this. Right now we laugh at the people in generations past who thought the world was flat. In another 100 or 1000 years or whatever, if mankind is still around - they'll be laughing at us for thinking the world was a sphere. And the bigger joke is that they still won't be right.

It's all perspective. From a persons perspective in generations past, you looked at the ground and it appeared flat, so it was reasonable to assume it was in fact flat. Now we have the perspective of global travel and space exploration, so we look from that vantage point and say the world is a sphere. But just like a fish can't comprehend that the world doesn't end with his fishbowl - we're still in the fishbowl. We just got dumped from the little baggy they give you at the pet store, into the fishbowl. Now we think we have this "greater" understanding. But we really don't. We still have no clue. We still don't understand. And we never will.[/quote]
We wouldn't have a greater understanding of the fish bowl, but we WOULD have a greater understanding of the bag. We can see the bag from the fish bowl. Where before, we thought the bag was this great universe, now we can see "Shit, it's just a bag." And in context with this metaphor, all it would be was a bag.
Now, if we expand on your metaphor, we could say this same fish could be dumped in the ocean. There, it would look at the fish bowl and say "Man, that was just a f*kin bowl!" But, if it looked at the bag, it would STILL be just a bag. It would seem smaller, but it would still say "Shit, just a bag." There are two perspectives to something: inside and out. Inside the bag, you think it's huge. Outside, you see it's just a bag, regardless of where you're looking.
And it's the same thing with our planet. When we travel to distant reaches of the universe, and our galaxy starts to seem smaller and smaller, we're still going to look at Earth and say "Yep, sure is round." It will be smaller, but it'll still be round.[/quote]

"All I know for sure is that I don't know anything at all."

-LordKerwyn-
Sure, but that's only if you believe that anything is random. Which I don't. They just seem random to us, because... well, we're dumb. If I flip a coin, none of us will be able to predict which side will land up.
Laplace's Demon, on the other hand, would know;
Which side started facing up.
How fast it was spinning.
How much it is being affected by air resistance.
It's trajectory.
Any anomalies approaching that could affect it. (Wind, heat, etc.)

With this information, combined with his knowledge of all the laws in the universe, it could determine how it was going to hit the ground, how it was going to bounce around, how it was going to spin when it hit, and therefore, ultimately, which side was going to land upwards. The same theory could be applied to your 20-sided die. Even random-number generators, which we originally thought to be completely random, have been shown to illicit some sort of vague pattern that researchers are now trying to figure out. Laplace's Demon, of course, would already know.



-Unentschieden-
I'm not 100% sure I understand your question, but I think what you're getting at is my idea of Innate Will. It's not so much the actual external event that changes you, it's how you let that external event affect you. Some self-help you could attribute to helping your subconcsious learn to let these external events affect you in a positive way. Most self-help can be attributed to either trivial nonsense or helping us manipulate our brain to make us feel better, but not actually be better off in any other significant way. (Not that that's a bad thing.)

 

Well, really he can tho. It'd be expensive, and not very pleasant... but he could do it.

Considering that nothing works very well for curing cancer... I think that's a legitimate treatment option.

Why? We both agree that people are remarkably stupid. Perhaps they just want attention and don't think it will actually kill them. They don't have to believe they can fly. Just that they won't die. Or not care whether they die or not. Many explanations.

The bottom line is however that whether some people can fly or not, you and I will never believe that people can fly. I really have no way of saying absolutely that nowhere in the world is, or has there ever been a flying person. There are many things I consider impossible, that people have done. Like, monks who can control their body temperatures and survive meditating all night in freezing cold temperatures. Or geniuses who can do complex calculations in fractions of a second inside their head. etc, etc, etc... So just because I can't fly, and I don't know anybody who can - why does that automatically mean that it's impossible? It doesn't. All it means is that you and I don't want to imagine it.

Because who's to say that this universe is all there is?

----
And perhaps the fish weren't perfect metaphors. You did find a legit weakness in that explanation. But the weakness is in how I explained it, not in the point.

We thought the earth was flat. Now we look from a different angle and see that it isn't flat. That doesn't mean that now we know the truth. That just means that we agree we were wrong before. In the future, people will look back and say we were wrong about it being a sphere. The sphere concept is not going to endure. No more than the flat one did.

When we thought it was flat, we didn't understand the third dimension very well. In the future we will come to understand the fourth dimension better than we do now. This will change the fundamental way we describe and think of things. The world will no longer be a sphere. And that won't be the end of the story either. How many dimensions are there? Hell, if I know. But I do know, this isn't it.

--------------

And to answer this, this Demon couldn't know everything unless it was God. The third dimension is not everything. The fourth dimension is not everything. Even if the Demon knew everything there was to know about our plane of existence, he doesn't know everything there is to know. He would be unable to see how things from beyond the fourth dimension might affect things. When we see patterns we have a bad habit of thinking those patterns mean something.

Look at this sequence: 1,2,3,?,?,?

What are the blanks? Naturally you will think: 4,5,6. That seems to be a pattern describing counting numbers by integers of one. But what if it was really a pattern for prime numbers? Or what if the actual pattern was: 1,2,3,101,102,103,201,202,203? We think we see patterns only because our perspective is so small. And being limited dimensionally, means our perspective will always be small. Neither we, nor the Demon could ever gain a true complete perspective.