Flat Earth Theory?

[TankAss95]

The tinted spectacles are our eyes and our view is how our brain interprets what our eyes see. The fact people argue is proof people have different perceptions, I mean realities.

Yes, but I said that in a kind of metaphorical language. Our very brains may interpret the world in a way which is different from 'actual reality'. The world may very well be flat in 'actual reality' if our 'consensual reality' is distorted in the process.

The tactile sensation my hands feel makes my reality not a hologram.

Likewise! But that is what our own body is telling us. Couldn't it be wrong?
And I don't understand quantum physics very clearly.

 

[SuperShouden]

Yeah, this is a silly concept now. Simply because you have to call centuries of data completely false to say that it's true, including saying that there are no satellites in space despite the fact you can look up in the sky every once and a while and watch one fly across the sky.

 

[TankAss95]

Yeah, this is a silly concept now. Simply because you have to call centuries of data completely false to say that it's true, including saying that there are no satellites in space despite the fact you can look up in the sky every once and a while and watch one fly across the sky.

In my opinion is was always a silly concept after the work of modern science was accessibly made available to the public.

My thoughts are that most Flat Earth believers are either:
1) Believing what they want to believe.
2) Not properly educated.
3) God-fearing literal Bible scholars.
4) Feeling a sense of mis-placed importance.
5) A troll.
6) Paranoid conspiracists.

 

[niky]

The world may very well be flat in 'actual reality' if our 'consensual reality' is distorted in the process.

No. What I mean is that even if we are just figments of the imagination, the consensus is that this is what we see, hear and feel is real to us. No subjective reality experienced by just one person affects anyone else, but the collected subjective reality experienced by most of us does... so it must be that the consensus is correct within this Universe. If there's any distortion... the distortion is inherent in the Universe.

If there's an underlying reality that we can't see or experience, we must disregard it. We can't even declare whether or not the world is flat or shaped like a doughnut.

 

[TankAss95]

No. What I mean is that even if we are just figments of the imagination, the consensus is that this is what we see, hear and feel is real to us. No subjective reality experienced by just one person affects anyone else, but the collected subjective reality experienced by most of us does... so it must be that the consensus is correct within this Universe. If there's any distortion... the distortion is inherent in the Universe.

If there's an underlying reality that we can't see or experience, we must disregard it. We can't even declare whether or not the world is flat or shaped like a doughnut.

Thanks. 👍

 

[Dapper]

But that is what our own body is telling us. Couldn't it be wrong?

Yulp.
For example, we would say a person suffering from schizophrenia has an askew view of the world, but their reality (or perception) is different than ours. A person who is convinced their mate is cheating is hard to convince they are not cheating if their mind's perception is their mate is cheating.

This is a good exemplification of perception=reality.

 

[SuperShouden]

3) God-fearing literal Bible scholars.

Why would they be Flat-earth theorists? The Bible never says the earth is round or flat, so...Besides, people in Biblical times already knew the Earth was round. We've known the Earth is round since the 3rd Century B.C. Heck, it was speculated it was round since the 6th century B.C.

 

[dxm8975]

They obviously need more education and remove their prepossession so as to finally come to an understanding that our mother planet is a spherical object floating in immensely vast cosmic space, the circumference of our Earth had already been measured in antiquity so there must have been an idea that the Earth is a round-shaped thing inhabited by earthly creatures such as humans and other animals, and that's why we today can travel around the world by aeroplane or cruise on our direction, and many people went on a voyage to sail across distant places full of profitable resources and for adventure thanks to the invention of compass for navigation, at the beginning of modern ages.

 

[homeforsummer]

And you did not answer my question.

Now you know how that one feels, right?...

May I ask what you personally think/see reality is/as?

As above. Reality is perception, though since we are all able to study and experience what we perceive you can say that our perception can at least be accepted.

When you delve too deeply into the philosophical you make a mockery of discussion unless philosophy is the discussion's purpose. Threads like this one and creation vs. evolution are really undermined by philosophical discussion because to discuss them seriously you need a baseline. If that baseline is considered only a "perception" than it's impossible to have a serious discussion about it.

For example, let's say our baseline is reality. Assume that everything we see is real. That being the case, you can factually state that the earth isn't flat, because we have plenty of evidence for its true shape.

Now take out that baseline. Everything we see might not be real. That means all our studies of the Earth are immediately worthless, and the earth may as well be flat. In fact, maybe the earth is flat, and we simply have the wrong definitions of "flat" and "spherical". And since nothing is real, people don't really have cancer. It's all in the mind. As is someone having their leg blown off by a landmine. The leg hasn't really gone, it's just entered a different plane of reality without their body. There's a universe full of limbs somewhere out there. And while we're at it, history is only a perception too. None of that stuff actually happened, we just imagine it did because all our books are works of fiction.

See where I'm going with this? You have to separate philosophy from scientific discussion otherwise you make a mockery of the whole discussion.

 

[TankAss95]

Why would they be Flat-earth theorists? The Bible never says the earth is round or flat, so...Besides, people in Biblical times already knew the Earth was round. We've known the Earth is round since the 3rd Century B.C. Heck, it was speculated it was round since the 6th century B.C.

The Bible has both references to the earth being flat and round. Many flat earth theorists are strict literal Bible scholars.
Many people don't understand that the Bible is written in a poetic language, and it does a fantastic way of doing so.

 

[Strittan]

Why did you even start this thread? It's beyond pointless.

 

[TankAss95]

Dear TankAss, great post.👍

I put this into the category of "'Consensual Delusions'; Benign Variety".

Similar to this are medievalists, New-Agers, Bigfoot hunters, and other well-behaved 'cults' (for want of a better term) which reject, in whole or in part, uncomfortable aspects of modernity. In some primal way, they are all deeply conservative.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

Very interesting. This is the first time I heard such a theory, and the first that is the most oddest to me. I never knew such a simple problem can become such an epidemic and arise to conspiracies. But, alas, it is true. Earth itself has too many variations, and is scientifically impossible to close this case. So most people will resort to NASA, then flat-earthers was born.

Thanks for sharing this TankAss.

Why did you even start this thread? It's beyond pointless.

If people find something interesting then why would it not be worthy of attention?

And if I have achieved something that is 'beyond pointless' then surely that would be worthy of attention itself!

 

[Strittan]

If people find something interesting then why would it not be worthy of attention?

And if I have achieved something that is 'beyond pointless' then surely that would be worthy of attention itself!

So what you're saying is that you really think there is a possibility the earth is flat? Otherwise I can't see how you'd think it's interesting.

The fact that some people still believe the earth is flat is not one bit interesting in my opinion. It's scary, and I feel sorry for those people.

 

[TankAss95]

So what you're saying is that you really think there is a possibility the earth is flat? Otherwise I can't see how you'd think it's interesting.

Consensual reality says the earth is not flat due to the massive evidence that opposes the idea. In actual reality however, who knows?
I find other people's views of nature worthy of attention, however abstract it may be. I cannot speak on behalf of others, but I presume interest in this thread was gathered due to the actual hypothesis of the Flat Earth Society that I brought forward being so radically different to what the majority of us think. This, and the fact that it denied almost all of modern science's work, led many people, including myself, finding it rather humorous.

The fact that some people still believe the earth is flat is not one bit interesting in my opinion. It's scary, and I feel sorry for those people.

I can kind of understand your point here, but there are many things in life that I find uninteresting and scary, along with many people I feel sorry for, however that doesn't mean that your particular opinion makes it right to seize the discussion of a topic, considering it doesn't brake the rules of the AUP. The same goes for me, and everyone who uses this website.

 

[AlexGTV]

The only way a FE believer will persuade me the earth might be flat is to create a convincing CGI video of a spacecraft liftoff that shows the earth as a disk.

Oh, I forgot. The huge conspiracy has unmatched budget that it alone can only create realistic imageries of a round earth.

 

[Strittan]

I can kind of understand your point here, but there are many things in life that I find uninteresting and scary, along with many people I feel sorry for, however that doesn't mean that your particular opinion makes it right to seize the discussion of a topic, considering it doesn't brake the rules of the AUP. The same goes for me, and everyone who uses this website.

I never said it was against the AUP, but I think it's sad it needed to be discussed in the first place, because there is nothing to discuss. The earth is round, period.

 

[Sureboss]

Consensual reality says the earth is not flat due to the massive evidence that opposes the idea. In actual reality however, who knows?

Are you even reading what you're typing?

If only we'd put some sort of objects in space that have some sort of viewing mechanism that can take some sort of live moving imagery.

 

[CMvan46]

Are you even reading what you're typing?

If only we'd put some sort of objects in space that have some sort of viewing mechanism that can take some sort of live moving imagery.

Hahaha I thought the same thing.

We have telescopes that can see light years travel time into space but for some reason when they look at the horizon they can't see Japan from West Coast USA... I wonder if that could be because the world is round?

 

[Schwartz]

If there's an underlying reality that we can't see or experience, we must disregard it. We can't even declare whether or not the world is flat or shaped like a doughnut.

Heres a thought: The the Earth looks like a sphere (to most anyway). But if for some reason it is actually shaped like a donut but our preception makes it looks like a sphere, then are all spheres we see actually donut shaped? Than what is the actual shape of things we see as donut shaped? There is some philosophy to think about.

And how about the color blue? What if the way you see blue is orange, and the way you see green is black? If I look through your eyes I will see an orange sky and black grass, which you have learned your whole life as green and blue?

 

[TankAss95]

Heres a thought: The the Earth looks like a sphere (to most anyway). But if for some reason it is actually shaped like a donut but our preception makes it looks like a sphere, then are all spheres we see actually donut shaped? Than what is the actual shape of things we see as donut shaped? There is some philosophy to think about.

And how about the color blue? What if the way you see blue is orange, and the way you see green is black? If I look through your eyes I will see an orange sky and black grass, which you have learned your whole life as green and blue?

👍
I love this kind of thinking.

 

[Jedi Joe]

And how about the color blue? What if the way you see blue is orange, and the way you see green is black? If I look through your eyes I will see an orange sky and black grass, which you have learned your whole life as green and blue?

I've actually wondered about that...

 

[alexleighton]

Heres a thought: The the Earth looks like a sphere (to most anyway). But if for some reason it is actually shaped like a donut but our preception makes it looks like a sphere, then are all spheres we see actually donut shaped? Than what is the actual shape of things we see as donut shaped? There is some philosophy to think about.

And how about the color blue? What if the way you see blue is orange, and the way you see green is black? If I look through your eyes I will see an orange sky and black grass, which you have learned your whole life as green and blue?

I remember back in high school a buddy of mine and I sat on a curb and pondered the color question for a good long time.

 

[TankAss95]

I remember back in high school a buddy of mine and I sat on a curb and pondered the color question for a good long time.

I don't think we can ever know what 'actual reality' may be like. It could contrast to the way we actually see the world, or be exactly the same.

But back on topic, to what we can observe in our consensual reality, it is safe to say that the earth is almost definitely not flat.

 

[homeforsummer]

And how about the color blue? What if the way you see blue is orange, and the way you see green is black? If I look through your eyes I will see an orange sky and black grass, which you have learned your whole life as green and blue?

To be fair, that's answerable scientifically, if you're prepared to accept that the words we use for different colours are essentially arbitrary and had history gone a different way we'd be calling them something completely different. Indeed, they already are - in different languages.

The scientific part behind colour is that all colours we see are influenced by whatever part of the spectral wavelength is being picked up by our eyes.

Light is made up of various wavelengths, and those in the visible spectrum have different colours. Even if nobody on Earth could see in true colour, red would still be red, blue would still be blue because that's what light wavelength is being reflected.

Infra red and ultraviolet are good examples of this. You can't see either colour, so how do we know that infra red is really red wavelength light (but longer), and ultraviolet really violet wavelength light (but shorter)? Mainly because each has a correspondingly different wavelength over and under visual light (to humans) in the spectrum.

Going back to your original point, since we can measure the wavelength of different colours of light and two people on either side of the world can agree on a particular colour (provided they aren't colour-blind), we can define colours with reasonable certainty. It's then simply up to what you fancy naming them, but our language has settled on names now so we're good

As far as round/donut-shaped goes, similar deal. If we called spheres donuts and donuts spheres, that'd simply be a different naming norm, rather than something up for philosophical debate. Since they're two distinctly different shapes, it doesn't really matter what we call them as long as they both aren't called the same thing.

The only issue there would be if the shape was such that when viewed and measured from different points, it looked like different shapes, and remained different to different people, wherever they observed the shape from. To all intents and purposes though this is impossible, with the potential exception of "shapes" at a quantum level...

But back on topic, to what we can observe in our consensual reality, it is safe to say that the earth is almost definitely not flat.

What do you mean almost definitely? It's entirely safe to say with certainty that the Earth isn't flat, because there are a thousand ways of proving it and zero ways of disproving it. Since the only way we can observe is with our own observations, all other opinions on the Earth's shape are null and void.

Seriously, quit with the philosophical BS in scientific discussions. It's irritating.

 

[Strittan]

But back on topic, to what we can observe in our consensual reality, it is safe to say that the earth is almost definitely not flat.

But you're not entirely sure? What puts you in doubt?

 

[TankAss95]

But you're not entirely sure? What puts you in doubt?

When it comes to the study of the natural world, I believe that nothing can be totally proven nor disproven. Let me explain by using a quote from Karl Popper:
"The old scientific idea of episteme - of absolutely demonstrable knowledge - has proved to be an idol. The demand for scientific objectivity makes it clear that every scientific statement must remain tentative for ever."
I am nearly certain that the earth is not flat, but I am not entirely, and that doubt I suppose will remain forever.

 

[Strittan]

When it comes to the study of the natural world, I believe that nothing can be totally proven nor disproven.

Well, you believe wrong. There are some things that can not be proven, but the fact that the earth is round can, in more than one way.

And for the 502nd time, please stop the useless quoting, for your own sake. Is it really that hard to express your own opinions in your own words?

 

[TankAss95]

Well, you believe wrong. There are some things that can not be proven, but the fact that the earth is round can, and in more than one way.

That statement is often argued over by scientific philosophers. We can say that the earth is round instead of flat using our current scientific knowledge and equipment, but what in the future, using advanced equipment that replaces our current technology, that that fact is proven wrong? Everything discovered by science is open to be challenged, so a scientific statement can never be an indefinite fact.

And for the 502nd time, please stop the useless quoting, for your own sake. Is it really that hard to express your own opinions in your own words?

I really don't understand what you are so frustrated about. I am not uselessly quoting anything at all, I am using quotations to strengthen or explain my argument. If you look to the past in the God thread, many great arguers used the same approach, such as Tic Tach for example.

 

[Strittan]

That statement is often argued over by scientific philosophers. We can say that the earth is round instead of flat using our current scientific knowledge and equipment, but what in the future, using advanced equipment that replaces our current technology, that that fact is proven wrong? Everything discovered by science is open to be challenged, so a scientific statement can never be an indefinite fact.

Are you serious?

I really don't understand what you are so frustrated about. I am not uselessly quoting anything at all, I am using quotations to strengthen or explain my argument. If you look to the past in the God thread, many great arguers used the same approach, such as Tic Tach for example.

I get frustrated because I don't give a crap about what the people you quote think (and I mostly disagree with them as much as I disagree with you anyway), I wanna know what you think. And if you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one frustraed about your quoting.

 

[TankAss95]

Are you serious?

Yes

I get frustrated because I don't give a crap about what the people you quote think (and I mostly disagree with them as much as I disagree with you anyway), I wanna know what you think. And if you haven't noticed, I'm not the only one frustraed about your quoting.

What makes me more special to you than them? And what if what I think has been influenced by what someone else thought and expressed? Does that not make it worthy of attention?
I have been known in the past to use quotations out of context (purely by accident), but I am now using extra care not to. If anyone else feels that my posting style is frustrating then by all means they can tell me. If it is such a concern for you then go and ask a moderator to get involved. I don't see anything about my posts that is particularly unusual, but I would hate to do any damage here on GTP in any way.