Simpler question this time:

If the entirety of human civilization believes something, does that make it true?

I believe the example that Colbert brought up was that George Washington didn't own slaves. So, if enough people said that and actually, would it no longer be true?

Makes you wonder.

I think the term he gave such an effect was wikiality, after Wikipedia.

I mean, it makes some sense, actually. If the entire world believed that Jesus never existed, then the world would accept it as a truth that he never existed. Right?

I'm confusing myself.

But then if I type this message, and tomorrow everybody, including myself believes I didn't type a message, regardless of this proof that I typed it, I still typed the message. But then, perhaps truth is just rooted in society's beliefs? If only 5 people in the world knows of this message, and all 5 believe I didn't type it, then I didn't type it. Right?

Someone help me out here.

History is what people believe about the past. It is easy to modify simply by convincing people that something that happened didn't, or something happened which didn't.

The Past I'm not sure can even be said to exist, but it did exist once, and whether it can be siad to exist or not, the true past cannot be modified.

this is classic example of human self-centeredness. remember that humans are nothing more than animals with higher brain functions, so you might as well be asking: "if monkey's didn't think airplanes existed, would airplanes exist?" of course they would! BTW, monkey's DON'T

Actually Monkeys do believe in aeroplanes, and if they didn't aeroplanes wouldn't exist.

You see, the reason the Wright brothers were the first to make a successful plane was because their friends (The Marx Grandparents) worked with monkeys in the local circus, and mentioned the the plane was being built, so the monkeys believed in it.

:unsure:

Lets look at it from a wider perspective, one beyond man.

If there existed a wave, particle or whatever else that no one in the entire universe (omniverse) knew of, both sentient and otherwise, did it exist? I mean not knowing about it in the most physical of ways, as in no one ever had any experience with it, it did not even cause a circumstancial action, it did absolutely nothing percievable by anyone.

Did it exist?

Heh, this was discussed before in RC Harby. Particularly that scenario you gave. Although it may not exist in our world of "reality" with our limited perception and technology. That wave or particle is still there if it TRULY does exist, even when it is not yet acknowledge. We perhaps simply do not have the technology or necessary equipment to detect these waves or particles. Like x-rays, we do not see it but it does not mean it is not there. We in the past simply did not know radiation and radioactive isotope's purpose or had the tools to detect their rays. So in the end, it does exist.

Hmm, personally my answer to that one tends to be "Who cares?"

But more importantly, the way you ask the question assumes that it did exist. But is the existence of such a thing even possible? Personally, I feel that something which wasn't caused by anything observable and will never cause anything observable can exist only in the sense that a universe composed entirely of shrimp exists: It's possible, and so I suppose it may, but it's existence is not just an unanswerable question but almost an unaskable one: It has no real meaning.


And that doesn't even make sense to me.

This is basically the whole "if a tree falls in the forest and there's no one there to hear it..." conundrum, isn't it? I go with KR's answer - Who cares? If we can't detect it, it doesn't affect us, we have no way of even sensibly postulating it's existence etc. then who gives a shit that it's there? Maybe that's a bit cynical of me, but honestly, what's the point in these questions? Belief does NOT equal existence.