The Holographic Model of Reality:Is it Useful?

[Pattern-chaser]

I blame Douglas Adams. I think there's a widespread view that to be a philosopher you have to be like that guy who turns out to be the ruler of the universe at the end of "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" (I think it was there). The one who says to himself things like "I am having a perception that I may or may not regard as indicating someone knocking at my door, but I can't be sure...".

This is fair enough. It's a standard argument that is often phrased as "this is Political Correctness gone mad!" Just because an idea is useful and worthwhile doesn't mean it is always usefully and correctly applied. That's the bit that's 'fair enough'. But it does tend to overshadow the useful and valuable point, in this case, that uncertainty is universal, or at least widespread. And that 'overshadowing' is not fair enough, nor is it useful, IMO.

[stevie]

We have the same case when I say "I am not involved in believing things." and you contradict "you have no choice but to indulge in belief ...".

Very well, then. You say that you are not "involved in believing things". I cannot understand how you, or anyone, can function without belief - given the degree of uncertainty in the real world - and I wonder if you would describe how (mental) life is possible without belief?

First, "the real world" isn't a concept of mine, i.e. I am not using this concept.
Second, it follows that I do not share the concept "given the degree of uncertainty in the real world".
Third, as to "belief" let me refer to what I've already stated above:

Since "belief" is not publically observable but is exclusively privately accessible it isn't a surprise that there is no knowledge about belief as such but there can be only knowledge about verbal expressions dealing with "belief" which however may differ depending on the conventional knowledge the speaker/writer follows.

So we actually cannot pursue a conversation about "belief" unless we have ascertained that we are using the same conventional understanding of "belief".

[Pattern-chaser]

We have the same case when I say "I am not involved in believing things." and you contradict "you have no choice but to indulge in belief ...".

Very well, then. You say that you are not "involved in believing things". I cannot understand how you, or anyone, can function without belief - given the degree of uncertainty in the real world - and I wonder if you would describe how (mental) life is possible without belief?

First, "the real world" isn't a concept of mine, i.e. I am not using this concept.
Second, it follows that I do not share the concept "given the degree of uncertainty in the real world".
Third, as to "belief" let me refer to what I've already stated above:

Since "belief" is not publically observable but is exclusively privately accessible it isn't a surprise that there is no knowledge about belief as such but there can be only knowledge about verbal expressions dealing with "belief" which however may differ depending on the conventional knowledge the speaker/writer follows.

So we actually cannot pursue a conversation about "belief" unless we have ascertained that we are using the same conventional understanding of "belief".

As we cannot be sure what any of our words mean to anyone else, I acknowledge and accept the pointlessness of pursuing this conversation.

[stevie]

We have the same case when I say "I am not involved in believing things." and you contradict "you have no choice but to indulge in belief ...".

Very well, then. You say that you are not "involved in believing things". I cannot understand how you, or anyone, can function without belief - given the degree of uncertainty in the real world - and I wonder if you would describe how (mental) life is possible without belief?

First, "the real world" isn't a concept of mine, i.e. I am not using this concept.
Second, it follows that I do not share the concept "given the degree of uncertainty in the real world".
Third, as to "belief" let me refer to what I've already stated above:

Since "belief" is not publically observable but is exclusively privately accessible it isn't a surprise that there is no knowledge about belief as such but there can be only knowledge about verbal expressions dealing with "belief" which however may differ depending on the conventional knowledge the speaker/writer follows.

So we actually cannot pursue a conversation about "belief" unless we have ascertained that we are using the same conventional understanding of "belief".

As we cannot be sure what any of our words mean to anyone else, I acknowledge and accept the pointlessness of pursuing this conversation.

Well, with reference to phenomena that are exclusively privately accessible without a definition ("conventional understanding") agreed upon conversation about the word which stands for a corresponding concept is a conversation about a mere word without defined meaning. Conversation about a mere word without defined meaning isn't necessarily pointless because each statement anyone makes can potentially be an inspiration for one's own thinking based on the conceptual framing one applies (the conceptual framing includes the meaning oneself assigns to the mere word). Why isn't this inpiration pointless? Because it may serve to check the consistency of the meaning oneself assigns to the mere word and it may serve as a source of enjoyment.