As to why your so called "Scientist" friends won't even investigate the electric universe as a concept, well the truth is, if I understand what the electric universe is conceptually, it tends to lead them down some uncomfortable paths. The "EU" concept lends itself too closely to the idea that the universe may be a construct and not an accident. If the universe was constructed, than somebody or something or somebodies or somethings constructed it. That then takes your Scientist friends uncomfortably close to the idea that someone went to a great deal of trouble to build a universe for a purpose. Further, that someone went to a great deal of trouble to build them as well. And that then causes a most uncomfortable feeling that they should be subject to a judgment at the end of their life. And therefore, they needs must construct a universe that needs no God or Gods and needs no intelligence to their design and their coming about, other than random chance. I suspect that the EU concept scares them in much the same way as any theory that explores the possibility of intelligent design. It is much simpler to simple say the magic words of "pseudo-scientific" and be done with it, rather than consider it in the least. It is "hear no evil, speak no evil, see no evil, at its best.

You understand now why I called modern day science corrupted. You understand now why I call it a religion and not a means to investigate the world around you.

I find your statement that you don't truly believe in anything fascinating. I have given it some thought and hope you find my points at the least interesting.

So as I understand it, your argument about not believing runs along the lines of perception issues, as in perception can be tricked or otherwise muddled, so how can one really know anything? For instance, certain well known drugs can cause a person to stop feeling pain. They then do some insane things, including lifting objects or performing maneuvers that the rest of use could not perform if we trained our whole life from the age of six. The rational there is that since they no longer can feel the fact that they are ripping their body to shreds, they are now free to do things no one else could do- at the expense of their future selves. In essence, they no longer feel or one could say, they no longer believe in pain, therefore they can do incredible things because of that disbelief.

And there is the philosophical argument of the brain in a nutrient bath being fed inputs to its various centers of feelings. Being, as it's senses are fully controlled by someone else, how can that brain say it really knows anything? The creatures in charge of this brain could make it think it was flying like a bird or digging in the ground like a worm or any other imaginable combinations of "reality."

So let us define that point as, "Belief equals reality."

Further, that changing one's beliefs then redefines their reality.

For instance, someone who takes PCP and then breaks a set of handcuffs or some other equally amazing thing, that now equals their reality. Normally, they could never do that. But with the aid of a mind altering drug like PCP, they now have a new reality. And because they feel they can break the cuffs, they do.

I will assume that I have at least approximated your point about belief and reality, even if my statements are a bit clunky. What you are saying is that you believe belief is a personal thing, subject to each beings unique experience. Since belief is a unique and personal thing, there then can be no ultimate truth to believe in that applies to everyone.

But here's an analog to your point about belief equals truth.

Say I became convinced the sun did not exist. I work out a logical rational that involves using sunlight to prove it does not exist. For me, the sun no longer exists. (Yet I can still get a sun burn from it's rays...)

But there is a real problem with using the sun's light to prove it does not exist. By using sunlight as a means to disprove the suns existence, I have appealed to a quality of the sun which cannot be divorced from the sun itself. In other words, the moment I say "Look at that sun up there- it does not exist," I am proving that it does exist. I have appealed to a quality of the sun in order to prove it does not exist, thereby my entire argument collapses because I have appealed to the very thing I am trying to disprove.

Likewise, when one appeals to truth to prove truth does not exist, then one proves truth. For in real essence you are saying, the following. "I have proven true that truth does not exist." Well if my statement is true, then it cannot be true that truth does not exist. Appealing to the quality of truth to prove it does not exist, thereby proves it does exist. There can only be two possibilities. Either there is truth or there is not. But the moment we say there is no truth, we have just proved a truth, because in order for truth to not be true, there must be truth. Therefore any argument about the nonexistence of truth is self invalidating.

In other words, the moment you try to prove truth is not real, you appeal to proof -a quality of truth- and thereby prove your own argument wrong.

So one is left to say there is only one truth, that being there is no truth. Well why should that be true? It should be accurate to say that instead of there being only one truth, there are truths that are independent of our belief. In order to make any argument about the truth of truth, you immediately admit that things can be proven to be true or not. The mere fact that you can say anything or perceive anything is a truth and it proves there is truth- and proves it universally. The fact -a quality of truth- that your perceptions can be fooled, muddled or controlled, is a form of truth. If one can be tricked into believing something that's not real, that is a true statement. Therefore, there must be some truth in order for truth to be not proven. So if it is true there is no truth, than truth must be real.

Lol, sorry for that convoluted session, but do you see what I am saying?

In order for you to claim that truth is a personal thing, subject to change from each viewpoint, than it must be a real truth that truth is immutable.

So when we say truth is subject to our opinions, experiences, thoughts, etc, we prove it is not so. For it must be so for us to say it is not. So when you say that nothing can be known, you prove something can be known. There is no way around it. That then puts this argument squarely in the camp that there is a reality and some of it can be known.

So back to your belief about about believing. You are admitting you believe in something when you say you believe in nothing. Likewise, anyone stating that truth is personal and subject to perception, admits that there is truth that is not personal and is not subject to perception in order to prove it.

We should therefore look for those truths that are not personal and not subject to perception as ultimate truths. In doing that, one finds entire worlds that they can indeed depend upon that are unshakable, unbreakable and exist outside of us or our perceptions.

I know that's a bit convoluted and I am sorry I can't make it take up less space. But you strike me as quite intelligent and I am sure you can follow the logic there.

Most Sincerely,

Tech Jeff