How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Well don't just single Fil out. They're all entertaining.

I wish 1/100 th of this forum members did formally the same quality work my so called chugging does in the most informal way. I don't expect many can appreciate the nuance on what I say. It suffices for me that I KNOW what I am saying whatever is the audience attending.

...jaw dropping for me how come someone thinks that POSITING "no any X" can think for a minute that it is entertaining serious thought...it requires a special kind of dumb to get to such a place.

Here where Fresco stands, in QM, Cubism, which as I demonstrated in previous posts its quite easy to debunk.
By the way two of the alternatives are fully deterministic.

There is another interesting way of framing the problem.
It takes 1 bit of information to posit existence. And a bunch load to deny it...not energy efficient to spend more of something to deny it all.
The contradiction of denying existence with existing information is very amusing, specially when it takes loads of it to deny it...what else is left to say ? yeah...

OK Bobo

According to the prevailing non-representational view of language, it takes far more than 'one bit of information' to postulate 'existence', because 'is-ness' is a multifaceted state co-defined and relative to 'is-not-ness'. In short, 'existence' is not a predicate in its own right, like the word 'hard' as in 'rocks are hard'. The sentence 'rocks exist' is vacuous/tautological because by using the word 'rock' at all, it already assumes the existential natures of 'rocks'. This analytical problem in part led to the 'eprime movement' in philosophy which attempted to proscribe the nebulous use of the verb 'to be' within analysis.
And note that at a secondary transcendent level, which you have already raised, that of Maturana's 'languaging' (verbal communication as structural coupling behavior), the concept of 'information' per se is rejected.

Not in my book...yeah I know exactly what you meant...but I "Occam razored" it...you see I say X I did not define X.

While you decry the idea of information, you seem oblivious to what you're doing on a2k.

I do not 'decry information' in the popular sense of 'information'. I point to the technical objections to 'information theory' raised by some biologists. My position is comparable to that of a person who appreciates the popular sense of 'gravity' which makes him cautious of heights, but who is also aware of the physics of 'gravity' with respect to the curvature of space etc.
This point well illustrates the point about 'language games' in which 'meaning' of a word is context specific. Note too that this reply to you illustrates the negotiation of context which is characteristic of 'debate'.

Your so called " negotiations of context" tend to be a one way road.
Information is nothing magical and its measurable according to top class physicists. Entropy is the name. Information measures what changes, which in turn implies SOMETHING is changing.

I want to ask Fresco one simple common sense question.
What IS IT Fresco that IS NOT ?

Moreover if you think "IS" and "IS NOT" depends on context, then "context" means nothing right ? One might just as well say that "context" means "there is cake on the freezer"...

Your pov on "IS" is self destructive Fresco...it renders you mute to any utterance.

You see people the thing about some words is that they are not prone to twists within themselves...relativity is not relative context is not contextual...these words have PRECISE meanings and are on collision course with Fresco ultra relativity on reality which in turn shots itself on the foot by describing language and information as ultra relative just the same....his pov destroys any system that tries to have meaning. Its chaotic to the core.

Just sounds to me that Fresco is defending the position on information that is required for the assumption of abiogenesis, much of evolution, etc. Without that tortured 'context', the possibility of it falls apart. What appears to be information 'is not' because - well it just couldn't be, because there wasn't any and still isn't.

Now that it is in simpler terms, do you understand Fil?

You see the thing about information is that it hasn't to have meaning....it can be measured. When you get 4 Mb speed conection to the web it doesn't matter you are wasting in porn or watching science documentaries.
The hole idea of information is predicated on Being and change in factual states of affairs. You can't have change and measure the amount of change without having stuff in order to change. And by stuff I dont mean necessarilly matter.

In simple terms you better understand one thing without foundations you kill everyghing including rebutals.

The point which you are missing is that all communications are evaluated with respect to satisfying some mutual social need between participants. So in a thread about the 'existence (is-ness) of God' the issue is about whether a 'God concept' satisfies such needs. Obviously some atheists will argue for the lack of 'physical evidence' , and some believers will argue from 'a complexity of life' angle. But I argue that both 'evidence' and 'complexity' are themselves concepts which have existential currency in some contexts but not others. In particular, I argue that since 'God' has no agreed operational/observational status, 'evidence' does not apply. And since'complexity' is merely equivalent to 'currently difficult to explain', that concept is also misapplied.
As for the concept of 'information', this is also multifaceted, ranging from its lay usage, through thermodynamics, to communications theory. But the essential factor which binds these together is that common to all concepts...their human functionality. In that respect it is facile to argue that 'information exists' independent of the humans who 'measure' it.
....Man is the Measure of All Things.....'disorder' (for example) requires an observer to define it !
There are no 'fundamentals' or 'bedrocks' independent of shifting human needs. Some needs may be more persistent than others...that's about all that can be said.

You prove my point with this talk. Meaning is relative to structured relative contexts between human thinking systems...but, and still, change is measured not by meaning but by accounting for the relation between two points of reference which ARE distinct whatever they mean. This povs are factual state of affairs if from them any context will produce information. This posits realism even before meaning enters in the equation.

When I say X I dont need to describe X. If you want to counter X the first thing you do is direct yourself to it. You say not X. And therefore all you did was replacing the reality of one bit of info for another. Now this is redundant process when we debate realism. You go around trying to catch your own tail.

As silly as that sounds on the face of it (sounds about like "if a tree falls and no one is around...) how is your 'human needs' theory met before there were humans? Where did the need for humans themselves come from?

You just had to point him one question when he says "man" does he means something or just X...because you see "man" is as much a bit of language as "world"...same point can be made about "observer"...bottom line his criteria has no foundation one way or another...he means nothing.