What is the force?

Serious question : ready - what if a model of the Force is what no one ELSE believes ? Or can not believe ?
We never have to agree on things all the time - no one will ever have the same “Force” not will there ever be two fingerprints the same. Why must every answer be aligned with something we think is ok ? For some one else ? Hmmm when we define the Force - do we remember it only apples to is as individuals ? Hmm

That is a very interesting point: What if the nature of reality itself is entirely dependent on the individual?

rugadd wrote: That is a very interesting point: What if the nature of reality itself is entirely dependent on the individual?

Mine is ... smiley face !

Mine is a stone in the river. It has many colors, and tumbles a bit when the weather raises the water, but otherwise still and happy.

If that is the case then why cant you put a blind person in a house he has never been in an he be capable of walking through the walls? It's because reality is not based on simple subjective perception.

Obviously. But we have to live there. Everything one can pursue to understand better leaves countless others unexplored.

rugadd wrote: Obviously. But we have to live there. Everything one can pursue to understand better leaves countless others unexplored.

Well, they do say one never stops learning lol

Sorry for late response Kazat0. Busy day at work. I supposed one could say that. I myself have never seen low level magic or force powers in real life, but I would equate them. Granted, I wouldn't be able to get a firm understanding of said magic/force powers till I actually witness them myself.

Rex wrote: the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence

If I may briefly address this very common point - may it be up to moderation whether this had better be a separate thread or not - this is a very pretty saying that barely ever works in practice.

If there are any platonists around here, we may read some disagreement with this, but I would assert that propositions don't "just exist out there" in isolation. They are instead things people believe or believe not. And likewise, beliefs, too, aren't just idle items in peopls's minds, they inform their actions. So a statement that may sound like "Frank is cheating at poker" is really saying "If we were to perform a thorough search of Frank's body and seat we are likely to find hidden cards on at least one of the two.". If we do perform that search and find no evidence of Frank's cheating, it doesn't of course mean necessarily that he didn't, but it is evidence that he didn't in the sense that the prediction made from the proposition failed to at least within the thoroughness with which we had conducted the search. Likewise, if Frank were to claim clairvoyant or telekinetic powers, hardly any other means to judge those claims' accuracy is available to us than to interpret them as meaning that Frank could predict the future at a better rate than chance guesses or manipulate objects beyond what is accounted for through other physical forces. If then Frank consistently fails to demonstrate such abilities under even mildly controlled conditions, we are justified in rejecting his claims. We have evidence of their falsity because evidence of their accuracy failed to manifest when we had reason to expect that it would. The absence of evidence is in plenty a case just as well evidence of absence.

Gisteron wrote: We have evidence of their falsity because evidence of their accuracy failed to manifest when we had reason to expect that it would. The absence of evidence is in plenty a case just as well evidence of absence.

Actually I would beg to differ with this conclusion. It is simply an argument from Ignorance. All you are really saying is that you cant find a way he cheated therefore its evidence that he did not cheat and that is just not accurate. Take a court of law as an example. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecutor does prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is declared guilty. If the prosecutor does not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant is declared not guilty. This does not mean he was declared INNOCENT, only not guilty. The defendant could have still committed the crime, its just that it could not be proven he did and that lack of evidence, no matter how heavy or slight, has no bearing on the defendants innocence only their ability to prove his guilt.