Thorham

Just get to the point.

Dreams exist while your brain is generating them.

If that means "I think, therefore I am" then that's not necessarily true, because we can't be certain that we are the ones doing the thinking. One possibility is that we're information in our brains, and that our brains are doing the thinking. Of course. They exist, so they're real, and if they're just made of information being processed by the brain, then they may even be measurable (in principle). Everything that exists is real, although the true nature of things may be different from how it appears.

Which part?

Yes, and because of that we know that something exists. Even then it might still be a problem. However, I said that everything, whatever that might be, is reality. We're not required to know what anything is to realize that everything that exists must be reality. Right, didn't know.

I don't need no stinkin' potion Sure we do. Everything that exists, whatever that might be, is reality, and to say that we don't know that reality exists is the same as saying that we don't know wether or not anything exists at all. Makes no sense. And what's up with all the rabbit holes anyway?

What is that supposed to mean?

Did you even read my post? I already admitted that it might be possible to know everything

We know that it exists. That's something. Evidence points to us not seeing reality how it really is. We see a representation in our minds. No, that's what I mean. It doesn't mean you can't know anything.

Because logic is logic. It's not our logic system, it's just logic, and we've learned how to use it. And I say that that definition makes no sense. Even simple humans can understand certain things. To say that humans simply can't understand these things is just a cop out. I don't, but I do know that some things are impossible. The notion of being able to do everything creates impossibilities. If you can do everything, then you can't write a book you can't read, because you can read every book. You can't create a mass you can't lift, you can't make a world you can't understand, you can't be immortal and at the same time die, etc. I don't know all that's knowable. Perhaps everything is knowable when you're an infinite being whose infinity size is the largest possible, so that it's impossible that there exists anything beyond your knowledge, because there simply isn't any room for anything else but you.

Because: 1. Being able to do everything includes impossible things (being able to make a mass you can't lift, and other such simple logical impossibilities). 2. The true nature of reality is unknowable with 100 percent certainty. A little hard to explain for me, but seems obvious.

Humans aren't apes. As much as I would like to have four hands...

Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods. It has nothing to do with science, and has nothing to do with believing god or gods don't exist. That's what it means. Why is this so hard to except for religious people? Note: I'm not an atheist. I say that omnipotent and omniscient beings (gods) don't exit, because they can't exist (you can't do everything, and you can't know everything). Of course, anyone who's not omnipotent and omniscient isn't a god, so extremely powerful beings (who may or may not exist) aren't gods. Humans will get on their knees for these guys anyway, of course. Humans will get on their knees for just about anything, and to me that's nonsense.

It's guaranteed to be possible, because we all live in space right now. I sure hope there won't be any humans left in a billion years, that would be awful.

When using dictionaries, you're using words as they are defined in the dictionaries That means that when you talk about stuff, everyone will know what you're talking about

Dictionaries

Yes, and today hardware bug refers to mistakes in implementing electronics designs such as in integrated circuits. The old Pentium is an example of this. Yes, but it's not what software bug refers to. Dictionaries say that a software bug is a mistake in a program, so that's the meaning I'm going to use. Obviously.

Yes, I'm quite sure that what I typed is what I intended. Software bug is defined to have a particular meaning, and there's no good reason to change it. Everyone knows what is meant by it, so it serves it's purpose. Otherwise, why not debate 'Big Bang'? It wasn't big (it's big now), and it wasn't a bang, so it should be named something else. Is that useful? Then there's stuff like digital downloads and physical distributions. Everyone knows what those mean, even though downloads are both digital and physical, while physical distributions are also both digital and physical. And as annoying as they sound to me, it doesn't matter, because it's just the way people talk. As for software bug, it refers to the human requirements, and for this purpose the term 'software bug' is fine. Nothing wrong with it. Many words mean the same thing to most people, or we wouldn't be able to effectively communicate. Also: Dictionaries

No. Words mean what they mean.

You are correct, because you wrote the program to do that. The other person would only consider it a bug if they didn't know you wrote it like that on purpose. That's true, although you might say that something is a correct approximation, so that 3.1415926 is correct, while 3.1415123 is not, because some of the digits are wrong. Perhaps... maybe.

No, it wouldn't, because the program is supposed to give PI a value of 3. Mathematically incorrect, of course, but not a bug. The only thing that matters is that the program does what it's supposed to do and nothing more or less.

If it does what it's supposed to do, and nothing more, then there's no bug.

It's indeed not an issue of the computer's point of view, which is exactly why the bug is in the software. Computer's view: No wrong or right software. Only a bunch of instructions. The exception is, of course, illegal instructions, which are opcodes that the CPU can't decode into anything meaningful. Human view: There is wrong and right software based on the results the software generates and the requirements. Only the human view is relevant, and from that viewpoint the software either does what it's supposed to do or it doesn't. If it doesn't, it contains one or more bugs. Of course. Software bugs don't refer to humans, they refer to software. Not really, it simply isn't true... ... as demonstrated by this little program, unless it's supposed to print something other than 'Hello' on the screen.

Yes, what else? The fact that a computer only does what it's told isn't relevant. It's told to do the wrong thing by the software. The software produces the wrong result, so the bug is in the software. Caused by the programmer or the compiler, obviously, but it's still in there.

This implies the computer's perspective: