It has over the course of some milenniums evolved to “as long as I ignore it, I have proven that it doesn’t exist”. But I think this is basically it. Discuss.
That is actually true. It is a major part of religions to believe in something until you collectively cause it to be true (hence go out of your way to believe in a good kind of God over you rather than just any ole God that first come to mind).
Equally, by disbelieving in something that is already true, collectively ignoring it causes it to be replaced by a different understanding (new words and concepts for old observations). And then the older understanding is declared untrue. Of course the reality of it didn’t change, merely people’s understanding and choice of concepts which then might lead to a different behavior.
It is much like believing whether the glass is half empty or half full. Either one can be true. It just depends on what follows from the belief that encourages one belief over the other.
How I disagree - I think the error lies in the measurement of the thought rather than the creation of it. My thoughts are: in order for something to be “ignored”, it must have been recognized in the first place. I think this recognition has a physical manifestation. This one time physical manifestation might not be repeated, and by extension, its consequences are not as recognizable in the physical world. Perhaps the thought is repeated, and has more recognizable physical manifestations.
How I agree - If some thought manifests itself as speech, replication, redundancy… ie less ignored - the idea becomes more real