If you try and prove something I'll just ask you to prove you can prove it. and if you try to do that I'll ask you to prove you can prove you can prove it and so forth. The only solution is to use it to prove itself but that's a logical fallacy. I would prove that I'm right but I probably can't. Next question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Check out my Sales 50% OFF everything for the next 48 hours.
I would say the obvious answer would be yes. Or we wouldn't be here.
Even if atoms are 99.99999..% empty there is still something there. There is energy there.
Does it even need to take up space to be ultimately proven? There can be different layers of space.
For logic, 1+1=2. And the laws of physics are a universal (even though we might not know them exactly).
If you break down this logic you are not being logical, and then can do what ever you want. Same with the physics.
But then it is no longer existing in this universe.
One cannot have ones self logic. Logic is a universal, as in it exists in this universe.
(How big is this universe? infinite? Is there another conscious dimension 'heaven'?) Can these be answered logically?
For math infinity is logical. Does that mean it exists in this universe?
English is 'colourful' to say the least and logic can be easily twisted and lost.
Typho0nn, please add René Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy to your reading list before continuing. Everyone else here is familiar with it and is using it as the starting point for discussion. (It's short.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Well there are basic universal principals which must hold true or we wouldn't be here.
(Is there a point to existence? Probably not, but we do.)
(We do not need to have perfect knowledge of it, for it to exist. But it in itself it can be perfect or ultimate.)
And there are individuals perspectives. That is an individuals perspective.
And there are many opinions and perspectives.
Either reality is real, or you can believe what you want.
But for the sake of argument i'll brows through it.
"Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived" - Doubting existence, I guess you either accept that you exist, or doubt it. I accept that I exist, and that my actions mean something, and that I am bound by the laws of physics. But this is still my opinion, not the fundamental laws of physics/math/logic.
Yet still I am open to new concepts like 'astro-traveling' with the pineal gland 'third eye'. It possibly has receptors in that that act like the ones in the eye does. Maybe it can view some form of radiation from space.
We could be in a matrix type simulation, but that would be still logical in the bounds of physics, we could be a computer simulation, but that would still be possible within the bounds of physics. We could not exist if we are not within the bounds of physics. The basic principals are ultimate, and proven by existence. (We could not exist, but that wouldn't dis-prove them. They still exist, but you as an individual could not prove it, if you didn't exist.)
So for an individual there is 'Ultimate Proof' for that individual by existing.
(You can exist in non-human form, say as an electric conscious on computer.)
You can question its existence, but the individual must ultimately accept its existence to continue reality for that individual.
We could not exist if we are not within the bounds of physics.
That depends on the definition of 'we' and the contextual meaning of 'physics'.
The basic principals are ultimate, and proven by existence. (We could not exist, but that wouldn't dis-prove them. They still exist, but you as an individual could not prove it, if you didn't exist.)
How did you determine this- did you think about it?
Do you know that you can conceive of possibilities correctly?
This argument doesn't stand when I have already made a point that counteracts all such arguments, until you potentially counteract my point, or show why it doesn't counteract your argument.
The point in the question is that all proofs ever made in philosophy rely on the accurate conception of possibilities in order to be absolutely true. But how can we demonstrate that our very thoughts are reliable? More so, how do we even justify basic epistemic principles of what justification is as truly relevant to the actual world as it is, if even 'is' at all?
I am proposing that absolute truth should not be a significant concern of philosophy in general, but rather understanding practical experience as it seems to be, as this is inherently meaningful to us.
"That depends on the definition of 'we' and the contextual meaning of 'physics'."
We is the individual, physics is reality.
"How did you determine this- did you think about it?"
Yes, and because I think, I exist. Thinking gives meaning.
"Do you know that you can conceive of possibilities correctly?"
I may not know them, but I am still bound by the laws of nature. Me not knowing them does not make reality any less real.
If an individual doubts their self, does that mean reality does not exist?
"That depends on the definition of 'we' and the contextual meaning of 'physics'."
We is the individual, physics is reality.
Ok.
"How did you determine this- did you think about it?"
Yes, and because I think, I exist. Thinking gives meaning.
How did you determine that because you think you exist? Did you think about that to determine it? Of course you did, and you can't simply rely on that.
"Do you know that you can conceive of possibilities correctly?"
I may not know them, but I am still bound by the laws of nature. Me not knowing them does not make reality any less real.
Not necessarily, but that would be getting into weird possible worlds.
If an individual doubts their self, does that mean reality does not exist?
"How did you determine that because you think you exist?"
Because I have thought, there is a past. What I can chose to do now will give meaning to a future.
"and you can't simply rely on that."
That is an individuals opinion. Which I guess 'ultimately proven' will be an individual opinion too. Some that agree with the universe and others that don't.
1+1=2 and that is simple, we can either accept it as ultimate truth, or question it. Same with reality. Questioning it does not change it tho, it is the individuals opinion on how they wish to perceive reality.
What I mean by Descartes assuming the 'I' is the same thing that other Philosophers in history much smarter than I have pointed out. That we cannot assume an individual of any particular scope merely through the process of doubt and cognition. While a thought proves something exists, the nature of that existence is unclear. That's Descartes first pitfall. As he moves from that to proving that his perceptions are true and then onward into the Cartesian circle.
Using logic to prove existence it somewhat of a ridiculous notion to me. Logic involves relating already abstractified content. It's something that operates within a presupposed conception of the world. Existence comes before that, and can only be demonstrated by itself. While that may sound like a logical paradox strictly speaking, it is indeed something that is self-evident. To borrow a phrase from our preeminent neatural philosophers, "you can tell that it is an [existence], by the way that it is."
"and you can't simply rely on that."
That is an individuals opinion.
No, reliability is an objective property. Either a source always reports facts accurately, or it doesn't. And we know our senses and minds don't always report facts accurately. If someone is of the opinion that they can always rely on their mind, all it takes is a basic optical illusion to show that they are simply incorrect.
1+1=2 and that is simple, we can either accept it as ultimate truth, or question it.
1 + 1 = 2 does not get us the universe. There is as yet no logical proof the connects abstract mathematics to the concrete reality we perceive, no chain of deductive reasoning that allows us to say, "1 + 1 = 2, therefore I am not being deceived by the Cartesian demon".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
@Nevelo
"self-evident"
The eternal struggle, the self vs the groupies.
@Blinking Spirit
"No, reliability is an objective property."
Does that mean it's up the the individual weather to rely or not?
"Either a source always reports facts accurately, or it doesn't"
It can do both at the same time, e.g. the news. It might be against murder/manslaughter, but might be pro Obama bombing hospitals.
"1 + 1 = 2 does not get us the universe."
I am using that as an example of math laws vs the physical laws. To put it as Star Trekkin did "you canny change the laws of physics!"
P.S. You guys are funny, you believe the government story, then question reality.
I would say the obvious answer would be yes. Or we wouldn't be here.
Even if atoms are 99.99999..% empty there is still something there. There is energy there.
Does it even need to take up space to be ultimately proven? There can be different layers of space.
For logic, 1+1=2. And the laws of physics are a universal (even though we might not know them exactly).
If you break down this logic you are not being logical, and then can do what ever you want. Same with the physics.
But then it is no longer existing in this universe.
One cannot have ones self logic. Logic is a universal, as in it exists in this universe.
(How big is this universe? infinite? Is there another conscious dimension 'heaven'?) Can these be answered logically?
For math infinity is logical. Does that mean it exists in this universe?
English is 'colourful' to say the least and logic can be easily twisted and lost.
The laws of physics and observations we have made throughout history do absolutely nothing to prove that the reality we believe we are experiencing is real. That's the sort of thing that's relevant to this thread, not the vast percentage of empty space in an atom.
First we have to figure out whether something exists, and how we can actually know that; "I think therefore I am" is an example of this particular search for truth. The act of thinking shows that there is at least something. The next step is trying to prove that everything else exists, and isn't just some fever dream or Matrix simulation. That's much, much harder.
"1 + 1 = 2 does not get us the universe."
I am using that as an example of math laws vs the physical laws. To put it as Star Trekkin did "you canny change the laws of physics!"
No one here is talking about changing the laws of physics except you. We're talking about how we know the laws of physics are what they are instead of something else.
To answer Crashing00's question, 'ultimate', 'definitive' or 'complete' proof just means valid proof of absolute truth- that whatever has been proven is as a result unquestionably the case.
So you're claiming that no proof can end in a result that is "unquestionably the case?" Consider, by way of a possible counterexample, the mechanism of the so-called conditionalist philosophy of mathematics as articulated by the logician Hilary Putnam.
It works something like this: For any conclusion C, by an argument I already gave, there is always going to be a nonempty sequence of axioms A_1,...,A_n that one must grant in order to reach the "absolute" conclusion C. The axioms are always questionable, and so clearly C can't be "unquestionably the case," as you put it. Right? Seems like an easy win for your position.
But wait: for any axiom A_i whose truth you call into question, I can back off from the position "C" to the weaker position "A_i => C". Then, if you question another axiom A_j, I can back off again to "A_i ^ A_j => C". By induction and the finiteness of the list of axioms, eventually you will run out of things to question, leaving me on a position of the form "(conjunction of some axioms) => C".
So I've resolved all your questions by conditionalizing on favorable answers. Does that position qualify as "unquestionably the case?"
(To anticipate an easy objection you could make: what about the logic of ^ and =>? Suppose you question that. Well, then I just put modus ponens itself on the left of the conditional as one of the A_i.)
The point here is to establish that while we may have developed a very 'sensible' and seemingly very useful idea of reality in the modern world, it ultimately breaks down to certain assumptions that we have made. Recognising this and consequently redirecting the goal of philosophy away from absolute truth gives us a more purposeful understanding. I support the notion that understanding practical experience rather than absolute truth is a better goal.
Yes, but whatever this "sensible and seemingly very useful" thing is that you speak of is, and has always been, the purpose of philosophy to study. Certain notions of "absolute truth" were found to be incoherent only as a result of applying that very philosophy! So there has been no change of goals, merely the closing of one particular blind alley.
To answer Crashing00's question, 'ultimate', 'definitive' or 'complete' proof just means valid proof of absolute truth- that whatever has been proven is as a result unquestionably the case.
So you're claiming that no proof can end in a result that is "unquestionably the case?" Consider, by way of a possible counterexample, the mechanism of the so-called conditionalist philosophy of mathematics as articulated by the logician Hilary Putnam.
It works something like this: For any conclusion C, by an argument I already gave, there is always going to be a nonempty sequence of axioms A_1,...,A_n that one must grant in order to reach the "absolute" conclusion C. The axioms are always questionable, and so clearly C can't be "unquestionably the case," as you put it. Right? Seems like an easy win for your position.
But wait: for any axiom A_i whose truth you call into question, I can back off from the position "C" to the weaker position "A_i => C". Then, if you question another axiom A_j, I can back off again to "A_i ^ A_j => C". By induction and the finiteness of the list of axioms, eventually you will run out of things to question, leaving me on a position of the form "(conjunction of some axioms) => C".
So I've resolved all your questions by conditionalizing on favorable answers. Does that position qualify as "unquestionably the case?"
(To anticipate an easy objection you could make: what about the logic of ^ and =>? Suppose you question that. Well, then I just put modus ponens itself on the left of the conditional as one of the A_i.)
Falls to my primary point- potential fallibility of human conception.
In order to fit the definition I am using, to be more specific, the proof needs to rely on no assumptions, at any layer in the reasoning. A single assumption is sufficient to call into the question the truth of what is being proven- most assumptions are by their nature uncertain.
Yes, but whatever this "sensible and seemingly very useful" thing is that you speak of is, and has always been, the purpose of philosophy to study.
Depends on what is meant by purpose, the more overt goal as given, or the driving force. In the first sense, absolute truth has been the primary purpose of philosophy since it's inception, overtly, 'philosophy' is 'the love of knowledge'- much to do with truth. In the second, I would say that what you say is more accurate.
Certain notions of "absolute truth" were found to be incoherent only as a result of applying that very philosophy! So there has been no change of goals, merely the closing of one particular blind alley.
There is a change of goals for some, who are determined that philosophy should be seriously concerned with finding absolute truth despite the long history of scepticism to attest to it's problems. And besides, the closing of one particular blind alley is a perfectly fine achievement for me to aspire to .
I just want to add concerning existence being self-referencing, and logic being incapable of dealing with it. There is an interesting mathematical theorem developed by Godel called Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. It more or less shows that in all but the most basic mathematical systems, there will be statements that are true that are unprovable. This is illustrated by the liars paradox.
I just want to add concerning existence being self-referencing, and logic being incapable of dealing with it. There is an interesting mathematical theorem developed by Godel called Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. It more or less shows that in all but the most basic mathematical systems, there will be statements that are true that are unprovable. This is illustrated by the liars paradox.
Yes, Godel has been mentioned (several times, across this thread and the other thread which inspired the creation of this one). Gödel's work, though, is also doubtable because although it is essentially sceptical of the completeness of mathematics, it is based upon foundational logic like most philosophy.
"That depends on the definition of 'we' and the contextual meaning of 'physics'."
We is the individual, physics is reality.
As a physicist I can assure you physics is not reality. It is simply the exploration of reality using statistical and probabilistic data to measure how closely nature conforms to mathematical models. Physics is very far from understanding "reality" and is only conflated with reality because it has done a remarkably good job modeling and explaining observable phenomena.
"Do you know that you can conceive of possibilities correctly?"
I may not know them, but I am still bound by the laws of nature. Me not knowing them does not make reality any less real.
But if you cannot prove the correctness of your beliefs, then you believing in reality doesn't make it any more real either. Whether reality can be proven or not doesn't effect the existence of it, only our understanding of it.
If an individual doubts their self, does that mean reality does not exist?
No, it simply means that they have not proven or assured them self of it's existence. Doubt is an expression of an opinion and opinions have to sway over truths or logic.
"Either a source always reports facts accurately, or it doesn't"
It can do both at the same time...
In which case it isn't always reporting facts accurately, and is unreliable.
This is completely correct. Inaccuracy of a source is not the absence of individually accurate facts but rather the existence of inaccurate facts. It is much more useful though to describe either the degree of accuracy or inaccuracy.
P.S. You guys are funny, you believe the government story, then question reality.
The point of philosophy is to question and prove. What we believe or don't believe is irrelevant. There is a difference between exploring the fundamental question of "can existence be proven?" and believing in existence. You may think it's a waste of time or an act in futility, but obviously from this thread their are people interested in answering the question. Whether the people disagreeing with you believe "the government story" is irrelevant. Furthermore, although I have weighed in on some of your opinions in the past, I don't believe anyone here has weighed in on what they believe about government narratives and we have no way of knowing what "story" you are vaguely referencing. I can assure you that as a rule of thumb I don't believe government narratives, but I certainly don't believe any of the narratives about government activity that I have seen you support in the past. As far as I can tell, what you are doing is akin to people being labeled as heretics for disagreeing with the Church on non-religious topics.
Falls to my primary point- potential fallibility of human conception.
Does it? Suppose I claim "C," and present you with a proof relying on the assumption of the infallibility of my conception. You object by pointing out this unjustified assumption. I admit the correctness of your objection and back off to the weaker position C': "the infallibility of my conception => C."
So obviously I failed to "absolutely prove" C, but have I "absolutely proved" the weaker conditional statement C'?
(Before you answer, please think carefully and make sure the objection you raise cannot be solved by simply adding it to the conditional.)
In order to fit the definition I am using, to be more specific, the proof needs to rely on no assumptions, at any layer in the reasoning. A single assumption is sufficient to call into the question the truth of what is being proven- most assumptions are by their nature uncertain.
I entirely agree. Let's be careful to put all the assumptions on the left side of the conditional. Each and every one of them without exception. What then?
And besides, the closing of one particular blind alley is a perfectly fine achievement for me to aspire to .
...These are not original thoughts we're exchanging here. This blind alley has been closed for a long time. Not that there's anything wrong with retreading the footprints of the masters, mind you, but that is what we're doing.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
(Before you answer, please think carefully and make sure the objection you raise cannot be solved by simply adding it to the conditional.)
In order to fit the definition I am using, to be more specific, the proof needs to rely on no assumptions, at any layer in the reasoning. A single assumption is sufficient to call into the question the truth of what is being proven- most assumptions are by their nature uncertain.
I entirely agree. Let's be careful to put all the assumptions on the left side of the conditional. Each and every one of them without exception. What then?
We have a relative truth. Such a 'proof' cannot, by definition, be a proof of absolute truth because it is conditional and therefore not absolute.
...These are not original thoughts we're exchanging here. This blind alley has been closed for a long time. Not that there's anything wrong with retreading the footprints of the masters, mind you, but that is what we're doing.
Far from every modern philosopher supports epistemic scepticism. There are still those who support some variation of an idea which is based upon absolute truth. And more so, most people in the world generally are oblivious to the notion that everything they think they know might be wrong.
We have a relative truth. Such a 'proof' cannot, by definition, be a proof of absolute truth because it is conditional and therefore not absolute.
Oh no you don't. Absolute proof is a quality of proof. You said there was no such thing as an absolute proof, not that it was impossible to prove an unconditional statement. These are two different questions, and while I'm certainly willing to discuss the second one separately, I'm not going to allow us to be derailed from the first until we resolve it.
So I ask again, granting that the statement being proven is, of course, a conditional statement: is the proof so obtained an absolute proof of that conditional statement?
Far from every modern philosopher supports epistemic scepticism.
Of course not. I don't either. That doesn't change the fact that we aren't performing original discoveries here. Philosophers that aren't epistemic skeptics (by and large) are not so because they haven't seen this argument hundreds of times. They are so because they believe the opposing position to be defensible despite having heard the arguments against it.
And more so, most people in the world generally are oblivious to the notion that everything they think they know might be wrong.
Most people in the world don't have time for this kind of pfaffing. This is the sort of philosophy that famously irritated Richard Feynman.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A limit of time is fixed for thee
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
We have a relative truth. Such a 'proof' cannot, by definition, be a proof of absolute truth because it is conditional and therefore not absolute.
Oh no you don't. Absolute proof is a quality of proof. You said there was no such thing as an absolute proof, not that it was impossible to prove an unconditional statement. These are two different questions, and while I'm certainly willing to discuss the second one separately, I'm not going to allow us to be derailed from the first until we resolve it.
So I ask again, granting that the statement being proven is, of course, a conditional statement: is the proof so obtained an absolute proof of that conditional statement?
They also tell us that different systems have different collections of provable statements, so the idea of "absolute proof" is incoherent. Proof always happens within the context of a specific proof system which must be named in advance.
Definitive proof is what I am after, absolute truth is a part of that, but absolute proof is not.
@knto
"As a physicist I can assure you physics is not reality."
Physics exists in reality/nature. We as humans might not have perfect knowledge/ultimate of it, but that does not change it.
"then you believing in reality doesn't make it any more real either."
Lets say there is a rock: Does it know it's a rock? Can it prove it's a rock? Is it not a rock?
"proven or assured them self of it's existence."
Proven and assured are beliefs to the individual. One does not need to believe they are 'there', to be 'there'. The could be somewhere else, and still be 'there'. Where are they?
To them the individual they can be on the Moon or heaven, but they are still 'there' to the universe.
"I can assure you that as a rule of thumb I don't believe government narratives, but I certainly don't believe any of the narratives about government activity that I have seen you support in the past.
Well keep an open mind. There could be an Illuminati... The richest 0.0001% that have banks over the world and have power over governments! But I guess we will need a new thread.
"As far as I can tell, what you are doing is akin to people being labeled as heretics for disagreeing with the Church on non-religious topics."
I am cool with that
As for my thought on 'ultimately proven' atm.
Nature ultimately proves itself. Individuals believe in proof. (Can you 'ultimately' believe?) Therefore an individual cannot ultimately prove nature as it is belief. (but it is still there no matter the individuals thoughts)
To be 'ultimate' things should not change: Past, Present or Future. (What is time?)
As for my thought on 'ultimately proven' atm.
Nature ultimately proves itself. Individuals believe in proof. (Can you 'ultimately' believe?) Therefore an individual cannot ultimately prove nature as it is belief. (but it is still there no matter the individuals thoughts)
To be 'ultimate' things should not change: Past, Present or Future. (What is time?)
So.... is this in agreement with my position? As stated something like this as earlier:
"I am proposing that absolute truth should not be a significant concern of philosophy in general, but rather understanding practical experience as it seems to be, as this is inherently meaningful to us."
I would say the obvious answer would be yes. Or we wouldn't be here.
Even if atoms are 99.99999..% empty there is still something there. There is energy there.
Does it even need to take up space to be ultimately proven? There can be different layers of space.
For logic, 1+1=2. And the laws of physics are a universal (even though we might not know them exactly).
If you break down this logic you are not being logical, and then can do what ever you want. Same with the physics.
But then it is no longer existing in this universe.
One cannot have ones self logic. Logic is a universal, as in it exists in this universe.
(How big is this universe? infinite? Is there another conscious dimension 'heaven'?) Can these be answered logically?
For math infinity is logical. Does that mean it exists in this universe?
English is 'colourful' to say the least and logic can be easily twisted and lost.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
(Is there a point to existence? Probably not, but we do.)
(We do not need to have perfect knowledge of it, for it to exist. But it in itself it can be perfect or ultimate.)
And there are individuals perspectives. That is an individuals perspective.
And there are many opinions and perspectives.
Either reality is real, or you can believe what you want.
But for the sake of argument i'll brows through it.
"Doubtless, then, I exist, since I am deceived" - Doubting existence, I guess you either accept that you exist, or doubt it. I accept that I exist, and that my actions mean something, and that I am bound by the laws of physics. But this is still my opinion, not the fundamental laws of physics/math/logic.
Yet still I am open to new concepts like 'astro-traveling' with the pineal gland 'third eye'. It possibly has receptors in that that act like the ones in the eye does. Maybe it can view some form of radiation from space.
We could be in a matrix type simulation, but that would be still logical in the bounds of physics, we could be a computer simulation, but that would still be possible within the bounds of physics. We could not exist if we are not within the bounds of physics. The basic principals are ultimate, and proven by existence. (We could not exist, but that wouldn't dis-prove them. They still exist, but you as an individual could not prove it, if you didn't exist.)
So for an individual there is 'Ultimate Proof' for that individual by existing.
(You can exist in non-human form, say as an electric conscious on computer.)
You can question its existence, but the individual must ultimately accept its existence to continue reality for that individual.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
That depends on the definition of 'we' and the contextual meaning of 'physics'.
How did you determine this- did you think about it?
Do you know that you can conceive of possibilities correctly?
This argument doesn't stand when I have already made a point that counteracts all such arguments, until you potentially counteract my point, or show why it doesn't counteract your argument.
The point in the question is that all proofs ever made in philosophy rely on the accurate conception of possibilities in order to be absolutely true. But how can we demonstrate that our very thoughts are reliable? More so, how do we even justify basic epistemic principles of what justification is as truly relevant to the actual world as it is, if even 'is' at all?
I am proposing that absolute truth should not be a significant concern of philosophy in general, but rather understanding practical experience as it seems to be, as this is inherently meaningful to us.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
We is the individual, physics is reality.
"How did you determine this- did you think about it?"
Yes, and because I think, I exist. Thinking gives meaning.
"Do you know that you can conceive of possibilities correctly?"
I may not know them, but I am still bound by the laws of nature. Me not knowing them does not make reality any less real.
If an individual doubts their self, does that mean reality does not exist?
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Ok.
How did you determine that because you think you exist? Did you think about that to determine it? Of course you did, and you can't simply rely on that.
Not necessarily, but that would be getting into weird possible worlds.
No.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Because I have thought, there is a past. What I can chose to do now will give meaning to a future.
"and you can't simply rely on that."
That is an individuals opinion. Which I guess 'ultimately proven' will be an individual opinion too. Some that agree with the universe and others that don't.
1+1=2 and that is simple, we can either accept it as ultimate truth, or question it. Same with reality. Questioning it does not change it tho, it is the individuals opinion on how they wish to perceive reality.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
Using logic to prove existence it somewhat of a ridiculous notion to me. Logic involves relating already abstractified content. It's something that operates within a presupposed conception of the world. Existence comes before that, and can only be demonstrated by itself. While that may sound like a logical paradox strictly speaking, it is indeed something that is self-evident. To borrow a phrase from our preeminent neatural philosophers, "you can tell that it is an [existence], by the way that it is."
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
1 + 1 = 2 does not get us the universe. There is as yet no logical proof the connects abstract mathematics to the concrete reality we perceive, no chain of deductive reasoning that allows us to say, "1 + 1 = 2, therefore I am not being deceived by the Cartesian demon".
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
"self-evident"
The eternal struggle, the self vs the groupies.
@Blinking Spirit
"No, reliability is an objective property."
Does that mean it's up the the individual weather to rely or not?
"Either a source always reports facts accurately, or it doesn't"
It can do both at the same time, e.g. the news. It might be against murder/manslaughter, but might be pro Obama bombing hospitals.
"1 + 1 = 2 does not get us the universe."
I am using that as an example of math laws vs the physical laws. To put it as Star Trekkin did "you canny change the laws of physics!"
P.S. You guys are funny, you believe the government story, then question reality.
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
First we have to figure out whether something exists, and how we can actually know that; "I think therefore I am" is an example of this particular search for truth. The act of thinking shows that there is at least something. The next step is trying to prove that everything else exists, and isn't just some fever dream or Matrix simulation. That's much, much harder.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
In which case it isn't always reporting facts accurately, and is unreliable.
No one here is talking about changing the laws of physics except you. We're talking about how we know the laws of physics are what they are instead of something else.
You may not realize it, but I assure you, you are far funnier.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
So you're claiming that no proof can end in a result that is "unquestionably the case?" Consider, by way of a possible counterexample, the mechanism of the so-called conditionalist philosophy of mathematics as articulated by the logician Hilary Putnam.
It works something like this: For any conclusion C, by an argument I already gave, there is always going to be a nonempty sequence of axioms A_1,...,A_n that one must grant in order to reach the "absolute" conclusion C. The axioms are always questionable, and so clearly C can't be "unquestionably the case," as you put it. Right? Seems like an easy win for your position.
But wait: for any axiom A_i whose truth you call into question, I can back off from the position "C" to the weaker position "A_i => C". Then, if you question another axiom A_j, I can back off again to "A_i ^ A_j => C". By induction and the finiteness of the list of axioms, eventually you will run out of things to question, leaving me on a position of the form "(conjunction of some axioms) => C".
So I've resolved all your questions by conditionalizing on favorable answers. Does that position qualify as "unquestionably the case?"
(To anticipate an easy objection you could make: what about the logic of ^ and =>? Suppose you question that. Well, then I just put modus ponens itself on the left of the conditional as one of the A_i.)
Yes, but whatever this "sensible and seemingly very useful" thing is that you speak of is, and has always been, the purpose of philosophy to study. Certain notions of "absolute truth" were found to be incoherent only as a result of applying that very philosophy! So there has been no change of goals, merely the closing of one particular blind alley.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
Falls to my primary point- potential fallibility of human conception.
In order to fit the definition I am using, to be more specific, the proof needs to rely on no assumptions, at any layer in the reasoning. A single assumption is sufficient to call into the question the truth of what is being proven- most assumptions are by their nature uncertain.
Depends on what is meant by purpose, the more overt goal as given, or the driving force. In the first sense, absolute truth has been the primary purpose of philosophy since it's inception, overtly, 'philosophy' is 'the love of knowledge'- much to do with truth. In the second, I would say that what you say is more accurate.
There is a change of goals for some, who are determined that philosophy should be seriously concerned with finding absolute truth despite the long history of scepticism to attest to it's problems. And besides, the closing of one particular blind alley is a perfectly fine achievement for me to aspire to .
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Modern: R Skred -- WBG Melira Co -- URW Nahiri Control
Legacy: R Mono Red Burn -- UWB Stoneblade
Commander: R Krenko, Mob Boss -- WUBRG Scion of the Ur-Dragon -- WUBRG Maze’s End
Other: R No Rares Red (Standard) -- URC Izzet Tron (Pauper)
Yes, Godel has been mentioned (several times, across this thread and the other thread which inspired the creation of this one). Gödel's work, though, is also doubtable because although it is essentially sceptical of the completeness of mathematics, it is based upon foundational logic like most philosophy.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
As a physicist I can assure you physics is not reality. It is simply the exploration of reality using statistical and probabilistic data to measure how closely nature conforms to mathematical models. Physics is very far from understanding "reality" and is only conflated with reality because it has done a remarkably good job modeling and explaining observable phenomena.
But if you cannot prove the correctness of your beliefs, then you believing in reality doesn't make it any more real either. Whether reality can be proven or not doesn't effect the existence of it, only our understanding of it.
No, it simply means that they have not proven or assured them self of it's existence. Doubt is an expression of an opinion and opinions have to sway over truths or logic.
This is completely correct. Inaccuracy of a source is not the absence of individually accurate facts but rather the existence of inaccurate facts. It is much more useful though to describe either the degree of accuracy or inaccuracy.
The point of philosophy is to question and prove. What we believe or don't believe is irrelevant. There is a difference between exploring the fundamental question of "can existence be proven?" and believing in existence. You may think it's a waste of time or an act in futility, but obviously from this thread their are people interested in answering the question. Whether the people disagreeing with you believe "the government story" is irrelevant. Furthermore, although I have weighed in on some of your opinions in the past, I don't believe anyone here has weighed in on what they believe about government narratives and we have no way of knowing what "story" you are vaguely referencing. I can assure you that as a rule of thumb I don't believe government narratives, but I certainly don't believe any of the narratives about government activity that I have seen you support in the past. As far as I can tell, what you are doing is akin to people being labeled as heretics for disagreeing with the Church on non-religious topics.
I'm not sure funny is how I would describe it, but I think I know what you are getting at.
Does it? Suppose I claim "C," and present you with a proof relying on the assumption of the infallibility of my conception. You object by pointing out this unjustified assumption. I admit the correctness of your objection and back off to the weaker position C': "the infallibility of my conception => C."
So obviously I failed to "absolutely prove" C, but have I "absolutely proved" the weaker conditional statement C'?
(Before you answer, please think carefully and make sure the objection you raise cannot be solved by simply adding it to the conditional.)
I entirely agree. Let's be careful to put all the assumptions on the left side of the conditional. Each and every one of them without exception. What then?
...These are not original thoughts we're exchanging here. This blind alley has been closed for a long time. Not that there's anything wrong with retreading the footprints of the masters, mind you, but that is what we're doing.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
We have a relative truth. Such a 'proof' cannot, by definition, be a proof of absolute truth because it is conditional and therefore not absolute.
Far from every modern philosopher supports epistemic scepticism. There are still those who support some variation of an idea which is based upon absolute truth. And more so, most people in the world generally are oblivious to the notion that everything they think they know might be wrong.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Oh no you don't. Absolute proof is a quality of proof. You said there was no such thing as an absolute proof, not that it was impossible to prove an unconditional statement. These are two different questions, and while I'm certainly willing to discuss the second one separately, I'm not going to allow us to be derailed from the first until we resolve it.
So I ask again, granting that the statement being proven is, of course, a conditional statement: is the proof so obtained an absolute proof of that conditional statement?
Of course not. I don't either. That doesn't change the fact that we aren't performing original discoveries here. Philosophers that aren't epistemic skeptics (by and large) are not so because they haven't seen this argument hundreds of times. They are so because they believe the opposing position to be defensible despite having heard the arguments against it.
Most people in the world don't have time for this kind of pfaffing. This is the sort of philosophy that famously irritated Richard Feynman.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.
?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
"As a physicist I can assure you physics is not reality."
Physics exists in reality/nature. We as humans might not have perfect knowledge/ultimate of it, but that does not change it.
"then you believing in reality doesn't make it any more real either."
Lets say there is a rock: Does it know it's a rock? Can it prove it's a rock? Is it not a rock?
"proven or assured them self of it's existence."
Proven and assured are beliefs to the individual. One does not need to believe they are 'there', to be 'there'. The could be somewhere else, and still be 'there'. Where are they?
To them the individual they can be on the Moon or heaven, but they are still 'there' to the universe.
"I can assure you that as a rule of thumb I don't believe government narratives, but I certainly don't believe any of the narratives about government activity that I have seen you support in the past.
Well keep an open mind. There could be an Illuminati... The richest 0.0001% that have banks over the world and have power over governments! But I guess we will need a new thread.
"As far as I can tell, what you are doing is akin to people being labeled as heretics for disagreeing with the Church on non-religious topics."
I am cool with that
As for my thought on 'ultimately proven' atm.
Nature ultimately proves itself. Individuals believe in proof. (Can you 'ultimately' believe?) Therefore an individual cannot ultimately prove nature as it is belief. (but it is still there no matter the individuals thoughts)
To be 'ultimate' things should not change: Past, Present or Future. (What is time?)
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
So.... is this in agreement with my position? As stated something like this as earlier:
"I am proposing that absolute truth should not be a significant concern of philosophy in general, but rather understanding practical experience as it seems to be, as this is inherently meaningful to us."
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Yes, they sound the same
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru