Descartes' Second Rule vs. Uncertainty

[Mentat]

Descartes' Second Rule of the Direction of the Mind is:


Only those objects should engage our attention, to the sure and indubitable knowledge of which our mental powers seem adequate.


He then continues...


Science in it's entirety is true and evident cognition. He is no more learned who has doubts on many matters than the man who has never thought of them; nay he appears to be less learned if he has formed wrong opinions on any particulars. Hence it were better not to study at all than to occupy one's self with objects of such difficulty, that, owing to our inability to distinguish true from false, we are forced to regard the doubtful as certain; for in those matters any hope of augmenting our knowledge is exceeded by the risk of diminishing it. Thus in accordance with the above maxim we reject all such merely probably knowledge and make it a rule to trust only what is completely known and incapable of being doubted.


There is more to it, which I will post if I see it necessary, but that is basically what he is trying to say.

The point of this thread is to determine the level of certainty that is "healthy".

There are those that would have you embrace a complete Uncertainty, in which absolutely nothing is certain (a concept which I believe to be paradoxical, much in the same way as Limitlessness is paradoxical (and this too may be discussed in this thread)). However, there are others who would have you accept some things as certain, and use those things as foundations for progressing in knowledge.

Perhaps there are even some who agree with Descartes' (as quoted above), that we should not trouble ourselves with things that are merely probable, but should stick to that which can be readily demonstrated as factual.

[Mentat]

BTW, Descartes' talks about Arithmetic and Geometry, calling them the only two fields which we can be certain of, because they make themselves evident to us all of the time. There is a lot more to it, than I am posting, but that's because it (the whole second Rule) fills 1 1/2 book pages.

He concludes by saying this:


But one conclusion now emerges out of these considerations, viz. not, indeed, that Arithmetic and Geometry are the sole sciences to be studied, but only that in our search for the direct road towards truth we should busy ourselves with no object about which we cannot attain a certitude equal to that of the demonstrations of Arithmetic and Geometry.

[dr-dock]

what a style this Descartes guy has.really highly inteligent tougths.
i'm like an vilage boy in compare to him.this is how i overtrown uncertainty principle:
E = FX = energy = force times distance
impulse of force = p = Ft = force times time
Et = FXt = pX
Edt+tdE+dEdt=Xdp+pdX+dpdX <=>
(E+dE)dt+tdE=(X+dX)dp+pdX <=>
E'dt+tdE=X'dp+pdX
dp,dX,dE and dt are all proportional
unlike the uncertainty claims:
dEdt>const and dXdp>const reciprocional

[Lifegazer]

I like most of what he says. I think that he could have mentioned the reliability of scientific-law...
As I see it, science is the reasoned-analysis of the sensations. And since the sensations are mere representations of whatever 'reality' may be, then this means that knowledge is questionable. However, I do not think that this extends to science; for scientific-knowledge is concerned with universal-behaviour, rather than with universal-identity. And I see no rational-argument which can be formulated to state that our perceptions of universal-behaviour are doubtfully-unsure... since the Laws of Physics are absolute.
Where our science is sure and absolute, then that knowledge is considered 'absolute' too. Of course, not all scientific-theories are "sure and absolute"; but for reason to have any impact on anything, we must assume that Einstein - as one example - was absolutely correct. And I can see no reason to argue that he isn't.
Physics is the purest of the sciences, I think. Not perfectly pure, but striving to be so.
Not to cause any more argument; but I think that materialism is the 'knowledge' not to be trusted. But science is largely trustable.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I like most of what he says. I think that he could have mentioned the reliability of scientific-law...
As I see it, science is the reasoned-analysis of the sensations. And since the sensations are mere representations of whatever 'reality' may be, then this means that knowledge is questionable. However, I do not think that this extends to science; for scientific-knowledge is concerned with universal-behaviour, rather than with universal-identity. And I see no rational-argument which can be formulated to state that our perceptions of universal-behaviour are doubtfully-unsure... since the Laws of Physics are absolute.
Where our science is sure and absolute, then that knowledge is considered 'absolute' too. Of course, not all scientific-theories are "sure and absolute"; but for reason to have any impact on anything, we must assume that Einstein - as one example - was absolutely correct. And I can see no reason to argue that he isn't.
Physics is the purest of the sciences, I think. Not perfectly pure, but striving to be so.
Not to cause any more argument; but I think that materialism is the 'knowledge' not to be trusted. But science is largely trustable.

So, you agree with Descartes', about relying on what we know to be absolutely true?

What I appreciate about his Second Rule is how he denounces those who would doubt everything that they learn. He says that they might just as well not have learned anything. This coincides with his First Rule (quoted at the end of all of my threads), which shows that the end of study should be the ability to make good judgements in all manners that come before you. If you doubt everything you know, then you will not be able to make sound judgements on any matter that comes before you.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat

The point of this thread is to determine the level of certainty that is "healthy".

Oh, do you intend to do this with certainty?

Descartes was a fundamentalist after Aristotle's own heart. I'd put him up against a southern Baptist preacher any day of the week. Preferably in a nude mudd wrestling contest. :0)

There are those that would have you embrace a complete Uncertainty, in which absolutely nothing is certain (a concept which I believe to be paradoxical, much in the same way as Limitlessness is paradoxical (and this too may be discussed in this thread)). However, there are others who would have you accept some things as certain, and use those things as foundations for progressing in knowledge.


If you are talking about me, I object. This is not what I believe. When I say acceptance of uncertainty I don't mean throw yourself off the cliff or worship QM!!! All I'm saying is stop rejecting it as evil, axiomatically false, etc. That you haven't been able to hear me saying that over and over again after all this time reminds me of just how futile it is to argue with a Southern Baptist preacher as well!

Perhaps there are even some who agree with Descartes' (as quoted above), that we should not trouble ourselves with things that are merely probable, but should stick to that which can be readily demonstrated as factual.

The paradox of existence is factual. It constitutes demonstrable emperical evidence. Likewise, the chaos of QM constitutes demonstrable emperical evidence. Neither one proves anything beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I leave such absolute faith in the way things are to Southern Baptists and others.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
What I appreciate about his Second Rule is how he denounces those who would doubt everything that they learn.

There are two questions to be asked about existence:-
1. What is it? This is a question of identity.
2. What is it doing? This is a question of behaviour.

I believe that science is largely the study of question-2. It doesn't really address question-1. And question-1 is the thing which most of us cannot agree upon. That's why people who give you answers to question-1 are largely regarded as 'chancers', at the very-best. The answers to this question are extremely diverse. But scientific-law is true. There is a universal-acknowledgement of universal-behaviour.
Some knowledge is fact. Since some knowledge is universal. Exactly like the mathematics and geometry he mentioned. And this includes much scientific-stuff.
That's why I feel justified/comfortable in using scientific-axioms as the basis of my philosophy.

[Mentat]

Please, let me clarify, I'm not talking about the Uncertainty Principle of QM. I was talking about the principle of Uncertainty, where one is supposed to be uncertain of all things (see posts in the thread, "I think therefore I am", fourth page).

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
Please, let me clarify, I'm not talking about the Uncertainty Principle of QM. I was talking about the principle of Uncertainty, where one is supposed to be uncertain of all things (see posts in the thread, "I think therefore I am", fourth page).

That's just as bizarre and paradoxical as saying it is certain nothing is random.... I like it! But that doesn't mean I believe it.

[Mentat]

I apologize for the confusion. It is entirely my fault.

Again, I'm talking about Uncertainty (with a capital "U") as meaning the state of being Uncertain of all things. I was not wishing to discuss QM's uncertainty. Please forgive my blunder, in not making myself more clear.

[wuliheron]

No sweat, semantics in philosophy are just too touchy an issue to get upset by the occational mistake.

[jammieg]

One can't go about doubting everything, it's a complete waste of time believe me I've tried, but then the mind needs and craves a concrete framework on which to build knowledge. To me the base is simply God exists and is everything, and everything after that is merely variations of so true as to virtually never require doubt, to high probability truth, to low probability truth, to entirely crackpot products of my own imagination or my crazy friends on physicsforums.com.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
There is a universal-acknowledgement of universal-behaviour. And when did you get that 'universal acknowledgement'?
Have you made an agreement not only with all the earthlings, but also all the otherlings around the universe?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by jammieg
One can't go about doubting everything, it's a complete waste of time believe me I've tried, but then the mind needs and craves a concrete framework on which to build knowledge. To me the base is simply God exists and is everything, and everything after that is merely variations of so true as to virtually never require doubt, to high probability truth, to low probability truth, to entirely crackpot products of my own imagination or my crazy friends on physicsforums.com.

Since your argument (taking the existence of God as a fact) contains the assumption that there is no material world in the first place, you have not stopped doubting, but have transformed that doubt in an Absolute Doubt (about the material world).

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
And when did you get that 'universal acknowledgement'?
Have you made an agreement not only with all the earthlings, but also all the otherlings around the universe?
I trust that the laws of physics are singular.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
That's just as bizarre and paradoxical as saying it is certain nothing is random.... I like it! But that doesn't mean I believe it.

I agree that it is paradoxical. In the thread, "I think therefore I am", I related it to the Paradox of Limitlessness (do you see the connection?).

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Descartes [:D]
But one conclusion now emerges out of these
considerations, viz. not, indeed, that
Arithmetic and Geometry are the sole
sciences to be studied, but only that
in our search for the direct road
towards truth we should busy ourselves
with no object about which we cannot
attain a certitude equal to that of the
demonstrations of Arithmetic and Geometry.

Well, first of all - there are more mathematical
fields availible today. [;)]
Second, if only the same levels of certainty
as mathematics are required then I'm afraid
I can't press the keyboard anymore because
I'm highly uncertain of its existence... [g)]
Something Wu Li said about mud-bath wrestling
comes to mind when I read that stuff. [:D]

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
I agree that it is paradoxical. In the thread, "I think therefore I am", I related it to the Paradox of Limitlessness (do you see the connection?).

Exactly, it seems all paradoxes either succumb to rational explanations or are eventually reduced to variations of the Liar's Paradox or the Sorites Heap Paradox. Either they explicitely defy explanation according to our current understanding or they contain vague terms like infinity or indeterminacy. The paradox of existence, can be described using either paradox.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Well, first of all - there are more mathematical
fields availible today. [;)]
Second, if only the same levels of certainty
as mathematics are required then I'm afraid
I can't press the keyboard anymore because
I'm highly uncertain of its existence... [g)]
Something Wu Li said about mud-bath wrestling
comes to mind when I read that stuff. [:D]

Live long and prosper.

According to Descartes' reasoning, it seems that your doubt of your own existence makes you just as one who doesn't exist (or something like that). IOW, your existence loses meaning when you start to doubt it.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Exactly, it seems all paradoxes either succumb to rational explanations or are eventually reduced to variations of the Liar's Paradox or the Sorites Heap Paradox. Either they explicitely defy explanation according to our current understanding or they contain vague terms like infinity or indeterminacy.


Good point.


The paradox of existence, can be described using either paradox.

What paradox of existence? [;)]

Actually, this is an important point. You say that all paradoxes can be either explained, or reduced to the same kind of paradox as the Liar's paradox. However, I see no paradox of existence that even resembles the Liar's paradox. Yes, I understand that you use "paradox" to mean "inexplicable" usually, and I may or may not agree with that, but I don't see any kind of self-contradiction in existence, and the Liar's paradox is that kind of paradox (the self-contradictory kind).

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
Good point.



What paradox of existence? [;)]

Actually, this is an important point. You say that all paradoxes can be either explained, or reduced to the same kind of paradox as the Liar's paradox. However, I see no paradox of existence that even resembles the Liar's paradox. Yes, I understand that you use "paradox" to mean "inexplicable" usually, and I may or may not agree with that, but I don't see any kind of self-contradiction in existence, and the Liar's paradox is that kind of paradox (the self-contradictory kind).

Existence is apparently vague and explicite simultaniously. There is no clear explanation for existence, no clear proof of the specific validity or disposition of existence. Yet there is evidence in Quantum Mechanics, for example, that a cat can somehow be both alive and dead simultaneously. In other words, that Existence cannot be proven to be true. This is a variation of the Liar's Paradox which can be rephrased as Existence is false. If true, then the statement contradicts its own existence. If false, then the statement again contradicts itself.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Existence is apparently vague and explicite simultaniously.

"Existence is vague"? vagueness is a possible attribute of our descriptions, not of "existence". You could probably say that the concept of existence is vague, but in order to say that existence itself is vague, you would need to be much more specific in your use of the word... which is a nice irony (not a paradox, btw).

There is no clear explanation for existence

Agreed, but that does not pose a paradox.

no clear proof of the specific validity or disposition of existence.

A proof can be provided for arguments or mathematical relations (i.e., well defined assertions), not about "disposition". Also, what would be the "validity" of existence?

Yet there is evidence in Quantum Mechanics, for example, that a cat can somehow be both alive and dead simultaneously.

Which contradicts nothing you have said so far. No paradox there.

In other words, that Existence cannot be proven to be true.

The phrase in italics doesn't make sense. As in the case of "proof", the concept of "truth" also applies to descriptions and statements, "existence" is none of them.

The case is similar to saying "archeology cannot be proven to be red".

This is a variation of the Liar's Paradox which can be rephrased as

What are you refering to with "This"?

Existence is false. If true, then the statement contradicts its own existence.

OK so far,

If false, then the statement again contradicts itself.

Not at all. In order to embed some meaning on the phrase

"Existence is false"

we need to twist the meaning and applicability of "false". The only sensible way to do it (that vaguely resembles the intent of the rest of your post) would be to interpret it as "existence can not be verified" or maybe "existence cannot be explained", which are not self-referential statements, and both can perfectly well be false without contradicting themselves.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron
"Existence is vague"? vagueness is a possible attribute of our descriptions, not of "existence". You could probably say that the concept of existence is vague, but in order to say that existence itself is vague, you would need to be much more specific in your use of the word... which is a nice irony (not a paradox, btw).

Sorry, but a cat being both alive and dead at the same time is not axiomatically an indication our concepts are vague. Existence is vague and whether or not this is merely our conceptual limitations or the actual reality is debatable.

Agreed, but that does not pose a paradox.

It poses a mystery, just as paradox does.

A proof can be provided for arguments or mathematical relations (i.e., well defined assertions), not about "disposition". Also, what would be the "validity" of existence?

Disposition refers to a physical property or tendency as much as an emotional state. Thus it covers all the bases. As for validity, that refers to what we perceive.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In other words, that Existence cannot be proven to be true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The phrase in italics doesn't make sense. As in the case of "proof", the concept of "truth" also applies to descriptions and statements, "existence" is none of them. The case is similar to saying "archeology cannot be proven to be red".


Are you saying that to say you exist is not a description? If so, what is existence if not nonexistence? To say I exist is a description, to say Santa doesn't exist is to say something. To say existence is valid, true, worthwhile, etc. is to say something.

we need to twist the meaning and applicability of "false". The only sensible way to do it (that vaguely resembles the intent of the rest of your post) would be to interpret it as "existence can not be verified" or maybe "existence cannot be explained", which are not self-referential statements, and both can perfectly well be false without contradicting themselves.

Truth and falsehood are not the same thing as existence, that's why we have seperate words for them.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by ahrkron Agreed, but that does not pose a paradox.
It poses a mystery, just as paradox does.

Sure. They both produce a state of mind that we tag as "mystery". That does not imply they are the same (both apples and blood are red, but blood is not apples).

[QUOTE]Disposition refers to a physical property or tendency as much as an emotional state.

Yes and, as such, it does not make sense that you "prove it". You can prove that a configuration (or disposition) has some specific attributes, or that a system/person/thing has a given configuration.

Maybe instead of "there's no clear proof of the disposition of existence" you meant "there's no clear proof that the disposition of existence has to be as it is" or something of that sort. I frankly cannot tell what was your intent.

As for validity, that refers to what we perceive.

Again, you were referring to the "proof of the validity of existence". What do you mean "the validity of existence", and what would you consider a "proof" for it?

Are you saying that to say you exist is not a description?

To say you exist is a description, whereas
existence is not.

To say I exist is a description, to say Santa doesn't exist is to say something.

yes, because the predicates can be applied to the subjects, and the resulting phrase makes enough sense to be tested and classified as true or false.

To say existence is valid, true, worthwhile, etc. is to say something.

"worthwhile" works fine. "True" and "valid", on the other hand, make ill-defined phrases.
"Existence is valid", "existence is true" are not well defined. They do evoke some mental images, but they are far from being clear statements.

Truth and falsehood are not the same thing as existence, that's why we have seperate words for them. [/B]

I'm missing your point here.

[wuliheron]

quote:
Disposition refers to a physical property or tendency as much as an emotional state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes and, as such, it does not make sense that you "prove it". You can prove that a configuration (or disposition) has some specific attributes, or that a system/person/thing has a given configuration.

Maybe instead of "there's no clear proof of the disposition of existence" you meant "there's no clear proof that the disposition of existence has to be as it is" or something of that sort. I frankly cannot tell what was your intent.


You are not making sense. We Can prove the disposition of water is to freeze below a certain temperature, we Can prove a lion's disposition is to hunt, etc. Thus far we have proven existence may not predate the big bang and may have end at some point in the distant future, but its disposition remains mysterious.

Again, you were referring to the "proof of the validity of existence". What do you mean "the validity of existence", and what would you consider a "proof" for it?


Emperical evidence for a TOE would be nice. More than likely such evidence would have to be statistical in nature.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you saying that to say you exist is not a description?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To say you exist is a description, whereas
existence is not.


To use the word "existence" without a context is utter nonsense, even my six year old has that much sense. That you say you cannot understand such simple statements speaks volumes. Obviously you have a command of the enlgish language, your arguments and questions are nonsense.

Personally, I like to believe I exist and that my existence has meaning, that the universe outside of my perception is real, etc. but the validity and disposition of existence as it is commonly perceived are questionable according to modern physics. Nonetheless, questions remain and the origins of existence remain paradoxical.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
We Can prove the disposition of water is to freeze below a certain temperature, we Can prove a lion's disposition is to hunt, etc. Thus far we have proven existence may not predate the big bang and may have end at some point in the distant future, but its disposition remains mysterious.

You managed to use three different meanings for the word disposition in as many instances. Such ambiguity certainly allows for many incorrect statements to be built that appear sensible.

Emperical evidence for a TOE would be nice. More than likely such evidence would have to be statistical in nature.

Are you ever going to specifically answer what you were referring to as "the validity of existence"?


To use the word "existence" without a context is utter nonsense

Any word needs context. What I am arguing here is that many apparent paradoxes come from stretching the use and applicability of words.

That you say you cannot understand such simple statements speaks volumes.

Instead of edging an ad hominem, why don't you take some time to clarify how your statement

Truth and falsehood are not the same thing as existence, that's why we have seperate words for them

related to what I said:
In order to embed some meaning on the phrase

"Existence is false"

we need to twist the meaning and applicability of "false". The only sensible way to do it (that vaguely resembles the intent of the rest of your post) would be to interpret it as "existence can not be verified" or maybe "existence cannot be explained", which are not self-referential statements, and both can perfectly well be false without contradicting themselves.

Back to your most recent post...

Personally, I like to believe I exist and that my existence has meaning, that the universe outside of my perception is real, etc. but the validity and disposition of existence as it is commonly perceived are questionable according to modern physics.

Here, you seem to be actually referring to the validity of the common perception of existence, but you also keep talking about the validity of existence itself.

My main point with the last few posts has been that such language ambiguities can easily lead to "paradoxical" accounts of anything, and that this is not because "paradox" is interwoven in the fabric of reality, or any similarly grandiose-sounding statement, but because of ambiguous/inaccurate descriptions.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by wuliheron
There is no clear explanation for existence

Originally posted by ahrkron
Agreed, but that does not pose a paradox.

Nope, what does is the apparent inability
of providing a clear explanation according
to all reasoning capabilities we have so far.
So, it's not something that hasn't been
explained yet, it is something that so
far isn't supposed to have an explanation.
(Of course, we can't prove our current
reasoning capabilities will not change and
improve to accomodate existence in the future -
but because of the many faces that characterize
the PoE - the possibility of such new reasoning
is one of the most uncertain things ever.)
Originally posted by Mentat
According to Descartes' reasoning, it
seems that your doubt of your own existence
makes you just as one who doesn't exist
(or something like that). IOW, your existence
loses meaning when you start to doubt it.

But, that's not fair ! I'm not certain of
my existence like I am of math ! [g)]
Oh... NO ! I'm turning into a shadow ! [8)]
Oh... Yes ! This is the perfect cloacking
device - just tell people to doubt their
existence - I'm gonna be a rich shadow ! [:D]

Live long and prosper.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron
You managed to use three different meanings for the word disposition in as many instances. Such ambiguity certainly allows for many incorrect statements to be built that appear sensible.


Ambiguity is inherent in the situation. Modern science itself is ambiguous about existence. Currently there are eight widely respected distinct theories about existence. Some say everything is geometry, mind, information, etc. and which it might be is anyone's guess. To speak of existence in anything other than ambiguous terms is to express bias.


Are you ever going to specifically answer what you were referring to as "the validity of existence"?


Once I dreamed I was a butterfly, or am I really a butterfly dreaming I am a man?
Chuang Tzu

One of the more common suggestions for Quantum weirdness is that our universe is embedded inside or influenced by another we cannot perceive. Just as humanity once believed the earth was flat, we may find that our perception of existence is entirely invalid or that existence presents a much more muddled a connundrum than we perceive.


Any word needs context. What I am arguing here is that many apparent paradoxes come from stretching the use and applicability of words.


It appears to me it is You who are stretching the meaning of words entirely out of context and merely making communication difficult. In particular, because you insist on imposing your own biased view of existence on any discussion of the concept. The idea that all paradoxes are merely semantic difficulties of language is nothing new, but logicians and other serious scholars disagree.

The Liar's Paradox is a case in point. After two thousand years of research it is considered anything but ambiguous. Of course, if a compulsive liar says, "Everything I say is a lie" the Liar's Paradox is given a context that makes rational sense if not logical sense. However, it is not so easy to give all of existence such a clarifying context.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, I like to believe I exist and that my existence has meaning, that the universe outside of my perception is real, etc. but the validity and disposition of existence as it is commonly perceived are questionable according to modern physics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here, you seem to be actually referring to the validity of the common perception of existence, but you also keep talking about the validity of existence itself.

My main point with the last few posts has been that such language ambiguities can easily lead to "paradoxical" accounts of anything, and that this is not because "paradox" is interwoven in the fabric of reality, or any similarly grandiose-sounding statement, but because of ambiguous/inaccurate descriptions.

The idea of existence having any sort of "validity" entirely outside of the human context and perception is bizarre to say the least. Yet another indication of your unwillingness to contemplate the subject objectively.

Personally, I don't know if existence really is paradoxical or not... nor does it matter one wit to me. If modern science discovers we are all riding on the back of a giant turtle I will still live my life as I always have. You are free, of course, to hide your head in the sand instead and assert it is merely a semantic difficulty without so much as a shred of evidence to support such a position and, in fact, in direct defiance of the evidence.

Go ahead, prove there is no such thing as paradox. Prove the Liar's Paradox is just a result of ambiguity and vagueness. The fact is, you cannot and your arguments are just so much biased garbage. The word paradox and its definition remain in the dictionary because it is still useful whether you wish to acknowledge these simple facts or not.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Of course, if a compulsive liar says, "Everything I say is a lie" the Liar's Paradox is given a context that makes rational sense if not logical sense.

I wasn't sure what the liar's paradox was, to be honest. But now you've mentioned it, I don't even see it as a paradox. Because if somebody always tells lies, then it would be impossible for that person to state "Everything I say is a lie" - simply because he would declaring a statement of truth, thus contradicting his own nature. So where's the paradox?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I wasn't sure what the liar's paradox was, to be honest. But now you've mentioned it, I don't even see it as a paradox. Because if somebody always tells lies, then it would be impossible for that person to state "Everything I say is a lie" - simply because he would declaring a statement of truth, thus contradicting his own nature. So where's the paradox?

Having a compulsion to lie does not mean it is impossible to tell the truth, just possibly more difficult than for the rest of us.
Irregardless, the paradox remains in that if they are not a compulsive liar they can most definitely make the statement. Then the paradox arises, if true then the statement is false, if false then the statement is true.

[Lifegazer]

This isn't an example of a paradox. It's like the guy who never speaks saying "I never speak.". It just means that the guy is being contrary to his own nature, because he obviously does speak. Similarly; the guy who says "I always tell lies." must speak the truth to make the statement. So he just contradicts his own nature. There is no paradox.

[Greg Bernhardt]

So he just contradicts his own nature.
By definition thats what a paradox is.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
But, that's not fair ! I'm not certain of
my existence like I am of math ! [g)]
Oh... NO ! I'm turning into a shadow ! [8)]
Oh... Yes ! This is the perfect cloacking
device - just tell people to doubt their
existence - I'm gonna be a rich shadow ! [:D]

Live long and prosper. [/B]

Very funny. I wasn't saying that you stop existing, by doubting it. I'm saying that anything you learn about your existence will be rather worthless (according to Descartes' reasoning), because you doubt your own existence (and your existence is required for you to take in knowledge). It's like saying that doubting the premise makes all other assertions, that are based on that premise, doubtful - and, according to Descartes, doubt makes any new knowledge worthless.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
This isn't an example of a paradox. It's like the guy who never speaks saying "I never speak.". It just means that the guy is being contrary to his own nature, because he obviously does speak. Similarly; the guy who says "I always tell lies." must speak the truth to make the statement. So he just contradicts his own nature. There is no paradox.

Saying "I never speak" is just lying.

Let me try and explain the Liar's paradox another way. Let's take another statement, that is a derivative of the Liar's Paradox: This statement is false. You have two choices, either the statement is false, or it is true. However, if it is true, then the statement really is false (as that's what the statement is stating - "This statement is false"). And, if it is false, then the statement must be true (because that's what it states - "This statement is false"). Thus, in being true, it must be false; and in being false, it must be true. Thus, paradox - as it cannot be true or false, but most be both and neither.

Personally, I don't think that the Liar's Paradox really works exactly the same way. In fact, I think that it is a resolvable paradox. However, the one above ("This statement is false") is not resolvable.

I guess people relate the two, because by saying "everything I say is a lie", I am including that statement, and thus saying that that statement is false. But, I could be lying, when I say "everything I say is a lie", and thus it doesn't have to result in the "This statement is false" paradox.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat

... by saying "everything I say is a lie", I am including that statement, and thus saying that that statement is false. But, I could be lying, when I say "everything I say is a lie", and thus it doesn't have to result in the "This statement is false" paradox. [/B]

If you are lying about lying, then you are telling the truth which contradicts the fact that you were lying.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Greg Bernhardt
By definition thats what a paradox is.
I thought a paradox was when there was no explanation for a specific event/phenomenon?
I don't see how somebody telling lies fits into this category.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If you are lying about lying, then you are telling the truth which contradicts the fact that you were lying.
-6 x -6 = 36 ... Is that a paradox?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If you are lying about lying, then you are telling the truth which contradicts the fact that you were lying.

Ah, I see. However, it still seems that "Everything I say is a Lie" is much too general. "This statement is false" is specific, and is thus an obvious paradox. "Everything I say is a lie" could just as easily be a lie, and there is thus no need to ponder the statement, because I wasn't telling the truth when I said it, but could just as well have told the truth many other times in my life.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
-6 x -6 = 36 ... Is that a paradox?

No. Why would it be? It's as obvious as 6 x 6 = 36, isn't it?

[Greg Bernhardt]

I thought a paradox was when there was no explanation for a specific event/phenomenon?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=paradox

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by Mentat
No. Why would it be? It's as obvious as 6 x 6 = 36, isn't it?
If you are lying (-6) about (x) lying (-6), then you are telling (=) the truth (36) which contradicts the fact that you were lying.

Why doesn't -6 x -6 = -36 then?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
-6 x -6 = 36 ... Is that a paradox?

Without context there is no way to decide if this statement is a paradox or not. What we were discussing is a qualitative paradox where numerical values cannot be assigned to the qualities. What you have created is a quantitative statement that only applies in certain circumstances. Not every system of mathematics is the same and in some systems of mathematics it most certainly Is a paradox while in others it is not.

Likewise, you are assigning multiplication as the function in the place of a lie about a lie which is not a multiplication function. In other words, you could write this out in the context of lies and saying:

Six lies times six lies equals thirty six truths, which is most definitely a paradox.

When the statement is more correctly written out as:

A lie plus a lie equals a truth.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
If you are lying (-6) about (x) lying (-6), then you are telling (=) the truth (36) which contradicts the fact that you were lying.


Say what? I don't know how you related -6 to lying, or the truth to 36, or "about" to x, but the reasoning is based on these assumptions (that -6 = lying, and such), and is thus very strange, from my perspective.


Why doesn't -6 x -6 = -36 then?

It's a basic principle of math. Do you honestly not understand this?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Mentat
Ah, I see. However, it still seems that "Everything I say is a Lie" is much too general. "This statement is false" is specific, and is thus an obvious paradox. "Everything I say is a lie" could just as easily be a lie, and there is thus no need to ponder the statement, because I wasn't telling the truth when I said it, but could just as well have told the truth many other times in my life.

Of course any paradox can be resolved if you make assumptions about it, the issue is that without making those assumptions it remains a paradox. For example, I could assume that This statement is false is actually refering to another statement that really is false.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Of course any paradox can be resolved if you make assumptions about it, the issue is that without making those assumptions it remains a paradox. For example, I could assume that This statement is false is actually refering to another statement that really is false.

If a statement is supposed to refer to another statement, it would use the word "that", not "this". Besides, I wasn't making any assumptions. The person could really be lying, when stating the statemtent of the Liar's paradox.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Without context there is no way to decide if this statement is a paradox or not. What we were discussing is a qualitative paradox where numerical values cannot be assigned to the qualities. What you have created is a quantitative statement that only applies in certain circumstances. Not every system of mathematics is the same and in some systems of mathematics it most certainly Is a paradox while in others it is not.

Likewise, you are assigning multiplication as the function in the place of a lie about a lie which is not a multiplication function. In other words, you could write this out in the context of lies and saying:

Six lies times six lies equals thirty six truths, which is most definitely a paradox.

When the statement is more correctly written out as:

A lie plus a lie equals a truth.
Oh, I guess I was thinking about your previous example of the "liar's paradox" where he states he "always lies." Does that add any more clarification? Of course your example of the "six lies times six lies equals thirty six truths" does seem to speak of paradox ... whereas in the mathematical sense (according to Mentat) it makes perfect sense. Or does it?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Six lies times six lies equals thirty six truths, which is most definitely a paradox.



No it's not. It's simply undoable. You can't multiply the one amount of lies by another amount of lies. The very idea lacks meaning.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
To speak of existence in anything other than ambiguous terms is to express bias.

Everybody is free to decide to use ambiguous descriptions, as long as s/he is aware that no valid conclusions can be drawn from them.

Just as humanity once believed the earth was flat, we may find that our perception of existence is entirely invalid or that existence presents a much more muddled a connundrum than we perceive.

Again, it is apparent that you keep jumping from "validity of existence" to the "validity of perception". As I said before, I'm convinced that most of the apparently paradoxical statements in your posts come from such an abuse of language.

It appears to me it is You who are stretching the meaning of words entirely out of context and merely making communication difficult.

It may seem that way to you, but my intent is not making exchange difficult. Rather, It is my intent to show how many statements you have made in support of your thesis (that "paradox is everywhere") come from ambiguities in your use of language. Of course you don't agree, but I think you are (enormously) overstating the role of paradox, and that it is only fair to present the opposite view in the forum (especially since it is my honest opinion).

you insist on imposing your own biased view of existence on any discussion of the concept.

This is a gross misrepresentation (misunderstanding?). I'm not imposing any view about existence. Rather, I'm saying that, if it has any merit, any view should be able to be presented using, at the very least, clear statements.

The idea that all paradoxes are merely semantic difficulties of language is nothing new, but logicians and other serious scholars disagree.

I disagree as well. I never said that ALL paradoxes are due to incorrect descriptions. What I keep saying is that you construct "paradoxical" statements way too often based on such ambiguous/incorrect descriptions.

Real paradoxes do exist, and they can only be identified and studied by being as accurate as possible in their description. Otherwise, we would just accumulate a huge number of "might-be" paradoxes, most of which would be just a result of mixing scientific and new-age notions of frequencies, energies, dispositions, dimensions and what not.

In particular, the paradox that constitutes the gist of Goedel's theorem was meticulously built and studied using formal logic. It is a beautiful piece of math, and an extremely rigorous account of the limits of decidability.

your arguments are just so much biased garbage.

You are entitled to your opinions.

[DrChinese]

Referring to the question posed earlier - how to determine the level of certainty that is "healthy"...

I am a utilitarian, a pragmatist. Knowledge may be incomplete but nonetheless useful. If I waited to know subjects with greater certainty, I would miss most of life.

At one time, I was a student of math because it was so pure and satisfying. I believe this is what Descartes is referring to. But how useless is math when applied to human behavior? We understand so little about the human mind, yet it is something we must deal with every day.

So my conclusion is that working with imperfect knowledge is the norm, and is always "healthy" if it is useful. Many times, even wrong ideas have predictive value. But they lose out to yet better ideas which have greater predictive value, even if the predictive value is still not perfect (or even optimal).

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Oh, I guess I was thinking about your previous example of the "liar's paradox" where he states he "always lies." Does that add any more clarification? Of course your example of the "six lies times six lies equals thirty six truths" does seem to speak of paradox ... whereas in the mathematical sense (according to Mentat) it makes perfect sense. Or does it?

Yes, its an imperfect analogy I just made up on the spot. Mentat is quite right that the functions of mathematics do not translate exactly.

Originally posted by Mentat
No it's not. It's simply undoable. You can't multiply the one amount of lies by another amount of lies. The very idea lacks meaning.

Yes, it lacks linear logical meaning, but somehow conveyed a message as Iacchus indicated. Jazz is not an exact science, but more a matter of the heart and soul than anything else.

Originally posted by ahrkron
Everybody is free to decide to use ambiguous descriptions, as long as s/he is aware that no valid conclusions can be drawn from them.

This seems to be just about all you have to say, your entire argument. Conservative fundamentalism. If it makes you happy, I'm happy for you. However, I feel no need whatsoever to keep answering what are essentially the same questions over and over again. If you don't get it, don't trust it, etc. that's just too bad. A lot of people don't appreciate jazz. It can be an acquired taste.

Of course, as many critics of early jazz said, you could do anything. The avant-garde can be so much meaningless garbage. The issue is not so much whether it is meaningless issure more or less often, but do serious works emerge from it that can leap ahead of more ploding conservative efforts. The answer, of course, is yes.

Quantitative science can do a great deal, but it has yet to duplicate the human mind and especially creativity. When it does, then I may take your redundant and ignorant criticism to heart.

[drag]

Greetings !

ahrkron, I'd appreciate it if you'll also
answer what I said. I'm trying (as ussual) the
direct approach, but for some reason you
seem content to keep discussing ambigous
stuff and small points of semantics with wuli.
Thanks. [t)]

Mentat, from what you mentioned so far this
Descartes guy doesn't seem that wise to me.
If he said, for example, we have to be as certain
of stuff as of math - which is an abstract
theory, and if he said doubt is destructive
while doubt is the basis for any exploration
of any kind - well, he just doesn't earn many
points from me. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If you don't get it, don't trust it, etc. that's just too bad. A lot of people don't appreciate jazz. It can be an acquired taste.

As I said, I didn't expect you to agree.

I do appreciate Jazz and are well aware of the ambiguity and contradiction present in human motivations and behavior. I just don't think poetry makes good arguments and, as I said, I think it is not small stuff that people support arguments and world views with only such half-built logic.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron
As I said, I didn't expect you to agree.

I do appreciate Jazz and are well aware of the ambiguity and contradiction present in human motivations and behavior. I just don't think poetry makes good arguments and, as I said, I think it is not small stuff that people support arguments and world views with only such half-built logic.

It is not "half-built" logic, quite the contrary, it is the cutting edge just as Jazz is the cutting edge in music. It is also the basis for how half of humanity views the world.

Science is not always the perfectly symmetrical and harmonious music of the spheres, but often improvisational. If science rejected every theory with loose ends we would not be using Newtonian Mechanics due to its etherial treatment of spacetime and its almost magical vision of the action at a distance of gravity--not to mention the use of paradoxical infinities in calculus.

The two best examples of extremely useful scientific theories built around paradox that I know of are Quantum Mechanics and Relational Frame Theory.

http://www.relationalframetheory.com/forum/index.html

If anything, your objections to such theories and philosophies is half-baked. Before you start attacking the slippery semantics of such theories I suggest you learn more about them.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by drag
ahrkron, I'd appreciate it if you'll also
answer what I said.

I will.

for some reason you seem content to keep discussing ambigous stuff and small points of semantics with wuli.

I don't think they're small stuff. Neither are they big issues, but I just got hooked on them because of the kind of replies he made.

Point well taken though.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by wuliheron
If science rejected every theory with loose ends [...]

It is not the loose ends I contend with, but your way of "inserting paradoxes" via word games/misuse.

If anything, your objections to such theories and philosophies is half-baked. Before you start attacking the slippery semantics of such theories I suggest you learn more about them. [/B]

So, I say
"I think many of the paradoxes you mention are misunderstandings on your part"
and you reply
"so you are attacking these theories, that in my opinion are paradoxical".

Not in the least bit.

Anyway, I think we've both made our points in this respect, and the original intent of the thread was more interesting than this.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by ahrkron

It is not the loose ends I contend with, but your way of "inserting paradoxes" via word games/misuse.

And I contend that you obviously are deliberately refusing to acknowledge even the simplest context I use, contesting the simplest definitions of words, and in general just making a pain-in-the-butt of yourself. You are not seriously debating the issue, but instead, merely attacking the concept like a lot of ethnocentric bigots are prone to do.

So, I say
"I think many of the paradoxes you mention are misunderstandings on your part"
and you reply
"so you are attacking these theories, that in my opinion are paradoxical".

Not in the least bit.

Anyway, I think we've both made our points in this respect, and the original intent of the thread was more interesting than this.

I certainly hope I've made my point, it was squarely aimed at you. Stop being so cententious over paradoxical viewpoints. If you have a serious argument to make, I welcome it. If all you are going to do is take everything I say out of context and split hairs, please keep it to yourself.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Mentat, from what you mentioned so far this
Descartes guy doesn't seem that wise to me.
If he said, for example, we have to be as certain
of stuff as of math - which is an abstract
theory, and if he said doubt is destructive
while doubt is the basis for any exploration
of any kind - well, he just doesn't earn many
points from me. [;)]

Live long and prosper. [/B]

In defense of Descartes: He didn't say that we have to be a certain of things as we are of math, but as certain as we are of Arithmetic and Geometry. These things are obvious, and readily demonstrable, and thus do not fit the category of "abstract theory" as you said. Also, he didn't really say that doubt was destructive, so much as he was saying that to doubt everything that you learn is to make you no better than someone who has yet to learn whatever it is you learned, because you will not make good application of it.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
to doubt everything that you learn is to
make you no better than someone who has yet
to learn whatever it is you learned, because
you will not make good application of it.
And what's the point in that statement ?
Sounds just like one of those wise-***
slogans that sometimes fit the situation.

For ahrkron (a reminder about the PoE stuff[;)]) :
"What DOES pose a paradox is the apparent inability
of providing a clear explanation according
to all reasoning capabilities we have so far.
So, it's not something that hasn't been
explained yet, it is something that so
far isn't supposed to have an explanation.
(Of course, we can't prove our current
reasoning capabilities will not change and
improve to accomodate existence in the future -
but because of the many faces that characterize
the PoE - the possibility of such new reasoning
is one of the most uncertain things ever.)"


Live long and prosper.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by drag
For ahrkron (a reminder about the PoE stuff[;)]) :
"What DOES pose a paradox is the apparent inability of providing a clear explanation according to all reasoning capabilities we have so far.

(Thanks for the reminder [:)])

Why does that pose a paradox? There is no reason to expect that reasoning should produce a "clear explanation" for every problem.

Think of it as a bunch of chemicals on a huge petri dish. After a big while, lots of small formations can reproduce, and they develop behaviors they pass on to their successors. Among such behaviors there are "reasoning" (whatever that is), and a name for the sensation they have when such "resoning capability" produces some sort of pleasure. They classify as a "clear explanation" the sequence of thoughts they have when such pleasure is felt.

Why would they expect their "reasoning" behavior to produce such a sequence for every possible problem?

So, it's not something that hasn't been
explained yet, it is something that so far isn't supposed to have an explanation.

Even if that was the case, why would that pose a paradox?

(Of course, we can't prove our current
reasoning capabilities will not change and
improve to accomodate existence in the future -
but because of the many faces that characterize
the PoE - the possibility of such new reasoning
is one of the most uncertain things ever.)

But in order to have a paradox, you need more than uncertainty; there should be a contradictory statement that, at least apparently, has a similarly solid logical support.

[Royce]

I think Descartes had it wrong when he said "I think; therefore, I am."
In my opinion it should be 'I am; therefore, I think.'
I have no idea who first said; "The more I learn the less I know."
Which, of course, means the the better educated we are, the more we learn, the more we know that there is so much more to learn and that very little is known for certain. I have said in other threads that I know nothing. It is one of my favorite lines and is meant to be taken literally.
I can only perceive the world, reality, through my senses and I know my senses are limited and fallable. I can only read what others have written and hear what others say and judge for myself if it is logical, correct, true, probable, impobable or wrong.
If we were to take Descartes literally we could and would study and learn nothing for I believe that we can know very little for certain.
Even Arithemtic and Math have theories, assumptions not always true and are lifetime studies even though there are those who believe that math is a purely mental construction and have no real basis.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce

I have no idea who first said; "The more I learn the less I know."
Which, of course, means the the better educated we are, the more we learn, the more we know that there is so much more to learn and that very little is known for certain. I have said in other threads that I know nothing. It is one of my favorite lines and is meant to be taken literally.

"The more I know, the more sure I am I know so little.
The eternal paradox."
James Clavell


The Zen and Taoists like to say they are just a beginner. :0)

In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities,
but in the expert's mind there are few.
- Shunryu Suzuki

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Royce
I think Descartes had it wrong when he said "I think; therefore, I am."
In my opinion it should be 'I am; therefore, I think.'

The point is that your existence is confirmed via thought. You cannot confirm your existence without your thoughts. Therefore, there is no logical-legitimacy in your statement.

I have no idea who first said; "The more I learn the less I know."
Which, of course, means the the better educated we are, the more we learn, the more we know that there is so much more to learn and that very little is known for certain. I have said in other threads that I know nothing. It is one of my favorite lines and is meant to be taken literally.

You know *nothing*? I find it ironical that people who adhere to such philsophy often have alot to say. No offense intended.

I can only perceive the world, reality, through my senses and I know my senses are limited and fallable.

Our sensations are the basis of the known laws of physics. And our physicists are knocking at creation's door. So are our philosophers. You do an injustice to the majesty of our sensations - and I'm not speaking aesthetically here.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I think Descartes had it wrong when he said "I think; therefore, I am."
In my opinion it should be 'I am; therefore, I think.'


The point is that your existence is confirmed via thought. You cannot confirm your existence without your thoughts. Therefore, there is no logical-legitimacy in your statement.

Let:
p : The fact that I exist
q : The fact that I think


Logical assertion:
~p -> ~q (If I don't exist, I don't think)

Which implies:
q -> p (If I think, I exist)

Fact: q
p (I think: therefore I exist)

So, Descartes first tested q, and stated affirmitive that "I think", and then concludes that "I am" (I exist).

The statement "I am, therefore I think" is not following from this, nor directly nor indirectly. While it is true that when I am not, neither I think, it is not the case that when I don't think, therefore I am not.

A stone 'IS', but it does not think. So for a stone the following is true : 'I am'. Being doesn't require thinking. Thinking on the other hand requires Being.

So, Descartes was right in that, and made the logical conclusion that from the fact that he was thinking it can be concluded that he exists/is.

This is just based on the premise that thinking requires being.
Nowhere it says however that being requires thinking. A stone is, but does not think. A river is, but does not think. The universe is, but does not think (#)


(#) although it can be argued that we are a part of the universe, and we think, it follows then also that the universe thinks...

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by ahrkron
(Thanks for the reminder [:)])

(Thanks for answering [:)])
Originally posted by ahrkron
Why does that pose a paradox? There is no
reason to expect that reasoning should
produce a "clear explanation" for every problem.

There isn't [;)] ?
Originally posted by ahrkron
Think of it as a bunch of chemicals on a huge
petri dish. After a big while, lots of small
formations can reproduce, and they develop
behaviors they pass on to their successors.
Among such behaviors there are "reasoning"
(whatever that is), and a name for the
sensation they have when such "resoning
capability" produces some sort of pleasure.
They classify as a "clear explanation" the
sequence of thoughts they have when such
pleasure is felt.

Why would they expect their "reasoning"
behavior to produce such a sequence for
every possible problem?

Because they can have an infinite amount of
this type of sensations (like humans
who can think and invent). Anyway, I'm not
sure this methaphor is really helpfull here.
Originally posted by ahrkron
Even if that was the case, why would that
pose a paradox?
Because any reasoning we're aware of or can
think about has entities and relations (between
these entities). Now, when you apply any such
reasoning to the Universe you're expecting
everything to have some sort of relation
to anything else. If something apparently should
have no such relations (like the origin of
existence/Universe when considered as a single
total entity - the Universe/existence), then you
can't reason with it. And the rest of the
explanation is in the question above.
(The above is just one of the PoE's many "faces".)
Originally posted by ahrkron
But in order to have a paradox, you need more
than uncertainty; there should be a
contradictory statement that, at least
apparently, has a similarly solid logical
support.
The above explanation should fit. Also, the
answer - question of mine above should fit.
Also, the recent stuff that comes to mind -
the rules of the game can't explain the game.

Plenty of basicly totally unsolvable (so far
at least) contradictions.

Today, for example, GR and QM appear to disagree.
Why don't we go shouting it's a paradox ?
Because while it may be one, we believe it's
temporary due to its rather limmited and
complicated nature. The PoE poses so many
of the most basic and fundumental questions
and has been recognized for phousands of years,
so we truly accept it (some of us, at least [;)])
as a true(nothing is certain, of course) paradox.

Live long and prosper.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Our sensations are the basis of the known laws of physics. And our physicists are knocking at creation's door. So are our philosophers. You do an injustice to the majesty of our sensations - and I'm not speaking aesthetically here.

I don't believe that. If ALL we had were our perceptions and sensations, we would have never been able to discover most of the physical laws. How could electro-magnetism, the nuclear weak and strong forces have been discovered without instruments?

Can you imagine that?

Physics does NOT describe our perceptions and sensations of reality, but describe the ACTUAL PHYISICAL world.

I can repeat that 10 MILLIONS TIMES, but you still keep denying that.

Physics decribes the world OUTSIDE OF OUR SENSATIONS, PERCEPTIONS and THOUGHTS, or the MATERIAL WORLD which exists INDEPENDEND of our MIND.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
I don't believe that. If ALL we had were our perceptions and sensations, we would have never been able to discover most of the physical laws. How could electro-magnetism, the nuclear weak and strong forces have been discovered without instruments?

All knowledge is derived from the reasoned analysis of sensation. Of course, it can be argued that mathematics and certain 'concepts' are derived from reason alone. But all scientific knowledge is formulated through sensation.

Physics does NOT describe our perceptions and sensations of reality, but describe the ACTUAL PHYISICAL world.

All physical-law is formulated upon, and confirmed by, sensation. Primarily the sensation of 'sight'.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

And what's the point in that statement ?
Sounds just like one of those wise-***
slogans that sometimes fit the situation.



The point is that too many people think they look smarter by doubting everything they learn. They think that to doubt what you learn is to have true knowledge. This is not true (according to Descartes), and really makes you just as good as a person who never learned it (because what good is taking in knowledge, if you're not going to do so with any kind of certainty? People who have never learned that bit of knowledge also don't have certainty on the matter, so you're no more knowledgeable than them), and perhaps worse, because you have given yourself the opportunity to know more, and have not taken advantage of it.

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
[B]All knowledge is derived from the
reasoned analysis of sensation.
Of course, it can be argued that mathematics
and certain 'concepts' are derived from
reason alone. But all scientific
knowledge is formulated through sensation.

I've been wondering for some time LG - how
did you arrive at this general "conclusion"
in the first place ?

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by wuliheron
"The more I know, the more sure I am I know so little.
The eternal paradox."
James Clavell



How is that a paradox? It just means that you are progressing in knowledge. I've heard this before, and just disagree because learning that there is much more to learn is a positive thing. It shows that you have aquired some wisdom, and is not to be looked on as contradictory to learning.


In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities,
but in the expert's mind there are few.
- Shunryu Suzuki
[/B]

I've heard this one too, and while I agree, I don't see the point. If someone is an expert, why do they need possibilities? They've already accomplished one (or perhaps more) of the possibilities that they had before them, and that is true accomplishment - while the one with just possibilities has yet to accomplish anything.

Oh well, I guess this isn't the thread to discuss old philosophies in.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag
I've been wondering for some time LG - how
did you arrive at this general "conclusion"
in the first place ?

Live long and prosper.

Well, if I may speak for lifegazer, he's shown before that that which we reason on is first "sensed/percieved" and then reasoned on. IOW, if I were to reason on why a comet's tail points away from the sun (for example), I would have to have already percieved the existence, both of the comet, and of the comet's "tail".

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
All knowledge is derived from the reasoned analysis of sensation. Of course, it can be argued that mathematics and certain 'concepts' are derived from reason alone. But all scientific knowledge is formulated through sensation.

Nonsense. Knowledge can only be derived from actual reality, not just from reason. Reality is the arbiter on what reason is applicable and what not.

All physical-law is formulated upon, and confirmed by, sensation. Primarily the sensation of 'sight'.

Are you a physicist??????

This is simply and utterly nonsense. How do you 'see' nuclear decay, alpha or gamma radiation, etc.? Physics contains plenty of phenomena that can not be perceived by the human sensory organs.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Nonsense. Knowledge can only be derived from actual reality, not just from reason. Reality is the arbiter on what reason is applicable and what not.


True, but knowledge is not just a knowledge of facts. Knowledge is a collection of that which you believe, and you derive that which you believe from your "reasoned analysis of sensations", don't you?



Are you a physicist??????


Calm down, count to ten, then to 100, and so on... [:)]


This is simply and utterly nonsense. How do you 'see' nuclear decay, alpha or gamma radiation, etc.? Physics contains plenty of phenomena that can not be perceived by the human sensory organs.

How did physicists happen to come to know about these things, which they cannot observe in any way?

[Royce]

In response to all of your responses to my reponse, Yes I know and when I was younger I thought that that was the one ultimate truth that we could know with certainty. I pondered it for years but found that for me it was a dead end. I could not proceed beyond that point.
As I grew older I came to believe that thinking was being, at least being human. That they are like identities. One implies the other. I am is a given or I couldn't say or think it. A rock is but it doesn't think. To be self aware is to think. I think; therefore, "I" am.

"I know nothing." obviously can be blowing your own whistle or showing off. It can also be a sincere admission of being the opposite of a "know it all" and in possession of a seeking, inquirering mind. It's a Zen thing. [;)]

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by Mentat
The point is that too many people think they
look smarter by doubting everything they learn.
They think that to doubt what you learn is to
have true knowledge. This is not true (according
to Descartes), and really makes you just as good
as a person who never learned it (because what
good is taking in knowledge, if you're not going
to do so with any kind of certainty? People who
have never learned that bit of knowledge also
don't have certainty on the matter, so you're
no more knowledgeable than them), and perhaps
worse, because you have given yourself the
opportunity to know more, and have not taken
advantage of it.
Thank you for the clarification Mentat, but
I understood the statement in the first place.
I simply disagree with it. It's just the
way existence/Universe works that no certainties
about it are possible. Doubt is a reasonable
necessety according to any reason, not a semantic
issue. Doubt is also important because it
teaches us respect and strangely enough often
allows us to solve problems by approaching them
from different viewpoints. (That is also
why I respect Descrates' opinion and recognize
its occasional usefullness, but I disagree with
it in general.)

Live long and prosper.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
Let:
p : The fact that I exist
q : The fact that I think


Logical assertion:
~p -> ~q (If I don't exist, I don't think)

Which implies:
q -> p (If I think, I exist)

Fact: q
p (I think: therefore I exist)

So, Descartes first tested q, and stated affirmitive that "I think", and then concludes that "I am" (I exist).

The statement "I am, therefore I think" is not following from this, nor directly nor indirectly. While it is true that when I am not, neither I think, it is not the case that when I don't think, therefore I am not.

A stone 'IS', but it does not think. So for a stone the following is true : 'I am'. Being doesn't require thinking. Thinking on the other hand requires Being.

So, Descartes was right in that, and made the logical conclusion that from the fact that he was thinking it can be concluded that he exists/is.

This is just based on the premise that thinking requires being.
Nowhere it says however that being requires thinking. A stone is, but does not think. A river is, but does not think. The universe is, but does not think (#)


(#) although it can be argued that we are a part of the universe, and we think, it follows then also that the universe thinks...

Nope, it just follows that part of the universe thinks. The universe is a set of all things that exist, but only a minority of the things within it actually think. Therefore, if you were to take the universe as a whole, then it is an over-all non-thinking entity.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
Well, if I may speak for lifegazer, he's shown before that that which we reason on is first "sensed/percieved" and then reasoned on. IOW, if I were to reason on why a comet's tail points away from the sun (for example), I would have to have already percieved the existence, both of the comet, and of the comet's "tail".
Well said Mentat. In fact, I have enjoyed most of your posts in this thread.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
Nonsense. Knowledge can only be derived from actual reality, not just from reason.

What reality do you see? And what else do you see except the various colours (and non-colour) of light?
And what are these colours? Are they not the representations of the reality you speak of, but cannot see? Are they not the product of the sensation of sight?

This is simply and utterly nonsense. How do you 'see' nuclear decay, alpha or gamma radiation, etc.? Physics contains plenty of phenomena that can not be perceived by the human sensory organs.
Totally incorrect. Our whole theories about the atom, and of the fundamental-energy which accounts for this base building-block of existence, is derived via reasoned (mathematical) analysis of things which we can see.
Quantum-theory is derived no differently (in method) than were the classical laws of physics. Indeed; any upheld theory can only be validated by the sensation of sight - observational qualification.
I find it highly ironic that the sensation of all theories, is used as the verification of ~reality~. Very very ironic. And somewhat amusing from a philosophical point-of-view.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
What reality do you see? And what else do you see except the various colours (and non-colour) of light?
And what are these colours? Are they not the representations of the reality you speak of, but cannot see? Are they not the product of the sensation of sight?


The reality behind the sensations, the knowledge that light is an electro-magnetic wave, and the the spectrum of light extends beyond the visible light, that is what we know by physics, and by physics only, not by our 'sensations' of reality.



Totally incorrect. Our whole theories about the atom, and of the fundamental-energy which accounts for this base building-block of existence, is derived via reasoned (mathematical) analysis of things which we can see.

When did you see an electron?????


Quantum-theory is derived no differently (in method) than were the classical laws of physics. Indeed; any upheld theory can only be validated by the sensation of sight - observational qualification.
I find it highly ironic that the sensation of all theories, is used as the verification of ~reality~. Very very ironic. And somewhat amusing from a philosophical point-of-view.

Wrong again. Our sensation of sight is not the only standard. Of course our physical description should match our sensation of it.
When we see the sun goes down the horizon, we see that sun gets larger and redder. A theory of light explains the sensations we have, because of the way the light is interacting with the atmosphere, cause the red colour and the virtual increase in the sun's disk.
The reality of the electron and the atom, and quarks, can not be part of our sensation. We can only use instruments that clearify the effects of the subatomic world. And of course these instruments produce output that is meaningfull to humans. Science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge. Would you suggest otherwise?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by heusdens
The reality behind the sensations, the knowledge that light is an electro-magnetic wave, and the the spectrum of light extends beyond the visible light, that is what we know by physics, and by physics only, not by our 'sensations' of reality.


But you can't prove this. I agree with you, please let that be known. However, I also happen to know that you cannot prove that this phenomena is actually external. It's believed by physicists, but that doesn't mean it's right.


When did you see an electron?????


Ah, but did not physicists postulate the existence of an electron because of having observed what they believed to be it's effects?


Wrong again. Our sensation of sight is not the only standard. Of course our physical description should match our sensation of it.
When we see the sun goes down the horizon, we see that sun gets larger and redder. A theory of light explains the sensations we have, because of the way the light is interacting with the atmosphere, cause the red colour and the virtual increase in the sun's disk.
The reality of the electron and the atom, and quarks, can not be part of our sensation. We can only use instruments that clearify the effects of the subatomic world. And of course these instruments produce output that is meaningfull to humans. Science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge. Would you suggest otherwise? [/B]

No, I don't think he would, but I think you've dug yourself a hole. If you say that "science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge", then what's to prevent you from believing that human knowledge comes from the Mind of God?

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Well said Mentat. In fact, I have enjoyed most of your posts in this thread.

Truth of the matter is, I don't agree with your conclusion, but I have come to realize that it is unfalsifiable (at least by empirical data, I still may be able to disprove it through rational argument (possibly not)). I defend alot of it's premises, because a lot of it's premises are correct.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
The reality behind the sensations, the knowledge that light is an electro-magnetic wave, and the the spectrum of light extends beyond the visible light, that is what we know by physics, and by physics only, not by our 'sensations' of reality.

The "knowledge that light is an electro-magnetic wave" is a reasoned conlusion, arrived at by applying reason to our sensations.
Reason upon sensation - this is what 'knowledge' boils down to. All scientific-knowledge is "reason upon sensation".

The reality of the electron and the atom, and quarks, can not be part of our sensation.

The knowledge of such things is gleaned via reason upon sensation, also. But I'm sure I'm correct in stating that quantum-events can be observed via effects of light. Hence, QM is a theory which is also verified through observation/sensation.

We can only use instruments that clearify the effects of the subatomic world.

"Instruments" are built by, and for, humanity. And their results are also sensed.

Science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge. Would you suggest otherwise?
No. Although I would qualify that science is governed by a materialistic philosophy, at present. But it wont always be like this. Materialism is a philosophy which has no footings. It is an endangered species.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Materialism is a philosophy which has no footings.

This is only as true of Materialism as it is of your hypothesis, isn't it? You cannot disprove either of them.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by Mentat
This is only as true of Materialism as it is of your hypothesis, isn't it? You cannot disprove either of them.
I can promise the reader that there isn't one single rational-argument to support the basic premise(s) of materialism - that all effects have a material-cause. And then you know how I present my own argument:- with universally-experienced facts.

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
I can promise the reader that there isn't
one single rational-argument to support
the basic premise(s) of materialism - that
all effects have a material-cause.
That's old materialism - including the
false assumption that science reveals truth.
"New" materialism is JUST science - observation
of the Universe with no assumptions.

Live long and prosper.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
That's old materialism - including the
false assumption that science reveals truth.
"New" materialism is JUST science - observation
of the Universe with no assumptions.

Live long and prosper.
*laff*
So you will no longer insist that 'thought' emanates from within the brain (matter)? And you will no longer insist that 'life' came-about via material-processes? And you will no longer insist that the BB had a material-cause?

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
So you will no longer insist that 'thought'
emanates from within the brain (matter)?
And you will no longer insist that 'life'
came-about via material-processes? And
you will no longer insist that the BB
had a material-cause?
I personally never did. It's just the most
probable - direct - lacking of premises
deduction from what we observe. Isn't it ? [;)]

Peace and long life.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by drag
I personally never did. It's just the most
probable - direct - lacking of premises
deduction from what we observe. Isn't it ? [;)]

Since all three of those assumptions require that you believe that all effects have a material-cause, I think that that's exactly what you support - 'materialism'.
And given my own philosophy of such matters, I'd have to say that your conclusion is utterly unfounded.
I find it laughable that you would come to the same conclusions as "old materialism", using the exact same beliefs, and have the gall to call it "new materialism."

[drag]

Originally posted by Lifegazer
Since all three of those assumptions
require that you believe that
all effects have a material-cause,...
And what is material-cause ? [;)]

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
But you can't prove this. I agree with you, please let that be known. However, I also happen to know that you cannot prove that this phenomena is actually external. It's believed by physicists, but that doesn't mean it's right.

Excuse me, but what are you talking here? If physicist observe physical phenomena, and use detectors that "witness" some physical phenomena regaring electrons, then what is it they are witnessing?

Do you claim that all the physicists did was looking at their own navel or something? What do you mean with "external"? External to what? The mind? The mind does not exist in forms of electrons (the brain of course consists of things like electrons, but that is something different), so they can't be witnessing an "internal" electron.

You are only right that all we can say and know about the "electron" being realy out there that it has some properties according to some model of the electron, that makes it possible for us to calculate things and predict the behaviour of electrons.
That is of course a necessary property the model of the electron should obey, else it would be a false theoretical model, if the electron would not behave predictably.


Ah, but did not physicists postulate the existence of an electron because of having observed what they believed to be it's effects?

Yes, they did observe the electron. But to see an electron, with the human eye is not what is being stated there. Science can and does observe things that are unobservable for the human perceptory organs.



No, I don't think he would, but I think you've dug yourself a hole. If you say that "science is performed by humans, and fits human knowledge", then what's to prevent you from believing that human knowledge comes from the Mind of God?

Nothing. But then this 'Mind of God' must be put in the form of a scientific hypothese, and must be explorable. If the hypothese is to be stated true, then there must be some objective scientific evidence for it that can either state the 'Mind of God' does exist, or does not exist.

So far I have not seen any workable scientific hypothese about the existence of the 'Mind of God'.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by heusdens
So far I have not seen any workable scientific hypothese about the existence of the 'Mind of God'.
You should do some serious reading about the placebo-effect... and the power of thought (positive & negative).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Mentat
True, but knowledge is not just a knowledge of facts. Knowledge is a collection of that which you believe, and you derive that which you believe from your "reasoned analysis of sensations", don't you?

That I don't disagree with, but when you leave out the observation of reality and with that I mean a structured and scientific exploration of the phenomena of reality, you would then suggest that to come up with a viable theory of reality, you coud sit at your desk, and just think and reason, and then all of a sudden can "create" a viable theory on reality.

Which is not how it goes, of course.



How did physicists happen to come to know about these things, which they cannot observe in any way?

They did that because to explain the phenomena we CAN observe (for example sound and light) we wanted to have a scientific explenation of these pehenomena. And we came up with a theory of light for example as a wave phenomena. A wave has properties of Energy, frequency and wavelengt, which interrelate in an orderly way.

E = hf (energy = planck constant times frequency)

Since the variable in this formula is the frequency, it was then assumed that light also exists beyond the frequencies of visable light.
In fact, other forms of light were already known, but they were seen as different phenomena as visible light. For example heat radiation, we can sense, but we can not see infrared light.
The theory of light explained what the connection was between these various phenomena.

[drag]

Greetings !
Originally posted by drag
And what is material-cause ? [;)]
Let me help you out here LG. [;)] [:D]
What you call material-cause (don'no why) is
what we observe. [;)]
So who's view biased ?
Of the person who only reasons with what is
observed or of the person who, in addition,
assumes that our mind creates what is observed
and all the various additional assumptions
that are connected to this enitial unprovable
assumption ? [;)]

Peace and long life.

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
They did that because to explain the phenomena
we CAN observe (for example sound and light)
we wanted to have a scientific explenation
of these pehenomena. And we came up with a
theory of light for example as a wave
phenomena. A wave has properties of Energy,
frequency and wavelengt, which interrelate
in an orderly way.

E = hf (energy = planck constant times frequency)

Since the variable in this formula is the
frequency, it was then assumed that
light also exists beyond the frequencies
of visable light.

In fact, other forms of light were already
known, but they were seen as different
phenomena as visible light. For example
heat radiation, we can sense, but we
can not see infrared light.
The theory of light explained what the
connection was between these various phenomena.

So, basicly what science does is to try to assume
the most direct connection that is possible.
Minimum relations and minimum entities.

Live long and prosper.

[heusdens]

Originally posted by drag
So, basicly what science does is to try to assume
the most direct connection that is possible.
Minimum relations and minimum entities.



If you mean that a scientific explenation, which could in principle be based on the existence of a Giant Big Applepie that exists outside time and space, and connects in a spiritial way to everything there is and can explain everything there is, to explain for instance gravity, and we have an alternative theory, that explain gravity based on interaction between massive matter on a distance, it is indeed true that the Giant Big Applepie, will be eliminated from scientific reason, and we will adopt the more simple and provable option, indeed.

[Netme]

p