Can We Ever Be Certain About Our Reasoning Processes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bartholomew
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of certainty and uncertainty in reasoning processes, exploring philosophical implications and the potential for undiscoverable flaws in reasoning. Participants engage with concepts from quantum mechanics, mathematics, and the human perception of truth, touching on both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that all reasoning processes may contain undiscoverable flaws, suggesting that absolute certainty in reasoning is unattainable.
  • Others question the need for certainty, proposing that the distinction between certainty and uncertainty is strange and perhaps unnecessary.
  • One participant expresses a preference for certainty, arguing that it provides a solid foundation and eliminates paradoxes.
  • Another perspective highlights the vastness of the universe and the limitations of human perception, suggesting that our understanding is inherently narrow.
  • There is a claim that even basic mathematical truths, such as 2+2=4, may be subject to the same uncertainties as other ideas.
  • Some participants assert that societal tendencies drive people to seek certainty, even in the face of evidence suggesting uncertainty.
  • A later reply introduces a circular argument regarding the statement "nothing is for certain," proposing that it leads to the conclusion that some things must be certain.
  • Another participant suggests that probability could potentially be explained through a certainty model, implying a relationship between the two concepts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the nature of certainty and uncertainty, with no consensus reached. Some agree on the implications of uncertainty in reasoning, while others challenge the applicability of uncertainty to mathematical truths.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various philosophical and mathematical concepts, but the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of uncertainty on reasoning and mathematical truths.

Bartholomew
Messages
527
Reaction score
0
The argument is, if you believe anything, you must have come to your belief through some process. If the process had an undiscoverable flaw in it, it would be invalid. Moreover, it is not possible to tell whether any process has a flaw which is undiscoverable. So there is no absolute way to tell whether any reasoning is valid or invalid.

This may seem a little strange, but think of it as making mistakes. No matter how many times you check your work and how sure you may seem, there is no way to know for certain that you didn't make a mistake somewhere.

Quantum uncertainty is a possible mechanism for undiscoverable flaws. Every particle has some nonzero chance of being found almost anywhere. So it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the action of any system could be drastically different from the way you expect it to go. Any reasoning carried out must be done by some system, such as your brain or a computer. There is a tiny chance that your brain or the computer will act drastically different from how you would expect it to--for example, in such a way as to arrive at the same wrong answer, completely randomly, every single time.

This possibility may seem negligible, but consider that your judgment that it is negligible is simply the result of a process in your brain, and subject to the same quantum effects as anything else. So there is a chance that your judgment that it is negligible is completely wrong, and it actually is quite common for a system to arrive at the same wrong answer through random quantum effects every time. So long as the probability-judging processes are susceptible to any error--no matter how improbable such error seems--there is no way to know how likely or unlikely error in all your thoughts is.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've always wondered why people even believe in certainty. I'm not saying that you should certainly hold to uncertainty either, but why worry about it? It seems like such a strange distinction in the first place.
 
Certianty to me just seems more solid. If everything turned out certian then there is no paradox. If everything turns out uncertian then something about that statement just won't ever have a complete answer.
 
The universe is very versatile. Anything can be going on in it that we had never thought of. In fact out perception of the world is very narrow. For us, tomorrow is a day to go to school and submit the maths assignment, but for the universe, tomorrow is just a period of time which will be called 'tomorrow' by the stupid human beings on the uncharted planet earth. A lot is going on in there. The reality is different.
 
Vintner, this uncertainty extends to things like 2+2=4.
 
People believe in certainty because they want to. I've tried to explain the entire process of uncertainty to people that I know, and yet, they don't want to grasp it. Most of society need a firm grasp on something they can call the truth, and thus, even if they realize it's fake, they'll still be predisposed to just that.

Err, Bart, are you sure it extends to 2+2=4? If it did, we'd have to have this huge "what is time" debate... wouldn't we? I thought mathematical equations wern't subject to uncertainty, because it's just a concept that we've discovered. Tomorrow will always be tomorrow, because we define it... right?
 
Last edited:
We cannot know the answer, but an answer exists!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, the reasoning in my first post of this thread applies to 2+2=4 just as it applies to every other idea. There's no reason to make any exception.
 
Now that's bad news: if we can't trust mathematics, what can we trust?
 
  • #10
Probability can be explained with a certianty model. I'm sure it is very possible.
 
  • #11
If nothing for certain is correct, then this statement is also not for certain and so some things or everything are for certain, even though logically nothing is for certain.

Therefore

'Nothing is for certain' is a circular argument and a statement is needed which properly defines the argument we are trying to represent.

The statement is as follows.

'Nothing can be completely proved.'

I remember discussing this with someone about a year ago. This is the conclusion we came up with.

lol!
 
  • #12
What I meant is the reason why probability exist can evenutally be explained by making a certianty model. Of course there would be no probability when that happens.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad How to know when a reversible process between end states exists?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Can Home Repair or Renovations Reduce One's Taxes?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Chemistry How to reverse the process of rubbing two stones in water?
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Graduate Wave Function Collapse and Thermodynamic Irreversible Processes
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Undergrad Is the equation 0!=1 based on flawed reasoning?
  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
8K
Undergrad Boltzmann brains and limitless energy....
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
Undergrad Irreversible adiabatic processes & entropy change (clarification needed)
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
6K
Undergrad A Bold New Take on Quantum Theory
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
6K
High School A question about warp bubbles and navigation
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Undergrad How Can We Measure Properties of Distant Planets and Stars?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K