- #36
Russell Berty
- 107
- 0
JoeDawg said:Don't worry, Descartes, a very clever man, already did that: I think therefore I am.
That of course requires proving that "All things that think, exist." Which he did not prove.
JoeDawg said:Don't worry, Descartes, a very clever man, already did that: I think therefore I am.
Of course we can. Here's a (trivial) example of such a proof:Russell Berty said:We assume that a structure we call Number Theory exists (the one that would satisfy 2nd order arithmetic) but we cannot prove it exists.
Number theory an innate property of reality? Anyways...That is, Z can restructure this innate property of reality called Number Theory so that we will not run into a contradiction in are pursuits.
Hurkyl said:Hypothesis: number theory exists.
From the hypothesis, number theory exists. Therefore number theory exists. QED.
Yes I did -- and I also know you're making something out of nothing. Some premises prove the existence of number theory. Some don't. There is nothing deep on here.Russell Berty said:You know what I meant.
Then you are in the situation of my next paragraph. :tongue:As far as iterating ALL possible formal proofs, we cannot in a finite amount of time.
That is true by definition and logic. To be something that thinks, one must be 'something' and therefore exist as something.Russell Berty said:...Or at the very least, he would have to prove "If I think, then I exist."
A demon *could* make you believe anything.So, if he was thoroughly skeptical and considered some all-powerful demon could deceive him, then he would have to consider "What if the demon makes me believe that modus ponens is valid, or makes me believe that my arguments are valid, when my arguments are actually not valid?"
He doesn't need to do anything of the sort. Those are different questions.Oh, not to mention he needs to define what is meant by "I" and "think" and "exist".
Russell Berty said:The point is, if you claim to have a proof of number theory, then that proof is based ultimately upon some assumptions - assumptions that are not proven, merely assumptions. So, what I am getting at is there is no "absolute" proof of number theory. It is possible that number theory is inconsistent. That is why I said, "We assume that a structure we call number theory exists but we cannot prove it exists." Some of us assume even more, such as ZFC is consistent, but it is still only an assumption.
Russell Berty said:For a start, read Kant, Hume, and Russell.
Russell Berty said:always wondering whether I made a mistake somewhere.
Russell Berty said:by C. R. Morris
non sequitur. One does not follow the other.Russell Berty said:So, Descartes doubts that there is doubting that there is thinking.
So, Descartes is doubting the existence of doubting!
Russell Berty said:It might be easier for you...
Red Fox said:This is quite an old issue, and philosophers today tend to reject the notion of absolute omnipotence for just this reason. Currently limited omnipotence (that is, the ability to do anything within certain confining laws, like the impossibility of self contradictory entities etc.) is favored when speaking on the subject of divine beings.
Moridin said:The concept of "limited omnipotence" is a contradiction in terms.
Then it is simply a matter of choosing which contradiction is more palatable, since true omnipotence is also a self-contradictory term - as the existence of this thread demonstrates.Moridin said:The concept of "limited omnipotence" is a contradiction in terms.
Really? Because for something that is unimpressive, childish and uninteresting it sure seems to be generating a lot of interest. Including from you, who have weighed in with your own subjective proposal.M Grandin said:I am not very impressed by this childish "paradox". It is of the type "Can you defeat yourself?". It is not more interesting than that.
M Grandin said:The remedy could be in the concept "omnipotence" exclude omnipotent acts against himself or others who are omnipotent.
Alternatively in "omnipotence" include ability defying logical rules. If so no paradox should arise, because paradoxes are about contradicting logics.
DaveC426913 said:Really? Because for something that is unimpressive, childish and uninteresting it sure seems to be generating a lot of interest. Including from you, who have weighed in with your own subjective proposal.
That's what others are referring to as 'limited omnipotence'.
But implication of your suggestion is this:
The definition of ominpotence must include the fact that there is no such thing as true omnipotence, there is only a limited form.
Basically, we have a word here whose definition includes its own disqualification.
"mere word games" is an interesting judgement. Logic and reasoning are some of the things humans are best at.gabrielh said:mere word games?
gabrielh said:This discussion is quite interesting, but does anyone ever think that the ideas behind this discussion aren't going to be solved by mere word games?
DaveC426913 said:Really? Because for something that is unimpressive, childish and uninteresting it sure seems to be generating a lot of interest. Including from you, who have weighed in with your own subjective proposal.
Omnipotence means: all powerful, or unlimited power.M Grandin said:A general remedy for conceptions leading to apparent "paradoxes" is adding: "In applicable
cases".
For instance you cannot say anything is empty because it at least contains "nothing". Is that also an interesting paradox?
Liars aren't paradoxical. People who admit that they are liars are paradoxical.