Printable View
I've been intrenched in a debate (elsewhere) for weeks now and I wanted to know if anybody here would like to comment on it.
The question is:
"If I make a statement about reality, how can I know that the statement is true or not? Can I be certain of the truth beyond all doubt?"
It seems to some people, this is a deep philisophical problem and to others, there is no problem; the truth can be every easilly known.
Any comments on this would be much appreciated. :)
I really think you should get out more often.:)
And drink some beer - all the answers will become abundantly clear, I promise.Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
I really think you should get out more often.:)
Well, I drink plenty of beer, let me assure you, yet the answer still eludes me. :(Quote:
And drink some beer - all the answers will become abundantly clear, I promise.
Perhaps you can enlighten me?
If you know its true, well then you know its true, then if you know its true then you can be sure its true, because, well you know its true. True?:rolleyes:
I would be lithe to say anything is sure. How do you know that your view of reality is the ... erm... real one...:p
:confused:
Damn... I need beer...
How about an example:
If I say, "There is a chair in the den" can we verify this statement, beyond all doubt by going into the den and taking a look?
This must be a trick question.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
How about an example:
If I say, "There is a chair in the den" can we verify this statement, beyond all doubt by going into the den and taking a look?
The obvious answer is YES.
If we go to the den and see a chair then the statement is true.
Well, I'd call it a study, but I guess it's all the same in the end... :p
Unless of course, we're in the MAtrix, but that's another thing altogether...
It's not a trick question.
Some people believe that we can verify statements beyond all doubt by making the necessary observations.
I would question what are, exactly, the necessary observations?
What if, what we took to be a chair, is infact, a holographic projection?
The answer is 42!Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
The question is:
"If I make a statement about reality, how can I know that the statement is true or not? Can I be certain of the truth beyond all doubt?"
Ok so what if I actually touch the chair?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
It's not a trick question.
Some people believe that we can verify statements beyond all doubt by making the necessary observations.
I would question what are, exactly, the necessary observations?
What if, what we took to be a chair, is infact, a holographic projection?
Then I know the statements true.
You can only be certain its true to the extent of what you believe is true.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
"If I make a statement about reality, how can I know that the statement is true or not? Can I be certain of the truth beyond all doubt?"
So if you think that x, y and z is enough to prove something, then, by your standards its true.
Actually, you could have been hypnotised to think you're touching a chair.
GlenW
But do you?Quote:
Ok so what if I actually touch the chair?
Then I know the statements true.
What about if the chair is a "hard" light holgraphic projection (see Star Trek Voyager)?
It doesn't matter whether I can continue to creatively invoke new examples of why your assumption might be wrong, the point is, there is always a small possibility of being wrong.
plenderj
Is it fair to say then that we can never be absolutely certain of anything? There is always room for doubt (however small)?Quote:
You can only be certain its true to the extent of what you believe is true.
So if you think that x, y and z is enough to prove something, then, by your standards its true.
This is my belief but others have suggested that the above statement contradicts itself.
NO! NO! NO!Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
GlenW
But do you?
What about if the chair is a "hard" light holgraphic projection (see Star Trek Voyager)?
It doesn't matter whether I can continue to creatively invoke new examples of why your assumption might be wrong, the point is, there is always a small possibility of being wrong.
If I said it, it is almost certainly wrong.:rolleyes:
We do not live in the same reality. It's basically what we make of it, so each of us have our own realities.
About the chair in the den, this would simply be (FOR EXAMPLE) "Have the criteria been satisfied that the chair actually exists there? My criteria were, it casts a shadow, it is tangible, and I can sit on it."
If the criteria were satisfied, then you can be sure that the statement you have said is true. So your statement about reality is true.
I would agree with what you have said.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
plenderj
Is it fair to say then that we can never be absolutely certain of anything? There is always room for doubt (however small)?
This is my belief but others have suggested that the above statement contradicts itself.
Here is a trivial example.
You and I both look at one particular sheep in a field.
It is a black sheep.
I say, well, obviously all the sheep in this field are black.
You say, well, obviously all the sheep in this country are black.
Now, either one of us could be true.
Obviously if you're right then I must be, but ignore that for the moment.
By my standards, I could be true. By yours, you could be true.
Then for a third party observer, they might say well just because there is one black sheep it doesn't necessarily mean that there are any other black sheep etc.
So, on our own, yes, we could possibly be absolutely certain about something - but that is just by our own individual standards.
Overall though, one can never know if something is true or false entirely, as it is just up to that person's own standards of what it means to be true or false, and how to prove that so
Many of you seem to be saying that if one is convinced, by one's own standards, that something is true, then it is infact true.
However, If there is an independant reality that underlies all of our observations, how can we be sure that our perceptions of it, acurately reflect it?
I'm looking at a painted stone blue tacked onto the top of my monitor.
No 3 son made it at school for me.
I know the stone is there.
How could there ever be any doubt?
But what independant reality ?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Many of you seem to be saying that if one is convinced, by one's own standards, that something is true, then it is infact true.
However, If there is an independant reality that underlies all of our observations, how can we be sure that our perceptions of it, acurately reflect it?
Why should we take anything it supports to heart ?
I agree with that.Quote:
Originally posted by plenderj
You can only be certain its true to the extent of what you believe is true.
So if you think that x, y and z is enough to prove something, then, by your standards its true.
If you could prove without doubt that something exists or that something is true, then you must have full reliance on the source of the proof (ie yourself and your senses).... this is going somewhere I promise :eek:.... ermmm you evaluate your surroundings according to your senses of touch, sight hearing and the rest and base your beliefs on whether something is true or not according to the information available.
We can't.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
However, If there is an independant reality that underlies all of our observations, how can we be sure that our perceptions of it, acurately reflect it?
:cool:
We can't. It would suppose total objectivity and independence from it to actually judge it.
If you're part of the team you're always going to be a bit biased because of the involvement factor.
This is turning into a pseudo-intellectual babblefest
OK, since most people here seem to share my opinion, I will play devil's advocate and illustrate the other point of view.
Does not this statement contradict itself? If you can't be certain of any statement, how can you be sure of this one?Quote:
We can't. It would suppose total objectivity and independence from it to actually judge it.
Are you sure of your own statement (the above) then ? How will you verify it ?Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
...
Does not this statement contradict itself? If you can't be certain of any statement, how can you be sure of this one?
Wally
Since any statement that brings into question our ability to be absolutely certain of any given statement must also bring itself into question, we can therefore assume that it can't be true.
sure ? :)
You have to draw the line somewhere because "doubt everything" will never get anything done. You'd be stuck going round in circles with asking yourself whether you are right or wrong.
Unless you like going in circles :D
Not quite. This would be more accurate:Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Wally
Since any statement that brings into question our ability to be absolutely certain of any given statement must also bring itself into question, we can therefore assume that it can't be true.
"Any statement that brings into question our ability to be absolutely certain of any given statement must also bring itself into question."
There is no implication that the statement must be false. Just that there is a chance it's false. It's probabilistic in nature, just like every other thing.
Harry
I know what you mean, this is the sort of logic I'm up against in my other discussion.
They would say something like this:
Since you are attempting to prove that one cannot be absolutely certain, you cannot ask me, apriori to accept that premise to begin with.
Therefore, when you say: "You cannot be absolutely certain of the truth of any statement", I therefore accept this with absolute certainty.
The implications of this statement contradict it when I believe it to be true with absolute certainty and therefore it must be false.
It's like The Matrix all over again...
but without the guns...
and Carrie-Anne Moss in tight PVC...:p
True is just a word that means consistent with fact or reality... since we are assuming that reality and fact are based on our assumptions given available information, we cannot say that something isn't true because....... oohh its that circle thing that Wallys said.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Since any statement that brings into question our ability to be absolutely certain of any given statement must also bring itself into question, we can therefore assume that it can't be true.
:confused: my brain hurts
Well isn't this exactly what Descartes was trying to resolve with his "I think therefore I am" statement?
(i.e. he believed this to be self evidently true, although I am not sure I agree with him)
Axiomatic, but only for realists
SimonQuote:
"If I make a statement about reality, how can I know that the statement is true or not? Can I be certain of the truth beyond all doubt?"
All selfreferential statements are paradoxes and thus such a contraint is false.
Quote:
All selfreferential statements are paradoxes and thus false
How so, kedaman?
ok I edited that but let me explain
lets define A as A + 1, this means that A would evaluate to A+1 every time A was asked for. A would thus evaluate to A + 1, and further A + 1 + 1, etc... There would be no possible way of evaluating A. Infinite recursion.
Kedaman
This is bollocks.Quote:
lets define A as A + 1, this means that A would evaluate to A+1 every time A was asked for. A would thus evaluate to A + 1, and further A + 1 + 1, etc... There would be no possible way of evaluating A. Infinite recursion.
You can't define A as A + 1 because (assuming we both have the same understanding of "+ 1"), the statement contradicts itself.
Nobody but you would define A as A + 1.
What relevance does it have to my question anyway?
simon
You just explicitely expressed my point: You can't.
But why would I want to define A as A + 1?
I might define A = B + 1, B = C - 2, C = A + 1.
Now I have a self consistent set of definitions and no infinite recurrsion.
Anyway, this has no bearing on reality. I am trying to establish if it is possible to verify any particular statement of reality beyond all doubt.
you define reality not me, If you want to say that reality cannot be defined then, it certainly shouldn't be in your interest to define it. Scientists have no sense of logic.
I wasn't asking whether reality can be defined or not. I was asking whether it can be known with absolute certainty.
There's a difference.
then answer me this
Is reality a name on something or a definition that things fit into?
Knowing it with certainty may or may not be impossible. It's us who resort to our own definitions to convince ourselves of the very existence of reality.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I wasn't asking whether reality can be defined or not. I was asking whether it can be known with absolute certainty.
There's a difference.
It could all be that reality is just a figment of your imagination. Yet reality may be a simple "reality," yet we tend to question it simply for the sake of confusing others by raising irrelevant/paradoxical points.
mendhak
Inter-subjectively testing our observations reveals a consistancy that implies an underlying reality. Even if it is our imagination, we are still forced to respond as if it were reality. We are rewarded with pleasure and punished with pain when we try to break these rules and until you find a way of circumventing what seems to be reality, let's leave those idle speculations in the closit (where they belong) shall we?Quote:
It could all be that reality is just a figment of your imagination.
Kedaman
It is a name that I attach to the source of all sensual information my brain receives.Quote:
Is reality a name on something or a definition that things fit into?
I've long since learned to ignore Ked.
And since I'm bored, here is the only light I can shed...
While this all depends on which statement, I'm going to try and be reasonable with the statement so I can get to my point.Quote:
If I make a statement about reality, how can I know that the statement is true or not? Can I be certain of the truth beyond all doubt?
"Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance sperating their two masses." (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation)
Well, I can know that this statement is true beyond all doubt because in my frame of reference (this universe) every object invariably displays this behavior. And everyone I mention this to, observes this behavior, and no one in the universe has observed it to be any different. In fact, the proportional constant of gravity is the same throughout the universe and we have never ever observed it to be different.
That is the only way we can be certain of its truth. It has never been observed to be different in the same frame of refference as we are asserting its truth.
There is nothing philosophical to any of that.
Mind you, Newton's Laws are no long considered the end all be all. They accrurate describe the world, but gravity may not be a force unto itself, an attraction of masses, so much as a mass's ability to deform space. The attraction we witness could be just a mass sliding down a slope toward a dipple created by the "pulling" mass.
It is also interesting that masses affect the flow of time, whether directly or through the same deformation of space is a interesting diversion.
So the point is, "everything falls down" can be known to be true beyond all doubt because no one has ever observed anything falling up.
Simon
Then you have a problem - You have defined a source which implicates sensual information, and there is no solution. A => B doesn't mean that B => A
CiberTHuG, I'm thankful that I don't have to consider replying to your irrational beliefs
Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
This has turned into a pseudo-intellectual babblefest
The philosophical aspect is simply "how do you know? couldn't it all be an elaborate dream?"Quote:
Originally posted by CiberTHuG
I've long since learned to ignore Ked.
And since I'm bored, here is the only light I can shed...
While this all depends on which statement, I'm going to try and be reasonable with the statement so I can get to my point.
"Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance sperating their two masses." (Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation)
Well, I can know that this statement is true beyond all doubt because in my frame of reference (this universe) every object invariably displays this behavior. And everyone I mention this to, observes this behavior, and no one in the universe has observed it to be any different. In fact, the proportional constant of gravity is the same throughout the universe and we have never ever observed it to be different.
That is the only way we can be certain of its truth. It has never been observed to be different in the same frame of refference as we are asserting its truth.
There is nothing philosophical to any of that.
Mind you, Newton's Laws are no long considered the end all be all. They accrurate describe the world, but gravity may not be a force unto itself, an attraction of masses, so much as a mass's ability to deform space. The attraction we witness could be just a mass sliding down a slope toward a dipple created by the "pulling" mass.
It is also interesting that masses affect the flow of time, whether directly or through the same deformation of space is a interesting diversion.
So the point is, "everything falls down" can be known to be true beyond all doubt because no one has ever observed anything falling up.
and the answer is yes, but since it isn't testable, we have to base "truth" on our own experiences.
CiberTHuG
Well, you've gone straight ahead to take the bull by the horns by tackling generalised statements first.
However, you seem to make a point that we can know these statements are true beyond all doubt and then gradually retract from this position towards the end of your post.
You are suggesting that you can be certain of the truth of a generalised statement because it has never made a false prediction (or an observations has never been made that contradicts it). You are saying that it is true because it has not (yet) been falsified. But, just because a statement hasn't been proved wrong does not mean it's been proved right, does it?Quote:
That is the only way we can be certain of its truth. It has never been observed to be different in the same frame of refference as we are asserting its truth.
You cannot be absolutely certain that it is correct because it makes predictions for an infinite number of hypothetical situations and you would only know it were true, beyond all possible doubt, if you lived for eternity and witnessed each of the infinite number of situations.
However, you go on to mention Einstein's Space/Time theory. This theory has essentially replaced Newton's theory of gravitation. Why did it replace Newton's theory? Because Newton's t heory does make false predictions for very large masses (such as planets).
Einstein's theory is a better explanation for the phenomenon of gravitaiton and hence is considered closer to reality than Newton's theory.
Kedaman
I don't understand what you're talking about.
Simon
I was expecting that.
You say that a source called reality cause your observations.
with this knowledge and can you somehow deduce that your observations are real.
In logical terms:
P => Q = Q => P
which can be both false and true (with infinite amount of solutions)
in other words, a reality that can cause your observations doesn't exclude the possibility of something else being cause to them.
Kedaman
The second statement follows from the first. Because, If reality is the source of all our observations, our observations must be "real" because calling them "real" is just another way of saying they come from reality.Quote:
You say that a source called reality cause your observations.
with this knowledge and can you somehow deduce that your observations are real.
There is nothing else because I am using the term "reality" to encapsulate the source of all my sensual data. There is no something else as, if there is something that generates sensual data, I will include that in my definition of reality.Quote:
in other words, a reality that can cause your observations doesn't exclude the possibility of something else being cause to them.
can you observe all of reality? this depends entirely on how you define reality.
If you can, then yes something can be veried as true
If not, it can't. Simple as.
Behemoth
I see what you're saying, but...
What if I make a statement that only pertains to a very small piece of reality? Surely, I don't need to see all of reality to verify that, do I?Quote:
can you observe all of reality? this depends entirely on how you define reality.
If you can, then yes something can be veried as true
damn straight Behemoth, why define something that you haven't even seen.
Simon
If you define that all your observations are real, why do you ask if any observation can be considered real? Realists are confused.
true, but if you could it would work.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
Behemoth
I see what you're saying, but...
What if I make a statement that only pertains to a very small piece of reality? Surely, I don't need to see all of reality to verify that, do I?
i suppose i should have phrased it "if you can potentially see all of reality" implying that it were possible to see any small part of it as necessary, but I didn't come here to argue semantics. The point stands. If you are able to witness it, you can deduce whether or not it is true.