Philosophical Problem?

[simonm]

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.

[kedaman]

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.

[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.

[kedaman]

then answer me this
Is reality a name on something or a definition that things fit into?

[mendhak]

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.

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.

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.

[simonm]

mendhak

It could all be that reality is just a figment of your imagination.

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?

Kedaman

Is reality a name on something or a definition that things fit into?

It is a name that I attach to the source of all sensual information my brain receives.

[CiberTHuG]

I've long since learned to ignore Ked.

And since I'm bored, here is the only light I can shed...

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?

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.

[kedaman]

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

[kedaman]

CiberTHuG, I'm thankful that I don't have to consider replying to your irrational beliefs

[GlenW]

Originally posted by GlenW
This has turned into a pseudo-intellectual babblefest

[Behemoth]

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.

The philosophical aspect is simply "how do you know? couldn't it all be an elaborate dream?"
and the answer is yes, but since it isn't testable, we have to base "truth" on our own experiences.

[simonm]

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.

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 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?

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.

[simonm]

Kedaman

I don't understand what you're talking about.

[kedaman]

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.

[simonm]

Kedaman

You say that a source called reality cause your observations.

with this knowledge and can you somehow deduce that your observations are real.

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.

in other words, a reality that can cause your observations doesn't exclude the possibility of something else being cause to them.

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.

[Behemoth]

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.

[simonm]

Behemoth

I see what you're saying, but...

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

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?

[kedaman]

damn straight Behemoth, why define something that you haven't even seen.

[kedaman]

Simon
If you define that all your observations are real, why do you ask if any observation can be considered real? Realists are confused.

[Behemoth]

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?

true, but if you could it would work.

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.

[simonm]

Kedaman
I'm not asking if observations can be considered real. I am asking whether a statement (on the nature of reality) can be verified beyond all possible doubt.

That the sensual data comes from "reality" does not mean that we will ever get an acurate picture of any particular part of reality.

[kedaman]

Simon
Then the answer is no as much as you can know A if you know C in C=B*A

[JPicasso]

If it looks like a chair and holds my ass up, its a chair.

Simonm, I'd suggest you take a course at your local college.
Not trying to shut you up in the least, but you're presenting arguments
that I (and others) went over in our college days.
I (and I think others) are not in the buisiness of bringing up philisophical arguments
about the existance of existance.
Although I'll see if I can dig up some existential arguments we went over
back then... way back then.


For me, it turns out that whether or not I belive I sent the mortgage payment in,
if I DIDN'T send it in, I'm not going to have a house.

[Behemoth]

the whole debate revolves around the definition of an intagible concept such as "reality"

As Kedaman might say: Define reality.

It's sadly straightforward - however you decide to define it determines your answer.

Tell me, guys do you two argue to find an answer, or just because you enjoy it?

[kedaman]

I sorta enjoy it

[simonm]

JPicasso

Please don't trouble yourself. If you have resolved all these issues to your satisfaction and have no wish to go over them again, fine.

I have not.

Behemoth

Tell me, guys do you two argue to find an answer, or just because you enjoy it?

I cannot speak for Kedaman but I argue to understand other people's point of view, to develop my own thoughts on a particular issue and, last but not least, because argument is strangely fulfilling...in a frustrating sort of way.

[Wally Pipp]

Once again we're about to end up in a metaphysical conundrum that will become apparent in lingering detail in about 20.000 posts or so ...

Now is the time to get off folks

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by simonm
Well, you've gone straight ahead to take the bull by the horns by tackling generalised statements first.

I'll get to the fine statements if you want me to.

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.

It wasn't my intention to retract from that point of view, but I can understand why you are thinking that. I guess my stance is, you can't simply make a statement, you have to make sure that no one has observed a contrary.

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?

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.

This is true, but futile. We have to decide on a method (a scientific method). That method leads us to believe that "everything falls down". Yes, this may not be the absolute truth. There may be something that falls up, that posses the tendancy for anti-gravity, but no one has ever reported such a substance, so we have to stick to what we know. If we wanted to ignore Newton simply because of what might be, then we had no reason to listen to Beurnoulli (sp?), since it is obvious that man can't fly because he is composed of too much earth and not enough air.

So I guess from a philisophical point of view, no, you can never declare a undoubtedly true statement, since you can't know all the possibilities. But to take this approach gains you nothing. It is terribly impractical. It is akin to living in fear. Why should I drive to work since I could die in a car crash. Why should I believe in gravity since there may be an exception.

So my stance is, yes, you can declare a statement that can be cleared of all reasonable doubt. The difference between these two statements is pure mental masturbation. While one may enjoy it, it is a waste of resources and doesn't compare to the real thing.

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.

Here I thought Newton's theories failed because they didn't accurately describe the why, just the what. What Newton observed is still true, but Einstein supposed a why.

Semantics. In any event, Einstein paints a sharper picture, but Newton's wasn't wrong, just fuzzy, and used as an example since it is much easier to write.

PS: I still hate the "feature" of vBulletin that forgets what forum, what thread, and what message you wrote if you take too long writing it.

[simonm]

CiberTHuG

Suprisingly enough, the "scientific" method is not fully agreed upon by scientific philosophers.

Karl Popper (whom I agree with) wrote that scientific theories are never justified as we have no mechanism available to us to justify them. Others believe that scientific theories are justified by a process of induction.

Here I thought Newton's theories failed because they didn't accurately describe the why, just the what. What Newton observed is still true, but Einstein supposed a why.

Newton's theory suggested that objects of mass move together due to an invisible force that acted between them.

Einstein's theory suggests that objects of mass move together due to the curvature of space-time.

These are two completely different pictures of reality. One being slightly better (and more acurate) at predicting the motion of masses than the other.

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by simonm
Karl Popper (whom I agree with) wrote that scientific theories are never justified as we have no mechanism available to us to justify them. Others believe that scientific theories are justified by a process of induction.

Does Popper suppose an alternative? If not, then I can't help but think he is engaging in the mental masturbation I mentioned earlier.

These are two completely different pictures of reality. One being slightly better (and more acurate) at predicting the motion of masses than the other.

I think our difference here is semantic. I think we agree, but in different ways. Newton accurate described the motion of gravity. There is a constant and one can predict the force of gravity with his equations. So Newtonian physics is accurate. But Newton didn't understand the why behind it. As you said, there isn't a gravity force (according to Einstein, and I buy in to this idea, since it helps to explain time dialation that we have observed, and how gravity can affect things that have no mass, such as light).

I personally don't think Newton was wrong, and don't blame him. I think he just describe how something interacted, but didn't get the why. And that is why I think it is just a matter of clarity. One day we will have a clearer idea of the things that Einstein failed to describe, and then one day a clearer picture beyond that one.

Anyway, this is just a tangent to the orginal thought.

So back to Popper.

[simonm]

CiberTHuG

Does Popper suppose an alternative? If not, then I can't help but think he is engaging in the mental masturbation I mentioned earlier.

An alternative to what? Induction?

Many philosophers (and indeed scientists) have for centuries realised that there are flaws in the principle of induction. There is simply no logical basis for deriving a generalisation from a finite set of results.

However, nobody has ever proposed another mechanism by which we can justify our scientific theories.

Karl Popper said that the purpose of science is not to justify theories. It's purpose is to postulate new theories and to falsify incorrect theories. Never, is a theory actually justified.

We may eliminate all rival theories by falsifying them or if more than one remain unfalsified, we select the one that makes more testable assertions.

It doesn't matter that we can't justify theories beyond all doubt because it is healthy for science that theories are always open to critisism so that they may be replaced when a better theory comes along.

And that's exactly what happened to Newton's theory of gravitation. For years it was the best available theory. Then Einstein's theory of gravitation came along. Newton's theory wasn't rejected after being suddenly proved wrong one day. It was replaced by a theory that could explain all Newton's could and more (as you rightly mentioned).

[CiberTHuG]

Exactly. You can be clear of reasonable doubt. And use what you "know" (the theories already put forth as being clear of reasonable doubt) to learn more. We couldn't've come to Einstein if we first didn't accept Newton.

And going back to the topic of this thread. No, you can't be free o all doubt. But you can be free of all reasonable doubt, and to ask for more is just a waste of the universe's time.

Yeah, this thread is (|| has been) done.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by simonm
Kedaman
I'm not asking if observations can be considered real. I am asking whether a statement (on the nature of reality) can be verified beyond all possible doubt.

That the sensual data comes from "reality" does not mean that we will ever get an acurate picture of any particular part of reality.

The answer is Obvious. No.

But...

A Truth with no purpose is pointless in its direction.
Of what value is it to "Verify" Reality?

Hmmm, no, let me back up.

You aren't concerned with reality, but about statements on the nature of reality.

I wonder if the following is verifiable.

"No statement on the nature of reality is entirely varifiable."

Is that a statement on the nature of reality, or a statement about Statements on the nature of reality.

If the former, then it could be an infinite loop, a logic trap. If the latter, it perhaps could be verifiable, haveing fallen out of that which its commenting on.

Are Statements about Statements on the nature of reality verifiable?

[French_gal]

here's a answer that is somewhat ..serious
THe universe as is reality is infintly big and small, and has even all the rules and thruths within this reality have exseptions.. everything, (the joy of Calculs as i say) So there is no way, within this reality to successfuly prove anything about this reality, because all truths as we knwo it, have arguments that could make them untrue, as said in the science world, it is only true till proven otherwise.

[CiberTHuG]

I wish we had a "dead horse" option in the ratings.