|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2012 11:16 pm Post subject: 1 |
 |
|
(This was kind of inspired from another thread in which extropalopakettle made some interesting points about the existence of sentience being un-inferrable from an objective study of the universe. That debate is in progress. Those points are made here: http://www.greylabyrinth.com/discussion/viewtopic.php?t=6748&start=720 )
Self-Evident Truth
A self-evident truth is a truth stated such that no imaginable explanation of reality could possibly disprove it.
By this definition, the only self-evident truth I can think of is "I exist."
Now by "I exist", I don't mean "BraveHat exists". I mean that "I exist" is a self-evident truth for any person (or conscious entity?) that says it. That is, it is only a self-evident truth to that person or entity. "You exist" is not a self-evident truth, because one imaginable explanation of reality is that you are a figment of my imagination.
1) If there is some imaginable explanation of reality that disproves "I exist", please share
2) Are there any other self-evident truths by this definition?
P.S. I haven't read Descarte, so I'm not sure if he's covered any of this ground
[edit]
The responses in this discussion have reminded me that any tautology does indeed fit the definition of self-evident truth which I supplied. I would therefore like to further qualify the kind of truth I've been trying to parse. I should like to add the qualification that, in addition to being a truth stated such that no explanation of reality could possibly disprove it, it must also be an observation of reality. I would therefore like to introduce into this thread the concept of a self-evident empirical truth.
Self-Evident Empirical Truth
A self-evident empirical truth is a truth which has both of the following two properties:
1)No explanation of reality can possibly disprove it
2)It is an observation of something real
The only self-evident empirical truth I can think of is "I exist". That is, one knows one exists, because one directly observes oneself existing. Yet, unlike most observations, this one cannot possibly be disproven by any explanation of reality.
Are there any other self-evident empirical truths, by this definition?
[/edit]
Last edited by BraveHat on Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:30 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Lepton*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 5:54 am Post subject: 2 |
|
|
People have speculated that the universe is being simulated in a higher-dimensional computer by intelligent beings. In such a case, depending on your definition of "exist", one might not exist.
My body is made of elements that are continuously entering and leaving, and the patterns upon which I am created are continually being copied, themselves. There is an uncertainty principle to the corporeal or informational "I" that subtends over time: for a given duration there is a non-zero instability to my self. Thus, what am I?
Or, if you choose a snapshot in time, which atoms are "me" and which are superfluous? This isn't a slippery-slope argument: by choosing a definite time, you (a) run afoul of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which thus concludes that "my" constituent atoms would have an infinite amount of energy available, and thus lose all their bonds, (b) lose any sense of my body as a system of interacting atoms, and (c) cannot do this anyway, since both the duration of thought and the nonlocality of special relativity make a determination of something with physical size in instanteity impossible.
How about the statement "at least one statement exists"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extro...*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:26 am Post subject: 3 |
|
|
Sentience exists. I know this, because I am a sentient being. I know that sentience exists in a more absolute way than I know anything.
And yes, the existence of sentience is un-inferrable from an objective study of the universe. Nothing about, for instance, intelligence, requires sentience. I can imagine mechanical / electronic entities more intelligent than humans, without sentience, and I can imagine them being able to study and dissect humans to the point of understanding human intelligence and behavior and how it is produced, without positing some sort of ineffable "sentience" being at play.
The only way to know sentience is to be a sentient thing, and then one only knows one's own sentience.
Lack of objective evidence of sentience, given it exists, implies lack of evidence of a lack of sentience. That is, no evidence of sentience is not evidence of no sentience. With sentience, one does not expect evidence of it.
Do I have reason to conclude sentience is limited to things like me, merely because I'm the only thing I know to be sentient, and I'm a thing like me? Do I have any more reason to believe I am special, or that humans are special, or that living things are special, as opposed to sentience being ubiquitous? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jedo the Jedi
Paragon in Training
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:28 am Post subject: 4 |
|
|
"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Blah, blah, blah, I'm an antagonistic bastard. 
_________________
Paragon Tally: 18 mafia, 3 SKs (1 twice), 1 cultist, numerous chat scum...and counting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antrax
ESL Student
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:38 am Post subject: 5 |
|
|
BH, you're retreading Descartes' footsteps. I strongly recommend reading "Discourse on the Method".
Lepton, it doesn't matter what "I" is, there must be an "I" to be able to make any statements at all, which is why it's self-evident.
_________________
After years of disappointment with get rich quick schemes, I know I'm gonna get rich with this scheme. And quick! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject: 6 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| By this definition, the only self-evident truth I can think of is "I exist." |
Was this truth (or some similar equivalent statement) self-evident 200 years ago? Will it be self-evident 200 years from now?
I don't think self-evident is all that useful of a property for a statement to have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:53 pm Post subject: 7 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| BH, you're retreading Descartes' footsteps. I strongly recommend reading "Discourse on the Method". |
Though Descarte approached it from purely rational perspective. Basically, he noted he could doubt the evidence of his senses as some sort of hallucination, and asked what he could not possibly doubt. He noted that if he doubts he's doubting, he's still doubting. Doubting being a form of thinking, he could not doubt he thinks, therefore he thinks, and therefore he exists.
That sentience exits is self-evident in an empirical manner. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:04 pm Post subject: 8 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| By this definition, the only self-evident truth I can think of is "I exist." |
Was this truth (or some similar equivalent statement) self-evident 200 years ago? Will it be self-evident 200 years from now? |
Whose self are we talking about? And does it matter? It's certainly not self-evident to me that sentience existed a moment from now, or will exist a moment from now. It's self-evident to me that it exists
| Quote: |
| I don't think self-evident is all that useful of a property for a statement to have. |
Any certain indicator of the truth of something I find useful. I like mathematics - plenty of certain truths there, but it's an abstract domain (nothing wrong with that). Physics is nice, but we're talking about an objective world that we infer actually exists, but that we, as Descarte did, may doubt. That sentience exists, this is a certain truth, self-evident, in a real domain. In mathematics, the existence of certain things are posited as axioms. Here, the existence of sentience is directly apprehended as a truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:12 pm Post subject: 9 |
|
|
| Antrax wrote: |
| BH, you're retreading Descartes' footsteps. I strongly recommend reading "Discourse on the Method". |
Also note that a sufficiently advanced reasoning robot, with sensors that provide it with data, but without sentience, could very well retread Descartes' footsteps. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:21 pm Post subject: 10 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Blah, blah, blah, I'm an antagonistic bastard. |
I always thought the "we hold these truths to be self-evident" part was a clever more eloquent way of saying "we're don't feel the need to defend or prove these truths with rationalizations before living by them, and we're not providing rationalizations for you to pick apart as if we needed to". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:43 pm Post subject: 11 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
| By this definition, the only self-evident truth I can think of is "I exist." |
Was this truth (or some similar equivalent statement) self-evident 200 years ago? Will it be self-evident 200 years from now?
I don't think self-evident is all that useful of a property for a statement to have. |
As long as sentience exists, it will be self-evident to the sentient self. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 2:58 pm Post subject: 12 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Whose self are we talking about? And does it matter? It's certainly not self-evident to me that sentience existed a moment from now, or will exist a moment from now. It's self-evident to me that it exists |
If the fact can't be used to consider the past, or to make predictions about the future, then what point is there to it?
| Quote: |
| Any certain indicator of the truth of something I find useful. |
Why? I feel like you're saying that tautologies give you more confidence about things that aren't tautologies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 3:07 pm Post subject: 13 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Whose self are we talking about? And does it matter? It's certainly not self-evident to me that sentience existed a moment from now, or will exist a moment from now. It's self-evident to me that it exists |
If the fact can't be used to consider the past, or to make predictions about the future, then what point is there to it? |
First, I can conjecture that sentience will exist in the future and has always existed in the past, with as much (probably more) confidence as anything else in the past or future.
I like to have some understanding of the nature of reality, beyond the utilitarian predictions of physical things.
| Thok wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Any certain indicator of the truth of something I find useful. |
Why? I feel like you're saying that tautologies give you more confidence about things that aren't tautologies. |
I'm not following the last sentence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:09 pm Post subject: 14 |
|
|
| Lepton wrote: |
| People have speculated that the universe is being simulated in a higher-dimensional computer by intelligent beings. In such a case, depending on your definition of "exist", one might not exist. |
How many definitions of "exist" are there? I can't define "exist" any further than naming synonyms. "One" might not exist, but the being comprehending the statement does. Whatever conscious agent does the comprehending of that statement is the "I".
| Lepton wrote: |
| My body is made of elements that are continuously entering and leaving, and the patterns upon which I am created are continually being copied, themselves. There is an uncertainty principle to the corporeal or informational "I" that subtends over time: for a given duration there is a non-zero instability to my self. Thus, what am I? |
I don't know, but I'm not trying to define "I" precisely (yet), only asserting that some sort of "I" exists. Please note that I'm not saying "I existed" is a self-evident truth, nor am I saying "I will exist" is a self-evident truth. All I am saying is that "I exist", which implies the present moment, is a self-evident truth. So even the idea that my whole self may be completely different from one moment to the next to the point where nothing from a moment ago is from the same "I" as this moment's "I", though it may change the belief that "I existed", it doesn't change that fact that "I exist."
| Lepton wrote: |
| How about the statement "at least one statement exists"? |
Now you're talking. Here's an explanation of reality which might disprove that: You only exist in this moment. Your past is an implanted memory, and you will not exist after this moment. Any intuition you have in this moment about statements existing is merely some concept of a "statement" going along with this singular moment of existence. But every statement you think you've come across is merely an implanted memory. Including this one. By that explanation, the statement "at least one statement exists" is false. In fact, it was never even made. You just think it was.
Ok, maybe that wasn't convincing. It could be that, by the definition I gave, the statement "at least one statement exists" is a self-evident truth. But it does bring up an interesting question: Which came first, the first statement ever made or the concept of a statement? Did someone unintentionally make a statement which made the concept of a statement real, or did the concept of a statement prompt the first statement?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 10:49 pm Post subject: 15 |
|
|
| Jedo the Jedi wrote: |
"...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Blah, blah, blah, I'm an antagonistic bastard. |
| extro.. wrote: |
| Sentience exists. I know this, because I am a sentient being. I know that sentience exists in a more absolute way than I know anything. |
I know what you mean, but I just wanted to point out how counter-intuitive the phrase "more absolute" is.
| Thok wrote: |
| BraveHat wrote: |
By this definition, the only self-evident truth I can think of is "I exist." |
Was this truth (or some similar equivalent statement) self-evident 200 years ago? Will it be self-evident 200 years from now? |
It's not self-evident that it was even a truth a moment ago, or that it will be a moment from now. But it is self-evident in this moment.
| Thok wrote: |
| I don't think self-evident is all that useful of a property for a statement to have. |
I don't think a spork is all that useful of an invention, but people seem to keeping making them.
I generally agree that tautologies are useless, but I'm still not sure if "I exist" is merely a tautology. If it's a tautology at all, it may be unique amongst tautologies in that it seems to actually be saying something (which one already knows, of course) about unalterable reality, as opposed to a tautological statement like "a horse is a horse", of course. Of course that statement says nothing about reality, it just equates something to itself.
One use for finding a point of agreement on the nature of this phrase is that it can be used to ponder the nature of subjectivity, (since it is only self-evident to the person saying it, it is subjective) There is potential there for speculating specifically on the nature of unbiased subjectivity, as opposed to biased subjectivity.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coyote
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:27 pm Post subject: 16 |
|
|
How about 'A=A'? Would that count as a self-evident truth?
What about 'B=B'? Is that self-evident, or is it derived from 'A=A'?
Is 'A>B' self-evident (for certain values of A and B)? What about the reverse situation?
(Don't even get me started on 'A>B, B>C; A>C'). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zag
Tired of his old title
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:05 am Post subject: 17 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
| (Don't even get me started on 'A>B, B>C; A>C'). |
That's because that isn't true. A=rock, B=Scissors, C=paper. or A= AcKs, B=JhTh, C=2d2h |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 12:54 am Post subject: 18 |
|
|
| Coyote wrote: |
| How about 'A=A'? |
http://www.quickmind.net/mathpathways/algebra1/content/algebra1/topics/axiomequ.htm
I can't quite articulate it at the moment, but I think logical axioms (like the first three in the above) are not in the spirit of what was meant at the start of the thread.
A=A is necessarily true - it's true in any conceivable universe, if not self-evidently, then axiomatically (part of the agreed definition of '=', without which consideration of truth is meaningless).
Sentience exists, but I could imagine the universe without sentience. That it exists is not necessarily true, but it is true in this universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:37 am Post subject: 19 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Sentience exists, but I could imagine the universe without sentience. That it exists is not necessarily true, but it is true in this universe. |
This is a bit disingenuous. While it's true that one can imagine a universe without sentience, it's also true that such a universe couldn't contain a sentient being to ponder that lack of sentience.
(I'm mangling the anthropic principle above.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:05 am Post subject: 20 |
|
|
| Thok* wrote: |
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Sentience exists, but I could imagine the universe without sentience. That it exists is not necessarily true, but it is true in this universe. |
This is a bit disingenuous. |
How so?
| Thok* wrote: |
| While it's true that one can imagine a universe without sentience, it's also true that such a universe couldn't contain a sentient being to ponder that lack of sentience. |
And your point?
Also note that as far as we know, i.e. from all evidence we have, that that universe without sentience need not appear any different than this one. It would have non-sentient beings behaving like you and me, having this very discussion. They would claim to be sentient, as my claim that I'm sentient is a physical occurrence, a complex process involving matter and energy behaving as governed by the laws of physics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:16 am Post subject: 21 |
|
|
| It seems reasonable to think that I exist, but how do I know that my reasoning is actually producing truth? I might be in error about the concept of existence. How would I know for sure that I haven't made a logical error somewhere? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:37 am Post subject: 22 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| It seems reasonable to think that I exist, but how do I know that my reasoning is actually producing truth? I might be in error about the concept of existence. How would I know for sure that I haven't made a logical error somewhere? |
Suppose you did indeed make a logical error somewhere. That means you are around in order to make that error. Therefore, you exist.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:40 am Post subject: 23 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| Also note that as far as we know, i.e. from all evidence we have, that that universe without sentience need not appear any different than this one. It would have non-sentient beings behaving like you and me, having this very discussion. They would claim to be sentient, as my claim that I'm sentient is a physical occurrence, a complex process involving matter and energy behaving as governed by the laws of physics. |
Oh, you're going the philosophical zombie route.
Then I don't have much to say. You've set up a non-falsifiable situation: there doesn't seem to be any way to tell the difference between a universe where everybody has sentience and a universe where some have sentience and others don't have sentience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:42 am Post subject: 24 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| It seems reasonable to think that I exist, but how do I know that my reasoning is actually producing truth? I might be in error about the concept of existence. How would I know for sure that I haven't made a logical error somewhere? |
Suppose you did indeed make a logical error somewhere. That means you are around in order to make that error. Therefore, you exist. |
How do I know there's no mistake in your reasoning? I don't see any, but how can I be sure I haven't overlooked something? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
extropalopakettle
No offense, but....
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:49 am Post subject: 25 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| You've set up a non-falsifiable situation: there doesn't seem to be any way to tell the difference between a universe where everybody has sentience and a universe where some have sentience and others don't have sentience. |
I don't believe I've set up anything. Is that not the way things are, as far as all evidence suggests? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:00 am Post subject: 26 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| How do I know there's no mistake in your reasoning? I don't see any, but how can I be sure I haven't overlooked something? |
I can't answer that question without once again reasoning. You'll just have to be satisfied with the excellent chance that my reasoning is correct. However, "I exist" doesn't involve any reasoning.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:07 am Post subject: 27 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| How do I know there's no mistake in your reasoning? I don't see any, but how can I be sure I haven't overlooked something? |
I can't answer that question without once again reasoning. You'll just have to be satisfied with the excellent chance that my reasoning is correct. However, "I exist" doesn't involve any reasoning. |
It's a claim, and claims have be shown to be wrong in the past. Maybe this one is true, but I don't know that for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok
Oh, foe, the cursed teeth!
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:07 am Post subject: 28 |
|
|
| extropalopakettle wrote: |
| I don't believe I've set up anything. Is that not the way things are, as far as all evidence suggests? |
Your participation is in providing your personal definition of the concept of sentience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:26 am Post subject: 29 |
|
|
Just for the record, Thok, it was his "personal definition of sentience" that inspired the original post, though I purposely deviated from it by rephrasing the point.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:31 am Post subject: 30 |
|
|
The responses in this discussion have made it clear that any tautology does indeed fit the definition of self-evident truth which I supplied. I would therefore like to further qualify the kind of truth I've been trying to parse. I should like to add the qualification that, in addition to being a truth stated such that no explanation of reality could possibly disprove it, it must also be an observation of reality. I would therefore like to introduce into this thread the concept of a self-evident empirical truth.
Self-Evident Empirical Truth
A self-evident empirical truth is a truth which has both of the following two properties:
1)No explanation of reality can possibly disprove it
2)It is an observation of something real
The only self-evident empirical truth I can think of is "I exist". That is, one knows one exists, because one directly observes oneself existing. Yet, unlike most observations, this one cannot possibly be disproven by any explanation of reality.
Are there any other self-evident empirical truths, by this definition?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:38 am Post subject: 31 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Are there any other self-evident empirical truths, by this definition? |
The universe has properties that allow me to exist, aka the anthropic principle. (For example, the universe can't be nothing, since I'm in it.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:38 am Post subject: 32 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| It's a claim, and claims have be shown to be wrong in the past. Maybe this one is true, but I don't know that for sure. |
It's not self-evident to me that you know for sure, because you could just be a figment of my imagination. But if you exist as a conscious entity, then you do know for sure that you exist. Maybe you're just in denial.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:41 am Post subject: 33 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| The universe has properties that allow me to exist, aka the anthropic principle. (For example, the universe can't be nothing, since I'm in it.) |
I like it! Yes, that fits.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:32 pm Post subject: 34 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
| The universe has properties that allow me to exist, aka the anthropic principle. (For example, the universe can't be nothing, since I'm in it.) |
Oh, wait a second. I'm not sure if that works now. After all, how do we know that the Universe exists to have any properties at all?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 1:42 pm Post subject: 35 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| It's a claim, and claims have be shown to be wrong in the past. Maybe this one is true, but I don't know that for sure. |
It's not self-evident to me that you know for sure, because you could just be a figment of my imagination. But if you exist as a conscious entity, then you do know for sure that you exist. Maybe you're just in denial. |
If you say that you know you exist and I ask how you know you're not mistaken and you give me a reason, how do you know your reason is not in error? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:30 pm Post subject: 36 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| If you say that you know you exist and I ask how you know you're not mistaken and you give me a reason, how do you know your reason is not in error? |
Because I'm directly apprehending the truth of the reason I give.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chuck
Daedalian Member
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 2:43 pm Post subject: 37 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| Chuck wrote: |
| If you say that you know you exist and I ask how you know you're not mistaken and you give me a reason, how do you know your reason is not in error? |
Because I'm directly apprehending the truth of the reason I give. |
I don't see how you can be sure that what you're apprehending is the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:00 pm Post subject: 38 |
|
|
| Chuck wrote: |
| I don't see how you can be sure that what you're apprehending is the truth. |
I don't see how you can not see how one can be sure of it.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thok*
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:15 pm Post subject: 39 |
|
|
| BraveHat wrote: |
| After all, how do we know that the Universe exists to have any properties at all? |
If it didn't exist, you wouldn't exist either.
You might be completely wrong about the nature of the universe (it might be a brain in a jar, or a computer simulation, or a dream), but there's still a brain in a jar, computer, or dreamer's brain that actually is the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:21 pm Post subject: 40 |
|
|
| Thok wrote: |
If it didn't exist, you wouldn't exist either.
You might be completely wrong about the nature of the universe (it might be a brain in a jar, or a computer simulation, or a dream), but there's still a brain in a jar, computer, or dreamer's brain that actually is the universe. |
That leaves the question of how we are defining the term "Universe". I almost defined it as "everything that exists," but there have been theories on multiple universes and dimensions outside of space and time. So how are we defining the term "Universe"?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
