|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature.... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 442 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
~1.6 writes:
In terms of certainty, reality is absurd. Forced absolutes are just a dumbing down of the necessary uncertainty.
By dismissing the possibility of absolute certainty weinvite the absurd.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
1.61803 writes: By dismissing the possibility of absolute certainty weinvite the absurd. Where does this idea come from? First off... no one is dismissing the possibility of absolute certainty.I am only dismissing our current ability to know about absolute certainty. Second... invite the absurd? This sounds very dramatic.We seem to do quite well without absolute certainties. I am not absolutely certain it will be sunny tomorrow.Doesn't stop me from going outside. Doesn't stop me from not-taking-my-umbrella. I am not absolutely certain my house won't be robbed while I'm away.Doesn't stop me from leaving to get my groceries. Doesn't stop me from going to work or away on vacation. I am not absolutely certain the universe was created 13+ billion years ago.Doesn't stop me from putting my pants on in the morning and going to work. I am not absolutely certain that I won't get in a fatal car crash as I drive to work in the morning.Doesn't stop me from going. I am not absolutely certain my child won't drown in water.Doesn't stop me from letting them learn to swim. Are you able to name something where we will sit idly by and wait until we have an "absolute certainty" before moving forward?What are these "absurdities" that will enter our lives without absolutes? I think you mean that without the illusion of absolute certainty... then certain immature minds will devolve into the absurd. I would agree with that. But I hardly see how that affects any practical life or has any weight in a discussion of absolute reality. The idea of things being absolute is a childish one. It is lunch time.I am hungry. You are my best friend. All humans have 2 arms and 2 legs. As we grow up, we learn that things don't necessarily have to be absolute in any sense: -It may very well be noon, but "lunch time" can be whenever I decide to eat.-I might feel like some food, but maybe I'm not actually hungry yet. -I can have many friends without necessarily designating one as "the best" if I want to. -Some humans do not have all their appendages. The illusion can be stronger or weaker depending on the scenario.But it still remains that we are not currently able to identify whether or not anything actually is "absolute reality." We're also not surrounded by absurdities. This means that we most certainly do not "invite the absurd" when we dismiss the possibility of knowing anything absolutely.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: If "true" and "absolutely true" are identical in meaning why would anyone bother adding the term "absolute" here? Numbers writes: Because there are many instances where absolutes do not exist. Can you give me an example of a truth which you don't consider to be absolutely true?
Numbers writes: Death is not one of them Is it philosophically possible that the conclusion that Lester Moore is dead could be wrong?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Staggler writes: Can you give me an example of a truth which you don't consider to be absolutely true? I can not. I was referring to absolute knowledge in this instance.
Staggler writes: Is it philosophically possible that the conclusion that Lester Moore is dead could be wrong? Not without regressing into Epistemological solipsism."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Stile writes: First off... no one is dismissing the possibility of absolute certainty. Stile writes: This means that we most certainly do not "invite the absurd" when we dismiss the possibility of knowing anything absolutely. Which is it? "You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
numbers writes: I can not. I was referring to absolute knowledge in this instance. Ok. Can you give me an example of something which we know to be true which we don't know to be absolutely true? I am trying to ascertain what (if any) meaning the term "absolute" adds here as far as you are concerned.
Straggler writes: Is it philosophically possible that the conclusion that Lester Moore is dead could be wrong? numbers writes: Not without regressing into Epistemological solipsism There are a multitude of philosophical possibilities which would call the absolute deadness of Lester Moore into question. Most of which are not solipsistic. If we could transport Lester Moore through time from 1880 to 2014 so that he could take part in this discussion would "absolutely dead" be a valid description? There are all sorts of philosophical possibilities that we might consider desperately unlikely but which cannot be absolutely eliminated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If there are no absolutes then that is a absolute and a contradiction. [lizard] Heh heh heh~ Fine that's fine There is only one absolute, and it is that reality is not absolute. I'll even push it one further: There are no absolutes, except this one. In Message 484 you wrote:
Staggler writes:
I can not. I was referring to absolute knowledge in this instance. Can you give me an example of a truth which you don't consider to be absolutely true? One way to see truth as separate from absolute truth is in how it works in a practical matter. I've been arguing that there is no absolute length of a 2x4. So if I was working in a lumber yard and a customer asked me if I had an 8-foot 2x4, I would have to conclude that it was not true that any of them were absolutely 8 feet long. But that ain't right, as I explained in Message 256:
quote: So one way to use the word "truth" as distinct from "absolute truth" is to answer if it is true in a practical matter. To insist on the existence of "absolute truth" for practical reasons, because otherwise it isn't actually true, is wrong. It is true that he's dead, but it doesn't have to be absolutely true, and you're wrong to insist on it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
You seem to keep coming around to saying things along the lines of "but our practical applications are really good and extremely useful!" I don't disagree with such an idea. I just didn't think that was what we were talking about. I had asked about how we can calculate probabilities because you can not calculate probabilities if you do not know something for sure about what you are calculating. You cannot calculate the probability of rolling a 6 if you do not know how many sides there are on the dice. The reciprocal of knowing that there are 6 sides gives us the ability to say with certainty that the result will be between 1 and 6 incl. There is no room for rational uncertainty here. My example of the falling stone was an attempt to force someone to justify coming up with a probability of less than 1/1. The fact that some of our practical applications work with 100% consistency is proof positive that there is an actual reality that behaves in a certain way. The fact that when we get to the moon and there is something there to stand on is proof positive that the moon actually exists. To maintain further doubt is not justified in any way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Proto writes: The fact that some of our practical applications work with 100% consistency is proof positive that there is an actual reality that behaves in a certain way. To know that anything operates with 100% consistency you would have had to test it an infinite number of times. In practise all one can say is that every test and observation so far ever taken has been 100% consistent and that we therefore confidently and quite reasonably expect all future one's to be so too. But that isn't absolute knowledge is it? Inductive Reasoning What if the next time you drop a pen it doesn't just fall to the ground as one would expect but instead does a loop the loop and flies out of the window on a trajectory to Mars? You might reasonably say that we know this won't be the case based on inductive and/or abductive reasoning. But that's not absolute knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
To know that anything operates with 100% consistency you would have had to test it an infinite number of times. Do you work for the testing dept? How many times do we have to roll the dice to know that we wont be getting a 7?
What if the next time you drop a pen it doesn't just fall to the ground as one would expect but instead does a loop the loop and flies out of the window on a trajectory to Mars? You might reasonably say that we know this won't be the case based on inductive and/or abductive reasoning. But that's not absolute knowledge. If the pen flies out the window then we will know that something has changed. We can know with certainty that unless something changes then the pen will not be flying out the window. Is it not a deduction that because gravity exists the pen will fall?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Staggler writes:
Ok, in many instances of knowledge that knowledge is tentative. I am trying to ascertain what (if any) meaning the term "absolute" adds here as far as you are concerned.For example the knowledge of the periodic table had blank spaces where elements where predicted to go. It was not absolute knowledge but eventually the elements that fit in those spaces where discovered. The blanks in our knowledge are not because the facts are indeterminate but because our present limitations in finding them.
Straggler writes: Yes and all of them inviting absurdity. There are a multitude of philosophical possibilities which would call the absolute deadness of Lester Moore into question. Edited by 1.61803, : spelling"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Proto writes: If the pen flies out the window then we will know that something has changed. We can know with certainty that unless something changes then the pen will not be flying out the window. Unless nothing has changed but our present understanding is inadequate to cover that particular eventuality.
Proto writes: Is it not a deduction that because gravity exists the pen will fall? It is a deduction of our present understanding of gravity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Numbers writes: Yes and all of them inviting absurdity. Who decides what is absurd?
Numbers writes: The blanks in our knowledge are not because the facts are indeterminate but because our present limitations in finding them. So what is the difference between knowing that Lester Moore is dead (which we both agree is then case) and having absolute knowledge that Lester Moore is absolutely dead (which we apparently disagree over). What meaning (if any) is it that the inclusion of the term "absolute" adds as far as you are concerned?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 379 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Are you guys still having fun? Apparently I am not sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
Hi Cat Sci,
Cat Sci writes:
Ok.
So one way to use the word "truth" as distinct from "absolute truth" is to answer if it is true in a practical matter. Cat Sci writes: It is true that he's dead, but it doesn't have to be absolutely true, and you're wrong to insist on it. If it is not absolutely true then it is not true. Someone is either dead or they are not. Unless you descend into time travel, many worlds, brains in vats, type scenarios which as I stated are absurd. Nature abhors paradoxes. You will never be able to go back in time to kill your parents because you would never have been born to do so. By saying there is no absolute truth you are saying that such paradoxes can exist."You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024