Chapter 3
From David Quinn
Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:23 pm
Kitten wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
The idea that has been brought forward of Berkley, to which I must quip this is one of the reasons I still have problems finding true reality, or a Universal Truth about it, if there is such a thing. Mainly I have been diagnosed, among other things, as possibly having MPD. This in itself throws many things into question, not to mention the hallucinations I have had of people whom, as far as I could tell, were real: I could touch them, converse normally, smell them, and they had distinct personalities and traits. Thus, I can say with sincerity that “these perceptions are impressed upon each individual mind with order and consistency,” and that it certainly brings into question whether there is a “self referential entity,” or not. |
Although you might have this disorder, everyone is in the same
boat, really. None of us can be certain that what we experience in
the world, or indeed the world itself, isn't an hallucination of some
kind. It doesn't matter what kind of empirical evidence we care to
throw together to support the view that we not hallucinating; the
evidence itself could easily be part of the hallucination.
Of
course, on a practical level, we have no choice but to treat
everything we experience as "real", at least until we
discover convincing evidence to the contrary. This applies just as
much to people with healthy brains as it does with those who suffer
MPD and the like. It's part of the "human condition".
However, it is possible to transcend this kind of uncertainty through
enlightenment.
Part of the joy of becoming enlightened is
that the uncertainties which are inherent in the empirical world are
no longer important. They still continue to exist, but they no longer
have any bearing on one's knowledge and wisdom. This is because the
enlightened person sees that everything is a manifestation of
Ultimate Reality, regardless of whether it is an hallucination or
not. Even the dreams inside one's own mind are imbued with just as
much Ultimate Reality as the physical mountains and trees outside.
From David Quinn
Sun Dec 28, 2003 3:48 pm
Anlog57 wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
Sounds good, so, what is this ..."ultimate truth", in your humble opinion? |
Well, I can give you a bunch of words which probably won't mean
anything unless you already have some sort of inkling of what
Ultimate Truth might consist of. I could say, "emptiness",
for example. Or "formlessness". And I could add to this by
saying that it is what is understood and experienced when one
perceives the illusory nature of everything. But again, unless you
have some sort of idea of what these words might mean, they won't
mean anything to you.
|
Quote: |
|
Analog: "I THINK THEREFORE I EXIST" |
No, I'm saying that philosophic terms, such as "think",
I" and "exist", can mean any number of things
depending on who is employing them.
For example, if the
phrase, "I think therefore I exist", is interpreted to mean
that the act of thinking is enough to prove that one isn't an
hallucination, then obviously that would be false. However, if it is
interpreted to mean that the act of thinking proves that
consciousness is occuring, experiences are happening and Reality is
not nothing whatsoever, then that is a truth which not even a daemon
can cast doubt upon.
|
Quote: |
|
Reality Exists |
Neither.
|
Quote: |
|
Analog: According to Berkeley, perception is consistent due to
the fact that a type of mental universal self consistency must
apply to the collective whole of individual perceptions. A type
of universal being? A type of superior intelligence[BEING]
creates a world by the sheer power of thought, in which every
object becomes, for the percipient, the collected results of
many perceptions, or bits of information. That is to say,
sensory objects are compositions derived from many perceptual
experiences over a period of time, originating from a universal
compositional entity, or "BEING". These perceptions
are impressed upon each individual mind with order and
consistency. Since this universal "Self Awareness"
must sustain Creation at all times, everything is always
perceived by this self referring, self referential entity, ergo,
total reality continues "to exist", even though it may
cease to be experienced by any individual self aware perceiver
|
And what's the point of it?
From Andrew Beckwith
Sun Dec 28, 2003 4:49 pm:
|
Quote: |
|
How have you established that the scientific method is the only valid path to truth? |
It is the most honest one we currently have for phenomenological
events. If you wish to separate yourself from a causal linkage to
phenomenology you can come up with all sorts of conjectures. Doing so
puts you on the side of those who enforced dogma as a way to silence
those who were socially inconvenient.
From analog57
Sun Dec 28, 2003 5:22 pm:
|
David Quinn wrote: |
|
Analog: It is a “conjecture” |
Symmetry Forms the Basis of Truth
Formlessness is
equivalent to "infinite symmetry":
The universal
laws of nature are explained in terms of symmetry. The completed
infinities, mathematician Georg Cantor's infinite sets, could be
explained as cardinal identities, akin to "qualia" from
which finite subsets, and elements of subsets, can be derived.
Completed infinities, called "alephs" are
distributive in nature, similar to the way that a set of "red"
objects has the distributive property of redness. Predicates like
"red" are numbers in the sense that they interact
algebraically according to the laws of Boolean algebra. Take one
object away from the set of red objects and the distributive number
"red" still describes the set. The distributive identity
"natural number" or "real number" describes an
entire collection of individual objects.
These alephs can be
set into a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of of
themselves. The "infinite" Cantorian alephs are really
distributive.
Yet, if we have a finite set of 7 objects, the
cardinal number 7 does not really distribute over its individual
subsets. Take anything away from the set and the number 7 ceases to
describe it.
Symmetry is analogous to a self evident truth
and is distributive via the laws of nature, being distributed over
the entire set called universe. A stratification of Cantorian alephs
with varying degrees of freedom. More freedom = greater symmetry =
higher infinity-alephs. So the highest aleph, the "absolute-infinity"
distributes over the entire set called universe and gives it
"identity".
The highest symmetry is a distributive
mathematical identity. This fact is reflected in part, by the
conservation laws.
So if an unbound-infinite-potential and a
constrained-finite-bound-potential are somehow different yet the
same. The difference and sameness relation is a duality.
Freedom(higher symmetry) and constraint(lesser symmetry) forms a
relation that can be described by an invariance principle.
On
a flat Euclidean surface, the three angles of a triangle sum to 180
degrees. On the curved surface of a sphere, the three angles add up
to more than 180 degrees. The two types of surfaces are not
equivalent.
There is a rotational invariance for a triangle,
that seems to hold for both types of surface though.
ABC =
BCA = CAB = CBA = BAC = ACB
Does this rotational invariance
hold for all geometries? I say yes, but I am not 100% sure yet.
99.999% It seems to point towards a type of duality for quantum
mechanics and general relativity.
An interesting idea for a
new "theory-conjecture" which is, that symmetry, not logic,
forms the basis of mathematical truth.
Truth = Invariance
principle.
Symmetry = invariance = identity
Aristotle's
law of excluded middle is really an invariance principle. Symmetry
forms the basis of logic.
A V ~A
T|F = F|T = T
From Plato
Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:11 pm:
I still think that the main problem is that you view sceince from a certain persepctive, which axiomatically prevents you from ascertaining certain things. I'll explain.
|
Quote: |
|
I'm not sure that I follow. How can gravity exist without the presence of mass-objects? |
Since Classical times, there have always been two major
philosophies of science. One, advocated by Plato, viewed everything
as deriving from a set of powers, which comprise reality. Plato
states that "powers are a class of things that that exist that
enable us - or anything else for that manner - to do whatever we are
capable of doing". Every action can be traced back to one or
more powers, which themselves have no causal precedent, besides God.
These powers, though not perceivable, can be revealed to the mind
through another power, termed noesis or cognition, which is a power
that enables knowledge of other powers. Because this is true, the
universe is ordered in such a manner as to be understandable by
noesis. Since it is demonstrable that these powers are universal,
absolute and timeless, they fulfill all the criteria which you have
asked for in terms of something being an "ultimate truth".
We are forced to conclude that ultimate truths can be known
through science, which without saying anything further already
contradicts your original claim.
The other view, advocated by
Aristotle, is that there is a class of things which have a priori
power, such as number, which when applied to the universe yield
knowledge. As such, Aristotle attempts to do away with a method of
discovering truth by reducing a Socratic hypothesis to logical
inductive/deductive method. This is called empiricism, which is a
useful, yet ultimately misguided outlook, which has brought upon a
rejection of scientific thought in intellectual circles that you
exemplify. Because you only keep this approach in mind as the method
of scientific inquiry, you mistakenly conclude that a proper
scientific method requires logic.
For example, gravitation is
a power, since a whole class of actions can be causally linked it,
while it cannot in turn be linked to anything else. An Aristotilean
view is that gravitation is a property of mass-objects, i.e. of some
self-evident existence; thus, you have Newton's axiomatic outlook
expressed in his "laws" of motion. However, with this
approach you give up any knowledge of higher-order causality. For
example, one cannot determine in this way why the planetary orbits
are ordered in that particular fashion, why each planet occupies that
particular orbit, why all planets revolve in the same direction, and
so forth. The only way that the organization of the solar system was
discovered by Kepler, after a millenia of Aristotliean blunder of
Ptolemy, Coppernicus, and Brahe, was through the method of
hypothesis, proceeding from the causal supremacy of a power (i.e.
gravitation) that organizes the orbits in a knowable way that then
constrain the formation of planets at those particular distances from
the sun. Thus, the entire process of generation and evolution of the
solar system can be accounted for based on that principle.
Other
powers act in the same way. Light obeys the principle of least time,
but least time is not some property of light; space is ordered by
least action, which is an efficiency principle; everything obeys the
principle of conservation of energy. Plasmas obey a principle of
electromagnetism; living systems obey a principle of negentropic
growth, and so forth. I can demonstrate for you that from the
principle of negentropic growth, which I hypothesized, I can account
for every aspect of biological evolution. This is what it means to be
a skilled scientist.
|
Quote: |
|
I come across this view all the time, but it's flawed in a number of ways. Its main flaw is that of equating all categories of logical truth with mathematical truths and/or "formal systems which are internally consistent, yet inconsistent with reality" |
I have come across this view as well. The equality of logical and
mathematical truths, such as identities, can be debated. I even think
you might be right. However, I do not accept anything as self-evident
or true a priori, unless in some way connected to discovered
principles or the process of discovery of new principles. Most
logical truths are true because their application aids in discovery
of new principles. Thus, in essence, these truths are nothing other
than hypotheses that have been experimentally verified. For example,
the principle of ontological paradox, which you may consider a
logical identity of the sort A is A, or A is not non-A, is true
because its application in conjunction with a scientific method aids
in discovery of new universal physical principles. This is why I have
stated that logic is subsumed by science, but in and out of itself it
has no intrinsic value for the human species.
I re-state the
principles of (Platonic) scientific inquiry:
1. The only
ascertainable existence is that of universal physical principles or
powers.
2. A proper scientific method allows one to obtain
knowledge of universal physical principles by means of hypothesis.
3. All other provisional knowledge which science deals with can
be traced back to the knowledge of those principles.
4. There is
no such thing as a self-evident truth that is divorced from knowledge
of universal physical principles.
I am looking forward to
future discussion,
Sergei
From David Quinn
Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:13 pm:
Andrew Beckwith wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ: How have you established that the scientific method is the
only valid path to truth? |
It's certainly the most honest one for investigating emprical
theories. At the same time, it is usless when it comes to
investigating logical and philosophical assertions. For those we need
the other "honest method" at our disposal - namely, the
philosophic method.
|
Quote: |
|
If you wish to separate yourself from a causal linkage to phenomenology you can come up with all sorts of conjectures. Doing so puts you on the side of those who enforced dogma as a way to silence those who were socially inconvenient. |
To deny the existence and validity of the philosophic method is
itself a form of dogmatism which is divorced from reality - albeit
one that is very fashionable at the moment.
From David Quinn
Sun Dec 28, 2003 6:56 pm:
Sergei wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ: I'm not sure that I follow. How can gravity exist without
the presence of mass-objects? |
This is confusing. If God is the cause of these "powers",
then the idea that they have no causal precedent is false.
|
Quote: |
|
These powers, though not perceivable, can be revealed to the mind through another power, termed noesis or cognition, which is a power that enables knowledge of other powers. Because this is true, the universe is ordered in such a manner as to be understandable by noesis. Since it is demonstrable that these powers are universal, absolute and timeless, they fulfill all the criteria which you have asked for in terms of something being an "ultimate truth". We are forced to conclude that ultimate truths can be known through science, which without saying anything further already contradicts your original claim. |
You haven't dealt with my point about the possibility of the
perceived universe being a simulation of some kind. It could well be
that the world is a computer simulation, with all of its "powers"
arbitrarily programmed into it. If this is so (and keeping in mind
that neither logical reasoning nor empirical testing can dismiss the
possibility), then the "powers" would not be absolute. They
would be contingent phenomenon that only occur within the simulated
universe.
|
Quote: |
|
The other view, advocated by Aristotle, is that there is a class of things which have a priori power, such as number, which when applied to the universe yield knowledge. As such, Aristotle attempts to do away with a method of discovering truth by reducing a Socratic hypothesis to logical inductive/deductive method. This is called empiricism, which is a useful, yet ultimately misguided outlook, which has brought upon a rejection of scientific thought in intellectual circles that you exemplify. Because you only keep this approach in mind as the method of scientific inquiry, you mistakenly conclude that a proper scientific method requires logic. |
I'm not aware of any of these intellectual circles that you speak
of. My overwhelming experience of intellectuals , as far as this
matter is concerned, is their total love for the scientific method,
which is what I would term "empiricism", and a complete
disbelief in the existence of a higher form of logic which goes
beyond science.
You seem to be saying that you regard the
core scientific laws of Nature to be independently existing things
that are woven into the very fabric of Reality and causally create
everything we experience. This means that you reject the view that
these laws are mental creations that we infer and project onto
Reality. Can you can state exactly why you think this?
|
Quote: |
|
For example, gravitation is a power, since a whole class of actions can be causally linked it, while it cannot in turn be linked to anything else. An Aristotilean view is that gravitation is a property of mass-objects, i.e. of some self-evident existence; thus, you have Newton's axiomatic outlook expressed in his "laws" of motion. |
Are you saying that that gravity can occur when there are no
mass-objects?
|
Quote: |
|
However, with this approach you give up any knowledge of higher-order causality. For example, one cannot determine in this way why the planetary orbits are ordered in that particular fashion, why each planet occupies that particular orbit, why all planets revolve in the same direction, and so forth. |
Well, at bottom, all of these things are determined by the
principle of cause and effect, which is the root determiner of
everything.
|
Quote: |
|
DQ: I come across this view all the time, but it's flawed in a
number of ways. Its main flaw is that of equating all categories
of logical truth with mathematical truths and/or "formal
systems which are internally consistent, yet inconsistent with
reality" |
There's no doubt about it. Mathematical reasoning deals with
mathematical concepts, while philosophical reasoning deals not only
with philosophic concepts, but more general concepts as well. This
alone makes them very different, even though both utilize pure
deductive logic.
|
Quote: |
|
However, I do not accept anything as self-evident or true a priori, unless in some way connected to discovered principles or the process of discovery of new principles. Many logical truths are true because their application aids in discovery of new principles. Thus, in essence, these truths are nothing other than hypotheses that have been experimentally verified. For example, the principle of ontological paradox is true because its application in conjunction with a scientific method aids in discovery of new universal physical principles. This is why I have stated that logic is subsumed by science, but in and out of itself it has no intrinsic value for the human species. |
What about the truth that all things in the Universe are finite -
i.e. fall short of constituting the totality of all there is? Here is
a truth which is impossible to refute, goes beyond science and and is
too basic to link to discovered principles - unless we include the
principle of A=A into our purview. It is also a very meaningful truth
for those with a large enough vision. How do you slot this into your
framework?
From Andrew Beckwith
Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:24 am:
|
Quote: |
|
There's no doubt about it. Mathematical reasoning deals with mathematical concepts, while philosophical reasoning deals not only with philosophic concepts, but more general concepts as well. This alone makes them very different, even though both utilize pure deductive logic. |
You obviously do not have a clue as to what prompts mathematical
insight. Creativity is by its very nature often a NON deductive
logical phenomena and is the well spring of all mathematics.
Since
you missed this important datum, the rest of your reasoning past this
reference point is flawed and should be reviewed by you.
From Kitten
Mon Dec 29, 2003 8:50 am:
I do not feel “scientific method is the only valid path to [universal] truth.” One may find it through philosophical method, and thoughts…there are several universes including one’s personal universe effected and changed every second by one’s thoughts and actions. Some people find religion as help, and believe spiritual strength is one way of finding these truths. I remind you all we were talking of Buddhism and Nirvana. I doubt highly that such a plane could be found through lab experiments.(Whether these spring from mathematical or scientific reasoning, or methods, is not in question.)
From M
Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:54 am
|
David Quinn wrote: |
|
You haven't dealt with my point about the possibility of the perceived universe being a simulation of some kind. |
This is a conceptual dead end and, ironically, that end is you
(or me). There is no reason to presume that external reality does not
exist. We can't escape the filter of our senses, so why bother
arguing over what happens without it? It doesn't even make sense to
talk about "what happens" since that implies an event and
events are only conceivable through the filter of our senses.
From Andrew Beckwith
Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:33 am:
|
Quote: |
|
It doesn't even make sense to talk about "what happens" since that implies an event and events are only conceivable through the filter of our senses. |
It is even worse than that. It appears that Quinn does not care
about causal relationships. This is to put it mildly WEIRD.
Philosophy with a total disconnect with causal reality is like a love
affair without sex. Unnatural.
From Plato
Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:00 pm
I will answer all your queries at once in as complete manner as I can. I think you'r ready to hear this, at any rate. I will demonstrate that those powers or universal principles are in fact ultimate truths. Do understand though, that to completely address those questions I will need to write a book.
|
Quote: |
|
You haven't dealt with my point about the possibility of the perceived universe being a simulation of some kind. |
|
Quote: |
|
You seem to be saying that you regard the core scientific laws of Nature to be independently existing things that are woven into the very fabric of Reality and causally create everything we experience. This means that you reject the view that these laws are mental creations that we infer and project onto Reality. Can you can state exactly why you think this? |
|
Quote: |
|
Are you saying that that gravity can occur when there are no mass-objects? |
I. Knowable (noetic) physical reality is not the same as
perceived (empirical) reality. I define the former as an image of
Reality generated by our cognition; I define the latter as an image
of Reality generated by our sense-organs. The former is comprised of
powers (thought-objects); the latter of matter (mass-objects). In the
former, we view phenomena as ordered by various powers; in the
latter, we view phenomena as properties (degrees of extension) of
mass-objects. Perceived reality is an imperfect image of Reality
because knowledge based on this reality always generates paradoxes,
which are resolvable only by postulating the existence of powers
(universal physical principles, universal laws, laws of nature) which
themselves do not exist in perceived reality. While knowledge of
perceived reality requires borrowing objects from knowable reality
for completeness, knowledge of knowable reality does not generate any
inconsistencies and thus does not require the introduction of
additional classes (types) of objects from some higher reality (i.e.
it is internally sufficient). This means that there is no higher
(more perfect) reality than knowable reality. Since no higher reality
exists, knowable reality is an isomorphic image of Reality in the
same way that a reflection in the mirror is an isomorphic image of
perceived reality. Furthermore, it is quite obvious that any image of
reality, isomorphic or othwerwise, must be in some way already
contained within that reality. Thus, both images of Reality must also
be contained within Reality and be consistent with its Nature, much
like a reflection in the mirror is contained within perceived reality
and is consistent with its nature. In mathematical terms, this means
that the range and domain (the image and the object imaged) of the
transformation overlap, or in case of an isomorphic transformation
are perectly coincidental (onto). We are finally at our goal.
Perceived reality is a map of Reality that is one-to-one, since that
reality is logically coherent, but not onto, since some objects exist
in Reality, but not in perceived reality. Since, perceived reality is
not onto, it is incomplete and is acted upon by objects in Reality
that are not perceivable; this generates ontological paradoxes in
attempting to base knowledge solely on perceived reality
(empiricism). In contrast, knowable reality is a mapping that is both
one-to-one and onto. Since, no higher types need be introduced in
that reality, there is no object that exists in reality but not in
knowable reality. Thus, knowable reality is a perfect image or is
perfectly correspondent with Reality. Objects of knowable reality are
mental constructs (in Reality), but since they are isomorphic to
objects of Reality, these powers or universal principles necessarily
exist as objects in Reality, although may differ in subtle ways (so
that the isomorphism is not perturbed). This makes the answer to your
question on gravity trivial. Gravity is an object that exists in
knowable reality; mass-objects are objects that exist in perceptual
reality; since the two realities are independent maps of Reality,
gravity cannot be an extension of mass-objects, in the same way that
shadows cast by trees cannot be an extension of reflections on a pond
surface produced by those same trees - both are independent images of
perceptual reality.
II. In addition, objects of knowable
reality are not akin to rules of a computer simulation or any other
logical system. The single greatest reason is that the universe
allows for cognition i.e. a power that is illogical and thus
incoherent with an otherwise logical design of the system. Cognition
is illogical because it can introduce propositions which validity
cannot be ascertained within the bounds of any existing closed system
(i.e. it can generate hypotheses that are not obtainable through
deductive/inductive means and can only be validated by experiment). A
logical system that allows for an illogical existence is a
contradiction, thus reality is not a logical system. To sum up,
reality knowable through scientific method is in perfect
correspondence with Reality, no higher reality exists and knowable
reality is not organized in the same manner as a logical system. All
of that means that universal physical principles are ultimate truths
(the question of God does not pose a problem here, but I am not
compelled to elaborate on it).
|
Quote: |
|
My overwhelming experience of intellectuals, as far as this matter is concerned, is their total love for the scientific method, which is what I would term "empiricism", and a complete disbelief in the existence of a higher form of logic which goes beyond science. |
This is a misuse of the term empiricism. Empiricism is a
philosophy of science that claims that perceived reality is the only
knowable reality. Here's Robbie's tractation of empiricism:
|
Quote: |
|
We can't escape the filter of our senses, so why bother arguing over what happens without it? |
I couldn't have said it better myself. I have already mentioned
above the basic reason for its falsehood - knowledge based solely on
perceived reality is always incomplete and needs to be "patched
up" by inventing various "imaginary" physical
principles. Of course, they'r imaginary only to an empiricist, in
actuality they are more real than things you perceive, because their
existence is experimentally validateable. These "imaginary"
objects comprise what I was referring to above as knowable reality or
reality based on scientific principles. David, I think we can both
agree that empiricism is not a path to truth, though sufficient for
the purposes of everyday academic discourse. However, I am putting
forth a method of scientific thought that has been prevalent in
history. Most great discoveries of universal law were attained using
this method, rather than a rejection of scientific principles
altogether in favor of "ivory-tower" philosophizing. How
can you hope to generate a coherent view of reality by rational means
alone? You have presented neither a consistent view of Reality to
contrary to what I have presented nor a rigorous method for grasping
that Reality. So far, your argument consists of rejections of a
coherent scientific view of reality, questioning a millenia of human
progress and civilizational development. Thus before proceeding, I
must ask for as complete an answer as possible to the above two-fold
inquiry, in the same manner as I have satisfied yours.
From Dan Rowden
Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:49 pm
|
Andrew Beckwith wrote: |
|
DR: The physical duration of a person's life has nothing whatsoever to do with the search for Nirvana. AB: Deliberately tampering with mother nature so as to avoid the normal birth-death cycle has EVERYTHING to do with Nirvana. Think it over, please. |
The idea that Nirvana is some place that one goes to (or where
some aspect of "subtle consciousness" goes to) is a
particular delusion held by so-called "Pure Land"
Buddhists. It's somewhat akin to the Christian notion of Heaven and
expresses a very disturbing religosity that has long since crept into
Buddhism. One of the problems when speaking about Christian or
Buddhist thought is that it is difficult - other than in some very
broad respects - to speak generically about Buddhist ideas.
Samsara, the cycle of rebirth, does not refer to life and
death in a literal sense - it refers to ego cycles that happen right
now in the life we're living. I know that some Buddhist traditions
have adopted a view equating transmigrational notions of
reincarnation with Karma, Samsara and Nirvana, but I have little
interest in discussing Buddhism in terms of these psuedo-religious
Buddhist traditions. To me that is like discussing something of great
worth via its lowest common denominator. It would be like discussing
Taoism through the vehicle of religious Taoism, which is, of course,
utterly vacuous.
As to the notion of tampering with Nature.
Any Buddhist who proposes a notion such as that is quite obviously a
dolt, since the whole idea is, of itself, doltish. How exactly is it
that Nature could be tampered with? Everything that is is part of
Nature. I must admit I've not come across any Buddhists who express
any such concept. I've come across plenty of Chistians who have,
although in their case you can usually replace Nature with God. But
in the end it is an intellectually worthless notion.
In a
manner of speaking, Nature continually tampers with herself via the
processes of evolution. What humans do is part of those processes.
From David Quinn
Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:11 pm:
Andrew Beckwith wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ: There's no doubt about it. Mathematical reasoning deals with
mathematical concepts, while philosophical reasoning deals not
only with philosophic concepts, but more general concepts as
well. This alone makes them very different, even though both
utilize pure deductive logic. |
I've not made any comment to suggest that is not the case. My
point was made in response to an entirely different issue - namely,
the idea that philosophical reasoning suffers from same limitations
as mathematical reasoning when it comes to yielding truths about the
"real world".
--
M wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ: You haven't dealt with my point about the possibility of the
perceived universe being a simulation of some kind. |
There is no question that external reality (i.e. reality
perceived by the senses) exists. The question is whether it is
possible to completely dismiss the notion that it is a simulation.
And the answer is, no, we can't dismiss it altogether.
The
very real possibility that the world is a simulation is a truth
about the nature of Reality and cannot be ignored by anyone claiming
knowledge of Reality. The only way that Sergei can claim that the
core scientific principles are absolute in nature is by pretending
that this particular truth doesn't exist.
In other words, he
is essentially no different to the fundamentalist Christian who
blocks inconvenient facts out of his mind in order to pretend to
himself that he has knowledge of God.
|
Quote: |
|
We can't escape the filter of our senses, so why bother arguing over what happens without it? It doesn't even make sense to talk about "what happens" since that implies an event and events are only conceivable through the filter of our senses. |
It is perfectly legitimate to discuss this issue in the context
of what constitutes ultimate truth. The fundamental uncertainty of
the world is real and needs to be dealt with by anyone seeking
fundamental knowlegde of Reality. It is important to discover those
higher forms of knowledge which are unaffected by the possiblilty
that the world is an hallucination. Indeed, it is the doorway into
the realm of genius.
From David Quinn
Mon Dec 29, 2003 6:16 pm:
Plato wrote:
|
Quote: |
|
DQ: You seem to be saying that you regard the core scientific
laws of Nature to be independently existing things that are
woven into the very fabric of Reality and causally create
everything we experience. This means that you reject the view
that these laws are mental creations that we infer and project
onto Reality. Can you can state exactly why you think this?
|
I can't read any further than this because the distinctions you
make here don't make any sense to me - which means that, for me, the
rest of your argument lacks a foundation. The main problem I have
with your distinctions is that empirical (perceived) reality is
actually conceptual in nature and therefore a part of noetic reality.
In my eyes, then, you've artificially divided knowable Reality into
two realms and then pretended that one of them is somehow not a
division of knowable Reality.
This relates to what you wrote
further down:
|
Quote: |
|
Gravity is an object that exists in knowable reality; mass-objects are objects that exist in perceptual reality; since the two realities are independent maps of Reality, gravity cannot be an extension of mass-objects, in the same way that shadows cast by trees cannot be an extension of reflections on a pond surface produced by those same trees - both are independent images of perceptual reality. |
Again, these distinctions don't mean anything to me. We
experience gravity through our senses, in the same way that we
experience mass-objects. We comprehend the nature of mass-objects
through our concepts and reasonings, in the same way that we are able
to comprehend the nature of gravity.
I won't be able to
follow your thesis any further until you can explain why this basic
distinction is rational and necessary.
|
Quote: |
|
II. In addition, objects of knowable reality are not akin to rules of a computer simulation or any other logical system. |
They could easily be the effects of rules built into the system.
|
Quote: |
|
The single greatest reason is that the universe allows for cognition i.e. a power that is illogical and thus incoherent with an otherwise logical design of the system. Cognition is illogical because it can introduce propositions which validity cannot be ascertained within the bounds of any existing closed system (i.e. it can generate hypotheses that are not obtainable through deductive/inductive means and can only be validated by experiment). A logical system that allows for an illogical existence is a contradiction, thus reality is not a logical system. |
You're making this up, surely. It is like saying that ordered
systems cannot produce randomness and chaos - which is plainly
absurd.
Even if "cognition" did nothing else but
produce false ideas, it doesn't mean that it cannot be the product of
a logical system. For it could easily be the case that this
propensity for falseness has been programmed into the system.
|
Quote: |
|
David, I think we can both agree that empiricism is not a path to truth, though sufficient for the purposes of everyday academic discourse. However, I am putting forth a method of scientific thought that has been prevalent in history. Most great discoveries of universal law were attained using this method, rather than a rejection of scientific principles altogether in favor of "ivory-tower" philosophizing. |
I don't really reject scientific principles or the scientific
method. They both have their place in the human store of knowledge,
and they are both very useful when it comes to our practical needs. I
simply reject the ability of science to replace philosophy as a means
of uncovering Ultimate Truth. This will never happen, just as reading
the Bible will never replace the scientific method as a tool for
uncovering scientific principles.
|
Quote: |
|
How can you hope to generate a coherent view of reality by rational means alone? |
I've done it by creating definitions that necessarily apply to
all things in the Universe. An example is the definition of a "thing"
- namely, that which is bounded and falls short of constituting the
totality of all there is. Reasonings about this definition can then
lead to knowledge which applies to all things - e.g. that all things
are causally created, that all things lack inherent existence, that
nothing ultimately exists, etc. And it is through this process that
one can finally begin to gain an understanding of the nature of
Reality itself.
End of Chapter 3