Re: Eh?


	/-/S'pht-Translator-Active/-/

Re: Eh?

Posted By: Forrest of B.org Date: 1/11/05 6:46 p.m.
In Response To: Re: Eh? (Yossarian)

: Ok, mathematically.
: Again, mathematically.
: I assume you're still speaking mathematically.
: Can you fill in the above with a real-life, non-mathematical example? I'm
: just curious to hear what ideas that you know of for which all possible
: tests are known and known to be true...
It's not a matter of knowing all possible tests, because the number of tests is usually (I hestiate to say 'always') infinite. It's a matter of showing that any concievable failure of a test of that idea would be patent nonsense, an idea with no meaning.
As for what qualifies as such? Any tautology. All bachelors are unmarried men, because being an unmarried man is what defines one as a bachelor. Logic works for all provable ideas, because proof is a function of logic. Identity statements are tautologies too: I am I. I know that I know. I see that I can see. I think that I think. Or for some negatives: I can't doubt that I am doubting. Something cannot both be true and not true. I know that knowledge is possible because... consider the alternative. Could the contradiction of that statement be true and still mean something? "I know that knowledge is not possible" - it makes no sense.
Basically the only universal proof is that of definition, or meaning. Mathematical proofs all come down to tautologies anyway, 2 plus 2 only equals 4 because that's what "two", "plus", "equals" and "four" mean in relationship to each other. But from some of these definitions we can begin to form less-than-proven degrees of certainty about other things. If I see that I see, and hear that I hear, and so on, then I can begin to form some idea of my perceptual reality, some consistent of notion of what it is that I am percieving. And from here we get into all kinds of science, based on trying to make sense out of all our observations. But any good scientist will tell you that not even the strongest theory is proven - only very well tested.
This doesn't seem very useful at first, until you consider, most classical philosophers don't have a solid answer to idealist arguments about how we know that anything exists besides our perceptions, basically, that there is a "real world" which we are observing. I've come up with a chain of deductive logic (and given my luck someone else already came up with it first) that proves that something beyond my perceptions must exist, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise. (and not just in a "The Loch Ness monster is real!" kind of abnormality nonsense, but in a "This statement is false" kind of contradictory nonsense).
So basically, we can't prove much anything of practical day-to-day use to us, but without some foundational proof, we can't reasonably have certain about anything. Most people just take it for granted that "of course I can see shit, DUH that's obvious", but it's possible to call that into question, which makes the idea that I can see something worth trying to prove.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Replies:

Confusion about the storyline bad brains 1/9/05 9:29 p.m.

Re: Confusion about the storyline Forrest of B.org 1/9/05 10:10 p.m.

Re: Confusion about the storyline K-chi 1/10/05 4:22 a.m.

Re: Confusion about the storyline Steve Levinson 1/10/05 3:09 p.m.

Re: Confusion about the storyline Forrest of B.org 1/10/05 4:04 p.m.

Re: Confusion about the storyline Steve Levinson 1/10/05 6:23 p.m.

Re: Confusion about the storyline Forrest of B.org 1/10/05 7:33 p.m.

Long time travel philosophy post! Head hurts! *NM* ukimalefu 1/10/05 8:19 p.m.

The Philosophy of Time Travel Forrest of B.org 1/10/05 9:28 p.m.

What does time travel have to do with philosophy? *NM* Purple Penguin 1/11/05 6:12 a.m.

You can philosophy about time travel. *NM* ukimalefu 1/11/05 7:16 a.m.

What does epistemology have to do with philosophy? *NM* Forrest of B.org 1/11/05 7:17 a.m.

Philosophy is the search for truth. *NM* K-chi 1/11/05 9:18 a.m.

When you can't prove it and it's speculation. *NM* Adam Ashwell 1/11/05 10:22 a.m.

You can't prove that proof is ever possible. Forrest of B.org 1/11/05 11:23 a.m.

Re: You can't prove that proof is ever possible. blake37 1/11/05 11:51 a.m.

Eh? *NM* Forrest of B.org 1/11/05 11:57 a.m.

Re: Eh? blake37 1/11/05 11:59 a.m.

Re: Eh? Forrest of B.org 1/11/05 12:40 p.m.

Re: Eh? blake37 1/11/05 12:56 p.m.

Re: Eh? Forrest of B.org 1/11/05 1:16 p.m.

Re: Eh? blake37 1/11/05 2:23 p.m.

Re: Eh? Deathmonger 1/11/05 1:46 p.m.

Re: Eh? Forrest of B.org 1/11/05 2:20 p.m.

Re: Eh? Yossarian 1/11/05 2:38 p.m.

Re: Eh? Forrest of B.org 1/11/05 3:14 p.m.

Dayyymn. Fobo has mad logic skilz, yo. [/wigger] *NM* Deathmonger 1/11/05 3:43 p.m.

I'm writing a paper on epistemology & ethics *NM* Forrest of B.org 1/11/05 4:00 p.m.

Re: that explains alot *NM* blake37 1/11/05 4:22 p.m.

Re: Eh? Yossarian 1/11/05 4:57 p.m.

Re: Eh? Forrest of B.org 1/11/05 6:46 p.m.

Welp, I'm satisfied. *NM* Yossarian 1/12/05 3:36 p.m.

I get it! I get it! K-chi 1/11/05 5:42 p.m.

And we're very proud of you too ^_^. *NM* Adam Ashwell 1/11/05 5:43 p.m.

Now, what was the thread originally about again? *NM* Reiginko 1/12/05 3:43 a.m.

Re: Confusion about the storyline Andromeda_5[Kilo] 1/11/05 10:59 a.m.

Re: Confusion about the storyline ukimalefu 1/11/05 4:55 p.m.

[ Post a Reply | Message Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg ]
Pre-2004 Posts

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:
: It's not a matter of knowing all possible tests, because the number of tests : is usually (I hestiate to say 'always') infinite. It's a matter of showing : that any concievable failure of a test of that idea would be patent : nonsense, an idea with no meaning. : As for what qualifies as such? Any tautology. All bachelors are unmarried : men, because being an unmarried man is what defines one as a bachelor. : Logic works for all provable ideas, because proof is a function of logic. : Identity statements are tautologies too: I am I. I know that I know. I see : that I can see. I think that I think. Or for some negatives: I can't doubt : that I am doubting. Something cannot both be true and not true. I know : that knowledge is possible because... consider the alternative. Could the : contradiction of that statement be true and still mean something? "I : know that knowledge is not possible" - it makes no sense. : Basically the only universal proof is that of definition, or meaning. : Mathematical proofs all come down to tautologies anyway, 2 plus 2 only : equals 4 because that's what "two", "plus", : "equals" and "four" mean in relationship to each : other. But from some of these definitions we can begin to form : less-than-proven degrees of certainty about other things. If I see that I : see, and hear that I hear, and so on, then I can begin to form some idea : of my perceptual reality, some consistent of notion of what it is that I : am percieving. And from here we get into all kinds of science, based on : trying to make sense out of all our observations. But any good scientist : will tell you that not even the strongest theory is proven - only very : well tested. : This doesn't seem very useful at first, until you consider, most classical : philosophers don't have a solid answer to idealist arguments about how we : know that anything exists besides our perceptions, basically, that there : is a "real world" which we are observing. I've come up with a : chain of deductive logic (and given my luck someone else already came up : with it first) that proves that something beyond my perceptions must : exist, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise. (and not just in a : "The Loch Ness monster is real!" kind of abnormality nonsense, : but in a "This statement is false" kind of contradictory : nonsense). : So basically, we can't prove much anything of practical day-to-day use to us, : but without some foundational proof, we can't reasonably have certain : about anything. Most people just take it for granted that "of course : I can see shit, DUH that's obvious", but it's possible to call that : into question, which makes the idea that I can see something worth trying : to prove.

If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message,
please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:

If necessary, enter your password below:
Password:

Problems? Suggestions? Comments? Email maintainer@bungie.org
Marathon's Story Forum is maintained with WebBBS 5.12.

Confusion about the storyline	bad brains	1/9/05 9:29 p.m.
Re: Confusion about the storyline	Forrest of B.org	1/9/05 10:10 p.m.
Re: Confusion about the storyline	K-chi	1/10/05 4:22 a.m.
Re: Confusion about the storyline	Steve Levinson	1/10/05 3:09 p.m.
Re: Confusion about the storyline	Forrest of B.org	1/10/05 4:04 p.m.
Re: Confusion about the storyline	Steve Levinson	1/10/05 6:23 p.m.
Re: Confusion about the storyline	Forrest of B.org	1/10/05 7:33 p.m.
Long time travel philosophy post! Head hurts! NM	ukimalefu	1/10/05 8:19 p.m.
The Philosophy of Time Travel	Forrest of B.org	1/10/05 9:28 p.m.
What does time travel have to do with philosophy? NM	Purple Penguin	1/11/05 6:12 a.m.
You can philosophy about time travel. NM	ukimalefu	1/11/05 7:16 a.m.
What does epistemology have to do with philosophy? NM	Forrest of B.org	1/11/05 7:17 a.m.
Philosophy is the search for truth. NM	K-chi	1/11/05 9:18 a.m.
When you can't prove it and it's speculation. NM	Adam Ashwell	1/11/05 10:22 a.m.
You can't prove that proof is ever possible.	Forrest of B.org	1/11/05 11:23 a.m.
Re: You can't prove that proof is ever possible.	blake37	1/11/05 11:51 a.m.
Eh? NM	Forrest of B.org	1/11/05 11:57 a.m.
Re: Eh?	blake37	1/11/05 11:59 a.m.
Re: Eh?	Forrest of B.org	1/11/05 12:40 p.m.
Re: Eh?	blake37	1/11/05 12:56 p.m.
Re: Eh?	Forrest of B.org	1/11/05 1:16 p.m.
Re: Eh?	blake37	1/11/05 2:23 p.m.
Re: Eh?	Deathmonger	1/11/05 1:46 p.m.
Re: Eh?	Forrest of B.org	1/11/05 2:20 p.m.
Re: Eh?	Yossarian	1/11/05 2:38 p.m.
Re: Eh?	Forrest of B.org	1/11/05 3:14 p.m.
Dayyymn. Fobo has mad logic skilz, yo. [/wigger] NM	Deathmonger	1/11/05 3:43 p.m.
I'm writing a paper on epistemology & ethics NM	Forrest of B.org	1/11/05 4:00 p.m.
Re: that explains alot NM	blake37	1/11/05 4:22 p.m.
Re: Eh?	Yossarian	1/11/05 4:57 p.m.
Re: Eh?	Forrest of B.org	1/11/05 6:46 p.m.
Welp, I'm satisfied. NM	Yossarian	1/12/05 3:36 p.m.
I get it! I get it!	K-chi	1/11/05 5:42 p.m.
And we're very proud of you too ^_^. NM	Adam Ashwell	1/11/05 5:43 p.m.
Now, what was the thread originally about again? NM	Reiginko	1/12/05 3:43 a.m.
Re: Confusion about the storyline	Andromeda_5[Kilo]	1/11/05 10:59 a.m.
Re: Confusion about the storyline	ukimalefu	1/11/05 4:55 p.m.



	Your Name:
	Your E-Mail Address:
	Subject:
	Message: : It's not a matter of knowing all possible tests, because the number of tests : is usually (I hestiate to say 'always') infinite. It's a matter of showing : that any concievable failure of a test of that idea would be patent : nonsense, an idea with no meaning. : As for what qualifies as such? Any tautology. All bachelors are unmarried : men, because being an unmarried man is what defines one as a bachelor. : Logic works for all provable ideas, because proof is a function of logic. : Identity statements are tautologies too: I am I. I know that I know. I see : that I can see. I think that I think. Or for some negatives: I can't doubt : that I am doubting. Something cannot both be true and not true. I know : that knowledge is possible because... consider the alternative. Could the : contradiction of that statement be true and still mean something? "I : know that knowledge is not possible" - it makes no sense. : Basically the only universal proof is that of definition, or meaning. : Mathematical proofs all come down to tautologies anyway, 2 plus 2 only : equals 4 because that's what "two", "plus", : "equals" and "four" mean in relationship to each : other. But from some of these definitions we can begin to form : less-than-proven degrees of certainty about other things. If I see that I : see, and hear that I hear, and so on, then I can begin to form some idea : of my perceptual reality, some consistent of notion of what it is that I : am percieving. And from here we get into all kinds of science, based on : trying to make sense out of all our observations. But any good scientist : will tell you that not even the strongest theory is proven - only very : well tested. : This doesn't seem very useful at first, until you consider, most classical : philosophers don't have a solid answer to idealist arguments about how we : know that anything exists besides our perceptions, basically, that there : is a "real world" which we are observing. I've come up with a : chain of deductive logic (and given my luck someone else already came up : with it first) that proves that something beyond my perceptions must : exist, because it doesn't make any sense otherwise. (and not just in a : "The Loch Ness monster is real!" kind of abnormality nonsense, : but in a "This statement is false" kind of contradictory : nonsense). : So basically, we can't prove much anything of practical day-to-day use to us, : but without some foundational proof, we can't reasonably have certain : about anything. Most people just take it for granted that "of course : I can see shit, DUH that's obvious", but it's possible to call that : into question, which makes the idea that I can see something worth trying : to prove.
	If you'd like to include a link to another page with your message, please provide both the URL address and the title of the page:
	Optional Link URL:
	Optional Link Title:
	If necessary, enter your password below:
	Password: