Reality

[oldscratch]

*Originally posted by Svinlesha *
**Well, okay, now to tackle oldscratch, and hopefully demonstrate that his PROOFS are really based on FAITH….

**

Well I did admit that they were based on axioms that were as unprovable as Libertarian’s.

**
As I’m sure you know, inductive logic attempts to derive general laws from a limited number of observations. This is both its strength and its weakness.

**

Agreed.

**
Inductive logic states, “If such-and-such happens see-and-so many times, then there’s gotta be a law.”

**

Which is what is so great about logic. As soon as you find the exception, you incorporate it into your rules. Faith does not allow for this.

**
Sure thing, except that induction has been found to be wrong on numerous occasions. The classic example, often used in introductory discussions on the subject, is the “black swan”: scientists see several hundred (or thousand) white swans and come to the reasonable conclusion that there’s no such thing as the black one. Then, suddenly, a black swan is discovered, and induction is proved wrong. ( This is used as an example because it’s historical, by the way: scientists actually believed there was no such thing as a black swan until they discovered a gob of 'em in the interior of Australia in the mid-1800s.)

**

This is a fairly poor example. The black swans were not the same as whit swans, they were a different species,
Cygnus atratus. They could have easily called them Black Trumpalumpas. Then all swans would still be white. Of course induction can be frequently wrong. Induction and deduction must be paired together.

**
But a simple thought experiment can perhaps demonstrate my point. Let’s say I’ve never tossed a coin before and am interested in discovering how coins behave when tossed. I toss one five times and it lands heads up every time. Am I then justified in positing that a coin will always land heads up? I’m sure you’d say, “Of course not Svinlesha, you ignorant slut” (or something to that effect). In point of fact, even if I were to toss a coin 100 times and by some miracle it was to land heads up every time, I still couldn’t establish that there is a natural law stating that coins always land heads up.

**

You are right, because circumstances outside that coin change. However, you could establish that if you tossed the coin in exactly the same manner, and the exact same outside influences were present, that it would indeed land face up again.

**
Inductive logic relies on the assumption that the past always repeats itself in the present and the future. But unfortunately, this is nothing more than an assumption, an act of FAITH on the part of the assumer. That was David Hume’s point.

**

A point that is wrong.

** You quite simply can never rule out that there’s some force, or influence, or whatever, of which neither you nor no one else is aware, that is influencing events. And that’s why you can’t ever prove that just because a chemical reaction occured in certain way one time, it will occur the same way next time.

**

I didn’t say that. You didn’t read my post very closely. i stated that if circumstances were exactly the same, the same reaction would occur. Only a complete fool would argue that no outside force or influence could interefere. However, in present society, we can closely control the environment of chemical reactions. If a different reaction occurs, we KNOW (not have faith, but know) that an outside influence has stepped in. It is then up to us to determine what that influence is.

**
As regards the voting patterns of San Franciscan rodents, I think we are actually in agreement. Although, it would be absurd for any rodent to vote for the Prime Minister of England; if I was a badger, I’d definitely vote Nader!

**

WooHoo. He may not have the minorities, or women, but he has the Badgers. Victory is assured!

**
Finally, an apology for being so fuckin long-winded.
**

Hey no problem. I apologize for frequent mispellings. Especially in my last post, that was wince worthy.

[matt]

Svinlesha said “logic seems to be useless in determining the validity of axioms”.

A big part of the problem here is the meanings different disciplines apply to the same words. Lib will probably tear me to pieces here, BUT…

In formalised logic, axioms, or postulates, are what you are given to start with. What you are allowed to assume is true. With the axioms plus the rules of the logic system you are using, you can then go on to test hypotheses. A proof of a hypothesis within the logic system is just that, no more and no less. Change the rules, change the axioms, and the same hypothesis may be proven false within the new system.
So the axioms can be more-or-less anything you like. They are “for the sake of argument” statements.

E.g. “for the sake of argument, let’s say the world is flat. Then we can deduce etc. etc.”, or “for the sake of argument, let’s say God exists and loves us. Then we can deduce etc. etc.” Those are axioms. And logic has nothing to say about their validity.
But what about applying “logic” to “reality”? Here’s where it becomes interesting. We can observe a correspondence between events in our reality and logic systems of our own devising. We can then use proofs in the logic system to make predictions about our reality. The logic system is being used as a model of reality. Empirical evidence is used to select the axioms and rules which constitute the model. The correspondence between the model and our reality is assumed to be reliable - the “faith” part of science.

This is where our terminology becomes blurred. “For the sake of argument, let’s say the world is flat” is a perfectly valid axiom from the point of view of logic, but for someone dealing with reality it has a poor correspondence with evidence. So the axiom is “invalidated” by evidence, and NOT by logic.

When we deal with reality, evidence is supreme. Logic is secondary to evidence, since evidence is used to determine the axioms and rules of the logic systems we use in modelling our reality. A “hypothesis” within a logic system can be checked using the axioms and rules of that logic system. In our dealings with reality however, “hypothesis” can also refer to axioms and rules themselves, which can be checked by observation.

Scientists (and others!) tend to treat reality itself as a logic system, and the process of scientific discovery is used to discover the axioms and rules which make reality run. This approach has the benefit of simplicity and utility, but assumes reality is objective and its logic system time-invariant. (I think logic systems are objective! Maybe someone will enlighten me on this.)

When we have debates in this forum, we tend to use logic but our axioms and rules are mostly unstated. (And for good reason! Try and construct the set of axioms and rules which we use to deduce that the sun will rise tommorrow. You’d pretty much have to list all the axioms and rules which comprise mathematics and physics, just to start with.) We use a set of implicit axioms and rules which are derived from experience. This can lead to disagreements about which axioms and rules are valid. Libertarian in particular takes delight in pointing out that:

1. since reality is subjective, you cannot prove that evidence in your reality is the same as evidence in the reality of other, hypothetical individuals. Commonality of experience is an assumption.

2. there are some implicit axioms required to even be able to have a debate (e.g. I exist, logic is valid) which makes proofs of those points tautological. I don’t have to assume that logic is valid, but then I can’t have a debate!

The first point has been dealt with by Spiritus Mundi - see invisible pink unicorns if you like, just don’t expect me to see them!

The second is a quirk of logic itself if you allow “implicit” axioms to be identified and made explicit. Interesting, but not very useful unless you want to reduce any discussion to a stalemate.

Another quirk if you allow this is that all logical proofs must be infinitely long. It works like this:

Say I have a ten-step “proof” of something. I now invoke the implicit axiom, “if these ten steps are true, the conclusion is true.” So now the proof has eleven steps. But now there is the implicit axiom “if these eleven steps are true, the conclusion is true.” And onwards you go!

Maybe that’s why some of these threads never seem to end…

[Liberal]

Matt

Good stuff! Thank you.

Axioms are always true. They are, as you say, the “given”. In the Truth Table, when A is a true proposition and B is a true proposition, the implication A implies B is true. But even if A were demonstrably false, A implies B is still true if B is true. Thus, if the universe is 10,000 years old, evolution could not have occurred. True.

As you’ve pointed out, that’s why these debates happen over and over. A theist and an atheist of equal intellect, for example, will always argue to a stalemate. A neat way to make something out of these debates is to examine one another’s core axioms, as Spiritus and I did in the old Atheist Religion thread. We discovered that where we split apart was on the fundamental nature of continuum. No wonder our conclusions so greatly differed!

[Spider_Woman]

Differing axioms is what brings debates to a stalemate, as you say, although it is quite interesting to me to learn about the viewpoints of others and discuss them.

At this page of the thread “Pro-life: Is it about compassion or punishment,” it is pretty evident that people will not agree about the morality of abortion itself because their beliefs are based on different axioms. (Of course the topic veered from the OP and seldom went back.) What can happen in debate threads is to find common ground on which to meet, and possibly learn about each other and grow from the experience.

[I didn’t realize you were back, Lib, I’ll have to pay more attention. Did you finish your story?]

[matt]

Libertarian:

Borrowed from Hofstadter, who borrowed it from Lewis Carroll:

A) The universe is ten thousand years old
B) If the universe is ten thousand years old, evolution could not have occured.
Z) Evolution did not occur.

Implicit axiom - if A) and B) are true, Z) must be true. So we make it explicit:

A) The universe is ten thousand years old
B) If the universe is ten thousand years old, evolution could not have occured.
C) If A) and B) are true, Z) must be true.
Z) Evolution did not occur.

But now we have the implicit axiom, if A), B) and C) are true, Z) must be true. So we can make it explicit again, and keep going, for ever!

Also borrowed from Hofstadter; “This little debate shows the difficulty of trying to use logic and reasoning to defend themselves. At some point, you reach rock bottom, and there is no defense except loudly shouting, “I know I’m right!””

I haven’t bothered with a sig. line so far. “I know I’m right!” is a contender!

[Smartass]

See, this whole thread is an example of why I am so picky about words.

Lib: “Prove to me that you exist and I will prove to you that God exists.”

Of course, Lib wins. We cannot, after all, prove anything.

Then, why have a debate?

Lib, you know I often agree with you politically, but whenever the discussion turns religious, I think you start to play a little dirty. You throw out your beliefs (“by revelation”, as I recall), and then refuse any challenges because nothing can be proven.

Might as well close down the message board.

Take my wife, for instance. I can describe her in detail. I can tell the story of how we met, talk about our honeymoon, post a picture of her on the web somewhere for everyone to look at. After a certain amount of effort on my part, most of the people on the board will be pretty convinced that both I and she exist. Will I have proven it? Of course not. But most of the people here will be fairly convinced.

The goal here is not to prove; it is to convince. If I describe my wife in sufficient detail and in a way that implies I am a reasonable person, then most people will be convinced that I have drawn a reasonable conclusion about her existence and begin to believe likewise.

Similarly, we all like to think that you are a reasonable person and that you believe things for reasons that we can understand. Theoretically, then, if you described your reasons for believing in God in the way that you do, and your experience that leads you to conclude that this must be correct, you may convince us that you are right. Or, you may convince us that you are nuts.

However, you take what I think of as the coward’s way out. You pronounce your beliefs as if they were inarguably true; then, when given the opportunity to convince others, you retreat into the land of what can be proven. The result is a thread like this one.

So far, this thread has convinced me that I am dizzy.

-VM

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Thanks, matt !!! for your most excellent post about logic and axioms !! I may wind up quoting you in paper I’m writing!

I have some more questions to ponder concerning this issue, and especially the use of evidence in determining the connection between models and reality, but its very late here at the moment and I’ve got to hit the sack. I’ll try to go back through the threat and formulate them when I get a chance (soon, hopefully!)

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Thanks, matt !!! for your most excellent post about logic and axioms !! I may wind up quoting you in paper I’m writing!

I have some more questions to pose concerning this issue, and especially the use of evidence in determining the connection between models and reality, but its very late here at the moment and I’ve got to hit the sack. I’ll try to go back through the thread and formulate them when I get a chance (soon, hopefully!)

[Liberal]

Spidey

No, I’m only visiting for a few minutes each morning. The work load has increased greatly. I work on the story in the evenings, and it is coming together nicely. I hope to have it finished by sometime Sunday. I am also teaching myself to read music, so that along with work is why the story is taking so long.

Smartass

Politics is no different than metaphysics in that regard. You and I (but not Polycarp) accept the axiom that man has a natural or God-given right to give or withhold his consent. Thus, Poly makes an assertion that is astonishing to you and me, that the Noncoercion Principle is tyrannical and barbaric, or some such. In matters of faith, Poly and I (but not you) accept the axiom that God exists, based on our experience with Him. You think we’re crazy.

There are many epistemologies. Logic is one, and with logic, you can prove that something is or is not logical. But what you cannot prove is that logic is valid. I think we can debate without restricting ourselves to deduction. If I could see what you see, feel what you feel, and taste and smell what you do — i.e., if I could get a glimpse of your proprietary reference frame — I might understand what you’re saying just as well, if not better, than if you present a syllogism.

Look at OldScratch and Jab! OldScratch believes that if he smacks me, it will prove to me that he exists. But whose senses sense the smack? Mine, not his! I have no idea what he might sense, except what he might reveal to me. Thus, a revelation epistemology is necessary to learn of existence. And Jab asserts that dreams aren’t real because they are chaotic and random. What does his assertion say then about the universe, manifesting as it does from the random chaos of subatomic particles?

In short, I guess we all debate for different reasons. I debate for the same reason Spidey does. Hopefully, I will learn something new; that is, something new will be revealed to me. “You never know what’s around the corner.” — my mother

[Czarcasm]

But how can anything new be learned if your point of view is totally unasailable, and anyone else’s point of view must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?
“Prove to me I’m wrong, with the understanding that I will not accept any evidence you provide as being real.” does not start a debate.
It finishes it.

[jab1]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
Jab asserts that dreams aren’t real because they are chaotic and random. What does his assertion say then about the universe, manifesting as it does from the random chaos of subatomic particles?

Quantum mechanics manifests itself only at the subatomic level. It does not manifest itself here at our level. EXAMPLES:

1. While it is true, because of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, you can determine either a particle’s location or its velocity but not both at the same time, I can, however, determine both MY location and MY velocity simultaneously. Why can’t you determine both a proton’s location and its velocity simultaneously? Beats me.

2. Cause and effect are distinct and easily determined at our level. If I am on the Earth’s surface, with gravity present and I release a pencil (CAUSE), that pencil will fall (EFFECT). But at the subatomic level, sometimes particles do things with no apparent cause preceding it. Why? Beats me. But it DOES happen. It’s been observed numerous times.

If my dreams happen chaotically, it means that my brain is doing nothing more than creating imagery from my memories on its own, without my conscious control. It’s like a car with a stuck accelerator and no driver at the wheel. (It also means my dreams have no meaning and analyzing them is pointless; I’m not trying to tell myself anything, it’s just my synapses firing at random. But that’s another topic.)

If there’s any relationship between the chaos of dreams and the chaos of the subatomic world, it may be this: Our thoughts are electrochemical in nature. Perhaps they are subject to quantum mechanics, which govern subatomic particles. Perhaps when we are asleep and no longer in control, quantum mechanics takes over and causes our synapses to fire at random and we dream. Maybe you need a certain number of synapses to be active simultaneously to overcome QM and be in control (consciousness). Below that number, chaos rules (unconsciousness). (And possibly insanity?) And maybe that number is different for each of us?

There are a number of books written that explore the possible connection between QM and consciousness, but I haven’t had the time to read any of them. The preceding was just my own attempt to explain why dreams are chaotic and reality isn’t (on the macroscopic scale, anyway).

[oldscratch]

*Originally posted by Libertarian *
OldScratch believes that if he smacks me, it will prove to me that he exists. But whose senses sense the smack? Mine, not his! I have no idea what he might sense, except what he might reveal to me. Thus, a revelation epistemology is necessary to learn of existence.

I’m sorry but I really don’t follow you. If something hits you doesn’t it prove the existence of that object to you? If you get in the shower, doesn’t that prove the existence of the water that touches you?

[Ptahlis]

Brain in a jar oldscratch, being fed a simulation. He could be an alien dreaming this life. You could be a drug induced hallucination. There’s no way around the closed reference frame of one’s mind in an argument if someone refuses to grant a common, external reality.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by Ptahlis *
**Brain in a jar oldscratch, being fed a simulation. He could be an alien dreaming this life. You could be a drug induced hallucination. There’s no way around the closed reference frame of one’s mind in an argument if someone refuses to grant a common, external reality. **

Would you agree that there is an external reality, even if it might be difficult (possibly impossible) to agree upon what that reality is?

After all, in order to even consider that one might be a brain in a jar, one must first suppose that there is a reality external to one’s current state where that brain resides in that jar. Same with drugs. How could drugs influence one’s brain unless there are really drugs and really a brain?

[Smartass]

Lib:

In matters of faith, Poly and I (but not you) accept the axiom that God exists, based on our experience with Him. You think we’re crazy.

At this point, I do not think that you are crazy. If I did, I wouldn’t bother with trying to discuss anything with you. I’ve tried it with crazy people before–talk about closed reference frames…

Maybe I misstated my point. As you have neatly pointed out, there is no way you can “prove” God to me. Or anything else, for that matter. Further, while a detailed description of what you believe (and how it relates to objectivism/libertarianism) is certainly interesting, it goes nowhere toward convincing me. Both of these approaches are constantly in some stage of debate on this board, and are–to my mind–pretty tired, especially since greater minds than ours have been hacking away at them for centuries, with no real “success”.

What I am more interested in is why you believe as you do. Obviously, I cannot experience what you have experienced or relive your memories. However, since I don’t think you are crazy, I believe that you can explain/describe this. Not what you believe, but how you came to think this way. Particularly when you say “by revelation”: That sounds fascinating, and I would be interested in what form this revelation took.

Given this type of information, I may conclude any number of things–that you are correct, that you are nuts, that you have way to much caffeine, etc. The point being that, by describing your reasons for accepting your “axioms”, by explaining how you perceived them in your reference frame, I have useful information to work with.

In other words, you believe what you believe. All this talk of reality, objectivism, etc. is a description of the conclusions you have drawn during the processes of integrating these beliefs into your world-view. I’m more interested in how they became your beliefs to begin with.

This does not require strict adherence to any particular epistemology. As Spock said, “Logic is the beginning of wisdom.”

I think a lot of these verbal peregrinations you engage in are, consciously or not, attempts to depersonalize beliefs that are actually very personal to you. If you dig a little deeper and describe what really underlies this stuff, it opens up your beliefs more to us and gives us the chance to understand. Of course, it also opens you up to have people hurt your feelings, because this is the kind of thing that people tend to be sensitive about.

Speaking purely for myself, I find your religious beliefs fascinating. From what I’ve seen, rather than insane, you are quite erudite and a deep thinker. And it amazes me that we can agree so strongly in one area (libertarianism) and disagree so strongly in another (God). I cannot help but wonder how that can be.

One thing that surprises me is the questions that seem to never get asked of Christians on this board. One day, I may have time to explore some of this stuff here. Right now, if I started the thread, I couldn’t be sure I wouldn’t have to abandon it in the middle. Even if my time gets more free later, though, I hesitate. I have had many friends who were strong believers in the past. Without fail, I have ruined it for all of them (with no discussion of axioms and proofs, by the way), and I feel like I may have taken something from them that they needed.

-VM

[matt]

Svinlesha

Hurray! Fame and fortune will be mine!

What’s the title of the paper you’re writing?

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by BlackKnight *
**
Would you agree that there is an external reality, even if it might be difficult (possibly impossible) to agree upon what that reality is?

After all, in order to even consider that one might be a brain in a jar, one must first suppose that there is a reality external to one’s current state where that brain resides in that jar. Same with drugs. How could drugs influence one’s brain unless there are really drugs and really a brain? **

While I find the closed reference system/no external reality argument to be logically sound, it’s basically useless. Personally, I am all too willing to take as given an objective, external reality that is consistent from one person to another. My succinct description of this idea to oldscratch is flawed, however, in a way that you point out in your question. My examples only showed how the external reality could be vastly different from the perceived external reality, to show how Lib can maintain that oldscratch may not exist while having his head caved in by oldscratch’s shovel. (Admit it oldscratch-- there’s something tempting about that idea after this thread :)!)In truth, the mind is the only verifiable reality. All of this “stuff” that I perceive to be the universe could be nothing more than the imaginings of my mind, even including the idea that a mind needs a physical receptacle like a brain to exist in. So the short answer is “No.” There’s no way to verify anything empirically from the point of view of someone who is determined to deny it.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by Ptahlis *
In truth, the mind is the only verifiable reality. All of this “stuff” that I perceive to be the universe could be nothing more than the imaginings of my mind, even including the idea that a mind needs a physical receptacle like a brain to exist in.

How could that be your mind? Or do you mean your subconscious (or something similar)? What I’m trying to say is this: The postulation that one’s experiences are he results of a part of one’s self that one isn’t aware of is just as much of an assumption as the postulation that there exists a world outside of one’s self that causes those experiences.

Unless one consciously creates every sensation they experience, then there is something outside of their conscious self that is the cause of those sensations.

**There’s no way to verify anything empirically from the point of view of someone who is determined to deny it. **

I agree that this is true, but I believe it is trivially true. Obviously if someone is determined to deny something, they can deny it. The question is, I think, whether or not they are correct when they deny it.

[quasar]

I haven’t been reading this thread thus far so my comments are of a general nature, and not focussed on addressing the ongoing arguments.

First of all, what is real? All that exists, independent of its nature, whether it is physical or spiritual.

What exists and what does not? Everything that can effect–or has the potential to effect–changes upon its surroundings or itself, whether those changes are perceptible or not. Also, everything that can be conceptualized by conscious beings or derived from their rational processes, i.e. ideas, exists, albeit in a spiritual manifestation, and thus can only indirectly exert change, by virtue of the actions it motivates.

Does real has to be proved to make it so? Conscious beings, the ones who can question whether what they experience is real or fictitious, are restricted by sensorial limitations and biased by psychological perceptions. Thus interpretations of the one and only reality will vary according to the entity who interprets it.

Another relevant question, does awareness determine reality?

Nope, it doesn’t; it merely analyzes it and interprets it. Independently of a particular entity’s perceptions regarding itself and its surroundings, the all- encompassing and unique panorama of the universe in which it is submerged will remain invariable, unaffected by whatever interpretations and rational analysis it is subjected to.

Take stellar evolution, for example. A star of a fixed mass will go through the same processes of nuclear fusion until it reaches its final status, whether it is a white dwarf, neutron star or a black hole. The fact that the star isn’t aware of what’s transpiring doesn’t make these events any less real, or less inevitable for that matter. Nor, would they be any less real if it were aware of what’s going on.

Consciousness, and the decision making processes that derive from it, merely allows to act, to forge a particular reality, to escape from the large scale determinism of the universe, but the awareness implied by conscious processes cannot dismiss the absoluteness of reality, it can only distort it Reality itself is absolute, the way it is perceived by conscious beings is not.

That is why nobody can be proved what is real and what is not, every conscious entity’s brain houses a different conceptualization of reality, conceptualizations that, without exception, are derived from the same, unique, absolute reality. The fact that interpretations of reality are in conflict with each other does nothing towards challenging the absolute nature of reality, it just points out the variability between conscious being’s rational processes.

[Ptahlis]

*Originally posted by BlackKnight *
**I agree that this is true, but I believe it is trivially true. Obviously if someone is determined to deny something, they can deny it. The question is, I think, whether or not they are correct when they deny it. **

Agreed. It’s also an explicit refusal to engage in debate, since it amounts to nothing more than a trump card to allow one to disengage from any questions by denying the reality of anything they care to. While the concept is an interesting curiosity to toy with, it remains essentially valueless in any way other than as a shield against arguments one doesn’t wish to engage in.