The Fundamental Certainty

[TheLastMohican]

My contribution to philosophy:

The only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything except that the only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything except that the only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything...and so on forever, defining itself ad infinitum.

In its concise form: You cannot be certain of anything except for this statement itself.

All those who agree, please try to come up with a way to explain it to those who disagree. Thus far I have had great difficulty in summing it up any other way.

Disclaimer: I call this my own contribution because I came up with it on my own, and was unable to find an equivalent postulate by anyone else. If you know of this idea having been stated elsewhere before I came up with it (which seems a probable occurrence to me), please post a link or other info to give the original due credit.

[suzyk]

Does that mean reality is not certain? And why should we be certain of your statement when it doesn't hold a firm idea in the first place? You're basically just repeating your first paragraph over and over again, to me. The only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything, an irony in itself. If this statement is true, then it can't be true at the same time because you cannot be certain of it. So in the end, the moral to me would be that you can't always use logic in decisions, it also takes some intuition/gut feeling, or what you feel is the right thing to do. Trusting something is hard to do, but in the end, if you have nothing to help you make a decision, you should just go with what you think is right.

/tangent

[TheLastMohican]

Read the shortened version. It states that this statement is the only thing you can be certain of. Therefore, there is one thing that you can be certain of, since it does not involve any type of information input that could be false. It is just pure, infallible logic.

[Phaedrus]

2+2=4

I'm certain. If you're not, I'm not sure what you have to say or think that is of much interest.

[TheLastMohican]

2+2=4

I'm certain. If you're not, I'm not sure what you have to say or think that is of much interest.

I did not mean for my theory to apply to things that are likewise infallible logic. 2+2 is the same as 4. That is just reality. I am talking about things that use evidence or speculation that cannot be classified as the reality of things.

Gravity itself is actually subject to the doubt cast by my theory. We must observe gravity to prove it, and our observations are not necessarily valid. Numbers, however, are expressed as abstract reality as well as tangible.

I will think about how to rephrase my theory to make it clearer.

[suzyk]

Read the shortened version. It states that this statement is the only thing you can be certain of. Therefore, there is one thing that you can be certain of, since it does not involve any type of information input that could be false. It is just pure, infallible logic.

I guess so. 'You cannot be certain of anything except for this statement itself' is true, but doesn't it also show some irony since you should be uncertain of everything except that statement? Why should that statement be the only certain statement?

[acyckowski]

2+2=4

I'm certain. If you're not, I'm not sure what you have to say or think that is of much interest.

2+2=4 plus/minus .002

[Phaedrus]

I did not mean for my theory to apply to things that are likewise infallible logic. 2+2 is the same as 4. That is just reality. I am talking about things that use evidence or speculation that cannot be classified as the reality of things.

Gravity itself is actually subject to the doubt cast by my theory. We must observe gravity to prove it, and our observations are not necessarily valid. Numbers, however, are expressed as abstract reality as well as tangible.

I will think about how to rephrase my theory to make it clearer.

I can help. Your entire "theory" is just fear of being wrong.

At the base of every philosophy is a set of metaphysical assumptions. Statements like, "The universe exists," "Unicorns are not real," "Physics is real," these are assumptions. They can't be proved(yet), but they haven't been disproved. You're basically just afraid of being wrong. Once, conjecture about the stars was metaphysics. Now, it's solid physics. You don't want to be the one to say that the sun orbits the earth.

Basically, because you can't prove your assumptions, you claim that nothing based on assumptions can be true(or at least proved true). However, you're just negating everything, because you have to ASSUME that your assumptions are true to have any philosophy at all. So you can't prove it. So what? It's still obvious which assumptions are good ones and which ones aren't.





Phaedrus added to this post, 1 minutes and 56 seconds later...

2+2=4 plus/minus .002

Oh, please. My equation has infinite significant figures, because those are pure numbers, not measurements.

[acyckowski]

I can help. Your entire "theory" is just fear of being wrong.

At the base of every philosophy is a set of metaphysical assumptions. Statements like, "The universe exists," "Unicorns are not real," "Physics is real," these are assumptions. They can't be proved(yet), but they haven't been disproved. You're basically just afraid of being wrong. Once, conjecture about the stars was metaphysics. Now, it's solid physics. You don't want to be the one to say that the sun orbits the earth.

Basically, because you can't prove your assumptions, you claim that nothing based on assumptions can be true(or at least proved true). However, you're just negating everything, because you have to ASSUME that your assumptions are true to have any philosophy at all. So you can't prove it. So what? It's still obvious which assumptions are good ones and which ones aren't.


You just proved his point. Your argument demonstrates that reality is objective, but not absolutely knowable. So, there is inherent uncertainty in all things.



Phaedrus added to this post, 1 minutes and 56 seconds later...

Oh, please. My equation has infinite significant figures, because those are pure numbers, not measurements.

Where you see categorical certainty, I see unnecessary and potentially false generalization. Your statement is a definition specific only under certain criteria. By adding significant digits, I intended to point out the limitation of your perspective.

Here's how you arrived at your definition:
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. I can count (measure) this and see that it is true.
I can generalize the rule to 1+1=2, and apply the general rule to include groups of oranges, bananas, and grapefruit.
But I can't add apples to oranges. If I try, I end up with 1x + 1y = 1x + 1y. In this case, the rule 1+1=2 will not apply.

"Pure numbers" are a fabrication of convenience, invented to simplify abstract concepts. They have no inherent meaning, however. They only exist within a specific construct, and that construct is not universally valid. I am not a mathematician, I am an engineer, so when I see an integer I will assume 3 significant digits unless told otherwise. In effect, then, you are absolutely certain about something that stops being true as soon as it passes your nose.

[TheLastMohican]

I can help. Your entire "theory" is just fear of being wrong.

At the base of every philosophy is a set of metaphysical assumptions. Statements like, "The universe exists," "Unicorns are not real," "Physics is real," these are assumptions. They can't be proved(yet), but they haven't been disproved. You're basically just afraid of being wrong. Once, conjecture about the stars was metaphysics. Now, it's solid physics. You don't want to be the one to say that the sun orbits the earth.

I don't understand how my theory would be subject to psychoanalysis. It is not based in fear, just logic. I am not timid about stating my conclusions and basing important decisions on them. I am merely pointing out that those conclusions, while practically provable, cannot be absolutely proven. I can only have levels of certainty approaching 100% when it comes to any conclusion based on observation.

Basically, because you can't prove your assumptions, you claim that nothing based on assumptions can be true(or at least proved true). However, you're just negating everything, because you have to ASSUME that your assumptions are true to have any philosophy at all. So you can't prove it. So what? It's still obvious which assumptions are good ones and which ones aren't.

It is usually obvious, yes. I am not saying we should go about questioning all reality. That would be a waste of time. I am saying that theoretically, we cannot claim 100% certainty of what we call "reality" (excepting indestructible logic, like 2+2=4).





TheLastMohican added to this post, 2 minutes and 12 seconds later...

There is one other postulate I came up with: Something exists. This might count as pure reality, but it can be proven, too.

[blueback]

LOL, looks like it's still not working. It's funny because I remember postulating the same thing years ago and then realizing why it was wrong. I hope I get to see your whole developmental arc work itself out on this forum.

I'll try to help. See, as you've answered the objections of other people just in this thread you've relaxed the definition you originally posted. What you posted originally was very short, with no room for deviation or disagreement. As you explained it you expanded the working definition to encompass things that had previously been excluded. What you need to do is take the dogmatic assertion and see if it actually works. Since you've been doing that, and finding out that it doesn't, you need to stop repeating the dogma.

The concept is limiting your ability to move beyond it.

[TheLastMohican]

LOL, looks like it's still not working. It's funny because I remember postulating the same thing years ago and then realizing why it was wrong. I hope I get to see your whole developmental arc work itself out on this forum.

I'll try to help. See, as you've answered the objections of other people just in this thread you've relaxed the definition you originally posted. What you posted originally was very short, with no room for deviation or disagreement. As you explained it you expanded the working definition to encompass things that had previously been excluded. What you need to do is take the dogmatic assertion and see if it actually works. Since you've been doing that, and finding out that it doesn't, you need to stop repeating the dogma.

The concept is limiting your ability to move beyond it.

I have not changed my own thoughts about it; I just learned that some took it differently, and I need to make it less ambiguous. But it is hard to rephrase it without ruining it.

However, I won't be that surprised if it turns out to be wrong. I guess we'll see how the arc goes. At least I think it makes for an interesting debate and a stimulating mental exercise, no matter how it turns out. ;)

[blueback]

Yeah. . .could you stop reposting the entire message that is right above your message?

There are no contradictions in nature. If you think you found one you've only proven that you don't fully understand.

I think the problem is that you are stuck on the idea that we can't fully understand anything. I disagree. I think that our imagination is infinite and is capable of understanding anything fully. The problem is that between reality and our imagination is the barrier of action.

Action is always uncertain. We can never be 100% sure that we did something correctly, or that we gathered the right information. However, we can take more measurements and build up a large enough data-set that mistakes cancel each other out. So, over time, we will refine our mental model until it is more accurate than we are capable of acting on. If you have a computer that can describe the shape of a part to five decimal places but a CNC machine that can only machine the part to three decimal places then there is little incentive to improve the computer.

For example, surgeons are starting to use robotic assistants. They have maximized their ability to understand the art/science of surgery but their ability to gather information for surgery and act on their mental model hasn't improved. So they are using robots that have sensors and actuators that are many times more refined than a surgeon's eyes and hands. That allows them to do things that they knew were possible, but couldn't do with their natural endowments.

[TheLastMohican]

Yeah. . .could you stop reposting the entire message that is right above your message?

I've been doing that because frequently other people make posts while I am typing mine, and then it looks like I am replying to them.

[nocturne]

TheLastMohican,

I think that your use of the word 'certain' is mistaken. I have met many people who have been certain about some proposition, theory, hypothesis or whatever, because the phrase 'is certain' is not a characteristic of a proposition, but a characteristic of a person's state-of-mind, a relation between them and a proposition, their feelings about it. There are many people who are certain, often certain of contradicting hypotheses.

I do not think that their certainty has any bearing on the truth. The goal of rational investigation and criticism should be the truth, not certainty. The truth is objective, certainty is not--worse, it is not necessarily true, and functions as a barrier to knowledge, not a friend.

[TheLastMohican]

I have met many people who have been certain about some proposition, theory, hypothesis or whatever, because the phrase 'is certain' is not a characteristic of a proposition, but a characteristic of a person's state-of-mind, a relation between them and a proposition, their feelings about it.

The way I think of it is that those people think they are certain, but are not truly certain. Saying you know when you are actually wrong means you don't really know.

[nocturne]

The way I think of it is that those people think they are certain, but are not truly certain. Saying you know when you are actually wrong means you don't really know.How do you know that you know?

The idea of grounding "true" knowledge in certainty or justification is a dead end, or an infinite regress. The dilemma is not an enviable one, a choice between dogmatism of relativism. There are nonjustificationist epistemologies which avoid this problem.

The problem can be understood with an elementary understanding of logic: if an argument is valid i.e. the truth of the conclusion follows from the premises, then it is circular, and if an argument is invalid then the truth of the conclusion does not follow from the premises. In both cases, nothing can be justified, because a circular argument does not justify anything and neither does an invalid argument. Therefore, argument cannot justify anything.

There are many other ways of expressing the same point. Fortunately, there are alternative approaches in which these problems where most of the traditional problems of philosophy do not arise (namely, because almost all of the problems of traditional philosophy are consequences of this one problem).

[TheLastMohican]

How do you know that you know?


I don't. That's what I'm getting at here.

[nocturne]

I don't. That's what I'm getting at here.That you do not "know" does not mean that you think is not true. If what you think is true is actually true, and you act as though it is true, then you will have just as much success in your action as you would if you "knew" that it was true. (Knowledge, in the sense of justified belief, subjective conviction or certainty, doesn't do anything, at least nothing that true conjecture can not achieve quite as well).

It is worth reflecting that the vast knowledge of the universe implicit in the genomes of every living creature of earth is a long series of guesses or unjustified conjectures i.e. mutations. Of course, the "knowledge" I am talking about here is not a subjective or justified belief (the mirage that philosophers like to chase), but the objective knowledge in the world, which preceded the existence of any believing organism.

I like to say that knowledge is not something we do, but something that happens to us (like the evolutionary process), and rationality is how we can best not get in the way of knowledge.

[TheLastMohican]

Nocturne,
I have said previously that this theory is only practical in theoretical terms. I am not advocating its application to everyday situations, and I act as if I am certain of many things. I am certain enough of most things to ignore the fact that I am not 100% certain.

[blueback]

If it's not practical then what good is it?

[TheLastMohican]

If it's not practical then what good is it?

It's a brain teaser. Some people find those stimulating.

For some reason I enjoy giving myself a headache with highly abstract reasoning. Don't you?

[Antares]

Can I be certain that I have a brain?

[TheLastMohican]

Can I be certain that I have a brain?

No. You cannot even be certain that there is a you. (Yes, I stepped out to the end of the limb a long time ago.)

[Antares]

It's a brain teaser. Some people find those stimulating.

For some reason I enjoy giving myself a headache with highly abstract reasoning. Don't you?

I do enjoy abstraction; but only to the point where it does not affect practical things. If given a choice between contemplating the inflationary model of the universe and passing my bachelor's for piano performance next year, I'd choose the latter, because for me, being good enough to 'graduate' music college before finishing high school has more practical appeal.

No. You cannot even be certain that there is a you. (Yes, I stepped out to the end of the limb a long time ago.)

Can I be certain that I think there is a me?

[TheLastMohican]

I do enjoy abstraction; but only to the point where it does not affect practical things.

I'm sure you are not putting off anything important to view this thread...right?

Can I be certain that I think there is a me?

No. There is no telling who is doing your thinking.

[Phaedrus]

You just proved his point. Your argument demonstrates that reality is objective, but not absolutely knowable. So, there is inherent uncertainty in all things.

I didn't prove his point at all. My argument does not demonstrate that reality is unknowable. I don't even know how you get that from my argument at all. You must not have understood it.

Why do you think that "assumption" equates to "uncertain"?

Where you see categorical certainty, I see unnecessary and potentially false generalization. Your statement is a definition specific only under certain criteria. By adding significant digits, I intended to point out the limitation of your perspective.

Here's how you arrived at your definition:
1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples. I can count (measure) this and see that it is true.
I can generalize the rule to 1+1=2, and apply the general rule to include groups of oranges, bananas, and grapefruit.
But I can't add apples to oranges. If I try, I end up with 1x + 1y = 1x + 1y. In this case, the rule 1+1=2 will not apply.

"Pure numbers" are a fabrication of convenience, invented to simplify abstract concepts. They have no inherent meaning, however. They only exist within a specific construct, and that construct is not universally valid. I am not a mathematician, I am an engineer, so when I see an integer I will assume 3 significant digits unless told otherwise. In effect, then, you are absolutely certain about something that stops being true as soon as it passes your nose.

1 apple plus one banana = two fruit. The analogy with x and y doesn't work because x and y are qualitatively different with bananas and apples, and if they were substituted for numbers, they would have to be quantitatively different in order for the equation not to hold.

Er. Pure numbers were invented for counting, actually. One, two, three, four, five. That's how many fingers are on my hand. That's not within .002 of error, either. Measurements are different from counting, because while tools for measurement will never quite be perfect, counting already is(the method, not the practice).

I don't understand how my theory would be subject to psychoanalysis. It is not based in fear, just logic. I am not timid about stating my conclusions and basing important decisions on them. I am merely pointing out that those conclusions, while practically provable, cannot be absolutely proven. I can only have levels of certainty approaching 100% when it comes to any conclusion based on observation.

If you're not timid about making important decisions based on your conclusions, why point out that they can't be proven? Doesn't the result of your decision prove or disprove your conclusion?


It is usually obvious, yes. I am not saying we should go about questioning all reality. That would be a waste of time. I am saying that theoretically, we cannot claim 100% certainty of what we call "reality" (excepting indestructible logic, like 2+2=4).

We shouldn't go about questioning all reality, but we can't be certain of anything(that includes reality)? If I'm not certain, I'll question and test until I am. You're not certain that you're reading these words? You're not even certain you exist? If that uncertainty doesn't stop you from acting as if you were certain, why make the distinction in the first place? Actions speak louder than words, you know.

[thod]

You cannot be certain of anything except for this statement itself.


Is this an attempt to restate the liar paradox?

Looking at this I would say we have true statements, 1 member, false statements, no members, unresolved statements, everything else. This ordering is necessitated by the one true statement and is not circular.

The way I think of it is that those people think they are certain, but are not truly certain. Saying you know when you are actually wrong means you don't really know

As an exercise in certainty consider the hanged man paradox.

A prisoner is tried and sentenced, he is told that he will be hung sometime in the next week. To keep him in on edge he will not know the day on which he is to be hung. The prisoner leaves smiling.

The prisoner has reasoned that Sunday is the last day they can hang him. So if it gets to Sunday, he will know he is to be hung that day which breaks the condition that he must not know the day. Thus he cannot be hung on Sunday. Now that Sunday has been ruled out, the last day they can hang him is Saturday. So if it gets to Saturday, he knows they must hang him that day, Sunday already having been eliminated. Thus he cannot be hung on Saturday either.

You can progress in this way eliminating all the days, concluding the prisoner cannot be hung, and hence the smile.

The jailer hung the man on Wednesday, quite unexpected by the prisoner who, through logic, was certain he could not be hung.

[Antares]

I'm sure you are not putting off anything important to view this thread...right?

No. There is no telling who is doing your thinking.

No. I'm spending my pathetically elongated lunch break here... It's too long. And people complain it's too short.

So I can be certain that I'm thinking that I have a brain, right? It doesn't matter who's doing it; I'm still doing it. But this would break down, wouldn't it? Without a brain, I can't think either way; so it wouldn't matter if someone else is doing it for me.

Can I be certain that all bachelors are unmarried?

I did not mean for my theory to apply to things that are likewise infallible logic. 2+2 is the same as 4. That is just reality. I am talking about things that use evidence or speculation that cannot be classified as the reality of things.

Depends. 2 blobs of clay, put together with 2 other blobs of clay, would equal 1 ;) Besides, as for my dilemma, it depends on what KIND of bachelors, but in vague circumstances, you can say that in some cases, I can be certain; and in others, I can't. Now we aren't even sure if we can be certain; but for the generally more universal definition, I can be certain. Can there be married bachelors of business management? Certainly.

If you didn't mean it that way, then perhaps you should... rewrite your theory.

So now, I put in another part of the theory... We cannot be certain as to when we can be certain, except that we can be certain that we cannot be certain as to when we can be certain... ad infinitum.

Nocturne,
I have said previously that this theory is only practical in theoretical terms. I am not advocating its application to everyday situations, and I act as if I am certain of many things. I am certain enough of most things to ignore the fact that I am not 100% certain.

I maintain that, if there's no real practical value to it, then perhaps the philosophy is unnecessary. But it's your thread... You can think as much as you like to. My two cents just then was trying to make the theory universally applicable; as a highly successful theory should.

[TheLastMohican]

No. I'm spending my pathetically elongated lunch break here... It's too long. And people complain it's too short.

Everyone else wants to chat, and chatting takes forever, since it has no end, unlike a debate.

So I can be certain that I'm thinking that I have a brain, right? It doesn't matter who's doing it; I'm still doing it. But this would break down, wouldn't it? Without a brain, I can't think either way; so it wouldn't matter if someone else is doing it for me.

There is a thought that there is you. The very meaning of consciousness is unknown. You do not know what defines you as opposed to who might be controlling you. You might not exist in physical form.

Can I be certain that all bachelors are unmarried?

Which definition of "married?"



Depends. 2 blobs of clay, put together with 2 other blobs of clay, would equal 1 ;)

"2" does not refer to any object. It is a pure number, free from any material ambiguities. It does not depend on observation, and that is why we can be certain of it.

If you didn't mean it that way, then perhaps you should... rewrite your theory.

I already said I was thinking about that.

So now, I put in another part of the theory... We cannot be certain as to when we can be certain, except that we can be certain that we cannot be certain as to when we can be certain... ad infinitum.

Time is uncertain. There goes your theory.



I maintain that, if there's no real practical value to it, then perhaps the philosophy is unnecessary. But it's your thread... You can think as much as you like to. My two cents just then was trying to make the theory universally applicable; as a highly successful theory should.

My theory really only exists so it can be picked apart in entirely impractical ways. We are all making fools of ourselves by bothering to argue about it, but what can I say? It's exercise for the brain.

[Antares]

Which definition of "married?"

Legal union. As in state-authorized or religiously-authorized. I guess Anakin and Padme count as married.

[TheLastMohican]

Is this an attempt to restate the liar paradox?

I had not heard of the liar paradox, and no, my theory is not an attempt to restate it. My theory actually does claim to be certain of itself.


As an exercise in certainty consider the hanged man paradox.

That's a good paradox. I am trying to think of an answer for it.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 1 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Legal union. As in state-authorized or religiously-authorized. I guess Anakin and Padme count as married.

Then you cannot be certain that all bachelors are unmarried. Once you pin down a definition of marriage, you have to account for the possibility that the bachelor is married under a different definition.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 3 minutes and 14 seconds later...

If you're not timid about making important decisions based on your conclusions, why point out that they can't be proven? Doesn't the result of your decision prove or disprove your conclusion?


I point it out because I think it's true. That's all there is to it. I am not going to employ my theory anywhere else except for debates like these. When you get into really deep and all-encompassing topics, you have to get nitty-gritty with your distinctions, to the point of making a distinction between 99.9999999999999% certainty and 100% certainty.

[Antares]

Time is uncertain. There goes your theory.


Elaborate on that. Time as in the fourth dimension? Why, it's not absolute, but I can't really imagine that 'uncertain' describe this dimension. Time as in clocks?

To insert this: We cannot be certain as to when to be certain about time, except that we can be certain that we cannot be certain as to when to be certain about time, except that we can be certain that...

We cannot be certain as to when to be certain about time, since time runs at different rates in different places. At the mountain peaks, time is slower (this was actually tested out using two VERY accurate clocks), and at the mountain foot, time is faster. So we cannot be certain as to when we can be certain about what time it is, since time is not certain. We only know that we cannot be certain as to when to be certain about time (and that we CANNOT be certain about time)

[TheLastMohican]

Elaborate on that. Time as in the fourth dimension? Why, it's not absolute, but I can't really imagine that 'uncertain' describe this dimension. Time as in clocks?


I mean a definition of time that allows you to say "when" with certainty.

[Antares]

I mean a definition of time that allows you to say "when" with certainty.

When my cousin was at the mountain top, she tripped and died (this is what I came up with as of now). To me, she died at 22:00 PM (assuming I had instant reports), April 7th. To her companions, she died at a different time. So we can't be certain when we can even be certain of time. The only thing we can say is, she died in 22:00 PM in MY time, but we do not know what time we can be certain of since there's no absolute time.

[TheLastMohican]

When my cousin was at the mountain top, she tripped and died (this is what I came up with as of now). To me, she died at 22:00 PM (assuming I had instant reports), April 7th. To her companions, she died at a different time. So we can't be certain when we can even be certain of time. The only thing we can say is, she died in 22:00 PM in MY time, but we do not know what time we can be certain of since there's no absolute time.

And that is my point. It was a while waiting for you to catch up.

[Antares]

And that is my point. It was a while waiting for you to catch up.

So we can only know that we cannot be certain; we cannot even be certain if we can be certain. We don't know when we can be certain since time is not absolute.

[TheLastMohican]

So we can only know that we cannot be certain; we cannot even be certain if we can be certain. We don't know when we can be certain since time is not absolute.

Right. And that statement is all we know about anything that depends on our observation.

[Antares]

Right. And that statement is all we know about anything that depends on our observation.

And we cannot fully trust our observation, because like you stated, we might not even exist.

[TheLastMohican]

And we cannot fully trust our observation, because like you stated, we might not even exist.

Right again. You're on a roll here! Keep up the good work, and I might consider you for an early-release copy of my groundbreaking philosophy textbook.

[rwyatt365]

"You cannot be certain of anything except for this statement itself."

If you contained that supposition entirely within yourself then I would agree with it - for you. By that, I mean that as you forumlate the thought that comprises this concept within your mind, it is true - YOU can only be certain of that thought, and nothing else, at that point in time.

However, once you let that thought escape the boundaries of your consciousness neither you, nor I can any longer vouch for the veracity of the thought. It is no longer "certain" because it has exited from the realm of your consciousness (that has conceived it), and entered into the realm of physicality. It is no longer YOUR "pure" thought, it is now just one more "uncertainty" that exists within the context of the external universe.

Only the concept within you is certain. Once let free it is "tainted" with the vagaries of what passes for reality. And what passes for reality is only perceived through the "filters" of everyone else's senses - and so is no longer "certain". ("Did he REALLY say that? how can you tell? Didn't I just say that too? Who's thought is that anyway? Are you SURE?!"")

[sriv]

"Are you SURE?!" any of this even matters?

[TheLastMohican]

"Are you SURE?!" any of this even matters?

I am relatively certain it does not. Now all of you, I know I'm wasting my time, so stop rubbing it in.





TheLastMohican added to this post, 2 minutes and 29 seconds later...

However, once you let that thought escape the boundaries of your consciousness neither you, nor I can any longer vouch for the veracity of the thought. It is no longer "certain" because it has exited from the realm of your consciousness (that has conceived it), and entered into the realm of physicality. It is no longer YOUR "pure" thought, it is now just one more "uncertainty" that exists within the context of the external universe.


I mostly agree with that. My theory applies to human certainty. I believe that God has 100% certainty, but God is above us. Humans are limited to their sensory input for basic information, and we must have correct input in order to arrive at correct conclusions.

[Antares]

Right again. You're on a roll here! Keep up the good work, and I might consider you for an early-release copy of my groundbreaking philosophy textbook.


So now, I put in another part of the theory... We cannot be certain as to when we can be certain, except that we can be certain that we cannot be certain as to when we can be certain... ad infinitum.



So now you didn't debunk my theory with time. We cannot be certain as to when we can be certain about (because clocks may run differently), except that we can be certain that we cannot be certain as to when we can be certain... (We can be certain that I can't be certain as to when to be certain because time runs differently, therefore my time is different than the time of my cousin)

[TheLastMohican]

So now you didn't debunk my theory with time.

Yes, I did. Look below for the explanation:

We cannot be certain as to when we can be certain about (because clocks may run differently), except that we can be certain that we cannot be certain as to when we can be certain... (We can be certain that I can't be certain as to when to be certain because time runs differently, therefore my time is different than the time of my cousin)

You are digging your own grave, ma cherie.

[Antares]

Yes, I did. Look below for the explanation:



You are digging your own grave, ma cherie.

I just applied time to the theory; how did I dig my own grave? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

[TheLastMohican]

I just applied time to the theory; how did I dig my own grave? Perhaps you can enlighten me?

You showed that time is uncertain, which is exactly what I pointed out when debunking your statement:

So now, I put in another part of the theory... We cannot be certain as to when we can be certain, except that we can be certain that we cannot be certain as to when we can be certain... ad infinitum.

You see, "when" has no place in the theory. The timing is irrelevant, and ambiguous.

[cal]

My contribution to philosophy:

The only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything except that the only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything except that the only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything...and so on forever, defining itself ad infinitum.

In its concise form: You cannot be certain of anything except for this statement itself.

All those who agree, please try to come up with a way to explain it to those who disagree. Thus far I have had great difficulty in summing it up any other way.

Disclaimer: I call this my own contribution because I came up with it on my own, and was unable to find an equivalent postulate by anyone else. If you know of this idea having been stated elsewhere before I came up with it (which seems a probable occurrence to me), please post a link or other info to give the original due credit.

The closest thing that comes to mind is Godel's theorem. A quote that explains it better than I could:

"To the delight of philosophers and mathematicians, Godel showed that no system could prove the axioms on which it was based. For example, Euclid had to take for granted, and coud never prove, the parallel-line axiom which stated that two parallel lines would never meet (on a PLANE surface because, of course, they do meet on a sperical surface). The axioms have to be provided by an outside system or meta-system.

Christianity was built on such axioms as the kingdom of God and universal love. These axioms were not developed from within the system but supplied by Jesus. Judaism was based on axioms supposedly handed by God to Moses directly. In the Koran, Muhammad provided the axioms from which the meta-system of Islam was to develop. Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital provided the axioms from which the religion of Marxism was to develop.

There might seem to be a big difference between meta-system axioms handed down personally by God, since God is the supreme meta-system, and those generated by a man such as Marx browsing through the British Museum Reading Room. Godel's theorem, however, states that a system cannot PROVE its own axioms, not that it cannot produce them. The authority of the axioms handed down by God seem to prove their validity, but only if one already believes in the infallibility of God and in his personal transmission of the axioms. The basic Marxist axiom that the happiness of the state is more important than that of the individual is unprovable.

Since there is no way in which a system can prove the axioms on which the system is based it is open to anyone to set up a series of axioms and then to react to them as though they provided a meta-system. It is the belief that is INVESTED in a meta-sytem that makes it work."

- from The Happiness Purpose, by Edward de Bono

[Beery Swine]

My contribution to philosophy: don't bother with it. Its like being really good at Halo. Yeah, its fun at parties cause you can trounce anyone who steps to you, but in the end what have you sacrificed for this rather useless ability?

[SeaCzar]

"Are you SURE?!" any of this even matters?

This was my take on the entire thread.

[tp6626]

My contribution to philosophy:
The only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything except that the only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything except that the only thing one can be certain of is that one cannot be certain of anything...and so on forever, defining itself ad infinitum.

Forgive me if this is already been mentioned, but is this a kind of paradox along the lines of Bertrand Russels set theory example?

I.e. Is a 'set of sets', included in itself because it itself is a set? Or is there a set of set of sets etc...etc... ad infinitum).

Waste of time really, probably not worth much consideration unless you're one of these post-modernist retards.

[TheLastMohican]

My contribution to philosophy: don't bother with it. Its like being really good at Halo. Yeah, its fun at parties cause you can trounce anyone who steps to you, but in the end what have you sacrificed for this rather useless ability?

I agree with your main point.

I have INTP tendencies, if that explains anything.

Forgive me if this is already been mentioned, but is this a kind of paradox along the lines of Bertrand Russels set theory example?

I.e. Is a 'set of sets', included in itself because it itself is a set? Or is there a set of set of sets etc...etc... ad infinitum).


I was not familiar with that theory, but it is a valid comparison. The basic idea leads to the same paradox.