Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
- Lawrence Crocker
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:44 pm
- Location: Eastman, NH
- Contact:
Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Of course many things are certain in the way that we ordinarily use the word “certain.” It is certain that you are reading this now, that you do not have five heads, that 2 + 2 = 4. I argue, however, that in a more demanding sense, the sense that should be applied when we are evaluating the effect on our beliefs of new evidence using Bayesian updating, nothing should be regarded as absolutely certain. “2 + 2 = 4” is necessarily true, but it is not certainly true – Bayesian pioneer Lindley to the contrary notwithstanding. The detailed argument is in my blog LawrenceCrocker.blogspot.com.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
I'm absolutely certain I've suffered, and felt pain on stubbing my toe. I'm absolutely certain I will be at least mildly peeved if you suggest otherwise.
Btw, the title can't be true, as it entails a certainty.
Btw, the title can't be true, as it entails a certainty.
Last edited by Dalek Prime on Tue Sep 01, 2015 5:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Double post.
- Lawrence Crocker
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:44 pm
- Location: Eastman, NH
- Contact:
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Dalek Prime wrote:I'm absolutely certain I've suffered, and felt pain on stubbing my toe. I'm absolutely certain I will be at least mildly peeved if you suggest otherwise.
Btw, the title can't be true, as it entails a certainty.
"Nothing is certain" does not entail that anything is certain. The fact that it is asserted does not entail assertion with certainty. I am rarely, if ever, certain about any philosophical proposition even in an ordinary language sense of certainty, and certainly (ordinary sense) not in the more demanding sense of certainty relevant to the issue of exceptions to Cromwell's Rule.
With respect to certainty that brooks not one contrary possibility in a googolplex, you should consider, in evaluating your certainty, the possibility that your memory of that stubbed toe was an artifact planted in your brain by those pesky alien neuroscientists, and, indeed, even the possibility that all of reality was created a minute ago, by a playful god, complete with all the cleverly fabricated evidence, including our memories, that its origin predated its true origin by some 13.5 billion years. One chance in a googolplex can be a far out possibility indeed.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Well, if we can't work from Descartes' basic premise, we may as well have a nap and forget about philosophy entirely.Lawrence Crocker wrote:Dalek Prime wrote:I'm absolutely certain I've suffered, and felt pain on stubbing my toe. I'm absolutely certain I will be at least mildly peeved if you suggest otherwise.
Btw, the title can't be true, as it entails a certainty.
"Nothing is certain" does not entail that anything is certain. The fact that it is asserted does not entail assertion with certainty. I am rarely, if ever, certain about any philosophical proposition even in an ordinary language sense of certainty, and certainly (ordinary sense) not in the more demanding sense of certainty relevant to the issue of exceptions to Cromwell's Rule.
With respect to certainty that brooks not one contrary possibility in a googolplex, you should consider, in evaluating your certainty, the possibility that your memory of that stubbed toe was an artifact planted in your brain by those pesky alien neuroscientists, and, indeed, even the possibility that all of reality was created a minute ago, by a playful god, complete with all the cleverly fabricated evidence, including our memories, that its origin predated its true origin by some 13.5 billion years. One chance in a googolplex can be a far out possibility indeed.
Implanted memory or not, that pain is still real to me. I acknowledge it and remember it. And, with such evil bastards willing to implant such experiences when they needn't have, my antinatalism ie. my decision not to create further conciousness, stands out as a wise decision. Frankly, there is not a scenario you can pose to me where antinatalism is the lesser choice.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Maybe but what about the sentence with "Absolutely" added, as that certainly appears to imply absolute certainty and therefore contradicts itself?Lawrence Crocker wrote:"Nothing is certain" does not entail that anything is certain. The fact that it is asserted does not entail assertion with certainty. ...
- Lawrence Crocker
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:44 pm
- Location: Eastman, NH
- Contact:
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Using such phrases as "absolutely nothing" may as a matter of our usual sensitivities to rhetorical excess suggest dogmatism, and the dogmatists are typically certain of everything. There is, however, no implication here. Consider, "I tentatively believe that absolutely all double primes have successor double primes." If the use of "absolute" implied certainty, then this sentence would be a contradiction, which it isn't. In fact, it is true. I do so believe, and my belief is tentative.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Do you, yourself, have no certainties, Lawrence? Is your conciousness not a certainty, as I've stated, ala Descartes, from whence to build a philosophy? And what do you think the implications are of that?
- Lawrence Crocker
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:44 pm
- Location: Eastman, NH
- Contact:
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
I am certain of many things in the ordinary way we use "certain," including 2 + 2 = 4 and the truth of "here is one hand, here another." What I have doubts about is the special sense of "certain" required to give a flat 0 to "the moon is made of green cheese" instead of a probability of .000000000000001. When a sense of certainty must stand up against one chance in a googolplex, it is a very strong sense. It may be that this sense is only comes into contention in such contexts as Bayesian updating, as well as with some philosophical arguments. So far as I know those are the only contexts in which it arises.Dalek Prime wrote:Do you, yourself, have no certainties, Lawrence? Is your conciousness not a certainty, as I've stated, ala Descartes, from whence to build a philosophy? And what do you think the implications are of that?
You are right in thinking I am less than fully on board with the Cartesian, foundationalist, project. I do not think that there are any rock bottom propositions absolutely immune (strong sense) from all challenge. More important, I don't think we need such in order to know things about the world. That, however, is a very long discussion, and one that has been ably defended in the literature, and, of course, also ably attacked.
I think we all make, and perhaps inevitably make, very large mistakes when we talk about consciousness. I find it hard even to form consciousness statements that are free of important ambiguity, vagueness, or false or misleading presumptions. Even when we back off the content from "I have a pain in my toe from stubbing it against a rock" to "pain, here, now" or even "pain now" I see difficulties. (In this case the old saw about the fraternity initiation that showed the pledge the hot branding iron, and, behind his back, applied said iron to a fresh steak while applying an ice cube to said back. This is purported to have yielded "I thought I was in intense pain, but I was wrong." Perhaps this is not what the pledge , once enlightened about the ice cube should have said, but it is not a matter free of all doubt.)
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Thanks for that Lawrence. Yes, I suppose I can deal with that amount of uncertainty, and can accept what you say as reasonable... though necessarily uncertain by a very small margin.Lawrence Crocker wrote:I am certain of many things in the ordinary way we use "certain," including 2 + 2 = 4 and the truth of "here is one hand, here another." What I have doubts about is the special sense of "certain" required to give a flat 0 to "the moon is made of green cheese" instead of a probability of .000000000000001. When a sense of certainty must stand up against one chance in a googolplex, it is a very strong sense. It may be that this sense is only comes into contention in such contexts as Bayesian updating, as well as with some philosophical arguments. So far as I know those are the only contexts in which it arises.Dalek Prime wrote:Do you, yourself, have no certainties, Lawrence? Is your conciousness not a certainty, as I've stated, ala Descartes, from whence to build a philosophy? And what do you think the implications are of that?
You are right in thinking I am less than fully on board with the Cartesian, foundationalist, project. I do not think that there are any rock bottom propositions absolutely immune (strong sense) from all challenge. More important, I don't think we need such in order to know things about the world. That, however, is a very long discussion, and one that has been ably defended in the literature, and, of course, also ably attacked.
I think we all make, and perhaps inevitably make, very large mistakes when we talk about consciousness. I find it hard even to form consciousness statements that are free of important ambiguity, vagueness, or false or misleading presumptions. Even when we back off the content from "I have a pain in my toe from stubbing it against a rock" to "pain, here, now" or even "pain now" I see difficulties. (In this case the old saw about the fraternity initiation that showed the pledge the hot branding iron, and, behind his back, applied said iron to a fresh steak while applying an ice cube to said back. This is purported to have yielded "I thought I was in intense pain, but I was wrong." Perhaps this is not what the pledge , once enlightened about the ice cube should have said, but it is not a matter free of all doubt.)
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
In the classical world, the demarcation point between Pre-Socratic philosophy and that guff by Plato and Aristotle, was, arguably not Socrates, but Parmenides. He came up with the first recorded proposition that is absolutely true. Often translated as 'Being is.' it is the observation that it is self-contradictory to argue that nothing exists.
It takes a rare breed of idiot to proclaim 'I do not exist.' This was the conclusion reached by Rene Descartes. He assumed he was the stream of consciousness that seemed to describe a fairly coherent narrative. The point has been made many times, initially by Malebranche, that although it might seem as though there is an 'I' responsible for the thinking, it doesn't actually follow logically; there might just be thinking. If you can get your head around that, congratulations, you can do philosophy, but we owe to Descartes the understanding that not only is there something, but there is perceptions of it. (Although as Berkeley noted, there may be nothing but perceptions.)
That's it as far as absolutely true things go:
1. There is something.
2. There is thought.
Apologies to those who are bored of me repeating myself.
It takes a rare breed of idiot to proclaim 'I do not exist.' This was the conclusion reached by Rene Descartes. He assumed he was the stream of consciousness that seemed to describe a fairly coherent narrative. The point has been made many times, initially by Malebranche, that although it might seem as though there is an 'I' responsible for the thinking, it doesn't actually follow logically; there might just be thinking. If you can get your head around that, congratulations, you can do philosophy, but we owe to Descartes the understanding that not only is there something, but there is perceptions of it. (Although as Berkeley noted, there may be nothing but perceptions.)
That's it as far as absolutely true things go:
1. There is something.
2. There is thought.
Apologies to those who are bored of me repeating myself.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Uwot, you've lost me. Didn't Descartes say "I think, therefore I am". That's what I'm trying to get across as the nearest thing to a certainty. Are you saying I'm wrong about consciousness being a certainty? That's what I'm getting from you.
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Yep. 'I think, therefore I am' is the conclusion of Descartes method of doubt. The most accessible (or at least shortest) version is in the Meditations. (Free to read here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... ations.htm )Basically, because sometimes the things you see are illusions or mirages, he decided he couldn't trust his senses; he could doubt them. So he decided to see if there is anything he could not doubt. Long story short: although he could doubt that the sensations he was experiencing, his 'thoughts', were telling him the truth about some external world, he could not doubt that he was experiencing something. He must therefore be a 'thinking thing'; hence I think, therefore I am. However, it doesn't follow logically from 'there are thoughts about me' to 'I am.' Unlikely as it is, 'you' might simply be a passing disembodied thought that will disappear in a puff of logic in two seconds; all that is absolutely true is that there are thoughts, some of which are collected into a jumble that calls itself Dalek Prime.
-
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
Fair enough. But I see conciousness, the jumble, as me. And that's my certain starting point, whatever else I may be. That's what I meant, though I misunderstood Descartes. Is that clearer?uwot wrote:Yep. 'I think, therefore I am' is the conclusion of Descartes method of doubt. The most accessible (or at least shortest) version is in the Meditations. (Free to read here: https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... ations.htm )Basically, because sometimes the things you see are illusions or mirages, he decided he couldn't trust his senses; he could doubt them. So he decided to see if there is anything he could not doubt. Long story short: although he could doubt that the sensations he was experiencing, his 'thoughts', were telling him the truth about some external world, he could not doubt that he was experiencing something. He must therefore be a 'thinking thing'; hence I think, therefore I am. However, it doesn't follow logically from 'there are thoughts about me' to 'I am.' Unlikely as it is, 'you' might simply be a passing disembodied thought that will disappear in a puff of logic in two seconds; all that is absolutely true is that there are thoughts, some of which are collected into a jumble that calls itself Dalek Prime.
Btw uwot, have you read The Ego Tunnel by Metzinger? He talks about that jumble.
Last edited by Dalek Prime on Thu Sep 03, 2015 5:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 5:11 pm
Re: Absolutely Nothing is Absolutely Certain
I am absolutely certain that absolutes don't exist. The fallacy of course as was Descartes. No matter how much we doubt existence we never it seems doubt our experiences and that doubt. Invariably we always start with something that we presuppose, some construct that we take for granted because if we doubt our experience, our natural perceptions of the physical world then we are lost in solipsism. What you have arrived at shows us nothing certain about reality or epistemology, but only what you accept as a construct. Descartes error as well.