Of course. From my perspective, we each express ideas from our unique and limited perspectives. I do not believe my perspectives are an ultimate static truth. People are free to pick and choose where they find value and truth for themselves. Your communication style of inserting projections and claiming to "know", as you do, doesn't resonate as truth for me, which is why I typically skip through or over most of what you write. But I wish you well.
resolving god
Re: resolving god
Re: resolving god
>Justification is impossible without prior ctiretia for "sufficiency", and you can't talk about "sufficiency" without contrasting it with "insufficiency". Is just intellectual honesty, you see - otherwise you are marking your own homework after the fact. Of course, Philosophy/philosophers know this - they run out of things to say so they just say "as long as it obtains".... obtains what?
I concur right up to obtains, but i'm not really sure what you're intending, especially at the last
>In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.
That ultimate understanding of Truth is invalid. We cannot reach that level of certainty so that's not what the word can ever mean without becoming technically useless. The only proof necessary that we can never be completely certain of anything is that we are finite beings. No trilemma required.
>If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing further proof in response to further questioning:
Proof is always purpose bound, never infinite. Sure Enough for a given purpose is the level of "necessary and sufficient" and going beyond it is a waste of resources and has an opportunity cost. So long as we agree on basic premises about the universe, which is true in 99.9% of actual cases of knowledge use, no more is required or desirable.
>The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition.
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum.
The universe is infinitely self-referencing. The project of knowledge is to find those things which we can be most certain of (which change least often (measurable) or always in the same ways (logical)). That means bounding them by pragmatic accessibility first.
>The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended.
Dogma is about belief, and it's a problem Because it has nothing to do with defense. Dogmatists don't claim the necessity of defense so we can't rule against them on the fact they don't defend their beliefs, we can judge them based on the Fact that they don't value defense of their beliefs when they should. That OUGHT has to have criteria that subsumes their understanding, essentially epistemology. Dogmatists beliefs are wrong because they're counterproductive to stated goals of those same people, like peace and survival of all. Of they existed in a vacuum it would be no problem at all (and they'd asphyxiate).
I concur right up to obtains, but i'm not really sure what you're intending, especially at the last
>In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics.
That ultimate understanding of Truth is invalid. We cannot reach that level of certainty so that's not what the word can ever mean without becoming technically useless. The only proof necessary that we can never be completely certain of anything is that we are finite beings. No trilemma required.
>If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing further proof in response to further questioning:
Proof is always purpose bound, never infinite. Sure Enough for a given purpose is the level of "necessary and sufficient" and going beyond it is a waste of resources and has an opportunity cost. So long as we agree on basic premises about the universe, which is true in 99.9% of actual cases of knowledge use, no more is required or desirable.
>The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition.
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum.
The universe is infinitely self-referencing. The project of knowledge is to find those things which we can be most certain of (which change least often (measurable) or always in the same ways (logical)). That means bounding them by pragmatic accessibility first.
>The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended.
Dogma is about belief, and it's a problem Because it has nothing to do with defense. Dogmatists don't claim the necessity of defense so we can't rule against them on the fact they don't defend their beliefs, we can judge them based on the Fact that they don't value defense of their beliefs when they should. That OUGHT has to have criteria that subsumes their understanding, essentially epistemology. Dogmatists beliefs are wrong because they're counterproductive to stated goals of those same people, like peace and survival of all. Of they existed in a vacuum it would be no problem at all (and they'd asphyxiate).
Re: resolving god
[quote=DPMartin post_id=503779 time=1616512025 user_id=13848]
its an example, did you ever here of those? its true no matter if any person knows it or not. animals know if something is true or not, man is no judge of truth.
[/quote]
Like it or not, we are the Only judge of truth. We are the only creatures capable of holding the concept at all.
its an example, did you ever here of those? its true no matter if any person knows it or not. animals know if something is true or not, man is no judge of truth.
[/quote]
Like it or not, we are the Only judge of truth. We are the only creatures capable of holding the concept at all.
Re: resolving god
[quote=Skepdick post_id=503780 time=1616512157 user_id=17350]
What we call truth is always relative and relevant to an observer/perspective. Truth (with a capital T) is not relevant or relative to anything. That's why we can't say anything about it.
[/quote]
That's exactly what i say but when i say it, in various contexts, you usually argue. What gives?
What we call truth is always relative and relevant to an observer/perspective. Truth (with a capital T) is not relevant or relative to anything. That's why we can't say anything about it.
[/quote]
That's exactly what i say but when i say it, in various contexts, you usually argue. What gives?
Re: resolving god
Why do you see the situation as an "argument"?
Why don't you see it as "different ways to express similar ideas?"
After all, the point of philosophy is to be able to translate between languages. No?
Re: resolving god
[quote=Skepdick post_id=503856 time=1616526208 user_id=17350]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503841 time=1616524653 user_id=15238]
That's exactly what i say but when i say it, in various contexts, you usually argue. What gives?
[/quote]
Why do you see the situation as an "argument"?
Why don't you see it as "different ways to express similar ideas?"
After all, the point of philosophy is to be able to translate between languages. No?
[/quote]
Dick.
[quote=Advocate post_id=503841 time=1616524653 user_id=15238]
That's exactly what i say but when i say it, in various contexts, you usually argue. What gives?
[/quote]
Why do you see the situation as an "argument"?
Why don't you see it as "different ways to express similar ideas?"
After all, the point of philosophy is to be able to translate between languages. No?
[/quote]
Dick.
-
Hermit Philosopher
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
- Location: By the seaside
- Contact:
Re: resolving god
May not the same be said of worldliness too...?
We know how Man - through his five senses - experiences the physical world, but does that tell us anything certain about it in itself, or does it merely tell us about Man’s experience of it? Epistemologically speaking, that is.
Humbly
Hermit
Re: resolving god
[quote="Hermit Philosopher" post_id=503867 time=1616528106 user_id=3927]
[quote=Advocate post_id=502422 time=1615813260 user_id=15238]
"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
[/quote]
May not the same be said of worldliness too...?
We know how Man - through his five senses - experiences the physical world, but does that tell us anything certain about it in itself, or does it merely tell us about Man’s [i]experience[/i] of it? Epistemologically speaking, that is.
Humbly
Hermit
[/quote]
Get off your humility horse and have an Accurate view of the worth of your ideas.
The answer is semantic and metaphysical. Words that reference the transcendent are mere placeholders for the ineffable.
Certainty never means absolute exhaustive knowledge, it can't. It means certain Enough, and enough for what is always determine by specific purposes.
As long as our experience continually replicates, that's good enough "for all intents and purposes". To us it's indistinguishable from that infinite, unobtainable certainty.
Reality might be a simulation from some privileged perspective, but we don't have it, so that idea is indistinguishable from fiction.
Logic is the rules that describe our experience of things that relate in specific ways every single time. Science is rigor; approaching measurements (the experience of obtaining rigorous certainty in a specific instance) that are the same every time as much as possible.
[quote=Advocate post_id=502422 time=1615813260 user_id=15238]
"Is there a god?" may seem to be a metaphysical question but it can only be answered epistemologically. Whether there is a god is of little interest when the ability to prove it is non-existent.
[/quote]
May not the same be said of worldliness too...?
We know how Man - through his five senses - experiences the physical world, but does that tell us anything certain about it in itself, or does it merely tell us about Man’s [i]experience[/i] of it? Epistemologically speaking, that is.
Humbly
Hermit
[/quote]
Get off your humility horse and have an Accurate view of the worth of your ideas.
The answer is semantic and metaphysical. Words that reference the transcendent are mere placeholders for the ineffable.
Certainty never means absolute exhaustive knowledge, it can't. It means certain Enough, and enough for what is always determine by specific purposes.
As long as our experience continually replicates, that's good enough "for all intents and purposes". To us it's indistinguishable from that infinite, unobtainable certainty.
Reality might be a simulation from some privileged perspective, but we don't have it, so that idea is indistinguishable from fiction.
Logic is the rules that describe our experience of things that relate in specific ways every single time. Science is rigor; approaching measurements (the experience of obtaining rigorous certainty in a specific instance) that are the same every time as much as possible.
-
Hermit Philosopher
- Posts: 104
- Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:50 pm
- Location: By the seaside
- Contact:
Re: resolving god
Advocate wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:06 pmGet off your humility horse and have an Accurate view of the worth of your ideas.Hermit Philosopher wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 8:35 pm
May not the same be said of worldliness too...?
We know how Man - through his five senses - experiences the physical world, but does that tell us anything certain about it in itself, or does it merely tell us about Man’s experience of it? Epistemologically speaking, that is.
Humbly
Hermit
The answer is semantic and metaphysical. Words that reference the transcendent are mere placeholders for the ineffable.
Certainty never means absolute exhaustive knowledge, it can't. It means certain Enough, and enough for what is always determine by specific purposes.
As long as our experience continually replicates, that's good enough "for all intents and purposes". To us it's indistinguishable from that infinite, unobtainable certainty.
Reality might be a simulation from some privileged perspective, but we don't have it, so that idea is indistinguishable from fiction.
Logic is the rules that describe our experience of things that relate in specific ways every single time. Science is rigor; approaching measurements (the experience of obtaining rigorous certainty in a specific instance) that are the same every time as much as possible.
Haha, was merely a thought Advocate!
Do you not much like thinking outside your own box?
It can be entertaining to once in a while have a go...
Humbly
Hermit
Re: resolving god
[quote="Hermit Philosopher" post_id=503889 time=1616533553 user_id=3927]
[quote=Advocate post_id=503875 time=1616529981 user_id=15238]
[quote="Hermit Philosopher" post_id=503867 time=1616528106 user_id=3927]
May not the same be said of worldliness too...?
We know how Man - through his five senses - experiences the physical world, but does that tell us anything certain about it in itself, or does it merely tell us about Man’s [i]experience[/i] of it? Epistemologically speaking, that is.
Humbly
Hermit
[/quote]
Get off your humility horse and have an Accurate view of the worth of your ideas.
The answer is semantic and metaphysical. Words that reference the transcendent are mere placeholders for the ineffable.
Certainty never means absolute exhaustive knowledge, it can't. It means certain Enough, and enough for what is always determine by specific purposes.
As long as our experience continually replicates, that's good enough "for all intents and purposes". To us it's indistinguishable from that infinite, unobtainable certainty.
Reality might be a simulation from some privileged perspective, but we don't have it, so that idea is indistinguishable from fiction.
Logic is the rules that describe our experience of things that relate in specific ways every single time. Science is rigor; approaching measurements (the experience of obtaining rigorous certainty in a specific instance) that are the same every time as much as possible.
[/quote]
Haha, was merely a thought Advocate!
Do you not much like thinking outside your own box?
It can be entertaining to once in a while have a go...
Humbly
Hermit
[/quote]
I don't have a box, i have a Plateau of Truth and i abhor ever walking downhill. :p
[quote=Advocate post_id=503875 time=1616529981 user_id=15238]
[quote="Hermit Philosopher" post_id=503867 time=1616528106 user_id=3927]
May not the same be said of worldliness too...?
We know how Man - through his five senses - experiences the physical world, but does that tell us anything certain about it in itself, or does it merely tell us about Man’s [i]experience[/i] of it? Epistemologically speaking, that is.
Humbly
Hermit
[/quote]
Get off your humility horse and have an Accurate view of the worth of your ideas.
The answer is semantic and metaphysical. Words that reference the transcendent are mere placeholders for the ineffable.
Certainty never means absolute exhaustive knowledge, it can't. It means certain Enough, and enough for what is always determine by specific purposes.
As long as our experience continually replicates, that's good enough "for all intents and purposes". To us it's indistinguishable from that infinite, unobtainable certainty.
Reality might be a simulation from some privileged perspective, but we don't have it, so that idea is indistinguishable from fiction.
Logic is the rules that describe our experience of things that relate in specific ways every single time. Science is rigor; approaching measurements (the experience of obtaining rigorous certainty in a specific instance) that are the same every time as much as possible.
[/quote]
Haha, was merely a thought Advocate!
Do you not much like thinking outside your own box?
It can be entertaining to once in a while have a go...
Humbly
Hermit
[/quote]
I don't have a box, i have a Plateau of Truth and i abhor ever walking downhill. :p
Re: resolving god
Great. Will you now also openly admit that it could in fact be possible for a human being to discover, arrive at, and/or come to define/know an 'ultimate static truth'?
Or is this still out of the realm of a possibility, from your perspective?
I agree.
You are free to do absolutely any thing you so please.
Now 'where was', and 'what was', the last, so called, "projection" I supposedly inserted, which you continually claim I make?
You wish me well in regards to 'what', EXACTLY?
Re: resolving god
I don't believe there is an ultimate static truth.Age wrote: ↑Wed Mar 24, 2021 12:04 pmGreat. Will you now also openly admit that it could in fact be possible for a human being to discover, arrive at, and/or come to define/know an 'ultimate static truth'?
Re: resolving god
[quote=Lacewing post_id=504019 time=1616596413 user_id=11228]
[quote=Age post_id=503980 time=1616583862 user_id=16237]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503790 time=1616515116 user_id=11228]
Of course. From my perspective, we each express ideas from our unique and limited perspectives. I do not believe my perspectives are an ultimate static truth.[/quote]
Great. Will you now also openly admit that it could in fact be possible for a human being to discover, arrive at, and/or come to define/know an 'ultimate static truth'?
[/quote]
I don't believe there is an ultimate static truth.
[/quote]
Change is the universal substrate of the universe. If something looks like it isn't changing, you're not looking close enough or long enough.
[quote=Age post_id=503980 time=1616583862 user_id=16237]
[quote=Lacewing post_id=503790 time=1616515116 user_id=11228]
Of course. From my perspective, we each express ideas from our unique and limited perspectives. I do not believe my perspectives are an ultimate static truth.[/quote]
Great. Will you now also openly admit that it could in fact be possible for a human being to discover, arrive at, and/or come to define/know an 'ultimate static truth'?
[/quote]
I don't believe there is an ultimate static truth.
[/quote]
Change is the universal substrate of the universe. If something looks like it isn't changing, you're not looking close enough or long enough.
Re: resolving god
Based on everything we can see, it does indeed appear and make sense that EVERYTHING is in motion, evolving and expanding or contracting. Nothing is solid or stays the same. So, ideas that are fixated on beliefs of rigid, unchanging truths/realities/entities, seem based on man's need for something solid to build his beliefs on... and to claim that he "knows".