Russell: There is No Real Table??

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:29 am

In Chapter 1 - Problems of Philosophy;
Bertrand Russell sounded the following;
"Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all."
  • Thus what we directly see and feel is merely 'appearance', which we believe to be a sign of some 'reality' behind.
    But if the reality is not what appears, have we any means of knowing whether there is any reality at all?
    And if so, have we any means of finding out what it is like?

    Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
    The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.
    Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
    Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.

    Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
So, is there a real table at all?

p.s. the above is from Russell [1872-1970] early writings in 1912 and I agree with the above. Russell may have changed his mind later [not so sure].

Skepdick
Posts: 1647
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:53 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:29 am
So, is there a real table at all?
As opposed to there being a non-real table?

If you read the actual Chapter 1 you will see that the word 'really' is clearly being used in a number of different ways e.g it's being used inconsistently and equivocally.

It's being used far more broadly than saying anything precise or particular about the table.

Suppose that there is no real table at all. What happens then?

Impenitent
Posts: 2384
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 2:04 pm

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Impenitent » Thu Oct 10, 2019 10:18 pm

atoms scattering periodically...

-Imp

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:02 am

Skepdick wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 1:53 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:29 am
So, is there a real table at all?
As opposed to there being a non-real table?

If you read the actual Chapter 1 you will see that the word 'really' is clearly being used in a number of different ways e.g it's being used inconsistently and equivocally.

It's being used far more broadly than saying anything precise or particular about the table.

Suppose that there is no real table at all. What happens then?
The truth is
1. there is a real table AND
2. there is no real table
at the same time but must be viewed in different perspectives, i.e. not equivocally.

What most people [most of the time in this forum] fall onto is the common and scientific sense but they do not reflect from the deeper philosophical and critical perspectives like what Russell was doing.

Russell did resign to search for any certain finite thing that is independent of the brain and mind, thus he concluded in the last chapter;
  • Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves;
    because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
    but above all because, through the greatness of the universe which philosophy contemplates, the mind also is rendered great, and becomes capable of that union with the universe which constitutes its highest good.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:13 am

Those who insist there is a real table out there independent of the human mind and there are no alternative views, they need to read Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy'.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4955
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:42 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 6:13 am
Those who insist there is a real table out there independent of the human mind and there are no alternative views, they need to read Russell's 'Problems of Philosophy'.
Did the mind invent the dot or did the dot invent the mind?

Skepdick
Posts: 1647
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Skepdick » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:48 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:02 am
The truth is
1. there is a real table AND
2. there is no real table
at the same time but must be viewed in different perspectives, i.e. not equivocally.
If you are not equivocating yourself, then you are you are contradicting yourself. A proposition and its negation cannot both be true.

If you wish to side-step this problem, you are going to have to abandon Classical logic.

Approach 1 is to adopt Dialethism and allow for true contradictions to exist.
Approach 2 is to adopt constructivism and you have to abandon these inference rules:

* Law of excluded middle: ~P does NOT imply P
* Double negation: ~~P does NOT imply P.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:52 am

A real table would still not be as real as it appeared to us as it is composed of atoms and 99 per cent of an atom is empty space
Therefore 99 per cent of the table viewed through human eyes is really an optical illusion

Our senses are therefore incredibly unreliable when it comes to seeing anything as it is
The human eye cannot even see I per cent of what is on the electromagnetic spectrum

Gamma waves - micro waves - x rays - radio waves - infra red - ultra violet are all completely invisible to us
Ditto the carbon atoms and the electrons and protons and neutrons within them that make up Russells table

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:08 am

Eodnhoj wrote:
Did the mind invent the dot or did the dot invent the mind
The dot as a point in space came before the mind as space existed long before humans ever did
But I dont think the dot invented the mind but the mind did eventually perceive the dot though

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:28 am

Skepdick wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:02 am
The truth is
1. there is a real table AND
2. there is no real table
at the same time but must be viewed in different perspectives, i.e. not equivocally.
If you are not equivocating yourself, then you are you are contradicting yourself. A proposition and its negation cannot both be true.

If you wish to side-step this problem, you are going to have to abandon Classical logic.

Approach 1 is to adopt Dialethism and allow for true contradictions to exist.
Approach 2 is to adopt constructivism and you have to abandon these inference rules:

* Law of excluded middle: ~P does NOT imply P
* Double negation: ~~P does NOT imply P.
We can rely on Dialetheism and Intuitionistic_logic.

There is no need to abandon Classical Logic.
The Law of non-contradiction state P and not-P cannot exist at the same time and in same perspective.

What I had proposed is P and not-P can exists in at the time [nano-seconds] but in different perspectives.
A diamond can both be hard and soft at the same time but depending on which perspective one is looking at it.
In the ordinary sense, a diamond is hard, but it would be soft if we use an electron laser.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4955
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:30 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:28 am
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:48 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 4:02 am
The truth is
1. there is a real table AND
2. there is no real table
at the same time but must be viewed in different perspectives, i.e. not equivocally.
If you are not equivocating yourself, then you are you are contradicting yourself. A proposition and its negation cannot both be true.

If you wish to side-step this problem, you are going to have to abandon Classical logic.

Approach 1 is to adopt Dialethism and allow for true contradictions to exist.
Approach 2 is to adopt constructivism and you have to abandon these inference rules:

* Law of excluded middle: ~P does NOT imply P
* Double negation: ~~P does NOT imply P.
We can rely on Dialetheism and Intuitionistic_logic.

There is no need to abandon Classical Logic.
The Law of non-contradiction state P and not-P cannot exist at the same time and in same perspective.

Actually they can:

[(P=P)=(-P=-P)] --> [((P=P)&(P/=P))-->(P/=-P)]

***"=" is "-->" and "<--"
***((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid under a truth table calculator




P and Not P are equal to eachother through the law of identity as both are subject to it.

As equal through the law of identity P is equal to P and not equal to P, therefore P is not equal to P consdierng -P is a variable that fits inside of P due to the law of identity. -P=-P necessitates P=-P...this however necessitates P as having multiple meaning is not always equal to itself so P both equals and does not equal P (schrodinger's cat). It P does not equal P, then P also does not equal -P.


What I had proposed is P and not-P can exists in at the time [nano-seconds] but in different perspectives.

Perspectives are subject to time due to dynamic change as they assume the environment empirically and assuming their own abstractions.
A diamond can both be hard and soft at the same time but depending on which perspective one is looking at it.

Not if the perspective is one of superposition time zones.

In the ordinary sense, a diamond is hard, but it would be soft if we use an electron laser.
Superpositioning.

The table is both real and not real as an instrincially empty context.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6312
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:10 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:29 am
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.
Russell was wrong. What he should have written is, "What it seems to us, is not what it actually is." The fault was never in the table (reality), but always in the perceiver (to whom it "seems").

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:12 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:30 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 9:28 am
Skepdick wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:48 am

If you are not equivocating yourself, then you are you are contradicting yourself. A proposition and its negation cannot both be true.

If you wish to side-step this problem, you are going to have to abandon Classical logic.

Approach 1 is to adopt Dialethism and allow for true contradictions to exist.
Approach 2 is to adopt constructivism and you have to abandon these inference rules:

* Law of excluded middle: ~P does NOT imply P
* Double negation: ~~P does NOT imply P.
We can rely on Dialetheism and Intuitionistic_logic.

There is no need to abandon Classical Logic.
The Law of non-contradiction state P and not-P cannot exist at the same time and in same perspective.

Actually they can:

[(P=P)=(-P=-P)] --> [((P=P)&(P/=P))-->(P/=-P)]

***"=" is "-->" and "<--"
***((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid under a truth table calculator




P and Not P are equal to eachother through the law of identity as both are subject to it.

As equal through the law of identity P is equal to P and not equal to P, therefore P is not equal to P consdierng -P is a variable that fits inside of P due to the law of identity. -P=-P necessitates P=-P...this however necessitates P as having multiple meaning is not always equal to itself so P both equals and does not equal P (schrodinger's cat). It P does not equal P, then P also does not equal -P.


What I had proposed is P and not-P can exists in at the time [nano-seconds] but in different perspectives.

Perspectives are subject to time due to dynamic change as they assume the environment empirically and assuming their own abstractions.
A diamond can both be hard and soft at the same time but depending on which perspective one is looking at it.

Not if the perspective is one of superposition time zones.

In the ordinary sense, a diamond is hard, but it would be soft if we use an electron laser.
Superpositioning.

The table is both real and not real as an instrincially empty context.
I mentioned 'nano-seconds.'
I would say, at different times and different perspectives.
However it is different times but the split is in terms of at the minutest nano-second at the speed near to speed of light, which mean the different perspectives toggle between each other in the minutest nano-second from one to the other.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4955
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:12 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Oct 12, 2019 12:10 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Oct 10, 2019 6:29 am
The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.
Russell was wrong. What he should have written is, "What it seems to us, is not what it actually is." The fault was never in the table (reality), but always in the perceiver (to whom it "seems").
Russels primary fault was grounded in his obsession with linear reasoning...it just doesn't work.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Russell: There is No Real Table??

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sat Oct 12, 2019 2:16 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Oct 11, 2019 8:52 am
A real table would still not be as real as it appeared to us as it is composed of atoms and 99 per cent of an atom is empty space
Therefore 99 per cent of the table viewed through human eyes is really an optical illusion

Our senses are therefore incredibly unreliable when it comes to seeing anything as it is
The human eye cannot even see I per cent of what is on the electromagnetic spectrum

Gamma waves - micro waves - x rays - radio waves - infra red - ultra violet are all completely invisible to us
Ditto the carbon atoms and the electrons and protons and neutrons within them that make up Russells table
What makes the table 'real' to humans is due the 4 billion years of evolved human conditions.
If humans had evolved like bacteria or sonar-only-bats there would be no human-actualized-table.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests