Thread: Life is impossible, how then are we here?

Life, or the existence of matter in this universe, or perhaps just the existence of this universe altogether, is like the outcome of a difficult problem that was worked out on the board by the professor. Previously I'd tried the problem as well, and would have thought that the answer the professor arrived at was impossible. The reality was that I didn't have the understanding to reach that particular conclusion.

The only reason we can think that this is impossible is because we don't yet understand how it happened. It has nothing to do with this existence actually being impossible. It's possible, because it happened.

What you're asking about other "impossible" things being possible is whether or not there are some things that we only think are impossible that we don't understand enough about yet to come to any other conclusion.

Invader hit the topic very well. He said exactly what I would have posted. But here is something for you to try. In a lucid dream experience 360' vision. You can't understand this while awake without first experiencing it. Once you have done this it makes sense and it is now "possible".

But we can indeed use logic to come to the conclusion that there must exist facts with no causes; i.e. we can prove there is no solution, no matter how intricate. (At Invader).

Originally Posted by Xei

But we can indeed use logic to come to the conclusion that there must exist facts with no causes; i.e. we can prove there is no solution, no matter how intricate. (At Invader).

What fact has no cause?

I don't think anybody knows at the moment, but unless the whole of science and philosophy is based on an incorrect premise, such facts can be shown to exist.

Okay, how? How can they be shown to exist?

Well, just consider any logical argument. You start with axioms and rules of inference, and then you generate new truths. Sometimes you can show the axioms are the consequence of some more fundamental axioms, but by induction it's patently clear that you will always have to assume something without proof.

If you like, consider anything with a scientific explanation. Repeatedly ask why it's true. It should be obvious that it will never be possible to give an a priori proof for that phenomenon, or indeed any other. In fact, I don't think a priori arguments truly exist, except perhaps trivialities and tautologies.

So, I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you arguing that these so called facts are indeed factual even though they are based in assumption or is there no such thing as real fact?

I'm saying there must be some fundamental facts which 'just are' and can't be explained.

Sounds to me like your fundamental facts are my baseless assumptions.

It seems to me, that as long as you are able to create a belief system that is internally consistent, there needn't be anything fundamental about reality to connect it to if it is okay to base the whole thing on assumptions. You can assume whatever you like, and as long as everything that follows from those assumptions is consistent with itself and predicts future states, none of it could be an actual description of reality and there would be no way to tell the difference. I'd even venture to say that if your world view is based on assumptions (no matter how few), it doesn't matter how consistent it is, or how accurately it predicts future states, it is most definitely false.

So... you don't believe in facts, or..?

They can't really be assumptions because we haven't assumed them. We don't even know what they are. It's just clear that any attempt at an a priori argument for anything will fail, and that such a set of fundamental truths must exist (if they did not then we would not exist).

Is the fact that "we would not exist" = false also really an assumption? I'm trying not to let this devolve into nonsense, but is it really that absurd to wonder about your own existence when confronted with such a situation? Eventually you must simply assume something to be true with no good reason to do so. When an entire system of "reason" is based on "no reason", doesn't that make you question the existence of those supposedly fundamental truths even a little bit?

Hmm... it's hard to think how 'I think therefore I am' could possibly be incorrect...

I guess this would be the most sensible axiom. There's something about it which seems impossible to disprove. Wrapped up in all of this is that old insoluble mystery, consciousness.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I'd even venture to say that if your world view is based on assumptions (no matter how few), it doesn't matter how consistent it is, or how accurately it predicts future states, it is most definitely false.

At the risk of putting words into Xei's mouth, I think that his argument is that there is no such thing as a world view which isn't (if we turn up the zoom on our logical microscopes high enough) ultimately based on propositions which are nothing more than assumptions. I think that he's right. It may be instructive for us to see an example of this first hand. (This is going to be off the top of my head so it may not be the ideal example, but it's currently past my bedtime so it'll have to do.)

Let's say that I believe that it would be better to continue living than to die.
(Why?)
Well, because I feel overall pretty good most of the time, and I'm unlikely to feel much of anything if I'm dead.
(So? Why does that matter?)
Er, because it's better to feel good than to feel nothing.
(Really? Why is that?)
Uh... I don't know, that's just sort of definitional I guess.

Already we've uncovered a baseless assumption (or is it a fundamental fact? ) which ultimately underlies my desire to continue living. It probably usually takes considerably more steps to unearth these basic assumptions--I tried to pick out a really low-level example for the sake of simplicity--but the argument is that these sorts of assumptions necessarily underlie any claim, belief, or argument.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

When an entire system of "reason" is based on "no reason", doesn't that make you question the existence of those supposedly fundamental truths even a little bit?

Well, a lot of the truths you'll uncover will be considered eminently intuitive or even mind-numbingly obvious. For example, above I basically derived that "good things are better than not-good things." Wow. Similar exercises will typically yield propositions like "if a>b and b>c then a>c" or even complete tautologies like "a = a." At the end of the day, these propositions are nothing more than assumptions which we must choose to either accept or deny. But come on: Is anybody really going to choose to deny that a = a? What's the utility in that?

You didn't say anything new with that post, DuB. The utility lies in remaining aware that no position that you take is grounded in any more fact than any other, since all facts stem from assumptions. A certain humility goes along with this awareness, and a new level of open mindedness that is not afforded to those that are not aware of the assumptions that they make just by getting up in the morning and attempting to apprehend the reality they perceive all around them. It allows one to entertain the idea of alternate logical frameworks that may be completely incompatible with the one that we are so used to operating in, but when you get right down to it are no less "true" than what we are using. It allows one to answer questions like, When is a door not a door? (when does a=/=a?) When it is a-jar, of course.

I must say though, you chose a good and fitting example. Do you really believe that the assumption that it is better to feel good than to feel nothing is tautological? Keep in mind that there are entire philosophical schools that date back thousands of years that have amassed a pretty large body of literature claiming that this is in fact not true at all.

Originally Posted by Xei

Hmm... it's hard to think how 'I think therefore I am' could possibly be incorrect...

I guess this would be the most sensible axiom. There's something about it which seems impossible to disprove. Wrapped up in all of this is that old insoluble mystery, consciousness.

it isn't really that difficult. All you need to do is to reconsider what it means to occupy a state of being, or whether your thoughts are really your own, or even if your definition of thought can really be applied to what is actually happening when you arrive at a certain idea. Perhaps maybe you would only like to go as far as to question the existence of individuated identity that would be required in order for the statement "I think" to actually be true. Or perhaps you might consider the situation of your consciousness of the present moment actually existing some time after the present moment has really happened (processing delays) so the thought "I think therefore I am" becomes reduced to "I thought therefore I was".

Originally Posted by Xei

So... you don't believe in facts, or..?

They can't really be assumptions because we haven't assumed them. We don't even know what they are. It's just clear that any attempt at an a priori argument for anything will fail, and that such a set of fundamental truths must exist (if they did not then we would not exist).

All man are animals. All animals are organisms. Therefore, all man are organisms.

This a prior argument doesn't fail.

How can something fail, if it's self-contradictory to deny? You listed tautologies as being one of the exceptions, and yet you stated that any attempt at [all] a priori arguments, will fail. These logical axioms are self-evident, pretty much what DuB was talking about. If you want to talk about what is really true, however, then it probably just comes down to our conceptions, abstract ideas ultimately created by us. For, what would it mean to 'grasp' an intrinsic reality? Understanding so, would probably require you to discriminate, for the establishment of it's separate meaning.

Obviously, then, when I said 'all a priori arguments', I meant 'all useful a priori arguments', as I had already elaborated on that point.

The thing is, you say you describe logical axioms as self evident, but in reality, you are actually using inductive rather than deductive reasoning, which can be flawed.

For example, in order to do Euclidean geometry, it is necessary to assume that two parallel lines will never meet one another. Would you include this in your list of 'self-evident axioms'? If so, the problem of induction in this case actually causes a complete error. You are saying, 'all the parallel lines I've ever seen could never meet. It's so obvious, it's self-evident'. Indeed, your brain only ever sees parallel lines for which this seems to be the case, and so has developed both evolutionarily and developmentally to accept it as self-evident. In reality, not all parallel lines obey this rule, as space is curved. It's just that on a human scale, the effect is unnoticeable, and so all the lines you've seen appear to comply with your rule.

This is directed to Invader:

Basically you are saying that it is not impossible but that we do not yet understand them.

But I think that it does not take understanding of the situation at all. This is because there comes a point eventually where we get forced to accept things as they are without a reason. This idea is shown with the wheels pushing other wheels example. Eventually, there has to be a wheel pushing without being pushed, Impossible? Well in our minds it is, but that is how life is, so this is where I get at the point, if one impossible is possible, do all impossibles become possible?

You can go ahead and try to understand it, this problem will still exist even if you have complete understanding of the situation.

What do we mean by "understanding"? I define it as understanding the cause and effects, this caused this which caused this and so on. Then we can add the extra information of material form, color, frequencies as part of understanding, but the helpful part is the cause and effect. So then if you want to understand the situation, you have to understand its cause and effects and this leads us once again to the wheels pushing wheels story where you end up with a cause without being caused. This by my definition of impossible is impossible. Note, only by definition, in reality it actually is possible because we are experiencing it.

So in conclusion, it does not have to do with us not understanding it, it has to with us understanding the philosophy of the first cause. If we did not fully understand that, then I would say it is fair to not say anything on the subject.

What fact has no cause?

I believe Xei was pointing to the fact of "first cause". It cant itself have a cause.

Okay, how? How can they be shown to exist?

This is where it gets interesting, because normally when you have ideas it is considered theories. But this one is so logically strong, that it is self-evident.

Consider that there is a wheel, it needs a second wheel to push it, the second needs a third and the third needs a fourth and so on. If this cause and effect goes on infinitely, there wont be any motion, because the first wheel that needs to move is not yet created because infinite is dynamic, not static. So then we are left with the choice of finite causes, which means that the first wheel moved without being moved itself, if it was moved by another wheel, then we are restarting the infinite cycle which leads us to finite cycle which leads us to the proof of what you were asking for.

You seem to be implying that the possibility of something relies on it having a cause, and that by extension a causeless thing has to be impossible. But again you claim that it's only impossible in our minds. If there is such a thing as a fact without cause, and understanding means knowing what the cause of something is, then quite simply we'd never understand it. It would nevertheless remain possible.

Whether or not that makes all causeless things possible is beyond me. I suppose it would? A causeless ball of gas floating through the space of an empty universe could be possible. But maybe the better question is whether or not, in spite of their alleged possibility, these things DO exist in some form in other dimensions or realities.. In which case every possible thing may possibly exist. Not that would benefit us to know besides being a novelty (?).

Did that better answer the question?

Originally Posted by Xei

Obviously, then, when I said 'all a priori arguments', I meant 'all useful a priori arguments', as I had already elaborated on that point.

The thing is, you say you describe logical axioms as self evident, but in reality, you are actually using inductive rather than deductive reasoning, which can be flawed.

In reality, when I described logical axioms as being self-evident, I provided no further support to back my claim. Therefore, no reasoning was involved, and as such, I was not deducing nor inducing.

For example, in order to do Euclidean geometry, it is necessary to assume that two parallel lines will never meet one another. Would you include this in your list of 'self-evident axioms'?

Yes. By definition, parallel lines cannot intersect.

If so, the problem of induction in this case actually causes a complete error. You are saying, 'all the parallel lines I've ever seen could never meet.

No, I'm not saying that. Else, I would be talking about a posteriori knowledge.

It's so obvious, it's self-evident'. Indeed, your brain only ever sees parallel lines for which this seems to be the case, and so has developed both evolutionarily and developmentally to accept it as self-evident. In reality, not all parallel lines obey this rule, as space is curved. It's just that on a human scale, the effect is unnoticeable, and so all the lines you've seen appear to comply with your rule.

Your reasoning has thus far been unclear and logically invalid. Also, your example fails, because if a parallel line does not obey [it's] rule, then it is not by definition a parallel line. Also, if the effect is not noticeable, then how is it that you're capable of conceiving so? Unless you're not human, which is unlikely, your statement is self-refuting and suggests the circular stance you may have by implying what is evident by men, in your possible sense of the word, as wrong, by using propositions that you see as evident. If the latter suggestion is incorrect, then I apologize, but the messy condition you presented your rebuttal in can easily lead to confusion.

I've seen your rational competence, Xei. Please exhibit it.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

You didn't say anything new with that post, DuB.

I was aiming for clarification, but I guess there was nothing that needed clarifying

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I must say though, you chose a good and fitting example. Do you really believe that the assumption that it is better to feel good than to feel nothing is tautological? Keep in mind that there are entire philosophical schools that date back thousands of years that have amassed a pretty large body of literature claiming that this is in fact not true at all.

Not a tautology per se, rather that it's an analytic truth if "better than non-good things" is built right into the definition of "good" things, as most would opt to do. However, I fully accept that this is not at all a necessary definition of "goodness" or "feeling good," and relatedly that there's no definitive reason that the chain of propositions I posted has to stop at "good > not-good." We could easily continue decomposing the statement by, as another example, analyzing the ">" relation: asking what it means for something to be better or greater than something else, or if it's really possible for one thing to be better or greater than another, etc. On the other hand, there's also no definitive reason why we are obligated to pursue these lines of argument; we could simply accept the statement as it lies. I think we are basically in agreement about this?

I attempt to address the gaping issue of what then should (I think) guide our decisions to accept or deny certain basic propositions below...

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The utility lies in remaining aware that no position that you take is grounded in any more fact than any other, since all facts stem from assumptions. A certain humility goes along with this awareness, and a new level of open mindedness that is not afforded to those that are not aware of the assumptions that they make just by getting up in the morning and attempting to apprehend the reality they perceive all around them. It allows one to entertain the idea of alternate logical frameworks that may be completely incompatible with the one that we are so used to operating in, but when you get right down to it are no less "true" than what we are using. It allows one to answer questions like, When is a door not a door? (when does a=/=a?) When it is a-jar, of course.

I think the utility that you describe does not come from actually denying that a = a (which is the question I was meaning to get across), but rather from simply remaining aware that it could be possible for one to deny it; that is, it is not a necessary truth which we are obligated to accept. However, while keeping this (and the humility possibly associated with it) in mind, we can still choose to personally accept that a = a, can we not?

But then why should we? For that matter, why shouldn't we? If in a deep sense there is no fundamental reason to prefer accepting the above proposition to denying it, why not just, e.g., choose randomly? So-called deviant logical systems reject certain assumptions of traditional logic (not randomly, mind you ) -- perhaps not "a = a," but similarly fundamental assumptions such as "all statements are either true or false, but none are both." (What if statements can be half-true? What if there are an infinity of truth values?* ) The traditional logician can point out that many such deviant logics often permit self-contradictions. However, the deviant logician can reply that it is the job of the traditional logician to show that such self-contradictions are to be avoided in the first place. In short, are there good reasons to accept traditional logical assumptions and reject deviant logics?

A really solid argument thereof is, frankly, outside my intellectual capacity. The best that I can do at least for the time being is to offer a weak, pragmatic, inductive argument that traditional logic has worked out pretty well for us so far. For example, arguably, all the principles of mathematics can be derived from traditional logical axioms, and mathematics has surely been of infinite aid to me personally throughout my life . Inductive arguments such as this are not without obvious flaws, of course, but there don't seem to be any counter-arguments for deviant logics and against traditional logic which are any more compelling, so it will perhaps suffice.

Deviant logics raise really interesting issues. I haven't read much about them. I'm still working on the intricacies of traditional logic

* Note that this is different from probability, which is intended to qualify the underlying binary truth values.

Malac: you're not thinking very hard about what I'm saying. You're finding contradictions where there aren't any.

If I'm asserting that the human brain does not notice the effect, but the effect does exist, then it obviously follows that the effect can only be noticed in exotic conditions; and not that I am being contradictory. In this case the exotic conditions are the technical scientific experiments which have been performed to confirm General Relativity. I didn't think it was that much of an assumption that you don't encounter such things regularly.

I will make my axiom more precise for you: if you have a line, and a point not on that line, there is one and only one line which passes through the point and is parallel to the line.

Now just apply what I said above and hopefully you will see what I mean. If this is self-evident, and acceptable to be used as an axiom, then you must realise that the notion of self-evident of axioms is flawed, and is indeed just another a posteriori inductive argument, because in the universe we live in, this axiom is not true.

Well, without being able to actually perform this feat, I will assert that it is possible to create an entirely different logical set that is not a deviate or derivative of traditional logic starting from the bottom up. Because it is so highly evolved, human logic seems to many people to be part of the fundamental stuff of reality, instead of a reasoning tool that has evolved along with us and all of our other intellectual faculties. This may not be important to you because your life is grounded in the fruits of traditional logic, but for me it is of the utmost importance to realize that when I create a mental model of the world using my characteristically human logic, what I am perceiving is indeed only a model and not the Truth of reality. In fact, what this realization really makes me confront is that the reality that I am capable of being aware of is actually this model that I have a part in creating. Being aware that reality is actually something created in the mind by the evolution of the logical model is to me an extremely important development in our awareness.

Without wanting to put words in your mouth, I would say that perhaps the reason why you think we should just accept the propositions of traditional logic outright is because you have never put yourself in a situation that a non-traditional logical framework might be more appropriate for; or perhaps after attempting to apply traditional logic to such a situation, you concluded that the incompatibility was a sign that the situation was fictitious or otherwise not connected to reality (as defined by your traditional logic).

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Well, without being able to actually perform this feet, I will assert that it is possible to create an entirely different logical set that is not a deviate or derivative of traditional logic starting from the bottom up.

Hmm, perhaps. I guess the question then would be whether such a logic would prove useful or informative, or whether it would simply be an interesting but ultimately abstract intellectual exercise.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

Without wanting to put words in your mouth, I would say that perhaps the reason why you think we should just accept the propositions of traditional logic outright is because you have never put yourself in a situation that a non-traditional logical framework might be more appropriate for; or perhaps after attempting to apply traditional logic to such a situation, you concluded that the incompatibility was a sign that the situation was fictitious or otherwise not connected to reality (as defined by your traditional logic).

Well I would go even further and say that it's difficult to even conceive of a real-life situation in which the application of traditional logical systems completely break down, yet some form of deviant logic works just fine. This doesn't mean that such situations don't exist, of course, but I would be curious if you could think of any such situations.

Mind you, logicians have documented some ambiguities and oddities in traditional logical systems. As a vague example, I have read that some very strange things can arise when we start to look at the implications of quantified modal logic (logic which is concerned with notions of necessity, possibility, etc., and which also allows for sets or quantities of objects). I haven't yet sufficiently studied that system to know exactly what those oddities are, but my understanding is that there exist differing conventions on how best to deal with them when and if they arise. And although I can't say too much more on this without knowing the exact nature of the strange results in question, I would speculate that it would be difficult to find real-life situations which they map onto, i.e., they may just be purely symbolic curiosities which reflect imperfect design of the logical system.

In sum, I don't think it's the case that these logics are seen as being flawless systems which perfectly describe some ultimate reality (and I would be hesitant to take such a view in any case), but rather, that they seem to correspond nicely with what we experience, and--quantified modal logic possibly aside--are free of self-contradictions. The criterion at the end of the day is usefulness. You can get pretty far in life if your reasoning adheres to basic propositional logic ("If I go to the bar tonight, I will have a hangover in the morning -- If I have a hangover in the morning, I will be late for work -- I should not go to the bar tonight"). It's far from clear that exotic and deviant logical systems have much useful to say about real life. In fact, as I wrote above, it's difficult to conceive of a real-world situation existing in which traditional logics break down but some form of deviant logic works just fine, although I am open to this possibility. Coming up with an example of such a situation would be an interesting existence proof.