Everything we know is an interpretation

I know this sounds like an absolute, but try to absorb what I'm trying to say. I'm gonna make this really simple-minded.

Simply put as an example, the moment you see a table and call it a table, whether out loud or in your mind, that's already an interpretation. Can you see that? Is it really a table? If yes, how come, because somebody or the dictionary said so?

Which is exactly why I get very uncomfortable or skeptical when people profess absolute truth in words, especially religious fanatics. It's probably old news, but whatever.

I encourage doods to check it out in many parts of their lives. Just to open minds.

I agree completely. That is the key to this world: Perception. It is all about Perception.

:content:

I think it's fine to name things(as this helps greatly in thinking), but you are right that everything people claim to know is just their interpretation of what they percieve, and is no more valid than anyone elses.

Ya, it's not easy to disagree with the intent of this thread. Still possible, though, hehe.

But without interpretation, do we have nothing?

If you have a table with 4 legs you cant interpret it as a table with 6 legs.

I don't think that's exactly what AirRick meant, Alric...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Alric
If you have a table with 4 legs you cant interpret it as a table with 6 legs.

---

Of course I can.

Just because something seems completely irrational doesn't mean people can't hold that belief and attempt to justify it. Just look at Christianity.

This sounds very close to the concept of the 'model' view of our world and environment
Our brain relies on the body and its senses to determined an understanding of the world we (think we) know

The body does not sense everything, and often is entirely incorrect
Take EMF and IR as an example of 'not sensing' and optical illusions and unusual patterns as an example of 'incorrect sensing'

In other words, nothing we know of our world was determined 'from the horses mouth'
Even 'seeing is believing' is completely unreliable
Our senses can be fooled, and thus our concept of the world

This is not unlike the concepts you see coming out of Matrix 1 I guess

For dreaming this is interesting, because our brain's input (senses) are short circuited, and are mostly internal
(I say mostly because some part of our external environment while sleeping tends to affect our dreams)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakkantekimusouka
I agree completely. That is the key to this world: Perception. It is all about Perception.

:content:

---

Finally, someone who understands what I too believe. Join the cause of the Pro-Preceptors, and we shall not fail...in...something...


On topic: Also brings to the philosophical point that, if we leave a room, do the contents exist in the real sense that we are used to? Sure I can put a video camera in the room, but even the contents of the tape are percepted in colors and such. I can but a time-released device, and measure the contents from afar, with any instrument, but perhaps it's just matter, simply "there". We 'know' that there's a table inside the room, but until we walk in, it's just particles in an area. Then there's the language and interpretation itself... :?

I totaly agree with this one....Me and my uncle had a long talk about how everything is just based on perception. But with that in mind....You could make anything possable!

In a cosmic sense, humanity is a skid mark on a piece of dust in the middle of nowhere. Regardless of what we "percieve", reality is reality. There is one ultimate truth (description of how existence functions), whether or not we can percieve it is another issue.

If humans ceased to exist, the universe would continue even without anyone to observe it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
In a cosmic sense, humanity is a skid mark on a piece of dust in the middle of nowhere. Regardless of what we \"percieve\", reality is reality. There is one ultimate truth (description of how existence functions), whether or not we can percieve it is another issue.

If humans ceased to exist, the universe would continue even without anyone to observe it.

---

OK then...you keep on believing all that adorable atheism...*pats bradybaker on the back*

:D :P

Rakkantekimusouka, So what are you trying to say? That if humans ceased to exist, reality as we know it would aslo?

Will do.

:goodjob2:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freemind
Rakkantekimusouka, So what are you trying to say? That if humans ceased to exist, reality as we know it would aslo?

---

Not exactly -- I was commenting more on bradybaker's staunch atheism and extreme realism; but, as someone famously said, "I disgree with what you believe, but I will fight to the death for your right to believe it". I don't hate him for being atheist and realist, although I am pretty much his complete antithesis.

Anyway, he is right in the sense that if humans ceased to exist, the world would go on -- in this dimension. If humans just completely ceased to exist everywhere and anywhere, reality would slowly beging to disintegrate.

Allow me to make an attempt at a fairly decent analogy: the Reform movement of Judaism is the largest movement in existence. Reform Jews do not adhere to true Judaism, but they have the potential to, i.e. by becoming bal t'shuvas. If another Holocaust were to occur, and wiped them all out, then more potential true Jews would be lost, and Judaism would be weakened even more so.

Humans are like Reform Jews in the sense that while we currently are not in the purest forms that we have the potential to be, us being wiped out eliminates the possibility of us returning to our true forms. The Third and bottom Tier in the Three Tiers of Life would collapse, which would bring the whole structure down a whole story.

I hope you can at least deduce most of what I'm getting at...sorry if it's a little confusing.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bradybaker
In a cosmic sense, humanity is a skid mark on a piece of dust in the middle of nowhere. Regardless of what we \"percieve\", reality is reality. There is one ultimate truth (description of how existence functions), whether or not we can percieve it is another issue.

If humans ceased to exist, the universe would continue even without anyone to observe it.

---

Don't try to escape this arguement bradybaker, one of us will be defeated here!

What leads you to believe what you said?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AirRick101
Simply put as an example, the moment you see a table and call it a table, whether out loud or in your mind, that's already an interpretation. *Can you see that? *Is it really a table? *If yes, how come, because somebody or the dictionary said so?

Which is exactly why I get very uncomfortable or skeptical when people profess absolute truth in words, especially religious fanatics. *It's probably old news, but whatever.

---

Only to an extent I would say. For things like religion, sure, its is no more than personal interpretation. As for math however (and a few other sciences), there is no such thing as that. That's what proofs are for... the square root of 2 is an irrational number, 1 is greater than 0, etc etc. It gets a lot more complex than that, but even those (seemingly) obvious statements have formal proofs. They do not vary based on interpretation from person to person. The same concept can be applied to other (though not all) things in the world.

Quote:

---

Only to an extent I would say. For things like religion, sure, its is no more than personal interpretation. As for math however (and a few other sciences), there is no such thing as that. That's what proofs are for... the square root of 2 is an irrational number, 1 is greater than 0, etc etc. It gets a lot more complex than that, but even those (seemingly) obvious statements have formal proofs. They do not vary based on interpretation from person to person. The same concept can be applied to other (though not all) things in the world. *
[/b]

---

Well i think it is truth that maths are self proven but you should also see that is kind of an invention of humanity, a tool. The fact that you can measure, analyze and use maths to something doesn't really say much about its existance. The only thing you can say is that maths can aply in that particular case. But what is maths? How could have been created? Have you seen the analysis of Wittgenstein on a possible explanation for the creation of maths? I am getting towards the idea that maths are like language. That is predetermined symbols that we use as tools and therefore an 'interpetation'. A usefull one non the less.

INTERPETATIONS

I also think that everything we see is an interpetation. That doesn't mean that all the things we see don't exist. That is the great missunderstanding of the philosophy of Trancedental idealism. It means that we percieve what we are capable of percieving through our senses and therefore that the image we see is an interpetation. It is certainly an interpetation of something but the image is not reality itself. I will use an example:

When we hear a note, let's say the note of midlle C from a piano we can say that what we hear is what is realy there. Well, if you study the physics of sound you will see that we hear only what we are capable through the range that our ear can percieve. In 'reality' we can prove scientifically that at the same time we hear the fundamental tone, harmonics are being created. These harmonics go up to infinity.
It is also true that with exercise we can learn to percieve some harmonics, wich proves that our perception is subject to development and haven't reach their final condition (the principle of evolution). But that is another subject.

This can aply to all our senses.

Another interesting thing is that if we are not aware that we can develop our senses and conciousness we will not. Never.

The solution?

Do you think you finally arived at the final truth?

well...

Think again :wink:

BYE

:okbyenow:

Everything we experience may indeed be an interpretation, but it is an interpretation of something. All interpretations are by definition based upon an original source. To say that all human knowledge is necessarily derived through an incomplete data gathering process is not an excuse to engage in some sort of soft nihilism, claiming that nothing exists in totality outside of human perception. To say that reality ceases to exist in the absence of human observers is horrifyingly anthropocentric. Humanity holds the universe together? Come on. Homo sapiens didn't develop until approximately 150,000 years ago. The universe is estimated to be between 13 and 14 billion years old based on recent data from the Hubble Space Telescope. Does anyone here seriously postulate that the universe did not exist before a Homo sapien was there to observe it, that everything we consider to be geological and archeological and astronomical science is just a sham? All of the observations and interpretations of those observations we have are just planted evidence that popped into existence in the same the instance that, for some unknown and unknowable reason, a human being popped into existence, and all of this evidence-- in fact, all of reality-- is simply done up to appear old? You can't even believe in the birth of the first human being in that case, because such an event necessitates the mating of two pre-sapiens species, which, according to this belief could not possibly have even existed because they by definition must come before humans. This same belief also creates an artificial hierarchy in which all other life (including any potential extra-terrestrial life) has less worth than humanity since it is nonessential to the continued existence of the universe. Give me a break.

Sorry for the rant, but I find such beliefs to be the unbearably ridiculous products of a lack of a lack of reasoned thought coupled with the strong desire to have one's own self-worth confirmed by the universe itself. We as human beings need to learn to just get over ourselves. The world existed before us, and it will continue to exist after we are gone. In fact, based on our treatment of the environment, it might be better off after we're gone.

As for mathematics: It's a very useful tool and an elegant language, but even it cannot prove its own consistency. Check out Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

Quote:

---

Everything we experience may indeed be an interpretation, but it is an interpretation of something. All interpretations are by definition based upon an original source. To say that all human knowledge is necessarily derived through an incomplete data gathering process is not an excuse to engage in some sort of soft nihilism, claiming that nothing exists in totality outside of human perception. To say that reality ceases to exist in the absence of human observers is horrifyingly anthropocentric. Humanity holds the universe together? Come on. Homo sapiens didn't develop until approximately 150,000 years ago. The universe is estimated to be between 13 and 14 billion years old based on recent data from the Hubble Space Telescope. Does anyone here seriously postulate that the universe did not exist before a Homo sapien was there to observe it, that everything we consider to be geological and archeological and astronomical science is just a sham? All of the observations and interpretations of those observations we have are just planted evidence that popped into existence in the same the instance that, for some unknown and unknowable reason, a human being popped into existence, and all of this evidence-- in fact, all of reality-- is simply done up to appear old? You can't even believe in the birth of the first human being in that case, because such an event necessitates the mating of two pre-sapiens species, which, according to this belief could not possibly have even existed because they by definition must come before humans. This same belief also creates an artificial hierarchy in which all other life (including any potential extra-terrestrial life) has less worth than humanity since it is nonessential to the continued existence of the universe. Give me a break. *

Sorry for the rant, but I find such beliefs to be the unbearably ridiculous products of a lack of a lack of reasoned thought coupled with the strong desire to have one's own self-worth confirmed by the universe itself. We as human beings need to learn to just get over ourselves. The world existed before us, and it will continue to exist after we are gone. In fact, based on our treatment of the environment, it might be better off after we're gone. [/b]

---

Of course it is an interpretation of something, and that something is the raw sense data that we recieve. Of course there is probably a cause for our perceptions, but there is no way to know it.

Do you have a reason why the belief that the universe didn't exist before humans is ridiculous, and that all of your scientific data is accurate or will you just call upon the ambiguous institution of common sense to justify your claims?

i agree with the original statement that there are no absolute truths. Reading Descartes Mediatations, it's clear that it is possible to doubt the existence of anything physical (as we may be dreaming), or mathematical (as we may be deceived by a God or Demon)... leaving us with only one absolute, undeniable truth:

Cogito ergo sum

"I think therefore I Exist"

I have an arguement against my own existence, but I'll have to post that some other time....

AAhhh... Peregrinus! I have been waiting for your response :D

Now having you said all that I can feel comfortable with a lesser statement of my own. Thus agreeing with yours.
No matter how smart, ignorant or stupid someone is, anything can be argued. All because of belief. You cannot deny someone their belief regerdless of how factless it is.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
Of course it is an interpretation of something, and that something is the raw sense data that we recieve. Of course there is probably a cause for our perceptions, but there is no way to know it.

---

There is a cause. Even in dreams when we are almost completely isolated from the external world, our perceptions have causes. All of our experiences, memories, and interpretations of those experiences serve as the basis for our dreams. Even if you dream that you're being taught advanced Buddhist philosophy by a flaming hamster wearing scuba gear under a frozen lake, it has a cause-- maybe a really twisted cause, but one based on your own life experiences nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Do you have a reason why the belief that the universe didn't exist before humans is ridiculous, and that all of your scientific data is accurate or will you just call upon the ambiguous institution of common sense to justify your claims?[/b]

---

My scientific data? Such disdain. So are you being serious here, actually wanting a reason for my contention that such a belief is a silly and egotistical excursion into the realms of relativism that lacks evidence of the level of contemplation that I would expect from a 10 year old child, or are you just playing devil's advocate? I'd like to know before I answer so that I might save myself the hassle of washing the condescension and contempt from my thoughts when I'm done.

And yes, you should read Descartes. He actually pealed away all levels of perception until he got down to the one thing he could be sure of, namely his own existance. He then proceded with painstaking care (and occasionally painfully slow writing) to rebuild his system of knowledge.

I don't really espouse that belief, but I am being serious, I want you to tell me what is so irrational about that proposition. Of course it isn't justified, but neither is the belief you espouse about the history of the universe.

And yes, I really should read descartes.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
I don't really espouse that belief, but I am being serious, I want you to tell me what is so irrational about that proposition. *Of course it isn't justified, but neither is the belief you espouse about the history of the universe.

---

I can call upon Occam's Razor if you like, although I had thought that "the universe exists solely for humanity" is such a blatantly egotistical and naive ideology that no one would take it seriously.

However, here goes. Occam's Razor: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" ("plurality should not be posited without necessity"). To postulate that the universe did not exist before humanity existed to occupy it requires that one explain away all of the data that indicates an age of the universe beyond 150,000 years. This almost certainly requires the existence of a supreme being with a sadistic sense of humor. Adopting such a belief would also leave many questions such as why humanity is so important that this giant stage illusion full of meticulously crafted and fully believable props, supported by an intricate false back-story and perpetuated by "flawed" human senses designed to make it all believable was created in the first place. It is essentially on a large scale what many Creationists believe about evolution-- that it's an elaborate sham designed to test humanity's faith. The dinosaur bones and hominid skeletons were planted by God 4000 years ago in just such a way as to make them appear to all human technology as if they were millions of years old. What you are proposing is 100 times as preposterous-- that the entire universe is planted.

OR

You can examine and accept the amazingly consistent physical data that indicates the birth of the universe 13-14 billion years ago. Everything falls out from there. No need for a sadistic puppet master (a huge plurality). Everything you perceive around you can be explained by the interplay of universal forces that came into being with the birth of the universe. An elaborate hoax is not necessary to explain the existence of scientific data that indicate an age of the universe beyond that of the human species.

However, what I have above is simply an exercise in logic and medieval philosophy. The fact remains that such a belief as postulated in previous posts requires that one reject the validity of any and all sensory data. Since that is all we have by which to judge our reality, it relegates one to a position of impotent relativism. If you reject all axioms, you can prove nothing and disprove nothing. Anything could be real and nothing could be real. The "true reality" could be elephants stacked atop a turtle's back as it slowly swims through space to its mating ground (thank you, Terry Pratchett). If nothing from astronomy, astrophysics, or geology is admissible evidence, such a proposition is unchallengeable. The same is true of this "the universe did not exist before humanity" belief. By asking me to prove that the universe has existed for 13 - 14 billion years and then denying me the use of all scientific data, you are asking me to do the impossible. It is also a pointless exercise to try. Any system without axioms is worthless philosophically. It cannot be argued, cannot be examined, cannot be studied. It is ridiculous-- a fluffy cage in which the believer entraps and isolates him or herself from the world while shouting, "I can believe whatever I want and you can't disprove otherwise. Nana nana boo boo!"

Whoa, Peregrinus is one smart dude. While this whole debate is pretty interesting, I don't have anything original to add at this point. I agree with Peregrinus, but accept the possibility that the universe was "planted" here as an elaborate sham. Ridiculus? Yes. Impossible? No.

I will say this though, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, give or take 1%.

All occam's razor does is suggest the most reasonable, but it has nothing to say of it's possibility(which was what I was trying to proove anyway).

I agree that it is beyond ridiculous to believe such a thing, as in order to believe that you would have to make unstubstantiated conclusions based on nothing.

Of course how is that any different from science where you make conclusions based on your perceptions and you trust their accuracy for no reason?

I understand that this position makes it impossible for me to be justified in believing anything about the outside world, but it is the only one that I can find a way to justify. The question I really want answered is how one goes about justifing belief in the accuracy of one's senses. So far the only answers I have gotten to that question have been something along the lines of: "I want to believe they are accurate because I feel that that belief is so valuable that it doesn't need to be justified."

I know this philisophical position isn't really desirable, but then again neither is the position of an atheist.

[quote]Of course how is that any different from science where you make conclusions based on your perceptions and you trust their accuracy for no reason?

Some things in science are philisophical. But other things can be proven through fundemental laws. Based opon things like your senses or matter that you can touch, feel, taste, etc. So I don't believe that science is based entirely opon perceptions. And the reason you would trust those laws are because they are not theorey but rather data that has been tested and can come to a result.

Quote:

---

The question I really want answered is how one goes about justifing belief in the accuracy of one's senses.

---

This is where I think you can only conclude a philisophical answer. Because you are dealing with a persons conscious perceptions which cannot be proven by any scientific means as fact, just theory at this point.
I would think that everyones perceptions can differ based opon his/her own way they interperet how and what they see and how they see it. Which would lead to so many variables that science can't come to a result.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
All occam's razor does is suggest the most reasonable, but it has nothing to say of it's possibility(which was what I was trying to proove anyway).

---

If you read my post, you'll see that I said that. Nothing can prove or disprove that “hypothesis”. That’s what makes it worthless. It is untestable and has absolutely no affect on perceived reality. That’s like saying, “There’s a giant invisible, incorporeal dragon in my closet.” You can’t test for it and it affects absolutely nothing except your own misguided imagination, so what difference does it make?

Quote:

---

I agree that it is beyond ridiculous to believe such a thing, as in order to believe that you would have to make unstubstantiated conclusions based on nothing.

Of course how is that any different from science where you make conclusions based on your perceptions and you trust their accuracy for no reason?[/b]

---

No reason? Dude, they're consistent . If to all of our senses and all of our instrumentation, to the limits of our technology and beyond to the limits of any conceivable future technology, all collected data indicate that the universe is 13 -14 billion years old, that's what it is. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, has the DNA of a duck, and autopsies like a duck, you might as well accept that to the limits of our perception (which are all that matter for the sake of any sort of discussion or contemplation), it’s not a grand illusion or a projection from some sort of Star Trek holodeck, but just a freakin' duck.

I'm not talking about anything \"outside of the universe\". If you want to think of this whole thing as an elaborate illusion, fine. But if we exist inside the illusion and the illusion is all we can know, there is no point in talking about perfect hoaxes. You can't know. I can't know. Nobody can know if it's perfect and no evidence is left of anything being amiss. According to our best observations of the \"illusion,\" it is 13 - 14 billion years old. Fact. Don't dispute it, because you can't. As I've said before, science deals only with what is observable and measurable. According to scientific observation, the universe has existed for many billions of years before the arrival of the human species. If you want to speculate about something \"outside the universe\" for which no evidence exists, and think that \"well, no evidence indicates that it doesn't exist either!\" is a strong and valid argument, you have... problems.

Quote:

---

I understand that this position makes it impossible for me to be justified in believing anything about the outside world, but it is the only one that I can find a way to justify. The question I really want answered is how one goes about justifing belief in the accuracy of one's senses. So far the only answers I have gotten to that question have been something along the lines of: \"I want to believe they are accurate because I feel that that belief is so valuable that it doesn't need to be justified.\"[/b]

---

The justification? The justification is that our senses, or rather our technology and instrumentation, are all that we have. If you don’t trust that, you trust nothing. You are left adrift in a sea of constant doubt. Call it a “provisional belief,” but it’s still all you’ve got. Even religion can be argued on the basis of sensory perceptions. People can claim miracles, that some aspect of the universe could not exist without the intervention of as supreme being or force, even that they have feelings of oneness, of connection to God, etc. Psychic phenomena can be argued in much the same way. There are measurable effects to the functioning of these phenomena (anomalous acquisition and transfer of data between two people, movement of an object in accordance with the human will that occurs through no known physical forces, etc.). One can test whether or not they exist. It hasn't been done yet, but the point is that it can be done. Even if modern science does not have an explanation of a phenomena, that phenomena can be argued and debated so long as some evidence of it exists. No evidence exists for “the universe is an elaborate hoax, fraudulently made to look old and sold to a gullible humanity much as a modern painting is sold to an ignorant mark as a priceless piece of antiquity at an underground auction\". There is no point in talking about such things because nothing productive can be known and therefore nothing productive or meaningful can be said. What is the point? It’s like that child claiming that an invisible, incorporeal dragon lives inside her closet, but no one, not even she, can see it, smell it, hear it, feel it, taste it, or in any other way sense it. It’s just there.

This “no universe before humanity” belief is just about as worthy of contemplation as a child’s imaginary dragon.

Quote:

---

I know this philisophical position isn't really desirable, but then again neither is the position of an atheist.[/b]

---

Man, believing scientific evidence does not mean that one believes in nothing else. There are many religious scientists in the world-- they’re just usually not as pathetically gullible and eager to swallow without chewing or digesting whatever gets spewed from the pulpit. Does that make them less religious? Less spiritual? One’s faith is confirmed and strengthened when it withstands the test of scrutiny. If disregarding all evidence that contradicts one’s beliefs is the only way those beliefs can be sustained, they are not worthy of one’s attention, mental or emotional energy. They are simply a comfort blanket that you pull over your head when the disembodied sights and sounds of the night start to press in, a flimsy shield against a world you believe will disappear if only you don’t look at it, if you stick your head in the sand, cry out for confirmation and receive back only the echoes of the impersonal, apathetic cadence of a world that has better things to do than make you feel important.

Wow, I'm really starting to like your posts Peregrinus. You're able to argue your point really well, not to mention that you show some pretty big knowledge of what you're talking about.

I'm just glad I have the same basic beliefs that you do, so therefore I'm not getting swamped by an ocean of facts that contradict my previous belief. One question though. Do all those ideas just come to you naturaly as you're writing your posts, or do you actually take a long time designing your arguments and researching some facts? Either way... keep up the good work. :bravo:

Yeah, me and CT were talking about you over PM. You get the "clever person" award :P

Lol. Thank you for the compliments :) I'm not quite sure I deserve them (I usually just get eye rolls and groans when get as wordy as I have been), but thanks all the same.

I've had quite a bit of experience with these sorts of discussions, so the bases for my arguments usually just come to me when I come across the hole(s) in the other person's position. I do have a problem with brevity, though-- namely that I seem incapable of it :whyme: . If a discussion requires exact facts and detailed explanations of specific theories, experiments, etc, I do my research first. My first resources are my old textbooks, but I try to find credible online resources to link to so other people don't think I'm just pulling this stuff out of my... yeah, you know. In fact, I usually learn something new myself, so the effort is well worth it. The worst thing you can do in an argument or discussion (well, besides losing ;) )is disseminate false information, so if I'm unsure about a source, I cross-check its information before posting it. I guess that's about it. I'm glad at least some people make it through my outrageously long posts.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peregrinus
I'm glad at least some people make it through my outrageously long posts.

---

Well, to tell the truth I usually think twice about reading it, but once I start reading it gets interesting. Probably because even though they're long, your arguments hold up very well. :)

Quote:

---

The justification? The justification is that our senses, or rather our technology and instrumentation, are all that we have. If you don’t trust that, you trust nothing. You are left adrift in a sea of constant doubt. Call it a “provisional belief,” but it’s still all you’ve got.[/b]

---

So why do you accept this "provisional belief"? This is an epistemological discussion, the utility of a belief has no influence on its truth or its justification, and even believing that such a belief is useful is as baseless as the belief in the first place. What then causes you to hold such a belief? Is it tradition, is it culture, is it instinct? Yes I am left adrift in a sea of constant doubt, but if in order to find dry land I must assert truth where I am not justified in doing so then the land is really just an irrational mirage and the only benefit I get from claiming knowledge is to forget that I am in fact stranded on a tiny boat in the middle of the ocean with no hope of escape.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
So why do you accept this \"provisional belief\"? This is an epistemological discussion, the utility of a belief has no influence on its truth or its justification, and even believing that such a belief is useful is as baseless as the belief in the first place.

---

I'm not talking about the utility of a belief. I really can't think of what use you can get out of believing that the universe is 13 - 14 billion years old, except to note that the rejection of such a belief leads one to reject all objective observations and winds right back to the previous posts about nihilism and existential angst. You speak of truth, but if you hold untestable beliefs, you are adhering to a philosophy of untestable truth-- truth which is forever hidden from the pursuit of knowledge. Epistemological discussion? This discussion has nothing to do with "the theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge" (definition quoted from the OED). One can only know through sensing . What you are proposing with this belief is the death of knowledge, for to state that truth is unavailable through the senses-- through knowledge-- is to completely devalue knowledge and transform it into the careful study of a false illusion. Epistemology deals with how one comes to know things. If you want to redeem the silly proposition that the unknowable, untestable, unsensable belief that the universe is 150,000 years old has anything to do with epistemology, tell me how you know that to be the case.

And while you're at it, please tell me: what is the point of believing something that you have absolutely no way of testing, of verifying, even of sensing if not to coddle your own ego and fragile beliefs?

My contention wasn't that the belief that the universe is so young is reasonable, it was that it is just as reasonable as the belief that the universe is 14 billion years old. Neither position is justified.

Quote:

---

This discussion has nothing to do with \"the theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge\"[/b]

---

This discussion has everything to do with epistemology as I am questioning the grounds on which you claim to have knowledge. It is ridiculous to contend that it is not an epistemological discussion.

Quote:

---

One can only know through sensing .[/b]

---

Knowledge is not defined as \"what I sense\" it is defined as justified true belief, sensing is how most people claim to justify their beliefs, but there is no reason to believe that the senses accurately portray an objective world and so that justification is faulty. Seeing this monitor does not imply that it exists objectively, only that you see it.

Quote:

---

And while you're at it, please tell me what is the point of believing something that you have absolutely no way of testing, of verifying, even of sensing if not to coddle your own ego and fragile beliefs?[/b]

---

I see no point. Do you see a point in believing in something that you have no way of testing or verifying? If not then why do you believe that the universe is 14 billion years old, you can't verify it and any test you try won't draw any meaningful conclusions.

Indeed it appears to me that the only reason anyone would hold such a belief would be to coddle their own ego and fragile beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
My contention wasn't that the belief that the universe is so young is reasonable, it was that it is just as reasonable as the belief that the universe is 14 billion years old. Neither position is justified.

---

Are you shitting me? You cannot honestly think that no evidence exists for that figure that the age of the universe is 13.7 billion years. You think that all astronomy and astrophysics is some sort of fraud? Let me repeat this to you in large capital letters and you can just imagine me speaking really slowly and distinctly while I say this, okay?
ACORDING TO THE MOST RECENT, MOST ADVANCED OBSERVATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE --- THE UNIVERSE BEING THAT BY WHICH WE ARE COMPLETELY ENCOMPASSED AND THEREFORE ALL THAT WE CAN KNOW --- THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS 13.7 BILLION YEARS OLD.

Here's a nice little story about how that data and that figure came to be, in case you're interested.

I'm really having a hard time believing that you lack such a basic ability to follow logic that you continue to bring up objections that I have already answered, and quite frankly I think that you could be doing this just to see how much I'm willing to write. However, in case you're not: Try this little thought experiment. A tiny universe is a black box sitting on your kitchen table, and the box is capable of being completely isolated from any external stimuli. Now, suppose that you decide that you'd like to play God with this little black box universe. Before you people it, you want to set up some scenery. You see a nice bowl of fruit sitting on the table, and you think that the little box people might like to have fruit in their universe once you call them into existence, so you head over to your local craft store and buy some fruit-shaped Styrofoam and some paint. You paint the Styrofoam to look roughly like the fruit on your table and then place the fake fruit inside the box.

Then you create little people inside the box and seal it up. The box being completely isolated prevents the people from leaving or in any way ascertaining anything about what may or may not exist outside of the box. They can study the inside of box. This is their science-- the study of their physical universe. The people inside the box see the styrofoam fruit you made and call them “apples” and “oranges”.

What you seem to be consistently missing is the fact that to the people inside the box, those are not fake-fruit, not props, not illusions. They are real. They are reality. They are all that they can know. They can know nothing of what is outside of the box, just as we can know nothing of what is outside of our universe, outside of our sensory perception. What is inside the universe is REAL. It is real to us. It is all that we can know, all that we can study. Those people inside the little black box universe can speculate all they want about what is outside of the box, but it is meaningless because, the box being sealed, none of their hypotheses can be tested. Each person could believe something different. One could believe that outside of the box is a giant sea of jellybeans, one could believe that a benevolent cat rules over the box, one could believe that the box exists within the belly of a giant, incorporeal dragon sitting in a closet. That is what I mean by impotent relativism. Each of those contradictory hypotheses are equally untestable and therefore equally valid for each person. No one can prove or disprove anything and no one can argue about it because there is no evidence or logic to argue about. All that they can know for sure, all that they can study and argue about and philosophize about are those things which are perceptible within the box, within their universe.

Quote:

---

This discussion has everything to do with epistemology as I am questioning the grounds on which you claim to have knowledge. It is ridiculous to contend that it is not an epistemological discussion.[/b]

---

Go check out “Science for Dummies” at your local library and read what methodologies are used to produce scientific knowledge. Those are the grounds on which my claims of knowledge are based.

Quote:

---

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE

---

Quote:

---

One can only know through sensing .[/b]

---

Knowledge is not defined as \"what I sense\" it is defined as justified true belief, sensing is how most people claim to justify their beliefs, but there is no reason to believe that the senses accurately portray an objective world and so that justification is faulty. Seeing this monitor does not imply that it exists objectively, only that you see it.[/b][/quote]

Then why don’t you stop dodging my questions and answer with a method of knowing that does not involve sensing. Name it. Name one way. Tell me how you know that the universe is 150,000 years old.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
My contention wasn't that the belief that the universe is so young is reasonable, it was that it is just as reasonable as the belief that the universe is 14 billion years old. Neither position is justified.

---

Sure you can say that the universe is but a few thousand years old, but that statement would go against the constantly persistent laws of physics, chemistry, etc etc that have been accurate ever since the beginning of science. Stating that the universe is over 13 billion years old is much more coherent with all the scientific laws than saying it is but a few hundred thousand years old. That is the main reason we can rely on scientific laws and principles is because of its consistency. Thats why its a lot more reasonable to accept all the inputs from the universe than to disregard them and make up reasons to why they're not correct.

Like Peregrinus said, reality can be a lot different than what we especulate however to us, to our reality, our senses is all we can count on. Just because you see your monitor that doesn't mean that its actually there. However, because all your senses are consistent in acknowledging that it is there, and because your monitor doesn't simply vanish on random days of the month, a more rational aproach would be to say that yes, your monitor does exist in our reality.

If Peregrinus wasn't able to convince you about being rational already, then I really have little hopes of doing so myself.

However I will end this with a statement of my own, and that is, I think you've been watching The Matrix waaaaaay too much. Its all good and dandy to ask yourself if something along the lines of that movie is actually happening, but try to stick to what you know for sure. If you believe you live in a dream world, then well, in that dream world your senses are real, your monitor exists, and Earth is 13.7 billion years old.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by tyrantt23+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tyrantt23)</div>

Quote:

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Belisarius

---

Quote:

---

My contention wasn't that the belief that the universe is so young is reasonable, it was that it is just as reasonable as the belief that the universe is 14 billion years old. Neither position is justified.

---

Sure you can say that the universe is but a few thousand years old, but that statement would go against the constantly persistent laws of physics, chemistry, etc etc that have been accurate ever since the beginning of science. Stating that the universe is over 13 billion years old is much more coherent with all the scientific laws than saying it is but a few hundred thousand years old. That is the main reason we can rely on scientific laws and principles is because of its consistency. Thats why its a lot more reasonable to accept all the inputs from the universe than to disregard them and make up reasons to why they're not correct.

Like Peregrinus said, reality can be a lot different than what we especulate however to us, to our reality, our senses is all we can count on. Just because you see your monitor that doesn't mean that its actually there. However, because all your senses are consistent in acknowledging that it is there, and because your monitor doesn't simply vanish on random days of the month, a more rational aproach would be to say that yes, your monitor does exist in our reality.

If Peregrinus wasn't able to convince you about being rational already, then I really have little hopes of doing so myself.

However I will end this with a statement of my own, and that is, I think you've been watching The Matrix waaaaaay too much. Its all good and dandy to ask yourself if something along the lines of that movie is actually happening, but try to stick to what you know for sure. If you believe you live in a dream world, then well, in that dream world your senses are real, your monitor exists, and Earth is 13.7 billion years old.[/b]

---

The problem with scientific laws is that the only reason you believe in them is because they appear to be consistant. They appear to be consistant because of our memory of them, but there is no reason to believe that our memory is an accurate representation of actual events, and neither is there any reason to believe that our senses are an accurate representation of actual events.

In other words it is not rationality that leads you to say that the monitor is there, it is faith that leads you to say it is there. Your statement is like saying, because I see a car there is a Honda there. There is no logical basis for me to say that there is a honda there, no matter how many senses I use to percieve a car, it doesn't mean it's a honda. Likewise, no matter how many senses I use to pervieve this monitor, it doesn't mean that a monitor exists objectively. The analogy is a bad one, but it demonstrates that the perception of an object does not necessitate the object's existance, nor does it even suggest it's existance.

Suppose we are living in a matrix situation(haven't watched that movie for a while :D ), then would you not be wrong to claim that you know a monitor exists objectively in front of you? Now since there is a possibility that we are in such a situation, or any other situation in which the cause of our perception of an object is not that object's existance, then would you not still be wrong to claim that you know with certainty that a monitor exists objectively in front of you?

My last point is that we are not necessarily living in a consistant dream world. Maybe before today I have never seen in color, but now I do and I remember everything in color. Maybe gravity did not exist until last week. It is impossible to know, so then it is also impossible to know anything that is predicated upon gravity existing two weeks ago. Indeed the walls of this dream world aren't 13 billion years old, but only a moment old, they are not found in the depths of space, but at the limits of our perception.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
Suppose we are living in a matrix situation(haven't watched that movie for a while Very Happy ), then would you not be wrong to claim that you know a monitor exists objectively in front of you? Now since there is a possibility that we are in such a situation, or any other situation in which the cause of our perception of an object is not that object's existance, then would you not still be wrong to claim that you know with certainty that a monitor exists objectively in front of you?

---

For crying out loud. Read what I’ve written. Within the Matrix, the monitor exists. That's why you see it there-- because it exists. Matrix people interact with matrix computers and matrix music in matrix clubs with matrix girls with matrix rabbits tattooed on their shoulders. They are able to do this because, within the system that is the matrix, those things are real. And you're also missing another point (again). In the Matrix, there was evidence of inconsistencies, ways of manipulating the program that violated the internal laws of the system. Such evidence does not exist for any of your claims about this universe. No inconsistencies have been discovered. None. Go back up and reread my little thought experiment about the box universe, absorb the implications, and discover in yourself the strength to admit that you have been wrong instead of continuing along this immature and tiresome path of ignoring the facts, logic, and arguments that prove your position to be incorrect while replaying your same weak arguments that have been repeatedly deconstructed into the nothingness that they are. Just drop it. Save some dignity and quit making yourself look like a dense and desperate fool.

You two, Belisarius are worth the price of admission alone :!: :thumbup:

If talking to a child he/she could inevitably say why to every answer. That in effect is what you are doing Belisarius. Of coarse you can question everything.
As far as the Matrix this was a program that was computated from what DID exist before. It may not have existed at tha time but it did exist.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Belisarius
In other words it is not rationality that leads you to say that the monitor is there, it is faith that leads you to say it is there. Your statement is like saying, because I see a car there is a Honda there.

---

Faith and rationality are two differant thing all together.
Faith is somthing you have to believe without the a source other than here say or words.
Faith - somone told me there is a car there. faith leads you to believe it is a Honda for whatever reason.
Science - Leads to a rational decision based on fact that can be ruled out through a process of elimination, reviewing, testing and others. Thus leading you to a conclusion rather than a faith based decision which leaves you hanging.