Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Treklis  By stating that you know something you are implying it's not just a guess on your part but something you are absolutely certain of. So how do know your observations aren't skewed, or a hallucination? How do you know all your memories of this observation weren't placed there by some deceptive programmer and the observation never really happened? The fact of the matter is you don't know that with any certainty so it is impossible to arrive at absolute certainty based solely on observation, repeatable or otherwise. |
No, I specifically included a parenthetical reference in my original post that clarified that I was not referring to absolute certainty. As for the "Are we in the Matrix?" question, I don't see how this is a useful train of thought to move down. If we are, our experience is indistinguishable from if we weren't (as far as we can possibly know). It's the idealism versus materialism argument and it can never be addressed.
So we just go with what we can reproduce from multiple angles and with multiple tools. We try to ask ourselves these questions about how we could be fooling ourselves and then we design experiments to test whether we are being fooled. It's certainly not a useless exercise.
Quote:
|
Any event could cause unpredictable or unlikely results, but that doesn't mean they aren't caused or destined to happen. It just means they are unpredictable.
|
Again, you're talking about hidden variable theorem. Hidden variables are description of the causality chain that are hidden from us. They would be the theoretical causes that make things appear unpredictable.
Again, hidden variable theory has some real problem (see Bell's Theorem link above). I'm pretty sure I'm not misunderstanding you here. You're implying that there is cause (i.e. dependency) to all things. The hidden variables would be a description of this cause. The fact that they're hidden would be the reason that the event is unpredictable. Hidden variable theory doesn't hold water.
Quote:
|
Everything that isn't the object we are observing is a cause of its existence because that object is not everything else in existence. For example, I am a cause of my desk's existence because I am not my desk, therefore we cause each other's existence. It's this way with anything imaginable.
|
I'll add that I basically agree with this. Causality and logic apply on the macroscopic scale of human interactions and such. But it's most likely not an unbroken chain. And if it is, as I said, I can break it by choosing to base an action I take on the outcome of a quantum process that represents a TRUE flip of a coin. Certainly the state of an atom (and the shape of the probability distribution function of its elections and other particles) is defined by its environment, but state transitions and interactions between atoms are random expressions of the probability distribution function and no atomic outcome is "caused"...
The possibilities may be bounded, but it's still not determined. Quote:
|
How do you define transcendent knowledge? What does it transcend? Is it synonymous with Absolute Truth? Why can't it be spoken about or conceived?
|
I don't define it other than to say that it is is beyond (even this word "beyond" doesn't apply) categories of thought. Categories such as absolute/relative, good/evil, here/there, being/nonbeing, etc. It's a mystery that no categorical discussion can pierce. This is what Joseph Campbell labels "God" as. A mystery that transcends all categories of thought. The mystery that any of this (us/universe) exists. I was saying that that concept seemed synonymous with what you were calling absolute (formless, etc).
Quote:
|
A=A means that a thing is exactly what it is, and nothing else, at any particular moment. It is the law of identity and nothing else. It will always hold true in all possible scenarios, meaning it is absolutely true. When we start to doubt this it is essentially a form of insanity. Can you explain to me how a thing can be something it's not?
|
Again, a thing is a collection of probability distribution functions that describe these things that are not solid. You are mostly empty space. The reason I would see you as a physical entity is because of the way photons interact with those probability distributions in the empty space.
Certainly it is useful to say that A=A just as newtonian mechanics are still useful (and used) to place a man on the moon.
But when you look at our fundamental nature as composed of atoms, we really are stepping into your "form of insanity." Things don't have individual identity and can disappear and reappear. They are represented as gray areas and you can't grasp them firmly. The more you try to, the more they slip away (i.e. the uncertainty principle).
Your proposing A=A as some sort of axiom that necessarily makes sense based on a logical intuition that you've developed as a macroscopic being in a macroscopic world. You don't, for example, have to deal with matter moving around you at close to the speed of light. You don't, for example, care about the specific spectral content of the sun's light.. You don't care about the nature of how a transistor works in your computer (though there are many people that do).
It's fine at a macroscopic level. Sure, A=A. But if you want to extend that to absolute, you've got a lot of work to do. You've gotta battle relativity and quantum mechanics.
Lets call an electron in a semiconductor "A"... A can not exist IN the band gap, but can exist on either side (when i say "can", I'm referring to what the quantum mechanical probability distribution function describes). You can measure a slow trickle of current that we call "tunneling" as electrons somehow appear on the other side of the gap that they shouldn't be able to cross (in classical newtonian terms). Is that thing that is on the "other side" of the gap the same A?
There are many of examples like that in quantum mechanics. And I'll agree that it is a form of insanity. But it works damn well to create all manner of useful devices and to tell us useful things about the way the universe works.