Freedomain Radio

Hey, everybody,

here's another open topic to help myself clear things out.

I had a chat with my brother yesterday and we were talking about what's impossible, what's probable and what's true. And this is only on theoretical level. We came to conclusion that there's no such thing as ablosute 100 percent true concept. He said, that impossible things (that defies logic) are 100 percent false, like squared circle. But if something is possible, logically consistant, you can't be 100 percent certain about it's value. Things that are very very very likely true we call true. Because theoretically there's always a incredibly small probability that it can be not true.

Like, if we sit in the room and throw a coin, we act as if there's a 50 percent for heads and 50 percent for tails. But theoretically there's a VERY small posibility that, for example, a plain will fall on the building and the coin will burn in the air. But in practice the probability for that to happened is so small that it's not worth to even think about that.

Another point that my brother made was this: for X to be true, one must prove that not X is not true. Like, if we say "Swans can be only white" is true, then "Swans can be not only white" must be false. But you can't prove that.

But that doesn't mean that a man can't be certain, again, this is purely theoretical approach, in practice we just don't think about such things and assume that 99,99999999...99999999% is true and 0,000000000000...001% is false.

The only real problem I have with that theoretical approach and thing that I keep thinking about is this: In theory, the statement "Humans can't have 100% true concepts in their heads" is not pure 100% truth, it's 99,999999999999...999%, so we can call it truth.

 

What do you guys think? Is it a valid theoretial approach with no practical value or just a variation of the cartesian demon?

 

"We came to conclusion that there's no such thing as ablosute 100 percent true concept"

And is this 100 percent true?

 

KS31:

"We came to conclusion that there's no such thing as ablosute 100 percent true concept"

And is this 100 percent true?

 

As I wrote:

The only real problem I have with that theoretical approach and thing that I keep thinking about is this: In theory, the statement "Humans can't have 100% true concepts in their heads" is not pure 100% truth, it's 99,999999999999...999%, so we can call it truth.

So, acording to this approach, no: theoreticaly it's not true, practically we call it true.

 

A forest is a human concept. Objectively, there's no such thing as a "forest" - only individual trees.

But the human concept is based on empirical observation, it's logically consistent and it's universally applicable.

Isn't it a 100% true concept, then?

 

Well, in logical sense, there are 100% truths. In math and logic. But then again, what if logic is not true? Maye it works because of some bizarre cosmic coincidence?

MaikUniversum:

Well, in logical sense, there are 100% truths. In math and logic. But then again, what if logic is not true? Maye it works because of some bizarre cosmic coincidence?

Hehe, I won't go there...

 

 

Hi guys, it's Darius brother :)

My proposition was that you cannot have a concept in your head, which correlates with reality 100%, or in other words - you never can have 100% perfect knowledge about external reality.That is because all the concepts (including logic itself) are based on human experience - information, gathered through senses from external reality. More information human being has about particular part of reality, more accurate concepts about it he can form, but formed concepts will never be 100% perfect, because it is impossible to have 100% perfect information.

Propositions in math and / or logic can be 100% true, but they are not propositions about external reality, they're propositions inside the framework of a theoretical model, which is based on human experience with consistent external reality. But you, despite the fact that it is very very likely, can not derive that all the universe all the time was, is and will be consistent, from the fact, that the part of the universe which humans has had contact with, was and is consistent. Therefore it seems, that it is theoretically possible, that illogical things can exist. But the problem I have with illogical things (like squared circle or cold heat) is that they are meaningless.

KS31:

MaikUniversum:

Well, in logical sense, there are 100% truths. In math and logic. But then again, what if logic is not true? Maye it works because of some bizarre cosmic coincidence?

Hehe, I won't go there...

 

 

 

me too

Giedrius:

My proposition was that you cannot have a concept in your head, which correlates with reality 100%, or in other words - you never can have 100% perfect knowledge about external reality.That is because all the concepts (including logic itself) are based on human experience - information, gathered through senses from external reality. More information human being has about particular part of reality, more accurate concepts about it he can form, but formed concepts will never be 100% perfect, because it is impossible to have 100% perfect information.

Hallo Giedrius,

I think it's great that you guys have such a philosophical family! Just remember to play nice...

What is your view of the logical conclusion of following your proposition? How is this philosophy applicable?

Giedrius:

Propositions in math and / or logic can be 100% true, but they are not propositions about external reality, they're propositions inside the framework of a theoretical model, which is based on human experience with consistent external reality. But you, despite the fact that it is very very likely, can not derive that all the universe all the time was, is and will be consistent, from the fact, that the part of the universe which humans has had contact with, was and is consistent. Therefore it seems, that it is theoretically possible, that illogical things can exist. But the problem I have with illogical things (like squared circle or cold heat) is that they are meaningless.

Excellent post.

I'd like to add that true/false, meaning, consistency... these are all concepts derived from our observation and participation in reality. The universe itself presents its conditions for something to be true or consistent. All we can do is approach methodically an event or idea and compare it against logic and practice and derive a degree of likeliness. The degree of likeliness gives us the truth value. There should not be problems with this in our range of perception, because events that we can witness are just too stable and predictable. Fuzziness only comes in the extremes, and it is too quantifiable, like with radioactive decay.

KS31:

I think it's great that you guys have such a philosophical family! Just remember to play nice...

 

We'll try :)

 

KS31:

What is your view of the logical conclusion of following your proposition? How is this philosophy applicable?

I never thought about it very much, currently I'm just trying to understand how it is, not how can it be usefull. But first thing that pops into my mind is that knowing, that there always is a possibility, that your understanding about some things in the world is wrong (very small on some questions while much bigger on others), helps you to be always open to new evidence, which can lead to different conclusions than you currently have and therefore bring you closer to the truth.

On the other hand conclusion, that you know perfect truth about something, could lead you to the ignorance towards facts, which contradicts your conclusion.

Giedrius:

I never thought about it very much, currently I'm just trying to understand how it is, not how can it be usefull. But first thing that pops into my mind is that knowing, that there always is a possibility, that your understanding about some things in the world is wrong (very small on some questions while much bigger on others), helps you to be always open to new evidence, which can lead to different conclusions than you currently have and therefore bring you closer to the truth.

On the other hand conclusion, that you know perfect truth about something, could lead you to the ignorance towards facts, which contradicts your conclusion.

If you ask any decent scientist, he will agree that all explanations about anything are theories at best. Yet he will still practice with an absolute that is the scientific method, or more fundamentally: logic.

The problem with the argument, that logic may not work in some unknown cases, is that it provides no alternate method of thinking. For example, if you could provide evidence of Superlogic or logic 2.0, then you'd have something worth discussing.

 

Though it seems there are a lot of people out there who think they know Superlogic, which our primitive logical brains cannot grasp.

I think you need to distinguish between methodology and conclusions... i.e. scientific theories versus the scientific method itself; mathematical equations versus mathematics itself.

Stefan Molyneux:

I think you need to distinguish between methodology and conclusions... i.e. scientific theories versus the scientific method itself; mathematical equations versus mathematics itself.

 

Isn't scientific method (or logic) itself a conclusion, derived from information, gathered with senses from external reality, therefore theoretically it can be wrong or incomplete?

Todd:

 

The problem with the argument, that logic may not work in some unknown cases, is that it provides no alternate method of thinking. For example, if you could provide evidence of Superlogic or logic 2.0, then you'd have something worth discussing.

 

Do you say that an argument "it is possible, that not white swans exist" can be valid only if I provide evidence of not white swans?