Belief/evidence

Let's rephrase the "at the same time" part. Because we don't like it when "true and false" appear like this, we divide an inverter into an 'input' and an 'output' which we say are separated in space, so simultaneity "doesn't matter", but this is mere convention: obviously for the output to be the opposite of the input, they have to be "on and off" or "true and false" simultaneously.

In QM, this goes a bit deeper, since either 'signal' must be recoverable, or the inversion process must be reversible, physically.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All,

I'd rather not shut this thread down.

Please read my post#374: http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2140678&postcount=374

The subject at hand in this thread is Belief and/or Evidence.
Discussion about QM, logical bivalence, etc., while perhaps relevant, have derailed the thread.

disease, swarm: any more posts concerning electronics will be deleted as Off Topic.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

'objective reality' is unknowable, as to know it renders it subjective. (what is 'known' of 'objective reality' is a matter of models that provide subjective utility, a farmer 'knows' his land and an astronomer 'knows' astrophysics and math)

there is no other perspective from which a perspective can call things.

how can you 'objectively' establish such a thing, when doing so is an excercise performed by you, subjectively? say you and everyone else but myself agree that what you say is objectively true... is that anything more than 'argument by popularity'?

perhaps then the definition itself is more a matter of practicality than an absolute truth. whether or not the term is useful depends upon the model in which it is applied. in my perspective of "truth" as you seem to be seeking it, the fundamental limitations imparted by perspective give rise to contradictions everywhere. it would seem that 'in reality' as i experience it, contradictions are a consequence of lacking omniscience.

certainly we are both just working different sets of assumptions, but IMO, yours requires knowledge to be absolute, which as I relate to the term in the context of 'truth' is a misnomer entirely.

and if this should be moved to the other thread or something, sorry about that glaucon. I only halfassed read your mod words thingy, it's far less interesting than your norm.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the objective reality may be unknowable, but that does not change what it is. we are not discussing the common use of "know", but what it means in a technical sense, which is if what one believes is in line with what is real.

i can establish that because i am assuming you want a logical discussion. if we assume reality is subjective, every debate would be pointless.

those contradictions arise because some people have the wrong idea of what logic is. it used to be "illogical" that things did not have a definite position.

 

WTF?

There is no such thing as something that is true for one person, and not true for another. If something is true, then it is true for all people whether people agree it is the truth or not.

Something cannot be true and false at the same time. The example of people disagreeing on a matter is not a valid example of something that is true and false at the same time.
If Preson-A states X is true.
If Person-B states X is not true.
Then X is true and not true at the same time.

The amazing part is that this is the way most human beings on this rock process information on a daily basis.

 

I have to agree. There is only one reality, but many different perceptions of it.

 

Objective reality/objective truth is not unknowable.
If an individual subjectively claims something to be true and it is true objectively, then the individual has knowledge.

Just because an observer's perception is subjective does not mean that the observered is subjective. That defeats the whole purpose of the observer/observered relationship.

 

Yet you claim to know 'what is', objectively. You contradict yourself if you allow that objective reality may be unknowable.

?

*sigh*

what is real is irrelevant and unknowable. what seems to be real is relevant and knowable, even practical. we could even agree on what seems to be real, but should be thorough enough in our comprehension of philosophy to understand that what we commonly think of as real is necessarily the result of the conceptual relationships residing in our heads, and that no matter how many people agree on what is real, it simply doesn't matter. it may be, but there is no means by which to escape one's self to validate anything.

logic? lol.

i want a reasonable discussion. your argument is hardly logical to me. logic is important, but reason is more important. be reasonable is all I ask. there is no reason to assume reality is subjective. it's just that the only means you or anyone has to interface with reality is by definition subjective, rendering reality, in any useful sense - subjective. so should I presume you have nothing left to say?

people debate for stimulation. is that pointless?

argument from authority is not particularly convincing, and comes off rather arrogantly.

indeed. at the time, that was reality. but of course you can't quite see the implications apparently, or you'd realize how illogical your current thinking is.

 

because you say so. your authority is not particularly impressive.

and of course, you decide what is true objectively, because of your cool skills. lol.

are you just going to make authoritative statements?

of course not, fool.

but it does make any claim regarding an 'objective event', wholly subjective. hello?

uhm, first; it's 'observed', and secondly - wow what a mess you've made of it! erm, at least that's what I observer. lol.

wow, you've managed to make arbitrary authoritative claims with no basis AND totally screw up some garbled nonsense about observerers and such. if you'd read carefully, if 'objective reality' exists, it itself could not be subjective. however any interpretations of it, are so. even scientific observations!

you'll simply never understand this, methinks.

 

False.

In the case of intangibles, you're patently wrong. The example you cite was chosen for that specific reason.

In the case of tangibles, my experience does not contradict your assertion, but I don't hold my experience as wholly representative of all of reality - as you seem to. For instance, it could be that it's simply our limited perception of the universe that doesn't allow us to see that things aren't as simply as you seem to insist they are. The discussion on electrons and such above is relevant in this regard.

 

Only if you define "knowable" in such a way that nothing is "knowable."

Also you are acting like subjective is seperate from objective. Subjective is our personal perspective about objective, but it is not seperate.

 

You are presuming that true is limited to just statements about reality and that there can be no incomplete or abiguous statements about the same.

True can be used to describe statements about all sorts of things, many of them non real, matters of opinion or perspective, ambiguous, framented and partial, and subject to changes in context.

I would guess what you are really trying to say is that if a statement accurately describes a fact about reality, that accuracy can be unabiguously demonstrated and agreed upon by impartial and unimpaired observers.

 

No, I'm acting as if "subjective" is all there is to "knowing", as "knowing" only takes place in minds.

 

no i don't. if we cannot know what something is for real, it does not change what it is.

yeah, that's my position. you seem to understand and agree with it so why are we arguing?

how was that an argument from authority?

no, it was reality as they knew it. but it was not reality.

 

To me, this seems like a claim of objective truth, a claim "knowing reality". Thus, you claim to "know reality" - but said just above you do not make that claim.

In reality, I believe the truth of your claim is a matter of perspective. The dead/alive cat in the box is a good example. From the perspective of someone isolated from the cat, the cat can (I believe) be validly framed as both alive and dead. From the perspective of the cat however, well.. it's hard to say. If it's dead it wouldn't be alive to know it was dead. So it must be alive or undefined I suppose.

The point is that the truth, or 'what is logical' or even just 'what makes sense' is steeped fundamentally in the (perhaps unwitting) model employed to frame the matter in which truth is being sought.

 

No. Objective reality is not directly effected by beliefs about it, be they true or not.

In first order/predicate logic it is a contradiction. There are other logics which deal with it in other ways.

 

it depends on what you mean by "know reality." all i know is what is derived from logic

yeah, that's what i said.

like?

 

Any word can be used to describe anything in any language. So the term "true" can be used for whatever you're describing. Who cares? You can call anything any word you want. Other uses of a word have no relevance to the intent a speaker has when he uses the word. The word is not relevant.

Out of context.

WTF? Logic is everything. Logic is what makes things reasonable. If it does not fly logically or isn't described as it pertains to logic, it is not reasonable.

Wrong. You are creating a dilemma where a dilemma doesn't exist, and then using it as a crux for your claim that man cannot have certain knowledge. This is utter garbology.

 

Logic is a tool for analysis, but it doesn't tell you anything you don't already know, though it can tell you things you didn't realize you knew.

New information comes through empirical investigation, learning about reality directly through observation.

 

How convincing.

Wrong. Logic < Reason. Reason fully encompasses logic, not the other way around.

The dilemma exists and is quite relevant, but you're far too shallow to understand or recognize it. So to you it doesn't exist. Thus, a nice example of an intangible being true and false at the same time.