What is real, and what can be known of that reality?

You are claiming that some beliefs are not 100% certainty, and therefore it is possible for a belief to have uncertainty. This is false. All beliefs imply 100% certainty about something. Anything that is not 100% certainty about something is not a belief about something. This is absurd. A person can only take a position of 100% certainty about a statement of not 100% certainty about a statement. There are not some statements that abide by different forms of logc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ah at last you read what was written instead of just scurrying along in your delusion.

That's an opinion (or belief) that you personally hold.
Not an incontrovertible fact.

Example:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief

"Placing trust or confidence" is trust or confidence always 100%? Nope.
"Accepted as true" is acceptance always 100%? Nope.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Discontinue replying to posts out of context before reading the whole thing.

You cannot apply different formats to different statements. An individual can be either 100% certain about a statement or not 100% certain about a statement. There is no such thing as a belief that does not imply 100% certainty about a statement. Anything that is not 100% certain cannot be a belief.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Assumption (false) on your part.

Different formats?

Agreed and not germane.

False: as shown above with the quotes, and the example from everday life several posts earlier.
Please back up your assertion with evidence or shut up.

 

There is no evidence necessary in logic. Logic is natural and obvious. You claim that some statements can imply beliefs that are not 100% certainty. However that claim is false as these rules apply to all statements.


EVIDENCE
The Tetralemma
A. True
B. False
C. Both true and false at the same time.
D. Neither true or false.

In logic, any statement can only fall under A or B. A statement can never fall under C or D which are logical contradictions.


An individual can take 3 possible positions about a statement.
A. The statement is true.
B. The statement is false.
C. Unknown (I don’t know).

Position 1 and Position 2 are certainties. Position 3 is uncertainty. An individual’s position of certainty about any statement is an individual’s belief about a statement.


Fallacy of Uncertain Belief
1. Individual believes X is true.
2. Therefore, individual is uncertain if X is true or false.

FACT: An individual’s belief about something is an individual’s certainty about it.


Fallacy of Certainty = True
1. Individual believes X is true.
2. Therefore, X is true.

FACT: An individual’s certainty about a statement does not imply truth of the statement.


The Fallacy of Unalterable Certainty
1. Individual believes X is true.
2. Therefore, it is impossible for the individual to convert to the ‘X is false’ position or to the position of uncertainty.

FACT: An individual’s certainty about anything can be altered.


For some reason, humans tend to think irrationally. They think in fallacies. This pisses me off because fallacies do not need to be taught. They are naturally obvious. Nobody should have to tell anybody these things. Sure there are terms in English for various fallacies, but fallacies themselves are self evident. All logical concepts are so bloody simple and obvious. Yet it seems people have to be told these things. They operate on irrationality, and use it to try to prove the most absurd points. Take for example the completely illogical claim that belief implies uncertainty. I come across this ALL THE TIME. Especially from Fanatical Infidel Zealots.

Examples:
1. There is a box with either a ball in it or no ball in it.
2. There is either a computer in front of you or no computer in front of you.


1. An individual can take up the position that there is certainly a ball in the box.
2. An individual can take up the position that there is certainly a computer in front of him.


1. An individual that believes there is a ball in the box is not uncertain about whether or not there is a ball in the box. To claim he is uncertain is fallacy.
2. An individual that believes there is a computer in front of him is not uncertain about whether or not there is a computer in front of him. To claim he is uncertain is fallacy.


1. If an individual is certain there is a ball in the box, it does not mean there is a ball in the box. The individual can be wrong.
2. If an individual is certain there is a computer in front of hi, it does not mean there is a computer in front of him. The individual can be wrong.


A shift in certainty is typically referred to as a realization.
1. Individual realizes there was no ball in the box the whole time. All this time, it was a gorilla that was in the box.
2. Individual realizes there was no computer in front of him this whole time. All this time, it was a gorilla that was in front of him.


An individual cannot control a belief. Therefore, an individual cannot say they are open to being wrong or not open to being wrong. If an individual believes there is a computer in front of them, there is nothing he can do to believe there is a gorilla in front of him. It’s not going to happen. Any idiot that claims a person can be open to changing their belief or not open to changing their belief does not understand what beliefs are. It’s not a strong conviction. It’s not uncertainty.

 

Impressive, lenghty (even overblown) but not evidence, merely self-supporting crap.
Which is negated by everday experience all the time.

 

Wrong. You have nothing supporting your claim that an individual can take the Position-3 which is uncertainty, and still have a belief. Get real. Posting dictionary definitions do not help in a discussion about whether or not either of us is misinterpreting the definitions. I never claimed those were not the definitions for belief. I simply claimed from the beginning that your interpretation of the definition is incorrect.

I have yet to see any statement in which uncertainty can imply a belief.

 

So you didn't see the xample from the dictionary?
Or read the typical conversational statement?
Typical Lixluke: I have spoken and I'm infallible.

So basically what you're saying is that can't provide any back up to your assertion, but you're also unwilling to concede the point?

 

I've provided the facts. A term can have various definitions. Definitions can either be correctly interpreted or misinterpreted. You have not provided an example in which an individual can be uncertain about something, and still believe it to be true or false. That is because it is completely impossible for uncertainty at the same time as belief. Belief can only imply certainty.

I'm not sure which converstational statement you are refering to. This one?
"Well I believe so and so but I'm open to argument"?

That statement is rediculous. Nobody cares if somebody is open to argument or not. The fallacy in this statement as an example:
Somebody takes up the certain position #A or #B, but not the uncertain position of #C.
Therefore, the person is not open to listening to the ideas/arguments/views of others.

FACT: A person may or may not be open to considering the ideas of others. Whether he is or not is completely irrelevant to the position he takes.

 

The claim that "a person being open to consider the views of other implies uncertainty" is total retardism.

FALLACY:
P1: I believe that the sun revolves around earth.
P2: Thus you are certain that the sun revolves around earth.
P1: Yes I am certain that the sun revolves around earth.
P2: Well I believe that the sun does not revolve around earth.
P1: Thus you are certain that the sun does not revolve around earth.
P2: Yes I am certain that the sun does not revolve around earth. I would like to know what basis you have for your belief.
P1: If you would like to consider my ideas, it means you are not sure if the sun revolves around the earth or not.

 

No you provided some overblown and spurious logic, ignoring the FACT that the real world (and people) do not necessarily conform to binary logic.

Ah so it's down to interpretation of the term and we should all fall in line with your personal interpretation. I get it.

Example?
I believe you're an idiot, but I'm not 100% certain about it.

False.
Yet to be proven.

Really? ridiculous?
But since it's heard nearly every day then common usage, surely, defines what terms mean...

I see you're completely ignoring the fact that someone can take a position without holding to it absolutely.
The world is not black or white. There are shades.

But someone who leans toward a certain position can still be open to persuasion, or new evidence.

 

Entirely spurious; it's based on either/ or which does not apply to people or the real world in every case and without fail.

 

False. Anybody that doesn’t conform to logic is irrational. All discussions are based in logic.

I never said that.

This is not a legitimate example. A statement such as “The sun revolves around the earth.”
You asserted that in some statements, it is possible for a belief to imply uncertainty. Provide a statement that allows a person to believe it, and be uncertain about it at the same time.

As for the statement you provided, anybody can make any statement. People make contradictory statements all the time. This is what I've been saying the whole time. People do not abide by logic. It's' irrational. On top of that, you diminish the relevance of logic. Logic is the whole point. In any other case, a belief can mean anything you want it to mean. It can even imply uncertainty. My claims however are about how belief and certainty relate to each other under logic. Everything I am claiming only regards to anything under logic.

I am not the one claiming that there is a way for a belief to imply uncertainty. I am not the one that needs to provide the example. You have yet to provide a legitimate example.

I have yet to see an example of this. There are only 3 possible positions an individual can take. Show me an example of this claim of yours.

Irrelevant. Anybody can lean towards any position. Anybody can be open or not open to anything. Do not confuse the C category of uncertainty with the A/B categories of absolute certainty.

It does apply to every case without fail. If it does not, at least give an example of a statement in which abides by your claim that some statements are capable of uncertainty and belief at the same time. If some circumstances this is possible, show one.


My claim:
In all cases, a belief implies certainty.
There is no such thing as a case in which a belief implies uncertainty.
Provide any T/F statement, it doesn't matter.

 

Fact: most humans don't. Especially for their entire lives.

Fact: no they aren't.

Hmm, remember this:

Oh so you can pick and choose now?
Just ignore the examples that negate your "point"?

How about "I belive this candidate is best for the position"? But another may come along, or the candidate may do something to invalidate that belief...

Correct: you're the one that stated belief is always 100% certain.
Now back it up or shut up.

Are you real?
How about I'll do this until something (or unless) something better comes along.

Blatant and self-evident false hood. Logic cannot apply in every case without fail to human beings.
Humans display irrationality as much as they do rationality.

Correct: your claim, which goes contary to the examples already provided.
Yet to be proven or even demonstrated.

You are, as usual, becoming tedious in your insistence on either/ or and its application to humans.
Life, and people, don't work like that.

 

Discontinue replying to lines without reading the whole post. It does not negate the point.

You CANNOT provide any random statement, and claim that it is a legitimate example that logically proves your point.
For example: "I believe X, but I am not 100% certain about it.”

1. I never claimed that humans do not operate irrationally or illogically.

2. If you want to operate irrationally, you can create any definition for any word out of the sky. You can throw in any absurd example out of the sky in attempts to prove your point. You can even make the logically absurd claim that a belief can abide by uncertainty. All if operating under the basis of irrationality.

3. Logically, however, you cannot provide any statement in which belief can imply uncertainty. Therefore, belief always implies certainty. Your examples of random irrational statements do not contradict this.

4. A belief by definition implies certainty. I have provided incontrovertible logic to prove this. You have yet to show any flaws in the logic or provide any statements that logically allows an individual to believe in a position they are uncertain about.

 

Second time you've made that assumption.
Second time you've been wrong with it as well.
I can see know that you're resorting to troll tactics in a feeble attempt to wriggle out of a losing proposition.

Again you pick and choose.
You've never heard someone say that about a candidate?
Maybe you should experience something of the real wortld...

You:

Again you insist that people operate rationally which is not the case.
You have yet to back up your contention.

There is no such thing as "incontrovertible logic" where humans are concerned since they don't operate by logic.
You are failing miserably to make your point or back up your blatantly fasle assertion.
This going to be another (yet another) tedious Lixluke asserts and everyone should fall into line.
You, sir, are either intellectually dishonest or so blinkered you cannot accept the reality of human beings.
I'm done.

 

"Ah so it's down to interpretation of the term." is not what that means.

 

Get real.


I stated there is no case in which a belief implies uncertainty. Your examples of irrational comments people make do not in any way show a belief to to be capable of being uncertainty at the same time. I provided all the reasoning why it is impossible for a belief to imply uncertainty. Providing typical examples of how the term "belief" is typially misinterpreted still does not support your calim that beliefs can imply uncertainty.

Whether a specific individual operates logically or irratoinally or not holds no relevance to what beliefs are, and how they operate. If people operate irrationally, how does it affect the fact that a belief cannot imply uncerainty?

 

Observer and reality

Physics' Unified Field is screaming from all its limitless levels

Reality TOTALLY depends on the observer
because the OBSERVER is ALWAYS observing it-SELF,
the observer is the OBSERVATION ​

-- Wreally reality

 

I don't see how you can prove this. As far as I know, reality is there whether I exist to observe it or not.