Does Uncertainty Rule?

[Pattern-chaser]

How much is certain or uncertain in life and philosophy?

Nearly everything seems to be uncertain. Only the existence of Objective Reality is certain. And, although the previous sentence is simply and clearly worded, it always seems necessary to qualify it, and say that Objective Reality's existence is the only Objective Truth we humans can knowingly possess. Everything else is, in philosophical terms, uncertain.

As I commented in another thread recently, we humans have great difficulty in accepting that we don't — maybe can't — know things, whatever those 'things' might be. Acceptance (where appropriate) is perhaps the most difficult thing for us to learn ... and accept.

As I may have said in another thread objective reality is a bit of a wobbly idea and the only shared basis for it is confirmation of shared perceptions, and the closest representation of this may be the philosophy of realism. I am not sure that this is the only perspective and I may be more of a romantic thinker because I see imagination as being extremely important.

The search for understanding all aspects of life and knowledge may be impossible and, if anything, it may be more worrying if people seek this because it would be sheer omnipotence. So, I am not looking for a theory of everything and such a viewpoint would probably gloss over so much in its endeavour. I have no problem with recognising the limitations of my own knowledge and of humans in general. I see awareness of this as being a humble recognition of limitations. Of course, the search to know more is worth striving for but to think it possible would be rather grandiose. I am not a relativist as such but knowledge may enfold like the multiverse, with infinite perspectives, even though there are many overlaps, especially in the intersubjective realm.

I don't dispute anything you say, but I wonder how it relates to uncertainty, and whether it 'rules'?

[Consul]

There are, however, some objective certainties --- beliefs that cannot possibly be wrong. Those are the "analytic" truths, i.e., "All triangles have 3 sides." They are necessarily true, by virtue of the meanings of the words employed. But for any synthetic proposition there is always a logical possibility it could be false. So for those at most "practical" certainty is warranted, not "complete certainty."

For example, it is a necessary synthetic truth that water is H2O, because the real essence of water was discovered through empirical research, and not through logico-semantic analysis. It is objectively certain that water is H2O, because there is no possible world where water has a different molecular structure. Being H2O is part of the essence of water, so what isn't H2O (a mass of H2O molecules) isn't and can't be water. Of course, there is a possible world where some liquid superficially appears like water without really being water but some other kind of liquid with a different molecular structure.

[GE Morton]

For example, it is a necessary synthetic truth that water is H2O, because the real essence of water was discovered through empirical research, and not through logico-semantic analysis.

That is an analytic proposition in disguise (so to speak). Water is now defined as H2O. Previously it was defined as, "The clear, colorless liquid that fills rivers, lakes, and the oceans." When so defined it is logically possible that it would not be composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

[JackDaydream]

How much is certain or uncertain in life and philosophy?

Nearly everything seems to be uncertain. Only the existence of Objective Reality is certain. And, although the previous sentence is simply and clearly worded, it always seems necessary to qualify it, and say that Objective Reality's existence is the only Objective Truth we humans can knowingly possess. Everything else is, in philosophical terms, uncertain.

As I commented in another thread recently, we humans have great difficulty in accepting that we don't — maybe can't — know things, whatever those 'things' might be. Acceptance (where appropriate) is perhaps the most difficult thing for us to learn ... and accept.

As I may have said in another thread objective reality is a bit of a wobbly idea and the only shared basis for it is confirmation of shared perceptions, and the closest representation of this may be the philosophy of realism. I am not sure that this is the only perspective and I may be more of a romantic thinker because I see imagination as being extremely important.

The search for understanding all aspects of life and knowledge may be impossible and, if anything, it may be more worrying if people seek this because it would be sheer omnipotence. So, I am not looking for a theory of everything and such a viewpoint would probably gloss over so much in its endeavour. I have no problem with recognising the limitations of my own knowledge and of humans in general. I see awareness of this as being a humble recognition of limitations. Of course, the search to know more is worth striving for but to think it possible would be rather grandiose. I am not a relativist as such but knowledge may enfold like the multiverse, with infinite perspectives, even though there are many overlaps, especially in the intersubjective realm.

I don't dispute anything you say, but I wonder how it relates to uncertainty, and whether it 'rules'?

The idea 'Uncertainty Rules' was the slogan on the front of the 'New Philosopher' magazine, so I thought I would incorporate the wording into my question. However, while I do think that there is a lot that is uncertain in life I don't want to assert like a placard sign being carried in a march! That would be far too concrete and I prefer some fluidity in my own conception of the nature of uncertainty.

[Consul]

For example, it is a necessary synthetic truth that water is H2O, because the real essence of water was discovered through empirical research, and not through logico-semantic analysis.

That is an analytic proposition in disguise (so to speak). Water is now defined as H2O. Previously it was defined as, "The clear, colorless liquid that fills rivers, lakes, and the oceans." When so defined it is logically possible that it would not be composed of hydrogen and oxygen.

Yes, but now we know for certain that water is composed of H2O molecules. Yes, "water" is now defined as "H2O"; but this is a so-called real definition (as opposed to a merely nominal one), because it represents the real essence, i.e. the real chemical constitution, of water, which couldn't have been discovered through logico-semantic analysis of the word "water". Therefore, even if "water" is now scientifically defined as "H2O", this real definition expresses a synthetic truth.

[kaleido]

There are no proofs in real life. You cannot positively prove anything with 100% certainty in real life. Only in the limited confines of logic can you do it. But even then, you aren't positively proving anything:

Wittgenstein: “Proof in logic is merely a mechanical expedient to facilitate the recognition of tautologies in complicated cases”.

But how do you get to the first tautology? Through your senses. Hence subjectivity and perspectivism and relativity come to the fore.

[JackDaydream]

There are no proofs in real life. You cannot positively prove anything with 100% certainty in real life. Only in the limited confines of logic can you do it. But even then, you aren't positively proving anything:

Wittgenstein: “Proof in logic is merely a mechanical expedient to facilitate the recognition of tautologies in complicated cases”.

But how do you get to the first tautology? Through your senses. Hence subjectivity and perspectivism and relativity come to the fore.

The issue of 'proof' in life is so complex and it makes the interplay between ideas and evidence as a very precarious area in philosophy. Some of it comes down to concepts and that analysis, as well as the empirical aspects of investigations. However, the tensions between these may be so overt, and some dismissal of concepts at times. The idea of perspectives is important, which may lead to relativism. However, on a more critical level, it may come down to the various complex aspects of ideas, thought and understanding, especially how these give rise to personal and shared aspects of philosophical understanding.