Logic is it's own fallacy.

[♫♪&am]

ChaoticMindSays thanks for clearing that up.
I think Kapra is right, when the word infinity is raised and discussed in a philosophy forum it can mean one thing to a mathematician and another to the theist and another to you or someone else, and you would be talking at cross purposes unless you state what you mean by infinity it makes for clearer discussion. Instead you have made this unclear and said one thing and then another.

Example
CMS #123

Well I believe that contradictions are sometimes necessary. But should be avoided, or solved, if possible

CMS #127
If infinity is a real thing than omniscience could not exist. It would be impossible to know everything. Or if "everything" was known, the knowledge would be limited and still be relative.


Kapra #130

CMS "It means that if infinity is a real thing than "everything" is open ended and omniscience, the knowledge of all things, could never be complete and, therefor, could not exist."


Kapra "things would exist, you seem to be arguing because it isn`t real for humans it could not exist, by saying that you are claiming you know the outcome. Define what you mean by infinity this would be a start in the right direction.[/quote]

Kapra on concepts raised by CMS #136

but they will never be such as cannot be comprehended by us because we are the ones doing the defining.

CMS #137

Who said I was speaking of the definition?

Um You did when you defined what infinity means to you.

Kapra in post#141 and is coherant and explicit in his writing . see this thread spiral into chaos.

Chaoticmindsays I am clear in my references and not taking any lines out of context.


CMS #150
I don't see how you got confused


I didn`t but you are confusing things.[/quote]

[Mark]

POLL:

1. There are, and will always be, more posts added to confuse this thread even more.

2. We are at, or nearing, the pinnacle of confusion.

3. I do not believe soley in either but believe that there may be higher plains of confusion that we cannot yet begin to comphrehend.

4. I do not believe soley in either but believe that some of the conclusions we have reached are ultimate confusions and have little more room to grow.

[ChaoticMindSays]

Mark

POLL: Laughing

1. There are, and will always be, more posts added to confuse this thread even more.

2. We are at, or nearing, the pinnacle of confusion.

3. I do not believe soley in either but believe that there may be higher plains of confusion that we cannot yet begin to comphrehend.

4. I do not believe soley in either but believe that some of the conclusions we have reached are ultimate confusions and have little more room to grow.

Twisted Evil

Lol...Certainly has taken a few unexpected turns from the beginning, eh?


♫♪&am

Quote:
Who said I was speaking of the definition?


Um You did when you defined what infinity means to you.

This is the only thing you have taken out of context, allow me to explain.

I said-
"Not everything can and should be defined, some things lie outside of our scope; which is what this feed is about. We cannot grasp all things with the logic and other tools which we presently hold. "

The problem we are having, and why you and kapra find what I am saying to be at fault, is that you wish for there to be a decided definition that we always apply in this discussion.

I don't believe there should be. I believe the concept of infinity to be beyond my definition, or your definition, or kapra's; quite possibly beyond the English language itself. But we are all using the same basic definition, which means the way we are communicating on said topic is clear.

Um You did when you defined what infinity means to you.

This is why I was reluctant to define the word in question. I never stated what infinity really means to me, I simply conceded and gave the most acceptable definition of the word that I could think of at the time. Kapra decided to force my hand and in doing so undermined the actual point to the conversation.

[Kapra]

Chaoticmindsays

It means that if infinity is a real thing than "everything" is open ended and omniscience, the knowledge of all things, could never be complete and, therefor, could not exist."

By you saying Therefore could not exist it is you deciding an outcome.

I never stated what infinity really means to me, I simply conceded and gave the most acceptable definition of the word that I could think of at the time. Kapra decided to force my hand and in doing so undermined the actual point to the conversation.

Read above what you stated "that if infinity exists and is a real thing then everything is open ended and omiscience." That is YOU asserting outcomes. When YOU can get around to seeing what you write, and not accusing others to be what you pretentiously assert is confusing you with you did say ..that will be a first.

CMS to
♫♪&am

This is the only thing you have taken out of context

But of course everyone else has it out of context except you. LOL

and still no answers from Chaotic

[quote CMS "It means that if infinity is a real thing than "everything" is open ended and omniscience, the knowledge of all things, could never be complete and, therefor, could not exist."


[/quote]

Therfor ? "therefore" is the correct grammar, but onto bigger and more important things, Show me your evidence that the knowledge of all things could never be complete and exist. (oh my the forums gone quiet tonight lol)

This threads illogic in my opinion is its own fallacy

[ChaoticMindSays]

kapra,

Chaoticmindsays
Quote:
It means that if infinity is a real thing than "everything" is open ended and omniscience, the knowledge of all things, could never be complete and, therefor, could not exist."


By you saying Therefore could not exist it is you deciding an outcome.

Quote:
I never stated what infinity really means to me, I simply conceded and gave the most acceptable definition of the word that I could think of at the time. Kapra decided to force my hand and in doing so undermined the actual point to the conversation.


Read above what you stated "that if infinity exists and is a real thing then everything is open ended and omiscience." That is YOU asserting outcomes. When YOU can get around to seeing what you write, and not accusing others to be what you pretentiously assert is confusing you with you did say ..that will be a first.

CMS to
♫♪&am

This is the only thing you have taken out of context

But of course everyone else has it out of context except you. LOL

and still no answers from Chaotic

[quote CMS "It means that if infinity is a real thing than "everything" is open ended and omniscience, the knowledge of all things, could never be complete and, therefor, could not exist."

I am not deciding an outcome; I am stating my opinion.

I even admitted that, by my own logic, omniscience probably does exist, "In one sense, if infinity exists, then omniscience would have to exist. In the other it couldn't exist because infinity would be ever expanding and completely un-graspable. I suppose the omniscience could expand with infinity.."

And the statement I made of which you quoted proves nothing... I just listed one small detail about what infinity does mean to me, I did not make a assertion that by law has to be right.

kapra,

But of course everyone else has it out of context except you.

Well... Considering it was something I said that was being taken out of context... Really it's mainly just you taking me out of context.

and still no answers from Chaotic

Hmm... I actually did answer you, you just apparently didn't notice. I gave you the definition you asked for. But apparently that wasn't acceptable, kapra, in all his magnificence, (:lol:)Had better definitions to assert.

Therfor ? "therefore" is the correct grammar

LOL, YOU are one of the last people I should be taking grammatical advice from...

This threads illogic in my opinion is its own fallacy

You meant to type "This thread is illogical and, in my opinion, is it's own fallacy.", Or at least that would be grammatically correct.

[value]

v

Why do we value empirical evidence so highly? It is the only means we have to objectively disqualify scenarios. BUT I believe there to be more to the idea of empirical evidence than we give credit to.

We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?
Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason. I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing thanc say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.

Interesting poll! I didn't answer it yet, which seems like an applicable option as well.

The question is very interesting. Who is 'we' exactly? Would it refer to the status quo of humans in general or a group of humans?

Empirical evidence equals repeatability. What theory would possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant?

I would not agree that the opposite of close adherence to what is repeatable would imply that people should instead adhere to ancient or other beliefs. My suggestion would be that people should be inclined fundamentally to maintain an open mind for 'what is actually the case', which simply might be otherwise than something of a repeatable nature.

The problem is that people are dogmatically believing that science is justified to assume a certainty factor when it concerns repeatability in time. It involves the belief that science can be practised without philosophy (that science is not a philosophy). That is the error in my opinion.

Science is philosophy and philosophy is questionable. The dogmatic conviction that science can be valid without philosophy is a fallacy.

[value]

Empirical evidence equals repeatability. What theory would possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant?

The question seems to be ignored.

On the other hand, basic science theory tells us that the essence of experimental science is repeatability. If we perform the same experiment numerous times and get the same result every time, we are on the right track. If we get random or unpredictable responses every time, we have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Why would that imply a wrong turn? What theory would possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant?

Yes, I was thinking along similar lines. "If we get random or unpredictable responses every time," perhaps we have discovered a random or unpredictable process? Would that be so bad? If so, why would it be bad?

No reply.

Since there is no scientific evidence of "mind" or "consciousness" in humans there is no basis for assuming a categorical difference between AI and the intelligence of human material organisms.

What theory would possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant?

No reply.

[Wizard22]

Logic and Rationalization are ways of verifying and persuading others as to the Validity of a belief.

But the belief-itself is primary, and precludes logic. Perhaps every belief is irrational before it becomes rationalized?

Moreso, human senses and perception have flaws and blind-spots, sometimes it's reasonable to be unreasonable, and to trust in Faith.


Keyword: "sometimes"

[Pattern-chaser]

Empirical evidence equals repeatability. What theory would possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant?

The question seems to be ignored.

On the other hand, basic science theory tells us that the essence of experimental science is repeatability. If we perform the same experiment numerous times and get the same result every time, we are on the right track. If we get random or unpredictable responses every time, we have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

Why would that imply a wrong turn? What theory would possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant?

Yes, I was thinking along similar lines. "If we get random or unpredictable responses every time," perhaps we have discovered a random or unpredictable process? Would that be so bad? If so, why would it be bad?

No reply.

Since there is no scientific evidence of "mind" or "consciousness" in humans there is no basis for assuming a categorical difference between AI and the intelligence of human material organisms.

What theory would possibly provide validity for the idea that only that what is repeatable is meaningfully relevant?

No reply.

Did you intend to take the above quotes, and move them into a different topic?

[value]

Did you intend to take the above quotes, and move them into a different topic?

The question appears to be most applicable to be discussed in this topic, considering the OP. Since you have validated the question, it would not be for me to answer it.

OP:

Why do we value empirical evidence so highly? It is the only means we have to objectively disqualify scenarios. BUT I believe there to be more to the idea of empirical evidence than we give credit to.

We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?
Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason. I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.

[Pattern-chaser]

Did you intend to take the above quotes, and move them into a different topic?

The question appears to be most applicable to be discussed in this topic, considering the OP.

Yes, it's just that this topic was last commented-on twelve years ago...

[value]

The age of questions doesn't seem to be an issue on a philosophy forum.

p.s. the author of this topic might be Robert Pirsig (IQ 170). While his account is deleted, his posts are still accessible. Considering that you have read all his books multiple times, perhaps his posts (if they are his) would be interesting.

User: ChaoticMindSays
search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&author_id=35658

The user introduced the website for Metaphysics of Quality www.moq.org and asked for feedback on the website: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=4285

[value]

Alun said,

However, it remains that logical and empirical thinking are the only reliable ways of communicating without loss of information to subjective bias, which is what makes them so valuable.

Hmm.. I disagree with this statement. I know I am perfectly able to make decisions without using logical thinking, only, and without allowing my personal bias to effect said decision. I think there are serious problems with the whole... subjective/objective idea. It does not allow for a wide enough range of possibility, it is an either or system. It shouldn't be a either or system.

Has anyone here read Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance? Or, Lila? By Pirsig.

I agree with this reasoning.

I noticed that many users on this forum hold a belief in ontological realism which is based on the magical belief that reality is really real. It is the belief that objective reality is ultimately something non-disputable within any context of thinking. In my opinion this is the root of the pertinacity of the problem.

An example (philosophy teacher):

First, why would "what causes reality to exist" be necessary for knowing whether there is reality? (Keeping in mind that by "reality" here we're referring to the objective world.)

Results of a 2020 PhilPapers Survey showed that 51.9% of academic philosophers believe in physicalism.

What Philosophers Believe: Results from the 2020 PhilPapers Survey
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =6&t=17640

An example (a philosophy teacher):

So I'm a physicalist. I'm convinced that the mind is simply brain processes.

1. Do you believe in intrinsic existence without mind?
2. Do you believe that mind has a cause within the scope of physical reality?

Yes and yes. I'm a realist and a physicalist (aka "materialist").

Some practical derivative reasoning examples:

There is no need for it [the Universe] to have an origin. It may well be eternal:

"Something cannot come from nothing. Therefore something has always existed."
---Robert Nozick (which argument he attributes to his 9-year old daughter)

For any given initial existent, either it "spontaneously appeared" or it always existed. Those are the only two options, and they're both counterintuitive. Nevertheless, there's no other choice.

Logical options. Either we're exhausting the logical possibilities or we're not. Again, if you can think of a third option, that's great, but you'd need to present what the third option would be.

At question would be how a philosophical 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice.

The problem is most prominently is visible in the Infinite Monkey Theorem that is seriously considered by many people today.

Infinite Monkey Theorem
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... =1&t=16601

In many diverse cases - for example the idea that time must have had a beginning - the error is made to exclude the observer from the consideration. Mathematical infinity is merely a potential infinity which cannot logically be applicable to reality since it requires a begin that is introduced by an observer.

An example:

The whole point is that if there's an infinite amount of time prior to Tn then we can't get to Tn because you can't complete an infinity of time prior to Tn. Why not? Because infinity isn't a quantity or amount we can ever reach or complete.

'To complete' implies a begin and what can explain a begin? It is the observer that logically introduces a begin in such a reasoning. The observer is completely excluded from the consideration.

A few days ago a user attempted to respond to my argument that the observer is mistakenly excluded from the consideration and then uses reasoning that exactly makes that mistake:

See: Countably infinite

This doesn't mean that if you started counting the members of a countably infinite set and lived forever, there would be some time in the future when you have counted all of its members.

You are making an example of the argument that I provided in my first post in this topic: the observer is erroneously excluded from the consideration.

How can it be said that 'objective reality' is really real in the face of the consideration that the begin introduced by an observer is logically the begin of the world?

To repeat: at question would be how a logical 'option' (magically always existed or magically have sprung into existence) is possible in the first place. It is then seen that for any option to be possible an aspect is required that is not of a nature that allows a choice. This same problem is addressed by the consideration that people are mistakenly excluding the observer from consideration in logic and reasoning.

[value]

A reference of a perspective on the logical limitation of 'options' to explain the universe by a self-proclaimed atheist might be of interest in this topic.

I am atheist.

Atheism and theisms are two sides of a coin for which there is no other choice;

That is invalid. It is a dogma to subject one's self to the limit imposed by logic.

You once mentioned the following which indicates that such a dogma results in an absurd limited scope of 'logical options'.

There are 4 possible states of the universe.

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
2) A universe with no beginning but with and end.
3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
4) A universe with a beginning and an end.

These supposed 'only logical options' to explain the universe can be reduced to:

1. the universe magically always existed
2. the universe magically sprung into existence from nothing

The absurdness of both options must provide a strong clue that it is not justified to maintain the dogma that one is subjected to the limit imposed by logic.

The why question of the cosmos cannot be limited to an idea of existence or non-existence within the boundaries of logic. Therefore the argument that one is either a theist or an atheist is false. Both theism and atheism are based on a dogma.

A prophecy of Albert Einstein shows that he predicts that human philosophy will some day find a method that makes it possible to venture beyond the limits of physics and logic.

"Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz already made an attempt with his Monads in 1714.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#MetLeiIde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

There is 'more' under the Sun than what is 'repeatable' (empirical). And one does not need to dogmatically accept or reject a God being because of it.

The limit of logic should not hinder philosophy to continue its pursuit.

[Sculptor1]

A reference of a perspective on the logical limitation of 'options' to explain the universe by a self-proclaimed atheist might be of interest in this topic.

I am atheist.

Atheism and theisms are two sides of a coin for which there is no other choice;

That is invalid. It is a dogma to subject one's self to the limit imposed by logic.

You once mentioned the following which indicates that such a dogma results in an absurd limited scope of 'logical options'.

There are 4 possible states of the universe.

1) A universe with no beginning and no end. (eternal)
2) A universe with no beginning but with and end.
3) A universe with a beginning and no end.
4) A universe with a beginning and an end.

These supposed 'only logical options' to explain the universe can be reduced to:

1. the universe magically always existed
2. the universe magically sprung into existence from nothing

The absurdness of both options must provide a strong clue that it is not justified to maintain the dogma that one is subjected to the limit imposed by logic.

The why question of the cosmos cannot be limited to an idea of existence or non-existence within the boundaries of logic. Therefore the argument that one is either a theist or an atheist is false. Both theism and atheism are based on a dogma.

A prophecy of Albert Einstein shows that he predicts that human philosophy will some day find a method that makes it possible to venture beyond the limits of physics and logic.

"Perhaps... we must also give up, by principle, the space-time continuum,” he wrote. “It is not unimaginable that human ingenuity will some day find methods which will make it possible to proceed along such a path. At the present time, however, such a program looks like an attempt to breathe in empty space.

Within Western philosophy, the realm beyond space has traditionally been considered a realm beyond physics — the plane of God’s existence in Christian theology. In the early eighteenth century, philosopher Gottfried Leibniz’s “monads” — which he imagined to be the primitive elements of the universe — existed, like God, outside space and time. His theory was a step toward emergent space-time, but it was still metaphysical, with only a vague connection to the world of concrete things."

Philosopher Gottfried Leibniz already made an attempt with his Monads in 1714.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz/#MetLeiIde
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monadology

There is 'more' under the Sun than what is 'repeatable' (empirical). And one does not need to dogmatically accept or reject a God being because of it.

The limit of logic should not hinder philosophy to continue its pursuit.

I'm still waiting for a point to emerge.
I shall not hold my breath.