## How does one find True Knowledge?

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Tamminen
Posts: 1347
Joined: April 19th, 2016, 2:53 pm

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG wrote:
October 26th, 2019, 3:40 pm
The "size of the circle" is finite and bounded, and the "travel around it" is infinite and unbounded.
So we have reached an agreement at last! No boundaries around a finite universe. Trips possible ad infinitum.

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2000
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Tamminen wrote:So we have reached an agreement at last! No boundaries around a finite universe. Trips possible ad infinitum.
Progress!

Steve3007
Posts: 7750
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Speed = distance / time.

Sculptor1
Posts: 2133
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

We have a state of finitude, like it or not.
This is demonstrated by the simple idea:-
Take an infinite piece of string, cut it in two.
What do you have?
Two infinite pieces of string, which is impossible.
Infinitude is logically and practically impossible, as a well as being unverifiable.

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2000
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Sculptor1 wrote:We have a state of finitude, like it or not.
But without "infinitude", there can be no "finitude". (...can't get something (finite) from 'nothing', ...can only get something (finite) from 'everything' (infinite)).

-- Finite numbers would not be possible if not for its infinite-ness.

-- Finite spaces, times, and things (matter) would not exist if not for its infinite-ness.

Sculptor1 wrote:This is demonstrated by the simple idea:-
Take an infinite piece of string, cut it in two.
What do you have?

Two infinite pieces of string, which is impossible.

Infinitude is logically and practically impossible, as a well as being unverifiable.
Not so. The inability to mathematically divide infinity is certainly not logical proof of its in-existence.

The inability to mathematically divide "Sculptor1" is not logical proof of your in-existence. -- Only 'finite' numbers can be mathematically manipulated.

There is NO logic that refutes "infinity", there is only our indoctrinated beliefs that wants to deny it.

Sculptor1
Posts: 2133
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 10:22 am
Sculptor1 wrote:We have a state of finitude, like it or not.
But without "infinitude", there can be no "finitude". (...can't get something (finite)
Rubbish
from 'nothing', ...can only get something (finite) from 'everything' (infinite)).

-- Finite numbers would not be possible if not for its infinite-ness.

-- Finite spaces, times, and things (matter) would not exist if not for its infinite-ness.
nope
Sculptor1 wrote:This is demonstrated by the simple idea:-
Take an infinite piece of string, cut it in two.
What do you have?

Two infinite pieces of string, which is impossible.

Infinitude is logically and practically impossible, as a well as being unverifiable.
Not so. The inability to mathematically divide infinity is certainly not logical proof of its in-existence.

The inability to mathematically divide "Sculptor1" is not logical proof of your in-existence. -- Only 'finite' values can be mathematically manipulated.
It is perfectly possible to divide sculptor1.
and it is perfectly possible to divide RJG, but all you get is a bloody mess.
That's reality

There is NO logic that refutes "infinity", there is only our indoctrinated beliefs that wants to deny it.
[/quote]

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2000
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

Sculptor1" wrote:It is perfectly possible to divide sculptor1.
and it is perfectly possible to divide RJG, but all you get is a bloody mess.
That's reality
lol, ok Sculp, in that sense, I'll give that point to you. -- But can you mathematically divide "forever"? (...note: I'm referring to the 'meaning' of the word, not the literal letters of the word).

My point is that the "inability to mathematically manipulate" something does not logically imply its "non-existence". That would be bad logic.

Again: There is NO logic that refutes "infinity", there is only our indoctrinated beliefs that want to deny it.

Felix
Posts: 3106
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG: Firstly, that which gives it "finite-ness" is that which gives it "boundary". - So tell me what gives it "finite-ness", and I'll tell you it's "boundary".
Boundary is a perceptual distinction rather than a strictly logical one, you are confusing the two.
RJG: There is NO logic that refutes "infinity", there is only our indoctrinated beliefs that want to deny it.
Of course not, logic is ineffectual when it comes to infinity.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 944
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG wrote:
October 27th, 2019, 10:38 am
Again: There is NO logic that refutes "infinity", there is only our indoctrinated beliefs that want to deny it.
It would be a kind of category error to say that logic refutes infinity. A sound argument might refute it, meaning one that uses logic and has true premises, but logic itself is more or less to way statements relate to each other. A pear is neither logical nor illogical. Length is neither logical nor illogical. And infinite universe is neither logical nor illogical. Perhaps it is not possible, but this would be given something outside of logical. A fact, a law, ontological truths. Beliefs can be logically arrived at or not. But things are not logical or illogical. Neither are qualities.

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2000
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG wrote:Again: There is NO logic that refutes "infinity", there is only our indoctrinated beliefs that want to deny it.
Karpel Tunnel wrote:It would be a kind of category error to say that logic refutes infinity. A sound argument might refute it, meaning one that uses logic and has true premises, but logic itself is more or less to way statements relate to each other. A pear is neither logical nor illogical. Length is neither logical nor illogical. And infinite universe is neither logical nor illogical. Perhaps it is not possible, but this would be given something outside of logical. A fact, a law, ontological truths. Beliefs can be logically arrived at or not. But things are not logical or illogical. Neither are qualities.
Good comment. To correctly rephrase:

--> "There is NO logic that refutes the truth of an "infinite" existence, there is only our indoctrinated beliefs that want to deny it."

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2000
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG wrote:"Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." --- Wikipedia
Steve3007 wrote:Yes, and the entity that is proposed to exist independently of any subjective perceptions is "object". We call a table an "object" and we proposed (without ever being able to be 100% certain) that it exists "objectively". By that we mean that we propose that it is the cause of all of the subjective sensations with which we associate it, such as the sensation "Albert saw a table" or the sensation "Beatrice smelled a table".
Steve3007 wrote:As discussed, we define "objectivity" differently. I relate it to objects. I think objects are ... see loads of earlier remarks.
Steve, you are committing an "equivocation fallacy" here. You are falsely "equivocating" one meaning of "object" to another. In other words, you are fraudulently twisting (interchanging) the meaning of "objectivity" to deceive, or suit your specific purpose. To better understand your flawed reasoning, google "equivocation fallacy".

Steve3007 wrote:We call a table an "object" and we proposed (without ever being able to be 100% certain) that it exists "objectively". By that we mean that we propose that it is the cause of all of the subjective sensations with which we associate it, such as the sensation "Albert saw a table" or the sensation "Beatrice smelled a table".
And here, you falsely assume that the so-called "objective object" called "table" is the "cause" of your subjective sensations of the table. There are MANY possible causes for your subjective sensations of "table", including the Real McCoy (real table) himself. For example: you could be hallucinating your experiences of a table.

Another example: When you see/observe water on the road, it does not necessarily mean that "water" is actually on the road. It could just be a simple illusion; mirage. We can never trust our 'subjective' perceptions to tell us what is 'objectively' true/real.

Steve3007 wrote:So, are you going to have a go at answering the question I've asked you several times? What is it that causes you to believe the objective proposition "the Earth is approximately spherical" and not the objective propositions "the Earth is flat"?
Huh? You must have missed my answer. Here it is again:
RJG wrote:My belief that the world is not-flat is ONLY based on what I've read and heard.
...and that which we read/hear/observe are only just "subjective (personally held) truths", and not necessarily "objective (real) truths".

Steve3007 wrote:And why do you believe one more than the other when they're both just things you've read/heard/seen?
Probably because I've read/heard more of one way than of the other way.

Again, please note: that which we hear/read/observe is only that which we hear/read/observe. That's it, nothing more! In no way does our reading/hearing/observing imply any 'real' objective truth. For example: look at Science, which bases its truths on "empirical evidence"; (experientially observational stuff!), ...it's truths always and CONSTANTLY change. Today's Science may be tomorrow's Voodoo. We can never trust subjectivity (subjective truths) to give us objectivity (real truths).

Steve3007 wrote:I think Betrand Russell's classic book "The Problems of Philosophy" deals very well with the subject we've been discussing here, of the way in which objects, and propositions about them, relate to what he refers to as "sense-data".
Bertrand Russell wrote:I bought my table from the former occupant of my room; I could not buy his sense-data, which died when he went away, but I could and did buy the confident expectation of more or less similar sense-data.
No disrespect to Bertrand, but he is "begging-the-question" here (pre-assuming the conclusion). Bertrand makes the pre-sumption that his and the former occupant have "similar" sense-data, when in fact the existence of former occupant is just a product of Bertrand's own sense-data". That is akin to claiming -- "the words in the Bible are God's words, because it says so right here in the Bible".

Bertrand is essentially saying:
P1. The former occupant has similar sense-data as me.
C1.Therefore he has similar sense-data as me.

Any logical claims based on this irrational "question-begging" is therefore flawed.

Bertrand wrote:Thus it is the fact that different people have similar sense-data…
...and boom! ...here comes flawed conclusion #2:
C2. Thus, it is fact that different people have similar sense-data.

Bertrand wrote:...and that one person in a given place at different times has similar sense-data, which makes us suppose that over and above the sense-data there is a permanent public object which underlies or causes the sense-data of various people at various times.
...and more flawed conclusions!:
C3. Therefore hark! This is proof that a 'real' object is causing all our similar sense-datas.

Yikes, I pity the fools that believe such non-sensicalness as truth.

Steve3007
Posts: 7750
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG wrote:Steve, you are committing an "equivocation fallacy" here. You are falsely "equivocating" one meaning of "object" to another.
Please tell me the two different meanings of the word "object" that you say I am using. I can only spot one. The one I can spot is the entity that I find it useful to propose to exist as the cause of various sensations. What is the other one?
In other words, you are fraudulently twisting (interchanging) the meaning of "objectivity" to deceive, or suit your specific purpose. To better understand your flawed reasoning, google "equivocation fallacy".
As I said, I see objective propositions as propositions about objects. In what sense is that equivocating?
And here, you falsely assume that the so-called "objective object" called "table" is the "cause" of your subjective sensations of the table.
There are MANY possible causes for your subjective sensations of "table", including the Real McCoy (real table) himself. For example: you could be hallucinating your experiences of a table.
That is true. There are many possible causes of those sensations, if we even believe that they need to have causes. So how would you decide whether it is a real table or an hallucination? What kind of test might you do? As a clue, recall what Macbeth says when he thinks he sees a dagger floating in front of him.
Another example: When you see/observe water on the road, it does not necessarily mean that "water" is actually on the road. It could just be a simple illusion; mirage. We can never trust our 'subjective' perceptions to tell us what is 'objectively' true/real.
How would you test the objective proposition that the sensation that you refer to here as a mirage corresponds to an object called water? (Remember Macbeth's dagger).
My belief that the world is not-flat is ONLY based on what I've read and heard.
So why do you believe it? Why don't you believe that the Earth is flat? As I've asked several times before: What are your criteria for choosing?
Probably because I've read/heard more of one way than of the other way.
OK. So you tend to believe things more if you've read/heard them stated more often? Anything else? If someone repeated many, many times to you: "the Earth is flat, the Earth is flat..." would you change your beliefs? If not why? What else, apart from repetition, do you use to choose between competing objective propositions (i.e. propositions about objects such as the Earth)?
Again, please note: that which we hear/read/observe is only that which we hear/read/observe. That's it, nothing more! In no way does our reading/hearing/observing imply any 'real' objective truth. For example: look at Science, which bases its truths on "empirical evidence"; (experientially observational stuff!), ...it's truths always and CONSTANTLY change.
You are incorrect to state that the laws of science are either constantly or CONSTANTLY changing (the case doesn't make a difference). Would you like to refine that statement to something more accurate and tell me the circumstances in which you think they change?

RJG
Moderator
Posts: 2000
Joined: March 28th, 2012, 8:52 pm

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG wrote:"Objectivity is a philosophical concept of being true independently from individual subjectivity caused by perception, emotions, or imagination. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject." --- Wikipedia
Steve3007 wrote:As discussed, we define "objectivity" differently. I relate it to objects
RJG wrote:Steve, you are committing an "equivocation fallacy" here. You are falsely "equivocating" one meaning of "object" to another.
Steve3007 wrote:Please tell me the two different meanings of the word "object" that you say I am using. I can only spot one. The one I can spot is the entity that I find it useful to propose to exist as the cause of various sensations. What is the other one?
"Objectivity" (un-biased; real/true; non-subjective) is one thing, and "objects" (entities; things) are another. Two different meanings.

Steve3007 wrote:...it is the cause of all of the subjective sensations…
RJG wrote:And here, you falsely assume that the so-called "objective object" called "table" is the "cause" of all of the subjective sensations of the table.
RJG wrote:There are MANY possible causes for your subjective sensations of "table", including the Real McCoy (real table) himself. For example: you could be hallucinating your experiences of a table.
Steve3007 wrote:That is true. There are many possible causes of those sensations, if we even believe that they need to have causes.
In the first statement you say the table/object is the cause of all of the subjective sensations, and now here you seem to agree with me that our subjective sensations of the table may be caused by something else (other than the 'real' objective object called table).

This is an important point that supports my assertion that we cannot trust our observations (nor that which we've "read and heard") to tell us what is real/true. It now seems that you agree with me, and if so, we have nothing left to argue about.

Steve3007 wrote:So how would you decide whether it is a real table or an hallucination? What kind of test might you do? As a clue, recall what Macbeth says when he thinks he sees a dagger floating in front of him.
This is beside the point; a red-herring. The point is that a 'real' object named "table" is not necessary to experience the subjective sensations of a table.

RJG wrote:For example: look at Science, which bases its truths on "empirical evidence"; (experientially observational stuff!), ...it's truths always and CONSTANTLY change.
Steve3007 wrote:Would you like to refine that statement to something more accurate and tell me the circumstances in which you think they change?
No thank you. My statement stands as it is. If you wish to believe that the truths of science don't constantly change, then I won't try to convince you otherwise.

Steve3007
Posts: 7750
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG wrote:For example: look at Science, which bases its truths on "empirical evidence"; (experientially observational stuff!), ...it's truths always and CONSTANTLY change.
Steve3007 wrote:You are incorrect to state that the laws of science are either constantly or CONSTANTLY changing (the case doesn't make a difference). Would you like to refine that statement to something more accurate and tell me the circumstances in which you think they change?
RJG wrote:No thank you. My statement stands as it is. If you wish to believe that the truths of science don't constantly change, then I won't try to convince you otherwise.
OK, well, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. I'll leave it there, but I'll let Buddy Holly, who seems to have understood the simple difference between objective and subjective propositions, have the last word from my side (paraphrasing):

An objective proposition:

"The sun is out, the sky is blue and I propose that any suitably situated observer would not experience any clouds to spoil the view"

A subjective proposition:

"It is raining in my heart"

Steve3007
Posts: 7750
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes of Cyrene
Location: UK

### Re: How does one find True Knowledge?

RJG wrote:No thank you. My statement stands as it is. If you wish to believe that the truths of science don't constantly change, then I won't try to convince you otherwise.
I'll try again.

Can you tell me why a physicist might propose that an existing law of physics ought to be modified? (Hint: it's not because all the laws of physics are nonsense that are made up on the spot and constantly changed at the whim of crazy physicists.)

Take Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation as an example. Why did anyone propose that Einstein's General Relativity should supersede this law? Why did Newton's law supersede Kepler's laws?

Note: I'm not asking you whether you agree with anything in these laws. You may disagree with them, and that's perfectly fine so long as you set out your argument for disagreeing with them. I'm not asking for one of the familiar "Einstein/Newton/Kepler/whoever was an idiot and I alone know the truth" diatribes that we get so often in these forums from so many posters. I just want to know whether you appreciate the reasons why the laws of physics are modified, or not modified, and how they are modified when they are.