Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kebooo]

whoops, meant to edit the previous post.  I make this mistake so often it's beginning to disgust me.

[Ampersand]

Here, answer these questions, if you truly profess to follow logic:

1) Do you know, without any shred of doubt, that is it absolutely true billionaires really exist?

No, I don't.

2) If you don't, then is it not simply a hunch, a measure of probability?

No, it's not.

I have the universe around me. It is impossible for me to know whether it is real, or if I'm just a brain in a vat. I am forced to behave as if it is from the practical standpoint as I cannot take myself out of the Matrix. There is nothing that has been presented to me to demonstrate that it is not real, while I have plenty of evidence to support the idea that reality is real.

Even if I am wrong, logical model built around the reality I experience still holds true within that reality.

Evidence, even if it is purely imaginary, justifies the receiver of the evidence to assert whatever claim the evidence supports. It does not justify anyone else to assert a claim unless they also have the same evidence.

You would believe that it was probably billionaires really do exist because of your senses, your experiences, your memory, even if all of these things, in turn, could be doubted, questioned.  Could you be absolutely certain?

How do you measure the level of a certainty if it is not absolute? 

In probability, of course, there is no other way to do it by the very nature of the words we're using.  That is what I meant by probability - you are assuming, for the sake of practicality, truth, based on what you find most probably true and real, no?  If the evidence is to be taken as true, to be assumed to be true, then is that not a belief, a positive belief in the evidence, or a positive belief in the probability fo the evidence?  Explain to me how that is not a belief.  I feel like you are not addressing these points.

There is a difference between you coming up to me and claiming that that you had cereal for breakfast this morning, and coming up to me and claiming that you have a dragon in your garage. I am willing to accept the first claim, not because I "believe it", but because my standards for evidence are much lower when it comes to things of so little consequence, your word is enough evidence for me to accept that claim, and if you turn around and say "HAH, actually, I had eggs and bacon!" my answer is not having existential breakdown due to having the foundations of my reality shaken, it is not using your word as evidence anymore.

What I mean when I say "Billionaires are real" is "Within the logical framework of the reality that I seem to experience, I have evidence that demonstrates that billionaires are real.", but saying that is long winded and pointless outside of a pointless semantic argument... Oh wait

[Kebooo]

The argument is far from pointless because I am attempting to establish that belief without absolute evidence is perfectly acceptable, and I believe I have demonstrated this.  What in your logical model rules out the possibility of unicorns existing within your reality?  Let's not act as if logic has concluded the correct answer on whether unicorns exist (within your reality) or whether I am a billionaire (within your reality) when it has done no such thing.  The unicorns have only just arrived from their travel through the universe to finally reach earth.  You do not have any demonstrable evidence that unicorns do not exist.  If they are not ruled out completely, that means it is possible they exist, within your own reality and logical framework.  To believe it is less likely a unicorn is here on earth than the fact I am a billionaire is without question a measurement of probability (not a numeric measurement), what else could it possibly be?  The only thing I can think of is that it would be a positive belief in a truth or falsehood.

How else can I phrase that?  You said you were more certain that unicorns do not exist than if I was not a billionaire.  But since, within your reality, within your logical framework, neither has been demonstrated to be true or false, how can you be more certain without gauging probability and likelihood?  I don't know any other way to explain this, and since it is the entirety of my point, I don't need to go further.  Maybe someone else can explain it better than I.

[Ampersand]

The argument is far from pointless because I am attempting to establish that belief without absolute evidence is perfectly acceptable, and I believe I have demonstrated this.

I am not claiming that this is not the case. I am claiming that absolute certainty IS required to RULE OUT something, and I believe I have demonstrated this.
 

What in your logical model rules out the possibility of unicorns existing within your reality?

Nothing, and that is exactly the point.

Let's not act as if logic has concluded the correct answer on whether unicorns exist (within your reality) or whether I am a billionaire (within your reality) when it has done no such thing.

Fortunately, I never claimed that.

The unicorns have only just arrived from their travel through the universe to finally reach earth.  You do not have any demonstrable evidence that unicorns do not exist.  If they are not ruled out completely, that means it is possible they exist, within your own reality and logical framework.  To believe it is less likely a unicorn is here on earth than the fact I am a billionaire is without question a measurement of probability (not a numeric measurement), what else could it possibly be?  The only thing I can think of is that it would be a positive belief in a truth or falsehood.

It is a measure of standards of evidence. I require more evidence for the existence of a unicorn, time traveling or otherwise, (I'd need to see it, in person, and have a DNA analysis to demonstrate that it is not just a horse with a horn surgically attached to it's head), than I would require for you to prove that you are a billionaire. (Showing me your bank account will suffice)

How else can I phrase that?  You said you were more certain that unicorns do not exist than if I was not a billionaire.  But since, within your reality, within your logical framework, neither has been demonstrated to be true or false, how can you be more certain without gauging probability and likelihood?  I don't know any other way to explain this, and since it is the entirety of my point, I don't need to go further.  Maybe someone else can explain it better than I.

What I am gauging, is not the likelihood of such things, not because I can't, but because for my purposes, it is unnecessary. There are fewer things required of you to prove that you are a billionaire, than are required for you to prove that a unicorn exists, and on that grounds, I am more willing to accept the former.

[Kebooo]

What I am gauging, is not the likelihood of such things, not because I can't, but because for my purposes, it is unnecessary. There are fewer things required of you to prove that you are a billionaire, than are required for you to prove that a unicorn exists, and on that grounds, I am more willing to accept the former.

This is what you're saying, let me know if it's a misinterpretation: "X requires less proof than Y for me to accept"

But this is what I am arguing underlies the statement "X requires less proof than Y for me to accept because, whether consciously or unconsciously, I consider X to be more likely than Y due to the fact my reality has evidence of X at least existing and not of Y"

Why else are you willing to accept less proof for X than Y if they are equally as probable, equally as likely to be true?  Yes, I understand the notion that you would require more proof before you act on something of greater magnitude or start telling others about it, that goes without saying.  I am merely talking about your certainty of truth or the reality of it here, nothing more.  I have offered no proof of either but a mere claim and refuse to offer any other proof but that claim.  I am a billionaire, and I have a unicorn.  Since I offer no evidence of either, are you equally certain with regard to both?  Or, as I suspect, is a judgment of likelihood being used.  Yes, it is true, you require less proof for one, I never disputed that, but why?  It's not as if I'm asking you take an action based on either, I'm just asking you to believe both of them, which takes nothing but a few moments of your thought.  Because of likelihood, judgment of probability, you have never seen a unicorn, and no one in your reality has, so you conclude it is less likely one will have suddenly appeared, and showed itself to me, its lone keeper.  Are you saying the idea a billionaire on these forums is on par with whether I ate cereal this morning?  Certainly both are of extreme magnitude and significance, and I can change the conditions to better suit your value judgments if needed to make my point.

[Ampersand]

What I am gauging, is not the likelihood of such things, not because I can't, but because for my purposes, it is unnecessary. There are fewer things required of you to prove that you are a billionaire, than are required for you to prove that a unicorn exists, and on that grounds, I am more willing to accept the former.

This is what you're saying, let me know if it's a misinterpretation: "X requires less proof than Y for me to accept"

But this is what I am arguing underlies the statement "X requires less proof than Y for me to accept because, whether consciously or unconsciously, I consider X to be more likely than Y due to the fact my reality has evidence of X at least existing and not of Y"

Why else are you willing to accept less proof for X than Y if they are equally as probable, equally as likely to be true?  Yes, I understand the notion that you would require more proof before you act on something of greater magnitude or start telling others about it, that goes without saying.  I am merely talking about your certainty of truth or the reality of it here, nothing more.  I have offered no proof of either but a mere claim and refuse to offer any other proof but that claim.  I am a billionaire, and I have a unicorn.  Since I offer no evidence of either, are you equally certain with regard to both?  Or, as I suspect, is a judgment of likelihood being used.  Yes, it is true, you require less proof for one, I never disputed that, but why?  It's not as if I'm asking you take an action based on either, I'm just asking you to believe both of them, which takes nothing but a few moments of your thought.  Because of likelihood, judgment of probability, you have never seen a unicorn, and no one in your reality has, so you conclude it is less likely one will have suddenly appeared, and showed itself to me, its lone keeper.  Are you saying the idea a billionaire on these forums is on par with whether I ate cereal this morning?  Certainly both are of extreme magnitude and significance, and I can change the conditions to better suit your value judgments if needed to make my point.

In the case that you demand that I simply believe the two claims, without any evidence given, I would not believe either of them for exactly the same reasons (no evidence), and personally, I stop right there.

But I do understand your points, and I'll admit that the analysis of probability has it's place in determining whether or not to accept something as true, it is utterly unnecessary when determining whether to -reject- something as true. All that is required is a lack of evidence and nothing more.

[Kebooo]

I'd also like to add, with lightness, that watching Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes while talking about the fact I am a billionaire with a unicorn that traveled across space to get to me is...interesting.  I hope I don't go senile.

[Urist McOverlord]

Random guy from the internet swoops from nowhere!

Kenboo:
Actually, if you have provided no supporting evidence, no proof whatsoever, then it would be highly illogical to believe either of your claims. Even less outlandish claims require substantiation. From a logical perspective, whether or not unicorns or billionaires exist, you must be the one to prove it so. This is why active belief in a negative due to a lack of evidence to the affirmative is moronic. Now, practically speaking, you don't need to tell us that billionaires exist, because we already know that, and specifically proving even the base rudiments of even the simplest arguments is best reserved for philosophy textbooks.

On another, earlier point, where you were talking about believing we aren't brains in vats vs. believing that you are currently a billionaire unicorn rancher, therebis a sizeable gap between "I assume that my senses, memory, and cognitive ability are sound" and "I believe any insubstantiated claim given to me." While you aare correct in saying that we all have some beliefs or assumptions if you go back far enough down the trail, actively seeking the answers to that kind of question is fruitless. Its a sort of "Creator Paradox." Either reality is real, or we have been made tothink it so. Really, on that level, you can only really know one absolute truth: to quote Decartes: I think, therefore I am." This, however is absolutely worthless as far as a framework to build on, so discussion in that vein is totally worthless. Point being, there is a big difference between assuming some basic facts, and buying the brooklyn bridge.

[Siquo]

Point being, there is a big difference between assuming some basic facts, and buying the brooklyn bridge.

In principle, not really.
The only thing discerning one fact from another is practicality. Science can accurately map practicality, unlike humans, which is what makes it useful. Believing in it is something else, and if you only believe in what is practical, that is your choice. A poor one, IMHO, but still your choice. But "practicality" is still another belief, one that is on par with all "impractical" beliefs. What makes one more valuable than the other, without being self-referencing? (Meaning: You can't say "practical" is better because it's more practical)



Also, as an aside, why would we need science? Because humans SUCK at statistics and correlation.
Examples from this thread:
"99 percent sure is as good as 100".
Not if I'm 99 percent sure that I won't die, every second. That means I die within a 100 seconds...
"If a die is rolled 1 billion times and 100 never shows up, there's probably no 100 on the die".
This just becomes falser, the bigger the die is. If it's a 100-billion sided die, you won't get "100" for along time...

[RAM]

I believe that it is possible to logically disprove entities with certain combinations of elements, such as 'can be A' and 'cannot be A'. The evidence to support element combinations being incompatible increases greatly as your available evidence increases, such as if you were to assume that the 'real world' exists.

For example, it is well supported that, given the nature of the 'real world', that it is impossible for there to be an entity that can completely control it, is completely aware of it, and is completely committed to human well being. So one can legitimately be more confident that such a being does not exist than that beings that resemble horned horses exist, given that the only evidence against the latter is the probability of reported human interaction.

[Siquo]

I believe that it is possible to logically disprove entities with certain combinations of elements, such as 'can be A' and 'cannot be A'.

Such as photons which are both particle and wave, which are mutually exclusive?

[Ampersand]

Wrong, Siquo. They do not violate logic because they assume different properties at different times, they do not behave as both particles and waves at the same time. An object can change states. It's like saying water, which is both a liquid and a solid, depending on certain conditions, is logically impossible.

[Siquo]

"at the same time" and "at different times" are dangerous concepts when dealing with relativistic speeds.
It is, however, both particle and wave at the same time. Which has been logically solved by creating a new state, the superstate, in which it is both mutually exclusive things at the same time.

To take your example: a body of water at melting point is partly fluid and solid, where the logical impossibility is solved by the word "partly".

With these kinds of reinterpretations it's virtually possible to escape all logical paradoxes as posed by RAM. Earlier in the thread I made up a God that is in a superstate of Existence and non-Existence at the same time, solving the apparent paradox that it can't cannot exist and can exist at the same time.

Point: Disbelieving all illogical things is as "moronic" as believing all of them. A lot of stuff now accepted to be part of reality (my QM example, for instance) didn't make sense at first.

[Ampersand]

It is, however, both particle and wave at the same time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

Read it.

"This treatment focuses on explaining the behavior from the perspective of the widely used Copenhagen interpretation, in which wave–particle duality is one aspect of the concept of complementarity, that a phenomenon can be viewed in one way or in another, but not both simultaneously."

[Siquo]

"Can be viewed". That means "can be detected", not "as it is". As soon as you "detect" the particle, you change it, and force it to be either particle or wave. In the meanwhile, before you detect it, it is both-at-the-same-time.

Please read it again yourself, especially the part that does affect the topic:

Orthodox interpretations of quantum mechanics explain this ostensible paradox as a fundamental property of the Universe, while alternative interpretations explain the duality as an emergent, second-order consequence of various limitations of the observer.

So it's either a logical paradox, or it's solved by creating a new superstate concept. So, my point still stands: either you believe in logical paradoxes, or you have to accept that creating a new concept around the paradox solves the paradox.