What's stopping us from seeing the truth?

[lancek4]

It is a fallacy of knowledge that somehow we can come up with a true metaphysics, as if our investigations into reality will yield a true triangle. Truth is merely a stabilizer if what we have to work with while we exist and live. It is only 'the truth' in so far as it justifies what I or we do against what you or they do.
I'm sorry fractals are just an acid trip for those who don't want to spend 12 hours to trip, so we can think 'hey the universe is really a mesh of uncertainty and go on our merry way enforcing what we think is 'really' true as opposed to those ignorant people who hold to absolute truths - as if a fractal is not another example of an 'actual' truth that reflects what is 'really' true of the universe.

[artisticsolution]

Why don't you just tell me what you really think about fractals Lance...lol.

I am not saying the fractals are the way to truth...I am saying that in order for someone to think a thought that is outside the box don't they at least have to 'see' things in a different way? From a different perspective....

[chaz wyman]

As you say, there may well be a 'true triangle'. If there is we can only establish its truth by doing metaphysics. Once we have established our metaphysical truth in relation to triangles we then attempt to show how this truth about triangles applies to the real world. As Hume would say, this is when we run into big trouble. My above post also points out the difficulties.

Another problem is we cannot seem to overcome the problems inherent in language and mathematics. Kant was very much aware of this problem. He wanted to try and discover of there is any metaphysical knowledge that is necessary and universal that was neither mathematical nor empirical. His success or other wise is subject to volumes of debate. Whatever we do we cannot shake off the bonds of language when it comes to understanding. Kant himself acknowledges this in a indirect way. Kant would assert that knowledge of propositions and hence truth value can be found only by considering the definitions of the terms involved.

A good example of this would be when we consider a priori propositions. The truth or falsity of the claim, "All green apples are green" is based on the relation of the subject to its to predicate. It is a logical relationship as we look at it; so to speak.

Any true triangle is only thus because we choose to identify it as such. The triangle does not think it is one. It says very little about fundamentals of the universe except that at some molecular level in the gene sequence a set of atoms build on one another in a mathematical sequence no different from a child's building blocks have to assemble in a particular way. So when we look at piece of Romanesque Broccoli we think we have discovered something fundamental about the universe, or that we have seen the hand of God, when what we really see is the simple consequence of building blocks falling in a sequence determined by their structure. This is not evidence that the universe is written in the language of mathematics, but still further evidence that maths is a useful means of modelling that universe; and that sometimes the chaos shows a little apparent order; and that the material universe is determined by material forces.



This is not God applying the Mandelbrot Set; this is a broccoli demonstrating that it is determined by a physical sequence , that a bloke called Mandelbrot modelled.

[Ginkgo]

Any true triangle is only thus because we choose to identify it as such.

Yes, this would be an example of a category error.


String Theory presents itself as a elegant mathematical possibility for a Grand Unified Theory. It may turn out to present us with a perfect understanding of the universe. The problem of course is that this theory may have nothing to do with the way the universe actually is. Same problem as before.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Quit trying to change the subject, coward. Is that why you engage me, just to be nasty and rude?

Get a grip you big-girls blouse! I'm on the subject.

I make a statement minding my own business, and you just have to deliver an unsolicited answer in some sarcastic condescending way, grow up and take responsibility for a change. ...

On a public forum!! You want to mind your own business then PM your interlocutor otherwise expect responses idiot.

You seem to be such a child, arguing over the most ridiculous childlike things. You don't like me and I don't like you, as you are a nasty lying person. Oh, and the loon is only to be found in your mirror!

When will you get it through your head that its not to do with emotions and feelings and your delusions that someone is trying to deceive you, you paranoid loon! You'd not last ten minutes in an academic philosophy seminar with an attitude like that.

Its pretty much a truism that without existence there'd not be experience and without experience there'd not be 'knowledge' and without knowledge there'd not be true nor false, so in this sense all 'knowledge' is aposteriori. The point of the apriori and aposteriori classifications is that there appear to be propositions that are to be understood as true without the need of direct experience to confirm, "The grubblesnuckle exists or the grubblesnuckle does not exist", "The grubblesnuckle is grep or is not grep", "The grubblesnuckle cannot exist and not exist", "Its either raining or it is not raining"- apriori. "The grubblesnuckle exists", "The grubblesnuckle is blue or it is pink", "Its raining or its is sunny" - aposteriori.

You're such an idiot, that is all based upon a posteriori knowledge, you forget where you are, bone head!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Quit trying to change the subject, coward. Is that why you engage me, just to be nasty and rude?

Get a grip you big-girls blouse! I'm on the subject.

I make a statement minding my own business, and you just have to deliver an unsolicited answer in some sarcastic condescending way, grow up and take responsibility for a change. ...

On a public forum!! You want to mind your own business then PM your interlocutor otherwise expect responses idiot.

You seem to be such a child, arguing over the most ridiculous childlike things. You don't like me and I don't like you, as you are a nasty lying person. Oh, and the loon is only to be found in your mirror!

When will you get it through your head that its not to do with emotions and feelings and your delusions that someone is trying to deceive you, you paranoid loon! You'd not last ten minutes in an academic philosophy seminar with an attitude like that.

Its pretty much a truism that without existence there'd not be experience and without experience there'd not be 'knowledge' and without knowledge there'd not be true nor false, so in this sense all 'knowledge' is aposteriori. The point of the apriori and aposteriori classifications is that there appear to be propositions that are to be understood as true without the need of direct experience to confirm, "The grubblesnuckle exists or the grubblesnuckle does not exist", "The grubblesnuckle is grep or is not grep", "The grubblesnuckle cannot exist and not exist", "Its either raining or it is not raining"- apriori. "The grubblesnuckle exists", "The grubblesnuckle is blue or it is pink", "Its raining or its is sunny" - aposteriori.

Looks like SoB has finally lost the plot.

There is no plot, fool!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Thanks AUK for that Kant. So are you saying that SOB does not understand the distinction and vacillates from one to the other to make his point? And he doesn't see his inconsistency?

I thought we all knew he did that.

Trouble is that he thinks everything he says is apriori, and therefore the absolute truth, when apriori in effect contains no information about the outside universe but is all self referring and tautological. - Only as true as its own definitions.

What the hell are you talking about, always playing the GOD, putting words into peoples mouths, you megalomaniac! There is no such thing as a priori, as the distinction is meaningless.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Thanks AUK for that Kant. So are you saying that SOB does not understand the distinction and vacillates from one to the other to make his point? And he doesn't see his inconsistency?

I thought we all knew he did that.

Trouble is that he thinks everything he says is apriori, and therefore the absolute truth, when apriori in effect contains no information about the outside universe but is all self referring and tautological. - Only as true as its own definitions.

But I liked AUKs explanation . - and I was not sure if that was his/her ( dammit. What pronoun do I use for auk now. Shit! ) point. I have often been asking sob to draw these together of his different tactics. Into a comprehensive scheme, and I could not describe his motions adequately enough to get him to see his motion. And I suppose that is why he cannot bring them together - because he cannot identify the problem he rests in.

There is no problem I rest in. Point it out! It's just the difference between what we each see as self evident.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Thanks AUK for that Kant. So are you saying that SOB does not understand the distinction and vacillates from one to the other to make his point? And he doesn't see his inconsistency?

I thought we all knew he did that.

Trouble is that he thinks everything he says is apriori, and therefore the absolute truth, when apriori in effect contains no information about the outside universe but is all self referring and tautological. - Only as true as its own definitions.

But I liked AUKs explanation . - and I was not sure if that was his/her ( dammit. What pronoun do I use for auk now. Shit! ) point. I have often been asking sob to draw these together of his different tactics. Into a comprehensive scheme, and I could not describe his motions adequately enough to get him to see his motion. And I suppose that is why he cannot bring them together - because he cannot identify the problem he rests in.

Hi Lancek,

Actually, I think this was my explanation.

I guess that is one way of putting it. SOB's metaphysical enterprise was doomed to failure.

He won't be the first and he won't be the last.

Just because you've all been bought and sold by the same touchy feely boys club, doesn't really mean anything, can you say clones? I can't be bought or sold.

Clearly and concisely point out my error. Not just by saying so, anyone can say anything. Use my words, and point out the flaws in them. No one has, as no one can! Which tends to be indicative of parrots.

[SpheresOfBalance]

It is a fallacy of knowledge that somehow we can come up with a true metaphysics, as if our investigations into reality will yield a true triangle. Truth is merely a stabilizer if what we have to work with while we exist and live. It is only 'the truth' in so far as it justifies what I or we do against what you or they do.
I'm sorry fractals are just an acid trip for those who don't want to spend 12 hours to trip, so we can think 'hey the universe is really a mesh of uncertainty and go on our merry way enforcing what we think is 'really' true as opposed to those ignorant people who hold to absolute truths - as if a fractal is not another example of an 'actual' truth that reflects what is 'really' true of the universe.

It's obvious, that you that disagree with me, only do so, so as to commit murder, and get away with it, unless it's yours of course. You see relativity, so you're not bound by the construct of nature, and as such, it shall certainly be our undoing.

[MJA]

Oneness "presents itself as a elegant mathematical possibility for a Grand Unified Theory,"
Mathematically truth is written like this:

=

[lancek4]

Any true triangle is only thus because we choose to identify it as such.

Yes, this would be an example of a category error.


String Theory presents itself as a elegant mathematical possibility for a Grand Unified Theory. It may turn out to present us with a perfect understanding of the universe. The problem of course is that this theory may have nothing to do with the way the universe actually is. Same problem as before.

....which is that string theory/general theory would leave out the vital component of the universe: our apparent conceiving of it. Which is a pretty big dark matter.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Since I skipped a few pages of this development, (probably) this is why I am not sure of your AUK point.
I would say the your paragraph here shows your orientation upon reality , and further add the apparently paradoxical point that without knowledge we could not know that existence is prior to knowledge. And then I would ask for an explanation that establishes the (your here) truism.

I think the problem of existence is not really an issue in when dealing with the Kantian distinction. It is of course important, but it is more of a case of looking at the structure of the propositions in order to determine their truth value. For Kant a priori judgements consist of propositions whose truth can not be determined by reference to any experience but solely on the basis of the terms used in the sentence. For example, 'All green apples are green'.
That is not knowledge, rather nonsensical word play, that has redundancy for no real reason, other than being silly.

In other to determine the truth value we need only to look at the sentence. Other types of statements that Kant thought were a priori were,"All triangles have three sides" and " 5+2=7".
Only because you were told so, in a classroom, which is in fact experience, it doesn't matter that the experience was yesterday!

The important point when it comes to a priori judgements is that when we try and negate them this invariably will lead to a contradiction. To claim that all green apples are not actually green is a contradiction. The same argument apples to triangles. To try and deny that a triangle has three sides makes no sense.

A posteriori judgements on the other hand are based on experience and don't involve contradictions. For example, "All living things reproduce", while being true, it is logically consistent to deny the truth of the statement. In other words, if I were to say, "All living things don't reproduce", this wouldn't create a problem in terms of logic. Unlike a priori statements, this makes perfect sense. This doesn't mean it is correct, it just means that it is not contradictory to say so.
So what you're saying is that some philosophers could easily join a circus as a clown, as they already are one.


Basically we can say that Kant was not happy with this classification. So he came up with the synthetic a priori propositions. He though that judgements could be proven true via their meanings through certain truths about the world. For example, "All bodies are extended". Kant believed that this statement, as the name suggests was both apriori and a posteriori at the same time. Basically we can say he just calls it synthetic apriori. The important point is that is based on experience. The other important point is that we cannot deny the truth of the statement. To do so would lead to some sort of contradiction.
Yes I've read all that too, the difference being, that I see it as the bullshit that it is.

[chaz wyman]

Any true triangle is only thus because we choose to identify it as such.

Yes, this would be an example of a category error.


String Theory presents itself as a elegant mathematical possibility for a Grand Unified Theory. It may turn out to present us with a perfect understanding of the universe. The problem of course is that this theory may have nothing to do with the way the universe actually is. Same problem as before.

I concur exactly.
~Cosmologies and scientific paradigms are of the kind of a best fit- in the sense they are always s best fit for human understanding, and conform to human logic, perception and interpretation.
The universe will always be just beyond our grasp.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Quit trying to change the subject, coward. Is that why you engage me, just to be nasty and rude?

Get a grip you big-girls blouse! I'm on the subject.
So says the blind fool!

I make a statement minding my own business, and you just have to deliver an unsolicited answer in some sarcastic condescending way, grow up and take responsibility for a change. ...

On a public forum!! You want to mind your own business then PM your interlocutor otherwise expect responses idiot.
Changing the subject again, moron!

You seem to be such a child, arguing over the most ridiculous childlike things. You don't like me and I don't like you, as you are a nasty lying person. Oh, and the loon is only to be found in your mirror!

When will you get it through your head that its not to do with emotions and feelings and your delusions that someone is trying to deceive you, you paranoid loon! You'd not last ten minutes in an academic philosophy seminar with an attitude like that.
And you'd not last 10 minutes in the ring, so what does any of this prove, fool. That you can't keep track of a conversation to save your life, so what's new?.


Its pretty much a truism that without existence there'd not be experience and without experience there'd not be 'knowledge' and without knowledge there'd not be true nor false, so in this sense all 'knowledge' is aposteriori. The point of the apriori and aposteriori classifications is that there appear to be propositions that are to be understood as true without the need of direct experience to confirm,

First the Def, don't be afraid now, Arising:

knowl·edge /ˈnɒlɪdʒ/ Show Spelled[nol-ij]
noun
1. acquaintance with facts, truths, or principles, as from study or investigation; general erudition: knowledge of many things.
2. familiarity or conversance, as with a particular subject or branch of learning: A knowledge of accounting was necessary for the job.
3. acquaintance or familiarity gained by sight, experience, or report: a knowledge of human nature.
4. the fact or state of knowing; the perception of fact or truth; clear and certain mental apprehension.
5. awareness, as of a fact or circumstance: He had knowledge of her good fortune.
6. something that is or may be known; information: He sought knowledge of her activities.
7. the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time.
8. the sum of what is known: Knowledge of the true situation is limited.
9. Archaic . sexual intercourse. Compare carnal knowledge.
adjective
10. creating, involving, using, or disseminating special knowledge or information: A computer expert can always find a good job in the knowledge industry.
Idiom
11. to one's knowledge, according to the information available to one: To my knowledge he hasn't been here before.
And:
be·lief /bɪˈlif/ Show Spelled[bih-leef]
noun
1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.


Now your examples:
"The grubblesnuckle exists or the grubblesnuckle does not exist", "The grubblesnuckle is grep or is not grep", "The grubblesnuckle cannot exist and not exist", "Its either raining or it is not raining"- apriori.
Not knowledge, merely belief, based upon a posteriori knowledge, as to existence potential.

"The grubblesnuckle exists", "The grubblesnuckle is blue or it is pink", "Its raining or its is sunny" - aposteriori.
Not knowledge, merely belief, based upon a posteriori knowledge, as to existence potential.