Is our universe alone?

[Age]

My point completely misunderstood, overlooked, or taken out of context.

You were stating that there is a difference between two beliefs. You wrote; Well I wouldn't rate the belief that there's a monitor in front of me, and the belief in absolute certainty, as equally insane.

I asked; If the BELIEF, 'that there is a monitor in front of you', could NOT be True? In other words are you 'absolutely certain' of this? There is NO right or wrong answer. I was just wondering.

I NEVER meant any thing regarding a True monitor. I was asking questions regarding YOUR beliefs only. Especially NOW considering your second sentence here.

Okay, but you left out the word "belief" in your earlier question.

Okay. That question is not here so i will take your word on it. My fault. Sorry.

I asked; If the BELIEF, 'that there is a monitor in front of you', could NOT be True? In other words are you 'absolutely certain' of this? There is NO right or wrong answer. I was just wondering.

No. Some get caught up in the stupid game of "being certain of not being certain, therefore having found absolute certainty", but they just trick themselves. There is just no absolute footing available for us.

Is that an absolute correct truth?

Are you absolutely certain that there is no absolute footing available for us?

You were pretty quick to JUMP to and make up a conclusion ALL based on my written words; This is not what I meant.

Just because this is not what I meant, that does NOT mean there is only ONE other possible conclusion for you to reach.

I have explained, enough times already, HOW a very thorough and full understanding can be obtained, and in a very quickly, simply, and easily fashion also. Do I need to explain HOW again.

What do you mean then? A full understanding is unreachable,

If full understanding is unreachable, then there is no use in me proceeding.

and quick, simple methods usually turn out to be false.

Really?

Is that NOT what I said?

What do these human beings think that 'additional effect' IS, or could be?

Then how does the creation you talked about, enter the picture?

Not sure what this is in relation to. The previous quotes are not here.

Are human thinking processes always finite? Is that just another finite human thinking process that just can NOT thinking infinitely and so just imagines that human thinking processes are ALWAYS finite?

What IF one human thinking process was to REMAIN completely and fully OPEN, ALWAYS?

WHERE is the always finite thinking process in that human body, and, WHAT is it, exactly?

Thoughts are basically in the head. Now of course thoughts are continuous with and inseparable from the rest of the universe, just like everything else is, "one with it", but that doesn't change the fact that basically, by and large, thoughts are in the head and finite.

I do not think WHERE the thoughts ARE has any bearing on this, but let us say thoughts are within the head. Now, how does that equate to them being finite?

Also, my questions were in regards to 'thinking processes' and NOT in regards to 'thoughts, themselves,' being finite. I agree thoughts to a very high degree are finite. I was questioning does 'thinking processes' have to be finite?

Openness has nothing to do with it;

If you say so. Is this an absolute truth?

people who think they have infinite thoughts, and have special realizations based on that, have simply gone insane. It's fairly common. Then they start to preach like they were the voice of the universe.

Are there some people who really think that they have infinite thoughts?

And, are there some people who really start to talk/preach like they are/have the voice of the Universe, within them?

I wonder WHY?

[Age]

Absolute certainty is impossible in a Bayesian framework. It's equivalent to "infinite evidence".

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Absolute_certainty

Is a bayesian framework an absolute framework?

Is the impossibility of 'absolute certainty' absolutely certain?

If 'absolute certainty is impossible' as some insist that it is, then why do those same people say some things with absolute certainty?

[TimeSeeker]

Is a bayesian framework an absolute framework?

Is the impossibility of 'absolute certainty' absolutely certain?

If 'absolute certainty is impossible' as some insist that it is, then why do those same people say some things with absolute certainty?

It's a tool. It's like asking "is the hammer I am holding an absolute tool?". Is science an absolute framework? I don't even understand what that question means...

The Bayesian framework is a tool for updating old probabilities with new information.

You seem to be conflating epistemic certainty with 'spoken certainty'. The latter is a non-sensical notion.

My epistemic (and non-absolute) certainty is the reason for me speaking. I could be wrong...

[Age]

Is a bayesian framework an absolute framework?

Is the impossibility of 'absolute certainty' absolutely certain?

If 'absolute certainty is impossible' as some insist that it is, then why do those same people say some things with absolute certainty?

It's a tool. It's like asking "is the hammer I am holding an absolute tool?".

Ah i see you edited and rephrased your question. Now it makes more sense. But it would make even more sense to ask your self; Is the hammer I am holding an absolute hammer? Still not a really sensible question but now makes more sense then your original question.

I don't even understand what that question means...

Fair enough. You are not meant to understand every thing.

Does it even make sense to speak about certainty when talking about the past tense and present location?

Not sure. I do not understand the question.

[TimeSeeker]

Fair enough. You are not meant to understand every thing.

But you are the one who preaches for understanding oneself, right?

So you must (at the very least) understand the reason for the questions you are asking. WHY do you ask "Is the hammer I am holding an absolute hammer?"

Suppose that it is not an "absolute hammer". Then suppose that it's not an "absolute hammer". What's the difference?

WHY does the hammer's "absoluteness" matter to you?

[surreptitious57]

One should avoid claiming absolute certainty for anything unless it can actually be demonstrated to be so
Any knowledge not arrived at by deduction cannot be absolute so must instead be regarded as provisional

[TimeSeeker]

One should avoid claiming absolute certainty for anything unless it can actually be demonstrated to be so
Any knowledge not arrived at by deduction cannot be absolute so must instead be regarded as provisional

There is no such thing as "absolute certainty". Deductive knowledge is not absolute. You ignore the probability that the general principle from which you are deducing could be wrong. You ignore the probability of your own error in reasoning. Or error in your tools.

https://xkcd.com/1132/

[Age]

Fair enough. You are not meant to understand every thing.

But you are the one who preaches for understanding oneself, right?

So you must (at the very least) understand the reason for the questions you are asking. WHY do you ask "Is the hammer I am holding an absolute hammer?"

Suppose that it is not an "absolute hammer". Then suppose that it's not an "absolute hammer". What's the difference?

WHY does the hammer's "absoluteness" matter to you?

Because I was going to get to; Is it the right tool for the job?

[TimeSeeker]

Because I was going to get to; Is it the right tool for the job?

What's the job; and how does the 'absoluteness' of the hammer fit into you tool-selection process?

[surreptitious57]

One should avoid claiming absolute certainty for anything unless it can actually be demonstrated to be so
Any knowledge not arrived at by deduction cannot be absolute so must instead be regarded as provisional

There is no such thing as absolute certainty . Deductive knowledge is not absolute . You ignore the probability that the general
principle from which you are deducing could be wrong . You ignore the probability of your own error in reasoning . Or error in your tools

Mathematical proofs which are deductive are absolutely true because they cannot be anything else

[TimeSeeker]

Mathematical proofs which are deductive are absolutely true because they cannot be anything else

A mathematical proof establishes that a conjecture is consistent with the framework's axioms. If that is what you call "true" - then OK.

It begs the question: are the axioms true?

[TimeSeeker]

Mathematical proofs which are deductive are absolutely true because they cannot be anything else

Not to mention that proofs are not always deductive. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_theory

Proof theory is a major branch of mathematical logic that represents proofs as formal mathematical objects, facilitating their analysis by mathematical techniques. Proofs are typically presented as inductively-defined data structures such as plain lists, boxed lists, or trees, which are constructed according to the axioms and rules of inference of the logical system. As such, proof theory is syntactic in nature, in contrast to model theory, which is semantic in nature.

Because a proof is the same as an algorithm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry–How ... espondence ) I can tell you there is nothing deductive about writing software. It is inductive/deductive/pragmatic - it is iterative ala scientific method!

[surreptitious57]

I regard mathematics as the most rigorous discipline there is because it is deductive
Science is only inductive and is not as rigorous because evidence cannot be absolute

[TimeSeeker]

I regard mathematics as the most rigorous discipline there is because it is deductive
Science is only inductive and is not as rigorous because evidence cannot be absolute

So you equate deduction (e.g logical consistency, e.g law of non-contradiction) with rigour? Why?

Logic/mathematics are man-made. So are its axioms, so are its principles.

[Age]

Because I was going to get to; Is it the right tool for the job?

What's the job; and how does the 'absoluteness' of the hammer fit into you tool-selection process?

You wrote; "Absolute certainty is impossible in a Bayesian framework."

What I was getting at is; Who cares if absolute certainty is impossible in a tool like a bayesian framework?

bayesian framework is just another tool, in existence. If absolute certainty is impossible in this one tool, of countless tools, how does that have any bearing on if there is an absolute certainty about other things, like for example; if the Universe is alone or not?