Is our universe alone?

[surreptitious57]

Not to mention that proofs are not always deductive

This is true but deductive proof is as rigorous as it gets
A deductive proof that is absolutely true can not ever be disproven such as I + I = 2 for example
This is because all numbers have a precise value and occupy a specific place on the number line

[TimeSeeker]

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?

Well, because certainty/uncertainty are epistemic phenomena and Bayesian inference is an epistemic tool.

And so you could be "absolutely certain" about X (all swans are white) until you aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[TimeSeeker]

This is true but deductive proof is as rigorous as it gets
A deductive proof that is absolutely true can not ever be disproven such as I + I = 2 for example
This is because all numbers have a precise value and occupy a specific place on the number line

That's because 1+1=2 is axiomatic.

There is a problem with your assertion. There are truths within a framework of axioms which are not deducible directly FROM the axioms, but they are consistent WITH the axioms. That is to say: truth is a higher notion than proof.

This comes straight from Godel's incompleteness theorems. https://youtu.be/O4ndIDcDSGc

[Age]

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?

Well, because certainty/uncertainty are epistemic phenomena and Bayesian inference is an epistemic tool.

And so you could be "absolutely certain" about X (all swans are white) until you aren't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

Which is WHY I continually explain, to you, that NO matter WHAT views I have I always remain OPEN, so that means that I am NOT absolutely certain. That is; up to a certain point. Of which I have explained enough times already to you.

You, "timeseeker', is the type of person that I questioned about in regards to WHY you state things - with 'absolute certainty'?

[TimeSeeker]

Which is WHY I continually explain, to you, that NO matter WHAT views I have I always remain OPEN, so that means that I am NOT absolutely certain. That is; up to a certain point. Of which I have explained enough times already to you.

You, "timeseeker', is the type of person that I questioned about in regards to WHY you state things - with 'absolute certainty'?

And I already told you that "stating things with absolute certainty" is a silly idea. There is no certainty in WORDS. There is certainty in KNOWLEDGE.

I say what I say because I am reasonably certain that what I say is correct. If I wasn't certain - I wouldn't say it.
And if I am incorrect - you can provide the evidence to correct me.

[Age]

Which is WHY I continually explain, to you, that NO matter WHAT views I have I always remain OPEN, so that means that I am NOT absolutely certain. That is; up to a certain point. Of which I have explained enough times already to you.

You, "timeseeker', is the type of person that I questioned about in regards to WHY you state things - with 'absolute certainty'?

And I already told you that "stating things with absolute certainty" is a silly idea.

I say what I say because I am reasonably certain that what I say is correct.

Are you absolutely certain that "stating things with absolute certainty" IS a silly idea?

Or, are you just reasonably certain that it is. Therefore, you could be completely WRONG, once again?

[TimeSeeker]

Are you absolutely certain that "stating things with absolute certainty" IS a silly idea?

No. I am not absolutely certain. But I am certain enough to say it.

[Age]

Are you absolutely certain that "stating things with absolute certainty" IS a silly idea?

I am certain enough to say it.

So, you are NEVER absolute certain about any thing you say, CORRECT?

[TimeSeeker]

So, you are NEVER absolute certain about any thing you say, CORRECT?

I don't understand what that means. I already told you that certainty is not a property of words. It's a property of knowledge/beliefs.

[surreptitious57]

Logic / mathematics are man made

Are you absolutely certain of this ?

You think that mathematics was invented not discovered ?
What evidence if any do you have to support this theory ?

The symbols are definitely man made but the discipline itself might not be so
Whether it was invented or discovered is a question no one has the answer to

This remains an unanswered question after thousands of years so you should not be so certain

[TimeSeeker]

You think that mathematics was invented not discovered ?
What evidence if any do you have to support this theory ?

The symbols are definitely man made but the discipline itself might not be so
Whether it was invented or discovered is a question no one has the answer to

This remains an unanswered question after thousands of years so you should not be so certain

I have sufficient certainty to lean the way of invention. The evidence is that there was no mathematics before humans. There is no mathematics without the symbols either.
The evidence is also that deduction without empiricism leads nowhere: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

It only creates structure.

[Age]

So, you are NEVER absolute certain about any thing you say, CORRECT?

I don't understand what that means. I already told you that certainty is not a property of words. It's a property of knowledge/beliefs.

Did you? Can you point us to that thread you wrote in which you told me this?

Also, how many other observers have noticed how quick "timeseeker" is to respond by answering, except when that one called "timeseeker" notices what happens if they answer Honestly and Openly, like this time.

"I do not understand, what that means", now response instead.

It was, and still is, a very simple question; Do you know/BELIEVE, with absolute certainty, about any thing you say?

[Age]

You think that mathematics was invented not discovered ?
What evidence if any do you have to support this theory ?

The symbols are definitely man made but the discipline itself might not be so
Whether it was invented or discovered is a question no one has the answer to

This remains an unanswered question after thousands of years so you should not be so certain

I have sufficient certainty to lean the way of invention. The evidence is that there was no mathematics before humans. There is no mathematics without the symbols either.
The evidence is also that deduction without empiricism leads nowhere: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

It only creates structure.

Does 'evidence' provide absolute certainty?

[TimeSeeker]

You think that mathematics was invented not discovered ?
What evidence if any do you have to support this theory ?

The symbols are definitely man made but the discipline itself might not be so
Whether it was invented or discovered is a question no one has the answer to

This remains an unanswered question after thousands of years so you should not be so certain

I have sufficient certainty to lean the way of invention. The evidence is that there was no mathematics before humans. There is no mathematics without the symbols either.
The evidence is also that deduction without empiricism leads nowhere: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

It only creates structure.

Does 'evidence' provide absolute certainty?

How do I tell if it does?

[Age]

I have sufficient certainty to lean the way of invention. The evidence is that there was no mathematics before humans. There is no mathematics without the symbols either.
The evidence is also that deduction without empiricism leads nowhere: https://philosophynow.org/issues/46/New ... aser_Sword

It only creates structure.

Does 'evidence' provide absolute certainty?

How do I tell if it does?

Are you really asking me now what the answer to this question is ESPECIALLY AFTER I have on countless times ALREADY explained to you HOW TO find absolute certainty, and thus KNOW, for sure?

Are you absolutely certain that you do NOT have alzhiemers?

In case you have forgotten, this is the third time that I have asked you this question.