Philosophy Now Forum

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 2:34 pmWhat, "certain knowledge crowd," would that be? Since Hume and Kant destroyed epistemology, there is not a single philosopher I know who holds the view of certain knowledge. Can you name any?

Well, it's been the dream of rationalists to develop certain knowledge from a logically watertight foundation since Parmenides pointed out that something definitely exists. Famously of course, René Descartes thought it was himself. Both were trying to create what Kant thought was self-contradictory; an analytic a posteriori proposition. Parmenides 'Being is' is it. That is the full extent of the sort of 'certain knowledge' that rationalists are after. The trouble is, nothing follows from it with the same logical necessity. Even advocates of rationalism generally concede that the best they can achieve is inference to the best explanation, IBE for short.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 12:15 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:03 am Navigating to reality is what education including arts and science ideally is for, despite political pressures.

Yea, but that's only in spirit. The reality of the matter is that the problem of induction is an erudite way of saying "we are all blind to the future".

With or without political pressures, we all have to eat tomorrow. And then there's all other complex human needs...

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:03 am I looked at the well-ordering URL you recommended. Sets theory is entirely new to me and from what I can understand a well ordered set contains no subsets or items that are not necessary subsets or other items.

Don't read too much into the mathematics - it can get pretty abstract pretty quickly. Time is a well-ordered set. There's a beginning, an end and you can tell the difference between "before" and "after".

If you comprehend that conceptually, then the English phrase "the beginning of time" translates so the sentence "The First Cause". Add your own theistic undertones if you will.

Structurally and when reduced to the extreme, all beliefs-systems have that element. Difference being that no crusades/wars have happened because of the least elements of well ordered sets.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:03 am In Biblical terms, if you will, He knows when the sparrow falls. My bias is towards nature as the well ordered set of well ordered sets. I hope I am making sense despite sets theory is new to me.

I understand exactly what you mean - a timeline outside of our timeline.

Abstract mathematics goes there too (without the theism).

If you imagine the number line starting at 0 as a well-ordered set, then the numbers look a lot like time.
And if the numbers are like time, then second order arithmetic is like the timeline outside of our timeline.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:03 am I know my bias is no more than blind faith however I am emotionally prepared to change my mind.

Emotionally, your bias is exactly right. Mathematicians/scientists just work really hard towards expressing those intuitions in formal language.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:03 am I also looked at the URL about downward causation. It's news to me and thanks for the introduction. I thought downward causation is the same as every event being a necessary event within the set of sets and due to the integrity of the set of sets i.e. nature (existence itself)

Yes, conceptually you have this figured out, except for the issue of free will. If every event was a necessary event, then there's nothing different to billiards balls. We made them - we knock them around tables.

But our choice to make them and knock them around was necessary, and part of the well-ordered set that is nature itself. So is that downward or upward causation?

The answer depends on whether you are a monist or a dualist, I guess...

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 11:03 am . Please bear with me as I am a novice.

We all are! Language is just a fancy way of organizing our ignorance.

Is a set that is not a member of itself the same as a set of uncaused members?I.e is definition the same as cause?

For example the fullest possible definition of horse includes every event that is horse-connected. Every event that is horse-connected can't exclude unconventionally horse-related events such as the contemporaneous existence of predatory sabre toothed tigers, and infinitely more only limited by the beginning and end of time.

What items are undefined and are there such items?

uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 2:54 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 2:34 pmWhat, "certain knowledge crowd," would that be? Since Hume and Kant destroyed epistemology, there is not a single philosopher I know who holds the view of certain knowledge. Can you name any?

Well, it's been the dream of rationalists to develop certain knowledge from a logically watertight foundation since Parmenides pointed out that something definitely exists. Famously of course, René Descartes thought it was himself. Both were trying to create what Kant thought was self-contradictory; an analytic a posteriori proposition. Parmenides 'Being is' is it. That is the full extent of the sort of 'certain knowledge' that rationalists are after. The trouble is, nothing follows from it with the same logical necessity. Even advocates of rationalism generally concede that the best they can achieve is inference to the best explanation, IBE for short.

Skepdick implied that I belong to, "The Certain Knowledge crowd," and I was pointing out, in philosophy today there is no such crowd. No philosopher of the last two hundred years has held that position--except me. If there is such a crowd it is a very small one.

Philosophy has so corrupted language it is almost impossible to say anything true. I think what you have in mind by, "rationalists," are those who believe certain knowledge about exitense is possible using reason, (objective reason, perhaps), but unfortunately that is not what rationalism means in philosophy, (though it ought to). From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

That false dichotomy is almost insurmountable.

I suppose that is why there is so much objection to my article, "Certain Knowledge."

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 7:06 pm For example the fullest possible definition of horse includes every event that is horse-connected. Every event that is horse-connected can't exclude unconventionally horse-related events such as the contemporaneous existence of predatory sabre toothed tigers, and infinitely more only limited by the beginning and end of time.

Do you think concepts mean their definition?

uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 2:32 pm Did I miss your response to this Skepdick?

uwot wrote: ↑Mon May 18, 2020 2:31 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat May 16, 2020 3:58 pmThe derivative of the mathematical function which represents the historical murder rate over centuries of data is a certain value.

That value is not positive (murder is not increasing), and it's not zero (murder is not steady).

Murder is decreasing.

That's 2:1 unlikely, or just above 3 decibels of evidence.

What exactly have I misunderstood?

At the risk of playing mind-reader here, what you seem to be misunderstanding is metaprobability/p-values/statistical significance. Context and all that.

1/3 (n=5) is not the same thing as 1/3 (n=500000). The value for n is a function of discretising time.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 7:06 pm Is a set that is not a member of itself the same as a set of uncaused members?I.e is definition the same as cause?

That's largely a matter of perspective.

In one view - A set is an abstract Mathematical object, it exists separate from reality and doesn't represent anything except what its definition.
In another view - a set is a model for other things. e.g the universe is a set.

The notion of "causality" doesn't feature in Mathematics (not to my knowledge anyway).
The notion of change does.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 7:06 pm For example the fullest possible definition of horse includes every event that is horse-connected.

Exactly. In English - its history. If any one of those necessary pre-conditions didn't happen the horse wouldn't be there.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 7:06 pm Every event that is horse-connected can't exclude unconventionally horse-related events such as the contemporaneous existence of predatory sabre toothed tigers, and infinitely more only limited by the beginning and end of time.

Exactly. Where do you draw the line if time is continuous? The tree of life is very very complex and that picture doesn't even do it justice.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 7:06 pm What items are undefined and are there such items?

I assume you are asking a mathematical question, so the first example that comes to mind is division by zero.

uwot wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 2:54 pm

RCSaunders wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 2:34 pmWhat, "certain knowledge crowd," would that be? Since Hume and Kant destroyed epistemology, there is not a single philosopher I know who holds the view of certain knowledge. Can you name any?

Well, it's been the dream of rationalists to develop certain knowledge from a logically watertight foundation since Parmenides pointed out that something definitely exists. Famously of course, René Descartes thought it was himself. Both were trying to create what Kant thought was self-contradictory; an analytic a posteriori proposition. Parmenides 'Being is' is it. That is the full extent of the sort of 'certain knowledge' that rationalists are after. The trouble is, nothing follows from it with the same logical necessity. Even advocates of rationalism generally concede that the best they can achieve is inference to the best explanation, IBE for short.

Sidebar - and sorry if this is obvious: the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution, because it's those who 'have' knowledge who can be more or less certain. Certainty is an attitude or state-of-mind, and knowledge can have neither.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:09 am Sidebar - and sorry if this is obvious: the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution, because it's those who 'have' knowledge who can be more or less certain. Certainty is an attitude or state-of-mind, and knowledge can have neither.

Certainty is an assertion about the correctness of your knowledge.

I am 90% certain that it's raining outside, given the smell and the noise that I am hearing.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:09 am Certainty is an attitude or state-of-mind, and knowledge can have neither.

Knowledge is a state-of-mind too. If it isn't then where is "knowledge" located?

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:09 am Sidebar - and sorry if this is obvious: the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution, because it's those who 'have' knowledge who can be more or less certain. Certainty is an attitude or state-of-mind, and knowledge can have neither.

Do you have any 'certain' response to this OP?

What could make morality objective? 2
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

'Certainty is an assertion about the correctness of your knowledge.

I am 90% certain that it's raining outside, given the smell and the noise that I am hearing.'

So-called abstract things aren't assertions, any more than are real things.

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:21 am So-called abstract things aren't assertions, any more than are real things.

If I can explain it to a computer - it's not abstract.

I can explain it to a computer.

Skepdick wrote:
Where do you draw the line if time is continuous ?

Even if time is discrete the gaps in between would still be part of reality like anything else so the question would still apply
The simple answer would be to stop compartmentalising and accept that everything is ultimately connected to everything else
You spend too long looking at the tree and you might mistake it for the wood and so it helps to stay focused on the bigger picture
Of course we have to split reality up into pieces in order for us to understand it but we need to remember that that is just a model
And our model of reality is not the same as reality itself because it is merely an approximation - albeit a very accurate approximation

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:19 am

Peter Holmes wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:09 am Sidebar - and sorry if this is obvious: the expression 'certain knowledge' is a misattribution, because it's those who 'have' knowledge who can be more or less certain. Certainty is an attitude or state-of-mind, and knowledge can have neither.

Do you have any 'certain' response to this OP?

What could make morality objective? 2
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29390

No. I read it, of course - but I didn't think it added anything to your argument, with which I disagree, as you know.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 7:56 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 7:06 pm Is a set that is not a member of itself the same as a set of uncaused members?I.e is definition the same as cause?

That's largely a matter of perspective.

In one view - A set is an abstract Mathematical object, it exists separate from reality and doesn't represent anything except what its definition.
In another view - a set is a model for other things. e.g the universe is a set.

The notion of "causality" doesn't feature in Mathematics (not to my knowledge anyway).
The notion of change does.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 7:06 pm For example the fullest possible definition of horse includes every event that is horse-connected.

Exactly. In English - its history. If any one of those necessary pre-conditions didn't happen the horse wouldn't be there.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 7:06 pm Every event that is horse-connected can't exclude unconventionally horse-related events such as the contemporaneous existence of predatory sabre toothed tigers, and infinitely more only limited by the beginning and end of time.

Exactly. Where do you draw the line if time is continuous? The tree of life is very very complex and that picture doesn't even do it justice.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat May 23, 2020 7:06 pm What items are undefined and are there such items?

I assume you are asking a mathematical question, so the first example that comes to mind is division by zero.

The notion of "causality" doesn't feature in Mathematics (not to my knowledge anyway).
The notion of change does.

Is change a name for disparity , i.e. no sameness, both temporal and stationary e.g. Yin and Yang? If causation is not what links events then the believer in orderedness must trust some other linking function exists. Mathematicians believe and presume 3 is not the same as 4 not so? Time is continuous ;is space continuous until , as we do with time, we pretend for our convenience it comes in little parcels?

Where do you draw the line if time is continuous?

At social reality which is a form of subjective reality. Social reality emerges from material environments such as climate and terrain . Social reality includes rules about how individuals cooperate: so back to the main topic. I am not a Platonist and I claim mathematics belongs, like morality and aesthetics, with social reality. My bias.

It's true that musical harmonies, spiral shells, and other phenomena seem to point to Platonic eternal truth , and I don't know how to refute that theory.

What items are undefined and are there such items?

I assume you are asking a mathematical question, so the first example that comes to mind is division by zero.

Then there is no event that can't possibly be defined and differentiated from other events. That is tantamount to claiming nature is ordered=each event is a necessary event=necessity is the engine of the Big Bang. It follows from the Big Bang perspective morality as a function of social reality is a necessary event. It does not follow we know a) the whole picture of necessity and b) the morality subsection of the whole picture of necessity.

From previous experience we, as animals can learn, and we do know our most efficacious way to Big Bang moral necessity is reason i.e. knowledge and judgement. NB not, as theists believe, via revelation from on high.
It is a pleasant thought that other animals are in the Garden of Eden and not burdened with existential angst. Robert Burns wrote a nice poem called "To a Mouse" after that theme .

Last stanza:

"Thou art blessed compared wi me,
For backwards I can cast my ee
On prospects drear
And forward, though I canna see

I guess and fear. "

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:44 am Is change a name for disparity

I wouldn't word it like that.

Change is a phenomenon that humans experience. This is a statement about human experience, before we define or study what change actually is.
The mathematical discipline called Calculus gave us a formal framework to measure/model change and talk about it.

Calculus gave us a language/vocabulary to talk (and think) about change.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:44 am , i.e. no sameness, both temporal and stationary e.g. Yin and Yang? If causation is not what links events then the believer in orderedness must trust some other linking function exists.

These are deep questions. Nobody really knows. Reality

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:44 am Mathematicians believe and presume 3 is not the same as 4 not so?

That's a trivial truth. The more interesting question is "How many numbers exist between 3 and 4"?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:44 am Time is continuous ;is space continuous until , as we do with time, we pretend for our convenience it comes in little parcels?

If 3 and 4 are integers, then the answer to the question is 0. There are no integers between 3 and 4.
if 3 and 4 are real numbers, then the answer is infinity. There are infinitely many numbers between 3 and 4.

3.0000000000...1
3.0000000000...2

Integers are discrete - they come in parcels. You can count them.
Real numbers are continuous - they are on a spectrum. You can't count them.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:44 am At social reality which is a form of subjective reality. Social reality emerges from material environments such as climate and terrain . Social reality includes rules about how individuals cooperate: so back to the main topic. I am not a Platonist and I claim mathematics belongs, like morality and aesthetics, with social reality. My bias.

I am on-board with that bias. Mathematicians (like logicians, philosophers, engineers, scientists) are just a sub-cultures of broader, human society.

But do you see the exact same pattern emerge here?

Are there little, discrete, categories of "mathematician", "philosopher", "scientist" or are we all humans on a spectrum?

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun May 24, 2020 8:44 am It's true that musical harmonies, spiral shells, and other phenomena seem to point to Platonic eternal truth , and I don't know how to refute that theory.

I think all philosophical view-points are useful thinking tools. I don't want to refute any one of them. I keep all the useful philosophies in my toolbox, and I wear them like hats when I need to.

Horses for courses.