The Fatal Paradox

@mark noble,

mark noble;162986 wrote:

Hi Zetherin,

I only deal with absolute definitives - I find any deviation from can lead to imprecise statements and discussions, because of the variability of the detractment from the absolute.

But, I know inderstand you more clearly, thank you for returning to this quote, by the way.

What, indeed, can anyone be certain of - if not their own beliefs.

Fare well fellow philosopher.

Mark...

Well, you ought to loosen up. Even if you insist on being definite (not "definitive", the world is not like that. It is, after all, not not the world that is simple, but often it is those who try to philosophize who are.

What can we be certain of. Well, it depend on whether you mean "subjective" or "objective" certainty. But Descartes place a famous candidate in the field for objective certainty. It was "I exist". Not a bad candidate.

Since we sometimes deceive ourselves about what it is we believe, I doubt that we can be objectively certain of my own belief.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;162993 wrote:

Yes. I am certain of this.

But, remember, when I state I am certain of something, I am not stating that I cannot be wrong. Because I know I'm fallible.

Don't you think it easier to hold a discussion with someone, if they actually mean what they say? It saves analysing the structure of said conversation by trying to determine how variable their interpretation of a dictionary-defined word is interpreted by them, and them alone?

I'm an author, and am not cryptical in my work, because it dissuades the reader from the subject.
Ambiguous? yes, but not cryptical.

Anyway - That's your prerogative and not my concern.

Does simplify things though...

thank you, an indeterminable amount, and fare well, an indeterminable amount.

Mark...

@mark noble,

mark noble;162999 wrote:

Don't you think it easier to hold a discussion with someone, if they actually mean what they say? It saves analysing the structure of said conversation by trying to determine how variable their interpretation of a dictionary-defined word is interpreted by them, and them alone?

I'm an author, and am not cryptical in my work, because it dissuades the reader from the subject.
Ambiguous? yes, but not cryptical.

Anyway - That's your prerogative and not my concern.

Does simplify things though...

thank you, an indeterminable amount, and fare well, an indeterminable amount.

Mark...

I did mean what I said...

What do you think I'm being unclear, or cryptic about?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;162997 wrote:

Well, you ought to loosen up. Even if you insist on being definite (not "definitive", the world is not like that. It is, after all, not not the world that is simple, but often it is those who try to philosophize who are.

What can we be certain of. Well, it depend on whether you mean "subjective" or "objective" certainty. But Descartes place a famous candidate in the field for objective certainty. It was "I exist". Not a bad candidate.

Since we sometimes deceive ourselves about what it is we believe, I doubt that we can be objectively certain of my own belief.

Hi Ken,

Sorry for my abrubtness.

fare well

Mark...

@mark noble,

mark noble;163001 wrote:

Hi Ken,

I don't accord correct usage of words because I'm uptight, like you. I do it because it is logical.
No wonder little of what you say actually originated from your own brain.
Don't correct my spelling errors, I make them because I rush , not because I'm illiterate. (Remove the timber from your own eye, before trying to remove the splinter from your brother's).

You are not the foremost authority on life, the universe and everything.
Even though you assume that you are.

Your opinion is just that (your opinion) It is no more valid than mine or anybody else's.

Anyway have a fantastic evening and that thereafter.

Hear from you soon, no doubt?

Mark...

You fooled me. I thought you were being polite in this thread.

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;163000 wrote:

I did mean what I said...

What do you think I'm being unclear, or cryptic about?

Hi Zetherin,

Empty is empty and full is full - do you agree?

Are they not absolutes?

If you think about it long enough? It will come to you.

I'm off to bed now, so thank you and fare well.

Mark...

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 06:45 PM ----------

Zetherin;163005 wrote:

You fooled me. I thought you were being polite in this thread.

Hi Zetherin,

I am being polite, but when I am lectured on every element of my discourse - What can I do, but retaliate.

Ken's a lovely guy, and I don't mean any insult by my post.
I respect his opinion, as I do all opinion that comes my way, even yours (ha-ha-ha).

Anyway, Ken can take it. He's an adult at heart>

See you soon Zeth...

Mark...

@fast,

fast;162936 wrote:

No I didn't. At least I don't think I did. I am saying that all events have causes. Again, there is no event without a cause.

If there is no event without a cause, then every event has a cause. And if every event has a cause, then every event just IS an effect of some cause, since it is a necessary analytic truth that every cause has an effect, just as every effect has a cause. Q.E.D.

There's no other way around this, so I don't know what the rest of your speculations are about.

@mark noble,

mark noble;163007 wrote:

Hi Zetherin,

Empty is empty and full is full - do you agree?

Are they not absolutes?

If you think about it long enough? It will come to you.

I'm off to bed now, so thank you and fare well.

Mark...

Don't follow a snarky remark with "thank you and fare well", as if you're trying to trick me into believing you're being genuinely polite. You place a small hedge in an otherwise sarcastic response and expect me to buy what you're selling. Not this guy.

@kennethamy,

Determinism rests its weight and its height on the idea of what is Eternal... of what cannot be undone...nor forgotten, or falsified, because its True, and its Truth, as all there is...Truth, the thing of all things, that is Necessary and sufficient in itself...the thing, which is Existence, as existence at the deepest core of what meaning and intention can carry in our limited human comprehension...Truth as the basis of togetherness, of communication and recognition and Conscience...
Whatever can be denied, only confirms it...
Whatever can be forgotten, justifies it..
Whatever can be said or thought, if it is done, it is done as word of truth... ...as Truth, is what allows it and supports it... thus bringing the purpose and justification of Cause, to the world, the only World...Universal cannot be otherwise !

Best Regards>FILIPE DE ALBUQUERQUE

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;163012 wrote:

Don't follow a snarky remark with "thank you and fare well", as if you're trying to trick me into believing you're being genuinely polite. You place a hedge in an otherwise sarcastic response and expect me to buy what you're selling. Not this guy.

Hi Zetherin,

I really want to go to sleep now.

What do you mean by "snarky"?
I am simply supplying two extremes "Empty and full" - "East and west"
I'm not implying that you are empty, full, East or west - Just providing unadjustable absolutes, ie - To add any quantity to empty is to reclassify it - After all, It is no longer empty - The same with full, East, west, and so on.

I left it at that because I presumed it easily identifiable with our recent discussion - Hence - It will come to you "MY POINT" that is.

I'm not being sarcastic, nor, whatever "snarky" means.

As for my bidding you fare well, I'm referring to your well-being hereafter.

Do your circles typically promote mistrust, or something?

Mine don't, therefore I don't project it either.

Read it as you see fit though.

Thank you, and fare well

Mark...

@mark noble,

[QUOTE=mark noble;162988]Hi Zetherin,[/QUOTE]

mark noble;162988 wrote:

Are you certain of this?

Fare well.

Mark...

I am certain that I am not certain, but I am not certain that I am certain.

That sure looks contradictory doesn't it! Well, that's what happens when I get involved. I bring confusion where there once wasn't, and where this is confusion, I make it even worst. But hey, I'll clean it up a bit before I go.

Some words have more than one meaning, and words that do are ambiguous, and the word "certain" is ambiguous, so it has more than one meaning.

One meaning (the common meaning) of "certainty" has to do with psychological certainty. We can refer to this as confidence. For example, when Joey said that he was certain, all he meant was that he was confident. Confidence comes in degrees. (eg: very confident, moderately confident, slightly confident).

Another meaning (often used in philosophical circles) of "certainty" has to do with infallibility--or the impossibility of mistake. If it's true that a person is infallible, then it's true that it's impossible for that person to make a mistake. Fallibility doesn't come in degrees like confidence does. A person is either fallible or a person is infallible--no degrees at all. This particular meaning of certainty goes by many names: 1) philosophical certainty, 2) Cartesian certainty, 3) epistemic certainty. Whatever they call it, they certainly don't mean confidence.

There's another poster around that thinks there are a few things we can be certain about. Of course, I'm not talking about confidence here. The only time we talk about confidence is when it's apparent people are mistaking what we say with psychological certainty.

Suppose it's true that there are some things we can't be mistaken about. My bet is that the list is mighty short! But, interestingly enough, even if there are a few things we can be certain about; hence, even if there are a few things we can't be mistaken about, that's most assuredly not meant to imply that we humans are therefore infallible, for there are still many things in which we can (and are) mistaken about. In short, we are not infallible, not at all.

Just for fun, I'd like to revisit my opening line: "I am certain that I am not certain, but I am not certain that I am certain." What do you make of the first part? Given that I believe we are not infallible, I wouldn't mean "infallible" when I said, "I am certain" so what I'm certain about (aka confident about) is that I am not what? You guessed it. The first part of the sentence is meant to express, "I am confident that I am not infallible."

Before I take you to the latter half of the opening line, I want to revisit yet something else I said. Recall, psychological certainty comes in degrees whereas Cartesian certainty does not, but isn't it also true that a person can or can not be psychologically certain? Yes, I do believe so; hence, even though psychological certainty can be expressed in degrees of confidence, it can also be expressed as either/or; hence, a person can say I'm confident or say that I'm not confident; moreover, a person can be certain or not certain--just as a person can express that they are or are not infallible.

With that in mind, what do you make of the latter portion of my opening line? The line again is, "I am certain that I am not certain, but I am not certain that I am certain." Obviously, I am turning the statement around, so the statement (in shorthand) would read, "I am C1 that I am not C2, but I am not C2 that I am C1" where C1 has to do with psychological certainty (or confidence) and where C2 has to do with Cartesian certainty (infallibility).

But, notice how it reads (in long hand): I am CONFIDENT that I am not INFALLIBLE, but I am not INFALLIBLE that I am CONFIDENT.

The first part is very smooth and feels good to the ear, but the second part comes across as rough--like something ain't quite right. Notice what happens when we add either "certain" or "confident" in just the right place:

"I am CONFIDENT that I am not INFALLIBLE, but I am not INFALLIBL[Y] [CERTAIN] that I am CONFIDENT.

"I am CONFIDENT that I am not INFALLIBLE, but I am not INFALLIBL[Y] [CONFIDENT] that I am CONFIDENT.

This is where language becomes tricky. Remember, I substituted "certain" for Infallible, and it's not until I add it (or "confident") back does the sentence begin to sound smooth again. I wonder what "infallibly confident" would even mean? I suppose it's a mishmash of the two concepts: One mistaken person might say that he is not only confident but so confident that it's impossible that he could be mistaken. Of course, that's not what I said. I said, "I am not certain that I am certain;" hence, I am not so confident that it's impossible that I am mistaken.

At any rate, the thing to keep in mind is simply not to confuse certainty with certainty; hence, don't confuse psychological certainty with Epistemic certainty; hence, don't confuse confidence with the impossibility of mistake.

May we all fare at least so-so. Very Happy

@TuringEquivalent,

TuringEquivalent;162905 wrote:

I did say "if the world W is deterministic". I did not at all claim anything about the actual world. I claim that E is necessary given that E is a state in a deterministic world. This did not say anything about this world.

This is irrelevant. You say that "Fatalism is true" is an a posteriori claim ("possibly true" or not, it doesn't matter). "A posteriori" MEANS the knowledge you have about fatalism being true is derived from your own sense-experience. For the last time, what empirical evidence do you have that suggests fatalism is true?

TuringEquivalent;162905 wrote:

Why is this surprising? Suppose it is the case that our universe is actual one amount many, and it is ( not surprisingly) such that we don ` t know if there are one, or many universes. In this case, the answer is completely outside of our( whole human race) capacity to know. Even so, there might be some aliens in a different universe that are able to see our universe, and others. To them, the answer is not outside their capacity to know the answer. For Christ sake, i am not claiming anything about the actual world. If you want, we can get into the mind set of David Lewis. There are possible worlds, and they are all concrete. Some of those worlds are completely random, and some are governed by some deterministic equation. It is perfectly intuitive for me to think that the latter is where fatalism is true, and the former is where fatalism is false. Get it?

It simply doesn't mattter you think some worlds are fatalistic and not others. You explicitly say fatalism is an a posteriori claim. That means you know fatalism is true via your own sense-experience. So again, what empirical evidence do you have that suggests fatalism is true?

TuringEquivalent;162905 wrote:

I am angry, and you don` t want to make me angry. When i am angry, i turn into a giant green monster capable of massive destruction.

That's pretty cool--just like "The Incredible Hulk"?

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;163000 wrote:

I did mean what I said...

What do you think I'm being unclear, or cryptic about?

Yes, indeed, That is an excellent question since he blithely insinuates that you are being cryptic or unclear, without a scintilla of evidence that he is right. But, it has to be admitted, he does so in a deceptively pleasant way.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

yes, indeed, that is an excellent question since he blithely insinuates that you are being cryptic or unclear, without a scintilla of evidence that he is right. But, it has to be admitted, he does so in a deceptively pleasant way.

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil. Albuquerque;163032 wrote:

Why yes, of course they can. Why would you think I don't think so?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;163035 wrote:

Why yes, of course they can. Why would you think I don't think so?

because it simply does not seam to apply in the case...

@Extrain,

Extrain;163011 wrote:

If there is no event without a cause, then every event has a cause. And if every event has a cause, then every event just IS an effect of some cause, since it is a necessary analytic truth that every cause has an effect, just as every effect has a cause. Q.E.D.

There's no other way around this, so I don't know what the rest of your speculations are about.

Effect = caused event

Every billiard ball will stop soon after the break. The last ball that stops is the last event. Every event has a cause, and that last event is no exception. An effect is a caused event, and the last ball that stopped was a caused event, so the last ball that stopped was an effect. I can understand why you think the last event is a caused event, but I can't understand why you think the last event is a cause.

I say every event has a cause, and I also say there is no effect without a cause, but my not calling the last event a cause is not to say what you think it does. The last event was an effect (a caused event), so I am not denying that there was a cause. I'm denying that the last effect is a cause. Yes, the event had a cause, but that last event/effect which had a cause is not itself a cause. If it was, there would be a subsequent event/effect.

@fast,

fast;163038 wrote:

Every billiard ball will stop soon after the break. The last ball that stops is the last event. Every event has a cause, and that last event is no exception. An effect is a caused event, and the last ball that stopped was a caused event, so the last ball that stopped was an effect. I can understand why you think the last event is a caused event, but I can't understand why you think the last event is a cause.

But all those events which have a cause are effects of those causes. And since every event has a cause, then every event is an effect of some prior cause.

If you deny this, then you are saying every event has a cause, but some of those events which are, in fact, causes, do not have effects. But this is false if every event has a cause.

The only way out of this is to say that some events do not have causes.

[QUOTE=fast;163038] I say every event has a cause, and I also say there is no effect without a cause, but my not calling the last event a cause is not to say what you think it does. The last event was an effect (a caused event), so I am not denying that there was a cause. I'm denying that the last effect is a cause. Yes, the event had a cause, but that last event/effect which had a cause is not itself a cause. If it was, there would be a subsequent event/effect.[/QUOTE]Why are you localizing causation? You obviously think that for some actions, there are not equal and opposite reactions. But that's absurd. The pool balls which stop on the pool table, are still causes of other events; it's just that the effects of their very small masses (and forces) are not noticeable--but they are certainly still causes. Friction just stops them from moving since friction is a causal interference which stops them from striking eachother indefinitely on the table.

@mark noble,

mark noble;162938 wrote:

Can you please sum-up What exactly Determinism is, for me?

See post 653.

fast;162994 wrote:

I was thinking that maybe he was talking about separate events that occur in nature. For example, a dog barking in someone's backyard in Montana is one event, and a chemistry professor teaching students about isotopes in a classroom in Denmark is another event, but could it be that he doesn't view those two events as separate events?

Obviously I wasn't talking about events with the phrase "isolated interactions"

ughaibu;162557 wrote:

1) there are no isolated interactions, in this world. So, if determinism is the case, then it concerns global states. This puts determinism at odds with any notion of an event, because events are irreducibly local and determinism is irreducibly global.

Had I been doing so, the above passage wouldn't make sense.

@ughaibu,

ughaibu;163050 wrote:

Obviously I wasn't talking about events with the phrase "isolated interactions"

Had I been doing so, the above passage wouldn't make sense.

Okay. So now I know that you didn't mean what I thought you did.

Should I guess again?

---------- Post added 05-11-2010 at 04:14 PM ----------

[QUOTE=Extrain;163048]But all those events which have a cause are effects of those causes.[/QUOTE]We are in agreement.

[QUOTE]And since every event has a cause, then every event is an effect of some prior cause. [/QUOTE]We are still in agreement.

[QUOTE]If you deny this,[/QUOTE]I'm not.

[QUOTE]then you are saying every event has a cause, but some of those events which are, in fact, causes, do not have effects.[/QUOTE]Now, this is something different altogether. "Every event is a cause" and "every event has a cause" do not mean the same thing. I agree with latter but not the former. Well, maybe I agree with both, but I'm still arguing that they are different, but I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, as this all goes back to what we were discussing earlier about what determinism is.

Every event has a cause, but that alone isn't enough to jump to the conclusion that every event will have a SUBSEQUENT effect. Not even the recognition that where there is no effect there is no cause will help make that jump.

[QUOTE]Why are you localizing causation? You obviously think that for some actions, there are not equal and opposite reactions. But that's absurd. The pool balls which stop on the pool table, are still causes of other events; it's just that the effects of their very small masses (and forces) are not noticeable--but they are certainly still causes. Friction just stops them from moving since friction is a causal interference which stops them from striking each other indefinitely on the table.[/QUOTE]
Now we're finally getting somewhere. At this juncture, it doesn't matter all that much whether I'm right or wrong about whether all effects are causes.

I'd be happy at this point in a recognition on your part that there is at least a difference between 1) all events are causes and 2) all events have causes. If all events are causes (like you say), then not only do all caused events result in effected events, but all effected events serve as caused events.

If it's only the case that all events have causes, then just like earlier, all caused events result in effected events, but that's not to say that all effected events will serve as subsequent caused events. Many will, but the possibility that some won't remains, as we maintain the distinction.

[QUOTE]Why are you localizing causation? You obviously think that for some actions, there are not equal and opposite reactions. But that's absurd. The pool balls which stop on the pool table, are still causes of other events; it's just that the effects of their very small masses (and forces) are not noticeable--but they are certainly still causes. Friction just stops them from moving since friction is a causal interference which stops them from striking each other indefinitely on the table.[/QUOTE]
Equal and opposite reactions huh. Yeah, I do seem to remember that now that you mention it. Very Happy

I guess that's the missing piece that'll help us make that before-mentioned jump.

Philosophy Forum

The Fatal Paradox

Quick Links

My Account

able2know