On proof of existence.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

But, Georg Cantor, the great mathematician, not only conceived of infinite sets like the set of all integers, but also of transfinite sets, like the set of all real numbers. He conceived of grades of infinity. And, what's more, worked out the mathematics.

People conceive of God without a single demonstrable quality. Do they then really coneive of God, or only believe in a god of their own fabrication? When you talk about some electrical connections having infinite resistence it does not mean they cannot kill you in short order; but for most uses infinites do not exist except in the mind, as a sort of fantasy based upon reality, and no less unreal for that fact. If an infinite can be produced as evidence, studied, and filed then it can be conceived. Until that happens, spare me.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

People conceive of God without a single demonstrable quality. Do they then really coneive of God, or only believe in a god of their own fabrication? When you talk about some electrical connections having infinite resistence it does not mean they cannot kill you in short order; but for most uses infinites do not exist except in the mind, as a sort of fantasy based upon reality, and no less unreal for that fact. If an infinite can be produced as evidence, studied, and filed then it can be conceived. Until that happens, spare me.

As I pointed out, there are infinite sets, and even transinfinite sets (i.e. greater than infinite). Do you want to be spared of knowledge of this? That's easy. Just don't learn about it. But that doesn't mean that these things do not exist. Only that you don't know about them.

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Descartes is one of my favorite people to ever live.
I believe he came closest to truth when in a stove in Ulm he reduced the complexities of mankind to "I." Simplicity is the ulitimate process of true searching, and nothing is more productive. Unfortunately he couldn't stop at "I", because he did not know the truth of himself. Had he known the truth of himself, "I" is all he would have needed to say. By adding "think", he stepped into the quagmire and complexity of uncertainty, an uncertainty that still remains today for most, the uncertainty of true thought, or simply the absence of truth.

Furthermore, if he had simply added truth and said: Veritas cogito sum veritas, their would be no doubt of Descartes today.
Truth has no doubt.
Truth was his goal, and truth is all that was missing.
I love Descartes!

=
MJA

Descartes first lie was 'I'. His second lie was made of the first: I think. And his third lie was: I exist. An 'I' is a legal fiction built originally on the notion that we were created individually by God. We have disposed of God for the most part but have hung onto the 'I' like some ragged security blanket. I say I, and you say I, but 'I' is cant. It is one of those things we say like pledge of allegience that many of us lie to say and the rest never think about. What are we saying when we say I? Is it possible to ever isolate the individual in any more than in a temporary sense? And, the same may be said of thought. How free will any thought be when the whole means and method are given in advance? We get the great bulk of our knowledge whole. We can examine and test very little of it. We use it and it seems to work, but there is no real proof that we are not engineers on a thought railroad; able to go back and forth, but unable to cut a new path except to our destruction. The path is laid out for us, and whether passenger or pilot the destination is the same. That we think, proves nothing, but knowledge, and the knowledge with which we consider all new knowledge is a social effort. We think, for no one thinks alone.

While any activity tends to suggest life, nothing an individual person does suggests, let alone proves existence. If the individual lives it is because society exists. We are a part of a pre existing organism. The only ways humanity can be said to live is through all of the living people present and accounted for, and the only way of ending the existence of humanity is with the death of all human beings. Otherwise, people live and die, and humanity gives life and exists. No thing exists, and certainly no 'I', if not eternal. Matter exists. It is conserved, and while we know it can be turned into energy, that energy at rest, is matter. We are matter too, but no one is talking about the matter they are made of in saying 'I'. That I, that spiritual being, that soul, and personality, education and intelligence really needs no proof, and bears none. If it is obvious, then fine, and if it is in doubt it is usually for good reason. If we look at all knowledge we are looking at a grand collection of assumptions that most of us pick up and use because it works, and not because we can demonstrate its validity.

My question is this: If the question is life for each person, or existence for humanity; why do people trouble with proving what is obvious to all? We see we live with the same eyes which see the sun in the morning, but we do not doubt the sun. If there were some great error in the chain of logic that leads us to conclude all, beginning with life as an axium; would there not be massive moth holes the the fabric of our knowledge? Reality is real whether we can demonstrate all of its properties, or not, and reality behaves according to our laws as soon as we have the knowledge to formulate them; so why does one doubt essential being when it is unavoidable as a conclusion, and the axium of necessity for all other conclusion?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

As I pointed out, there are infinite sets, and even transinfinite sets (i.e. greater than infinite). Do you want to be spared of knowledge of this? That's easy. Just don't learn about it. But that doesn't mean that these things do not exist. Only that you don't know about them.

Infinity is a fast fish as soon as some one is fast to him. If you believe in the guy's proof of infinities it is because the near end works. If I say to you that parallel lines meet in infinity do you think you could show me the railroad tracks to prove it? I understand that it looks that way, but does it objectively work that way? There is nothing like math for proving subjective reality. Math is a good example of giving meaning without being. Since we cannot be in infinity to prove the numbers right; we are giving them, from our perspective, in the here and now, a correctness that will have no meaning with out our being in the future to check them.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Infinity is a fast fish as soon as some one is fast to him. If you believe in the guy's proof of infinities it is because the near end works. If I say to you that parallel lines meet in infinity do you think you could show me the railroad tracks to prove it? I understand that it looks that way, but does it objectively work that way? There is nothing like math for proving subjective reality. Math is a good example of giving meaning without being. Since we cannot be in infinity to prove the numbers right; we are giving them, from our perspective, in the here and now, a correctness that will have no meaning with out our being in the future to check them.

There is an entire field of mathematics begun by Cantor. You have some vague objection to mathematics, and you think that shows that the mathematics of infinity is defective? Am I supposed to take that seriously? Tell me, do you not think that the set of integers is infinite. If you don't, perhaps you will tell be what the final integer in the series is. What about an irrational number like pi? The decimal expansion of pi is an infinite repeating decimal. Or don't you think that is true?

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Nameless,

I would say existence is holistic, in other words in a real way a monism. I know that makes day in day out figureing somewhat complicated or extremely simple, but who said life is a rosegarden. If the totality can be said to be of a relational nature, then it is difficult to escape this monism.

Hence an illusion.
Yes, all is One. Physics can find no definitive place where one 'thing' leaves off and another 'thing' begins. Even physics supports the finding of the mystics throughout the millennia.
You cannot define yourself absolutely completely without bringing the whole universe, 'in the moment of description', into the definition. Who you 'are' is also defined by who (and what) you are 'not'...
Yes, the day to day 'distinctions' that we make are superficial and illusions of 'memory'... such is (the dream of) 'life'.
Being 'awake' to the 'Oneness' does bring 'options', though.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

There is an entire field of mathematics begun by Cantor. You have some vague objection to mathematics, and you think that shows that the mathematics of infinity is defective? Am I supposed to take that seriously? Tell me, do you not think that the set of integers is infinite. If you don't, perhaps you will tell be what the final integer in the series is. What about an irrational number like pi? The decimal expansion of pi is an infinite repeating decimal. Or don't you think that is true?

There has never been any evidence of anything 'infinite' or 'eternal', etc.. No evidence at all, nor can there be any. It seems like just another 'belief' passed down through the years.. a fantasy.
The mind cannot even conceptualize such a 'thing' as 'infinite'. That which cannot be conceptualized cannot be defined into 'context' and therefore cannot exist (as other than an 'empty' word, devoid of 'practical' meaning).

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

There is an entire field of mathematics begun by Cantor. You have some vague objection to mathematics, and you think that shows that the mathematics of infinity is defective? Am I supposed to take that seriously? Tell me, do you not think that the set of integers is infinite. If you don't, perhaps you will tell be what the final integer in the series is. What about an irrational number like pi? The decimal expansion of pi is an infinite repeating decimal. Or don't you think that is true?

Why should I believe anything is infinite since I am not myself. When I die, everything including you is going to go poof; and be gone. I hope you are as ready for that as I am. We conceive of nonsense and give it meaning, but none of the none sense that I give meaning to is going to be longer than me. If you live into infinity check it out. So Fido was wrong. Poof.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy wrote:

Although poems, paintings, stories, concepts, memories (?) of pink elephants do exist, how does any of that show that pink elephants exist.

That is the form in which they exist, that is the 'context'.

Quote:

A painting of a pink elephant is not a pink elephant (I hope you agree),

It is the only 'form' in which a pink elephant can exist, as described.

Quote:

and neither is a concept of a pink elephant a pink elephant (I hope you agree) and so on for the rest.

Context = existence. As far as concepts go, all that you feel exists, exists as concepts within mind as memory. Memory is the ultimate 'context' of existence.
There is no 'out there' to be found.

Quote:

I can conceive (I think) of the Spaghetti Monster ( I think I can, anyway). But I don't, for a moment believe that there is a Spaghetti Monster,

There exists a FSM in your 'thought'/memory. Of course there is none 'out there'... there is no 'out there'.

Quote:

although if I can conceived of a Spaghetti Monster, then there certainly is a conception of a Spaghetti Monster. But, as I have already pointed out, a conception of X is not an X.

A 'conception' of 'X' is all the 'X' that you will ever find evidence to support. Existence, for you, is all concept/memory.

@NeitherExtreme,

I'm trying to understand, and have a few questions for all those who say something along the lines of "Infinite does not exist because we can not comprehend it or prove it." As far as time goes, in your opinion does the present exist, and what would be the proof? Same question for the "finite" in general, or at least I wouldn't mind knowing your definition of it. Also, how do you deal with the idea of the universe having a begining and ending (either spacial or temporal)? As far as I can see, we can not prove nor comprehend either a finite or an infinite universe. I would think I must believe one or the other is true, yet be without conclusive proof, or simply not judge on the topic whatsoever (in which case I could not find fault in another's conclusions). I'm sure I'm not introducing anything incredibily new to the discussion, but I really don't understand...

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

Descartes first lie was 'I'. His second lie was made of the first: I think. And his third lie was: I exist. quote]

I couldn't read beyond that!

I think calling Descates a liar is terribly wrong, as well as you.

I think the the truth therefore I am true.

Or more simply, I.

How do you judge me, or more importantly, how do you judge yourself?

Perhaps you should start there!

=
MJA

@MJA,

I'm not sure what you guys are debating. Nameless keeps arguing that infinity cannot be empirically proven, and kennethamy keeps arguing that infinity is a priori true. What's the problem?

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm not sure what you guys are debating. Nameless keeps arguing that infinity cannot be empirically proven, and kennethamy keeps arguing that infinity is a priori true. What's the problem?

Infinity is like one of those time warps I used to step into 15 minutes before quiting time that would take me 2 years to get out of so I could go home. If time is not infinte, and space is not infinite then there is no room for the infinite within time and space. If we were talking about periods, and not spaces in time, but the little dots you end your thoughts with, then, if they were of infinite number all of finite space and time would eventually fill with them and there would be no room for complaints, or question marks. There must be an end to everything or there would be no room for anything else. Of course, ideas empty of meaning could take up infinitely little space, and no one would even know they were there.

@MJA,

MJA wrote:

Fido wrote:
Descartes first lie was 'I'. His second lie was made of the first: I think. And his third lie was: I exist. quote]

I couldn't read beyond that!

I think calling Descates a liar is terribly wrong, as well as you.

I think the the truth therefore I am true.

Or more simply, I.

How do you judge me, or more importantly, how do you judge yourself?

Perhaps you should start there!

=
MJA

I would suggest that knowledge is judgement, and my judgement is that Descartes would have been less well known, but more to the point if He had proved the 'I' rather than trying to prove any part of an 'I' exists.

Again, what leads a person to try to prove what should be obvious? 'I' s collide with existence with the same cosmic regularity that asteroids smash into planets. What does it prove? Existence is eternal. Matter exists. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. If we are more than the meat we are made of -then, prove it. Life is more than the meat it is. But then, life is less than existence. If we want to exist we have to clutch on to our bit of humanity- and nature which does exist beyond the life of any man. Life is a fleeting quality whose nature is totally dependent upon circumstances. How does one prove that beyond doubt? From the perspective of the individual we cannot even prove 'life' is the same thing for all.

The 'I' is a sort of axium, and a sinnequanon. If people stop for a moment and ask what do 'I' know, and how does the 'I' know it, they will then realize how small that 'I' is that they paint so large.

Life is all figured out. All we have to do is learn everything and discover nothing, but we still must learn all we can to serve a good purpose, which is to pass knowledge to another generation. If the truth were said, 'I' live, and society exists because of what we together know. The thought itself proves nothing in regard to the person. We are given life and the tools of life, and how we find the balance between the 'I' and the society will prove whether we really exist.

Since existence requires continued existence, and a resolution of personal and intersocietal conflicts of an increasingly dangerous proportion; that should be our focus. We cannot deny we live and so we need not try to prove what cannot be rationally denied. We all do need to prove the existence of humanity, and what this requires is that each use their lives to hand off existence to a new generation in better shape than it was received. We can focus our minds in thought, but all the means of thought in concept are given, and our lives as well. Use of our life, proof of our lives, and proof of our thoughts all support the existence of humanity if we are acting as we should in the conduct of our lives. If you do all that you can to improve our general condition then I will testify that you exist because you have turned the purpose of your life to the support of its cause.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

I'm not sure what you guys are debating. Nameless keeps arguing that infinity cannot be empirically proven, and kennethamy keeps arguing that infinity is a priori true. What's the problem?

I'm not speaking of 'proof', there is simply no evidence, whatsoever in support of the 'hypothesis' (to rank as a 'theory' there must be some sort of 'evidence').
Making scratches on a piece of paper and saying that that represents 'infinity', still leaves us with scratches on paper and nothing more, but in the minds of some 'believers'.
(And I have not heard of any so called 'a priori truths' that can hold up to much critical scrutiny. The best that we can do is to form pragmatic concensus and 'make believe' that it is 'true' (or be infected with 'belief') until the 'accepted illusion' can no longer be 'supported'.

@Fido,

Fido wrote:

MJA wrote:

I would suggest that knowledge is judgement

I would suggest that 'knowledge' is the content of 'memory' as perceived through the ego. The more 'sure' of one's 'knowledge' one is, the more 'pride' is attached, the more 'identity', and the more to 'defend'!

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

I'm not speaking of 'proof', there is simply no evidence, whatsoever in support of the 'hypothesis' (to rank as a 'theory' there must be some sort of 'evidence').

Okay, so you are claiming there is no empirical evidence of infinity; however, in mathematics there is a clear need for infinity. I think this was asked earlier 'Can you name the last integer?' If not, then you must admit that no such thing exists, thus there are at least an inifinite number thereof.

fido wrote:

If time is not infinte, and space is not infinite then there is no room for the infinite within time and space.

Why must there be something infinite within space time in order for infinity to exist? Infinity is not Big Foot - there is no carcas to see. Infinity exists as an a priori expression, as far as I can tell.

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Okay, so you are claiming there is no empirical evidence of infinity; however, in mathematics there is a clear need for infinity. I think this was asked earlier 'Can you name the last integer?' If not, then you must admit that no such thing exists, thus there are at least an inifinite number thereof.

There is a need for infinity in human beings since they cannot coneive of their own ends, but need does not make something a thing, and does not make reality real. Reality exists apart from need. To my thinking we don't need many more numbers than we have fingers.

Quote:

Why must there be something infinite within space time in order for infinity to exist? Infinity is not Big Foot - there is no carcas to see. Infinity exists as an a priori expression, as far as I can tell.

I am not saying there must be something infinite within space time, but that space time would have to be infinite and more to accomodate the infinite. It means without end, does it not? How can that without end fit in something with a limit? And either it is something in matter which is infinite, or infinite has no true meaning; and of course we know that zero is nothing in matter, and it has meaning without being, but we give it meaning, yet, no true meaning, as my nothing is nothing like yours. It reminds me of Caligula, who once killed a man he supposed was rich to have his fortune, and when he found the man had no money at all he remarked that: he died for nothing. What a wit!

@nameless,

nameless wrote:

Fido wrote:

I would suggest that 'knowledge' is the content of 'memory' as perceived through the ego. The more 'sure' of one's 'knowledge' one is, the more 'pride' is attached, the more 'identity', and the more to 'defend'!

Your making a judgement upon the nature of knowledge shows you believe you know something of knowledge since if you knew nothing you could hardly reach a conclusion.

@Fido,

Quote:

There is a need for infinity in human beings since they cannot coneive of their own ends, but need does not make something a thing, and does not make reality real. Reality exists apart from need. To my thinking we don't need many more numbers than we have fingers.

Infinity is not a need, it's a logical conclusion.

Quote:

It means without end, does it not? How can that without end fit in something with a limit?

It doesn't have to "fit in", that's not the point. You are denying infinity because nothing physical can be infinite. So what? As I've said, infinity is true purely a priori, there does not exist empirical evidence of it. If you reject a priori altogether, that's fine - if you do that might clear things up a bit. But otherwise you will need to explain why you demand empirical evidence of infinity - I certainly do not understand why you would.

Philosophy Forum

On proof of existence.

Quick Links

My Account

able2know