Can reason and logic explain everything.
Consider two scenarios:
1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. Even those problems for which we have not found solutions, we would be able to grasp and understand these solutions if they were somehow presented to us. Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind.
2. There are aspects of the universe and its workings that are simply beyond the capability of human reasoning. We will continually formulate more sophisticated models to explain the universe, however if somehow the true universal laws were presented to us, it would be beyond our capability to decypher them. The fundamental workings of the universe will forever remain a mystery that the human mind is not capable of grasping.
You might deduce that if scenario #1 holds true, that the reasoning capability of the human mind has reached its evolutionary apogee, and that the capacity of comprehending the workings of the universe are within reach of the homo sapiens. We are the end game.
On the other hand, scenario #2 leaves room for futher evolution of cognitive powers, the sapiens being of a far future will look at our mental capacity just like we compare ours to that of a Rhesus monkey. This future being would be better equipped to grasp the workings of the universe, and yet again, it might still not be enough.
I will leave you with those thoughts as something to consider when thinking through existential items such as god, life, meaning. If you choose to believe in scenario #1, then human reason will guide you in finding definitive solutions. If you choose #2, humility would be a good place to start.
In any case, it boils down to belief. Whatever road you choose to walk, realize the truth is only in your mind.
1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. Even those problems for which we have not found solutions, we would be able to grasp and understand these solutions if they were somehow presented to us. Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind.
2. There are aspects of the universe and its workings that are simply beyond the capability of human reasoning. We will continually formulate more sophisticated models to explain the universe, however if somehow the true universal laws were presented to us, it would be beyond our capability to decypher them. The fundamental workings of the universe will forever remain a mystery that the human mind is not capable of grasping.
You might deduce that if scenario #1 holds true, that the reasoning capability of the human mind has reached its evolutionary apogee, and that the capacity of comprehending the workings of the universe are within reach of the homo sapiens. We are the end game.
On the other hand, scenario #2 leaves room for futher evolution of cognitive powers, the sapiens being of a far future will look at our mental capacity just like we compare ours to that of a Rhesus monkey. This future being would be better equipped to grasp the workings of the universe, and yet again, it might still not be enough.
I will leave you with those thoughts as something to consider when thinking through existential items such as god, life, meaning. If you choose to believe in scenario #1, then human reason will guide you in finding definitive solutions. If you choose #2, humility would be a good place to start.
In any case, it boils down to belief. Whatever road you choose to walk, realize the truth is only in your mind.
Comments (124)
And likewise, given what you're actually saying in the post (as opposed to the title), just what is understanding? Just what are the criteria for understanding?
Resolve any question to any arbitrary person's satisfaction?
What would you say determines whether a model resolves a question then?
Science is merely a Platonic-cave shadow of the real explanation for the universe, i.e. the theory of everything (ToE).
Quoting staticphoton
It is not even sure that "more sophisticated models" are within reach. They could be, but they could also not be.
Concerning the ToE, i.e. the "true universal laws", Stephen Hawking argued that they were out of reach in his lecture Gödel and the end of physics. I am a bit uncomfortable with his justification for that view, because he readily mixes mathematics and physics:
What is the relation between Godel’s theorem and whether we can formulate the theory of the universe in terms of a finite number of principles? One connection is obvious. According to the positivist philosophy of science, a physical theory is a mathematical model. So if there are mathematical results that can not be proved, there are physical problems that can not be predicted.
This connection is not "obvious" to me. Hawking said all of that en passant between two other ideas, and he very quickly moved on to the next idea. I am not sure that it is that easy. Mathematics and physics are epistemically so different that it leaves a strange impression when someone shoots off that kind of statements between breakfast and lunch. Even though I do not reject Hawking's views, I think that they were said too easily, and absorbed by the audience too easily. As far as I am concerned, the link between mathematics and physics is not as simple as Hawking depicts it.
Based on that I assume you're leaning towards #2: We are not capable of formulating a ToE. Need to wait for a more evolved sapiens.
Quoting alcontali
Agreed, two different animals. Physicists use math like a carpenter would use a monkey wrench to drive a nail.
If the results of applying the model exactly resemble the real thing.
"Exactly resemble" seems to be an oxymoron. It's not going to exactly BE the real thing. And resemblance is a judgment, unless you want to try to set up objective criteria for it somehow.
People almost always talk about explanations without analyzing the idea of explanations. Explanations are not that cut and dried that we can just bypass that step.
Agreed. Explanations would require a language/system that is coherent and watertight, which can be used universally to communicate a concept or idea without becoming distorted by personal interpretation. Mathematics is our best present attempt to do so in the field of physics, and although progress has been made, there are many aspects of existence that cannot be formulated by mathematics. So I go with #2.
I'm just postulating two possibilities. Not proofs or truths implied.
Actually our DNA differs very slightly from that of a worm.
And yes, you can craft an absurdity, which would be unanswerable.
You can't have a language without semantics, and you can't have semantics without personal interpretation. There's no way to make personal interpretation universal.
Correct. That is a limitation of the Homo Sapiens. The reason I lean towards #2.
I like your post in general, but maybe it falls into its own trap. 'The truth is only in your mind' is in some sense not virtuously humble at all but just one more 'super theory' put forward as a truth that is not only in your mind or my mind.
FWIW, I go with #2 also. But I go with #2 because I have old-fashioned actual beliefs about human cognition. For instance, I think if we really suffer the 'nature' of language that it becomes pretty obvious that we know not how we do. Obviously we can build better mousetraps. We can experience a sense of progressive sophistication. But the old rationalistic fantasy is dead for me anyway. I don't think we can get the mathematics of Being that some philosophers have craved.
I agree. That quote doesn't feel right. For one thing, I can predict whatever I want,without some mathematical proof. And then math = axiomatic is itself a commitment. If there are true statements about natural numbers that have no proofs (and there are), then the whole proof game is put in a new light.
Good point. But what does it mean to explain something? It seems connected to a sense of familiarity and mastery. You give someone an 'explanation' when they calm down and get back to work. They could dig further into it, but they aren't motivated to do so. Call it 'God' or 'laws of physics.' Though we could specify these loaded concepts forever, they are often enough to tuck us in.
Yes, definitely worded that one wrong. Meant to say that which we hold as truth, is only a belief.
I have noticed a tendency among colleagues (engineers and scientists) to firmly believe that human reason can conquer all, or put in another form, only that which can be grasped by human reason can exist. One in particular who I respect greatly has even stated it.
That was the main reason for my posting. Attempting to debunk the notion in a public forum before I bring it to the lunch table. Practice.
The super sapiens example was only to illustrate that we don't have the capability, however, theoretically the evolution of intellect can go on indefinitely and still never reach a nirvana of cognition.
I really like your theme.
I think we agree that human reason cannot conquer all, but I think I know what your colleague might have meant by 'only that which can be grasped by human reason can exist.' I'd tweak that and say that anything intelligible for us is (tautologically) graspable by reason. In other words, we can't specify the unintelligible except by a vague negation as some X which we aren't grasping.
So in some sense the unintelligible or unreasonable doesn't exist for us. That said, it seems clear to me that our thinking is mostly fuzzy and analogue (math being the exception.) So reality-for-us fades out gradually as we can make less and less sense of it.
We agree. I guess I was just trying to explain what I find fascinating about so-called explanations. A super-sapien would build better mousetraps. But as long as they are still human-like (an amplification of our own nature), I think they'd wrestle with philosophy. The less like us they are, the less we can really imagine them. The superior alien is like a god or an angel, which is to say essentially human for the human imagination. It's just that our imaginations can push beyond the usual mortal limits.
[quote= Feuerbach]
Consciousness in the strict sense, or consciousness properly speaking, and consciousness of the infinite cannot be separated from each other; a limited consciousness is no consciousness; consciousness is essentially infinite and all-encompassing. The consciousness of the infinite is nothing else than the consciousness of the infinity of consciousness. To put it in other words, in its consciousness of infinity, the conscious being is conscious of the infinity of its own being.
...
Every limitation of reason, or of human nature in general, rests on a delusion, an error. To be sure, the human individual can, even must, feel and know himself to be limited – and this is what distinguishes him from the animal – but he can become conscious of his limits, his finiteness, only because he can make the perfection and infinity of his species the object either of his feeling, conscience, or thought.
[/quote]
I'm not presenting this as gospel but as an interesting thought that I relate to your theme. The super-sapien is an object for 'infinite' human consciousness --and that object is in that sense an image of that consciousness freed from limits it experiences as contingent. We just happen to have this cognitive structure, and yet we can strangely vaguely imagine a better cognitive structure --which must it seems in some sense already be ours for us to imagine it.
And if that human reasoning and logic finds out that to some questions we simply cannot find out solutions even if they exist because of logic? That it would be illogical if we could find the solution.
This actually happens already as we are part of the universe and cannot observe things from outside the universe.
Quoting staticphoton
Why would we assume that? There are many basic questions still open. Like the question in mathematics about what actually is infinity? Taking infinity as an axiom isn't an answer.
Question: Whose mind are we referring to here? Your average Joes and Janes? Or the greatest minds of our entire species?
I assume the abilities of someone like Einstein or Hawking or Kant or even someone lesser known like Harvey Siegel to comprehend certain aspects of the universe surpasses the abilities (or inclinations, but I suspect the latter contributes heavily to the former) of your average Joes and Janes.
Very nice...
I would have to go with the greatest minds of course, they represent the upper limit of human cognitive ability.
And do you mean that understanding of the universe has to be collective or can it be singular? Let me rephrase: does a single human being have to be able to understand anything and everything about the universe, or can we have (purely hypothetically) Hawking understand 20%, Einstein a different 20% and so on until we have 100%?
Not sure if THE greatest, but certainly among them we might find the usual suspects: Einstein, Kant, Godel, Galileo, Newton...
I could not define an explanation, but I sure recognize one when I see one. Same with understanding.
There is no need, in my opinion, to define these terms. Every definition eventually boils down to either a finite regress that does not make any sene, or else to familiar terms.
I think "Explanation" and "Understanding" are familiar enough for the normal or better human being so these two words need no definition.
I think it was Wittgenstein who first coined this reasoning, or a reasonable facsimile thereof, which actually ended the movement of modernism. It is we, humans, who communicate with other humans, not with some total alien life form, which can't get inside our heads, unless we write a complete guide to language and meaning.
I assume on your first sentence you are stating that maybe some problems cannot be solved logically. That is fine, you feel that logic and human reason cannot explain everything, therefore you would go with #2.
I think that would be a valid approach, as long as the "pieces" match. For instance you could not count General Relativity, Quantum mechanics, and Buddhism as percentages of the whole, since they all paint a different universe/reality.
Well, then at least two of them are wrong. Or they all are wrong in some ways. Or they're all mostly wrong and something else is true. And "understanding" them would then not really count as understanding the universe.
Quoting staticphoton
In that case, I think it's entirely possible for the human species to piece together a complete understanding of the universe in the long run.
Kant says pure reason ends at questions like "the beginning of time" and "infinite divisibility." It's possible he's right and we're just not evolved in a way to understand those concepts because we evolved under certain conditions that did not require such an understanding. But on the other hand, I assume we can't know if that is the case until we have enough evidence or knowledge of the universe to get much closer to the answers than we are at the moment.
In sum: we can probably understand the entirety of the universe someday, provided we don't go extinct first.
Can you give an example that would not be cleared up by simply having more information available? Otherwise, it's a lack of info and not a limit of reason per se.
Unless you want to say that reason is limited by access to information?
Based on that, would you assume that cognitive evolution has reached its apogee? If we have the capacity to understand the universe, why would natural selection push for further cognitive evolution?
I tend to agree with that.
#2.
One fair example would be the wave/particle duality of matter. We can express it with abstract artifices such as quantum theory, but the brain is incapable of visualizing how a particle can be in one place and everywhere at the same time. Also multiple dimensions, our brains are wired to visualize 3 dimensions, but anything above that we have to reach for abstract tools to stumble around it, but we can't think about a 5-dimensional space. I might be able to come up with better ones but I need a little time.
Are you basing this claim on your personal general intuition or some actual question that can be shown to be unanswerable?
Even logical problems cannot be solved logically. They are pretty much always solved using other, unknown mental faculties.
It is not because you know a particular conclusion/theorem, and that you also know the construction logic of the abstract world in which it applies, that you will therefore be able to demonstrate that the theorem logically follows from the construction logic.
A good example is the Riemann hypothesis. Nobody has been able to find a counterexample. At the same time, nobody has been able to prove that it necessarily follows from number theory.
If this problem were objectively solvable, i.e. if it were a logical problem to discover this proof, then we could just give the problem to a machine, and then the machine would figure it out. This is not possible. In other words, the discovery of the evidence that turns a claim into knowledge, is not a rational problem.
Logic would be totally worthless and unusable without these other, unknown, mental faculties that allow us to discover a meaningful use for logic.
The schools and the universities are not training people who will be able to solve problems, because there does not exist an objective procedure for doing that. Of course, that is just one reason why higher education is increasingly becoming worthless.
Well, if quantum mechanics works that specific way, then I suppose we have to radically alter logic as we know it. But within the scientific community it's not at all clear that the double slit test really means a particle can be in two places at the same time. I don't have the theoretical knowledge myself to explain their explanations, but the upshot is that QM is far from settled science.
But let's assume for a moment that QM is true. Let's assume that we do have to rethink some of our logical presuppositions. While it may be hard to accept the anti-intuitive notions of QM, I think we so far can still say it's understandable. When I saw particle X was in spots A and B at the same time, I think we all know cognitively what that means, no?
Now on the other hand, if something like Chaos Theory were to hold true, then parts of the universe could not be fully understood with logic or reason, because they defy these. But again, I'm more inclined to agree with those scientists who suggest that we simply have not yet discovered the logical and rational explanation-holes Chaos Theory is trying to fill.
The Riemann hypothesis is concerned about the construction of an abstract object, and as such it does not necessarily have a resolution.
When writing the OP I was referring to the understanding of the universe and its workings. Abstract tools are useful artifacts and attempts to help model/resolve the workings of the universe, but by themselves do not necessarily represent the workings of the universe, and so far have not been able to provide a faithful likeness.
Logic on its own is nothing. The premise is whether one believes logic and reason are sufficient tools to ultimately provide the means to model the universe as it actually is, and therefore going well beyond the mutually conflicting approximations we have so far been able to come up with.
That is the thing, the Q theory by itself holds water, but it only provides partial answers to the workings of the universe, answers that preclude the causal behavior of the universe in a large scale.
Quoting Artemis
I agree in the sense that "Chaos" only means that we are yet to understand the order behind the apparent disarray, I just have doubt that we have the intellectual capacity to achieve that.
I guess it becomes as epistemological question then in the sense of, how do we know once we've encountered something that is "unknowable" versus "not yet knowable"?
Well... I'll just let the scientists answer that one: https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/why-quantum-mechanics-might-need-overhaul
I would like to know how we came to understand anything at all.
Quoting Terrapin Station
It seems to me that an explanation is a declaration of understanding. What is "understanding"?
If "truth" is subjective then it seems logical to say 1. is the case. If there is no such thing as an "objective" truth, - only subjective ones, then your truth is understandable to you. If it's not understandable to you, then how can it be a "truth" for you?
Yeah, on my view, understanding, and whether something counts as an explanation, are subjective--it depends on whether someone's curiosity, questions/issues, etc. have been satiated, and of course that depends on how they assign meaning, their experiences, their biases, and all sorts of things.
Is it objectively or subjectively true that truth is subjective?
You might be taking my statement out of context. The theory works as a model, it's just that the model doesn't quite fit reality.
Okay, that makes sense.
I think this thread might be taking an unintended direction. I'm going to reword the premise of the OP:
If the blueprint of the universe was laid in front of humanity, would humanity be able to decipher and understand it.
#1: yes, we can figure it out.
#2: No, we are not evolved enough. maybe we never will be.
Agreed.
Abstract, Platonic worlds are different from the real, physical world. Still, the real, physical world is to be considered more complex and more difficult to understand, if only, because unlike in the case of abstract, Platonic worlds, we have no copy of its construction logic.
We cannot fully understand even abstract, Platonic worlds, if their construction logic is sophisticated enough. If it contains a sufficiently large fragment of number theory, it will defeat our ability to fully understand it.
We cannot expect the real, physical world, in its full detail, to be easier to understand than a mere thought exercise. We will hit fundamental limitations in much, much simpler worlds already.
Quoting staticphoton
Yes, logic alone is not viable as a tool in an empirical context. Science will demand real-world experimental testing. Merely calculations are not accepted for explaining anything.
Furthermore, logic itself is an abstract, Platonic system based on the 14 basic, speculative, arbitrary beliefs of propositional logic. It is always the core axiomatic module (and language) of any system. However, these basic beliefs say more about us than about the real, physical world. They have helped us to survive on earth. However, they were never used to survive elsewhere in the universe; in which case these beliefs might have ended up shaped differently. Logic itself could easily be just a Platonic-cave shadow of an unknown, real, universal logic, which we don't know. We may not even have the capacity to deal with the remainder of the universe.
Nicely worded analysis, thank you.
Except "nothing" at all.
Quoting staticphoton
Except "all things possible" beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind, but I don't know why they'd be relevant in whining about.
Quoting staticphoton
What does logic "explain" about logic exactly..?
What is A+B=C 'explaining' about itself?
To believe that it is possible to explain everything, one already presupposes that it's possible to know everything.
See the problem here?
Of course not.
To understand the workings of A doesn't mean you know everything about A.
You can understand how a knife works without having to know everything the knife has ever been used for or will ever be used for.
In characterizing an interest in understanding things unknown as "whining", one shows contempt about the concept of understanding things unknown.
If one doesn't feel interest in comprehending things unknown then one should leave threads about comprehending things unknown to those who are interested.
Quoting Swan
As said before, logic by itself is nothing. In the context of existing as an element of human reasoning, merely a tool to aid in the understanding of things.
It seems to me that you are providing an objective explanation of what is "understanding" and "explanations" - one that is the case for everyone. So, is your explanation about explanations really how explanations are independent of my view of them, or do we each have our own view of what an explanation is? If so, then how can we even communicate?
Quoting staticphoton
This doesn't make my statement invalid or off-topic. I'm asking clarification of what you mean by "understanding" and "figure it out".
For example, if we could come up with a model that can faithfully simulate all natural phenomena, then that would satisfy the premise.
Both reason and logic are nothing more than theoretical a priori processes in the human rational system. They don’t explain anything in and of themselves, but only set the parameters for the methodology from which explanations become possible.
That being granted, it follows necessarily that the question as to whether reason and logic can explain everything, is insusceptible of a rational answer, because the major premise in both propositional constructions are themselves unjustifiable inductive inferences.
Nothing like using reason and logic incorrectly, in order to ask them to do something they’re not equipped to do anyway.
Still, everything changes, so.............
In that case, the OP will have to scrap science, because it uses an entire bureaucracy of correspondence-checking formalisms that keeps scientific patterns in sync with experimental observations.
Pure deduction, i.e. "pure reason", only deals with abstract, Platonic worlds constructed from a basic set of (possibly arbitrary, speculative) beliefs. Pure reason is not about the real, physical world at all.
Well, yeah. Immanuel Kant already pointed out at length in his "Critique of Pure Reason" that science is not pure reason. On the contrary, science seeks to explicitly systematize experimental observations.
It is not possible to target the real, physical world and still hope to stick to pure reason. It cannot be done.
That must be it. Fair enough.
(1) 'Things' are thinged by humans relatively to a continuously evolving 'body of knowledge' which continues to raise further anthropocentric questions.
(2) As already pointed out, 'logic' (in the traditional sense) is merely one aspect of human reasoning. And as far as frontier science is concerned 'reasoning' is more highly dependent on mathematical models more abstract than set theory.
(3) Although abstract models may generate the 'prediction and control' aspects of what we call 'science' the question still remains as to whether that is sufficient to constitute 'explanation'.
That just does not follow.
And that is abject bullshit.
By "everything in the universe" I meant the set of actual physical laws that govern the universe, so poor wording on my part.
Yes, empiricism would be limited to what we can physically experiment with and it would follow deduction as much as it can to "catch up".
#1 means we have the reasoning powers to define an all-encompassing physical model of the universe which eventual empirical results would prove true.
Quoting alcontali
I think the scientific establishment in its present form presents an obstacle to the premise in the sense that the results of any reasoning would need to be proven by experiment before being accepted, but that is just a side show to the ability of mind to comprehend the workings of the universe. In other words, if the "writing" of natural laws was presented to us, do we have the ability to comprehend them.
The question is whether we have the capability to come up with such a model. To understand the workings of natural law.
Is based on the assumption that something cannot be more complex than the system which produced it. As in the watch being more complex than the watchmaker. So the evolutionary process would be limited by nature's capability to produce a more complex brain.
Pure conjecture of course. I don't know whether nature has limited capability. If it has infinite capability then of course there are no limits.
Yes, somebody already pointed that out... bad choice of words on my part, not at all what I meant to say.
What it meant is that for whatever reason some people might choose to believe in #1 and some in #2, but in either case it would be nothing but belief. No truths spoken here.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'the workings of natural law'.
IMO There are no 'natural laws' except a limited number asserted by humans such as 'the second law of thermodynamics'. The word 'workings' presents its own problem because it tends to imply the concept of 'causality' which has questionable philosophical status.
Natural Law is just a provincial way of calling the order of the universe. It does not imply that such things as the law of thermodynamics, or causality, actually exist... they do in a limited scope/portion of the universe, just in the same way that if you zoom in on a curve, the closer you get it begins to resemble a straight line, and you can use straight line geometry to approximate things within a very narrow scope, but if you "zoom out" this approach falls apart. These are just concepts formulated by mankind in its quest to understand the order of the universe.
So can we know the actual order? Do we have the capacity to formulate, to model it?
2) So, we have the issue of what the mind can reason and deduce itself to in terms of conclusions. But then we also must have access to whatever we need to test direclty, physically. And we would need the technology, presumably necessary to do those tests. And we would need to know what technology to create that would aid us in those tests.
There seem to be a lot of contingent factors. And anyone saying they are sure, seems to be speculating wildly.
Then I wonder about this idea 'empiricism would be limited to what we can physically experiment with....'. What part of empiricism are you ruling out here?
Quoting staticphoton
Understood.
If the premise had been, “can reason and logic explain that which is present to human observation or mere thought” I wouldn’t have been so quick to jump. The human cognitive system, re: reason, is a relational system, re: logical, therefore it is by means of a methodology based on reason and logic a human should ever claim to know anything at all.
I see no reason to suspect you do not accept that physical science is grounded by pure reason, at least in its theoretical domain, which all science must be at some point. Whether the laws which justify our understanding of the world inhere in the world and are merely discovered, or are rationally determined a priori in response to the affect of the world on our sensibility, is sufficient to demonstrate the absolute necessity for pure reason with respect to the human’s ultimate seeking after knowledge.
Nevertheless, in a certain sense, you are correct, insofar as nothing whatsoever a consciously interactive human ever does, excepting pure reflex or sheer accident, is not immediately preceded by the thought of it, which is the epitome of reason and logic, however rational/irrational, logical/illogical it may be.
How would we ever know that we have simulated all natural phenomema?
It's a different question than asking if we could understand the model, isn't it?
I actually didn't give what I'd say is an explanation or definition etc. of either--I just mentioned a characteristic. I wouldn't say that a definition of "understanding" is at all a definition of "explanation" by the way. I'd agree that explanations have to involve understanding, though.
So re "objective explanations" I wouldn't say the idea of that makes sense.
Re "one that is the case for everyone," what I'm doing when I give a definition of something like "understanding" is that I'm giving what I consider to be a functional account of what's really going on (ontologically) in conventional cases of the word "understanding" being used. It wouldn't cover unconventional cases, it wouldn't necessarily be how anyone else consciously thinks about understanding--so it might not be anything like a definition that other people would give, etc.
Re the subjective/objective terms, again, I use them to refer to whether something occurs in a brain functioning in mental ways or not.
So the terms have no implication for just how common or uncommon anything is.
Re "explanation," I've never actually tried to construct a functional definition of it (as I have for "understanding"). I've partially not done that yet because I still have a suspicion that some people have a more "technical" idea in mind re what counts as an explanation or not--something akin to the technical ideas of "information" a ala Shannon, say--but I'm not sure that there's any common technical idea of explanations in that vein, and even with "information" a la Shannon, I'm not at all convinced that it's not basically a bunch of gobbledygook.
Now you are providing an actuality - what words mean independent of how anyone else interpreted what you said. You don't seem to realize that what you are saying is the way things are - either in your head, or outside of it. Is that really how things are in your head? In describing how things are in your head, you are explaining your understanding of how things are in your head. How do you know that you are right or wrong? How do you know that the scribbles on the screen actually represent what's in your head, and how would I know that?
You're not thinking that I'm someone who says, "Everything is subjective" are you?
Did I say that, or use the word, "subjective" in my post that you replied to? Instead of putting words in my mouth, and wondering about things I didn't accuse you of, you should address the points and questions in my previous post.
Why are you saying "Now you are providing an actuality" then? So what?
??
I said that I actually didn't give an explanation or definition. So how did I "provide an actuality"? I don't know what you're talking about.
Or simply put, if I were to give an explanation or definition (per what I consider that obviously), I would have written something different than what I wrote.
Not only are you wanting to argue for some reason, but I continually need to try to figure out what the f- you're even on about, which makes arguing difficult.
Right, you're saying what you did independent of what I thought you did. Is what you did really the case, independent of what I thought you did? It seems to me that you're correcting me - informing me of what really is the case, independent of anyone else's view. If you're not correcting me, then what are you doing - just letting us know what you think? So what? Why should I care what you think if what you think only works for you?
I just wrote: "if I were to give an explanation or definition (per what I consider that obviously)"
How would that be independent of anyone's view?
Where is your explanation or definition - only in your head, or is it out on the forum right now? When we point to your explanation, do we point to your head, or at the screen? Is the screen or your head existing independent of anyone's view of it?
If you correct people on what you said, you are implying that how you see things is correct and how others see them is wrong, which implies that there is a way things are independent of how others are thinking about it.
What makes you think you can correct others? What would that even mean?
It depends on what you're referring to and how you're referring to it. The marks on the screen are objective, obviously. But they have no meaning objectively. You can refer to the marks on the screen as an explanation--that's a shorthand way of saying "These are the marks that I assign the sort of meaning to that I call an 'explanation'"
Sure they do have a objective meaning. You typed them, didn't you? If you didn't how did they get on the screen? So, the existence of your post means that you wrote it and submitted it. It also means that you understand English. Aren't your words a representation of your ideas in your head, and doesn't your ideas have causal power? The meaning of the scribbles is the relationship between the scribbles and the ideas in your head, which I assume aren't just more scribbles. Meaning is there, it just depends on where you look.
You can't literally type a meaning. You can only produce marks on a screen or paper or whatever. Those marks aren't literally meaning. They don't literally contain or encode etc. meaning, either. Meaning isn't a property that we can find in them. Meaning is a way that we think about them.
Then we would all come to different meanings. How is it that we don't? How do we communicate?
What purpose would anyone produce marks on screen for? Aren't the marks what you mean and could you mean anything without the idea preceding the act of producing marks on the screen?
If I were to ask what you mean, what would you do? Wouldn't you explain the relationship between your ideas and the scribbles - the way you used the scribbles, not someone else?
First, literally, we must come to different meanings, because numerically distinct things can not be identical. That's just like saying that two copies of the "same" Beatles CD have to literally be different.
Like the copies of the Beatles CD, though, the meanings we come to could be as similar as those copies are.
The problem is that we don't know, and there's absolutely no way to know, because you can't observe someone else's mind.
Practically, it doesn't matter, as long as interaction with someone makes sense to both parties. We communicate via saying things that we each assign meaning to, and as long as the meanings are coherent to each of us, as well as consistent over time, over similar utterances, etc., we consider it successful.
Often that doesn't go so well, as with just a few posts ago when I said, "I continually need to try to figure out what the f- you're even on about."
LOL. How can there be a copy of anything? Doesn't that require an objective process? How can we even say that the copies are the similar? They are different CDs that contain the same information. So again, how does two separate entities acquire the same copy, and what does it even mean to say it is a copy if the meaning of "copy" and "difference" is up to the individual? Why would we agree that my CD is a copy of yours if meaning is different for both of us? You aren't addressing the important question of how different entities can acquire similar views of meaning if we are as different as you seem to imply. You actually seem to imply that we don't live in a shared world at all.
Wait--Is there some reason to believe that I do not believe there are objective processes?
This is what we call a failure of communication, by the way.
Wait, are you saying that your words have meaning independent of how I interpreted their meaning? Are you saying that I am wrong in how I interpreted the meaning of your words? How can that be if meaning is produced by how individuals think? I should be able to interpret your words how I mean them.
Quoting Terrapin Station
Because you can't be consistent or acknowledge your inconsistencies. Failure to communicate would be the result of the world you think we live in. I'm asking how can we ever not fail to communicate given your claims.
If the information in the CDs is the same, then how is it that we would have different meanings for each CD? How would two people with the same information see things differently?
Sure, insofar as other people are applying meaning to them. That would be independent of the meaning you're assigning.
What does this response have to do with the question I asked you, though?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Wtf? I'm asking you a question re why you'd think I'd not believe that there are objective processes. What's the answer to why you'd think I'd not believe that there are any objective processes?
Asking you a question isn't saying something. It's asking you a question.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I explained this already. You didn't comment on it. That's because you sidetracked with the nonsensical critical comments about the idea of copies, based apparently on a belief that I don't think there are any objective processes, though who knows where you're getting that belief from.
Her was the explanation again: "Practically, it doesn't matter, as long as interaction with someone makes sense to both parties. We communicate via saying things that we each assign meaning to, and as long as the meanings are coherent to each of us, as well as consistent over time, over similar utterances, etc., we consider it successful."
Quoting Harry Hindu
It's not literally the same. Again, I'm a nominalist. I explained this already.
So, how do I get at your meaning, if all I can get at is my own? If there are patterns of behavior that exist independent of, and prior to my application meaning, then isn't that saying those patterns are objective for anyone else to observe and come to the same conclusions? Why should it matter if the pattern of behavior is exhibited by a human being, ant, tree, planet, star or the entire universe?
Quoting Terrapin Station
Sure it is. Why would you ask the question if you didn't assume that I misinterpreted something you said?
Why would you even be concerned how I interpreted it? How do you know that how you interpreted my interpretation is accurate, if you only have your interpretation?
Quoting Terrapin Station
It's possible I missed it. Can you re-quote, please?
Quoting Terrapin Station
It's either we're talking past each other when it comes to what we're pointing at when we say "the same", or "same" is meaningless.
You'd not literally receive my meaning any more than you'd literally receive, say, my desires, or my pains, or anything like that.
I write something--I create a set of marks like this, and I do so largely per conventions of making marks like this (to the extent that I don't do that, this whole process becomes much more difficult), and you then have to assign meanings to it when you read it. You might be able to do that in a manner that makes sense to you, and you might not. When you do not, you say that you do not "get my meaning," you ask questions about it, etc.
But if you can assign meanings especially so that extended text from me makes sense to you, so that no matter how much I write and you read it, things keep rolling along coherently, consistently, etc., for you, then you say that you "get my meaning."
Meanings wouldn't just be "patterns of behavior," which I agree can be objective. Meanings are mental associations that you make. It can be an association of a pattern with something else--the pattern signifies such and such to you. The act of taking something to be a signification is the meaning part--neither the signifier nor the signified are the meaning. The association, so that the signifier is taken to point at the signified, is the meaning part.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Because I'm genuinely curious why you'd think that I believe there are no objective processes. I'm literally hoping for an answer, hoping you'll tell me why you think that. It could be because you misinterpreted something I said, but I don't know.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I did. At any rate, it was similar to what I wrote above.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I'm just clarifying that on my view, no two things (so no numerically distinct things) are literally the same--the identical whatever. Things can be similar, but not literally the same.
You're thinking too much like a scientist lol. I'm not considering any contingencies or potential unsurpassable technological barriers... just posing the question of whether the human mind has the potential to grasp an all-encompassing model.
Whether we can actually put our noses to the grindstone and actually make it happen, that would be another thread :)
If I could put things in such an eloquent manner I would probably get better results...
Agreed.
I also think it is speculative and I also doubt we have the ability, although when you state "all" the ideas in an "all encompassing model" one might get the impression that the problem with grasping the knowledge might be due to the sheer quantity and size of it. I'm inclined to believe the actual model might even consist of fewer elements than the multiple discorded present day models that only apply to specific scale ranges of the universe, just that the elements themselves are beyond our grasp in the same sense that complex abstract concepts, like for instance a metric tensor, would be beyond the grasp of a chimpanzee's mind.
My line of thinking leans on two premises, that the brain's cognitive evolution has not reached its potential summit (i.e. assumes the sapiens of a 1,000,000 year future will posses greater cognitive power), and that a system (in this case the universe) can't produce something more complex than itself.
If I define humans as a product of the universe, then in order to obtain knowledge of how the universe works, (and this is where I go way out on a limb) humans would have to be the most cognitive-potent entity the universe is capable of producing.
Not sure what you mean by answering questions, I just posted two possible scenarios.
So for you, "meaning" is only a causal mental phenomenon, but that doesn't seem to apply to how we commonly use the term, "meaning", or "means".
For me, "meaning" is all causal phenomenon and fits the common pattern that we see humans use the string of scribbles, "meaning".
For example, we say things like, "what do you mean?", as if we're trying to get at the user's meaning, not ours. In other words we are trying to get at the cause of the scribbles on the screen - the ideas the person had when typing those words. I want to understand what you mean with your word use, not what I mean.
We also say things like, "The tree rings in the stump mean the age of the tree.", or "that word means this", we are referring to an objective relationship or pattern that all humans would agree on exists independent of our own interpretations. In other words, some people would have to admit they are wrong in their meanings. Your view doesn't seem to allow one to be wrong in applying meaning.
Quoting Terrapin StationBut the only answer you'd get would be your own associations you make with my pattern of word-use. You'd never understand my reasons - according to your view they would be your reasons.
Quoting Terrapin Station
So if I were to say that all hydrogen atoms have the same number of protons and electrons, that wouldn't make sense to you?
If the meaning were literally in the text marks or sounds, how would it make sense to ask anyone "What do you mean?" The text marks or sounds are what mean something, and supposedly you just perceive the meaning from the text marks or sounds.
Reality itself is beyond the grasp of reason. You can reason about those things you can abstract and represent symbolically - which encompasses an enormous range of things; science can weigh and measure the universe (with caveats!) But as a philosopher observed, 'that of which we cannot speak, of that we should remain silent'. However that shouldn't be misinterpreted - 'that of which we cannot speak' is also an aspect of our existence. I think the meaning of that phrase is to draw attention to the limitations of language and reason.
There's a phrase - really a dogmatic formulation - in the Buddhist texts, which describes the nature of the Buddha's teaching so: 'These are those dhammas, monks, that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand, peaceful and sublime, beyond the sphere of reasoning, subtle, comprehensible only to the wise, which the Buddha, having realized for himself with direct knowledge, propounds to others [sup] 1[/sup].'
Notice the phrase 'beyond the sphere of reasoning'. And I think that is because whilst reason is powerful, it is not all knowing or omniscient even in principle.
In Greek philosophy, reasoning was prized because of its apodictic nature: the intellect knew truths of reason directly, without intermediaries; for example x - x = 0 is something that can be known directly, apodictically and without need of further justification. That tremendously impressed the ancient philosophers; it was the attempt to ground experience in the certainty of rational truth which gave rise to the rationalist tradition of philosophy and was one of the tributaries of science itself.
Reason gains traction by abstracting some aspect of reality - something that can be quantified or captured numerically. And scientific rationalism works by attempting to bring every subject under that umbrella. Again, very powerful, but not all-knowing even in principle. As one of the founders of atomic physics, Max Planck, said,
Which seems a truism, but what it's pointing out is that we're not outside of, or apart from, reality itself, and science really only deals with what is other to us; something which is very hard to see in our scientistic culture.
Man, that post was really enjoyable to read.
As Popper convincingly showed, scientific theories, including those concerning "laws of nature" can never be deductively or empirically verified as either necessary or everlasting.
I think that if you label something as necessary (or not), you should also clarify what it is necessary for, that way we can be on the same page.
Everlasting... considering the only thing constant about scientific theories is that they keep evolving, everlasting is not something that particularly comes to mind when describing scientific theories. So I'm with you on that one.
In my opinion the scientific method is not a particularly exclusive choice for understanding the universe (mainly due to its self imposed limitations), and I don't for a minute believe the boundaries of reason are fenced by the scientific method.
So I think we kind of agree.
Something that is thought of as being necessary is something which is simply thought of as necessarily being. So, the laws of nature might be thought of as necessary if they are either eternal or ordained by God.
Quoting staticphoton
Sure, but in the context you seem to be considering- a "theory of everything" which is usually understood to be a theory which would unify the so-called "four fundamental forces"- the question could be asked as to whether those forces are everlasting.
I mean if we could ever explain everything, then that would entail that what we are explaining would be everlasting, no? Otherwise we would not have explained everything.
Quoting staticphoton
What other method could there be for understanding the universe? We can reason about human behavior and understand it in ways which are not usually thought of as being part of the scientific method, to be sure, but that kind of understanding is not usually thought of as "understanding the universe" but rather " understanding ourselves".
I would say that metaphysics does not consist in understanding the universe, but in understanding the ways in which we are able to think about things. Only the empirical method can test whether our ways of thinking can plausibly be thought to be accurately modeling the physical universe. But maybe I've misunderstood what you were aiming at?
Quoting Janus
Ah I thought you were referring to the scientific method, but yes, even the laws of nature (or for that matter anything else), cannot be deductively or empirically verified to be mandated by God. Also, the universe is thought to have had a beginning and it is not unconceivable that it might have an end, so yes, not eternal either.
Quoting Janus
Present attempts to merge gravity with the other three fundamental forces are going to need some breakthroughs, but still then, there would be many questions unanswered. It would be another step up a ladder and not implausibly another step into a dead end.
Quoting Janus
"Everything" is a big word, I was thinking more in terms of understanding what we provincially call "natural law", to conceive a model that faithfully replicates the behavior of the universe. And we are in agreement that such natural law cannot be proven to be necessary or eternal.
Quoting Janus
I cannot tell you what other method can be conceived for deriving a model that replicates the behavior of the universe in the same sense that a differential equation can replicate the behavior of an orbiting planet, for instance. As of now the scientific method is the best method we have to understand the universe, however such a method seems to skirt some very important things that nature is capable of doing. As one example, how is it that the matter that originated at the big bang can arrange itself into complex molecules that evolve to the point of recognizing and becoming aware of the universe that produced them.
As Wayfarer quoted "...that of which we cannot speak, of that we should remain silent..", is a mindset that remains alive and well in the scientific community.
Quoting Janus
Analyzing our tools, like evaluating the merits of metaphysics vs the empirical method in explaining reality, is fine, but the argument is whether these, or any other methods we can come up with, are capable of producing a model that rigorously replicates the behavior of the universe.
On the original post the choices were:
#1: Yes, we can do it, and even if we could not do it on our own, if God opened the blueprints of the universe in front of us, we would have the ability to say "Ah! I get it now" and be able to hold the knowledge in our heads.
#2: No. And even if God opened the blueprints of the universe in front of us, it would be like giving a calculus book to a chimp.
It's conjecture either way, but who knows, maybe someone has a clever reason to lean towards one more than the other.
The answer is in the same post that you cherry-picked.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Quoting Harry Hindu
So I didn't say the meaning literally lay in the text marks or sounds. I said that it lies in the causal relationship between the text marks and sounds and your ideas that caused the text marks and sounds to be made.
There was a lot of other stuff and questions asked of you in that post that you avoided in your cherry-picking.
It seems to me that when it comes to understanding empirical reality conjecture, prediction and testing is the only viable method.
We can do metaphysical speculations, which, although themselves untestable, may lead to testable empirical hypotheses. Whether any of our theories or models are "true" in the sense that they accurately and comprehensively present or reflect what is "actually the case" is impossible to know. This is the basic idea of correspondence, which has been found to be inconclusive, even incoherent, if we try to apply it in any "absolute" sense.
So, we don't know whether we are "capable of producing a model that rigorously replicates the behavior of the universe"; how could we ever know such a thing? It might seem to us that we have a model that does, but how could we know that what seems to us is real in any "absolute sense", or even what that question could mean?
Granted that the premise oversimplifies what it might even mean to accurately model the universe, and that even if we are able to craft a model that appeared to fit the bill, there would always be limitations to "prove" its reach.
But I think that only furthers the case in favor of the limitations of reason to construct an accurate portrayal of reality, which (at risk of sounding anthropomorphic) to me seems to boil down to the universe's structure and its relationship with who/what we are.
And although I have no reason to think evolution of the brain's cognitive powers has peaked, I also suspect no amount of cognitive evolution would be sufficient in order to deduce or hold such knowledge.
On the other hand, here we are in this precarious foraging for existential knowledge since becoming homo sapiens. One could be tempted to wonder why would decaying star matter want to do that.