The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Krylo]

Well, Zak, the real problem is, you aren't defending Rene Descartes, so much as you're defending some half-assed convulated version of his philosophical meandering.

You see, you're being too broad. We begin, merely, with the assumption that reality is real. That's it.

Now, when making logical deductions ABOUT reality, that assumption shouldn't even really be considered. I mean, if you assume reality isn't real then there's no point trying to figure out how reality works, now is there?


Remember: Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Meaning, entirely, that he could only prove that HE exists, because he knows that he is thinking.

He doesn't know that you're thinking, or that I'm thinking. He only knows that his senses TELL him that other people are there. However, he said, too, that his senses are falliable.

So, really, what you're arguing is that the real world doesn't exist and we all live in some dreamland.

And, yes, fine, that's a decent idea, that cannot be falsified. We DO have to assume the other.

What you're leaving out of your arguement is that if we assume reality is not real, then there's no point discussing anything even tangentially pertaining to reality.

And, FURTHER, that it does not mean that anything else we say is an assumption.

Every logical construct in science can be thought to have the prefix to it "In the context of believing that reality actually exists" for if reality actually exists then, well, it exists in the manner that we have measured.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

But the thing is, how do you know whether or not something is a meter in length? You'd need some sort of measuring machine in order to come to such a conclusion. Even if you were to make the comparison as direct as possible (by actually somehow comparing the length of something to the actual distance you observe some light travel in 1/299792458 seconds), what you're using is still technically a machine, and thus can still suffer from the same sorts of flaws I described earlier.
[...]
We only know the power output by observing an effect of it. That observation could, too, be an incorrect representation of reality, leading us to think the data is consistent, when in reality it is not.

Are you seeing a pattern here? Everything you know about the world (except maybe your own existence) you know because of observations of it, or from implications of those observations. Cite any possible observation you want that would expose these errors, and I can just say those observations are incorrect too; incorrect in just the right way to validate the other error(s). Having stated the overall pattern of my reasoning, I hope never to have to give another example of it again. I've done it like 10 times now.
[...]
Let's go back to what you said a fact was. You said it was something anyone could confirm for themselves. You never stated the following explicitly, so if you disagree, please state it; but the only way for someone to confirm something is by sensing it somehow. Or by using a measuring machine, the output of which is also introduced to people via their senses. So this whole definition hinges upon our senses being something we can trust to give us true and reliable information. Hence the whole argument. Without the idea that our senses are reliable (assumed or derived), there is no guarantee that there even is such thing as a fact.

Ok as clearly as humanly possible and in very few words.(or not) IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW WE HAPPEN TO PERCEIVE/DEFINE OUR UNITS OF MEASURE. There is objective fact underpinning all observations. In nature there is literally no such thing as a meter or a second. They simply do not exist. It doesn't matter what we call it our how we sense it. We could perceive a standard helium atom with 2 protons and 2 neutrons to have a mass of 50kg per mole instead of 4.00 g per mole. It does not change the amount of "stuff" that's there. If we suddenly observed its mass dropping to 4.00g per mole things would still not change. (This is assuming of course the change is due entirely to our flawed senses.)

To go back to the tree thing. If a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound regardless of who is or is not around it. It makes a very loud crashing sound in fact. Even if an insane person happened to be standing there and heard music instead the basic physical effects of the sound are not changed by that.

In continuance, how we observe the world, and any flaws there of, effect only those arbitrary names we have for things not the things themselves. This is very easy to prove. Just click off your lights everything looks a lot less colorful in dimmer light. The pigments didn't change. The wavelengths of light that are reflected and absorbed are exactly the same. The only difference is that the receptors in your eyes that work best in low light suck at color. To reiterate, HUMAN OBSERVATIONS NO MATTER HOW FLAWED, DETAILED, ECT HAVE NO IMPACT ON ACTUAL REALITY.

Units are simply arbitrary constants that adjust for our limited ability to sense. They act as a translator from objective fact to subjective fact. For better or worse they fix the imperfection of our senses. If our senses where imperfect in a different way or suddenly became imperfect in a different way our units would simply change, or be changed to accommodate that.

So, you need not make the assumption that our senses are not flawed if you realize are measurements are in and of themselves meaningless. They are simply translations of the objective truth so that we may understand and communicate that truth. Once more, OUR SENSES BEING FLAWED HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE TRUTH OF ANYTHING; THAT INCLUDES THE MEASUREMENTS WE MAKE. This is because we define our measurements as, for lack of a better way to explain it, the difference between totally objective truth and our perception of that truth. This means that any change in the flaw is immediately accompanied by a change in the definition of the unit of measure preserving the truth of the measurement. Therefore we need not ever concern ourselves with this unknowable perfectly objective truth because our subjective view point continuously shifts to accurately represent it in the way best fit for our understanding.

I pull from a wiki:
Deductive reasoning is the kind of reasoning in which the conclusion is necessitated by, or reached from, previously known facts (the premises). If the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This is distinguished from abductive and inductive reasoning, where the premises may predict a high probability of the conclusion, but do not ensure that the conclusion is true.

Facts being:
act Pronunciation (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

and if you really want to get complex:
Abduction, or inference to the best explanation, is a method of reasoning employed in the sciences in which one chooses which hypothesis would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. The term abduction is sometimes used to mean just the generation of hypotheses to explain observations or conclusions, but the former definition is more common both in philosophy and computing.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sith:

There is objective fact underpinning all observations.

By simply stating this as a fact, you're doing exactly what I said must be done: assumption that observations accurately and reliably reflect reality.

We could perceive a standard helium atom with 2 protons and 2 neutrons to have a mass of 50kg per mole instead of 4.00 g per mole. It does not change the amount of "stuff" that's there. If we suddenly observed its mass dropping to 4.00g per mole things would still not change. (This is assuming of course the change is due entirely to our flawed senses.)

To go back to the tree thing. If a tree falls in the forest it makes a sound regardless of who is or is not around it. It makes a very loud crashing sound in fact. Even if an insane person happened to be standing there and heard music instead the basic physical effects of the sound are not changed by that.

I'm very aware of all of this. I don't recall ever disagreeing with it.

In continuance, how we observe the world, and any flaws there of, effect only those arbitrary names we have for things not the things themselves. This is very easy to prove. Just click off your lights everything looks a lot less colorful in dimmer light. The pigments didn't change. The wavelengths of light that are reflected and absorbed are exactly the same. The only difference is that the receptors in your eyes that work best in low light suck at color. To reiterate, HUMAN OBSERVATIONS NO MATTER HOW FLAWED, DETAILED, ECT HAVE NO IMPACT ON ACTUAL REALITY.

I'm aware of this too. I haven't disagreed with it either. It still seems like you don't understand what I'm trying to say, because you keep using these barely relevant counterexamples. Here's what I'm trying to say: The fact that it seems darker is a reflection of the physical fact that there is less light being reflected around the room. What what if that's false? What if, when you sense yourself flipping a lightswitch, your senses begin to lie and behave as though there is less light in the room, when in fact the amount of light doesn't chance? Then you'd be out of sync with reality because your senses are lying to you. And you have no way of knowing this because it all seems consistent to you, what with the switch and all.

Units are simply arbitrary constants that adjust for our limited ability to sense. They act as a translator from objective fact to subjective fact. For better or worse they fix the imperfection of our senses. If our senses where imperfect in a different way or suddenly became imperfect in a different way our units would simply change, or be changed to accommodate that.

So, you need not make the assumption that our senses are not flawed if you realize are measurements are in and of themselves meaningless. They are simply translations of the objective truth so that we may understand and communicate that truth. Once more, OUR SENSES BEING FLAWED HAVE NO EFFECT ON THE TRUTH OF ANYTHING; THAT INCLUDES THE MEASUREMENTS WE MAKE.

Mostly true, but you make the mistake that measurements automatically reflect truth. If, for instance, all lengths we observed were "off" from reality by a factor of 100, then I guess there wouldn't be any problem. We'd always be relatively correct. What I'm saying is, what if every time we saw a length of exactly 8 meters, we perceived it as one meter? As well, every time we attempt to actually measure that length (with a big ruler or something), we would also see it match up with the one meter mark on the ruler, although in reality it would match up with the eight meter mark. If we could create tools which would simply make objective data appear in our head (for example, "this object is 8 meters long"), then you'd be in business. But, unfortunately, we still have to sense our machines in order to gain objective measurements, which means that even though they may present us with the truth, we can misperceive them as well as we can misperceive the truth itself in a more subjective form.

Facts being:
act Pronunciation (fkt)
n.
1. Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy.
2.
a. Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed: Genetic engineering is now a fact. That Chaucer was a real person is an undisputed fact.
b. A real occurrence; an event: had to prove the facts of the case.
c. Something believed to be true or real: a document laced with mistaken facts.
3. A thing that has been done, especially a crime: an accessory before the fact.
4. Law The aspect of a case at law comprising events determined by evidence: The jury made a finding of fact.

All the definitions are based upon reality. We know what's real by sensing it. If our senses can lie, we can't really claim to know what is or isn't real. Therefore we can't claim to know any facts. Therefore we can't use deductive reasoning.

Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is used, for example, in using specific propositions such as:

and if you really want to get complex:
Abduction, or inference to the best explanation, is a method of reasoning employed in the sciences in which one chooses which hypothesis would, if true, best explain the relevant evidence. In other words, it is the reasoning process that starts from a set of facts and derives their most likely explanations. The term abduction is sometimes used to mean just the generation of hypotheses to explain observations or conclusions, but the former definition is more common both in philosophy and computing.

Okay. Don't know what point you're trying to make. And what happened after that "such as...?"

krylo:

You see, you're being too broad. We begin, merely, with the assumption that reality is real. That's it.

I would have thought the very definition of reality is, "everything that is real." What is the definition of reality in the context you're using it? Hopefully not, "everything which we can sense."

Now, when making logical deductions ABOUT reality, that assumption shouldn't even really be considered. I mean, if you assume reality isn't real then there's no point trying to figure out how reality works, now is there?


Remember: Descartes said "I think, therefore I am." Meaning, entirely, that he could only prove that HE exists, because he knows that he is thinking.

He doesn't know that you're thinking, or that I'm thinking. He only knows that his senses TELL him that other people are there. However, he said, too, that his senses are falliable.

That's all good and nice, but I don't know why you're expanding on this assumption that no one ever stated or question in this thread before.

So, really, what you're arguing is that the real world doesn't exist and we all live in some dreamland.

And I don't know how in the world you went from the above to this statement. I haven't said a thing about the reality or existence of... well, reality. All I've talked about is our ability to sense that which is real.

And, yes, fine, that's a decent idea, that cannot be falsified. We DO have to assume the other.

Well, hoo-rah, that IS what I've been getting at. Well... the assumption is, anyway.

What you're leaving out of your arguement is that if we assume reality is not real, then there's no point discussing anything even tangentially pertaining to reality.

Well, again, I haven't talked about whether reality is real or not (not even sure what that means), only about whether or not we can sense reality consistently. Furthermore, even if you change your statement to something that I've actually talked about (like if by "reality" you meant "things we observe"), I also never said we should assume that we can't sense properly, only that there's no way to discount the possibility. And the second part of that sentence is precisely my reasoning: if we don't make the assumption that what we sense is real, then we have no right to talk about what going on in reality. That's why we need that assumption: to make our observations useful.

And, FURTHER, that it does not mean that anything else we say is an assumption.

I'm actually very uncertain of what this sentence means...

Every logical construct in science can be thought to have the prefix to it "In the context of believing that reality actually exists" for if reality actually exists then, well, it exists in the manner that we have measured.

That's sort of exactly what I'm saying! In order to do most things, we make fundamental assumptions; assumptions so basic we never even bother to mention them. And then, in the last part of that statement, you are, perhaps inadvertently, making the very assumption I've been saying is necessary.

In fact, that whole "questionable senses" thing was just an example, anyway. If you can explain to me what "reality is real" means (as long as it doesn't mean the same as what I've been saying all along), then I'll just use that as my example assumption of necessity.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

I'm aware of this too. I haven't disagreed with it either. It still seems like you don't understand what I'm trying to say, because you keep using these barely relevant counterexamples. Here's what I'm trying to say: The fact that it seems darker is a reflection of the physical fact that there is less light being reflected around the room. What what if that's false? What if, when you sense yourself flipping a lightswitch, your senses begin to lie and behave as though there is less light in the room, when in fact the amount of light doesn't chance? Then you'd be out of sync with reality because your senses are lying to you. And you have no way of knowing this because it all seems consistent to you, what with the switch and all.

It wouldn't matter because as soon as you took a count of the photons, which you can do, you'd immediately notice that something is wrong. The fact your eyes happen to ignore some of them doesn't matter to the machine and the machine was created and calibrated in a well lit room where you're senses weren't "lying" for some abstract reason. Further, it wouldn't change the actual energy bumping around in the room all the real objective effects of having that much light in the room are totally unaffected. For instance a photovoltiac cell would produce exactly the same amount of power. Don't try to tell me you could also perceive that wrong as well because even if you did it would still continue to actually produce that power and hooking it to a device that runs on more electricity than you think it should produce at the light level you perceive. Thus the machine will operate. Of course you could misperceive this as well but if the machine was a fan air would be moving. You could misperceive this but the moving are could be rustling paper. You could misperceive this but the paper would be generating noise. You could misperceive this but the noise would raise the temperature of the room. You could misperceive this but the rising temperature would decrease the air density in the room. This chain literally continues on forever until there is just something you don't misperceive and it becomes clear something is wrong.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Mostly true, but you make the mistake that measurements automatically reflect truth. If, for instance, all lengths we observed were "off" from reality by a factor of 100, then I guess there wouldn't be any problem. We'd always be relatively correct. What I'm saying is, what if every time we saw a length of exactly 8 meters, we perceived it as one meter? As well, every time we attempt to actually measure that length (with a big ruler or something), we would also see it match up with the one meter mark on the ruler, although in reality it would match up with the eight meter mark. If we could create tools which would simply make objective data appear in our head (for example, "this object is 8 meters long"), then you'd be in business. But, unfortunately, we still have to sense our machines in order to gain objective measurements, which means that even though they may present us with the truth, we can misperceive them as well as we can misperceive the truth itself in a more subjective form.

Ok I think you are driving at the fact that we could potentially see all other measurements as we see them now but from some crazy unknown reason see 8meters as equal to 1meter. This case would be so obviously clear its not even funny. Simply put if you placed two mirrors so far apart that it took a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second for light to travel between then and then grabbed an actual one meter rod and placed it between them it would fit. The 8 meter rod that appeared one meter would suddenly not fit. Conversely if your mirrors ended up being 8 meters apart both rods would fit. However, the photons traveling through the 8 meters would have to travel further. But since you are seeing the same distance the photons traveling the 8 meters you see as one meter would appear to travel more slowly than the photons traveling one meter. Basically if you had two plates at 45 degree angles an actual meter apart and similarly angled plates at 8 meters, that looks like 1 meter apart, and dropped a ball onto one side of both distances the ball that has to actually travel 8 meters would travel more slowly as it traversed the apparent one meter to the other plate. Or if it was some strange spacial anomaly the ball traveling the 8 meters would appear to pass through the second plate travel for 7 extra meters and then suddenly reappear at that second plate. Either way it'd be really really clear that something was up. Especially if there was an obstacle behind the second plate of that 8 meters that looks like one meter in that extra 7 meters. Simply because that would stop the ball from ever arriving.

Further, you can't misperceive units precisely because units are how we perceive reality. The units we use always represent the difference between our subjective truth and objective truth because we define them in precisely that manner. The distance light travels in a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second never changes no matter how someone might subjectively view a second or the distance the light traveled. Hell take a look at general Relativity; even in the most crazy warped spacetime any measurement of the speed of light gives you the speed of light. Heck even someone outside of that crazy spacetime measure that same speed. (This is assuming no medium changes as that's a different story about how atoms can help or hinder a photon's progress.)

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

All the definitions are based upon reality. We know what's real by sensing it. If our senses can lie, we can't really claim to know what is or isn't real. Therefore we can't claim to know any facts. Therefore we can't use deductive reasoning.

Which is precisely the point. We know deductive reasoning works because it has never failed. All properly constructed deductive arguments using premises that are indisputable facts have been right. Therefore we can use deductive reasoning. Therefore, you must know what is truly real and thus know facts.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Okay. Don't know what point you're trying to make. And what happened after that "such as...?"

Follow those nifty little things called links for once and you'll figure it out as those are excerpts from an article. I just didn't quote them because I quote to much already.

Originally Posted by Krylo

What you're leaving out of your arguement is that if we assume reality is not real, then there's no point discussing anything even tangentially pertaining to reality.

The thing is that we only have to assumptions. If one assumption leads to a dead end in which everything is false than the other assumption has to be true. Either reality is real or it isn't. There is no middle ground and since reality can't not be real, otherwise nothing should ever work, it must then be real. Further, just because we could be misperceiveing reality doesn't make the the statement we don't misperceive reality an assumption. An assumption is an assumption for lack of proof. We have loads of proof our measurements of nature are not wrong because we're sitting here using lots of advance technology built on top of those measurements. It is, on the other hand, and assumption to state we are misperceiveing reality because there is no evidence and it is also contrary to logic.

[ZAKtheGeek]

It wouldn't matter because as soon as you took a count of the photons, which you can do, you'd immediately notice that something is wrong. The fact your eyes happen to ignore some of them doesn't matter to the machine and the machine was created and calibrated in a well lit room where you're senses weren't "lying" for some abstract reason. Further, it wouldn't change the actual energy bumping around in the room all the real objective effects of having that much light in the room are totally unaffected. For instance a photovoltiac cell would produce exactly the same amount of power. Don't try to tell me you could also perceive that wrong as well because even if you did it would still continue to actually produce that power and hooking it to a device that runs on more electricity than you think it should produce at the light level you perceive. Thus the machine will operate. Of course you could misperceive this as well but if the machine was a fan air would be moving. You could misperceive this but the moving are could be rustling paper. You could misperceive this but the paper would be generating noise. You could misperceive this but the noise would raise the temperature of the room. You could misperceive this but the rising temperature would decrease the air density in the room. This chain literally continues on forever until there is just something you don't misperceive and it becomes clear something is wrong.

I'm very glad that you get the idea. Honestly, that's great. But I don't know where that last sentence is coming from. It's completely unbacked and in fact contradictory to what you wrote just prior. Why must the chain of misperceptions end somewhere? It just seems like you're clinging on with whatever tiny, unexplained bit you can...

Ok I think you are driving at the fact that we could potentially see all other measurements as we see them now but from some crazy unknown reason see 8meters as equal to 1meter. This case would be so obviously clear its not even funny. Simply put if you placed two mirrors so far apart that it took a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second for light to travel between then and then grabbed an actual one meter rod and placed it between them it would fit. The 8 meter rod that appeared one meter would suddenly not fit. Conversely if your mirrors ended up being 8 meters apart both rods would fit. However, the photons traveling through the 8 meters would have to travel further. But since you are seeing the same distance the photons traveling the 8 meters you see as one meter would appear to travel more slowly than the photons traveling one meter. Basically if you had two plates at 45 degree angles an actual meter apart and similarly angled plates at 8 meters, that looks like 1 meter apart, and dropped a ball onto one side of both distances the ball that has to actually travel 8 meters would travel more slowly as it traversed the apparent one meter to the other plate. Or if it was some strange spacial anomaly the ball traveling the 8 meters would appear to pass through the second plate travel for 7 extra meters and then suddenly reappear at that second plate. Either way it'd be really really clear that something was up. Especially if there was an obstacle behind the second plate of that 8 meters that looks like one meter in that extra 7 meters. Simply because that would stop the ball from ever arriving.

I don't even understand the latter part of this paragraph, but I highly doubt it matters; you've already admitted we can incorrectly sense just about anything. Why should these experiments be any different? Their results can be misperceived like everything else. Their setups also require measurements to be taken beforehand, and those measurements can also be misperceived in such a way that makes the experiment contrary to reality.

Further, you can't misperceive units precisely because units are how we perceive reality. The units we use always represent the difference between our subjective truth and objective truth because we define them in precisely that manner. The distance light travels in a time interval of 1/(299 792 458) of a second never changes no matter how someone might subjectively view a second or the distance the light traveled.

Yes, yes, you keep saying this. I keep telling you it doesn't matter. Yes, that distance is a constant in reality. But if your senses lie to you, it can appear not so constant; or that which isn't constant can appear constant. Or both. This is because the only way to know if something is the length you've defined as a meter or not is to measure it, and as I keep saying, you can misperceive the results of the measurer.

Which is precisely the point. We know deductive reasoning works because it has never failed. All properly constructed deductive arguments using premises that are indisputable facts have been right. Therefore we can use deductive reasoning. Therefore, you must know what is truly real and thus know facts.

This is a fundamental fallacy on a number of levels. Here's two that I can think of:
-Even falsehoods can imply truths. You're actually inverting the logic, saying that because the implication is true, the premise must be as well. An example of this sort of thinking is, "Because gremlins have painted the sun yellow, it looks yellow. The sun does indeed look yellow. Therefore, gremlins must have painted it yellow."
-You are transcending the level of abstraction this issue is based in. Remember, both your premises and their implications are verified through observation. If you can observe a faulty premise, then you can observe a faulty yet matching event for the implication.

[The thing is that we only have to assumptions. If one assumption leads to a dead end in which everything is false than the other assumption has to be true.

We don't have to assume one or the other. I don't see why we can't be "uncertain." But no matter; you've basically just agreed with me. Recall that all I'm trying to prove is that we need to make assumptions in order to use logic. By saying that we must assume either the positive or the negative of this one particular statement, you've proven me right; that's at least one assumption we must make, regardless of which way we make it.

[Archbio]

ZAK,

I would have thought the very definition of reality is, "everything that is real." What is the definition of reality in the context you're using it? Hopefully not, "everything which we can sense."

Why not?

And here there's a distinction to be made. When you say "everything which we can sense", you're suggesting that it would be foolish to restrain the definition of theoritical reality to what has been already experienced or sensed. But in this context, that's not what observed reality is set up against. You set up, in your example, observed reality against another reality in its place.

Observed reality is observed with consistancy. It's true that it could be inconsistant with actual reality, but if it was all of this is moot, so we do start with the assumption that observed reality is reality.

To quote Azisien:

To me the argument is similar to the "what is reality is all an illusion?" To which I reply, well, all right, then we have a definitional problem of the terms reality and illusion. If it's all an illusion, it isn't an illusion, that's what reality is.

If observed reality is parallel with actual reality, that is, if observed reality is consistant and the differences between observed and actual realities don't actually disturb observed reality then observed reality is actual reality, or at least a self contained subset of it.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

We don't have to assume one or the other. I don't see why we can't be "uncertain." But no matter; you've basically just agreed with me. Recall that all I'm trying to prove is that we need to make assumptions in order to use logic. By saying that we must assume either the positive or the negative of this one particular statement, you've proven me right; that's at least one assumption we must make, regardless of which way we make it.

No, and if that didn't get the point across no, no, no, no, no, no, no, and no.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

We don't have to assume one or the other. I don't see why we can't be "uncertain." But no matter; you've basically just agreed with me. Recall that all I'm trying to prove is that we need to make assumptions in order to use logic. By saying that we must assume either the positive or the negative of this one particular statement, you've proven me right; that's at least one assumption we must make, regardless of which way we make it.

They can't both be right. They are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a reality that is both real and not real. It just doesn't work that way. Choose one or the other.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

I'm very glad that you get the idea. Honestly, that's great. But I don't know where that last sentence is coming from. It's completely unbacked and in fact contradictory to what you wrote just prior. Why must the chain of misperceptions end somewhere? It just seems like you're clinging on with whatever tiny, unexplained bit you can...

No see the thing is that both chains can continue indefinitely. It is more likely though that you'll eventually hit something you simply can't misperceive. The chain of misperceptions is guaranteed to be infinite be causality guarantees an infinite chain of effects. Therefore, the effects must eventually win out over the misperceptions or the very least exactly cancel them.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

I don't even understand the latter part of this paragraph, but I highly doubt it matters; you've already admitted we can incorrectly sense just about anything. Why should these experiments be any different? Their results can be misperceived like everything else. Their setups also require measurements to be taken beforehand, and those measurements can also be misperceived in such a way that makes the experiment contrary to reality.

It does not matter. Your misperceptions of reality have no impact on reality. In fact those experiments are predicated on that fact you are making those mistaken measurements. If you perceive 1 meter as one meter and 8 meters as 1 meter it is possible to construct two apparatus. One is actually one meter while the other one is 8 meters that look like one meter. Preforming the exact same tests on both immediately show this distinction.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Yes, yes, you keep saying this. I keep telling you it doesn't matter. Yes, that distance is a constant in reality. But if your senses lie to you, it can appear not so constant; or that which isn't constant can appear constant. Or both. This is because the only way to know if something is the length you've defined as a meter or not is to measure it, and as I keep saying, you can misperceive the results of the measurer.

You know I'm going to stop using flawed to describe senses now because they aren't flawed. They are limited but not flawed and you misperceive in the sense that you don't perceive everything not that you perceive things wrong.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

This is a fundamental fallacy on a number of levels. Here's two that I can think of:
-Even falsehoods can imply truths. You're actually inverting the logic, saying that because the implication is true, the premise must be as well. An example of this sort of thinking is, "Because gremlins have painted the sun yellow, it looks yellow. The sun does indeed look yellow. Therefore, gremlins must have painted it yellow."

The difference here is that you aren't using mutually exclusive assumptions. That little diatribe was a setup for:

Originally Posted by me

The thing is that we only have to assumptions. If one assumption leads to a dead end in which everything is false than the other assumption has to be true. Either reality is real or it isn't. There is no middle ground and since reality can't not be real, otherwise nothing should ever work, it must then be real. Further, just because we could be misperceiveing reality doesn't make the the statement we don't misperceive reality an assumption. An assumption is an assumption for lack of proof. We have loads of proof our measurements of nature are not wrong because we're sitting here using lots of advance technology built on top of those measurements. It is, on the other hand, and assumption to state we are misperceiveing reality because there is no evidence and it is also contrary to logic.

and further I was more eluding to the fact that we have masses and masses of data and physical laws built on deductive reasoning that have never been wrong. (as long as the deductions hold true to the correct form). This is fundamentally different than gremlins and painting because if you tried to build laws on top of this they wouldn't hold up for very long.

[quote=-You are transcending the level of abstraction this issue is based in. Remember, both your premises and their implications are verified through observation. If you can observe a faulty premise, then you can observe a faulty yet matching event for the implication.[/quote]
Except not because even if you observe a faulty premise and a faulty observation there is always a way it could and most likely would bite you in the ass. Lets go back to the tree in the forest example. If you happen to be in the path of the tree and high on LCD and you think its a fluffy cloud coming down over you that doesn't prevent you from being crushed and dieing. Further, if while you are dieing your brain maintains the illusion that you are covered in a harmless fluffy cloud you still die. It doesn't change a damn thing.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sith:

They can't both be right. They are mutually exclusive. You cannot have a reality that is both real and not real. It just doesn't work that way. Choose one or the other.

I know it has to be one or the other. That doesn't mean we must know which one it is. I guess with an issue this fundamental (this is, like, the issue), you might be forced to... Anyway, that's not the main point (notice the "but no matter?"). The main point is that you are forced to make an assumption in order to use a logic system (in this case the assumption is the state of reality), which is all I was trying to prove in the first place.

No see the thing is that both chains can continue indefinitely.

Good!

It is more likely though that you'll eventually hit something you simply can't misperceive.

I'm not saying any of this is likely. I've said about five times that all of these things I'm saying are ridiculously convoluted and unlikely. But they aren't impossible, which is all I need.

The chain of misperceptions is guaranteed to be infinite be causality guarantees an infinite chain of effects. Therefore, the effects must eventually win out over the misperceptions or the very least exactly cancel them.

Okay. So they cancel. What's the problem? You'd have a flawed system of observations and you have no way of knowing it. Is my point not proven at this time?

It does not matter. Your misperceptions of reality have no impact on reality. In fact those experiments are predicated on that fact you are making those mistaken measurements. If you perceive 1 meter as one meter and 8 meters as 1 meter it is possible to construct two apparatus. One is actually one meter while the other one is 8 meters that look like one meter. Preforming the exact same tests on both immediately show this distinction.

The tests can't be relied upon because you must observe them, and you can't trust your observations. How many times must I say it? The whole concept isn't even logical; your very test to see whether or not our observations are consistent by assumes beforehand that they are.

You know I'm going to stop using flawed to describe senses now because they aren't flawed. They are limited but not flawed and you misperceive in the sense that you don't perceive everything not that you perceive things wrong.

Seeing one meter when it's really eight is a limitation and not a flaw? Whatever you want; I'm going to try and argue as little semantics as possible. Just keep it consistent.

The difference here is that you aren't using mutually exclusive assumptions.

Gremlins painted the sun yellow or they didn't. Happy?

and further I was more eluding to the fact that we have masses and masses of data and physical laws built on deductive reasoning that have never been wrong. (as long as the deductions hold true to the correct form). This is fundamentally different than gremlins and painting because if you tried to build laws on top of this they wouldn't hold up for very long.

You're just attacking the example. The example isn't what matters; I was just demonstrating why the logic you're using is faulty. It doesn't matter how many times you do it; the fact is that you're just bending the laws of logic now. Falsehoods can imply truths; therefore your argument has no merit. Premises prove implications and not the other way around; therefore your argument has no logical grounding.

Except not because even if you observe a faulty premise and a faulty observation there is always a way it could and most likely would bite you in the ass. Lets go back to the tree in the forest example. If you happen to be in the path of the tree and high on LCD and you think its a fluffy cloud coming down over you that doesn't prevent you from being crushed and dieing. Further, if while you are dieing your brain maintains the illusion that you are covered in a harmless fluffy cloud you still die. It doesn't change a damn thing.

This is an extreme case in which sensory information certainly cannot be denied. There is no misperceiving the end of perception. However, this does not apply to all cases. Whenever senses are actually retained, any event can be made to seem like any other event by way of sensory misinformation. To recap, you are right in that there are some observations we can be certain about, but you've yet to show that we can be certain about every observation.

Archbio:

Why not?

Because then there is no distinction between krylo's confusing tangent and what I've been saying the whole time. Go ahead and replace "reality" with "everything which we can sense" in that context. It would read, "We begin, merely, with the assumption that everything which we can sense is real." That is exactly the assumption I've been arguing we must make, in order to prove that some assumptions are necessary. Krylo eventually seems to come to the conclusion that this assumption is indeed necessary (I think... I didn't fully comprehend his post). Something just told me he wasn't agreeing with my "half-assed convoluted" logic.

And here there's a distinction to be made. When you say "everything which we can sense", you're suggesting that it would be foolish to restrain the definition of theoritical reality to what has been already experienced or sensed. But in this context, that's not what observed reality is set up against. You set up, in your example, observed reality against another reality in its place.

Observed reality is observed with consistancy. It's true that it could be inconsistant with actual reality, but if it was all of this is moot, so we do start with the assumption that observed reality is reality.

Coincidently, this is a great way to introduce something else I recently thought up that makes my argument a bit easier. Inconsistent observations! The idea has been part of my "necessary assumption" since the first time I wrote it. Go ahead, look it up. Of course, Sithdarth would say that we would measure it and find that it's inconsistent, but no dice there. You look at something, see that it appears wrong (one meter where the should be eight, for instance), then you measure. Except when you measure it, it looks to you as if it is one meter. With this idea, observations only have to make sense when you can objectively prove that they don't. No need to even bamboozle the machines! And also, of course, our set of observations would be inconsistent even with itself, so that'd really be no good.

The other way to counter this was kindly provided by Sithdarth. You might see wolves as bunnies, but bunnies are never going to eat you. There's no crap your senses could possibly feed you to cover up the fact that you're dead.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

I know it has to be one or the other. That doesn't mean we must know which one it is. I guess with an issue this fundamental (this is, like, the issue), you might be forced to... Anyway, that's not the main point (notice the "but no matter?"). The main point is that you are forced to make an assumption in order to use a logic system (in this case the assumption is the state of reality), which is all I was trying to prove in the first place.

If you have only two possible assumptions and you eliminate one as impossible the other one has to be true. As Holmes would say if you eliminate all other possibilities whatever is left has to be the truth. Not an assumption, the undeniable truth.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

I'm not saying any of this is likely. I've said about five times that all of these things I'm saying are ridiculously convoluted and unlikely. But they aren't impossible, which is all I need.

No I'm saying that. I mean if you traced the chain of effects long enough it'll lead to a death or even your death. Which is something you can't misperceive and therefore the chain of effects wins.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Okay. So they cancel. What's the problem? You'd have a flawed system of observations and you have no way of knowing it. Is my point not proven at this time?

If they cancel all your observations would, as you say, be flawed in exactly the same way. Therefore, you'd be able to construct a consistent set of conversion to translate one to the other. In other words consistent units.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

The tests can't be relied upon because you must observe them, and you can't trust your observations. How many times must I say it? The whole concept isn't even logical; your very test to see whether or not our observations are consistent by assumes beforehand that they are.

This is why you can't make the assumption that we receive "false" information because it only leads to logical inconsistencies.

Originally Posted by ZAktheGeek

Seeing one meter when it's really eight is a limitation and not a flaw? Whatever you want; I'm going to try and argue as little semantics as possible. Just keep it consistent.

No that would be a flaw. These types of flaws don't exists. Limitations do exist.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

Gremlins painted the sun yellow or they didn't. Happy?

The problem is there is still at least a third possibility of why the sun is yellow. Because it emits mainly yellow light. We don't have that with reality is real v reality isn't real.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

You're just attacking the example. The example isn't what matters; I was just demonstrating why the logic you're using is faulty. It doesn't matter how many times you do it; the fact is that you're just bending the laws of logic now. Falsehoods can imply truths; therefore your argument has no merit. Premises prove implications and not the other way around; therefore your argument has no logical grounding.

They can however as soon as you try to build on implication everything falls apart and you know your premises were false. Which is my entire point. Anything at the base of logic has to be true or its not logic.

Originally Posted by ZAKtheGeek

This is an extreme case in which sensory information certainly cannot be denied. There is no misperceiving the end of perception. However, this does not apply to all cases. Whenever senses are actually retained, any event can be made to seem like any other event by way of sensory misinformation. To recap, you are right in that there are some observations we can be certain about, but you've yet to show that we can be certain about every observation.

This is having it both ways. You can't have it both ways. Either our senses are limited but correct or they produce false information. They don't change to fit the situation.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sith:

If you have only two possible assumptions and you eliminate one as impossible the other one has to be true. As Holmes would say if you eliminate all other possibilities whatever is left has to be the truth. Not an assumption, the undeniable truth.

Fine, but I'm not done pressing this. Now I actually do need to know what's meant by "reality is real," if it's anything other than what I've been saying all along (as in, reality = observations).

No I'm saying that. I mean if you traced the chain of effects long enough it'll lead to a death or even your death. Which is something you can't misperceive and therefore the chain of effects wins.

Every single misperception possible will always chain back to a death? I find that preposterous, and I wish you good luck in proving it. And don't try to turn this around and make me prove that all those misperceptions are actually happening; all my position requires is that I cast doubt. You, however, seem intent on showing that observations are definitely consistent. So hop to it.

If they cancel all your observations would, as you say, be flawed in exactly the same way. Therefore, you'd be able to construct a consistent set of conversion to translate one to the other. In other words consistent units.

I'm not convinced of this. At least in the example we've been working on, with the lights, you end up relying on some properties that you basically have no way to measure a difference in but through measuring machines. In that case, it is not the units that have to be misperceived but your perception of the machine itself. At the same time, there are probably some cases where the entire chain could be vaguely observed without the need for mechanical aid. Once again, you are gaining ground. Not done yet, of course, but good job.

Alternatively, see the inconsistent observation concept which I directed at Archbio one post prior.

This is why you can't make the assumption that we receive "false" information because it only leads to logical inconsistencies.

First of all, no it doesn't. The inconsistency you seem to be referring to is the test itself, and there's no reason that the test has to make sense. Just because it does make sense in our current system doesn't mean it must be that way under a different assumption. Second, and much more importantly, I'm not making the assumption that we receive false information. At all. I'm simply presenting the possibility of it as undeniable. I'm not saying we are, I'm saying we could be. In fact, in the end it's to advocate the we must do the opposite of what you think I want; I'm advocating the assumption that our senses don't give false information. Haven't you picked this up by now?

The problem is there is still at least a third possibility of why the sun is yellow. Because it emits mainly yellow light. We don't have that with reality is real v reality isn't real.

Forget the example! The point is, you're using your own rules for logic and not the existing ones.

They can however as soon as you try to build on implication everything falls apart and you know your premises were false.

Another abuse of logic. A nonfunctional system implies false premises; fine. But your argument is the logical inverse of that: a working system implies true premises. The two are not necessarily logical equivalents.

This is having it both ways. You can't have it both ways. Either our senses are limited but correct or they produce false information. They don't change to fit the situation.

You're polarizing my position. Your statement only makes sense if I were to claim that everything we sense was false. I'm saying some of it can be false. There's no reason we can't sense one thing right and another thing wrong.