How can we be certain the Uncertainty Principle is certain? (Strange Universe '11)

You ever read Coyote Moon? It’s about Baseball, Love, and The Heisenberg uncertainty principle. I seemed to think that a simple way to say what this is is if you are too busy concentrating on how a wheel turns you won’t notice the vehicle moving.

Anyway, it’s a great read. Lots of unnecessary sex, but great anyway.

It’s simply about resource availability and possible perspectives. For me it is helpful when I think about it on the macro scale:

(1) In order to get the map necessary to show the future in a totally deterministic universe, we’d have to be able to view all of the particles at the same time for a certain amount of time. This is the only way to do it, because if we view the particles individually or in groups, etc., if we stop looking at them we cannot be certain about our predictions of movement as, once ignored, they will come into other particles we have yet to track and interact in ways we will not know. Therefore, for this to be possible we must be able to view all simultaneously.

(2) In order for that to happen, the particles would have to, essentially, observe, track, and provide predictive models of themselves…because if the observer is not being observed and tracked, then we’re not making the whole map.

(3) In order for that to happen, however, the resources used in the tracking have to be exempt from the observation, used up, and destroyed. Considering matter/energy conservation, this is as far as we know, impossible. That or the resources would have to be drawn from something outside the material universe.

(4) If we can draw something from outside the material universe, we cannot be sure of any of the predictions made as we will be unable to determine if whatever is outside the material universe will continue to or at any point or is already affecting the material universe.

That’s kind of how I resolve it.

You can’t – That was easy!

@12Oaks Sorry, I haven’t read it. But if this question called it to your mind, I would probably enjoy it. I’ll add it to my reading list, and thanks for the recommendation. Oh, and welcome to Fluther. Glad to have you with us.

@iamthemob Nicely constructed argument. So we can’t yet determine if the Universe is entirely deterministic or partially stochastic. But even if the universe is entirely deterministic, it’s impossible to determine that, or to use its deterministic nature to determine where it is heading.

@markferg Not so fast. It you are right, then you can’t be sure you are right. Right?

Relativism

@cackle Welcome to Fluther and thanks for bringing this up. I really don’t think the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle leads necessarily to pure relativism. If you do believe it does, can you discuss why its action at the quantum level must inherently translate to the macro level, and how it can be operating at the macro level when we do not observe the measurement interaction at the macro level that is the basis of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle at the quantum mechanical level?

No, relativism is not a result. Relativism leads to a result.

“Most theories in modern particle physics, including the Standard Model of elementary particles and their interactions, are formulated as relativistic quantum field theories.”

“All uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames) from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.”

Special Relativity

Everyone creates there own truths, but it’s all equally uncertain. There is no universal objective truth. This means that all our individual truths are actually worthless on a global scale, hence, nihilism.

@cackle Aha! Thank you so much for the clarification.

If you want even more clarify, go back to the root of it all. Metaphysics and then Epistemology In epistemology, if you scroll down past the content list, you will see on the right side a certainty series table. Every other concept builds off of these fundamental one’s.

The great part of it all, though, is that whether we’re discussing physics or metaphysics, the concepts of relativism used in the context of creating predictive or valid models yield nothing like “nihilism” generally.

The problem only arises when we look at the issues in search of “certainty.” That Newtonian physics still provides a good predictive model of motion to this day is a good example of the fact that we don’t need to be certain of all the factors in order to show the likelihood of certain results accepting that many of the underlying ideas of the general theory are probably wrong.

@cackle – were you trying to provide “clarity”?

Why would I mention likelihoods when the threads question is about certainty?

Is there a likelihood for an objective meaning of life, purpose, or intrinsic value? I didn’t think so. The opposite of truth is false. Definition of false: is not in accordance with the fact or reality or actuality. This makes all our relativism meaningless. Hence, nihilism.

@cackle – You wouldn’t. I did.

But of course, one of the main critiques of the extreme forms of skepticism is the very nature of this question – it’s self-refuting. If you claim that there is no objective truth, then you are describing an absence of meaning. Leaving aside that this is a claim that refutes itself (i.e., one can’t claim meaninglessness as the claim has no meaning), saying that there is no truth means that there is no opposite of truth. So no false. So if there is no false, then it can’t be that anything is not in accordance with the fact or reality or actuality.

Saying that everything is meaningless is the equivalent of saying that everything matters equally. Which is an extreme form of relativism. Nihilism doesn’t result from relativism – it’s the other side of the same coin (which, of course, has no sides (or all sides)). ;-)

Practice, of course, requires that one merely accept these philosophies and move forward from them. Because, of course, practice is always already negated in either.

“Some suggest that epistemological fallibilism is self-contradictory in that it is in itself an absolute knowledge claim. In other words, the statement “This much is certain: nothing is certain” is an incoherent statement that could not be true. Karl Popper has suggested the compromise that the statement simply be taken as true until it is proven certainly false – which essentially amounts to skepticism.” Fallibilism

All perspectives are equally valid, which means no perspective is truly valid.

@cackle – That’s your perspective. ;-)

Of course, again, in terms of practice, such concepts are not results, but useful starting points, critiques, evaluative exercises, etc.

in terms of philosophical arguments, extreme skeptical perspectives are of limited value, as holding it puts one in the privileged position of being able to criticize without really having to self-criticize in any valuable sense, or accept criticism from others.

Actually, in terms of practice, such concepts are the starting points and the results. Skepticism is worth of value, which is why it puts one in a privileged position.

Whether that’s in practice or really in theory, I’d agree. And in terms of skepticism being rightfully privileged I’d agree as it’s a necessary aspect of critical thought.

My statement, however, was about the extreme form of skepticism. One arguing from that perspective is, in the “end”, merely arguing to argue.

Actual practice requires that skepticism have a little bit of pragmatic flavor.

All this back and fourth that we just did continues to clarify my original statement. All perspectives are equally valid (Relativism), which means no perspective is truly valid (Nihilism).

And the above proves my point – in practice, in terms of using any methodology to produce useful, predictive, or helpful results (which is what practice really is in the end), extreme skepticism (or relativism, or nihilism, or relativism which means nihilism, or nihilism with means relativism, etc.) is a starting point/end point, but just a point to reference and not something to dwell on. In the terms of practice – yes, and that helps us keep our commitment to a certain method in check so that we’re not biasing ourselves against other arguments improperly, but in essence, so what? That’s not an answer we can or would really want to do anything with.

So the circular nature of the argument is, as I said earlier, the nature of the question, and the mirror side of the arguments self-refutational nature. And it’s why the person arguing from such position inevitably appears more self-congratulatory in the fact that they can’t be proven wrong, rather than offering anything of actual value.

Who says we need to practice? Who says we need to offer value? Who says we need to do anything?

And that’s exactly why nihilism and it’s corresponding perspectives are of limited utility in practice – they deny it.

The response above also reveals the problem with it in philosophy and theory – there’s a “why bother?” attitude that just smacks of an excuse of lack of intellectual diligence, or a defense against knowing anything outside of that in which the nihilist has, ironically, invested.

The problem with the above statement, of course, is that it responds to the statement, “In practice, if nihilism is right in practice, so what? If I want to do anything, why should I care…what is its value?” with “Why should I prove value? I don’t have to do anything?”

Which of course begs the question, “Then why are you talking in the first place?”

Because I made talking one of my relative, subjective values, just as you made issues with nihilism and the will to practice your relative, subjective values. See Relativism

Ask yourself what does it mean when all of mankind create their own relative subjective values?

Well of course. In the end, though, it’s a little sad that we’ll never really get the true nihilist part of the argument – because they’re just not part of the argument.

Those proclaiming extreme relativism/nihilism are always interesting in that their arguments insist so much – there’s very much a sense that they need to be agreed with, need to be right, need to have the last word. It’s more like “look how much I know” then a participatory stance.

P.S. – @cackle – You cited three times to the same Wikipedia page for relativism. Did you know that?

How is the nihilistic argument not part of the argument?

How do you know what a claimer of relativism and nihilism insists and needs?

What is your answer for this question: What does it mean when all of mankind create their own relative, subjective values?

Citing terms multiple times is a matter of convenience.

The nihilist isn’t part of the argument – why would he or she be?

The need is shown by the constant devil’s advocacy, challenging, etc. Would you say that you subscribe to a perspective that is relativistic/nihilistic?

I would say that it means that there is no objective value system that can fully describe each member of mankind (if by above you mean “every member of mankind” by “all of mankind”) in all situations with absolute certainty, or that such a system has not been determined and made known to everyone such that all follow it.

But then I would ask, what importance does that hold?

The nihilist is part of the argument because of relativism.

I do subscribe to the perspectives of relativism and nihilism, but, any opposition to relativism and nihilism would require a need as well. I don’t see how it’s only limited to relativism and nihilism…

If everyone has a relative, subjective value, then it’s all equally valid to themselves, but also equally meaningless due to the absence of truth. It holds importance to those that choose it as a relative, subjective value. It also answers the question of the threads topic.

You’re missing the point – the nihilist is not participating in any of the arguments because, if nothing matters or there is no value or truth etc. etc., he or she doesn’t have any motivation to actually speak. We can describe the nihilist and nihilism in the argument, and there may be those who take a relatively nihilistic stance, but they will not be real, hard-core nihilists. If they really, really claim they are, they’re deluding themselves – why would a nihilist make that claim?

I didn’t say any other perspective required no “need.” I’m saying that it’s ironic that those who take an extreme relatavistic or nihilistic position as part of their claim are often the ones that really can’t be taking the claim in arguments such as these because commitment to arguing the position is endless and pointless. Many do, however, revealing that their philosophical positions smack of something other than they claim, and they take the position in order to appear unassailable – i.e., people who just like to argue and think that they are right (oddly).

I’ve never said skepticism isn’t to be part of the argument. I’ve said the exact opposite, in fact. Please pay attention to the qualifiers – extreme forms of skepticism are the positions that are pointless to take in the general sense of argument for the purpose of discussing practice and practical implications, for the reasons described above.

There’s no absolute truth, and there’s no way to objectively assess value as it’s all equal in the end. Fine. But again, remember, I’m talking about putting theory into practice – what’s the importance of knowing that there’s no absolute truth, besides what I’ve already mentioned (e.g., not resting on the certainty of your position so that you end up biasing your research, determinations, etc.)?

@ETpro. – what’s your point? You asked how to be certain about something and I said you can’t. Telling me that I can’t be certain about not being certain doesn’t alter anything. Uncertain uncertainty is still uncertainty.

@markferg – “Uncertain uncertainty is still uncertainty” is an affirmation of the uncertainty principle. Stating that you can’t be certain about the uncertainty principle is the same as stating “I am certain that you cannot be certain about the uncertainty principle” – which is self-refuting.

@iamthemob,

I think you’re missing the point. You seem to think that when one chooses nihilism, he/she self-destructs, or turns stagnant due to lack of motivation. Nihilism is just an understanding that everything is meaningless. Meaninglessness does not limit one in creating his/her own relative, subjective value. One creates there own meaning. For example, the nihilist can engage in arguments for the sake of enlightening others.

This thread is not about theory into practice. This thread is about knowing certainty. I believe I answered the question over and over to which you confirmed. As for theory into practice, that is another topic.

@cackle – Again, you’re missing my point. You keep coming back to “nihilism” when I’ve never argued against “nihilism” as an influence or as productive, simply the true “nihilist” as being part of the conversation. Nihilism that is, again, pragmatic is about engaging – but isn’t an absolute commitment to nihilism as an extreme form of skepticism, etc.

This thread is about principles of physics – it’s about the observable natural world. When you start talking about relativism, nihilism, etc., it’s all very useless for science as science itself is inherently skeptical – the mantra is “we accept this until proven otherwise.”

You seem to think that the question is more epistemological than it is – this is about science, in the end. Referring to special relativity is great, but special relativity isn’t helpful as the uncertainty principle is a principle of quantum mechanics, which describes the world of subatomic particles in a manner that is completely alien to relativity. So, when we talk about quanum mechanics, philosophical perspectives are fairly useless as, really, we’re talking about nothing but practice – the experimental pursuit of knowledge.

Epistemology in quantum mechanics is used to say “this is our field of knowledge – we know that we cannot know or do this” – but, aside from that, we can, for the quantum mechanical physicist, know everything else.

The problem is you’re not looking at the roots.

“Most theories in modern particle physics, including the Standard Model of elementary particles and their interactions, are formulated as relativistic quantum field theories.”

“All uniform motion is relative, and that there is no absolute and well-defined state of rest (no privileged reference frames) from mechanics to all the laws of physics, including both the laws of mechanics and of electrodynamics, whatever they may be.”

The uncertainty principle is no exception because the same principles are applied since it’s part of quantum mechanics. This makes the method inherently flawed to begin with. Its findings will be inherently flawed. All theory into practice will be inherently flawed. It does go back to epistemology because one must know that he/she is engaging in bullshit.

By all means, if this is your relative, subjective values, go for it. Just keep in mind that it’s all meaningless.

@cackle

Here’s the thing – you’re missing the point that relativity and uncertainty in the context of physics are used to create predictive models. The purpose of recognizing relativity is not to undermine meaning, but to add bite to it – to show how the universe works.

Recognizing the “roots” of it is pointless in that context. It’s all about creating knowledge that is universally agreed up on because, in practice, it’s observable or it is predictive.

For them, relativity is all about creating meaning – regardless of whether relativism is all about undermining it.

Haha, that’s the problem…. The most important point, the root, is conveniently being dismissed. Even the notion of observation is laughable due to the problems with ontology. Science is just another absurd religion. They’re doing what any other brainwashed religious fanatic does, “lalala, I can’t hear you”.

Science Wars

Strong Programme

Sociology_of_Scientific_Knowledge

Social constructivism

Social_constructionism

Philosophy_of_science

Problem_of_induction

Criticism_of_science

Statistical_hypothesis_testing

Unobservables

Rhetoric_of_science

@cackle -

And this is still what I’m talking about – the insistence of many of these critiques undermines their basic utility. At no point have I, in this discussion, stated that there was no use for philosophical, sociological, psychological skepticism of a sort when looking at the process of scientific “discovery” in terms of ensuring that one is not letting their biases – of any sort – get the better of them.

Indeed, it’s laughable, because it’s an impossible task as bias is a certainty. And that’s “true” from any perspective.

But we still can create predictive models to describe the movement of galaxies. We are still able to convert matter into energy. And you’re still able to link electronically to Wikipedia over and over and over again to insist on the “proof” for something that’s already been accepted – the impossibility of “K“nowledge, “F“acts, “T“ruth, etc.

Taking it all back to the source of the problem, though, is the problem with postmodern critique – it’s a theoretical circle jerk. And each particular school wants to be the one to show that they have the best general model of showing how claiming knowledge of anything is “absurd.”

Focusing as they do on it, it’s why they are best left in the ivory tower – brought out every once and a while to remind us not to be too sure of ourselves. And then put away when we’ve gotten a healthy pragmatic dose of skepticism before the irony of their rhetoric becomes too obvious and they just start to look like clowns (e.g., referring to a line of “authority” to show how inauthoritative certain realms of knowledge are). Or the child on the playground who says he doesn’t want to play the game – but then sits in the middle of the field pouting because he didn’t get picked for a team.

Interesting, then why is the scientific community attacking religion?

@cackle – Is the scientific community, as a whole, attacking religion?

And how is that applicable?

You feel all the fighting should be left in the ivory tower, yet the same community(scientific) you defend is in full attack mode.

Plus, everything you just said is irrelevant because as long as there remains bullshit practices, it will be called out upon. Skepticism is here to stay.

@cackle – It is? Where’s the info on that?

I believe there are some notable scientists, like evolutionary biologist Ken Miller, don’t see any real conflict existing, let alone find themselves in “full attack mode.”

Plus, again, skepticism never was asked to go anywhere. Negating what I said seems like it would be unnecessary if it was, you know, really irrelevant.

I’m not going to start giving a gigantic list of names. Just take Richard Dawkins as an example…If he is not in full attack mode, then I don’t know what you call that…

I’m actually glad creationism is taught in schools. Sticks it right back to the scientific community. They can both brain wash each other to no end.

Educational disciplines are suppose to be taken by choice, not as a standard curriculum. I don’t want a bunch of dumbass scientists/professors teaching my kids that they come from apes, just as they wouldn’t enjoy it if a priest teaches their kids that Jesus is their lord and savior.

@cackle – Richard Dawkins hardly speaks for the entire scientific community. His assault is truly head on – but much like he doesn’t speak for all atheists, he doesn’t speak for all scientists.

Whether or not creationism should be taught in school is an issue unto itself, but being glad that it is taught, and more than likely the assertion is that the happiness is because some teach it (regardless of the fact that it is not officially to be taught in a public school curriculum in this manner) alongside evolution as a theory for the diversification of life on earth is actually a disturbing reaction for someone who nominally supports skepticism.

Administratively, a public school curriculum requires some form of standardization in order to be manageable. Uniformity is a side product of that – it’s far from ideal, I agree, but it’s a necessary evil at this point. Regardless, it should be viewed as a scaffolding, not a complete education – and responsible parents given sufficient time should be supplementing and overseeing it.

And, of course, no one should be teaching that kids that they come from apes. If they are, then they’re not teaching evolution. Common descent asserts no such thing. But both creationism and the teaching of Christ’s position as a savior in public education are improper “potential lessons” in the context of the biology/science curriculum as both are religious and the teaching of religion by the State is Constitutionally forbidden in order to ensure free religious choice – something that was meant to protect individual perspectives, at least nominally.

None of this speaks to whether science should or will accept criticism, and how that criticism could be productive. Indeed, there are many “belief” aspects of science that one could qualify as faith. And if we do say it’s faith, it is a faith that regards certain assumptions that are universally accepted as true – i.e., they’re material. Religious faith, regardless of the flavor, often requires faith in things that have been demonstrated, based on the same material observations, to be false.

The beauty of something like the uncertainty principle is that when it tells us the thing that we can never know, the very basic thing about what underlies the entire basis of our reality, it does so in order to allow us to explore what we can potentially know about the material world.

I named you one scientist… I can name you plenty more, enough to make a scientific community out of it. I’m still very much a subscriber to the perspectives of relativism and nihilism. I’m simply bringing up all these points to challenge your previous statements. I could careless what science or religion does. Thankfully, I have enough money for private schools to avoid the fallacies from either ideology. The way you said it, was that everyone should do their own thing without the reminder of the inherently fundamental fallacies. Well, then the scientific community should mind their own business and stop force feeding all the information to the masses as goes for all religions. Such is not the case though. I enjoy that creationism is taught in the scientific community on the grounds that there was to much injustice in the scientific community. If the scientific community is going to blatantly attack religion and enforce it as a standard in schools, as well as instill their ideology upon the masses, while religion doesn’t/can’t, then bravo to the religious community for fighting back in the same manners. There is no difference between the fallacies of religion and science. On the fundamentals of both ideologies lies the impossibility of attaining truth which makes both perspectives worthless. You only think you can create predictive models to describe the movement of galaxies, but it’s all bullshit. If the fundamentals start with bullshit, then anything that builds off of bullshit is enhanced bullshit. If Existence lacks certainty, then anything in, and existence itself, is bullshit. Injustice, just, good, or evil, it doesn’t mean anything.

@cackle – Resting on the fact that existence itself is bullshit is fine if you want to do it, but it’s intellectually bankrupt – and frankly, boring.

Rallying about “injustice” in the scientific community is a bullshit argument, of course, from the perspective that everything is “bullshit.” Injustice requires that we subscribe to an idea of a higher authority – something nonsensical when we argue against authority generally.

And you’ve focused on “creationism” and not “religion.” You’re saying you can show that “a scientific community” that is against religion. Fine. I can show you a non-scientific community that’s against religion – a philosophical community that’s against religion. The fact that there is a criticism of religion within the scientific community is not a counterpoint to what I originally was saying – that postmodern critiques of science should be occasionally addressed, but as a reminder that we should take a step back once and a while.

I made no statements about religion – you’ve tellingly brought it into the conversation.

I ask why you argue so hard when your points about the ultimate lack of certainty have been conceded. Again, it seems an example of the “arguing for argument’s sake” that is the problem with postmodern critique and extreme skeptical positions – they lack the pragmatic edge needed to get out of their own theoretical miasma.

No matter how you feel about postmodern critiques, everyone receives criticism, including the critic. It’s simply unavoidable. The reason I bring up critique and why it’s important, is because you’re trying to turn bullshit into beauty. As long as you, and everyone else in this world continues their efforts to turn bullshit into beauty, it is necessary to knock them down.

@cackle – When did you bring up “critter”? What is it that you think I’m trying to do?

And what is your intellectual background that enables you to feel you should take on this mission, and might be able to “knock them down”?

Again, your main point has already been conceded – what use is your further commentary, or what are you trying to achieve?

Typo, critique. :) Critique prevents the spread of bullshit. It enlightens. Changes for the better, then the worse. An example, I’m in America, currently occupied by a government which I don’t want, and did not ask for. It’s the bullshit that effected the people to form a government while inconsiderate of those that don’t want to be governed. I, and those like me, pay the price of the bullshit. The only way to fix the problem, is critique. Granted, it does not matter to those that implement the authority, but it matters to me (relativism), and so I seek to dismantle.

The benefit of critique has not been denied. Again, you ignore the fact that all references have been to extreme forms – postmodern critique or criticism is useful only when it, ironically, takes a position.

Critique for critique’s sake works up to a point, after which it becomes needlessly contrarian – and in the end results in the kind of intellectual masturbation more than productive movement.

Circular critique denies that there is a problem, denies bullshit, denies enlightenment, denies something as having an “inconsiderate” nature. Ad infinitum…

This thread was about certainty. After my critique to the threads topic, you insisted, a need, to tell me that bullshit can be beauty. You forced me to insist, a need, to critique you.

@cackle – I mentioned beauty about an hour ago, well into the discussion. That didn’t “force you” to do anything.

And regardless, of course, what I was referencing was the uncertainty principle – a principle that we can’t gain an absolute knowledge of the subatomic material world through observation.

It didn’t force me because I might of overlooked that part.

@cackle – which part? You referenced that it forced you, and now are saying that it didn’t because you might have overlooked it?

Perhaps we’re talking about different parts here. We went back and fourth to much, so I didn’t bother scrolling up. Which ever part you accuse me of not critiquing, I must of overlooked. Which ever part I critiqued, well, I’ve done so.

@cackle – That’s the problem with dogmatic and extreme skepticism/critique, etc. – the tendency to disagree simply to disagree – to a point where one is not even clear what they were disagreeing with to begin with!

You “didn’t bother scrolling up” and admit to overlooking – that’s exactly the intellectual laziness that results when focusing on the “lack of meaning” or “certainty.” Sure you get to critique – but if you rest on “Which ever part I critiqued, well, I’ve done so” you’re clearly not critiquing thoughtfully – and if you’re not doing it thoughtfully, you’re not doing it well.

The critique got you to admit that there are no absolute truths which was the point of the critique to begin with. How exactly can you say it was intellectually lazy? Or that it was not done well…when it was?

@cackle – The problem is I never claimed there was an absolute truth! You didn’t get me to admit that there are no absolute truths as that was never part of my stance.

That’s why it’s intellectually lazy – you believe you’ve convinced me of a point I already agreed with. And that’s why it’s not well done – because by being contrarian about meaning or truth generally, all that’s revealed is the futility of an extreme skepticism (critique for critique’s sake) when I has asked for the utility of it.

As the position does not account for a critique of itself, it’s trapped.

Actually, no, you didn’t agree with it. You kept pushing that models are still useful despite the fundamental reality of uncertainty. I kept critiquing you over and over on that statement to show you that bullshit on top of bullshit, is still bullshit. Only then, did you finally agree that it’s all bullshit.

@cackle – But now you’re changing your claim – you seem to be equating “there’s no absolute truth” with “no models are useful.”

What did I agree with? What didn’t I agree with? You should be clear on that and whether I changed my mind before you claim the effectiveness of your critique.

After I answered the threads question, you insisted on telling me that even though there is no absolute truth, we can predict, blah blah. Throughout the thread, we kept going back and fourth on your new claim. After a little of the back and fourth, you admitted that bullshit on top of bullshit is still just bullshit. In the first half, a critique was unnecessary since you were in agreement that there isn’t an absolute truth, while in the second half, you were unconvinced, and so I continued to critique until you finally admitted it’s all bullshit.

You’re trying to hard to turn this against me, but it’s not going to work, nor is it looking good for you. Skepticism has the upper hand here, and the critiques were shown to be effective. Desperation is a stinky cologne, no point in dragging this out any further as it’s pointless.

You were advocating that it’s intelligently diligent to engage in activity that is known to be fundamentally bullshit. It’s not intellectually diligent to engage in inherently fundamental ideological fallacies, it’s just stupidity.

Ah, the straw man argument rears it’s head again, and a little ad hominem to boot!

(1) You can’t say a critique is effective without stating clearly what the concept you were critiquing was, and without showing where the critique actually succeeded. Please show precisely those two rather than a vague description.

(2) I have consistently argued that extreme (extreme, for the fortieth time, mind you) skepticism produces nothing but a back and forth because it just negates the previous thing stated. That has been shown by your adherence to it. Skepticism that pragmatically accepts certain drawbacks and moves forward allows for the production of useful knowledge (e.g., predictive models) that have created, for instance, the very forum you’re arguing in now. So why, again, are you vaguely charging skepticism has the upper hand?

(3) Really? I don’t look good here…really? “Back and fourth”? “Might of overlooked”? “Critters”? You’re overlooking not only the arguments, but grammar and spelling too.

(4) You vaguely reference the ideological fallacies – without defining the ideology or the fallacious arguments associated with it. I’m trying to help you think through your arguments.

How old are you, what is it that you do, and what’s your academic background, I ask – not as a judgment, but merely out of curiosity about where your arguments are coming from.

(1) Now who’s intellectual lazy? Scroll up and look.

(2) Explain the predictive model that is the result of this forum. Who says I’m even on a forum? Who says a computer is in front of me? Who says I’m real? Who says you’re real? Who says existence is real?

(3) Ah, an attack on grammar and spelling. You must be more desperate then I thought…

(4) Vaguely? I provided paragraphs of links to support my claim that there is no absolute proof.

I’m not telling a stranger my personal information, sorry. My argument is very simple. It comes in a form of question. Do you know what the absolute universal truth is? Your answer is no. It’s really that simple. If you still confused, just scroll up and review all the links I provided and everything we spoke about. If you insist on dragging this out, I have no problem. I’ll just keep repeating myself.

(1) You’re asserting success. I scrolled up and saw none.

(2) Ok.

(3) I could resist no longer! ;-)

(4) The line of wikipedia pages? Those were criticisms of science – your others regarded general skeptical approaches. For a claim that there’s no “absolute truth” or “knowledge” in general that science can rely on or that other areas of research can rely on requires something more than an argument from ignorance – absence of proof is different than proof of absence.

Personal information? General age, schooling, and career? That’s personal? If it makes you feel better – early 30s with degrees in Literature, Psycholoty, and Law here.

Do I know what the absolute universal truth is? No. But again, that’s not an argument, and if it is, for convenience sake, it’s still an argument from ignorance.

If you really have nothing better to offer than platitudes regarding knowledge, and reference to Wikipedia pages…I’m…disappointed.

(1) Intellectually lazy. Answer is there.

(2) I didn’t ask for the history, I asked for an explanation of a predictive model leading to forums. I also asked; Who says I’m even on a forum? Who says a computer is in front of me? Who says I’m real? Who says you’re real? Who says existence is real?

(3) That’s because you’re desperate.

(4) Ah, how conveniently you forgot the other links. Metaphysics, Ontology, Epistemology. Fallibilism, Relativism, Solipsism, etc..

No, it doesn’t make me feel better. I don’t care what you studied or how old you’re. See above for absolute truth arguments. If you really have nothing better to offer other then “lalala, I can’t hear you” then..I’m…disappointed.

(1) Prove it. You’re the one making the assertion, and therefore the burden of proof is on you (a classic rule).

(2) The forum that I was discussing was the internet. The structure of it requires the development of the technologies underlying it.

But of course, resorting to the safety of “prove I’m here” and not the brain in the vat is just another example of the laziness in the “we can’t know” argument – it recedes when challenged. If you take no position, of course, you are making no argument. You’re just bouncing off the statements of others – being contrarian, as mentioned previously.

(3) Nah. It’s just because.

(4) Metaphysics?

Metaphysicians cannot avoid making their statements nonverifiable, because if they made them verifiable, the decision about the truth or falsehood of their doctrines would depend upon experience and therefore belong to the region of empirical science. This consequence they wish to avoid, because they pretend to teach knowledge which is of a higher level than that of empirical science. Thus they are compelled to cut all connection between their statements and experience; and precisely by this procedure they deprive them of any sense.

Ontology and Solipsism just bring us back to the brain in the vat and the Matrix – retreating if we aren’t pragmatic. Epistemology allows for the assumption of certain premises, otherwise you regress back along infinite justifications – Socrates admitting that the the only true wisdom is knowing that you know nothing wasn’t the end of Western pursuit of knowledge – it was a foundation of it. Fallibalism is simply a recognition of the possibility of being wrong, and relativism merely that I can’t say my position is better than yours in an absolute sense.

The question was about certainty, but in the material sense. Accepting none of the premises of materiality, one can’t sufficiently critique the concept of certainty in the material sphere. If you confound certainty from the philosophical perspective with that in the sphere of what is meant in the uncertainty principle, you never get to the questions that makes sense.

And I didn’t think it would make you feel better, but I thought I’d make one last gesture. But of course, if reality is really so uncertain as all get out, what does it matter if you tell me what your background is? It’s not real anyway, right?

Of course, when you refuse me the information, you’re assuming that there’s some tangible use for it. Which speaks to its materiality. So it seems the skepticism you appreciate is more one of convenience.

And it’s not that I can’t hear you. It’s mostly that you’re not responding. If the links were all you needed, you’d leave it at that. You continue on, desperately attempting to prove a negative – that there’s no absolute truth. Of course, how, may I ask, is “proof” worth anything in the context of “no truth” or rather – how do you prove that there is no proof?

(1) I already did, twice. I’m not going to do it again. Scroll up and analyze.

(2) Bouncing off of ideas coined by intellectuals that remain true to this day? Yes, I am. So you have no real answer? Just as I thought.

You just clarified all my arguments, which is actually showing now with clarity their critique to all your statements. Reality is uncertain, and that is why it’s relative to me, not to give you my information. Actually, it’s you who is desperately attempting to turn bullshit(science) into usefulness, but failing over, and over. The arguments I presented knock you right out of the box.

“Some suggest that epistemological fallibilism is self-contradictory in that it is in itself an absolute knowledge claim. In other words, the statement “This much is certain: nothing is certain” is an incoherent statement that could not be true. Karl Popper has suggested the compromise that the statement simply be taken as true until it is proven certainly false – which essentially amounts to skepticism.”

Ah, back to the beauty – a comment made once. Like a dog with a bone….

Your stubborn refusal to show where your success is is, well, adorable in the end. Now, I could predict that you will not point to success at a specific point in the thread based on the refusal to do so in the previous posts – and you may or may not. If you’re a brain in a vat, no one will. This isn’t happening. If you’re there, then you might or might not. If you don’t, that doesn’t make the prediction unreasonable – just wrong (if this is all happening).

If you can’t accept a description of the development of the internet as proof, it’s because you accept nothing as proof. Of course, I’m a big fan of what I see in fallibalism, but that’s mostly in it’s pragmatic form (the image of cognition as a boat with leaks that is being repaired and repairing those repairs is a good one) – where it can actually be used.

Of course, we know the real answer to life, the universe, and everything, if we’re really honest with ourselves…

According to Popper, we can’t.

But we can be certain that up till now (February 14, 2011) no one was able to refute Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. All experiments that have been conducted do confirm it. This might be different tomorrow or in the year 2050 or the year 84,000 or it might not.

@mattbrowne – Have you tried plugging 42 into the equation?

My refusal? My evidence is all over the thread. Your evidence is “I can’t hear you”.

@iamthemob wrote, “Do I know what the absolute universal truth is? No.”

You lose chief. If you were really honest with yourself, you would know that your life is meaningless, as was shown, but like a frightened child, the brutal reality is too much to bear, and so you create and encourage fair-tales. Learn to be more ruthless in your Nihilism

@cackle – But if I lose, and I must adopt a meaningless existence, then the loss itself is meaningless…!

But oddly – I predicted this very post, which means that reality is as I determine it to be…because pointing to a statement I made answering the incredibly naive question of whether I know the absolute truth of the universe, the only possible answer being no, isn’t a success of critique so much as almost a tautology – it has to be true that I don’t know it.

Or, of course, as mentioned – it’s 42.

Trust me, child, I’ve already processed all of this a good solid decade ago – it was amusing to discuss while drunk in the dorm room, but more in the destabilized binary and relational social power constructions of the post-structuralists/modernists/phenomenologists from Barthes and Jacques Derrida to Michel Foucault to Julia Kristeva and that queen of jargoned post-modernism Judy Butler – but that was then.

What you keep missing is that I hear you – and as I keep saying – so what?

Exactly, thank you for clarifying relativism. So what? So nothing.

I guess nothing really matters…

Wow, how do you listen to such crap…Poison to my ears.

“Post-modernism is arguably the most depressing philosophy ever to spring from the western mind. It is difficult to talk about post-modernism because nobody really understands it. It’s allusive to the point of being impossible to articulate. But what this philosophy basically says is that we’ve reached an endpoint in human history. That the modernist tradition of progress and ceaseless extension of the frontiers of innovation are now dead. Originality is dead. The avant-garde artistic tradition is dead. All religions and utopian visions are dead and resistance to the status quo is impossible because revolution too is now dead. Like it or not, we humans are stuck in a permanent crisis of meaning, a dark room from which we can never escape.”—- Kalle Lasn’s

The epoch of Greek and Latin philosophy was based on being in a quite precise sense: the existence exercised by things independently of human apprehension and attitude. The much briefer epoch of modern philosophy based itself rather on the instruments of human knowing, but in a way that unnecessarily compromised being. As the 20th century ends, there is reason to believe that a new philosophical epoch is dawning along with the new century, promising to be the richest epoch yet for human understanding. The postmodern era is positioned to synthesize at a higher level—the level of experience, where the being of things and the activity of the finite knower compenetrate one another and provide the materials whence can be derived knowledge of nature and knowledge of culture in their full symbiosis —the achievements of the ancients and the moderns in a way that gives full credit to the preoccupations of both. The postmodern era has for its distinctive task in philosophy the exploration of a new path, no longer the ancient way of things nor the modern way of ideas, but the way of signs, whereby the peaks and valleys of ancient and modern thought alike can be surveyed and cultivated by a generation which has yet further peaks to climb and valleys to find.

Good luck with that. You do realize that in order to do away with the ancient and modern way of things(faith, teleology, arbitrary morality, scared values and principles, and similar beliefs) we must destroy all political, social, and economic institutions that are currently based on these beliefs.

Le Revolution Est Mort, Vive La Mort!