0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Having a doubt is adequate to be sure of our own existence
Quote from: Halc on 24/11/2021 12:46:34So my point was that the statement was presented as being necessarily true, and such a statement must be accompanied by a demonstration of that necessity, which it wasn't. He's not wording it as a premise, to be doubted or not at one's choice. Both of you present it as a necessity, and you still refuse to demonstrate that necessity despite multiple requests for that demonstration.I think Descartes has demonstrated it pretty clearly. You are free to disagree, though.
So my point was that the statement was presented as being necessarily true, and such a statement must be accompanied by a demonstration of that necessity, which it wasn't. He's not wording it as a premise, to be doubted or not at one's choice. Both of you present it as a necessity, and you still refuse to demonstrate that necessity despite multiple requests for that demonstration.
Quote from: Halc on 24/11/2021 12:46:34I came up with a counterexample, so unless you can find a flaw in that counterexample, the necessity of your statement has been proven wrong.If it's not necessarily true, then the statement is reduced to a mere premise, something that one is free to accept or decline as suits your fancy.Are you referring to the number summation?
I came up with a counterexample, so unless you can find a flaw in that counterexample, the necessity of your statement has been proven wrong.If it's not necessarily true, then the statement is reduced to a mere premise, something that one is free to accept or decline as suits your fancy.
Being sure about something means the complete lack of doubt about it, so you defeat yourself with this self-contradictory statement.
It is very trivial to disprove a strong statement such as "X is necessarily true" by simply finding a counterexample, which I have done. Far better to use the weaker form: "I presume X to be true" which just makes it a premise, not a necessary thing. Such a statement cannot be falsified by mere counterexample.
Here's another example:Thinking is a process, and thus doubt is the result of a process. A process can take place despite the lack of existence of a 'thing' implementing the process.So for instance, evolution is similarly a process, and a rabbit is an evolved creature, despite no rabbit having ever 'evolved'. There was never a creature that suddenly became more evolved (more rabbitty?) than it had been the day before. The process takes place between a rabbit and its ancestors. Now and then some creature had a descendant that was more rabbitty than the parent despite neither the creature nor the descendant actually doing any evolving.
A thought experiment, closer to the point under consideration:We do the Schrodinger's cat thing, except we stuff Halc in the box, legendary doubter of existence. The quantum event is measured and Halc is put into a superposition of being dead or being alive. The alive Halc is doubting his existence, which is thinking, which necessarily requires existence according to you. Schrodinger opens the box to find a dead Halc. It seems that the doubt was thinking being done by a nonexistent Halc (at least by some interpretations of QM), and since no valid interpretation can be falsified, the doubt is justified.Descartes could not have considered such a situation since QM was unknown at the time, and it opened up a whole new arena of things to doubt, all of which were axiomatically true at the time and even presumed necessarily true. History was to demonstrate otherwise in coming centuries.
So for instance, evolution is similarly a process, and a rabbit is an evolved creature, despite no rabbit having ever 'evolved'. There was never a creature that suddenly became more evolved (more rabbitty?) than it had been the day before. The process takes place between a rabbit and its ancestors. Now and then some creature had a descendant that was more rabbitty than the parent despite neither the creature nor the descendant actually doing any evolving.
So you think you can doubt your own existence.
Do you conclude that nothing is necessarily true?
Rabbitness is not a well defined attribute.
Rather a lot of entangled selfcontradictions here.
Evolution is an observation, not a conscious or even individual action.
The fact that you don't look exactly like both of your parents (which is obviously impossible) is summarised by saying you have evolved from them.
Our knowledge of it may be due to observation, but the process itself is not, nor does it require, observation.
I didn't make any such summary,
What I choose to believe or doubt is entirely irrelevant to the necessity of your assertion.
Having a doubt is adequate to be sure of our own existence, even when it's not expressed.