0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
If you add enough "necessary axioms", you can end up believing whatever made them necessary. Hence religion, a flat earth supported on turtles, and other kinds of foolishness.Better to start with observations.
Cogito ergo sum - or even sum - is actually an axiom since it can't be proved or derived from observation.
An assumption is necessary if it can somehow be related to our existence.
Quote from: alancalverd on 12/11/2021 18:28:30If you add enough "necessary axioms", you can end up believing whatever made them necessary. Hence religion, a flat earth supported on turtles, and other kinds of foolishness.Better to start with observations. The only thing we can be sure of is our own existence. Any other things can be deceiving, including our observations. An assumption is necessary if it can somehow be related to our existence.
How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?
An assumption is only necessary if your argument or calculation can't proceed without it and you have no actual data.
Cogito ergo sum is essentially circular or axiomatic, but is not necessary if you base your arguments on observations.
Doesn't matter, as long as the results are consistent. The sun always rises in the east, so I can deduce a consistent cosmology with no untestable assumptions. The day it doesn't, I'll review my cosmology, because in science the model is less important than the observation.
Quote from: marklivin on 17/11/2021 11:25:24How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?Cogito ergo sum.Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?
Quote from: marklivin on 17/11/2021 11:25:24How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?Cogito ergo sum.
Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?
No, I predict that it will work the same tomorrow as today, and if it doesn't, I know my current understanding is incorrect. That's how science works.
In sociology of scientific knowledge, Planck's principle is the view that scientific change does not occur because individual scientists change their mind, but rather that successive generations of scientists have different views.This was formulated by Max Planck:[1]A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. . . . An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents: it rarely happens that Saul becomes Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarized with the ideas from the beginning: another instance of the fact that the future lies with the youth.— Max Planck, Scientific autobiography, 1950, p. 33, 97Informally, this is often paraphrased as "Science progresses one funeral at a time".Planck's quote has been used by Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and others to argue that scientific revolutions are non-rational, rather than spreading through "mere force of truth and fact".[2][3][4][5] It has been described as Darwinian rather than Lamarckian conceptual evolution.[6]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2021 04:53:58Quote from: marklivin on 17/11/2021 11:25:24How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?Cogito ergo sum.Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?What if we are in a simulation and we have only the illusion of existence and thinking?
The cogito part begs the existence, a fallacy. The ergo sum part is a non-sequitur, also fallicious.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cexrECXKUIWhy use reason? We end up with capacity-circularity, which can't be a flaw in an argument, because it's not a property of arguments in themselves. The capacity to reason isn't a premise or a rule, so the argument for its legitimacy need not be premise-circular or rule-circular. This argument is closely related to anthropic principle and cogito ergo sum, which I've mentioned before.
Quote from: marklivin on 19/11/2021 19:42:48Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/11/2021 04:53:58Quote from: marklivin on 17/11/2021 11:25:24How can you be absolutely sure that we exist?Cogito ergo sum.Is it possible for anything to be conscious while not exist?What if we are in a simulation and we have only the illusion of existence and thinking?It means that we exist in the simulation. It requires the assumption that the simulation exists, and someone has built and run it. Those are unnecessary assumptions to explain observations, which can be explained more simply. It means we should discard the idea, according to Occam's razor.
Which is sort of like asking if 3+5 is actually equal to 8, or only if 3 and 5 exist.
I'd like to believe in it very much. But if we are really in the simulation, then the creators of the simulation exist (and even then not exactly), and we do not exist, because we are illusory.