• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Universe

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I don't care to argue the meaning of words. Of course, if you redefine 'universe,' then it can be used in the plural and such concepts as a metauniverse may be consistent; but then if you redefine 'pig,' then I might consistently talk of a jet powered supersonic pig.

The 'universe' is defined as totality of everything, and you can't have an everything + 1.
When the word universe means everything, then the content of its definition evolves as we learn more about everything. At one point the 'universe' was a flat earth that the sun circled. Now that we have an expanded concept of everything, we can either call our observable everything a meta-universe, or change the definition of the old 'universe' to include our new information. It doesn't seem especially relevant to me which approach is taken in terminology, but the process of discovery and expanding our concept of everything is relevant to asking questions about our current concept of the universe. We are in the middle of a process of understanding this everything, so the terminology applied to it must be expandable, right?

I am so hoping that made sense. *Whoosh*
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I am so hoping that made sense. *Whoosh*
You're making irrelevant distinctions.

Of course, we may discover that the universe is much bigger than we had previously believed, or even imagined. The cosmology of ptolemy has been discarded, and in its place a far larger universe was conceived, and modern physics suggests that the universe is even bigger still, with alternate realities and such. However, the universe is defined as the totality of everything, so if we discover more, we simply discover that there is more to the universe than previously believed.

Even if we adopted a terminology where there can be multiple universes within a metaverse, explaining the origin of our universe would not settle these cosmological questions, since we would simply ask the same of the postulated metauniverse. Indeed, that is the problem with the questions, since they always implicitly postulate a metasomething.

What caused the universe to exist?
Where did the universe come from?
Who created the universe?
Why was the universe created?
What was there before the universe?
What is outside the universe?

All these questions make the same error.
 

Siúil a Rúin

when the colors fade
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
14,037
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
496
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It doesn't seem especially relevant to me which approach is taken in terminology...

You're making irrelevant distinctions.
The point of my post was that the distinction is irrelevant.

Of course, we may discover that the universe is much bigger than we had previously believed, or even imagined. The cosmology of ptolemy has been discarded, and in its place a far larger universe was conceived, and modern physics suggests that the universe is even bigger still, with alternate realities and such. However, the universe is defined as the totality of everything, so if we discover more, we simply discover that there is more to the universe than previously believed.

Even if we adopted a terminology where there can be multiple universes within a metaverse, explaining the origin of our universe would not settle these cosmological questions, since we would simply ask the same of the postulated metauniverse. Indeed, that is the problem with the questions, since they always implicitly postulate a metasomething.

What caused the universe to exist?
Where did the universe come from?
Who created the universe?
Why was the universe created?
What was there before the universe?
What is outside the universe?

All these questions make the same error.
I do see your point and agree with it. My point is that those questions may be applicable to our current concept of the universe, our 3-D space-time continuum, if it is a component of something larger. People discussing this issue could argue from that assumption. It's just meant for clarification. I understand your point is that these questions are meaningless when applied to 'everything', and the best we can have at any moment is our current concept of that everything?

The 'universe' is defined as totality of everything, and you can't have an everything + 1.
Now this may be a worthless question, but I have to ask. Could everything +1 be a way of defining infinity? Or maybe it defines the process of discovering infinity? Or maybe it just defines insanity?
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Assumption...

Assumption...

Assumption.
Master of the obvious indeed.

The only irrefutable statement: "Assumption is necessary."
First, you are confusing statements with propositions: statements can differ syntactically, but be equivalent semantically. In other words, the same proposition can be expressed by many different statements. For example:

P or Q = ~(~P & ~Q)

Here, the disjuction "or" is nonexclusive, perhaps better read as "or/and." The statement "P or Q" is false, if and only if, both "P" and "Q" are false. Now, it follows, that is "P or Q" is true, then "~P & ~Q" is is false, therefore "~(~P & ~Q)." In other words, these two formulas are equivalent, in that they both express the same proposition. In natural language:

It is raining outside or cloudy outside
=
It is not the case that is not raining outside and not cloudy outside

These different statements, express the same proposition. In fact, the syntactical rules of natural language allow for a far greater freedom sentence formation, and that's ignoring the thousand of languages we have to choose from. The point is that "Assumption is necessary" cannot be the only statement which is irrefutable, since the same proposition can be expressed by the statement, "it is not case that it is not the case that an assumption is necessary." Indeed, I might even say "it is necessary to have assumptions," or whatever. In any case, we are still dealing with different statements.

You might claim that I am nitpicking here, and that you really meant that "Assumption is necessary" to be the only proposition that is irrefutable. However, if so then you have generated a paradox.

(A) The only irrefutable proposition: "Assumption is necessary"
(B) A is refutable

Iff "Assumption is necessary" is the only irrefutable proposition, then the proposition "The only irrefutable proposition: "Assumption is necessary"" is refutable. Therefore, B follows from A.

Now, if B is false then A is irrefutable, though if A is irrefutable then "Assumption is necessary" not the only irrefutable proposition and A is false. But if A is false then B is true. Therefore, B is always true and irrefutable.

That is bad enough, but now if B is always true, then A is always refutable, now it follows that if A is refutable then so is "Assumption is necessary." Thus "Assumption is necessary" is not irrefutable!!!

There are many semantic paradoxes, tautologies and theorems that are irrefutable. That is, true under all interpretations. In fact, all logically valid arguments employ one connective which is true under all interpretations. For example:

(P then Q) then Q
T...T....T....T....T
T...F....F....T.....F
F...T....T....T....T
F...T....F....T.....F

This truth table makes the point well. Whatever forumula we end up with on the conclusion side of an argument, we can simply add to the original set of premises as the consequent of a conditional. Pay attention to the second "then" in the sequence, which is True under all interpretations of the argument. It doesn't matter what combination of truth and falsity we apply to "P" and "Q," that second "then" is always true and irrefutable.

There are infinite irrefutable propositions. However, irrefutability does not necessarily mean true, it simply means that we cannot show it to be false.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
However, if so then you have generated a paradox.

(A) The only irrefutable proposition: "Assumption is necessary"
(B) A is refutable

Iff "Assumption is necessary" is the only irrefutable proposition, then the proposition "The only irrefutable proposition: "Assumption is necessary"" is refutable. Therefore, B follows from A.

NO.

Given nothing, and then given "Assumption is necessary" - in effect, allowing for any assumption to be made, we can assume "Assumption is not necessary". This itself is an assumption and most will go ahead and assume that it's false. HOWEVER, false? What? What is false? Truth and falsehood have not been introduced yet, and the concept of both relies on, you guessed it - an assumption. Before you can talk or even think about reality, knowledge, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, truth, and falsehood - an assumption must be made. Therefore, assumption is necessary, and attempting to refute this would lead to further assumptions.

Anyways, if you decide to assume A and ~A and then the laws of logic, then you've assumed a set of premises that could lead to any conclusion. It's simply a bad thing to do in RL, but it still has no effect on the correctness of A (Assumption is necessary) even in the presence of ~A. Point being: Make good assumptions. Other point being: Logic doesn't matter in this case- it can't be applied to it's most basic foundation.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Given nothing, and then given "Assumption is necessary" - in effect, allowing for any assumption to be made, we can assume "Assumption is not necessary". This itself is an assumption and most will go ahead and assume that it's false. HOWEVER, false? What? What is false? Truth and falsehood have not been introduced yet, and the concept of both relies on, you guessed it - an assumption. Before you can talk or even think about reality, knowledge, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, truth, and falsehood - an assumption must be made. Therefore, assumption is necessary, and attempting to refute this would lead to further assumptions.
You seem to be quite confused.

I was demonstrating the paradox you entangle yourself in by proposing that "assumptions are necessary" is the only irrefutable statement. Of course, I too hold that "assumptions are necessary" is irrefutable, but not that it is the only irrefutable proposition.

Furthermore, if we are disputing the necessity of assumptions, disputing the pressupositions of logic itself, then your argument that "assumptions are necessary" is circular, begging the question.

If I claim that the axioms of logic are arbitrary and assumptions are unecessary, it does no good for you to claim, "Before you can talk or even think about reality, knowledge, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, truth, and falsehood - an assumption must be made." That begs the question, assumes the proposition under question and is an ineffectual counterargument.

Anyways, if you decide to assume A and ~A and then the laws of logic, then you've assumed a set of premises that could lead to any conclusion.
Check out paraconsistent logic, where "P & ~P" can be true.

It's simply a bad thing to do in RL, but it still has no effect on the correctness of A (Assumption is necessary) even in the presence of ~A. Point being: Make good assumptions. Other point being: Logic doesn't matter in this case- it can't be applied to it's most basic foundation.
Logic can be applied to itself and regularly is. For example, we make use of metalogic to prove theorems concerning logic, such as decidability, incompleteness, consistency, etc.

In fact, Godel's incompleteness theorems imply that no system of logic can be both consistent and complete, so any demonstration to that fact immediately proves that the system is inconsistent. In other words, it doesn't pass its own standards.

Indeed, your entire argument, that assumptions are necessary, is an example of turning the presuppositions of logic upon themselves.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
but not that it is the only irrefutable proposition.

If you'd read further, you'd now that I'm hinting at more than the process of denial, I'm saying that the statement "Assumption is necessary" justifies itself, and that any idea, system of knowledge, or even existence itself will rely upon it - that's IF you're looking for justification. That is, all things will circularly justify themselves, so it's necessary to have a rule/law/statement/proposition/whatever that justifies itself directly, allowing for more claims to be made that DON'T necessarily rely on themselves for justification.

Furthermore, if we are disputing the necessity of assumptions, disputing the pressupositions of logic itself, then your argument that "assumptions are necessary" is circular, begging the question.

I could easily ask you to justify why anyone would dispute the necessity of assumption, and in the end their string of justification would lapse onto itself from the beginning - that is, it would be circular. The statement "assumption is necessary" is circular, yes, but this is a good thing, a rule, not an argument - justification without assumption is impossible, argument without assumption is impossible, speaking without assumption is impossible, ?thinking (in and of itself) without assumption is impossible?, ?existence (in and of itself) without assumption is impossible? I put those last statements in question because they are debatable and much more interesting. So, attack those if you'd like.

If I claim that the axioms of logic are arbitrary and assumptions are unecessary, it does no good for you to claim, "Before you can talk or even think about reality, knowledge, God, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, truth, and falsehood - an assumption must be made." That begs the question, assumes the proposition under question and is an ineffectual counterargument.

Again: Your claim itself would have to be circular to be justified, and this is, in effect, another example of "assumption is necessary" in action.

Indeed, your entire argument, that assumptions are necessary, is an example of turning the presuppositions of logic upon themselves.

Where's your justification. You've made an assumption at some point.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
Ferunandesu,

This is why no attempt at justification can be successful:

(A) All rationally held positions must be justified.
(B) A must be justified.

How do you justify A?

If A cannot be justified, then A is irrational.

If we invoke a new position C to justify A, then what justifies C? If we invoke a new position D to justify C, then what justifies D? If we invoke a new position E to justify D, then what justifies E? The chain of justification cannot be broken, and an infinite regress follows.

The alternative is to simply call a halt to the infinite regress at an arbitrary point, such as the axioms of logic, the bible, corgito ergo sum or 'assumption is necessary.'

However, this practice amounts to a dogmatic assertion. In each philosophy, where justification is sought, dogmatism follows. This is because all competing ideas are evaluated relative to these dogmatic foundations, or what you call 'assumptions.'

The debate between competing schools of philosophy is stifled, since neither can ever provide a good reason for the other to accept their argument, since they differ fundamentally on what constitues a good reason. To the empiricist, sense-observation is a good reason, to the rationalist, clear and distinct ideas are a good reason, and to the Protestant, biblical authority is a good reason.

The solution you attempt is to see if a position can be selfjustifying. This is basically the same approach that Ayn Rand took to the problem of justification, where she argued that since all sceptical arguments presuppose the axioms of logic, their arguments are invalid. Thus, the axioms of logic are selfjustifying. Whereas you claim that because every argument, even sceptical arguments, must assume something, the position that assumptions are necessary is selfjustifying.

Unfortunately, this misunderstands the sceptic, who does not pretend to justify their arguments. In fact, they argue from the rationalist's presuppositions only to demonstrate the impossibility of justification according to the rationalist's own standards. Thus, Rand's axioms of logic and your 'assumptions are necessary,' are only irrefutable according to your own unjustified foundations. To someone with a different foundation, or without a foundation at all, these arguments have no force.

To simply state that it follows from 'assumptions are necessary' that assumptions are necessary' is not selfjustifying, neither is is it necessarily false. It is simply circular, and as you point out, all positions are equally selfjustifying if we are permitted to justify positions circulary. For example, the position 'assumptions are unecessary' is equally selfjustifying as 'assumptions are necessary.'

At this point you may be thinking "aha! but 'assumptions are unecessary' is selfcontradictory, since it contains assumptions." Though this misunderstands the statement, for the statement 'assumptions are unecessary' can be true, even when assumptions are necessary for itself. For example, 'air conditioning in cars is unecessary' does not mean that there are no cars that have air conditioning, only that air conditioning it unecessary.

What is an assumption? Something we assume to be true? The sceptic assumes no things to be true. They might make use of various propositions for the point of argument, but that does not mean the sceptic assumes them to be true. That is ultimately why your argument for the selfjustification of 'assumptions are necessary' fails.

The problem is justificationism, which you are thoroughly seeped in. Until you shed it, you will fail to solve this problem of knowledge.
 

reason

New member
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
1,209
MBTI Type
ESFJ
I might add here that this has little to do with the original topic of the post, and is quite superfluous.

Since I am not a justificationist, I never sought justification for anything, neither do I think any can be given.
 

ferunandesu

New member
Joined
May 3, 2007
Messages
96
MBTI Type
INxP
Enneagram
4w5
Nocturne,

What is an assumption? Something we assume to be true? The sceptic assumes no things to be true. They might make use of various propositions for the point of argument, but that does not mean the sceptic assumes them to be true. That is ultimately why your argument for the selfjustification of 'assumptions are necessary' fails.

This is where you're misunderstanding me. The idea of 'assumption' that I'm using here is bare bones - without the assumption of truth. But, you did hint at a reasonable objection to my claim, which is: Assumptions are possible and necessary for any human discourse, but it would not be necessary for things to exist in and of themselves.

My idea for a self-justifying statement is not the cure for justificationism, it simply concedes that absolute justification is impossible from an objective viewpoint (if such a thing is assumed) but entirely possible from a subjective one and that, at some point, if an idea is to be formed, then a leap of faith - an assumption, has to be made. "Assumption is necessary" is simply the most basic of all axioms. We can not know unless we assume to know. I cannot speak the truth unless I assume there to be truth. There may be a rock floating in space that has never been assumed to exist by a human mind, but does this mean that it is not assumed?

And yes, I'm saying that the physical instantiation of an object is fundamentally the same as the mental instantiation of its concept. Take whatever you want from that, but don't call me a 'theist'.
 

draon9

Active member
Joined
Jan 27, 2015
Messages
1,176
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so
The universe is like a guitar due to having many sub categories that help keeps it together, the tuner, the nut, the body, the strings, the playing hole for acoustics and so on.
 

Pinker85

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
914
Pinky: U look sad brain
Brain: Perhaps a little, just taking in the night, Pinky. So vast in the heavens, this starry canopy, to contemplate the endless nature of universe is to acknowledge one's insignificance
Pinky: Its really dark too, with little sparkly things ... NARF
Brain: Sometimes it all seems so burdensome, so feckless
Pinky: Yes, it is completely without feck
Brain: Words have no meaning, I am left speechless ... I don't know what to say
Pinky: I always know what to say, Brain ...... ... waaaaaahahahahahaha

Just say NARF

 

Pinker85

New member
Joined
Jun 20, 2011
Messages
914
Lord that's alotta words, I mostly didn't read ... I tend towards believing in string cheese theory, I think that's what it is called ... and I choose to believe this based on my love of string cheese:D
 
Top