Discuss:Mathematics, Logic, Philosophy:Threshing the Infinite Universe - Philosophy
From da Vinci Concept
Contents |
Threshing the Infinite Universe: Philosophy
Truc_Ha - Tue Mar 2 22:07:03 2004
Over the winter holidays, I happened to be debating with some forum writers over epistemology, the nature of knowledge, and conceptions of the universe. During this wintry green time, one of them happened to state a fundamental concept of his thought, and as versions and derivatives of this concept can be found in much of pop culture, in the "politically correct" police, and even in institutions of higher learning, I am going to address it.
This concept is the idea that because the universe is infinite, anything is possible. So I asked, "do you mean that something can be real here and not real there, in essence true and not true at the same time?" The answer was "yes." This is the extreme version of subjectivism.
The whole point of my post is:
1. Reality exists independent of any particular person's consciousness.
2. Reality/the Infinite Universe has its own laws of nature and will not violate those.
3. It is worthless to me to believe that anything is possible = anything can be true and false because to any question I may ask, such a philosophy gives me a worthless answer = "yes and no." (E.g. 1: "--Is premarital sex morally correct?" "Well, yes and no. For me it is/isn't for XYZ reasons but for thee, it might not be.") (E.g. 2: "--Is genocide wrong?" "Well, yes and no. I wouldn't murder people, but it's not my place to judge those tribesmen."). This is a useless philosophy/cosmology.
4. What I want to discuss here: what do you want out of your philosophy?
When you're out there dragging your philosophy through the mundane mud of everyday life, what kind of situations do you use it in, when/where do/did you start seeing holes in it and trade it in or upgrade to a new one? Tell me about philosophy in your everyday life.
For discussions of points 1 and 2, see the thread Forum--> Epistemologies of the Rational Human-->Rejecting Mysticism and and Subjectivism
And please, keep it focused and concrete: the use of philosophy in everyday life.
[ Edited ]
--Truc_Ha Tue Mar 2 22:07:03 2004
charmed_quark - Fri Mar 5 10:17:50 2004
Very interesting topic. 'The universe is infinite so anything is possible' should be easy to discredit because there is absolutely no observable reason to believe that the universe is infinite. :)
To butcher Aristotle, a good philosophy should be a guide to living the best possible life.
The person who says, " For me it is/isn't for XYZ reasons but for thee, it might not be." has adopted a philosophy to guide their own actions, but doesn't feel compelled to force other to share those views. Why do you find it upseting? Would you prefer a fundamentalist attitude?
--charmed_quark Fri Mar 5 10:17:50 2004
carrie - Sun Mar 7 3:55:25 2004
I like this topic....to answer your question, what do you want out of your philosophy?, I would have to say somthing similair to charmed quark. My personal philosophy is there to give me guidelines for leading the "good life" and to keep me from going crazy by having to make decisions from scratch everytime. When I need to make daily moral decision, I don't build from the bottom - I refer to my philosophical guidelines for help. Beef or broccoli - oh! I can say - well I made this decision before based on bla bla bla bla and that decision I have upheld for so long without other contradictions, thus reinforcing my initial stand, so I take broccoli, for example.
But personal philosophies are not static. I have seen extreme shifts in my own philisophy over the last few years. I had a very strict philisophy, built up within my specific life situation, where my very self-worth was dependent on following this rigid philosophy, and there was very little room to even consider that others could be correct. There was only one way to life the good life, no Ys or Zs. If there were Ys and Zs then they had simply gone wrong somwhere.
My philosophy changed when I was forced into completely different life situations. I can honestly say at times of severe change in my life situation (severe in the way that they threatened my philosophy), my philosophy did not evolve, it came crashing down again and again. It is rebuilt now but definatley more flexible. I can accept there are XYZs to answer every question, held by the population.
But I also think that it is, can I say dangerous?, to say that anything can be true and false. Or rather, to accept that there is a yes and no to every question. (This is one of the changes in my own philosophy, steering away from PC!) We have formed philosophies and moral codes on the societal level and it is these that should keep things running smoothly; everybody plays by the same rules. Where I am living now there is a population that lives by extremely different moral codes. Their presence is shaking the whole social system to the verge of major reform or collapse. Perhaps I am getting off focus here.
Very interesting thread, I will be curious about the process of others' philosophies.
--carrie Sun Mar 7 3:55:25 2004
cbettles - Mon Mar 15 7:49:34 2004
I think there is a fundamental problem with the question as it is being debated. I think reasonable people make a fundamental difference between their personal philosophy which is usually a philosophy of ethics and is based on some moral principles and someone's worldview. For example, many reasonable people believe that:
1. Abortion is morally repugnant
Yet, not everyone that believes that abortion is morally repugnant is pro-life. While their personal philosophy reflects 1 and they have good and logical reasons for believing it, their worldview has another fundamental belief:
2. People should make their own choice
For most people, they can have one belief in thier own personal philosophy that is in contradiction to their overarching philsophy of the world. This leads to a problem. If someone believes that abortion is morally repugnant then it follows that they should do everything in their power to stop others from doing it.
The difference is that most reasonable people adopt some form of the following principle and work it into their personal philosophy:
3. While my choice is inheriently logical, I do not know everything. Therefore, resonable people can make a choice that is radically different from mine and still be correct.
This kind of subjectivism-lite is a common component of most people's thinking. And I think it is a good thing. Without it, political discourse becomes impossible.
Because I believe I might be the friend that was referred to, I would like to take a second to clarify a position on the more hardened forms of subjectivism. I would also like to add this is not based on any kind of formal readings, just my own opinion.
A more harden type of subjectivism could be formed in the following way.
1. I am inherently fallable. I've been wrong before and will continue to be wrong in the future.
2. I am not that different from everyone else. They too are fallable and could be wrong.
3. Therefore everything that is created by man could be wrong, although there are some things that are less likely to be wrong than others (yes that includes science & mathamatics).
4. Since everything could possibly be wrong then nothing is truly 'right'. It follows then that nothing should be viewed as a purely right/wrong issue, but in shades of grey in which some things are more clearly 'right' than others. For example, mathamatics is more clearly 'right' than most religious beliefs, but that does not mean that either are inhierently more valuable than the other since both could possible be both wrong and right.
As an underlying philosophy this has two benefits:
1. You're seldom wrong. ;)
2. And you don't fall into the trap of ignoring views that don't fit your own. And everyone falls into this trap at some
It does have a couple problems:
1. You're continously prone to self-doubt.
2. Decisions take longer to make.
3. Some things are so obviously correct (I had breakfast) that it takes some serious mental gymnastics to fit them into the philosophy that they could be wrong. Plato's annalogy of the cave and DesCarte's (sic) great deceiver are the two most frequently used.
I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who is a true 'subjectivist', but you could find many people, myself among them, that find this philosophy extremely useful when trying to incorporate something that is out of their comfort zone. To tie it to a different thread, it's kind of like using specialized mathamatics for problems that don't fit into the rest of the theory.
The best thing about the 'subjectivism' philosophy is that it takes into account that 'subjectivism' could be wrong. Afterall, it's just another manmade theory. :)
[ Edited Mon Mar 15 2004, 11:23AM ]
--cbettles Mon Mar 15 7:49:34 2004
sunny - Sat Mar 20 19:41:50 2004
| 'The universe is infinite so anything is possible' should be easy to discredit because there is absolutely no observable reason to believe that the universe is infinite. |
| -- charmed_quark |
Not only this, but more fundamentally, there is no conceptual or logical tie between the two concepts: 'the universe is infinite' and 'anything is possible'. One statement does not lead to the other. Furthermore, the converse of the statement also fails: Assuming 'anything is possible' does not lead to 'the universe is infinite'. The premise, 'the universe is infinite', is, as stated, undecideable. The premise, 'anything is possible', is directly falsifiable from basic and fundamental metaphysics (ie: axioms of identity and existence.) A true metaphysics is not falsifiable because its base axioms are required for any and all arguments for or against them. This makes them objectively true.
Any concept or philosophy based on the false premise that 'anything is possible' without limitation nor context is also false.
[ Edited Sat Mar 20 2004, 10:52PM ]
--sunny Sat Mar 20 19:41:50 2004
sunny - Sat Mar 20 20:34:02 2004
I agree with Carrie, only much more forcefully, that such a false belief as 'anything is possible' is dangerous. It can lead to ANY type of contradiction and thus ANY kind of conceivable hell. Everybody MUST play by the same fundamental rules when interacting with others, and these rules MUST be objective. When the rules by which people must live within society are not objective, the rules become a problem and not any form of solution. I am not stating that there is only a singular solution, only that the philosophies that guide societies need to be based on objective truths in order to function. This means the change and adaptation of these systems as well.
Our society, custom, tradition, and the sets of rules that we live by are human constructs. Some of these constructs have a sound basis. Others do not. The systems most easily abused are likely the systems that require a reworking of fundamental structure.
Judging another world view/philosophy/belief, unless you blank out of your mind that they have a world view, is inevitable, Subjectivism or not. Even the very act of choosing not to judge another individual or group's belief system or philosophy, is, in and of itself, a judgment of undecidability within the context of your knowledge.
I can state in a very succinct way that: a philosophy of Subjectivism regarding 'human' systems is a philosophy of disregard, one worse than what the Subjectivist is trying to avoid; objective analysis and criticism. One gains very little by avoiding critical discussion of the systems (perhaps flawed) that others live by. But one gains a significant understanding of both their own philosophy and the philosophy of others by embarking upon challenging discussions regarding the objective validity of such systems. One cannot gain this knowledge by foreclosing the mind to the possibility of truth and thus debate in the name of 'respect' for another ideology. This is not respect. It is the absence of respect. When one respects a system, they dig, they analyze, and they may (when and if possible) understand. Otherwise you are stating, very clearly, "You may have beliefs that are different from mine, but that does not matter to me, and I do not care to discuss them. Your beliefs are value-less to me." This is done without objective assessment and thus without regard for the truth or falsity of the system or its components.
I hold that it is always best to use your best known objective standard within this process. Always. However, this does not mean that one cannot understand a system for what it is, solely within the scope of the system and all of its true and false assumptions. This is the purpose and science of anthropology. But if one attempts to integrate this knowledge with your own using some contrived measure or standard, failure, in some sense, and perhaps non-obvious, will inevitably occur.
--sunny Sat Mar 20 20:34:02 2004
TheLiberal Thr Sep 27 12:41PM 2007
What is meant by "anything can happen" could be interpreted in a more positive light. For example, questions asked usually beget answers, yet the meanings of those questions and the meanings of those answer is subjective in the sense that meaning is how one interacts with the object.
Thus, an infinite amount of meanings can be drawn from an infinite amount of questions and answers. Like so:
,
answer:question::5+7:12
We may interact with questions and answers in our own way, but they in themselves are just restatements of the object in terms of other objects. This draws connections with how the mind works, which is like a pairing system. So that the mind is a machine that takes sensory input and equates it with other sensory input. By looking at the relationships between those equates, the mind may predict new input which may be equated with other input, or even more new input. But, to draw it back to the idea that "anything can happen", certainly "anything" refers to any existing thing(as in, nonexistence = not a thing). If there is any possibility of it happening, we as humans can draw an infinite amount of inspiration from it.
If that makes sense.
--TheLiberal See above date ^
