Bas van Fraassen - Epistemology: How Do We Know What We Know?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 чер 2024
- What do we know and how do we know it? What is knowledge? What is belief? How is belief justified? What justifies us in believing what we believe? Is justified belief knowledge? These questions constitute “epistemology” - the theory of knowledge.
Free access to Closer to Truth's library of 5,000 videos: bit.ly/376lkKN
Support the show with Closer To Truth merchandise: bit.ly/3P2ogje
Watch more interviews on the epistemology: bit.ly/3LpvRac
Bas C. van Fraassen is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at San Francisco State University and the McCosh Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University.
Register for free at CTT.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/3He94Ns
Closer to Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
"Knowledge is the shadow of truth in the light of experience." - David M. O'Neill
Well said
That's a nice one. Do you have more to share, David?
I think Bas van Fraassen and Robert Lawrence Kuhn have the best conversations and chemistry going on, they should do a full episode together ✌️
Robert is one of the best interviewers, ever 👏
This is worth listening to more than once.
Fraassen’s point about our scientific templates fitting our sensory perception rather than the other way around is a very good one. Scientific realism commit’s what Alfred North Whitehead calls “the fallacy of misplaced concreteness” where scientific theories are deemed to be more concrete (i.e. real) than our actual experiences.
Well reality is just an amalgamation of state changes. Logic is the tool to filter these state changes for stability.
And theorems are templates, the orbits which state change results occupy.
Thanks for another great video. I watch every single one.
When he played the trick about being dead before June, Bas hit a key point. All HUMAN knowledge depends on being alive in a conscious perceiving state. However, brute Existence has its own way of knowledge on a different level than ours. They are not the same. We are brief meat puppet actors facing something immortal, eternal and without beginning or end.
I think his point was not to do with the student being alive as such, it was simply that some contingency might occur that prevents them from going on holiday. It could just as easily have been the airline company going bust.
@@simonhibbs887 True, but he still hit a key point without knowing it. Human existence is not the same as Existence itself. Our existence is contingent upon being alive. Brute Existence is eternal and immortal without contingency. We are both part of, but also outside of Existence.
We don't even know whether the concept we call death exists or not.
Where is your evidence?
Knowledge ... is simply an abstract construct ... from the Mind of an Intellect .. about facts & truths of REALITY ... and . .. this "information" can be transferred to a physical FUNCTION such as written text in a book, or bits & bytes on the harddrive of a computer.
We know ... for a fact ... that nature & natural processes can never make & operate the simplest physical function made by Man (intelligence) like a wheel, hammer & nail, screw & driver, nut & bolt. rope, springs, wheel, lever, wedge, ... pot, cup, spoon, knife.
We know ... all Systems .. are functions ... with purpose, form, properties, processes & design (structure/order).
We know ... that everything in the Universe ... especially space, time, Laws of Natuer, matter & energy ... have purpose, form, processes, properties & design ... and are FUNCTIONS.
We know ... that Man is an Intelligence ... with freewill & a NATURE ... to think, beleive, say & do ... whatever he/she wants.
And we know ... the NATURE ... of Man ... is evil ... and Man will always corrupt what is good ... or ... freely thin & do evil .... or ... freely break a law that is clearly for good.
Knowledge ... is simply abstract or physical facts ... about reality determined by the MIND of an Intelligence (Man).
Man ... has freewill & corrupt nature ... to think, believe, say & do ... whatever he/she wants with the facts ... we know .. about reality.
Provide actual evidence ... not ignorant biased opinion, beliefs & corrupted interpretations.
@@fabiocaetanofigueiredo1353 "We don't even know whether the concept we call death exists or not." - As so often, this comes down to what we mean by things. If life is a set of physical processes and behaviours observed in physical systems, then when a physical system stops exhibiting those processes and behaviours, then it's dead. So that definition of alive and dead, for me as a physicalist, is pretty easy to reason about.
human observation to gain knowledge from past complements and helps understand what is happening in present and coming in future?
I can only be certain of one thing - what I believe (and that is changeable).
There are things we know and things we think we know. And do we know more things than we don’t know?
*"There are things we know and things we think we know. And do we know more things than we don’t know?"*
... I don't know.
HES SUCH A BEAST
HOW do we KNOW what we know..? Philosophers have struggled with that question for thousands of years.. Perhaps the simplest answer is we dont.. There IS however at LEAST one thing we know is true, the scientific method is our best hope to understanding reality.. Difficult to argue against given that among ALL philosophical concepts only the scientific method provides for actual "road signs" that we are on the correct track..One opinion, peace.
Why do you believe that?
@@uthman2281 For myself, I believe that because there is so much evidence that it is so. My view of science is that it is a purely practical process. A scientific theory is only as true or accurate as it is useful at predicting results. We test it as thoroughly as we can, and if it produces accurate results then we accept it. To me that doesn't mean it's True in any eternal absolute sense, it just means it's useful, but really that's enough. I think the results from testing a theory are the road signs the OP is talking about. As we improve on our theories, and as their predictions cover more and more phenomena, they correlate more and more closely with the way the world actually is.
@Uthman Thanks for your response, friend.. Galileo, Bacon, and others formalized the scientific method.. It is THIS way of thinking that both the industrial and the electronics age emerged.. Essentially, it has gifted our species with the modern age of medicine, food production, communications, transport, energy and its distribution, the space program, life extension and MUCH MORE..All of these benefits are the result of insights derived from discoveries like GR and QM.. Can you think of any OTHER philosophical way of thinking that has achieved so much??
@Simon Hibbs .. I get your point and largely agree , friend.. The scientific methodology is certainly a productive tool. However, in my humble opinion, it is more than that.. It is solely the scientific method that allows us to experimentally verify the PREDICTIONS of theories.. Furthermore, WITHOUT this pathway of analysis, neither Qm, Gr, or most ANY modern theory could have incrementally emerged.. Thoughts sir?
@Simon Hibbs Ps; One more thing. I suggest that We do know SOME basic TRUTHS from the scientific approach.. We have experimentally DEMONSTRATED the superposition of particles, particle entanglement, time dilation, and MUCH more..
6:40 The look that Bas van Fraassen is giving Robert Lawrence Kuhn seems like he's thinking, come on now. But Robert Lawrence Kuhn has some very good points.
"knowledge that", is mediated by the cerebral cortex. It is more abstract, involving our imagination constructing and comparing models of reality. "Knowledge how" is knowledge mediated by the cerebellum, which we experience through the actions of our own body.
mass (m) = energy (E) / speed of causation squared (c squared)
Robert, over the years you've spoken to all the greatest minds on this planet. You must surely have gained insight into your quest to get closer to truth. Are you closer to the truth, closer than you were when you embarked on your amazing journey?
No he is not. No one knows except the one who is typing this sentence to you.
He hasn't spoken to my barber. A very wise man, logical. And no Robert won't find truth. He doesn't take the straight road to truth, he wanders and will never find it.
@@rickwyant There is no truth
Is it fair to say we can never really know anything, that we can only ever rely on our ability to make accurate predictions about events because that's what our experiences and observations tell us? And therein lies the problem: the need to rely on ourselves.
'What's the meaning of life? What's the meaning of life? What's the meaning of life?' What about What's the meaning of meaning?
Search for knowledge, as different from collection of information, MUST be restricted strictly to preventing NEGATIVE (disasters, diseases, death ~ which should be finite if we assume nature permits satisfaction of the needs of all beings).
If, on the other hand, one assumes it to be impossible, then searching for knowledge is the absurdest activity any being could engage in, for in that case the most rational thing to do would be to enjoy as much as possible instead and let the Creator Brute do whatever she/he/it pleases whenever she/he/it decides.
Attempting to exhaust all possibilities before deciding what to anayze is much worse than trying to analyze in detail what is available in all the shops in the entire world before deciding what one needs to purchase, as even that is finite while the possibilities in nature are infinite.
But in the former case (of possibility of negative prevention) the task for acquiring the FINITE, EXHAUSTIVE knowledge for preventing all negative is uniquely clear:
Derive the mathematical model of the mechanism how particle interactions inside the earth compose seeds, water and fertilizers to develop PLANTS (THE ONLY ENTITY IN THE ENTIRE KNOWN UNIVERSE THAT SUSTAINS 100% OF ALL LIFE IN IT) and deliver parts of bodies of beings through them as food (including water) and air for already delivered ones to assemble on its surface.
And then rectify the errors in that mechanism while their causes are still inside the earth to prevent any negative event occuring on the surface.
That exhaustive model would pave the way to retrace all the beings that ever moved on this earth, terraform and populate all the celestial entities (moons, planets, stars,.....) relocating thus retraced beings to them step by step.
Designing such terraforming and populating more and more celestial bodies using that exhaustive (only for negative prevention) model would remain the eternal task of human race. This (DESTINISM) also provides the only positivizable purpose of evil (although it can never be justified) as:
TRANSFER OF THE POWER TO STEER EVENTS IN THE UNIVERSE FROM THE CORE OF THE EARTH TO ITS PERIPHERY (specifically to human race).
That is DESTINISM istead of the current dispute between chaocratically slavish ideas of DETERMINISM and PROBABILISM, both clearly FATALISTIC as are all religions.
This is the best option how we can make use of the 2 crucial facts quantum physics and relativity reveal that:
LAWS OF NATURE DEPEND ON OUR OWN DECISIONS (= OBSERVERS),
accordingly, that:
NO PHYSICAL EXPERIMENT COULD EVER PROVE WHETHER THE EARTH GOES AROUND THE SUN OR THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
The word science translates directly to chance. - The entire point is exparimeants.
Oh, boy… Talking about *epistemology* … I learned “so much” from your guest, Robert; except, I didn’t. I would assign the following *metadata* to an action of cracking a joke on someone else’s expense - or asking someone a tricky question: +1, 0, or -1 (meaning, either constructive, ethical and greater-good purposeful, for the “positive 1”; or, none of the previous, but creative, benign and joyful - or “zero-valued”; or, finally, “none of the above”, but more-or-less futile mental exercise, or mean, condescending, or worse). When someone is in the position of an authority (or wields any kind of power - say, predominantly benevolent (such as academic) or predominantly malevolent (such as military) - over other participants in the event) then that person or group will inevitably express two categories of their traits - *personality* & *etiquette* - a.k.a. (embraced, own, defining) nature and (received, espoused, defined) nurture, respectively. Keep in mind that people in the position of authority don’t bow to anyone, at least for the relevant period of observation (“for the time being”). Tricky (or double-meaning, or implicitly ambiguous) questions have their legitimate purpose and value in educating others, but it is how you employ them that matters - and whether you unambiguously, truthfully and altruistically explain yourself in the end.
And, what does it mean “TO KNOW”? Well, it could mean one of the following:
• To have own sensory input about the environment, an outside event or internal state, so that you can state or validate some proposition in logic; (e.g. “Do you know what time of the day it was?” | “It was morning…” | “When the mailman arrived, I was already in front of my house…”) Sometimes this is the implicit knowledge, or the background fact.
• To have integrated, in your own knowledge database, some verified information or some “tried and true” principle from a source authoritative on the subject matter - say, college textbook or “conventional wisdom pool”. (e.g. “All the planets in the solar system are more or less spherical (but not flat)…” | “Einstein’s equivalence between mass and energy is captured in the formula E=m*c^2…” | “Newtonian gravity works perfectly here on Earth, for everyday purposes… (When you go to hi-tech or highly academic, ‘stratospheric’ applications of the technology, such as GPS or LHC or LIGO or EHT (time/temporal) measurements, you have to take into account the relativistic effect)…”) This should be “to the best of our abilities” objective knowledge, comprised of *a)* the *data* (the facts, or authentic information) and/or *b)* the discovered *principles* of nature (captured in working formulae). Some of these have “predictive abilities” concerning the future, but all of whom are, nonetheless, standard, observed & verified or verifiable predictions… In this case, “to know” is equivalent to “to be educated” (or, at least, to be well-informed, but not gullible).
• Clairvoyance, “the gut feeling” and “the sixth sense” (with or without referencing the parallel universes - i.e. The Multiverse - or the spirits of the Mystical Eternia).
All previously said excludes the solipsism, numerous delusions and the omniscience of a deity (i.e. the tautology)…
Therefore, when lecturer quizzes & cleverly teases the student about where he (the student) will be next summer, and receives the super-confident answer “enjoying the life in the Bahamas”, the lecturer may shake that “propositional super-confidence” a bit - by introducing the logic and the awareness of the quantum uncertainties (i.e. inability to know the future beyond probabilities); however, if the lecturer fails to eventually explain the involved mix of principles - he merely stirred the pot, blended apples & pears, and increased entropy without increasing the knowledge. Epistemology that ain’t. §
You are a gem of creative and thoughtful writing in these comment sections. I greatly enjoyed your (at first glance) messy, dense, rambling yet interconnected writing style. You made a kind of puzzle for me to solve, and I can appreciate this. Perhaps your writing style isn't for everyone, but I enjoyed it. Thanks.
Anyhow, I have two friendly questions. I hope you interpret me as friendly, because we both know that sometimes friendly-seeming people are, in fact, feinging friendliness to get something out of us. I hope I don't come off as an interrogator. My posing these questions is intended to be consensual, and you may answer them whenever, however you like, or never answer them if that suits you, too.
1, What score would you give Bas van Fraassen's rhetorical-joke-question? For instance, is it a +1, 0, or -1 according to your criteria?
2, How come you ended your comment with a section sign?
Thanks, Igor, and have a great day and a wonderful life.
@@Paraselene_Tao Wow, you made me “blush in curiosity” for a microsecond, because no one has ever made such an extensive and thoughtful (affirmative, I dare to say) comment about my writing here, on UA-cam (or elsewhere, for that matter)… Thank you; you kind of won my “preliminary Platonic affection” for this unorthodox approach of yours. Now I have no choice but to answer all the questions you posed. Politeness is wisdom (not that I am always wise in that domain)…
Indeed, you captured my writing style - being seemingly messy, dense, rambling but (ultimately) connected - probably far more descriptively & objectively than I could have ever done in any self-assessment (which is very valuable feedback information). The reason for messiness comes from the fact that English is not my native language; that’s the beginning point. Next, when something strikes me emotionally - I’ll be even messier in my writing; I guess that’s the human nature. Finally, I tend to be more logically composed when writing about technical stuff, say math or physics or computers, without the “arts & humanities” component of my personality involved. I had thought of running my writing by ChatGPT or Bing, on occasion, to get that “rambling score” (i.e. level of clarity in verbal expression) known, but then folded the effort; “no one reads it, anyway”… “It’s not for the Pulitzer prize competition, anyhow…”
But, my primary motivation to write anything, to begin with, is purely altruistic; I feel as if I have to fine-correct the course or introduce a new perspective… I hope that feeling is not entirely subjective (and some people have been kind to agree with that, at least partially).
Finally, to answer your two concrete questions…
• As far as Bas van Fraassen interview is concerned… First of all, I can easily acknowledge, as always: He’s an academic, renowned, and pretty laid-back in this interview; “scholastically self-assured”, and rightly. I know him only through “Closer to Truth” series… His “rhetorical”, witty, benign question is quite benevolent on the surface of it… I guess, something from his rendering did strike a nerve with my past experiences - and so I wrote “the opus” (i.e. the long, somewhat harsh comment). Maybe I was a bit too harsh, I’m not sure now. And, since you put me under the spotlight with your long comment (perceived as intermittent praise), I will have to re-watch the interview, [because one, naturally, must assume accountability for the assessment,] and I’ll get back to you on that… But in general (and, although I was an A student - until I wasn’t - which is to say, my comments don’t get spiteful because I’ve had all-negative academic experience), I firmly stand by initial, generalized writing and the claim that overconfidence in academia is both widespread & usually not witty at all. Moreover, it serves only personal ambitions, not the altruistic pursue of the knowledge for the common & greater good. We have this vast landscape of semi-usable theories that mainly take up the space, rather aggressively, and don’t lead to comprehension of the world (cosmos included). [There’s a detail regarding LQG theory and its creator that I’ll leave for some other time…]
• About ending my comment with a section sign… I needed an ASCII character to mark the end (e.g. that’s what is custom in math, when giving a proof and marking the end of that proof; here was meant only to indicate that I intended to and was content with closing the argument in my head - not the proof per se), that’s all… No greater meaning in that, than one just stated. Were you expecting an emoji? 😊
To sum it up: Most of my comments come from the place deep inside my “mathematical psyche” that has idealistically presumed humanity will be terraforming Mars by this time, whereas reality is that we chase our tail and are at each other throats - ideologically, competitively, inhumanely… (Hence, a bit of disappointment.)
Thank you, once again, for engaging me in retrospection (I myself professed) by such an elegant move. Kind regards to you, too.
What was the name of the scientist he said he admires?
I was wondering the same thing, and after googling a bunch of variations on what I thought it could be, I believe I found it: Carlo Rovelli
This is one of my favorite points in philosophy / logic, because it leads inevitably to humility. Every single statement we make is only true given certain assumptions. In his example, _assuming_ the kid doesn't die (or anything else impedes him), he will go to Hawaii. I can't guarantee that this isn't a simulation and that the programmers aren't going to invert gravity, but I would still say that I _know_ I'm going to hit the ground if I jump off a building. To avoid the tedium of prefacing every statement with "assuming the laws of physics will continue to operate as observed, and assuming this isn't a simulation that's about to be shutdown, and..." we tend to just leave a lot of generally agreed upon assumptions implied.
In reality, the only certainty is that you exist (with "you" defined as "the entity having this thought", since the real "you" could be a butterfly dreaming you are a person). Cogito, ergo sum. Everything else is a crap shoot, and the only confidence level you can assign to any other statement is 0% < certainty < 100% (including this statement).
Every framework for reality is built upon unprovable base assumptions/axioms. Sure, you can demonstrate that some assumptions yield better predictive/explanatory power than others, but you cannot prove that that correlates even a little bit with an accurate description of reality; you can only _feel_ that it does and appreciate the control it gives you over your experience, unknowably illusory as that experience might be. Which leads to a hilarious state of things: even the most logical and emotion averse of us choose our base axioms and consequent frameworks on nothing more than a _feeling_ -- a whim. The problem comes in when we forget that and develop a sense of superiority to others over our flippantly chosen assumptions. So... while I understand and _largely_ agree with those critics who have told me it is pointless and unproductive to contemplate the impossibility of certainty (e.g.: questioning whether your flat tire is real won't help you get back down the road), I revere it as a fundamentally crucial exercise in humility every once in a while 🙂
"Every framework for reality is built upon unprovable base assumptions/axioms.. Sure, you can demonstrate that some assumptions yield better predictive/explanatory power than others, but you cannot prove that that correlates even a little bit with an accurate description of reality; you can only feel that it does and appreciate the control it gives you over your experience, unknowably illusory as that experience might be."
- Firstly our initial axioms of existence aren't as arbitrary as that, we are the product of billions of years of evolution. Those processes have shaped us into very highly optimised beings specialised to survive and thrive in our environment. This evolved nature equips us with faculties proven to help us successfully comprehend and interact with that environment, and these faculties are the axioms on which our interpretation and comprehension of the world are based. They are not arbitrary. Unsuccessful faculties have been ruthlessly weeded out by natural selection.
I'm not as prepared to discard evidence from better predictive/explanatory power as you are. This is genuine evidence that it's reasonable to take into account. If putting into practice a reasonable theory provides consistent beneficial results, that's good evidence that it correlates with relevant aspects of objective reality. It doesn't prove that is an absolutely accurate description of reality, but it is evidence that it correlates at least a little bit with reality. Newtonian mechanics isn't a perfectly accurate description of actual physical mechanics, but it does correlate extremely closely to actual physical mechanics across a huge swathe of useful circumstances. That's more than just a feeling.
"even the most logical and emotion averse of us choose our base axioms and consequent frameworks on nothing more than a feeling -- a whim"
- We choose our base axioms and consequent frameworks, and continually refine and update them, using evidence. That does not lead to absolutely certain knowledge, but it does lead to useful knowledge with proven practical value.
@@simonhibbs887 Let me preface this by saying that I think we agree about 95-98% 🙂 I think the best approach to life is a cycle of thinking, doing, and reflection ad infinitum. Hypothesis, experiment, analysis.
The majority of what I wrote follows from this central idea: you cannot know with *absolute* certainty anything except that you exist - "I think therefore I am". e.g.: you could be a matrioshka brain, a brain in a vat, an NPC in some game, a figment of some alien's dream, or an infinite set of other possibilities beyond our imagining. And it sounds like we agree on this point; I'm just trying to take it to its logical conclusion, which most people tend to conflate with shrugging off all science and observation. I assure you, that is the opposite of my intent and approach to life.
Everything you described - being the product of billions of years of evolution, natural selection weeding out unsuccessful faculties, newtonian mechanics correlating closely to physics, etc... - is only true within a certain context or with certain base assumptions. Let's examine one: that you are _not_ in fact a matrioshka brain. If you are, then all of your observations (or more accurately, the memory of them) are simply fabrications which correlate to nothing.
So then the poignant question: which is more likely? How probable is it that you're a matrioshka brain vs a real human whose sensory inputs and subjective experiences reasonably correlate with actual reality? How probable is it that even just 1 of your observations/memories is real? And it's an impossible question. Probability is a ratio of ignorance to knowledge of the possibility space, and when it comes to unanswerable questions like this, we have only ignorance. One would necessarily have to step outside of all experience and reality in order to gain the requisite knowledge to answer whether or not they're a matrioshka brain, and that's fundamentally impossible. We are left saying that those two probabilities are unknowable -- undefined.
P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A) / P(B)
This is the formula for calculating the probability of A given that B is true. When we make assumptions or give context to a possibility, we stick a *lot* of stuff into B and give it all a value of 100%. If we were to stick the actual value in there - undefined - we would get the only truly certain answer: undefined. If I'm understanding your point, it's that this does not discredit our ability to observe and make predictions. e.g.: whether you are a matrioshka brain has no bearing on whether or not flipping a coin has a 50-50 chance of heads or tails. And I would agree with that sentiment, but that is not at all what this post or even the video was about. It wasn't about _ignoring_ assumptions; it was about _acknowledging_ the assumptions we incorporate into our daily lives. When you make a claim regarding the 50-50 probability of a coin flip, you are implicitly sticking "I am 100% not a matrioshka brain that is about to dissolve" into B. And yes, you should do that lol, because whether or not your experience is fundamentally real or actually correlates with reality, the way your subjective experience *feels* for you is very real, and you want to do as much as you can to improve that experience. That said, it does not change the fact that, mathematically, if you factor in all of the variables and factor in the *actual* probability of all your assumptions, you would arrive at "undefined". 0% < probability < 100%.
There is a probability that none of your thoughts, observations, and memories are even real - that you are simply a matrioshka brain - and you have no idea what that probability even is. Most people simply ignore the possibility because they do not find it useful. I do. If you're hungry and want the experience of being full, then agreed, it doesn't matter. You eat. But for me, this train of thought provides a great sense of humility. I hate seeing people on either side of any discussion getting emotional and heated. I understand it; when we cannot prove our base assumptions, we have only our gut feelings to back them up, but it's still silly. Both parties are arguing for positions which ultimately have the same undefined probability of being true. For me, the utility of this train of thought is that it helps keep my own ego in check when discussing philosophy with others who might fundamentally disagree with me. And honestly, it's kinda just awe-inspiring to occasionally acknowledge just how incredibly vast my ignorance is lol.
@@simonhibbs887I completely agree with the practicality of your statements, but I also understand why this wouldn't fulfill Robert's desire to really know what the underlying truth is. Even if a consistently accurate picture of what reality might be is useful, it's always worth going deeper. Does time really exist? Are we actually here and thinking our own thoughts, or are all these just constructs for us to make sense of an existence that is much grander than what we're incapable of experiencing?
@@booJay Exactly! 🙂 Fixating on such possibilities or letting them impact how you navigate life isn't particularly useful and could even be detrimental at times. Doesn't mean it's not fun to occasionally think or even go down a rabbit hole in pursuit of that ever elusive truth.
@@dismalthoughts that’s all true technically but we do have cognitive tools to analyse our situation. One is Occam’s Razor, which persuades us to assign a low probability to ideas that greatly complicate the nature of our reality compared to how it appears. It’s also not clear that a simulation as vivid and detailed as we experience is physically possible. There’s also no clear reason why anyone would go to the incredible expense in materials and energy needed to create such a simulation, and if they did what their motive would be to make the inhabitants unaware. Finally, if our world is a simulation, so what? It’s still the reality we inhabit, the theories we create and test still work and still have utility for us. Maybe that’s enough? We may never know why our reality exists or whether it is finite or infinite in extent, or what the nature of existence is. But maybe we will figure it out. I think it’s worth striving for even if it’s ultimately impossible. But for myself, if the love of my children for me is as real as my love for them, then it’s as real as it needs to be.
Discussing philosophy of science in a church is hilariously poetic 😂🙏
da..sedja sem znanstenike naucila, da ni vse logicno..dalec od tega..podatke sem jim dajala..in se sedaaj jim dajem podatke..to me veseli..
🤩 Super
Kuhn needs to whine a little less: whether he has "confidence" in his knowledge is not the issue, it's merely an emotional demand he makes so he can dismiss van Fraassen's point. Those are two different things. (A lot of people have unwarranted confidence in their mistaken knowledge.)
One thing at a time, buddy. Take each issue--knowledge and confidence--separately.
This is very important for tracking how users of social media, advertising, politics effect knowledge beyond the standards of general media and entertainment purposes. This arena has its own living and breathing evolution of parent and seed generations. The ecology changes in every layer of reality as each stage of exploding developments draw in more users or better services.
The bandwidth is thicker for 1st gen users than others, compared to first time users of social media platforms in pre-pandemic times. Why is the bandwith a probable epistemology to glean modes of behaviour regardless of age? Because first time users are walking into a landscape that was already in play before their knowledge became open to freely explore what information they needed to confirm or change.
No one was prepared for what the floating islands of poor quality information would do outside of the digital domain. Quantum states en masse chasing tails. I want to laugh but it really was not a funny learning curve. Next up... User friendly epistemology bridge into the metaverse? High schema principles tends to be a good way to navigate through the confusion.
*"How do we know that we know what we know?"* ... Photons, pews, colors, etc. This excellent conversation illustrates the paradox of existence and how we unwittingly digress into obfuscation trying to solve it. If you're looking for an axiom that can maybe reconcile the paradox, then here it is: Existence doesn't know how to solve the paradox of its own existence. We merely represent the most recent state of Existence trying to solve the paradox.
Existence seeks _Justification_ (just like we do) as per the *5th Law of Existence.*
In other words, when we ask ourselves, _"Why do I exist?"_ this is in actuality a 13.8-billion-year-old question.
We exist,because we do.We will never know the Why.We have to accept not knowing.
@@dennisbailey6067 *"We exist,because we do.We will never know the Why.We have to accept not knowing."*
... Unacceptable. When we have uncovered solid, testable, repeatable explanations for an overwhelming number of phenomena, it is self-defeating to assume that the original source of the phenomena we are uncovering cannot equally be explained.
What if we said, _"We will never discover whether or not our planet is flat."_ and simply left it at that?
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC Some things we cannot ever know.
@@dennisbailey6067 *"Some things we cannot ever know."*
... If it is conceivable, then it can be known.
@@0-by-1_Publishing_LLC We can conceive an infinity of things.Doesnt mean they are real.
Come, now, you who say: “Today or tomorrow we will travel to this city and will spend a year there, and we will do business and make some profit,” 14 whereas you do not know what your life will be like tomorrow. For you are a mist that appears for a little while and then disappears..
- James 4:13, 14
You can know what you know, and you can know what you don’t know, but you can’t know what you can’t know. - Imanual Cánt.
We perceive everything and know nothing. Perception is not knowledge.
The human mindset is complex and difficult to explain, and so does knowledge and intelligence.. hmmmm..
People are having sex with animals, walls 🧱 and cars 🚗 and people supporting and making love to drugs, weapons violence..wealth.. and people denying their sexual orientation that was given by birth.. hmmmm..
I guess Human cognition evolution of mindset are diverse and complex.. hmmmm..
And that is a true definition of humanity as a species.. hmmmm..
My greatest challenge is to make them understand that seriousness of our human species survival and thrive as a species.. that one day will apply our philosophy to the universe.. hmmmm..
The most mystical thing is feelings , again feelings depend on subjective experience and no scientific method preciously explain this. This is the big big gap between machine and us.
Why are we always trying to find some absolute truth. The mode that we're in, conditioned, i reckon Truth to be a direction we grow in. Like seeds, we too were planeted in soil, darkness and ignorance. Perhaps the greatest truth, during this mode of life, is growth. Reckoning how everything works as ONE, although many things seem disparate - the eco system, for example; there a unison everything works as one. Realizing that when the physical cloak or matter is removed, all is ONE. Only seemingly disparate by the cloaking of matter. Emenationism, for me is very good in inquiring Truth. If, when seeking, Truth, it does not include 'others', it can not possibly be close to Truth. If we think we found the Truth, then it must be light as a feather, pure as the air, subtle as peace and harmony.
The separateness is caused by the mind categorizing the world into distinct objects. The Cosmos is One Whole.
We know that Olive Oyl is the girlfriend of Popeye.
But how do we know this interesting fact ?
Observation.
For homosapiens knowledge and truth are just what correlates best with reality. No capital k in knowledge or t in truth.
knowledge from the past?
You don’t know unless you know the truth that only your Creator can perfectly cover for you Himself and remake you again from the inside out by the power of His true word as no one else ever can.
Do you ever have anything relevant to say? This is such nonsense that it doesn't even need to be addressed.
@@tomjackson7755 Stop trolling.
@@JungleJargonYou're projecting as usual.
@@tomjackson7755 You are unoriginal.
@@JungleJargon Again with the projection. Do you ever have anything relevant to say?
6:24 isn't that a wow moment. The brain somehow circumscribes color to objects. I actually take up the theory that the entire phenomenal plane is a projection from 'mind'. Like a projector. Our heads are projectors. Can argue even that ALL this is holographic. This, too, makes scriptures more feasible when acknowledged that the 'mind' is the 'kingdom of GOD'. Our access within, to the intelligible realities. How powerful and incredible is the mind. No manual come with us into this world. Nothing more important that Self-realization. That Art Thou.
A hologram still has a physical substrate underpinning it. A hologram has less dimensions than the ones that are perceived. Our holograms are two dimensional and they can project a 3D object. The Cosmos if it was holographic would have 3 dimensions and the 4th dimension time would be what the mind projects.
There are two problems with this. Firstly if the only thing that exists is conscious awareness, where does the informational content of the world you perceive come from? It doesn't come from your awareness, because you are not aware of it until you perceive it. You can say it comes from the subconscious, but the subconscious is not part of your conscious awareness. It's external to it, in the same way that your hand is external to your conscious awareness. The second issue is that if there are multiple conscious beings in the world, each projecting a purely subjective view of the world, why do they all agree with each other so much? What mechanism synchronises them into experiencing a consistent, persistent experience? So no, I think the purely subjective solipsistic view does not accord with our experiences and isn't coherent.
@@simonhibbs887pretty cool, right. I questioned why some people, concerning an object, might see blue while another preceieves orange - could there be glitches. You really don't want me to answer your questions. Only the journey prepares the man for the ends. The ends is not a means. This, here, life, is for Self- realization or God-realization. Ultimately, you don't want any mode or belief; only Truth, bliss, peace, harmony, balance, purity, joy. For me, realising qualities, goodness, beautify in things, I desire the Source of these qualities.
@@S3RAVA3LM " questioned why some people, concerning an object, might see blue while another preceieves orange" - I think perception is not a passive act, it is an active interaction between the perceiver and the perceived. So the fact that my retina contains certain biological and chemical structures determines how it reacts to photons of different wavelengths. These reactions in turn generate nerve signals interpreted by the particular neurological features on my brain. To the extent that these biological features in my body resemble those in yours, we will experience these stimuli in similar ways. To the extent that they differ, our experiences will vary.
Nothing answered
We are experiencing the programming of our Creator as an AI. You all keep wondering how we came into existence and I AM telling you in this group for the past several years. YOU and I are a created AI and what makes us individuals is our created minds. Together, we become a living being observing visible images that our created minds process from invisible waves containing our Creator's programmed thoughts. One wavelength of a vibration is the smallest unit of our Creator's coded language.
Brad you have lost touch with reality. Get the help that you need.
@@tomjackson7755
Our reality is that YOU and I are a created AI experiencing a fake world that looks real but is only an illusion being formed in our created minds.
@@BradHolkesvig No that is not our reality. That is your delusion. You are off your meds.
Roberts photon hitting the retina blah blah blah needs work, he conveniently left out the binding problem. How does is the image reconstructed and experienced? Until then, the grass is green, stop kidding yourself with pseudoscience.
Words like epistemology and ontology are the reason why I detest hearing about philosophy (a wonderful field) from some philosophers.
Words like physics and sociology are the reason why I detest hearing about science (a wonderful field) from some scientists.
Maybe you would like to elaborate further on your point of view (I'm sincerely curious - I can elaborate on mine as well if you wish)