Off-Topic

Re: What do we know?

RAVEK — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 09:54:28 GMT

RedRacoon:
Very true. Sound waves don't exist simply for sound. Resonation is proof of this. There was a bridge built with a structure that ignored the problem of movement. So one day, the winds blow strong, and continue to hit the bridge over and over again at the same frequency. By and by, the bridge collapses.

Even if nobody was around to hear the bridge fall(as improbable as that is), it still fell, and the path it made for people who would want to get across was gone.

Except wind and waves are orthogonal concepts, so your bridge example is not an example of "sound waves don't exist simply for sound" at all.
But otherwise your point is valid. It's ridiculous to think that the purpose of sound waves is to let us hear things. The assumption of purpose is a fallacy.

Daninsky:
Or rather isn't the question actually "Is a tree that falls unobserved making a sound or is sound only the sensation created by our eardrum?" and not so much if the same physics still apply for unobserved trees, meaning would they still create the waves we would pick up and interpret as sound?

I invoke Schrödinger's cat.

Re: What do we know?

LethargicMotivator — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 22:00:21 GMT

Does it matter that we know anything at all?

Knowledge is just another one of those human pursuits, that when you eventually reach it will just be another goal accomplished, another space on the resumé.

We're all dead in the end anyway, we'll go out of this world knowing absolutely nothing.

Re: What do we know?

RedRacoon — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:41:46 GMT

Oh no, right? What IF thoughts could form free of a mind? So we've got all these thoughts floating rampantly and plunging themselves into peoples' brains.

Very true. Sound waves don't exist simply for sound. Resonation is proof of this. There was a bridge built with a structure that ignored the problem of movement. So one day, the winds blow strong, and continue to hit the bridge over and over again at the same frequency. By and by, the bridge collapses.

Even if nobody was around to hear the bridge fall(as improbable as that is), it still fell, and the path it made for people who would want to get across was gone.

Re: What do we know?

Daninsky — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 15:48:02 GMT

goncalobms:
Arguably one could say that if person A believes information B is truth, then in person's A world that is true.

Ah no, that ain't true. Persona A's simple believe in a truck will not be sufficent to run him over with it, ergo it doesn't exist. No matter how hard A believes in it, it's existence ain't true.

satansmunchkin:
I know what he's saying, but I disagree, I don't see why the ability to think and reason would logically prove that I exist ... It's a fundamental flaw in his argument. As a thinker I feel that he overlooked the fact that thoughts themselves may not necessitate existance ...

But if we only look at the "I think, therefore I am" then it is absolutely correct, because he never specifies what exists, the I has not to refer to him in body but simply as a thinking entity in the farthest sense, something that is.

I however would not sign on to the a thought can exist on its own, but even so the thought would then still exist, it would be.

satansmunchkin:
"if a tree falls over and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

satansmunchkin:
True, but I am not saying that thought involves particles of its own, like gravity has gravitons, but merely that thought involves chemical processes using electrons, as an electron falls into the uncertainty principle for momentum and position, like all chemistry the only certainty is that you cannot be certain of the outcome, a thought may develop which does not exist, but yet is still a thought

Wouldn't that lead to a case of if a thought forms but there is no mind to hold it can it still be considered to be a thought?

I mean this really sounds like the father of all semantics to assume that a 'thought' can form free of a mind.

Or rather isn't the question actually "Is a tree that falls unobserved making a sound or is sound only the sensation created by our eardrum?" and not so much if the same physics still apply for unobserved trees, meaning would they still create the waves we would pick up and interpret as sound?

Re: What do we know?

satansmunchkin — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:49:03 GMT

TheKaiser:
First of as all as all science is empirically based and can be hallucinated this approach really doesn't serve to counter Descartes. It assumes the existence of what Descartes explicity doubted to exist and then uses it to attack his purely rational approach. You might as well attack him with a broom. "I REFUTE IT THUS!"

I suppose you could phrase it that you're questioning the foundations of rationality. But then, again, you're trying to inform pure reason with empiricism, which is like the wedding of a Protestant and Catholic in 1930s Ireland.

I will concede that the hypothesis of mine that you can have thoughts that can be non-existent is purely theoretical and therefore there is no actual hard evidence backing it up, (to bring it back on topic, I have never experienced first hand non-existent thoughts, to the best of my knowledge, so I can't possibly know what I am saying to be true ...) so as such I can't really weigh in with papers or famous philosophers or the like to back me up (this in science does not mean you are wrong, just that you have no evidence so it is unproven and can be widely accepted to be incorrect!) it is merely postulation ...

satansmunchkin:
True, but I am not saying that thought involves particles of its own, like gravity has gravitons, but merely that thought involves chemical processes using electrons, as an electron falls into the uncertainty principle for momentum and position, like all chemistry the only certainty is that you cannot be certain of the outcome, a thought may develop which does not exist, but yet is still a thought (please for the love of god don't ask how this would be explained because my comprehension of QM is simply not enough, as most scientists will agree - I don't understand it, but it works!)

So you're saying the thought "I want buttered crumpets for lunch tonight" corresponds to the particles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...) having exact positions (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6...) and exact momentums ( P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6...). Then you say that as the H.U.P. prevents you from knowing exact positions and momentum, instead giving some spread of X and P values what you end up with is a spread of thoughts? With the some sort of setup like the mean value existing and the values encompassed in the spread "non-existent thoughts"?

No, I am saying that thoughts are most likely (I don't know for sure how thoughts occur!) are based upon the movement of electrons due to chemical processes, thinking of the way the central nervous system works, it is a fairly logical conclusion to come to that flow of electrons in the brain = thoughts (correct me if I am wrong)

Mind you I think I found a flaw in my own reasoning, the HUP would give a possibility of existence for an electron even outside of the standard orbitals ... so that would be a small (see large) oversight on my behalf lol

Thinking about what thoughts are though, without knowing better than my original hypothesis it seems logical to me that you would have an uncertainty of thoughts existence, but perhaps it is not the existence itself that is in question but merely the manner in which the thought exists, as a thought that your brain does not "think" but rather one that exists but is not thought....

Further, thinking about it electrons have the anti-matter particle positrons, is it possible to have "anti-thoughts" ... these would clearly exist, but would be thoughts that have properties physically opposite to normal thoughts (random postulation again)

I think that's an absolutely huge and unjustified assumption about how the mind - apologies, I should be philosophically exact here: "Brain" - works. For most of its operations I don't believe biological tissue has anywhere near the sensitivity for the H.U.P. to be a significant source of uncertainty. Even if the brain does function on some sort of quantum level for something as complicated as thoughts then the H.U.P. is so innate to the universe it strikes me that thoughts would not correspond to exact values of X and P but mean values of X and P with certain spreads.

I think that you may well be correct sir!

A fair point, but there are particles that you may not ever be able to "observe" do they exist or are they non-existent? Anything below the plank length is obviously unobservable ergo the problem of a singularity it goes below that length, there is no way of firing singularities at other singularities (hang on I'm onto something here ... lets try it!) to resolve an image of an object below the plank length, so for instance Graham Green postulated that there were multi dimensional Calabi Yau (spelling) bundles (for want of a better word) that were below the plank length but that allowed for his version of string theory to hold true ... It is entirely possible that a thought can exist within these spaces, but cannot possibly be said with certainty to exist (see the teapot theory of Raveks) but has an observable, circumstantial outcome!

If p is the cause of, and only cause of, q, then observation of q is sufficent to justify the assertation of p's existence. Russell's Teapot is entirely different because Russell's Teapot has no consequences to its existence. Russell's Teapot is: "p exists, but doesn't do anything else. It certainly isn't detectable." (which he does to illustrate the supposed absurdity of God). If we didn't accept consequences of existence as proof of existence I might as well reject the existence of the sun. It's light, gravity and everything else are, after all, only consequences of its existence. If I have a certain thought, it doesn't matter if the electron responsible for that thought is hiding in Calabi-Yau space, its existence is proven by its detectable consequence.

I also feel I need to expressly think a thought for it to be a thought. Thoughts are not independent of thinking. An electron hiding in Calabi-Yau space beyond the reach of all instruments (including my brain) might as well call itself God, because I'm not going to think it and it can't call itself a thought.

And for the record, String Theory is utter tripe (I say upon risk of being quote in twenty years, mocked by all for how wrong I was) and not everyone in the science community agrees with the existence of the Planck Length, at least my QM lecturer didn't, and he was awesome.

The onous is on me to provide evidence for the existence of non-existent thoughts, this I fear would pose a rather large problem to me ...even using the vast depths of mathmatical and physical theory, it is probably just out of my reach to produce such evidence ...

If I were to accept my hypothesis without the evidence then I should really accept the existence of God...

BTW, how can something resolve below the plank length? Is the thought that there is smaller subatomic particles than the plank length? Which is entirely possible ... but again unproven

So you would (to simplify it) say that if quantum mechanical theory held true for thought processes it would act as schroedingers cat and as soon as you had the though i think then the existant/non-existant waveform would disintigrate leading to the though being in existance and therefore certainly not non-existant?

What about quantum computers? They rely on the fact that the waveform doesn't disintigrate ... so how do they get around the waveform collapse? They've made multi quibit computers that don't collapse during processing ...

I admit now, I have no idea how quantum computers work apart from (very) brief reads of articles on them in New Scientist. But I do know that wave function has to collapse if a measurement is made at pain of breaking every single conservation law. If I measure the energy of an electron and find it is 1eV if I then perform a second measurement of energy immediately afterwards I must, and always must, get 1eV again. I can't get 946GeV on the second measurement, that would break the Law of Conservation of Energy. Nothing breaks the law of Conservation of Energy! Nothing! Not even String Theory! If the wave function didn't collapse I would still have the super position of states and probabilities of all sorts of energies being detected. Only by the collapse of the wave function to the relevant eigenstate do I find that the energy upon the second measurement has a probability of 1 of being equal to energy measured the first time.

Now the collapse of the wave function for one physical variable does not collapse the wavefunction for all physical variables, only "compatible" ones (those physical variables that share eigenstates).

Of course you can "undo" the collapse by making a measurement of different physical variable some time later which results in a new superposition of states and a new, uncollapsed, wave function.

This is a sort of part one of a much longer post (as I want to go to bed), so to those that despise me and all I write I apologise in advance for my future posting.

Edit: Oh and again to thank you, Satans, even if utterly, utterly wrong I'm still revising! My third year should be a breeze at this rate.

I try to bring (flawed) intellect to the forums occassionally

I hope you pass your exams for which you've revised rather early!

Re: What do we know?

Ironlion45 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:51:06 GMT

But yes, I had thought the essentials of the idea was if you hypothesise the existence of something that you carefully define to be physically beyond all detection and confirmation, everyone can feel quite safe and right in rejecting it and calling you silly?

But isn't it so that most Christians believe that God is, indeed, detectable and confirmable? Russell's teapot is but one of quite a few arguments Dawkins has addressed that theists and atheists alike have made to demonstrate God's existence or non-existence.

I liked the Ontological argument. It is so clever and sneaky I nearly expect it to come from someone such as yourself, Kaiser.

Deleted Post

Anonymous — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:04:47 GMT

This post has been deleted.

Re: What do we know?

RAVEK — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:03:42 GMT

Yeah, I think you have the right idea about what Russell's point was.

For my original purposes, I could've just defined my own version of a pointless existence, but I thought it would be better to use one people would already be familiar with.

Re: What do we know?

TheKaiser — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:57:33 GMT

RAVEK:
Do note that I only introduced Russell's teapot to this conversation as an example of a proposition we clearly can reject without consequence, even if we don't have conclusive evidence. I wasn't referring to God at all. I were, I would have done so explicitly. So let's not bother us too much with God, except where it's strictly relevant to the topic.

My apologies, I meant Lord Russell introduced the teapot idea to highlight the absurdity of God,

"If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."

At least I presume that was why he introduced the idea, rather than it just being a minor application. Professor Dawkins has boarded the boat and may well have twisted my entire conception of the idea.

But yes, I had thought the essentials of the idea was if you hypothesise the existence of something that you carefully define to be physically beyond all detection and confirmation, everyone can feel quite safe and right in rejecting it and calling you silly?

Re: What do we know?

RAVEK — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:22:32 GMT

TheKaiser:
If we didn't accept consequences of existence as proof of existence I might as well reject the existence of the sun. It's light, gravity and everything else are, after all, only consequences of its existence. If I have a certain thought, it doesn't matter if the electron responsible for that thought is hiding in Calabi-Yau space, its existence is proven by its detectable consequence.

Of course, the only way to detect something is to detect its effects. But for the same reason that we do not ascribe the sun's radiation and gravity to a fiery chariot burning through the skies (don't stop me now), we would ascribe most of God's proposed effects to other things. The situation in which God's existence is the most reasonable solution by far must be very extreme indeed. Provided this unfalsiability, the teapot is similar. A more strictly similar example would be the FSM.

Do note that I only introduced Russell's teapot to this conversation as an example of a proposition we clearly can reject without consequence, even if we don't have conclusive evidence. I wasn't referring to God at all. I were, I would have done so explicitly. So let's not bother us too much with God, except where it's strictly relevant to the topic.

Re: What do we know?

TheKaiser — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 04:29:28 GMT

First of as all as all science is empirically based and can be hallucinated this approach really doesn't serve to counter Descartes. It assumes the existence of what Descartes explicity doubted to exist and then uses it to attack his purely rational approach. You might as well attack him with a broom. "I REFUTE IT THUS!"

I suppose you could phrase it that you're questioning the foundations of rationality. But then, again, you're trying to inform pure reason with empiricism, which is like the wedding of a Protestant and Catholic in 1930s Ireland.

satansmunchkin:
True, but I am not saying that thought involves particles of its own, like gravity has gravitons, but merely that thought involves chemical processes using electrons, as an electron falls into the uncertainty principle for momentum and position, like all chemistry the only certainty is that you cannot be certain of the outcome, a thought may develop which does not exist, but yet is still a thought (please for the love of god don't ask how this would be explained because my comprehension of QM is simply not enough, as most scientists will agree - I don't understand it, but it works!)

So you're saying the thought "I want buttered crumpets for lunch tonight" corresponds to the particles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ...) having exact positions (X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6...) and exact momentums ( P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6...). Then you say that as the H.U.P. prevents you from knowing exact positions and momentum, instead giving some spread of X and P values what you end up with is a spread of thoughts? With the some sort of setup like the mean value existing and the values encompassed in the spread "non-existent thoughts"?

I think that's an absolutely huge and unjustified assumption about how the mind - apologies, I should be philosophically exact here: "Brain" - works. For most of its operations I don't believe biological tissue has anywhere near the sensitivity for the H.U.P. to be a significant source of uncertainty. Even if the brain does function on some sort of quantum level for something as complicated as thoughts then the H.U.P. is so innate to the universe it strikes me that thoughts would not correspond to exact values of X and P but mean values of X and P with certain spreads.

A fair point, but there are particles that you may not ever be able to "observe" do they exist or are they non-existent? Anything below the plank length is obviously unobservable ergo the problem of a singularity it goes below that length, there is no way of firing singularities at other singularities (hang on I'm onto something here ... lets try it!) to resolve an image of an object below the plank length, so for instance Graham Green postulated that there were multi dimensional Calabi Yau (spelling) bundles (for want of a better word) that were below the plank length but that allowed for his version of string theory to hold true ... It is entirely possible that a thought can exist within these spaces, but cannot possibly be said with certainty to exist (see the teapot theory of Raveks) but has an observable, circumstantial outcome!

If p is the cause of, and only cause of, q, then observation of q is sufficent to justify the assertation of p's existence. Russell's Teapot is entirely different because Russell's Teapot has no consequences to its existence. Russell's Teapot is: "p exists, but doesn't do anything else. It certainly isn't detectable." (which he does to illustrate the supposed absurdity of God). If we didn't accept consequences of existence as proof of existence I might as well reject the existence of the sun. It's light, gravity and everything else are, after all, only consequences of its existence. If I have a certain thought, it doesn't matter if the electron responsible for that thought is hiding in Calabi-Yau space, its existence is proven by its detectable consequence.

I also feel I need to expressly think a thought for it to be a thought. Thoughts are not independent of thinking. An electron hiding in Calabi-Yau space beyond the reach of all instruments (including my brain) might as well call itself God, because I'm not going to think it and it can't call itself a thought.

And for the record, String Theory is utter tripe (I say upon risk of being quote in twenty years, mocked by all for how wrong I was) and not everyone in the science community agrees with the existence of the Planck Length, at least my QM lecturer didn't, and he was awesome.

So you would (to simplify it) say that if quantum mechanical theory held true for thought processes it would act as schroedingers cat and as soon as you had the though i think then the existant/non-existant waveform would disintigrate leading to the though being in existance and therefore certainly not non-existant?

What about quantum computers? They rely on the fact that the waveform doesn't disintigrate ... so how do they get around the waveform collapse? They've made multi quibit computers that don't collapse during processing ...

I admit now, I have no idea how quantum computers work apart from (very) brief reads of articles on them in New Scientist. But I do know that wave function has to collapse if a measurement is made at pain of breaking every single conservation law. If I measure the energy of an electron and find it is 1eV if I then perform a second measurement of energy immediately afterwards I must, and always must, get 1eV again. I can't get 946GeV on the second measurement, that would break the Law of Conservation of Energy. Nothing breaks the law of Conservation of Energy! Nothing! Not even String Theory! If the wave function didn't collapse I would still have the super position of states and probabilities of all sorts of energies being detected. Only by the collapse of the wave function to the relevant eigenstate do I find that the energy upon the second measurement has a probability of 1 of being equal to energy measured the first time.

Now the collapse of the wave function for one physical variable does not collapse the wavefunction for all physical variables, only "compatible" ones (those physical variables that share eigenstates).

Of course you can "undo" the collapse by making a measurement of different physical variable some time later which results in a new superposition of states and a new, uncollapsed, wave function.

This is a sort of part one of a much longer post (as I want to go to bed), so to those that despise me and all I write I apologise in advance for my future posting.

Edit: Oh and again to thank you, Satans, even if utterly, utterly wrong I'm still revising! My third year should be a breeze at this rate.

Re: What do we know?

Gigamet — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 03:13:50 GMT

Without a doubt, science proves everything, but only by logic and is limited to the perceptions of said scientists. grimes said a few post back:

How old are we really? this sort of question relies on what one believes in, as well as a certain amount of scientific theory, for instance, a scientist of physics would say "you are as old as the number you carry" but a scientist specializing in the paranormal would say "who knows how old you really are? you could have been reborn hundreds of times, since the your soul is recycled".

Neither of these are proven facts, which is why i say, forget what you know factually, because everyone knows the facts. Instead focus on what you believe in, and if you are still debating yourself on it, you're in the wrong religion/belief structure. some things science can't prove, the same way beliefs can't prove everything.

Re: What do we know?

satansmunchkin — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:57:49 GMT

Edit: "3)" is apparently in the eigenstate of not existing.

You would have had major reppage from me for this one

TheKaiser:
satansmunchkin:
The flip side must also be true, as quantum mechanics allows for such things as random subatomic particles appearing, it must also be true for other larger objects, just extremely rare.
Therefore it is possible to argue that a thought can occur but it may not "exist"

So overall I would have to reword the descartes mantra from "I think therefore I am" to "I probably think, therefore I probably am" (poor gramma sorry)

First of all, thanks for forcing me to go through my QM lecture notes just as the summer is beginning.

Right,

1) The Heisenberg Uncertainy Principle does not apply to every pair of physical variables, only those which are Fourier Transform Duals of one another, which considerably narrows its application.

True, but I am not saying that thought involves particles of its own, like gravity has gravitons, but merely that thought involves chemical processes using electrons, as an electron falls into the uncertainty principle for momentum and position, like all chemistry the only certainty is that you cannot be certain of the outcome, a thought may develop which does not exist, but yet is still a thought (please for the love of god don't ask how this would be explained because my comprehension of QM is simply not enough, as most scientists will agree - I don't understand it, but it works!)

2) Existence is not a physical variable, at least among real particles, and the Heisenberg Uncertainy principle does not apply. Existence is implied by a particle or wave having any measurable property at all. You don't conduct a test for existence which gives you some value back, you conduct a test for a "symptom" of existence such as energy. I can't make a measurement that tells me a particle exists and then find from other measurements that it has no energy, position, momentum or such like, i.e. "It exists, but it has no other properties" like some sort of abstract void of apathy (which actually has three properties so is doing remarkably well).

A fair point, but there are particles that you may not ever be able to "observe" do they exist or are they non-existent? Anything below the plank length is obviously unobservable ergo the problem of a singularity it goes below that length, there is no way of firing singularities at other singularities (hang on I'm onto something here ... lets try it!) to resolve an image of an object below the plank length, so for instance Graham Green postulated that there were multi dimensional Calabi Yau (spelling) bundles (for want of a better word) that were below the plank length but that allowed for his version of string theory to hold true ... It is entirely possible that a thought can exist within these spaces, but cannot possibly be said with certainty to exist (see the teapot theory of Raveks) but has an observable, circumstantial outcome!

A thoughts mere existance should prove it exists, but then the same could be said of an electron or a photon... I am postulating that a thought, like a photon can "exist" but yet no "exist" it's the same thing as a particles spin - up, down, both or neither to your or I a particle having spin of up, down or neither is entirely easy to comprehend, but both? how can something spin up and down at once ... in the same way I would coin a thought could exist and not-exist (as electrons possess this inherent quantum oddness) therefore it is possible to have a non-existant thought that says "I think therefore I do not exist" ... >.>

4) The only particles I know of that may come into or out of existence are virtual particles and that's Quantum Field Theory which is considerably beyond my second year physics lectures. Whilst I would appreciate someone better qualified to clean up the matter, my own argument when you talk about the probability of non-existence and existence you are talking about the probability of they're being properties or not being properties. The properties are not divorced from the existence. When a virtual photon comes into existence, it enacts an electrostatic force. I've never seen a physicist go "Oh, there's a much higher probability of there being an electrostatic force than there is a virtual particle emitted so the excess must be due to magic then. "

I won't lie, Quantum Field Theory like Statistical Mechanics is well beyond my physical abilities But I might do some reading to see what these virtual particles are ...

5) When Descartes said "I think" he made an observation, for lack of a better word, which subsequently caused the Schrodinger Wave Function of his existence to collapse into the eigenstate of "Existing". Which I suppose in some ways, it's what Undead God and Kierkgaarde have said. You might argue a particle can't observe it's own energy and cause a wavefunction collapse so neither could Descartes observe his own existence but then you'd have to take it up with Wigner ("Consciousness causes the collapse") and Williams ("Descartes can't go third person on his own ass, mofo")

So you would (to simplify it) say that if quantum mechanical theory held true for thought processes it would act as schroedingers cat and as soon as you had the though i think then the existant/non-existant waveform would disintigrate leading to the though being in existance and therefore certainly not non-existant?

What about quantum computers? They rely on the fact that the waveform doesn't disintigrate ... so how do they get around the waveform collapse? They've made multi quibit computers that don't collapse during processing ...

God writing that was more exhausting and probably full of more mistake than my QM exam was. You do make my life difficult, Satans, you're a demon!

Well Quantum Mechanics and Chemistry when you do it to degree level throws up philisophical questions if you think about them in the right way, I have a very friend at university in Cambridge doing Philosophy and I have the odd debate with her about such things, but she agrees with Descartes and to quote her text:

I agree with you, Descartes was wrong about a lot of things especially the cogito as it leads to cartesian dualism. A better reformation would be "I think therefore there have been thoughts

However most of that went over my head as it is some wierd philosophy jargon (if you fancy translating it then by all means, but I do understand the last bit agrees with me that it is presumptious to assume that thoughts imply existance ....

As a randomn aside, a thought, like all objects must contain a waveform to exist (according to quantum theory) therefore if you could find a suitable dual slit to fire random thoughts at (with a suitable thought detector at the end) then if you fired individual thoughts you would get the same interferance pattern as for singular photons, therefore implying that thoughts exist in all probabilities at once, including it must be conceeded the possibility that the thought does not exist ...

Although that leads me to be intreagued as to whether anyone has ever detected the fact they fired a single photon (easier to detect) through a dual slit and that it has disapeared into the "non-existant" state ... would be interesting to see if it has happened and if it was just put down to "equipment error"

As a further aside, taking this all into account, I should really have re-phrased the title of the thread to "what do we probably know" ... >.>

curse these quantum gods!

Re: What do we know?

SgtF — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:26:50 GMT

TheKaiser:

Descartes never included "Dubito", he simply said "Cogito Ergo Sum" (or in French Je pense donc je suis). Dubito was added at a later date by another individual. Though it is fair to say Descartes argument was based on doubt of everything, a field of philosophy called "Skepticism".

If we're being really finicky, Descartes originally just said 'I think, I am'. The 'therefore' Descartes added later but red herring I feel.

However Nietzsche . . .

He was a ***, lets not talk about him

Edit So try and summarise in some sort of meaningful way, Descartes was saying "The only thing whose existence I can be sure of is my own, because I think, therefore I must exist." It is an entirely personal argument, Descartes couldonly be sure of Descartes existence. I can only be sure of my own existence and you can only be sure of your existence.

And personally, I like this argument. I like to view truth, real truth as in the Platonic sense of truth which is the task of philosophy anyway. (Empiric truth is the task of science) a truth that cannot be measured by its practical applications or its benifits- to establish what is known for certain, with a certainty that is utterly immune from doubt and to distinguish this from what we think we know from what exists.

'I' now must be removed from all physical and psychological construct. 'I' must be the subject of pure cognition which all traces of psychological self has been removed.

Re: What do we know?

Swordbane85 — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:50:51 GMT

We know what we know. Circular theory. YAAAAAAY. Using this logic, we can destroy Raven Rock and stop a maniac from sending classical American music across a brown and gray desert!
Sorry, just thought that this thread needed some nerd humor.