assumption of wrongness

Posted by isaac on September 17, 2000 at 02:53:58:

In Reply to: Heh heh heh... posted by Sambersil on September 17, 2000 at 00:04:03:

: ----------
: And as always, although I haven't stated this enough, ruling over both logic and belief is the uncertainty of everything. Whatever we conclude, we could have made a mistake somewhere. There is no possible argument to this because the argument could have a mistake in it somewhere. This doesn't change anything, because there is no way to deal with it. We cannot rationally assume that anything is uncertain, because that assumption is a certainty, and we cannot rationally assume that anything is certain, because it could have a mistake in it somewhere. We might go on doing what we do, but maybe that's wrong. We might change everything, but maybe that's wrong too. I personally forget about it and do what I like, because that feels right.

yes, anything we conclude may have mistakes in it. i'll give you that. however, a very important point you miss in this is that we can pick out mistakes in systems where we know the rules. what sort of system do we know the rules in 100%? why, systems where we WRITE the rules, of course.

in any rule-oriented system, mathematical systems, there are certain axioms. for instance, the order of the numbers, and what they mean. this is not an assumption, at least not in the common sense of the word, it is a chosen way to define a starting point for a system. we also define the functions, +, -, *, /, etc. actually, we only have to axiomatically define addition. (axiomatic = make it an axiom, something that is not proven in terms of anything else and is the starting point for systems like the ones i'm describing.) then the other 4 are defined *in terms of addition*. from there, we get everything from fractions to fractals.

how do we get it? sure, we can be sure that we make no "mistakes" when we define the axioms, cause it's totally arbitrary. that is, there is no "correct" addition, we just define it in a way that makes the system convenient to use. it's totally just a practicality, and the term "mistake" is meaningless if there is no correct or incorrect. but, the other ones... "couldn't we make a mistake SOMEWHERE between defining addition and deriving integral calculus?", you ask. well, sure. and, being human, mistakes HAVE been made. they've also been corrected and avoided in very simple ways. that's exactly why PROOFs are so important in mathematics. it's the only place you *CAN* prove anything, because all information can be faulty, etc, etc. but, you can say, "well, addition works like this, and multiplication is addition repeated, essentially. an exponent is defined to be multiplication of a number by itself. so, (insert course in calculus here) the slope of the y = x^2 graph (y being vertical, x being horizontal) MUST be m = 2x, according to the derivative calculus that newton and leibniz both developed." find the mistake. (and don't say that you only can't cause you might make a mistake in finding it. circular logic. and THATS a mistake.)

there is no mistake becasue every step was arrived at by depending solely on the axioms: the definition of the numbers themselves and the operation of addition. then, the proper rules of the system were followed to derive everything else. you can even restate things solely in terms of those axioms. you can't state the axioms in terms of anything else, tho. for exactly this reason, you can't justify the position "the rules of logic are wrong", becuase they are right, IN TERMS OF THE AXIOMS OF LOGIC. and they dont' relate to anything else, so how ELSE could they BE wrong? what does WRONG even *MEAN* if you use it like that?? if you study logic, you will see this, because a good course in logic starts at the beginning with set theory axioms, and builds from that up to sophisms and various forms of fallacies and symbolic logic and all that good stuff.

(in fact, there is even an entire branch of mathematics just concerned with making up axioms and systems. we touched on it in my vector/matrix class talking about building "n"-dimensional vector spaces. cool stuff, especially when writing programs that involve physics in some way, cause you can do things like invent the "law of friction" or set up gravity backwards and crazy stuff like that. a most of the work on unified field stuff has been done by playing with 4+ dimensional vector spaces.)

this only holds for conceptual mathematical-type systems like math, logic, etc. anything slightly more "human", language, art, even science to an extent, certain branches of philosophy, must rely on circularity. there are no axioms in language; every word is defined in terms of other words. there is no "axiomatic word" that cant be defined in terms of other words. things that necessarily depend on these systems depend on that circularity as well, and are non-axiomatic. in any of these systems, the word "proof" is meaningless. you can "show", or prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" (whatever THAT means...), or "support with evidence", but the borders of know and not-know are decidedly fuzzy. you can safely say that any given concept in physics might be horribly horribly wrong. infact, it's the job of physicists to try and figure out HOW it might all be horribly wrong, and come up with new ideas once they smash the old ones. the beauty of the scientific method is that it organizes observation into a system approximating and resembling a logical system with axioms and rules. then, it admits it might all be wrong, and stomps all over itself.

philosophy, in most cases, IS axiomatic if done properly. that's where i applaud you. you have acknowledged that accepting information and beliefs on faith alone is stupid and useless. you have acknowledged that you need a new set of axioms. however, yo uhave made up a really bassackwards way of dealing with your starting point, by assuming that you can't define OTHER THINGS in TERMS of that axiom. what good is it to you if you can't do that? that's what it's for! if you're not gonna talk abotu the implications and developments stemming from this axiom, if yo'ure only telling us about it to try and pretend you're a silly, hyper-competitive 7, don't talk about it, cause that's annoying. what did the dead horse ever do to YOU, anyway?

now, i've already read that you cannot accept any philosophy, belief, science, etc, because it's possibly wrong. so what? you can't beleive anything 100%, fine. but to say that you can't even engage in the process or learn about it or try to understand how it works is just plain moronic, and has nothing to DO with beleif. it's like saying, "the rules of chess might be wrong, so i won't play chess." but the rules of chess ARE chess, and nothing else! how could they be wrong, if they're only right in terms of themselves? math is not a "belief", it's a totally enclosed, independent, fun and useful game-world. for that matter, so is philosophy usually, or should be. if you are all about saying crazy things and you aren't interested in developing or defending your position except to say it again and again, don't post it in a discussion-oriented forum; go start a cult.

i'm all ABOUT saying crazy things, and i like where you start. but you're just dumb about it, man. when you are challenged, you say what you said before in new words. you do not rebut, you restate. that's pointless. if i've made a mistake, then point it out, and explain yourself. if i've pointed out an inconsistency with what you've said, then defend what you've said or change your position. now, this argument, indeed this whole POST may have a mistake in it somewhere, according to the functions and axioms of logic and debate. it's up to us to find the mistakes. it doesn't have to be right in terms of anything BUT the system it's in, remember. "true" is an entirely different quality than "valid." (again, the basics of an intro logic class.)

if you're gonna just restate in harsher words the paragraph i put at the beginning of the post, don't waste the electricity. if i haven't heard from you in a week, i'll read it again. if you can find a mistake in this post (not just assume it's POSSIBLE there's a mistake), lemme know about it.

you know, i've noticed that when i meet a 5, i instantly assume they're intelligent. it's like, "well, at least he's on the right track."

isaac

Follow Ups:

• Re: Assumption of wrongness Sambersil 17:44:14 09/17/00 (2)
  • Re: Assumption of wrongness isaacthe54 23:32:42 09/18/00 (1)
    • Re: Assumption of wrongness Sambersil 19:59:58 09/19/00 (0)

Post a Followup