[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 106 KB, 500x513, main-qimg-54ff8e4cebb0b43242adf5e3f2f45051.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17858821 No.17858821[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Why hasn't anyone been able to solve it yet? With this, some basic epistemology and enough skepticism you can destroy any position. This is dynamite.

>> No.17858831

>>17858821
I CAN COPE HARDER

>> No.17858852
File: 78 KB, 1008x1024, 1616456020073.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17858852

it is solved with God
>inb4 God needs a proof
No.

>> No.17858864

>>17858852
>it is solved with God
>>inb4 God needs a proof
>No.

>axiomatic argument

>> No.17858970

>>17858821
>with enough skepticism you can destroy any position

Is that itself a position that can be destroyed with enough skepticism?

If so, then there exist some propositions that cannot be doubted.

If not, then there exists at least one proposition that cannot be doubted, namely, the quoted proposition.

>> No.17859107

>>17858852
How do you prove you or someone else has communicated god's will?

>> No.17859115

>>17858970
Yes
But
>If so, then there exist some propositions that cannot be doubted
No
Reason is self-destructing

>> No.17859232

>>17858821
Axiomatic is correct. We accept that 1+1=2 because we have a system of math that thus far can represent reality suprisingly well, but is still a construction. Objective truth must exist because even if we thought 1+1=3, the earth would still rotate around the sun with a speed and angle as if 1+1=2. Basically, if we know an objective truth (1+1=2) then we can use that to make a construction of math, and then use that to come to other truths (1+2=3). The construction is based in objective truth and therefore can lead to objective truth.

>> No.17859465

>>17858821
Axiomatism is correct, but only empirically.

>> No.17859472

>>17859107
Very carefully.

>> No.17859474

>>17859232
>axiomatic
>objective truth
Pick one

>> No.17859512

>>17859472
>>>/x/

>> No.17859519

>>17859465
>this nigga

>> No.17859537

i solved it, but i'll never tell how hehe

>> No.17859592

>>17859232
Mathematics has nothing to do with reality lmao and it constantly lets down or misleads our attempts to model it. As do formal logic and semiotics.
T. Linguist

>> No.17859630

>>17858852
Unironically this. The trilemma proves that everything, in the end, is a matter of faith. You need an axiom in order to think.

>> No.17859683

>>17859592
The absolute level of humanities

>T. Linguist
Kek

>> No.17859721

>>17859592
Imagine believing this

>> No.17859748

>>17859592
>Mathematics has nothing to do with reality lmao
you better hope it does when you board an airplane

>> No.17859757

>>17859748
>but muh linguistics

>> No.17859774

>>17859630
>You need an axiom in order to think.
You don't, actually. The axiom is purely theoretical and arrived via the thinking process attempting to map itself.

>> No.17859777

>>17858821
Truth does not require proof

>> No.17859781

>>17859777
Retard

>> No.17859788

>>17859781
Not an argument

>> No.17859802

>>17859788
Truth doesn't need ones, like you said
Retard

>> No.17859852
File: 1.91 MB, 1033x1033, 1594927660069.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17859852

>>17858852
/thread

>> No.17859941

>>17859774
>You don't need an axiom...
>...the axiom...

>> No.17860053

>>17858821

The regressive argument is the weakest point because basically any time you want to say something goes to infinity it's not very easy to truly prove it
I mean can you think of an argument that you're certain truly goes off into infinity or is it just that it seems like it does but you're not certain

>> No.17860183

>>17858852

Congratulations, you've successfully chosen the 'axiomatic' track. Now what, genius?

>> No.17860407

>>17858852
This.
also axioms are nice for formal systems of things like math.
t. math undergrad

>> No.17861454

idk how to cope with this. I don't want to become a postmodern pseud but are there any alternatives?

>> No.17861480

Life should be affirmed where it cannot give answers

>> No.17861557

Is there anything we can prove at all beyond doubt? Descartes was on the right track, but even then he assumed too much with the "I". We can't say our physical being definitely exists because we depend on our minds to process physical input and that input could be faked. We can't really say the "mind" exists in an immanent form (at least as we perceive reality) because it processes thoughts in sequence, and at any one time our "mind" is just the thought or thoughts that occupy it along with the background subconscious noise. Previous thoughts might have been faked and there might be no future thoughts. So what can actually be said to exist except a single thought in a single moment?

>> No.17861561

>>17861557
>Is there anything we can prove at all beyond doubt?
no

>> No.17861602

>>17861557
>Is there anything we can prove at all beyond doubt?
>So what can actually be said to exist except a single thought in a single moment?

Didn't you basically answer your question? You can confirm without a doubt that there is an "I" even if our inputs are faked. Descartes tried defending the idea that our thoughts are not deceived, but I think he ultimately fails.

>> No.17861607

>>17858821
>A truth is usually required to have a proof.
False.
There you go, solved

>> No.17861615
File: 103 KB, 858x649, you're not conscious.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17861615

>>17859630
>The trilemma proves that everything, in the end, is a matter of faith.
What about the existence of qualia? I don't need faith to know that I'm conscious. I consider my thoughts and experiences to be direct observations.

>> No.17861662

>>17859748
Mathematics is used to model the world but it does not claim that anything in math is universally true, just that certain things are true given you establish a set of rules.
Philosophy goes beyond modelling and seeks to find the objective, universal truth. In order for it to be logical it must be axiomatic, but if it's axiomatic it can't be universally true, only true so far as we all agree to accept certain basic ideas.

>> No.17861670

>>17861662
>Mathematics is used to model the world
Other way around, bucko

>> No.17861680

>>17861662
>only true so far as we all agree to accept certain basic ideas
Why would truth be based upon subjective agreement?

>>17861602
>>17861561
>>17861557
Live chaotically then, if reason isn't enough for you. Your existence will be your punishment.

>> No.17861684

>>17859592
I hate people like this chiming in with dumb shit.

>> No.17861688

>>17858852
Dangerously based.

>> No.17861718

>>17858821
Cringe.
Go back.

>> No.17861745

>>17861680
>Why would truth be based upon subjective agreement?
That's my point. Is it really truth, then?
>>17861670
>Other way around
Applied math is used to model how things interact in the world, but yes the world is also governed by mathematical principles.

>> No.17861782

>>17859592
How the fuck do you model mathematics

>> No.17861790

Im not quite sure if i understand the question. Is the point to find the most correct way of proving ones proposed truth? also, how would proofs go "ad infinitum"?

>> No.17861798

Existence exists.

>> No.17861799

>>17861798
proof?

>> No.17861807

>>17858821
Theres nothing to do with this.
>A truth requires a proof
>usually
>USUALLY
We make fundamental assumptions like "the universe is real" because otherwise, we would not be able to use any information.
The universe is fundamentally absurdist and it makes me cringe to no end listening ro people like OP talk like this even matters. The only reason people feel incensed to analyze it any further is because muh discomfort.

There are always new thjngs to leaen and we will never be omniscient. Why is that such a bad thing? Why is that so hwrd to accept?

Im so sick of you pseuds.

>> No.17861812

>>17861790
You'd have to show the proof of the proof of the proof of the proof...

>> No.17861813

>>17859592
If two things exist and are of equivalent (or equal) value to each other ergo they are two things.

>> No.17861818

>>17861807
The universe can all be just a simulation.

>> No.17861821

>>17861807
>fundamental assumptions
So, you're you're going with team axiomatics?

>> No.17861829

>>17861818
It would still in that case be real.

>> No.17861840

>>17861829
It depends from what point of view you say that. For the people living in that simulated universe, yeah, it would be real. But objectively speaking? We can't really tell.

>> No.17861848

>>17858821
You aren’t wrong that you can destroy any position, because logic ultimately rests on baselessness. But good luck using that in the real world when logic is required to accomplish things.

>> No.17861856

>>17859232
the problem here is you can reject the axioms that you posited.

>> No.17861862

>>17861557
“Descartes should have asked, if you don’t think, are you actually there?”

>> No.17861863

ok so what's the theory of truth to go with?

>> No.17861870

>>17861863
it's true if I want to believe it

>> No.17861883

>>17861870
But is that the answer, truly?

>> No.17861886

>>17861821
Well, I dont really see another way. We just take the most useful assumptions and plug them into the crossword untik its proven otherwise.
However, after so many years of discussion and my own personal analysis (that I dont... really... that would be a lot to explain...) there are things I do not see could ever be "resolved" and until it is shown there is a more useful interpetation we have to accept that eg. the unverse is real, otherwise we cant... um... anaylze reality or something I think... alright fine I dont know what Im talking about.

>> No.17861890

>>17861883
I believe so :)

>> No.17861894

>>17861821
Yes, team axiomatics is fundamentally correct. To even talk of "proof" or "evidence" means to show the truth of something by means of something else, which again needs to assume the existence of something that will serve as the means of proof. Existence is. That is the axiom. It's irrefutable. It's self-evidently true and anyone that unironically denies it is insane.

>> No.17861897

its not a problem to be solved. its just the fundamentals

>> No.17861932

>>17861886
>>17861894
How do you do this... ;_;
I take physics and calculus but I dont know how the hell to follow a strand of abstract thought well enough to express. defend, or even ascertain my thoughts...

>> No.17861937

>>17861840
I'll slap the postmodernism out of you, bitch.

>> No.17861938

>>17861932
Top quote being my own post.

>> No.17862034

>>17858821
The Hindu philosopher Kumārila Bhaṭṭa literally solved this.

>> No.17862039
File: 3.31 MB, 480x270, 1602913526500.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17862039

>>17858821
I spent a lot of time thinking about Agrippa's trilemma when I was in my scepticism phase, now I think a conservative foundationalism offers a satisfactory answer, though I wouldn't count out coherentism or maybe even infinitism (though I don't pretend to understand it). You might express foundationalism like this:
>Some beliefs are justified not by other beliefs, but by something else.
I prefer indubitability as the justifier, but there are other plausible candidates.

>> No.17862044

>>17862039
>I prefer indubitability as the justifier
This is still vulnerable to the infinite regress problem.

>> No.17862074

>>17862044
Care to elaborate?

>> No.17862127
File: 55 KB, 728x546, aid544631-v4-728px-Do-a-Two-Person-Arm-Carry-Step-8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17862127

>>17858821
Is it possible for all proofs to hold each other up equally, much like pic related? Perhaps this requires an axiom when further developed, but where is it required that all proofs must have an absolute foundation? (or is this just the circular argument path?)

>> No.17862191

>>17862074
Prove that the belief is indubitable.

>> No.17862208

>>17862191
No, when someone claims something as indubitable you should say you 'disagree, because'. Unless they're arguing in bad faith, which would require examples, which are not present here.
t. Not him.

>> No.17862225

>>17862039
If some beliefs can be self-justifying, why not just save yourself the trouble and apply this to all beliefs?

>> No.17862233

>>17862127
If each proof held each other, it would be circular. It would be troubling if proofs had no foundation. If A depends on B, B on C.., Z, and Z does not rely on anything or is not somehow a brute fact (taking this would be troubling) or axiom, then we can readily reject Z and everything else falls. Unless we go the infinite regress route.

>> No.17862259

>>17862233
Chicken or egg? go!

It's chicken by the way in case you were wondering.

>> No.17862292

>>17862191
Well it's indubitable for me, it can't (shouldn't) be indubitable for you that I find something indubitable. What presumably would be indubitable for you is the same feature of your own mind, but that's in a different mental world. That being said, I know that a belief is indubitable in my own mental world in virtue of it being indubitable that it's indubitable, and so on.
I don't have a problem with our having an "infinite" number of justified beliefs in this way, just because it seems analogous to other reasonable instances of having an infinite number of justified beliefs. We know that 1 < 2, 2 < 3, and so on, for every n < n + 1. (Proof by induction).
>>17862225
Because some are self-justifying and others aren't

>> No.17862317

>>17862292
Have you read Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology? I think you can find some promising stuff over there.

>> No.17862323

>>17862292
I could just as easily say, they're all self-justifying.

>> No.17862401

>>17862292
An infinite series of justifications for a belief is not the same as an infinite set of justified beliefs.

>> No.17862526

>>17862259
Uh, eggbros?

>> No.17862564

>>17858821
>regressive argument (proofs go ad infinitum)
Would this be a correct argument then? If everything in it can be proven, this would be the correct argument, not a bad ‘regressive argument’ yes?

>> No.17862926

>>17858821
Isn't the axiomatic argument the default stance?

>> No.17863364

>>17861602
identifying "a single thought in a single moment" as "I" is pretty slippery, since 99.9999% of the time when people say "I" that is not what they are referring to.