Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,927 Year: 4,184/9,624 Month: 1,055/974 Week: 14/368 Day: 14/11 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there any such thing as an absolute?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 5 of 109 (718178)
02-05-2014 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dogmafood
02-05-2014 7:46 AM


a reality opposite to what we observe
I see a bit of a problem with this as it seems to me that the way in which we know things is by relating them to other things.
Well, there's the speed of light...
If .9999...9 is equal to 1 then non-zero chances can largely be dismissed.
By adding the terminal 9, by the way, you make that first bit untrue.
Nevertheless, we can choose to dismiss whatever we like, it doesn't make them go away, though. We can say God created the Earth and the universe etc in 6 days and that I know this absolutely, and then simply dismiss things which have non-zero chances of being true that challenge my 'knowledge'. If we want we could do that kind of thing.
The same way that I can dismiss the non-zero possibility that I can walk through a wall. In the real world the possibility that I can walk through a wall is zero. I know this.
Then you're wrong.
Look - forget the extreme philosophical examples for a moment.
You have a head injury. You wake up and next to you see someone who looks like your mother/wife/sister/brother/father whatever, but it isn't them. They do sound like them. And they've studied them well based on the content of their speech. But it isn't them. They assure you they are who they appear to be. They have your loved one's passport, the imposters! Then more imposters from your friends and family turn up.
This is your perception of reality. Its how things are from your perspective.
They tell you about the head injury and Capgras Delusion, but they're clearly just trying to trick you for some reason. Are they CIA? CSIS? Aliens?
quote:
As a starting point I would like to dispute the idea that imagining a reality that is in opposition to what we observe is a valid objection to the idea that we can be sure of what we observe.
You observe imposters - can you be sure of that or do you have Capgras syndrome? I'm saying reality is in opposition to what you observe. I think this is a valid objection to the idea that we can be sure of what we observe.
If you want to get picky about 'observation' you are free to replace my example with some kind of hallucinatory condition instead.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dogmafood, posted 02-05-2014 7:46 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 14 of 109 (718353)
02-06-2014 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dogmafood
02-06-2014 8:20 AM


How many times do I have to bounce off the wall before I can know that I will not be going through it?
Know absolutely? No amount of times will be sufficient. It's unlikely, but a freak Quantum Tunnelling event does have a certain probability of occurring, I suppose.
I mean I will not live long enough to bounce off the wall enough times before I encounter the one time that I actually go through it.
Probably.
It seems to me that the fact is that the real possibility of me going through the wall is zero.
No. Otherwise you could dismiss the probability of winning the lottery as zero. After all, you could play all your life without winning. Indeed, that's what'll probably happen.
The real probability is very nearly zero.
The practical, every day probability is zero.
I appreciate Paulk's distinction between practical and absolute certainty but with hypothetical possibilities on the one side and the span of time on the other, how many 'solid' objects have ever passed through another 'solid' object?
We've only observed the tiniest fraction of such interactions.
The fact that my (our) cognition is not perfect is not lost on me. However, repetition and verification and consensus serve to bring the chances of being wrong down. Can they not bring them down to zero
No. They can be good enough for practical purposes, but never absolutely zero. After all, you may be being deluded about the consensus. There's about a 5% chance you will suffer a psychotic episode once in your life. So there should always be some doubt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dogmafood, posted 02-06-2014 8:20 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Dogmafood, posted 02-06-2014 11:06 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 30 of 109 (718513)
02-07-2014 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by Dogmafood
02-06-2014 11:06 PM


A poor example I guess because I can see people actually winning the lottery but I think that I get your point.
The reason I used it was because of that. You can play the lottery each week for the rest of your life without winning and probably will if you tried. This is analogous to you bumping into a wall over and over again.
That doesn't make the probability 0. With the lottery example, we can observe others winning, and we can calculate the exact probabilities which explain why winning is rare.
If the real (absolute?) probability is very nearly zero that I can walk through a wall given an eternity's worth of attempts what is the probability that I can do it in a lifetime? If .999... is equal to 1 then how small does that probability have to be in order for it to be equal to zero?
It needs to be 0.
0.9999.... IS 1. It's not a tiny infinite bit smaller than one and we just call it 1. It IS 1. Exactly and precisely 1. On the other hand the chances of walking through a wall are not exactly 0. It is > 0.
I think RAZD gives a good explanation of why .999... = 1 but at the same time I think that only 1=1.
So 9/9 ≠ 1?
The tiniest fraction of all such interactions but the sum total of all observations. Are we not certain that you don't have to actually witness the event to know what is going to or did happen?
The laws of physics actually allow a solid object to pass through another solid object. To know what is going on or to have absolute knowledge of what is going on? The two are different.
Are you not absolutely certain of anything whatsoever?
I think therefore I am?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Dogmafood, posted 02-06-2014 11:06 PM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Dogmafood, posted 02-08-2014 8:43 AM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 36 of 109 (718690)
02-08-2014 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Dogmafood
02-08-2014 8:43 AM


Apparently, math is not my strong suit. I am not sure where the discrepancy comes from but the decimal equivalents of 1/3 x 3 and 9/9 appear to be different. Anyway.
1/9 = 0.111111...
3/9 = 0.33333.....
7/9 = .7777....
9/9 = 0.9999......
Its a quirk of our numbering system that there are multiple ways of representing numbers.
0.99999~ = 1 ? is still open if you want to get to grips with the hows and whys!
How can you speak with such conviction about the need for doubt?
I'm a militant agnostic!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Dogmafood, posted 02-08-2014 8:43 AM Dogmafood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Dogmafood, posted 02-09-2014 9:34 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024