Some asks whether true nothingness instead of something possible. The correct question should be whether nothingness is conceivable. Or describable (sometimes it is easier to describe).
Let us try to describe nothingness. Scientifically inclined person will often think about the absence of material or energy within a space-time. But this is not nothingness as there is still space. Now what if there is no space, then there will still be laws of physics.
What if there is no laws of physics or mathematical truths or even ethical law. Or even metalaws which governs these laws. This will not be true nothingness either.
Regardless of how well you eliminated all conceivable concepts and forms from nothingness, it still will not be true nothingness. The truth of nothingness being nothingness means that there is a truth attached to nothingness which makes nothingness not true nothingness.
In fact, if you describe nothingness there will be properties attached to nothingness, and true nothingness is void of properties, because properties describe something and when nothingness become something, it cease to be nothing. Nothingness is a paradox.
What can we say about nothingness is. Do you understand (I did not even put a double period there)?
Maybe what we can say about nothingness is nothing is nothing. But nothingness having a name itself is a property. Saying nothingness is an offence to nothingness.
Why it is not conceivable is because we always conceive something. To conceive is to conceive something, just like to think is to think a thought. Thinking about it is an offence to nothingness.
True nothingness is not approachable, it is beyond our reason.
Have you noticed the parallel between God (as a concept) and nothingness? If God is the absolute existence as a respected colleague of mine often say, then nothingness is the opposite of God, he is the anti-God. They are both inconceivable. Beyond the realm of man. We know them only by name. One has His existence as His Essence is His Existence, therefore self-sufficient. The Other
Wednesday, 9 July 2014
Tuesday, 8 July 2014
Free Will and Memory
Some neurological studies suggests that our choices occur milliseconds before we realise we make them. This leads many people to hard determinism.
Now Consider the scenario
A man woke up at night, conscious, wrote the letter A on a table. He fell asleep. He woke up. He looked at the letter A and could not remember writing it. He said to himself that he was not conscious when he wrote it, he sleepwalked.
Let we call the man's Self or consciousness during the first period of conscious actions (i.e. when he wrote the letter A) X and during the second period (i.e. when he looked at the letter A) Y.
We can say that Y is not conscious during the actions of X, therefore his statement that he was not conscious is right. The sets of beliefs that Y has makes up his Self, and memory affects his sets of beliefs. Y did not do the actions of X 'freely', he was 'determined' by the will of X. Y did it nevertheless because X and Y has the same shell of identity.
We can say that Y has not acted 'freely', but we cannot say that the man has not acted freely. The man acted consciously and 'freely' as X although he was not aware of it as Y. The man is the aggregate of X and Y and therefore the man is conscious and 'free' throughout.
This analogy can be applied to the information that our choices is determined milliseconds before we realise we are making the choices. Our memory and hence sets of beliefs say that we 'made' the choices after the choices are apparently determined, but that does not necessarily mean that we did not make the choices. There may be X and Y components of our consciousness. They need not be different temporal instances of our consciousness, although they may be, but they are elements of our Self nonetheless. We may make our choices while we are not aware, and we may be aware when we are not making the choices. This illustrates how we can still be free, but it is not a proof of us being free.
Now Consider the scenario
A man woke up at night, conscious, wrote the letter A on a table. He fell asleep. He woke up. He looked at the letter A and could not remember writing it. He said to himself that he was not conscious when he wrote it, he sleepwalked.
Let we call the man's Self or consciousness during the first period of conscious actions (i.e. when he wrote the letter A) X and during the second period (i.e. when he looked at the letter A) Y.
We can say that Y is not conscious during the actions of X, therefore his statement that he was not conscious is right. The sets of beliefs that Y has makes up his Self, and memory affects his sets of beliefs. Y did not do the actions of X 'freely', he was 'determined' by the will of X. Y did it nevertheless because X and Y has the same shell of identity.
We can say that Y has not acted 'freely', but we cannot say that the man has not acted freely. The man acted consciously and 'freely' as X although he was not aware of it as Y. The man is the aggregate of X and Y and therefore the man is conscious and 'free' throughout.
This analogy can be applied to the information that our choices is determined milliseconds before we realise we are making the choices. Our memory and hence sets of beliefs say that we 'made' the choices after the choices are apparently determined, but that does not necessarily mean that we did not make the choices. There may be X and Y components of our consciousness. They need not be different temporal instances of our consciousness, although they may be, but they are elements of our Self nonetheless. We may make our choices while we are not aware, and we may be aware when we are not making the choices. This illustrates how we can still be free, but it is not a proof of us being free.
Monday, 7 July 2014
Criteria for a Truth Claim
Some say that Truth itself is unknowable and therefore it is absurd to try to claim a belief as true. Others, naturalists and theists alike, say that they have attained truth, they claim their set of beliefs as the Truth. So what must be the nature of a truth claim (TC) be?(and by truth claim i mean the claim of a worldview to be true) Truth itself may be unknowable, but there are criteria which must be fulfilled for a truth claim (TC) to have the probability of being true.
C1
The first criterion is absoluteness, a TC must be an absolute claim. God (as a concrete metaphysical being) can either exist or do not exist, he cannot exist for some people and do not exist for other people. This may be a real claim (RC), that for some people God is real, but it is not a TC. A TC will say that a concrete metaphysical God exist or He does not exist.
Some will say that light is both a particle and a wave, this is not an absolute claim and yet it is true, hence God may exist and does not exist at the same time, maybe like quantum physics, our perception matters.
First we have to examine the TC that Light is a particle. A particle traditionally is not a wave by definition. Since light exhibit wave like properties, light is not a particle by our traditional definition, therefore the TC that light is a particle is not true.
Second we examine the TC that light is a wave. Traditionally wave is not a particle. Since it exhibits particle like properties, it is not a wave. Therefore this TC is also not true.
The correct TC according to our current understanding is that light is a whole new thing altogether which is neither a particle nor a wave, and this claim is absolute. The truth will be that light is this whole new thing or it is not this whole new thing.
C2
The second criterion is Coherence. A whole set of belief can only be a TC if all the constituent TCs does not contradict each other. Given that our rational faculties are correct (otherwise thinking itself is absurd and epistemological solipsism is inevitable) or reliable to some degree, that it can be considered as a tool to think about the truth. Since one claim can make another claim impossible, then a claim must not contradict itself or else the claim will be impossible altogether.
A TC is all-encompassing and all constituent TCs make up the TC. Therefore a contradiction between the constituent TCs will be a self-contradiction of the TC. A self-contradiction is an impossibility. An impossible claim cannot be a TC.
e.g. One's ethics and epistemology must not contradict one's metaphysics. Naturalists cannot say that there is an abstract set of rules of moral right and wrong which is a concrete abstract object.
However, this criteria may be suspended by C3, elaborated in the next part.
C3
The third criterion is that there must be room for the unexplained (RFU). RFU can suspend C2 by saying that the apparent contradiction lies in the RFU, therefore the apparent contradiction is not a true contradiction and therefore it fulfills C2. RFU suspends C2 not removing the necessity of C2.
To understand why RFU is necessary consider this scenario. We are given five multiple choice questions, with options A B C D, but we can only read four of them. We can only get all questions correct if we answer the four questions correctly and we guess the fifth question correctly. We must guess without explanation, we know that we cannot know question number 5 but we have to guess anyway if we want to get all questions correctly. If we only guess the things that we can explain, we will only be attempting four questions and we will have a zero probability of getting all the questions correct.
Now consider this, if question number four is dependent on all the other questions, i.e. number 1 2 3 and 5, and
the answer without considering 5 is A and
if 5 is A then 4 is B
if 5 is B then 4 is B
if 5 is C then 4 is C
if 5 is D then 4 is D,
Then to answer number four with A is a definite wrong, we would have a better chance to guess between B C D, although without considering number 5, 4 is definitely A
Lastly let us consider another rules for scoring, every correct answer is given one mark, a wrong answer is given minus one mark and all the questions are independent of each other.
If we answer the first four questions correctly we get four marks. If we blindly choose number 5 we have a one fourth chance of getting all questions right and three quarter chance of getting 3 marks which is lower than if we do not attempt question 5. Therefore not attempting 5 will give a better chance of getting a higher score, but you will have zero probability of getting all the questions right. Therefore not attempting 5 is a better RC than attempting, but it cannot be a TC, since a TC must have the probability of being true.
Although the relationship between different questions in life may be arguable, human ability is almost certainly limited, and hence there will always be that fifth question that we cannot read. And attempting that question is a must if we are to make a TC.
C1
The first criterion is absoluteness, a TC must be an absolute claim. God (as a concrete metaphysical being) can either exist or do not exist, he cannot exist for some people and do not exist for other people. This may be a real claim (RC), that for some people God is real, but it is not a TC. A TC will say that a concrete metaphysical God exist or He does not exist.
Some will say that light is both a particle and a wave, this is not an absolute claim and yet it is true, hence God may exist and does not exist at the same time, maybe like quantum physics, our perception matters.
First we have to examine the TC that Light is a particle. A particle traditionally is not a wave by definition. Since light exhibit wave like properties, light is not a particle by our traditional definition, therefore the TC that light is a particle is not true.
Second we examine the TC that light is a wave. Traditionally wave is not a particle. Since it exhibits particle like properties, it is not a wave. Therefore this TC is also not true.
The correct TC according to our current understanding is that light is a whole new thing altogether which is neither a particle nor a wave, and this claim is absolute. The truth will be that light is this whole new thing or it is not this whole new thing.
C2
The second criterion is Coherence. A whole set of belief can only be a TC if all the constituent TCs does not contradict each other. Given that our rational faculties are correct (otherwise thinking itself is absurd and epistemological solipsism is inevitable) or reliable to some degree, that it can be considered as a tool to think about the truth. Since one claim can make another claim impossible, then a claim must not contradict itself or else the claim will be impossible altogether.
A TC is all-encompassing and all constituent TCs make up the TC. Therefore a contradiction between the constituent TCs will be a self-contradiction of the TC. A self-contradiction is an impossibility. An impossible claim cannot be a TC.
e.g. One's ethics and epistemology must not contradict one's metaphysics. Naturalists cannot say that there is an abstract set of rules of moral right and wrong which is a concrete abstract object.
However, this criteria may be suspended by C3, elaborated in the next part.
C3
The third criterion is that there must be room for the unexplained (RFU). RFU can suspend C2 by saying that the apparent contradiction lies in the RFU, therefore the apparent contradiction is not a true contradiction and therefore it fulfills C2. RFU suspends C2 not removing the necessity of C2.
To understand why RFU is necessary consider this scenario. We are given five multiple choice questions, with options A B C D, but we can only read four of them. We can only get all questions correct if we answer the four questions correctly and we guess the fifth question correctly. We must guess without explanation, we know that we cannot know question number 5 but we have to guess anyway if we want to get all questions correctly. If we only guess the things that we can explain, we will only be attempting four questions and we will have a zero probability of getting all the questions correct.
Now consider this, if question number four is dependent on all the other questions, i.e. number 1 2 3 and 5, and
the answer without considering 5 is A and
if 5 is A then 4 is B
if 5 is B then 4 is B
if 5 is C then 4 is C
if 5 is D then 4 is D,
Then to answer number four with A is a definite wrong, we would have a better chance to guess between B C D, although without considering number 5, 4 is definitely A
Lastly let us consider another rules for scoring, every correct answer is given one mark, a wrong answer is given minus one mark and all the questions are independent of each other.
If we answer the first four questions correctly we get four marks. If we blindly choose number 5 we have a one fourth chance of getting all questions right and three quarter chance of getting 3 marks which is lower than if we do not attempt question 5. Therefore not attempting 5 will give a better chance of getting a higher score, but you will have zero probability of getting all the questions right. Therefore not attempting 5 is a better RC than attempting, but it cannot be a TC, since a TC must have the probability of being true.
Although the relationship between different questions in life may be arguable, human ability is almost certainly limited, and hence there will always be that fifth question that we cannot read. And attempting that question is a must if we are to make a TC.
Thursday, 3 July 2014
Knowledge and The Crowd
Knowledge nowadays has become a crowd-centered process, to convince people to accept something as true via empirical evidence (sciences) and/or logical reasoning. Maieutics is long forgotten. The enlightenment part of knowledge has become unfashionable, indeed the word 'enlightenment' nowadays is more closely related to spiritual hippies rather than to intellectuals. This stems from the diminishing recognition of knowledge as acquiring a fraction of the one absolute truth. 'Knowledge' itself is not knowledge of the truth, but a means to convince the crowd to a certain proposition. Knowledge without truth is not knowledge, as knowledge by definition is knowing something and if there is no something out there, there is no knowing it. Imbeciles of the modern world claim illogically that the truth is always relative, everything is relative, the truth of their mothers being human is a matter of opinion then, they should accept if i disagree with them. The truth is not relative it is absolute, a number can only be an integer or not an integer. The truth is absolute. To sense a touch of this truth must be our goal. The objective of positing a theory must be to claim the truth of it, not just to become a widely accepted proposition. Not just to convince the crowd. Why would they even want to convince the crowd? The crowd is untruth
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)