In A World Where Magic Exists...

[triqui]

Please, supply me the chain of logic that demonstrates with 100% certainty that an apple will fall.

That's a huge task, becouse it implies starting to show every single chain of logic that starts in "All is greater than Part" and "all the elements of a subset belong to the set", build from that, go through every proof to every single mathematical operation there is, up to the foundations of math itself, then go to prove how that relates to physics, until we get into the "f=g(m1*m2/d^2)" formula that explains how two masses atract themselves. So, I'll pass, becouse that would need several hundred of thousands of words. However, you can do the research yourself if you are interesting. I'll be incredibly surprised if you find any logical flaw all the way from "2>1" to Newton's Gravity Law. If you do, I'd like a small acknowledge in your Nobel Prize speech

If what you are asking, is an empirical proof, I'll do with just one apple and one table. If what you are asking is an empirical proof that it allways be that way, that only proves what you are asking is faulty, from a logic perspective. Becouse it's logic that "the absence of proof is not proof of absence, but the presence of proof is proof of presence". What you are asking, is a kind of logic fallacy called "inversing the burden of proof". What you are doing, is faith. It's tantamount to "you can't proof God does not exist, therefore, it does", which is faulty logic (even if God does exist. A sentence can be a fallacy, and true)

Hume isn't right because it was "written somewhere" that he was; Hume is right because of the nature of logic itself.

Nowhere you, or Hume, have proved that, ever. Hume is no closer to prove he is right, than Descartes is, using quite the opposite assumption.

IMHO, Kant's answer to Hume was already foreseen and strongly rebutted in Hume's own work. But to each his own, I suppose.

That's a matter of opinion. And AFAIK, the overall opinion among the philosophers, is that Kant work clearly surpased Hume (and Descartes). Hume is not the end-all of philosophy, not by a long shot.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Becouse it's logic that "the absence of proof is not proof of absence, but the presence of proof is proof of presence".

It's tantamount to "you can't proof God does not exist, therefore, it does", which is faulty logic (even if God does exist. A sentence can be a fallacy, and true)

No, it is tantamount to "You cannot prove not-X, and you cannot prove X, therefore the truth of X or not-X cannot be known".

I.e., "You cannot know" is not a statement that you can know X, or that you can know not-X. It is, quite literally, agnostic.

"In all cases X was preceded by Y" implies a correlation, but it is not proof of causation, nor is it proof that, in the future, all cases of X will be preceded by Y. The acceptance that "In all cases X was preceded by Y" be taken as proof that, in the future, all cases of X will be preceded by Y, requires something to occur outside of pure reason.

You can say this is the "I can't imagine a God who would create these conditions just to deceive me" (poor paraphrase) of Descarte, or the "synthetic knowledge" of Kant, but neither of these constructions actually remove the central point: Something apart from reason must occur.

And you miss the problem with your logic chain -- it is not that the links need be broken, it is that the links are affixed to assumptions that are not themselves proven.


RC

 

[triqui]

Well, It's starting to be hard for me to follow this conversation in a foreign language, becouse I feel myself restricted in what I want to say. However, I think we can safely agree we disagree (which is just fine, as Kant and Hume never agreed anyways )

However, this has been a nice conversation. Philosophy has always been one of my favourite subjects, and actually Kant is my favourite one So, I'll keep myself certain that the apple I have right now in my hand will fall, and you can keep yourself doubting. Actually, skepticism is a really nice feature for human mind

 

[Raven Crowking]

Well, It's starting to be hard for me to follow this conversation in a foreign language, becouse I feel myself restricted in what I want to say. However, I think we can safely agree we disagree (which is just fine, as Kant and Hume never agreed anyways )

Absolutely! And you are absolutely right that Hume is not the be-all and end-all of philosophy, merely a guy who raised an interesting problem (which has not, IMHO, been adequately answered).

However, this has been a nice conversation. Philosophy has always been one of my favourite subjects, and actually Kant is my favourite one So, I'll keep myself certain that the apple I have right now in my hand will fall, and you can keep yourself doubting. Actually, skepticism is a really nice feature for human mind

Agreed, and I am only sorry that I am limited to English myself!

(I've apparently given you too much XP lately, but perhaps someone will cover you for me?)



RC

 

[Umbran]

Please, supply me the chain of logic that demonstrates with 100% certainty that an apple will fall.

I think the issue you'll hit upon, RC, is that the term "100% certainty" does not mean what you think it means.

There's the mathematical sense - I expect that's the one you intend. And as a physicist, yes, I can agree that that mathematical 100% certainly is not available to humans.

However, humans don't live in a mathematical universe. They live in a real, practical, physical, empirical universe. In that universe there is no difference between, "100%," and, "100% minus a chance too small for measurement," especially when the smallest chances you can measure are very, very small indeed.

I question how illogical it is to accept how the mathematical and real/physical universes differ.

But, in either case, if your goal is to have a pleasant conversation with a chance of actually exchanging information, rubbing people's faces in how illogical their positions are is itself pretty illogical. If that's your goal, then at the moment you're current tactics are not exactly on the logical high ground.

If your goal isn't that... well, I ask you admit it now so we all know.

 

[Deset Gled]

that cames from all the Popes before BXVI as well, not only him...

Point is: there's so much people going to Lourdes, that it's absurd to think nobody would heal.

Err...

My post was actually meant as a satire on the WotC vs. Pathfinder market share threads (which are mostly from the RPG Industry Forum). These discussions often break down into arguments about what conclusions can be inferred based on limited data. The comment about Lourdes a being the "biggest site" was a reference to the data from Amazon's best sellers list. The comment about the Pope (PBXvI) was a reference to the data published by ICv2.

The reference seemed relevant to the topic when I wrote it, but now it just seems silly since no one got the joke. I guess I should have added a few smilies.

 

[Umbran]

Absolutely! And you are absolutely right that Hume is not the be-all and end-all of philosophy, merely a guy who raised an interesting problem (which has not, IMHO, been adequately answered).

I think, if you root around, you'll find the answer rests in the work of Kurt Gödel (who came well after Hume), who proved that for a finite system of axioms of sufficient power to describe arithmetic on the natural numbers, there are statements that are true within the system, that cannot be derived logically from the axioms.

Basically: logic alone does not lead you to all true statements.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think the issue you'll hit upon, RC, is that the term "100% certainty" does not mean what you think it means.

No; I think you've failed to understand what I am saying. Which is okay; I've probably stated it poorly. And, in any event, it is of interest primarily to philosophers....and, perhaps, in response to those who think their personal assumptions are a priori superior to those of others with whom they disagree, when both sets of assumptions result in a system that models experience to an equal degree.

But, in either case, if your goal is to have a pleasant conversation with a chance of actually exchanging information, rubbing people's faces in how illogical their positions are is itself pretty illogical. If that's your goal, then at the moment you're current tactics are not exactly on the logical high ground.

If your goal isn't that... well, I ask you admit it now so we all know.

Hrm.

Personally, I'll go with

However, this has been a nice conversation. Philosophy has always been one of my favourite subjects, and actually Kant is my favourite one So, I'll keep myself certain that the apple I have right now in my hand will fall, and you can keep yourself doubting. Actually, skepticism is a really nice feature for human mind

and

Agreed, and I am only sorry that I am limited to English myself!

(I've apparently given you too much XP lately, but perhaps someone will cover you for me?)

as to whether or not a pleasant conversation is to be had, thank you.

(Oh, and "logic alone does not lead you to all true statements" is not an answer to, but a confirmation of, Hume.)

EDIT: Which brings us back, again, to superstition coming about not only as a failure of logic applied to the same root assumptions, but as a result of logic being applied to different root assumptions. I think it is pretty safe to accept that superstition will occur in any milieu where there are thinking beings capable of projecting a model of that milieu.

EDIT to the EDIT: [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION]: And, in recognition of that pleasant conversation, perhaps you could give some of that super-mod XP to triqui for me? Please and thank you?


RC

 

[Starman]

(-8) + 4 = 4.

Actually...that would be -4.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Basically: logic alone does not lead you to all true statements.

Despite my degree in philosophy, my favorite proof of that came from a computer game.

I'm sure many of you know the game "Minefield", in which the object is to get across the minefield without blowing up. The only info you have to aid you is a number telling you how many mines are adjacent to a given space.

It's tough enough with a map made with squares, but the "Hexmines" variant really drives it home.