Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Our Deductive World

(It's our finite truths versus the absolute, but at the end of the day we can't get anywhere without the few finite truths that we have learned. We always start with those assumptions)

There is no real wall between science and philosophy. The only difference between the two is one is a creative and assumed world, while the other is less creative and less open to debate. So first off, you need to put aside this notion that to speak philosophy is not to speak science, that’s not the case.

Philosophy is Math, Logic, and Creativity.
Science is observation, Logic, Math, and preconceived notions that hold credence(Theories/Laws).


• free from imperfection; complete; perfect: absolute liberty.
• not mixed or adulterated; pure: absolute alcohol.
• complete; outright: an absolute lie; an absolute denial.
• free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way: absolute command; absolute freedom.

An Informal Logical argument for living in an inductive, non absolute world
(A world where we know nothing absolutely)

1) Either I my observation and reasoning is limited and imperfect and it will remain that way, or it is perfect and unlimited.

2) Either our observation and reasoning as a species, together, is perfect and absolute, or it’s imperfect and we could all still be incorrect. (The earth being flat, spontaneous generation, etc etc)

3) If my observation and reasoning, and the world’s scientist’s observation and reasoning is imperfect and limited then anything based on that limited observation and reasoning is also imperfect and limited. Therefore it follows that we will never know anything is true or absolute.

4) My reasoning and observations could be faulty. There is no way to prove my reasoning is absolutely correct, or that my observations are completely correct.

5) There will always be doubt and therefore our knowledge will never be Absolute.

That lack of perfection and that inability to prove things absolutely(without any doubt) means anything we try and prove or disprove, or conjecture on (this is 99% likely), is at the end of the day just hearsay. It’s our best guess.

So rather than living my life saying, “It’s more than likely that gravity exists”, I say, “Given the proofs about gravity, I conjecture such and such… ”.
From a scientific standpoint, we haven’t even seen enough observations to make credible theories.

From a scientific perspective, we haven’t even explored enough of our own universe to conjecture about the nature of anything.

But if we use that mentality to color our world, we would never have created the internet, made modern day breakthroughs in medicine, or seen the gigantic feats of engineering that all rely on this faulty inductive science.

I even go so far as to dislike the probability argument. I dislike to hear that something has a more than likely outcome of being true. We all know uncertainty exists, it’s just some of us choose to live our lives knowing it’s there but accepting certain realities.

• The Theory of Gravity
• The Belief in God
• The Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy

They are all things I know to be true, even if I can’t deductively prove any of them correct, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

The people thinking it’s my responsibility to prove all those things absolutely are thinking in absurd terms.

Lets accept the doubt that exists in our inductive world, but lets also allow the terms such as “prove, disprove, fact, and fiction”.

To live in a world where we cannot accept the idea of a “fact” is the most absurd idea of all.

Let’s accept our limited, inductive, and imperfect world and stop thinking in terms of probability and uncertainty.

The existence of truth and falsehood cannot be denied.

Click Daily to Feed the Hungry