Assuming we know something for sure while we do not is really harmful. On the other hand, any contradictory claim is know to be false for sure.
Topics
About: truth
The table of contents of this article
- Starting Context
- Target Context
- Orientation
- Main Body
- 1: An Impractical Ideal, but What About Mathematics?
- 2: "Cogito, Ergo Sum"?
- 3: I Think, Therefore Something Is
- 4: Which Means, the Universe Is?
- 5: Hypotheses Are Demanded, but Any Hypothesis Must Not Be Mistook for an Known Truth
- 6: However Little Are Known for Sure, Any Theory That Includes Any Contradiction Is Absolutely Wrong
Starting Context
- The reader knows the background of this site.
Target Context
- The reader will know what are known for sure as well as what are not really known for sure.
Orientation
There are some articles on truthfulness (here, etc.).
There is an article on the reality, observations, and interpretations of them.
Main Body
Stage DirectionHere is Special-Student-7 in a room in an old rather isolated house surrounded by some mountains in Japan.
1: An Impractical Ideal, but What About Mathematics?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Building a theory based on only what are known for sure is an enchanting ideal, but is really impractical.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Is it?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
What part are you questioning? The "enchanting" part or the "impractical" part?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The "impractical" part.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Well, what are known really for sure are quite limited, so, not much can be built on them.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What about mathematics?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Mathematics is special in its not really dealing with the reality.
For example, when it talks about a straight line in a Euclidean space, in fact, there is no such straight line in the reality, as the universe itself is not Euclidean. But it is fine for mathematics: mathematics is not saying that such a straight line exists; it is discussing how such a straight line would be if it existed.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
So, is mathematics built on what are known for sure, or not?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
It is, basically in a way, I guess. It is based on definitions, which are known for sure. Any straight line is known for sure to be as has been defined; whether such a straight line exists in the reality is not the issue.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
So, mathematics is not built on hypotheses?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Definition is different from hypothesis: a hypothesis may turn out to be false, but any definition does not turn out to be false, although it may turn out to correspond to nothing in the reality.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
What about an ill-defined definition?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Any ill-defined "definition" is not really any definition: it is a bogus definition; I am talking about real definitions. So, a supposed-to-be-definition may turn out to be not a definition, but no real definition turns out to be "false".
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Fair enough.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
So, a theory can be built as something that discusses relationships among definitions, but i t may have nothing to do with the reality.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
And is mathematics that?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Theoretically speaking, a theory can have nothing to do with the reality, but practically speaking, such a theory will be probably useless. Definitions in mathematics are chosen to be applicable to the reality at least approximately. The definition of straight line in Euclidean space is useful as it is approximately applicable to the reality.
2: "Cogito, Ergo Sum"?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
There was a Biasian who said "cogito, ergo sum", but it is quite childish.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I am mot sure what he meant by that, although I am sure that it is a failure as a joke.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
'Darth Vader thinks, therefor Darth Vader is'?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Does Darth Vader think?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
He is thinking in the movies.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Mr. Descartes does not seem to have been talking about such a kind of thinking.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But the problem is that he could not know for sure that he himself was not thinking in that kind of thinking.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Could he not?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I do not guess that he could. If he had really managed to do so, he should have explained how, because that is the point.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
It seems just that Mr. Descartes could not imagine that he was thinking in a movie.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
That is simply his problem. That is about that he had a limited imaginative faculty.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, Darth Vader "is", in a way.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Certainly, he "is", as a fictional character.
Then, "am" "I" not a fictional character?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That is the reason why I said that I was not sure what was meant by "cogito, ergo sum": just saying "I am" means nothing; "I am" as what sort of existence is the issue.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I guess that he thought he "was" a real being, not a manga character.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That is just his personal belief, I have to say.
3: I Think, Therefore Something Is
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
"I" may be a manga character, but then, there must be someone who wrote the manga work.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
But of course, the manga author may be a manga character.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But there must be someone who wrote the manga work in which the manga author appears, and so on.
So, there must be a real someone somewhere.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
I wonder. Can the sequence not be infinite?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Well . . ., I do not think so, because that would be the same with that just nobody wrote the manga work, I mean, at least, somehow, the sequence must converge into a real author.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Probably, although I am not really sure about such thing as a sequence converging into an author.
Anyway, that real someone may not be a human, of course?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
He or she may not be a human, a Klingon, a god, or whoever, and of course, it may not be appropriate to call the someone "He or she", or it may be inappropriate to call the someone "someone". I should rather call it 'something'.
'I think, therefore something is', that is what I am sure of.
4: Which Means, the Universe Is?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Which mean, the Universe is.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Does it so?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
I think so, because otherwise, where would the something be?
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Well, should I say 'nowhere'?
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
But 'Something is nowhere.' means nothing but 'Something is not.'
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
That sounds bad word play . . ., in the first place, what do you mean by "the Universe".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The Universe is . . . the container of all the things that really exist.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
An unsatisfactory answer, considering the possibility of other universes.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
The Universe is . . . the container of all the things that really exist in the Universe.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
You know, that is a vicious circle, with "the Universe" used in the explanation of "the Universe".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Well, distinguishing this Universe from the other universes is a different issue from whether this Universe exists. An inferior bug crawling in a corner of this Universe may know that at least this Universe exists but does not know whether other universes exist or how to distinguish this Universe from other universes; regard me as the bug.
In fact, I guess that each universe is a connected manifold, but of course, I cannot say for sure that this Universe is a manifold.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Saying that this Universe is a container is not meaningful, without explaining the container as a certain physical existence, because you can whimsically imagine any arbitrary conceptional container.
There may be only the single manga author in the world and there may not be any physical container that contains the manga author, but you can imagine the conceptional container that contains the manga author and claim that the Universe exists; in that sense, the Universe certainly "is".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
This may be different from knowing absolutely for sure, but most probably, the manga author is not a single particle, because any single particle does not seem to be able to create any manga work.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
"different"? Yes. "most probably"? I agree.
I can imagine the manga work only as an arrangement of some particles, while I humbly admit that that may be only because of my limited imaginative faculty. How can the manga work be conceived inside a single particle? I cannot imagine.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Then, as the manga work exists, most probably, some particles exist, and they can be arranged to represent the manga work, and the stage on which such an arrangement can be done is the Universe.
I think that I can most safely assume the existence of such a physical Universe.
5: Hypotheses Are Demanded, but Any Hypothesis Must Not Be Mistook for an Known Truth
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Thus, usually, we cannot build a theory based on only what are known for sure.
So, hypotheses are demanded and are really OK.
But a usual problem is mistaking a hypothesis for a known truth.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
A frequently seen situation is a futile quarrel in which one side insists a thing and the other side insists another thing, but in fact, the 2 things are just hypotheses.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
A problem with many Earthians is that they cannot distinguish between the strength of feel and the truthfulness of feel; they are like "This strongly feels to be true, so, this must be true!", a logical nonsense.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
"cogito, ergo sum" seems an example: it is not any logical deduction; after all, it seems to be about how strongly he felt "I am".
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
However strongly he felt something, it is his personal issue: I or the truth do not care how he felt.
6: However Little Are Known for Sure, Any Theory That Includes Any Contradiction Is Absolutely Wrong
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
There are some persons who claim the right to insist absurd things, saying "As you do not know much, you cannot deny what I say!", but that is a totally false claim.
I can safely deny "1 + 1 = 3" even if I do not know much about higher mathematics.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
Yes. That is because "1 + 1 = 3" is a contradiction.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
However little is known, if a theory includes a contradiction, the theory is known to be wrong for absolutely sure.
I mean, as the theory includes at least some untrue hypotheses, you need to go and come back with a modified theory.
Although I happily admit that there can be multiple plausible theories at a time, I do not admit any theory that includes any contradiction.
Special-Student-7-Rebutter
The problem is that the person who persists to the wrong theory insists the consistency by shutting out inconvenient reasoning; that way, any absurd theory is consistent for him or her.
Special-Student-7-Hypothesizer
Yes. If he or she went in a certain direction in reasoning based on the wrong theory, he or she would certainly bump into a contradiction, but he or she adamantly refuses to go in that direction; if you suggest that direction, he or she flies into rage, abuses you, and runs amuck.
