That’s fine - the very point I have been making in relation to possibility is just that - something being possible doesn’t lend it any credibility beyond it not yet being known to be impossible.
Correct, but that just means it’s in the category of “possible” - nothing more at this point.
Agreed (not that I have calculated probabilities etc., but for the point, I agree)
That’s fine - I have no issue with probability being involved after the fact. I’m just making the distinction that the first step is possibility. Probability is a further step. I have nothing against probability.
This whole debate literally started from my simply acknowledging that while it was a stretch, the idea of The Matrix being a possible reality was a valid idea - i.e., it was possible. That’s it.
I wasn’t giving it any credibility beyond that, simply that it was possible.
I fully agree that beyond being possible, many things are in fact improbable.
What I assert is relevant. What I think/believe is not.
I made the distinction between possibility and having a truth-value. Just because something is possible doesn’t mean it is true.
This response covers the next several quotes you respond to where possibility and truth are being discussed, so I won’t keep repeating the same answers.
You’re correct that we haven’t gained new information pertaining to its possibility. But an acknowledgement that we don’t know, is information in its own right, as the socratic paradox states “I know that I know nothing” - so knowing there is an absence of knowledge on something is knowledge.
Something being possible can be due to an absence of knowledge that would render it impossible. Therefore “it may be possible” and “it may not be possible” is an acknowledgement of the position.
It’s not a question of veracity though. I have already stated that something being possible doesn’t mean the truth-value is known.
I am not making any claims as to the veracity of a thing, only that a thing is possible. In context - a simulated world like the matrix is possible, but that doesn’t assign any truth-value to it. I am not saying it is true in the slightest, only that it hasn’t been deemed impossible (and as it is unfalsifiable, it cannot be deemed impossible, therefore it must be possible by default, but that doesn’t give it any credibility beyond that.)
And? If you consider my profile to represent a claim, then the claim is that I am a theist. I can prove that I am a theist because I have claimed that label for myself - that is sufficient proof that I am a theist. My profile doesn’t state anything beyond the fact I have chosen a label.
I haven’t made a claim that anything metaphysical exists, nor have I expressed any suggestion for you to believe anything metaphysical - it’s up to you if you want to believe something.
I understand and respect your position - I am not seeking to challenge your belief in this regard.
Yes, I agree. But as to whether there is anything “supernatural” that isn’t imaginary is in question. I am aware of your position on that matter, so it doesn’t need further defence - I acknowledge you see it as unevidenced and accordingly you have no reason to believe that anything supernatural is anything other than imaginary. I fully understand the logic and reasoning supporting that position.
The presumption of science is the consistency and exclusivity of the “inside” as I mentioned. It presumes reality is “inside” and that there is no “outside” that could in any way interact with the “inside”
It’s not a flaw in science, it’s just a recognition of the necessary limitations. Science is ideal for what it does, I’m not seeking to undermine its role or purpose.
You said free will was a misnomer in a different thread. It was agreed in another thread that you used the term"objective evidence" and I deferred to that term from that point forward in accordance with responding to what you were asking for. In this particular thread, I have used the word proof.
The word “Proof” suits the point I am making - proof is a subjective assessment of the available evidence to reach a point that one subjectively accepts something as fact. In this context, I view “proof” as being something reasonably and logically accepted by the vast majority.
So for example, the earth being spherical is proven - yes there are flat earthers who disagree, but their dissent is unreasonable and illogical.
With a hypothetical supernatural - it could equally be explained as advanced/alien technology, or that we’re actually in a simulated reality. As for specific supernatural claims like a deity, if one imagines an entity appearing in the sky to everyone around the world at once, declaring itself to be a god, and then demonstrates its abilities by bringing the dead back to life, having the sun and moon dance in the sky, and any other “miracle” you could imagine - it still wouldn’t count as proof, because we would have no way of knowing if any “non-god” supernatural entities would be capable of the same abilities, or the aforementioned technology/simulation possibilities.
People can consider something proved in science (and yes I understand that from a formal scientific perspective, they have theories, not proofs), but metaphysics claims would break out of the science framework and proof breaks down - how can any proof be trusted if something supernatural/advanced technology/simulation could alter “reality”? Science depends on controlled environments for observations, and the environment could no longer be presumed controlled.
That’s fine - not challenging your standpoint on this.
correct. (distinct from any potential belief/thoughts an individual may have)
That’s fine, you’re not being asked or expected to base belief on it. Saying something is possible doesn’t mean it is true or requires belief.
I was referring to the point this related to that just because something is possible doesn’t really count for anything. The concern that it is just a first hurdle in claiming something exists as a reason for opposing something possible is what I would view as a slippery slope fallacy. The next hurdles are what count - actually evidencing something exists as opposed to it simply being possible.
Then what would you call it if we can’t rule it out as impossible? There’s no middle term.
In terms of categories, there is possible, and impossible. Two categories. There is no third category.
Not knowing if it’s possible or not equates to “it may be possible or it may not be possible” - if something may be possible, then it’s possible until otherwise determined.
That is all it means - again, as before, being possible doesn’t mean its truth-value is known.
You can demonstrate something to be actually true (thereby proving it and resolving the matter), you can argue there is only a certain probability for its possibility (possible with high, intermediate, very low confidence, and anything in between), you can argue for its impossibility with high/intermediate/low probability, or you can admit it is not falsifiable and reduce the possibility or impossibility to mere speculation. Your approach of the binary choice between impossible and possible is akin to saying a number is either 0 or it is not. Which is not very useful if you want to use the number for something useful.
It means things “could be true”. Not that they are true. It’s not a “truth claim”. It’s a “possibility claim”.
For the uninitiated, I imagine it would be. No more legible to you than hieroglyphs in an empty tomb. Though, existentialist writers like Heidegger and Sartre understood the basic intuition well over a hundred years ago and wrote extensively on it.
Falling asleep mindfully.
I don’t believe you. Demonstrate something beyond the mere claim.
You could familiarize yourself with some 20th century philosophy if it makes you fee better
“Negation” itself is the ability of the mind to impose nothingness onto being. We can negate our own consciousness to the point of conceptually grasping nothingness. It’s just a matter of knowing how to incline the mind towards such a negation.
Don’t you find existence in contradiction with itself? Don’t you find it at times to be absolutely absurd? It’s here and yet it has no business being here? Where did the raw materials come from? Why isn’t there just “nothing”? Wouldn’t an existence in which there was nothing make more sense in terms of origins? As in, the state of total nothingness does not require an origin and is thus does not contradict itself in the way that material existence does?
To the extent that we can “negate” our own being (or even the being of external reality) the phenomenon of nothingness is open to perception. Imagine yourself falling asleep mindfully. You would have a recollection of approaching hypnogognia. Then entering. Then emerging. At some event horizon, your loss of being is apparent to you. Much like we will all experience a loss of being when we die. Yes. Absolute nothingness betrays experience. However, there are a few levels on which nothingness rests.
There is the perception “there is nothing””. There is the realization “even this nothing is nothing”. Finally there is the decent into non-perception.
Indeed. That is where one truly enters the rabbit hole. However, the first degree of negation can be sustained indefinitely under which one abides in that intuition of non-being.
I think the confusion that you have with the notion of possibility is that you think a possibility only exists if something is true. Whereas (the reality is that) possibility also exists until something is proven untrue. So the proper definition of possibility is of a proposition which can be true, until the idea that it could exist is proven untrue, or unless the idea that it could exist is proven to be true.
The interesting thing about possibility is that it doesn’t lose its possibility once it’s proven to be true. For example, we could have asked 200 years ago, “is it possible to build a gas powered engine, which would move a car?” And we know that today, the answer is, yes. So in the present moment, it is possible, but it was possible in the past as well, and in the past, when it was being conjectured, it was also possible in the future.
So things are not merely possible by virtue of being true. They can fail to be true and remain possible in all time periods.
The curiosity of nothingness, as a possibility arises in the question, why is there something rather than nothing? Or in the question, instead of a world where there is something, could there have been a world in which there was simply nothing? Now, those who believe possibility is only that which is true will say, that clearly, the world could not have been nothing at any point, and is not nothing at this point, because there is something. However, the possibility of nothingness is revealed in the question. So it is in the pure negation of reality that we find the possibility of nothingness. Therefore, nothingness exists in the present moment only to the extent that we are able to discern it. In the presence of something, nothingness is obscured.
Of course, there is the ultimate question, what happened before there was something? And if we continue this line of question, indefinitely say, asking ourselves, what happened before this, and what happened before that, linearly with time, we arrive at the answer, nothing. Therefore, nothing exists in the present moment, inasmuch as it could exist in the past moment. Concerning the ultimate fate of the future of the universe we could ask, what will happen when everything is gone? And of course, that reveals a nothingness as well.
The task I have is to show why something arises out of nothing. Or why something is a possibility in the face of nothingness. Well, if there is only nothing, then is there any possibility? It seems not. So, we cannot begin or end at nothing. Instead, we must begin with possibility and survey it over nothingness. Therein we find that possibility in the midst of nothingness means potential. Thus, because of possibility, there is a potential for something (ie. the past, present and future) which exists above the divide of nothingness.
That is to say, the absolute of existence is potential. Not matter or non-existence, but potential. Potential realizes both the possibility of matter and the end of all possibility (nothingness). Pure potential is an equal balance of full, unrealized possibility in the midst of absolute nothingness. When looking for ultimate beginnings or ends it is not our task to reach for nothing. The answer lies in potential.
No, you can’t know whether a claim is true, but not know whether it’s negation is true. You must necessarily know both, or neither.
If you don’t know whether something is impossible then you don’t know whether it is possible, obviously. Then the only rational open minded response is to withhold belief. A claim and its negation can be disbelieved, without ruling either out.
If we have a jar of hundreds of coloured marbles, and we don’t know if there is an odd or even amount, we are justified in disbelieving a claim there is an even amount, and in disbelieving the negation of that claim.
Though in this instance we know both are possible, we do not know that any deity or anything supernatural is possible. Note this is the same as the assertion we do not know they are impossible, they are making the same claim.
No that isn’t the case, the claim that “something is possible” is offerred as true, obviously, if one asserts something is possible because it has not been demonstrated as impossible, then this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, it’s also a false dichotomy, as we can also not know whether something is possible or not.
The confusion is when people wrongly assume that disbelieving a claim, is itself a contrary claim that it’s negation is true.
No, this is fallacious. Possibility has to be demonstrated.
Your error is that you’re using a false equivalence, in that possibilty in your examples, differs in one essential way, knowledge. We know now it is possible, we didn’t know then, thus it is reasonable to believe it now, but not then. This doesn’t mean we ever believed it was impossible, this would be same error I explained above.
The law of the excluded middle applies of course, but again this doesnt help if we don’t know whether it is true that something is possible, or impossible.
When I present a binary choice of impossible and possible, I am considering it in a category sense - so we have:
[possible] [impossible]
within the category of possible, you then have subcategories that apply:
[true] [unknown], [highly probability] [intermediate probability] [low probability] [unknown probability], [falsifiable, unfalsifiable]
I agree. I wasn’t trying to make a case for it being useful. This was purely in the original context of a concept like the matrix (or more generally, a simulated reality). I merely confirmed it was a valid idea, and I acknowledge that the idea being valid doesn’t offer anything remotely useful. It can be helpful as a thought experiment, and to provoke thought surrounding “certainty” and “belief”, but the actual idea itself - it’s unfalsifiable, I would argue it wouldn’t even be provable - we would just end up with a “problem” with the understanding of nature/reality that would be awaiting knowledge to solve it.
I have considered the problem of existence. It does initially seem that something shouldn’t come from nothing, and that it would be more favourable for there to be nothing than something; but then when considering “absolute nothingness” it seems a contradiction in its own right…
If there was absolute nothingness, the very concept of there needing to be nothing couldn’t exist either. From a position of absolute nothingness, why should “nothing” take precedence over “something”? We can’t even argue for the logic of one over the other because logic wouldn’t exist either.
It is a profound question, and I agree that simplistic answers are seemingly absurd, but absolute nothingness in my view is the greater absurdity.
From my understanding of falling asleep, thinking about a decline in thought processes would be counter-productive. As thinking shuts down, the mind gradually switches to “auto-pilot” and awareness of thoughts discontinues. The awareness of the declining awareness would be a new thought process that would disrupt the process itself, so as I see it, the analysis of the experience can only be indirect - a recollection of what happened, not a direct examination as it happens.
One may be aware in the “approaching” stage - aware of drifting thoughts and declining thought process, but the actual event horizon as it were is “lost” from my experience at least.
There can be “certainly not” and there can be “may be” - if something can’t be ruled “certainly not” then it “may be”.
It may be that something is actually “certainly not” but that fact is not yet known.
Consider how science operates - the scientific method. A hypothesis is formed and then attempts are made to prove the null hypothesis (to make a determination that the hypothesis is impossible/invalid) - the purpose of the experimentation is to identify if something is impossible, but until that point it is considered possible otherwise there would be no point testing it to begin with.
It may be that the results are inconclusive - that something can’t be tested until certain technological advancements are reached. Look at the Higgs Boson - it was posited to exist (it was considered a possibility) but it couldn’t be tested until much later. I accept that there was evidence to support the possibility in that instance, but evidence is a support - something that increases probability.
I accept also that from a scientific perspective, and a perspective of belief, one can withhold belief in something being possible. Science can quite rightly not consider the possibility of something unless prior evidence makes it plausible, and someone can choose not to consider the possibility of something without reason.
By saying something is possible does not mean I am seeking for it to encroach on either. If for example I say it’s possible “xyzzy” exists, the statement is correct, but it doesn’t mean it must then be elevated for consideration in any way.
You would be correct to reasonably dismiss the possibility due to lack of evidence.
If they are unknown (possible and impossible) then those categories belong to both as an unknown. If you want to assert one is more probable than the other, then this would have to demonstrated, as I have said all along.
I did ask, since the notion of reality being an illusion like the Matrix, how is the idea valid?
This is and has been my position, and of course that I cannot believe something if it unfalsifiable for this reason. Thus (in the case of unfalsifiable claims) I remain disbelieving, and agnostic, this includes all unfalsifiable claims of course.
It may be and it may not be are identical claims. You cannot know one without the other, and to assert something is possible if it has not been demonstrated impossible is fallacious.
You’re talking about the subjective view of individuals, not about science, which would certainly not consider an hypothesis possible just because it had not been falsified, as science cannot violate a principle of logic.
Also we started with an unfalsifiable principle, and you are now implying you have “evidence” though inconclusive, that it is possible. Which is not what was asserted, as you originally asserted something that had not been demonstrated as impossible defaults to possible, this remain a fallacy.
Not sure what you’re saying, you appear to be saying the phrase is sometimes used as rhetoric, as in it’s possible, is often, and incorrectly used in the common vernacular to mean I don’t know it’s impossible. However this is irrational, as it uses an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. It may sound cool when Conan Doyle uses Sherlock Holmes to use this fallacy in one of his books, but it remains fallacious.
Disbelieve, not dismiss, the latter edges towards a contrary claim. Maybe I am just too careful, or try to be, when addressing such ideas, but I have seen too many arguments stridently cross the line from disbelief of a claim to a counter claim.
That’s the way I’ve looked at it. If I jump off a 50 story skyscraper, whether the end result is an illusion or not, matters not a whit, because the end result is still the same.
If something is known to be impossible, then the subcategories don’t apply. By definition of it being known to be impossible it must be true that it is impossible; there would be no probabilities - it is simply impossible as an absolute; and by definition it must have been falsifiable to be determined impossible to begin with.
Whereas is something is possible (or not known to be impossible) then those subcategories do apply to distinguish the strength of that possibility where possible.
It’s valid from a logical sense - logically it is a possibility. it does not present a contradiction in logic.
If for example, someone were to say, “if we are in a simulation, we may all be simulated beings and no one actually exists in any form”, this would be an error of logic - as per Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”, a person considering their existence must exist in some form or another - the presence of a thought means that thought must have originated from somewhere, in some form - even if the form itself is artificial.
I have no issue with your position in terms of disbelief. Nothing I have said is intended to force belief otherwise. You’re fine to disbelieve in the thing itself and even disbelieve in the possibility of the thing. That is a logical position.
Yes, “it may be” and “it may not be” are essentially identical, but that fits with the definition of possible - if something may or may not be, it is still possible. It’s only when something definitely cannot be that it is impossible.
I am? Since when? No. subjective views of individuals is up to those individuals. I am talking about logic. People are allowed to have subjective views/beliefs/etc. that diverge from the position on logic, and they can logically hold those views/beliefs/etc. also because it is a subjective position.
You can take the view that something isn’t possible and it is a logical position as long as it doesn’t contradict other views you hold (and this does happen with people at times - they can hold dichotomous views, but that’s beside the point) - I am not looking to challenge what views you’re allowed to have. I’m speaking from a person-independent position of logic. From a purely logical perspective away from any subjectivity, if something may be possible, then it is possible until it is otherwise known to be impossible.
That logic does not conflict with subjective views to the contrary, as long as a person’s subjective views are internally consistent and compatible.
But it does - scientists don’t chase impossibilities, they investigate possibilities - until such time something is either observed supporting the hypothesis, or disproved and becomes impossible.
Consider the following two examples - black holes and continental drift.
In both examples, the initial hypothesis for their existence could not be proved, and they lacked any supporting evidence.
John Mitchell in 1783 proposed a “Dark Star” from which even light could not escape. As it happens, this idea was later considered impossible because light was identified as a massless wave, not an extremely low-mass particle, which meant the prevailing theory was that as a massless wave, it would not be affected by gravity.
It was only with Einstein’s theory of relativity that changed the thinking, and lead to the acceptance of black holes fitting into the new mathematical models.
With continental drift in 1912, Alfred Wegener proposed the hypothesis (published in 1915) - independently mirroring a speculation in 1596 by Abraham Ortelius, based on the shapes of contintent coastlines (America and Europe/Africa) as depicted on a map. In both cases, aside from the shapes, and with Wegener, the addition of fossil similarity.
These examples not only highlight how science can begin with possibilities, even when the evidence is sorely lacking/absent, but also how it being a possibility is different to what subjective views may be (the theory was largely rejected for many years as it lacked a plausible driving force for the movement)
No, I’m just speaking from a logical perspective that something is possible until deemed otherwise. I’m not saying that evidence has made it possible (beyond “evidence” as “it is not logically contradictory and it isn’t deemed impossible”) -it is more the absence of evidence that defaults it to possible until evidenced otherwise.
There is such a thing as fallacy fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam is only a fallacy in relation to a truth claim. I have stated on many occasions in this discussion that possibility isn’t supporting a truth-value claim. That something is logically possible doesn’t mean it is therefore true. An argument that something is possible is merely an argument that something hasn’t been determined impossible or logically contradictory.
The Sherlock Holmes quote isn’t a fallacy either - to coin a reference you made in a different thread, this could be considered an application of the occam’s razor heuristic.
Sherlock Holmes (via the author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) is quoted as saying, “When you eliminate the impossible, what remains, no matter how improbable must be the truth.”
We can infer from this quote that “what remains” is a singular explanation with all other explanations being proved “impossible”
Occam’s razor applies, because the alternative to the improbable truth would be a fundamental error leading to one of the alternative theories being made impossible.
If for example, “X could not be the killer because X was in York four hours before the murder, and it would be impossible for X to reach London from York in four hours. It would require a hitherto unknown mode of transport faster than the Flying Scotsman that could make the journey in 4 hours 30 minutes”.
Occam’s razor would put preference toward the improbable truth (for example the man has an identical twin) than there being an otherwise secret form of transport between two major cities that exceeds all known methods of transport of the time.
Far from being an argument from ignorance, this would be eliminative deduction based on known facts.
In this context, dismiss and disbelief are the same - you would be dismissing the idea and the notion of belief in it, ergo either actively disbelieving it or by omission - withholding belief.
Like my repeated examples of an xyzzy existing, I expect most people reading that example would dismiss it - not give it further thought.
Dismissal isn’t a claim in and of itself. It’s an internal decision.
It does not follow that because something is not known to be impossible, it is tgerefore imposd8ble, tgat claim is a fallacy. No amount of repetition will change that.
If you’re claing it’s possible because we don’t know it’s impossible, then that does violate a principle of logic, as it’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
Then thie word exist is a little vahue here, descartes was alinve, and part of objective reality, though i suspect his statement was less about this objective fact, than stripping back all claims to one he could assert as most reliable.
NB existence in any form is not remotely objective evidence that what is percieved by that extant thing, is an illusion. This again must be demonstrated, the lowest bar would be a demonstration that it is even possible.
And its negation of course, for any unfalsifiable claim idea or concept.
I disagree, since it may be possible or not, is not the same assertion. As it is possible, the former is a statement of agnosticism, and the latter a claim to know something.
I know this, but if it’s possibility is uknown or unknowable, then I would disbelieve claims that it was possible, and disbelueve claims that it was impossible. As I explained, and as logic dictates, even though the law of the excluded middle must apply.
Science would bot accept any idea without sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence, a scientist might in the persuit of that evidence.
Who has said otherwise? People can believe the world is flat, how would you even stop them if they eschew objective evidence in favour of subjective bias.
Not if their arguments are irrational.
I make no such claim unless it is demonstrated, disbelief of a claim, is not an assertion of the negation of that claim.
That’s illogical, since the arguments uses an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy.
