On Dec 29, 2011, at 8:54 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-12-29 12:02 PM, Horace Heffner wrote:
On Dec 29, 2011, at 5:17 AM, Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
On 11-12-29 01:57 AM, Mary Yugo wrote:
Having said all that, Stephen, please prove you exist.
That's a tough one.
Descartes's "proof" was defective, of course -- it proved only
that I do not see how I could not exist, not that I could not
possibly not exist. Among other issues with his proof, the rules
of inference with which he was working are an assumption, akin to
an axiom, and can't be proven.
If you accept the causal nature of the universe
Ahem.
Correlation is not causality.
Repeated correlation is not proof of causality.
Causality can, in fact, never be proved for any real events, and
the existence of causality in our mental model of the universe is
not proof that causality plays a role in the universe itself.
then that which is not can not create that which is [not?]. If
you deny a causal universe then there can be no meaning in
anything, especially logical philosophical discussion. The
premises of logic do not hold.
Well that was kind of the point -- the "premises" of logic are just
that, premises. They are something we assume. Assuming them turns
ones own existence into something of a tautology. If we don't
assume them, on the other hand, then we we can't conclude anything,
including that we, ourselves, exist.
Logical discussion is not possible.
I create therefore I am. If you agree with the existence of my
creation then you agree with my existence.
These words are my creation. Do you have a response? 8^)
Do your words exist, or do I just think they do?
Do my thoughts exist, or am I merely confused?
Or am I?
If you accept Aristotelean logic, and you acknowledge my statements,
you thus acknowledge my existence. I acknowledge your statements,
thus I acknowledge your existence. This of course says nothing about
our physical nature or location though. Perhaps we are merely
subtask clusters in a great parallel computer.
Given that the universe is stochastic in nature at its fundamental
level, perhaps Aristotelean logic is not justifiable, thus only
Bayesian inference is justifiable. Since you acknowledge my
statements, you thereby acknowledge the significant probability of my
existence. I acknowledge your statements, thus I acknowledge the
significant probability of your existence. This of course says
nothing about our physical nature or location though. Perhaps we are
merely subnetworks in a great quantum computer, or at least one of us
is. 8^)
Best regards,
Horace Heffner
http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
