Hades wrote:
DQ: You're diving back into empirical speculation here - and thus back into irrelevance as far as expressions of pure logic are concerned.
H: Yes but it is relevant as far as truth and reality are concerned,
If we want to know what is true in this world and what is false.
You have already defeated your own argument here by bringing up the point that we can never determine whether there is a cat under the table. So I don't know why you have suddenly backed away from this and decided that the possibility of pink unicorns flying around Jupiter is now important.
If you really want to know what is true and false about the world, then you need to know how to transcend the empirical mindset, together with its potential for hallucinations, and discern those non-empirical truths which necessarily apply to all things. There is no other way.
DQ: You can't, obviously. In fact, it is one of those logical certainties in life that you can never know whether other conscious beings really exist or not.
H: How can you be so certain that you can never know?
I am certain because it is an empirical matter. As far as all empirical matters are concerned, we will never be able dismiss the possibility that what we are observing in the world isn't an hallucination of some kind.
Perhaps in the future we might be able to do some sort of Vulcan mind-melt thing...
Again, we will never be able to determine whether our own minds aren't simply concocting the experience.
DQ: I gave another example in my last post - namely, that Nature is not nothing whatsoever.
H: So? Thats obvious, that existance exists...
This isn't a great truth, its rather mundane and tautological.
Well, that's a different issue. I brought it up as an example of a meaningful truth about the world that is logical and non-empirical in nature. It is the most obvious truth that I can think of, one that not even dullards can dismiss. I like it because it nicely illustrates the nature of truth in a general sense. Yes, there are certainly deeper, more interesting truths to be discovered, but they all share the same basic principle of irrefutability that this more obvious and mundane truth does.
DQ: We've also refered to yet another example in our short time together - namely, that scientific theorizing will always be subject to uncertainty.
H: That science is tentative is already known and not a great philosophical truth...
Yes, I agree it's a well-known truth. Again, I bring it up to illustrate that logical truth is a reality. In my experience, most people are happy to affirm the tentative nature of science without really thinking about the reasons why. These people tend to be in complete denial about the reality and importance of logical truth. It's one of the major blind spots of modern society.
It's also a significant truth to understand because it encourages people who are genuinely interested in absolute knowledge to discard the scientific approach and ascend to the higher method of pure logic. It stops them from wasting their lives on a futile pursuit, which has to be a good thing. Einstein, for example, could have benefited from knowing this.
DQ: Kevin Solway mentioned another example to you a couple of days ago - namely, that all things lack inherent existence.
H: That things are contingent on other parts for their existance is not an impressive philosophical truth, and its not a strictly logical truth, its more of an empirical one. It depends on us observing phenomena...
I respect your passion and intelligence, but it is clear to me that you haven't thought about this issue very deeply. I assure you, the contingent nature of all things is a profoundly significant truth with countless implications. Don't make the same mistake that Ayn Rand did and dismiss this avenue of thought prematurely. You would be casting away a gold mine if you did.
Perhaps there exists some noumenon somewhere, some sort of irreducible subatomic thing that serves as a foundation for our universe...
Not relevant. Even so-called "irreducible subatomic things" can be mentally carved up into parts. Moreover, they will still be dependent on external things such as time, space, energy, and the very existence of the Universe itself. So what you are asking for here is inherently impossible.
-