Absolute Certainty Beyond Ones Mind Is Possible

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Ive read many times that we cannot be absolutely certain of anything besides the existence of our own consciousness. While I was walking my dog today I was thinking about the issue and I realized that there is indeed ABSOLUTE certainty outside knowing the existence of our own consciousness.
Basically I came to the conclusion that we can be absolutely certain of the existence and validity of all abstract conceptual constructs. My reasoning on this is based on the following, even if the objects from which abstract conceptual constructs were formed do not exist (meaning that reality does not exist) we can be absolutely certain that the conceptual constructs exist and remain valid given the same underlying conditions. Furthermore, once we know with absolute certainty that certain conceptual constructs exist and are valid we can know, with absolute certainty, that any valid conceptual constructs that are derived or abstracted from these concepts also exist. Finally, once we are absolutely certain that these conceptual constructs exist and are valid, we can be absolutely certain that these concepts will remain valid as long as the same requirements that underlie their existence exist in whatever area they are applied to.

To illustrate the point consider the following.

According to dictionary.com a circle is.....

Circle: A plane curve everywhere equidistant from a given fixed point, the center.

However, dictionary.com left out something that is very important for our little study, namely the minimum requirements for the existence of a circle. Namely, a flat plane of unspecified length and width.

Imagine a circle in your mind.

You know with absolute certainty that your consciousness exists, thus you know with absolute certainty that the circle that is now within your mind exists. In other words, you can be absolutely certain of the existence of that circle in your mind. Thus you can be absolutely certain of the existence of circles.

Some might object to this saying that since we derived the definition of circle from reality, and that we cannot say with absolute certainty that reality exists, we cannot say with, absolute certainty, that circles exist. However compelling this argument might seem at first, it collapses upon closer examination. While it is indeed true that the definition of a circle, and the minimum requirements for its existence, are derived from reality they are NOT dependent upon reality. In other words, once we know what a circle is, including its underlying requirements for existence, we can say with absolute certainty that it exists since it exists within our minds (even if the reality from which we derived the concept does not exist) and we know, with absolute certainty, that our minds exist.

Since we now absolutely certain of the existence and validity of circles we can now take the next step and state what the requirements are for us to be absolutely certain of anything. To illustrate my point I will be using Pi. Pi is commonly defined in two ways, verbally and mathematically or in other words.... Pi is defined as both "Pi=3.14 (approximately)" and "Pi is the number of times that the radius of a circle can fit into the diameter of a circle." Many people think that these definitions are identical, but for the purposes of this discussion they are substantially different. Namely, the latter can be stated with absolute certainty while the former cannot. The reason why I state this is that the former has room for miscalculation while the latter does not. In other words the second definition is perfect by definition while the first definition is not since it is has room for miscalculation. In other words we can state that we are absolutely certain that Pi is the number of times the radius of a circle can fit into its diameter but we cannot say with absolute certainty that Pi=3.14 (approximately) since there is room for miscalculation. Knowing all of this enable me to make KJK's (<---me) rule for determining absolute certainty.

KJK's Golden Rule: Outside your own consciousness, you can only be absolutely certain of something if it is a conceptual construct and perfectly defined.

So if you perceive something (say a circle), by some means, and it meets your definition you can say with absolute certainty what the object you perceive is (you can say, with absolute certainty, that what you perceive is a circle).

Absolute certainty is possible in some things, but not everything, but absolute certainty outside the existence of ones own consciousness is possible, thus the myth is shattered.

[Darth Wong]

I'm afraid not. You see, the concepts you describe only exist in your mind. You can conceptualize them any way you want, pretend you're thinking about something a million light years wide, but ultimately, you're talking about concepts which only "exist" because you're thinking about them, ie- they only exist in your mind.

There is no way to absolutely know anything beyond the fact that your own thoughts exist. That's why we have the scientific method, which discards the stupid and useless criterion of absolute knowledge in favour of highly accurate descriptions.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

I'm afraid not. You see, the concepts you describe only exist in your mind. You can conceptualize them any way you want, pretend you're thinking about something a million light years wide, but ultimately, you're talking about concepts which only "exist" because you're thinking about them, ie- they only exist in your mind.

There is no way to absolutely know anything beyond the fact that your own thoughts exist. That's why we have the scientific method, which discards the stupid and useless criterion of absolute knowledge in favour of highly accurate descriptions.

1. I was talking about absoulte certaintity, not absolute knowledge.

2. If you look carefully you'll realize that while a concept only exists in your mind it is in fact a "highly accurate defination". Once you have something defined you can probe its nature. And since you know its nature and that it exists you can state with absolute certainity things about its nature that are not dependent upon your consciouness to be true. In other words.... because you know what a circle is you can state with absolute certainity that Pi is the number of times its radius fits in its diameter. In this case its existence is irrlevent as in your consciousness. The relationship between Pi and a circle remains true even if you are completely unaware of either. However once you are aware of both you can state with absolute certainity that the relationship is true, however it is not dependent on your consciness to be true. Thus you can be absolutly certain of something beyond the EXISTENCE of your own mind. Proving a relationship, even if it is in your own mind, proves that something beyond your own mind exists. Say all that exists is two minds, mine and yours. If we both develop the concept of circle and Pi independently, the relationship between Pi and Circle would be just as true for either of us, this is because the relationship does not depend upon our knowing it to be true. In other words, even if it a conceptual construct it has a distinct defination and relationship with itself that is NOT dependent upon your knowing it. So we know with absolute certaintity something besides the existence of our own minds. Thus Absolute certaintity is possible.

3. Im not arguing against the scientific method, if anything my arguement would lead to its being accepeted as absolutly certain instead of just reasonably certain.

Edit: I should have put could lead to its being accepted instead of would lead....

[Galvatron]

http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... highlight=

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Galivtron, your link dosen't apply to my arguement, nice try though.

[Darth Wong]

The point here is that you can only be certain of your own thoughts, and the abstract concept you describe is but one of your own thoughts. That is why the quest for absolute certainty is a waste of time.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

The point here is that you can only be certain of your own thoughts, and the abstract concept you describe is but one of your own thoughts. That is why the quest for absolute certainty is a waste of time.

I'm not arguing that the quest for absolute certaintity in all areas is a waste of time, like you Im willing to settle for reasonable certaintity in regards to reality and the existence of other people.

What I am challenging is that absolute certainity exists only in our own consciousness and thoughts. If I can prove that we can be absolutly certain that something beyond our own thoughts and consciousness exists then I have sucessfully defeated the argument that I am challenging. I think I have done that. Lets look at my exampe of the circle and Pi again. What a circle is and its relationship with itself IS not dependent on your knowing it. Pi in terms of radius and circumfrence of a circle remain valid even if there is no one who is aware of any of the concepts involved. To illustrate the example, lets go back in time to when humans were nothing but a soceity of nothing but nomadic cavemen. Would a caveman know what Pi, radius, and circle are? No, of course not, but would you argue that these concepts are false because no one has conceptualized them yet? I doubt it. So here is the idea all summed up for easy digestion. You can be absolutly certain of your own existence, its self evident, but you cannot be absolutly certain of anything you percieve. However, somethings do not require your perception or conceptualization to be true, namely the validity of the relationship between Pi, radius, and circle. In other words even if you are completly unaware of their existence their relationship remains valid and exists. If something can exist without your consciousness or perception and remain valid then you can be absolutly certain that it will ALWAYS remain valid and exist even if your consciousness and even all consciousnesses in the universe cease to exist. In otherwords, even though Pi, radius, and circle are all conceptual constructs and depend on the existence of a conscious mind to exist their relationship does not. Therefore something absolutly certain beyond your consciousness exists since it is not dependent upon your consciousness for its existence and validty. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PI, CIRCLE AND RADUIS HAS AND ALWAYS WILL EXIST AND REMAIN CONSTANT EVEN IF THE CONCEPTS PI, CIRCLE AND RADIUS DO NOT EXIST AT THE TIME OR NO LONGER EXIST. Something beyond your own conscious mind, and its thoughts, namely the relationship between Pi, Circle, and radius, therefore exists.

[Darth Wong]

What I am challenging is that absolute certainity exists only in our own consciousness and thoughts. If I can prove that we can be absolutly certain that something beyond our own thoughts and consciousness exists then I have sucessfully defeated the argument that I am challenging. I think I have done that. Lets look at my exampe of the circle and Pi again. What a circle is and its relationship with itself IS not dependent on your knowing it. Pi in terms of radius and circumfrence of a circle remain valid even if there is no one who is aware of any of the concepts involved.

That's because you have defined them that way. They only "exist" in the sense that you are thinking about them. Numbers (and all mathematical concepts) do not "exist" in any sense other than a tool for people to conceptualize things. If there were no people, there would be no numbers.

[xianseeker]

Basically, you are saying that absolute certainty exist within formal systems. Mathematics, systems of logic, etc. The problem is that within any formal system, there are basic assumptions that cannot not be proven but are assumed.

Kurt Godel's famous incompleteness theorem demonstrated this. With any axiomatic system is it possible to produce theorems that cannot be proven within the statements of the system.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

What I am challenging is that absolute certainity exists only in our own consciousness and thoughts. If I can prove that we can be absolutly certain that something beyond our own thoughts and consciousness exists then I have sucessfully defeated the argument that I am challenging. I think I have done that. Lets look at my exampe of the circle and Pi again. What a circle is and its relationship with itself IS not dependent on your knowing it. Pi in terms of radius and circumfrence of a circle remain valid even if there is no one who is aware of any of the concepts involved.

That's because you have defined them that way. They only "exist" in the sense that you are thinking about them. Numbers (and all mathematical concepts) do not "exist" in any sense other than a tool for people to conceptualize things. If there were no people, there would be no numbers.

Im not maintaining that concepts exist outside our minds, what Im arguing is the relationship between certain concepts are not dependent upon their existence. As paradoxal as it may seem, the relationship between the concepts Pi, circle, and radius remains valid and unalterable even if the the concepts of Pi, circle and radius do not exist. In other words, what I'm arguing is that relationships among certain concepts are and always will be constant and valid even if the concepts upon which these relationships are based do not exist. Basically I'm aruging that these relationships are always constant and valid, thus absolutly certain, even if they do not exist.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Basically, you are saying that absolute certainty exist within formal systems. Mathematics, systems of logic, etc. The problem is that within any formal system, there are basic assumptions that cannot not be proven but are assumed.

Kurt Godel's famous incompleteness theorem demonstrated this. With any axiomatic system is it possible to produce theorems that cannot be proven within the statements of the system.

Xain, your new here so I'm just going to politly point out that your just using the appeal to authority with substanciating your case.

[Darth Wong]

Im not maintaining that concepts exist outside our minds, what Im arguing is the relationship between certain concepts are not dependent upon their existence. As paradoxal as it may seem, the relationship between the concepts Pi, circle, and radius remains valid and unalterable even if the the concepts of Pi, circle and radius do not exist. In other words, what I'm arguing is that relationships among certain concepts are and always will be constant and valid even if the concepts upon which these relationships are based do not exist. Basically I'm aruging that these relationships are always constant and valid, thus absolutly certain, even if they do not exist.

You're missing the point that the "you cannot be certain of anything outside of your own thoughts" claim is not disproven by your example, since everything you describe is but a thought. This is like saying that you can be certain that 2+2=4. Yes you can (because you define them this way), but how does this disprove the statement that you cannot be certain of anything outside of your thoughts?

[NecronLord]

What has this guy been smoking and where can one purchase it?

P.s.How illegal is this dren?

[xianseeker]

Xain, your new here so I'm just going to politly point out that your just using the appeal to authority with substanciating your case.

Well just so you know, this site doesn't have a monopoly on logic. (and please don't call me a Xian).

First of all, appeals to authority are only invalid if the appeal is to inappropriate authority. If I cited my Cal 3 prof making a statement about the limit of a sequence, that's fine. If I cited a literature professor about the limit of a sequence, that's inappropriate. Kurt Godel (do a google search if you've never heard of him) is a perfectly legitimate authority when it comes to mathematics, logic, formal systems.

Unless we have a graduate degree in logic I doubt if any of us can follow the proof. I saw it once in an advanced predicate calculus book. Before trying to explain it, let me state the principle that there is no such thing as a private language. Whatever system you come up with is contingent upon the community from which you inherited your language.

Godel's proof showed that in any axiomatic system, which is basically what you are creating, the basic axioms that you assume are unprovalbe and therefore uncertain.

[xianseeker]

As paradoxal as it may seem, the relationship between the concepts Pi, circle, and radius remains valid and unalterable even if the the concepts of Pi, circle and radius do not exist. In other words, what I'm arguing is that relationships among certain concepts are and always will be constant and valid even if the concepts upon which these relationships are based do not exist. Basically I'm aruging that these relationships are always constant and valid, thus absolutly certain, even if they do not exist.

The best that this can show is that your perceptions of the relationship between circles and polygons show a certain consistency. This shows nothing about the nature of the real world, or the world not of you experience.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Im not maintaining that concepts exist outside our minds, what Im arguing is the relationship between certain concepts are not dependent upon their existence. As paradoxal as it may seem, the relationship between the concepts Pi, circle, and radius remains valid and unalterable even if the the concepts of Pi, circle and radius do not exist. In other words, what I'm arguing is that relationships among certain concepts are and always will be constant and valid even if the concepts upon which these relationships are based do not exist. Basically I'm aruging that these relationships are always constant and valid, thus absolutly certain, even if they do not exist.

You're missing the point that the "you cannot be certain of anything outside of your own thoughts" claim is not disproven by your example, since everything you describe is but a thought. This is like saying that you can be certain that 2+2=4. Yes you can (because you define them this way), but how does this disprove the statement that you cannot be certain of anything outside of your thoughts?

Im saying this because the relationship remains true and valid even if you never thought of any of the concepts. They are true even if you don't realize that they are true. Basically I'm arguing that by conceptualizing concepts you are discovering their relationship instead of inventing them. The act of discovering their relationship is discovering something outside of your consciousness, their truth is not dependent upon your conceptualization of their relationship or defination.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Godel's proof showed that in any axiomatic system, which is basically what you are creating, the basic axioms that you assume are unprovalbe and therefore uncertain.

Your extending uncertaintity from certain axioms to all possible axioms. If I define the underlying principles for a given something those underlying principles are by defination certain. The fact that the concepts do not exist until I create them is irrlevant. The relationship between the concepts is ALWAYS true given the same underlying principles/definations even is the underlying principles and definations do not exist.

Edit: removed an extra end quote.

[Zoink]

This was Rene Descartes problem. He first showed that his mind existed; he then wanted to prove that his perceptions were true. His reasoning required the existence of God, which he proved by saying:

[paraphrase] I can imagine the concept of an omnipotent, perfect being. Therefore there must exist such a thing for me to be able to imagine it. [/paraphrase]. While he wasn't implying that flying pigs exist (you're combining the concept of flying with the concept of a pig), but that the concept of "perfect being" and "omnipotent being" must exist in some form to allow you to think about them and use them as reference...

I would simply point out that I doubt Descartes could actually define this perfect, or omnipotent being. So he was deluding himself when he said he could imagine these concepts.

---------------

A problem with the circle example is that it might be possible for your mind to be damaged, malfunctioning, or misinformed, such that the idea of "something" might seem reasonable or rational, yet cannot exist because you are simply deluded. You would have no frame of reference to judge your own delusion.

I think any basis for believing reality is based on the assumption that you are not deluded. It is the only rational course of action you can take.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

This was Rene Descartes problem. He first showed that his mind existed; he then wanted to prove that his perceptions were true. His reasoning required the existence of God, which he proved by saying:

[paraphrase] I can imagine the concept of an omnipotent, perfect being. Therefore there must exist such a thing for me to be able to imagine it. [/paraphrase]. While he wasn't implying that flying pigs exist (you're combining the concept of flying with the concept of a pig), but that the concept of "perfect being" and "omnipotent being" must exist in some form to allow you to think about them and use them as reference...

I would simply point out that I doubt Descartes could actually define this perfect, or omnipotent being. So he was deluding himself when he said he could imagine these concepts.

---------------

A problem with the circle example is that it might be possible for your mind to be damaged, malfunctioning, or misinformed, such that the idea of "something" might seem reasonable or rational, yet cannot exist because you are simply deluded. You would have no frame of reference to judge your own delusion.

I think any basis for believing reality is based on the assumption that you are not deluded. It is the only rational course of action you can take.

Descartes was arguing something completely different from what I'm arguing. He stated that because he can concieve of something it must exist. Im arguing that certain relationships exist even if you do not or cannot concieve of them.

As for my circle example, I'm stating that the relationship is true based on the components of the relationship. Being deluded and not having a frame of reference is not actually important in the context since the circle and the 2 dimensional plane do not actually exist in "reality".

[xianseeker]

Your extending uncertaintity from certain axioms to all possible axioms. If I define the underlying principles for a given something those underlying principles are by defination certain. The fact that the concepts do not exist until I create them is irrlevant. The relationship between the concepts is ALWAYS true given the same underlying principles/definations even is the underlying principles and definations do not exist.

An axiom is by definiton unprovable and not subject to proof. That's why it's called an axiom. What ever your initial assumptions are are the axioms. Everything else is a theorem.

[SirNitram]

Actually that wasn't what Decartes argued at all. He assumed that you can't go up, IE, if you are imperfect, you can't become perfect. He extended this to think that you can't imagine a perfect being unless 1) You're perfect or, 2) There is a perfect being, giving you the thought. If we assume for some crackaddled reason his assumption is right, it all works. Sadly, it's a big assumption.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Your extending uncertaintity from certain axioms to all possible axioms. If I define the underlying principles for a given something those underlying principles are by defination certain. The fact that the concepts do not exist until I create them is irrlevant. The relationship between the concepts is ALWAYS true given the same underlying principles/definations even is the underlying principles and definations do not exist.

An axiom is by definiton unprovable and not subject to proof. That's why it's called an axiom. What ever your initial assumptions are are the axioms. Everything else is a theorem.

That axioms are self evident and not subject to proof does not change the fact that that some are certain and others are uncertain. It is an axiom that existence is possible, otherwise I could not exist, this is certain since I exist. Just because most axioms are uncertain does not mean they all are. The axioms that we begin with in my example are certain because we have defined them in a certain way, and we can be certain that the axioms are certain because we defined them in a certain way. In other words, the basis for axioms and their particulars is an extension of the absolute certaintity of our existence. However, the relationship of the particulars within a given set of axioms exists and is valid even if we do not recognize it.

So in other words, for any given set of axioms and particulars abstracted from those axioms there is a set, valid, and absolutly certain relationship between the particulars themselves, and the axioms, that is established entirely by the nature of the axioms. This relationship is ALWAYS valid for those given axioms even if those axioms have not been established or never will be established.

[BlkbrryTheGreat]

Actually that wasn't what Decartes argued at all. He assumed that you can't go up, IE, if you are imperfect, you can't become perfect. He extended this to think that you can't imagine a perfect being unless 1) You're perfect or, 2) There is a perfect being, giving you the thought. If we assume for some crackaddled reason his assumption is right, it all works. Sadly, it's a big assumption.

Thats the stupidest idea I've heard today. Perfection is based entirely upon a given set of criteria, none of which actually have to exist in reality to be concieved. You can imagine a perfect criminal even if you are not a prefect criminal or ever saw one.

[Zoink]

Descartes was arguing something completely different from what I'm arguing. He stated that because he can concieve of something it must exist.

But there is two parts to Descartes argument (1) assumption that the concept and relationship of perfect to less perfect exist. He then made the leap to (2) that these things must have real existance for the relationships to exist.

quote from Rene Descartes
In the next place, from reflecting on the circumstance that I doubted, and that consequently my being was not wholly perfect (for I clearly saw that it was a greater perfection to know than to doubt), I was led to inquire whence I had learned to think of something more perfect than myself; and I clearly recognized that I must hold this notion from some nature which in reality was more perfect.

My observation is that Descartes was deluded into believing he understood the concept of perfection. What he defines as more perfect than himself may be in error.

Imagine that your brain is a computer. However, it contains a fatal flaw: whenever you add 1 unit + 1 unit you output 3 units. Any relationships you form would be wrong, and you would have no basis of reference to know that 1+1 does not equal 3. Now this is somewhat simplistic but imagine if your basic reasoning abilities produced similar consistant errors... would the relationships you form and consider valid, actually *be* valid outside your own mind?

[xianseeker]

Ok, apparantly you don't understand what an axiom is.

From Webster

1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit
2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1
3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

It is an axiom that existence is possible

No, that's a proposition.

Just because most axioms are uncertain does not mean they all are.

All axioms are uncertain by the definition of what they are.

The axioms that we begin with in my example are certain because we have defined them in a certain way, and we can be certain that the axioms are certain because we defined them in a certain way.

What? Did you repeat yourself on accident or were you trying to make a point? In any event, your axioms are only certain in the context of the system that they create. They have no basis in any language outside of that. And they certainly have no basis on the real world.

Thats the stupidest idea I've heard today. Perfection is based entirely upon a given set of criteria, none of which actually have to exist in reality to be concieved. You can imagine a perfect criminal even if you are not a prefect criminal or ever saw one.

No, this isn't a stupid idea. It's a very complex theological and philosophical argument known as the via negativa. Whenever we made a statement it is a univocal predication because we have knowledge of that which we speak. When a statement is made about God or any perfect or infinite being, the predication is necessarily equivocal since it is impossible for a finite being to have conception of the infinite. Therefore we can never speak of God or a perfect being in a coherent way.