AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Knowledge of the External World

46 8125
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

So I thought it might be fun to assess an argument that seems to show we can never know if material objects exists without being perceived. It'll help if you really engage this post and think about these questions as they come up.

So, first: How do we usually verify facts? If I tell you "There's a blue pen on the table," how do you determine if what I said is true? Think about it.
If you're a normal person, you probably said something like "Go look and see if it's there," which is precisely how we verify statements of fact like that. We have to observe the world around us to determine which statements of fact are true.

Second: We would really like to say that material objects (chairs, tables, pens) exist without being perceived (without anyone or anything observing them). This just seems intuitively true - mountains don't disappear just because no one sees them.

Here's the problem: We have a statement of fact, something like "Material objects exist even when unobserved." We would really like this statement to be true, but how do we verify it? No, really. How do we verify this statement to be true?

What we have is a statement that is talking about all unobserved events. As soon as we try to observe these events/material objects they are no longer unobserved. So it seems we can NEVER verify a statement like "All objects continue to exist unobserved."
Therefore, we can never know whether or not material objects exist independently of the mind.

Here's the argument shortened:

1) We must make empirical observations to determine whether or not statement of fact are true.
2) The statement (M) "Material objects exist unobserved - independently of the mind" defines a specific class of observations (O) {x| x is not observed}
3) Any event/object that is observed would not be a member of the set (O).
So, (From 1 and 3) the statement (M) can never be verified.


I suppose we'd need another argument that basically says if something can't be verified then it isn't knowable to get the conclusion. This may be a point of contention.
I'd really like to destroy this argument, if we can.

  • 46 Replies
314d1
offline
314d1
3,817 posts
Nomad

"If a tree falls in a forest, and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?"


Now to my answer, we can still see an effect even if the objects are not currently bieng observed. Sutch as if we were observing a house and the furniture inside still put it wait in the house and we waid the house we whould be able to see the effect. Horrible analogy, but I hope you get my point

As long as somthing is verified once, it is logical to assume its the same. Sutch as if I saw my wall, then stopped observing it, then whent back into my room and it is the same temperature, it is logical to assume that the wall was always there, because if I did an experement were the wall was taken down, the temperature whould change.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

This may be a point of contention.
I'd really like to destroy this argument, if we can.


It is true there is uncertainty to everything, but there are many things we know beyond reasonable doubt, which is the concept we base all knowledge of the world on. You can argue the probability of this, but that is often pointless.

As an example, according to the laws of physics and our current understanding of how matter works, you could, at least in theory walk through a wall.

Now try it.

Chances are you failed and have a bump on the nose. Now what that means is that although a probability does exist, that does not necessarily mean we have to interpret it as uncertainty.

I mean, we have no evidence to prove that we aren't brains in jars being fed stimuli.

I also think we can come back to Occam's Razor to give us some sense of meaning.

While we cannot prove, absolutely, 100% for certain, that the world is really as we observe it, to assume so is the simplest explanation that fits the data.

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

What I think is a more interesting discussion is whether it even matters, or whether finding out the truth and risking the implications of that is worth the risk.
Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

Me thinks Moegreche is learning the ways of Empiricism, where things that we perceive may not actually be there and where things don't exist unless we ourselves see it. It's an interesting concept really; I should make a thread about it. I just need to compile all the info and said theories about it.

Gantic
offline
Gantic
11,891 posts
King

How about:

All objects affect the current state of observed objects, therefore there are no unobserved objects, but unknown observed objects?

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

How would that apply to that of those outside the range of what we can physically and technologically see? The farthest of what we can see is influenced by the power of the state of our modern technology. What's beyond that? How do we know that there are objects beyond what we can see, instead of vast space? How do we know it is vast space instead of just an abyss of black?

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Here's the problem: We have a statement of fact, something like "Material objects exist even when unobserved." We would really like this statement to be true, but how do we verify it? No, really. How do we verify this statement to be true?


I agree with 314d1's (I just realized that almost sounds like the name of a Star Wars droid) statement. While we might not be able to observe the object itself we can however observe it's effects. Can we ever been 100% certain? No, but we can have a degree of certainty to the point of it being probable.

As I have said if there is no evidence (no observed object or effect from that object) then it's reasonable to assume it doesn't exist. However the opposite is true if there is an observable impact then we can reasonably assume it does exist.
Moe
offline
Moe
1,714 posts
Blacksmith

at least in theory walk through a wall.


Wouldn't you have to run into the wall trillions of times for there to even be a reasonable chance of that happening?
rafterman
offline
rafterman
600 posts
Nomad

Before we develop a theory based on objects existing when not observed, we would really need to find some connection between observation and an inanimate objects existence.

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

Wouldn't you have to run into the wall trillions of times for there to even be a reasonable chance of that happening?


That's exactly my point. It all goes down to probability. The odds that countless atoms within you pass by all the atoms in the wall, versus the odds there are sentient beings in an unidentified plane that have avoided detection for so long, yet manage to physically manipulate the events around them.

That, and it is generally best not to make random assumptions off of things and work with the knowledge at hand. Random guesses won't really help you will they?
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Now to my answer, we can still see an effect even if the objects are not currently bieng observed.

But to see an effect, you are still at least indirectly aware of an object. We can use instruments to measure particular things about an object, but then we are still at least indirectly observing it.

it is logical to assume that the wall was always there, because if I did an experement were the wall was taken down, the temperature whould change.

You're trying to get an implication from one state of affairs to something entirely different. Intuitively plausible? Absolutely. Deductively certain? No ways.

, but there are many things we know beyond reasonable doubt, which is the concept we base all knowledge of the world on

I'm inclined to go this way, but then we get into a "how many grains of sand does it take to make a pile" kind of argument. How much doubt is reasonable doubt? The problem is, we don't even know how much doubt there is - these events are unobserved.

Me thinks Moegreche is learning the ways of Empiricism, where things that we perceive may not actually be there and where things don't exist unless we ourselves see it. It's an interesting concept really; I should make a thread about it. I just need to compile all the info and said theories about it.

I learned about empiricism in undergrad, just trying to get a conversation started about something other than God. I don't think we need an empiricism thread, though. If someone wants to learn about it, they can go to the SEP.

While we might not be able to observe the object itself we can however observe it's effects

Again, by observing an object's effects, we are indirectly observing it. We need a set of unobserved events.

As I have said if there is no evidence (no observed object or effect from that object) then it's reasonable to assume it doesn't exist. However the opposite is true if there is an observable impact then we can reasonably assume it does exist.

But we have no evidence for or against unobserved events. We can't a deduction from observed events to unobserved ones.

Before we develop a theory based on objects existing when not observed, we would really need to find some connection between observation and an inanimate objects existence.

Absolutely. Maybe we can flesh one out.

That's exactly my point. It all goes down to probability

But how do we know the probability that objects persist mind independent? We can calculate the probability that an object really is where we perceive it to be, but not much else.
WexMajor82
offline
WexMajor82
1,026 posts
Nomad

Aaahh!

Renè Decard and Shroedinger wrapped in one person!
Mogreche, what are you doing?

FireflyIV
offline
FireflyIV
3,224 posts
Nomad

But how do we know the probability that objects persist mind independent? We can calculate the probability that an object really is where we perceive it to be, but not much else.


Assuming the only thing anyone can really know is that you yourself and your own thoughts exist. Therefore, the only way to test whether or not anything else is actually real would be to kill yourself. If your thoughts are real, they shouldn't be able to be killed by things which aren't real. However, if the only things which are real are your thoughts, perhaps you can use them to kill yourself by imagining jumping off a building.

After doing a little reading up on it, I've had a bit of a change of heart regarding my use of Occam's Razor to conclude that everything we perceive is actually real, rather the opposite, that we are living in a simulation, so pleae bear with me:

In fact, it actually seems unlikely that ''reality'' is real.

For those who don't care to read the link, here's how the logic goes:

1) It is possible that a civilisation can exist which can create a simulation with sentient AI.

2) A civilisation like this would run many of said simulations for various reasons, experimentations, for fun, the reasons don't matter, but what matters is that once they do it, they do it a lot.

3) A being inside the simulation would be unaware of this, and it is also possible that civilisations within the simulation would run their own versions of it, once they'd developed the necessary technology.

So that leaves us with 4 possibilities:
Either

1) It is impossible to reach a level of technology sophisticated enough to simulate sentient AI.

2) Races that reach such a level would not run simulations like this.

3) We will be the first civlisation to run a simulation.

4) We ourselves are almost certainly in a simulation.

The second possibility is patently false. I mean, how many computers was Spore running on within a week of its release? The first possibility is probably false, as the only thing preventing us from doing it is a lack of hardware, which is getting cheaper and more efficient by the day.

So that leaves us with the third and fourth possibilities, the fourth one being much more likely than the third one (if you could create your own simulations, wouldn't you?)

So um, yea. It seems we are totally living in the Matrix. Or even weirder, we could be the creations of another Matrix, which was created by another Matrix and so on.

Things like that hurt my tiny-unimportant-in-the-grand-scheme-of-things brain. I think I'll go watch some Champions League and drink beer for awhile
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Renè Decard and Shroedinger wrapped in one person!
Mogreche, what are you doing?

Just doin' some philosophy :P

Assuming the only thing anyone can really know is that you yourself and your own thoughts exist.

This starting point is known as methodological solipsism, and it can get you into some pretty weird conclusions. Like Russell said, I don't think anyone is really a solipsist - it's just not an intuitively plausible position.

In fact, it actually seems unlikely that ''reality'' is real.


I'm so glad you found this article. I can't remember who I read on this, but I feel like it was Brentano (sp?). I was a really big fan of this article, but now I don't care for it. It sounds an awful lot like the doomsday machine argument, where you have a possibility implying existence.

But what if we are in a simulation? Is there any point at which we can "know" something? Is it required that we know every possible alternative to know some matter of fact?
Kragoth
offline
Kragoth
85 posts
Nomad

What impact does us observing an item have on the item itself? Nothing I think.
So why would the item change/dissapear if we no longer observe it?

For the item itself, nothing is different, wether we observe it, or we don't.

That's my first thought anyway.

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

For the item itself, nothing is different, wether we observe it, or we don't.

That's certainly the most plausible state of affairs and the way we would like things to be. Unfortunately, it looks as though (given the argument I presented in the OP) that we can never prove this claim to be true.
So it's not just a matter of accepting what we think to be the truth as the truth. You can certainly go that route, but then it opens to door to other "truths" that simply aren't true.
For example, most believed believed the Earth was at the center of the galaxy. It made absolute sense and there was nothing empirical observation that could have been made at the time that would refute that belief. Does that make their belief true? I hope not. But we accept some pragmatic theory of truth, this is the kind of thing we're left with.
So, do we lower our standards of truth and knowledge so that we can "know" things about the material world? Or do we just accept that we can never know basic propositions like "Material objects exist as they are, even when unobserved."?
Showing 1-15 of 46