RE: Justification for Foundational Belief
July 29, 2012 at 3:23 am
(This post was last modified: July 29, 2012 at 3:29 am by Perhaps.)
First, if your objection is true, then.... nothing. Since there is the opposite of nothing... I'm correct.
Secondly, I continue to find it amusing that you assert statements as being true or false, or even logical, based on a preconceived notion of understanding - namely that evidence verifies the truth value of claims. Objectively, the only things which can be asserted as being fundamentally true - without any form of assumption - are the facts that a conscious thought exists (the one which is occurring right now), and that the property of existence exists. You can specify which aspects of the concepts may hold further truth values, but the concepts themselves are fundamental and objective. If the thought exists independently of anything else, or is the only thing which does exist then that's fine - it still exists in the truest sense of the concept. In order for the thought to exist, which it does because it is right now, then the property of existence must necessarily exist as well.
Past these two claims, all things are basic assumptions or are derived from basic assumptions.
Edit: By the way, this is what i'm talking about when referring to your assertions of knowledge:
Could you explain to me, on which fundamental beliefs you are asserting this as knowledge, and perhaps more importantly, truth? If you are going to discount my points as false on the grounds of being critically non-true (false), then please provide a proper explanation as to why your evidence can withstand the same tests to which you are holding my objective statements.
Secondly, I continue to find it amusing that you assert statements as being true or false, or even logical, based on a preconceived notion of understanding - namely that evidence verifies the truth value of claims. Objectively, the only things which can be asserted as being fundamentally true - without any form of assumption - are the facts that a conscious thought exists (the one which is occurring right now), and that the property of existence exists. You can specify which aspects of the concepts may hold further truth values, but the concepts themselves are fundamental and objective. If the thought exists independently of anything else, or is the only thing which does exist then that's fine - it still exists in the truest sense of the concept. In order for the thought to exist, which it does because it is right now, then the property of existence must necessarily exist as well.
Past these two claims, all things are basic assumptions or are derived from basic assumptions.
Edit: By the way, this is what i'm talking about when referring to your assertions of knowledge:
(July 28, 2012 at 9:37 pm)apophenia Wrote: However, we know from experiments concerning Bell's inequalities, that this view is likely false.
Could you explain to me, on which fundamental beliefs you are asserting this as knowledge, and perhaps more importantly, truth? If you are going to discount my points as false on the grounds of being critically non-true (false), then please provide a proper explanation as to why your evidence can withstand the same tests to which you are holding my objective statements.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
