You're implying there must be some justification, some idea behind it all, some universal reason.
Why must there be a reason? We are guided in life by our powers of reasoning, but the mechanisms of humanity aren't applicable to everything in existence. Who's to say the universe isn't simply here and always has been?
But this argument doesn't abide by causality principles, and therefore has no logical structure and is unsubstantiated. But the inverse cannot be proven either, and so goes the paradox
You're right that neither theories can be proven. However causality doesn't require that there be a beginning, only that there be something before, so there is logical structure if we assumed the infinity of the universe is true.
True, but there is no logical justification for infinity so its like making an argument for something that you're assuming in that argument. But thats all of existentialism.
I do math problems, therefore I exist. But could math problems in my dreams be twisted by a Great Deceiver? Furthermore, would the Ultimate Force of the Universe (we'll say "the Great Mathematician" for the sake of argument) allow him to deceive to this extent? How do I even know an Ultimate Force of the Universe even exists?
Ontological argument: If I conceive of perfection that does not exist, it is no longer perfect. The Great Mathematician then strikes down the evil deceiver, and I proceed knowing my 2.7 kelvin data is good stuff.
BTW, this whole thing was a pretty quick realization - Shakespeare had some really cool language about dreams.
Is it normal to live in a paradox?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
You're implying there must be some justification, some idea behind it all, some universal reason.
Why must there be a reason? We are guided in life by our powers of reasoning, but the mechanisms of humanity aren't applicable to everything in existence. Who's to say the universe isn't simply here and always has been?
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But this argument doesn't abide by causality principles, and therefore has no logical structure and is unsubstantiated. But the inverse cannot be proven either, and so goes the paradox
--
disthing
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're right that neither theories can be proven. However causality doesn't require that there be a beginning, only that there be something before, so there is logical structure if we assumed the infinity of the universe is true.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
True, but there is no logical justification for infinity so its like making an argument for something that you're assuming in that argument. But thats all of existentialism.
--
dude_Jones
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Logical justification? I'll accept empirical justification. Why don't you philosophers talk about 2.7 Kelvin black-body radiation.
-------
Kid1: Nah nah. The highest number is a googolplex.
Kid2: Oh yeh, I know a higher number. googolplex + 1.
--
[Old Memory]
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Alright mr. math/hard-science guy, use empirical data to prove that you aren't dreaming right now.
--
dude_Jones
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I do math problems, therefore I exist. But could math problems in my dreams be twisted by a Great Deceiver? Furthermore, would the Ultimate Force of the Universe (we'll say "the Great Mathematician" for the sake of argument) allow him to deceive to this extent? How do I even know an Ultimate Force of the Universe even exists?
Ontological argument: If I conceive of perfection that does not exist, it is no longer perfect. The Great Mathematician then strikes down the evil deceiver, and I proceed knowing my 2.7 kelvin data is good stuff.
BTW, this whole thing was a pretty quick realization - Shakespeare had some really cool language about dreams.