"Modal Infallibility" and the concept of a necessary being

[GrowingSmaller]

I will argue that we can only be infallible about the existence of a necessary being.

For if the being were contingent theres a possible world - perfectly consistent with this one - in which we believe we know it to exist or to be real, but the actual scenario is that we do not so know it.

Take a chair, it may be a dream chair etc. Or a reflection in a hall of mirrors. Or a hallucination.

So, if infalliblity is possible (i.e logically possible), then a necessary being must exist (according to the principles of this axiomatic system)?

Infallibility is possible, in this world, therefore an necessary being does exist.

Graph created here ( http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/graphing/classic/line_chart.asp?temp=1979973 )


Or maybe its a binary graph like this:

Graph created here: http://nces.ed.gov/nceskids/graphing/classic/bar_pie_chart.asp?temp=2025099

And there is only contingency and uncertainty...?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Dont take this too serious even though it has graphs.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

This has something to do with the problem of induction I am sure.

 

[quatona]

Modal logic deals in the currency of propositions, not beings, objects or entities.

 

[KCfromNC]

Modal logic deals in the currency of propositions, not beings, objects or entities.

But if that's true we can't define unicorns into being real, and that makes me sad...

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't follow the argument; how does infallibility (whose?) necessarily imply a necessary being?

If I were infallible why couldn't I declare that there is no necessary being?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Fruminuos:

Well a contingent being may or may not exist.


If you were infallible about something that may not exist, then wouldnt that make you fallible?

I am just browsing ideas.

Is infallibility "impossibilty of being wrong"? But if this relates to a contingent being, then I am thinking that its possible that being doesnt exist so you may be wrong after all.

In the flux of contingent life, whate neetzsche said "there is no being, just becoming" what can we know in a stable fashion to be enduring and permanent, or in any way fixed.

CAn you dip your nous into the same river twice?

So infallibility has to relate to a necessary being (or, a necessary truth...?) because that wont slip through our fingers like sand...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But if that's true we can't define unicorns into being real, and that makes me sad...

Why, for unicorns are benign and friendly!

If you open your mind, the pastel colours of potentiality will brighten your day!!!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Modal logic deals in the currency of propositions, not beings, objects or entities.

But what do the propositions refer to? Is modal logic "a system in a vaccuum"?

What is the prism we use it upon:

 

[quatona]

But what do the propositions refer to?

Propositions refer to concepts.

Is modal logic "a system in a vaccuum"?

Depends what you mean by "vacuum".
Like traditional logic (which is a system to make sure we use language meaningfully), modal logic doesn´t govern reality.
We call a proposition/concept "true", but calling the referent "true" would be a misnomer.
Likewise, we can call a proposition "necessary" (which allows for the question "necessary for what?" which needs to be answered - and the answer will usually point to some sort of axiom), but calling an object "necessary" makes as little sense as calling it "true".
in both cases we better avoid the attempt to hide the fact that we aren´t talking about things, but about relations (a relationship between our thinking/our concepts/our words and their referent). The e.g. "necessity" isn´t a property of the object - it is forced by the way we think about the world.

What is the prism we use it upon:

Nice pic!
I don´t understand, though, what is what in this picture (if it is meant to be an analogy).
I guess I´d consider our thinking structures the prism.

 

[KCfromNC]

Why, for unicorns are benign and friendly!

If you open your mind, the pastel colours of potentiality will brighten your day!!!

But no matter how possible I wish it is, there's still no unicorn grazing in my back yard. What am I doing wrong?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

.. a contingent being may or may not exist.

OK.

If you were infallible about something that may not exist, then wouldnt that make you fallible?

I don't follow you - if I was infallible and I said a contingent being might exist, then it would be true that it might exist; if I said a contingent being did not exist, when in fact it did, then I would not be infallible. That's my understanding of infallibility - it assures truth statements. It implies nothing about beings or entities, contingent or otherwise, unless it is used to make statements about them, in which case those statements will be true.

Is infallibility "impossibilty of being wrong"? But if this relates to a contingent being, then I am thinking that its possible that being doesnt exist so you may be wrong after all.

You haven't said how infallibility relates to a contingent being in this context. As I understand it, you can't make an infallible claim or statement that is false. So whatever the claim or statement is, it must be true - i.e. correspond to the facts, be an accurate description of reality.

So infallibility has to relate to a necessary being (or, a necessary truth...?) because that wont slip through our fingers like sand...

I'm afraid you've lost me here.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Propositions refer to concepts.

Depends what you mean by "vacuum".
Like traditional logic (which is a system to make sure we use language meaningfully), modal logic doesn´t govern reality.
We call a proposition/concept "true", but calling the referent "true" would be a misnomer.
Likewise, we can call a proposition "necessary" (which allows for the question "necessary for what?" which needs to be answered - and the answer will usually point to some sort of axiom), but calling an object "necessary" makes as little sense as calling it "true".
in both cases we better avoid the attempt to hide the fact that we aren´t talking about things, but about relations (a relationship between our thinking/our concepts/our words and their referent). The e.g. "necessity" isn´t a property of the object - it is forced by the way we think about the world.


Nice pic!
I don´t understand, though, what is what in this picture (if it is meant to be an analogy).
I guess I´d consider our thinking structures the prism.

Yeah I got the idea of the prism from anthropology class. Personally I think logic can model relaity, or the "logos" of reality. I.e. the order, structure, governening force, intelligable principle...

Or, it can be a "pure system" as in maths - pure maths not applied to relaity.

Dont know much about logic but the early Wittgenstein saw logic and language as a mirror or picture of reality, and the grey haired version saw "grammar" as independent - we can make our own systems and rules.

Psychoanalyse if you wish, maybe it was a form of logico-philosophical denial of reality by inventing pure systems, to compensate for loss of looks as we age?

My hair may be grey, but thats ok, theres a system in which Im still 20 years old...

 

[GrowingSmaller]

But no matter how possible I wish it is, there's still no unicorn grazing in my back yard. What am I doing wrong?

No youre doing it right, stay away from the psychedelics!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

OK.
I don't follow you - if I was infallible and I said a contingent being might exist, then it would be true that it might exist; if I said a contingent being did not exist, when in fact it did, then I would not be infallible. That's my understanding of infallibility - it assures truth statements. It implies nothing about beings or entities, contingent or otherwise, unless it is used to make statements about them, in which case those statements will be true.
You haven't said how infallibility relates to a contingent being in this context. As I understand it, you can't make an infallible claim or statement that is false. So whatever the claim or statement is, it must be true - i.e. correspond to the facts, be an accurate description of reality.
I'm afraid you've lost me here.

What I mean or meant it is the object is contingent in that it may or may not exist.


Conventionally speaking you see your screen on the computer and know it exists. But if its a contingent object, I think there is also trouble defining it as an object (because it changes properties through time). In fact the concept of time relates to change, so if there is time there is change.

So what you are reading now is different from what your were reading before, and the atomic properties etc of the screen have changэd in the background, subliminally. Its not percieved, but it happens.

So I am interpreting contingency (may or may not be true) in a temporal sense, you may say its the same screen, or you may say its not. I see a screen, this proposition is in a flux, and because of this identity (the idea of subsistence through change) - well thats a strugglesome idea for some. We all have an intuition this is the self same screen, but when analysed it becomes proposition which may or may ot be true.

So all temporal concepts are described by contingent props, because they may or may not be true, in fact as soon as they're "true" the referent is changing soooo fast it becomes false, so to speak.

So, ir were looking for infallible beliefs, maybe we need a timeless object???

Therefore it imfallibilty is possible, then timeless objects can (or must) exist in reality, because the referents of infallible beliefs cannot be changing like sand in the hand.

 

[quatona]

Yeah I got the idea of the prism from anthropology class. Personally I think logic can model relaity, or the "logos" of reality. I.e. the order, structure, governening force, intelligable principle...

At best, it models "reality" on our terms. We mustn´t forget this.

Or, it can be a "pure system" as in maths - pure maths not applied to relaity.

If you want to apply it to "reality" (i.e. make it more than a formal system or grammar, you will have to add terms that aren´t part of the formal system.

Dont know much about logic but the early Wittgenstein saw logic and language as a mirror or picture of reality, and the grey haired version saw "grammar" as independent - we can make our own systems and rules.

Good to hear he got wiser as he aged.

Psychoanalyse if you wish, maybe it was a form of logico-philosophical denial of reality by inventing pure systems, to compensate for loss of looks as we age?

That´s a pretty wild hypothesis. From what I know about psychoanalysis, it was neither intended for nor could possibly have that function.

My hair may be grey, but thats ok, theres a system in which Im still 20 years old...

I don´t think there´s a system in which you are 20years old. There´s a system in which you are still young.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Or, it can be a "pure system" as in maths - pure maths not applied to relaity.
If you want to apply it to "reality" (i.e. make it more than a formal system or grammar, you will have to add terms that aren´t part of the formal system.

Sounds like youve studied logic. I get the idea about a formal system, but wold have thought a scientific minded person, or an atheist, would be claiming logic for their camp. Are you saying that would be logic plus assumptions about the world, or reality, or ---- I dont know. You have a formal sstem, and then some kind of bridge assumptions to map it onto the world, the experiential domain?

I persoanlly think that experience caused classical logic. IN that philosophers were discussing reality as it appeared to them in a natural manner.

 

[quatona]

Sounds like youve studied logic. I get the idea about a formal system, but wold have thought a scientific minded person, or an atheist, would be claiming logic for their camp.

I am not claiming logic for any camp. I am claiming logic to be the necessary foundation for meaningful statements in object-based language.
IOW, if you make an illogical statement, you are producing non-sense - no matter what camp you are in.

Are you saying that would be logic plus assumptions about the world, or reality, or ---- I dont know.

Logic rests on an object-based worldview and governs every language that is constructed based on this worldview.

You have a formal sstem, and then some kind of bridge assumptions to map it onto the world, the experiential domain?

Has nothing to do with experience of the world. Has to do with the way we have constructed our views.
It´s not that different from mathematics. 2+2=4 is an entirely abstract formal which has no connection to reality, and isn´t formed through experience.
In reality, 2 apples + 2 kisses are 4 what?

I persoanlly think that experience caused classical logic.

And I say logic shapes our experience, in the same way that language shapes our experience (i.e. the way we allow ourselves to experience).

IN that philosophers were discussing reality as it appeared to them in a natural manner.

It´s more they were looking at (object-based) language and creating a rule system for keeping statements in that sort of language meaningful.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So the systems of logic, eg clalssical logic, were not based in expeience. I dont believe that. The tree is bigger then the leaf, the leaf is bigger then the bug, therefore the tree is bigger thatn the bug. Surely experience kickstarted logic?


All men are mortal, socrates is a man, therefore socrates is mortal. ANother example.


After all algebra (swapping variables like "x" for terms), and "logical algegra" (like in symbolic logic) came hunderds of years after Aristotle.

maybe we have wires crossed.

 

[quatona]

So the systems of logic, eg clalssical logic, were not based in expeience.

I don´t think I want to repeat what I actually said, and what the context is in which we got to this point. (I do it in short, anyway: All these formal systems are attempts to create a language that helps managing reality in terms of a certain way of thinking.)

I dont believe that.

OK.

The tree is bigger then the leaf, the leaf is bigger then the bug, therefore the tree is bigger thatn the bug.

This isn´t a logical axiom, it is a logical deduction. If this proposition were based in experience, we wouldn´t need a logical deduction to make it.

All men are mortal, socrates is a man, therefore socrates is mortal.

The premises are indeed based in experience.

Obeying the laws of logic isn´t even a warrant for arriving at accurate conclusions about reality (although it may help with that). It is a warrant for making meaningful statements.

"A is not notA", for example, is basically just a definition of the word "not".