Can We Prove Anything?

[DogmaHunter]

Lets assume for a second that the truth is that we're all brains in vats. How could this truth be proven true?

If it were proven true, wouldn't the next question be "why are we all brains in vats?" Implying a higher more complex reason for why we're all brains in vats. Which would then show that the fact that we're all brains in vats is actually not the absolute truth(it would be a fact) because it raises more questions and implies an even more meaningful truth that beckons to be understood.

This is simply the idea of always being able to ask a new question.
Where does the earth come from? Debris of the birth of the sun.
Where does the sun come from? A molecular cloud that collapsed under gravity.
Where does the molecular cloud come from?
Etc etc etc etc etc.

Until we reach a point where intellectual honesty dictates that the answer is "we don't know".
At which point, I guess, you'll wave with your religious beliefs and try to stuff the gap with a god.
And even use it against atheists that "they don't know" as if that's a bad thing, all the while pretending that you DO know, eventhough it's just another religious faith-based belief.

Isn't this true? It definatly smells like it.

 

[Chriliman]

This is simply the idea of always being able to ask a new question.
Where does the earth come from? Debris of the birth of the sun.
Where does the sun come from? A molecular cloud that collapsed under gravity.
Where does the molecular cloud come from?
Etc etc etc etc etc.

So are we forever going to be asking questions and never receive an answer to all our questions? Logically, if we do receive an answer it would come from another human, thereby requiring us to believe him/her, right?

Until we reach a point where intellectual honesty dictates that the answer is "we don't know".

Are we forever going to be intellectually honest and admit we don't know? Is it the destiny of humans to not know anything with certainty regarding the biggest questions of existence?

These are all practical questions that have nothing to do with God.

 

[Ken-1122]

'Brain in a vat' is solipsism lite - the idea is that the information your senses tell you could be entirely fake, and, in true Hammer Horror or Twilight Zone style, you're just a brain floating in a jar, being fed convincing sensory information by the stimulation of your nerves.

I suppose the modern equivalent would be being in the Matrix.

If you were just a brain in a jar, you wouldn't have a body to measure, so you wouldn't be any measure of tall (you wouldn't stand anything tall).

I have no reason to assume I am a brain in a vat, and until I am given a reason to suspect I am, I will continue believing I am who I am, thus my previous mentioned claims are proven true if to nobody but myself.

Ken

 

[DogmaHunter]

So are we forever going to be asking questions and never receive an answer to all our questions?

Yes.

Logically, if we do receive an answer it would come from another human, thereby requiring us to believe him/her, right?

That would depend on the evidence that that human can present in support of his hypothesis.

Are we forever going to be intellectually honest and admit we don't know?

I certainly hope so.

Is it the destiny of humans to not know anything with certainty regarding the biggest questions of existence?

It's just reality. You can call that "destiny" if you want.
There will always be more things to learn about. Why does that scare you? Why is that a problem?

These are all practical questions that have nothing to do with God.

Indeed, they have nothing to do with god.

Yet, the second one of those questions is answered with "we don't know", plenty of theists are more then willing to plug those gaps with their gods of choice.

Just like you.

 

[durangodawood]

I have no reason to assume I am a brain in a vat, and until I am given a reason to suspect I am, I will continue believing I am who I am, thus my previous mentioned claims are proven true if to nobody but myself.

Ken

Of course you should not presume youre a brain in a vat. But you cant PROVE youre not, even to yourself. Thats the problem with your claim about what you can prove.

 

[Chriliman]

So are we forever going to be asking questions and never receive an answer to all our questions?

Yes.

Logically, if we do receive an answer it would come from another human, thereby requiring us to believe him/her, right?

This is interesting because you are now the human that has answered a question of mine. You answered "Yes" to my question above, which implies that you're saying it's true that we as humans will forever be asking questions and never receive an answer to all our biggest questions(my question above is one of those big questions).

I can choose to believe you, but if I believe you, I must admit that my questions will never be answered. Even though you've just answered my question. Do you see the problem here?... If I choose to believe you, I will have chosen to accept something irrational. Can you understand why it would be impossible for me to willingly accept something that is clearly irrational?

Logically, if we do receive an answer it would come from another human, thereby requiring us to believe him/her, right?

That would depend on the evidence that that human can present in support of his hypothesis.

Do you plan to provide evidence for your claim that we as humans will never receive answers to our biggest questions? Or do you expect me to take what you're saying on faith?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I can not rationally argue against this.
I have to concede. You are correct.

Perhaps I'll rephrase and say that such falsification is as close to "certain" as it can rationally get?

Yep

I was a little surprised myself, to come across this in a talk about Popper - it sounded a bit pedantic, but it does seem to be taken seriously.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Lets assume for a second that the truth is that we're all brains in vats. How could this truth be proven true?

Er, that's rather the point of the concept - see Brain in a Vat Argument.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thank you Mr Bsnatch, for doing the work for me.

Yer most welcome; I had some time on my hands (must remember to wash them), so I thought I'd oblige

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Of course you should not presume youre a brain in a vat. But you cant PROVE youre not, even to yourself. Thats the problem with your claim about what you can prove.

Thank you Mr Godawood, for doing the work for me

 

[Ken-1122]

Of course you should not presume youre a brain in a vat. But you cant PROVE youre not, even to yourself. Thats the problem with your claim about what you can prove.

I may not be able to prove a negative, but I can prove the positive; that positive being that my experiences are real. Perhaps I can't prove it to the satisfaction of someone who chooses to be unreasonable, maybe not even yourself; but I can definitely prove it to myself.

Ken

 

[Chriliman]

Er, that's rather the point of the concept - see Brain in a Vat Argument.

You missed my point. The only way it could be proven true that we are brains in vats is if the "something" responsible for us being brains in vats reveals this truth to us.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You missed my point. The only way it could be proven true that we are brains in vats is if the "something" responsible for us being brains in vats reveals this truth to us.

Well yes, but that misses the point of the 'brain in vat' argument... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I may not be able to prove a negative, but I can prove the positive; that positive being that my experiences are real. Perhaps I can't prove it to the satisfaction of someone who chooses to be unreasonable, maybe not even yourself; but I can definitely prove it to myself.

Your Matrix/vat experiences would be real enough to you, produced by sensory inputs indistinguishable from the real thing; but suppose you then had the experience Neo had, of apparently awakening from the Matrix into the real world - how would you definitively prove that your experiences from that point on are objectively real? How do you definitively prove you're not still in the Matrix/vat being fed the sense of awakening into the real world ?

Or perhaps this is an issue with the definition of 'reality'...?

 

[Ken-1122]

Your Matrix/vat experiences would be real enough to you, produced by sensory inputs indistinguishable from the real thing; but suppose you then had the experience Neo had, of apparently awakening from the Matrix into the real world - how would you definitively prove that your experiences from that point on are objectively real? How do you definitively prove you're not still in the Matrix/vat being fed the sense of awakening into the real world ?

It depends on how I got the experience Neo had, but until I receive such an experience, I will continue to prove to myself that my experiences are real.

Ken

 

[durangodawood]

I may not be able to prove a negative, but I can prove the positive; that positive being that my experiences are real. Perhaps I can't prove it to the satisfaction of someone who chooses to be unreasonable, maybe not even yourself; but I can definitely prove it to myself.

Ken

I suspect its more like you intuit that your experiences are 'real', that 'it just feels right', etc, rather than any reasoning you can use to prove it.
In other words, its an assumption rather than a proof.

 

[devin553344]

Quantum Nature is Proof. For instance, I can provide proof if I have five coins, and one can count the coins, but how much the coin is worth is relative to the economy.

Likewise I can prove a pinch hurts, but how much it hurts is relative to the person and the measure of pinch. But I can prove it's one pinch quantum.

I think relativity is what makes us question proof. There's how hard was pinched, and how the measuring body feels the pinch and that's relative. But it's one pinch.

So then one can prove how many waves pass a point. But the height is given in units that are relative to some measure. So yes I proved something, a count of a coin, pinch and wave.

Sorry, should have added, I can prove the height of the wave, the value of exchange for the coin, but not how much the pinch hurts, just how much pressure was applied in the pinch.

So then measured is proof, and the theory describes it, whether correct or not, yet there's proof supplied in experiment measurements. And if the theory is incorrect, that is the measure of how much the pinch hurts

 

[Ken-1122]

I suspect its more like you intuit that your experiences are 'real', that 'it just feels right', etc, rather than any reasoning you can use to prove it.
In other words, its an assumption rather than a proof.

It's more than an assumption; I am 100% certain my experiences are real. I would find it illogical and unreasonable to assume my brain is in a vat or some other absurd fantasy. My experiences are enough proof for me.

Ken

 

[durangodawood]

It's more than an assumption; I am 100% certain my experiences are real. I would find it illogical and unreasonable to assume my brain is in a vat or some other absurd fantasy. My experiences are enough proof for me.

Ken

I never said you can nor should assume you ARE a brain in a vat.
I said you cannot be certain that you are NOT.
See the difference?

 

[devin553344]

Oh, BTW, on the subject of measurement proof. You can find Biblically that God gave a reed like a rod for measurement of the temple like in Revelation, etc. I think there's other examples in the Bible regarding proof.