From: Dan Fabulich (dfabulich@warpmail.net)
Date: Thu Sep 05 2002 - 12:54:08 MDT
gts wrote:
> As I think you may agree, all supposed "truths" about the world,
> including the "truth" that you are 23, are in reality only "working
> hypotheses."
I like the "working hypothesis" language, but it's not my only language,
and it's not necessarily my favorite. I definitely wouldn't go in saying
that "truths" are *really* "working hypotheses"; that would require
needless (and inconclusive) metaphysical argument.
> Most importantly, two competing hypothesis about the world cannot be
> true. We are thus forced to accept one hypothesis as (contingent)
> "truth," which is a rather black and white proposition despite the
> inherent uncertainty of knowledge.
OK...
> And there is where you find me writing about my 100% confidence in an
> immortality machine proven to be 100% reliable.
I don't follow the last step. If you're accepting a hypothesis as
contingent truth, then you don't need (and don't expect) 100% subjective
confidence in 100% reliability. Instead, you can get away with 99.9969%
subjective confidence. I don't see why it matters that you can't get 100%
on "immortal", any more than it matters that you can't get 100% on "23
years of age."
Again, going back to the predicates, if you're prepared to accept evidence
that you're P, despite some obvious (and, in some cases, measurable!)
chance that you're not P, and you're therefore prepared to then say "I'm
P!" (as "true," as a "working hypothesis," whatever,) then I see no reason
why it matters whether P is "immortal" or P is "23 years old."
Apparently you're willing to let me do it in the case of "23 years old" on
the basis of a mere written document; I don't see why the standard for
claiming immortality should be higher.
What's the relevant difference between these two? It can't be the
possibility of their falsehood, because they both have that. So, what is
it?
> Strictly speaking that is true. However the question is whether we
> should accept or reject the hypothesis that immortality is achievable
> given the empirical evidence that molecules decay spontaneously via
> quantum tunneling. The hypothesis itself is either 100% true or 100%
> false.
Oh, is it 100% true or false? I thought you weren't prepared to concede
that there was a fact of the matter on this point...?
Well, if you insist that it's either 100% true or false, then I can fall
back on my earlier argument: your uncertainty has nothing to do with the
problem. You might be 100% immortal and not be sure about it.
> > Actually, I'm not so ready to let the point drop this easily. If you
> > can't say that you're immortal because you don't have 100% subjective
> > confidence, you can't say that you're mortal either; you don't have
> > 100% subjective confidence in that.
>
> But I am not attempting to say that I am mortal.
<ahem> If you're not saying that you're mortal, then what *are* you saying
when you say that you can't be immortal?
What I'm attempting to show is that, in your terms, you can't say
*anything at all*. Your terms require 100% subjective confidence, which
you'll never get.
You can't argue "that's not immortality!" because, to do so, you have to
argue that you're mortal. You can't argue that I'm 23, because you'd have
to argue that I'm not some other age. But you can't do any of these
things because you don't have 100% subjective confidence in any of them.
In short, by tying your use of terms to 100% confidence, you've undermined
any possibility of saying anything at all.
> Yes. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent." -Ludwig
> Wittgenstein.
That's the saying.
-Dan
-unless you love someone-
-nothing else makes any sense-
e.e. cummings
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:45 MST