What Do We Know For Certain?

[webolife]

Space is an abstract concept, and as such can be as large as you wish... infinite. But the universe is generally defined by the matter in it, and space between said matter. On this basis, I assert that the universe is [quite certainly] FINITE. I would also add that at your quantum atomic level, there continues to be space [a finite amount of it] between all particles, and unless you are suggesting that electrons are capable of colliding, something is keeping them apart... and from spending much time in the nucleus... at some point you have to admit that there are actions across said space without direct collision of whatever size particles you wish to imagine exist ..................................................... or not... the choice [and the imagination] is up to you. But it is in fact a choice, not a scientific certainty.

[mjv1121]

webolife,

I would say that we can confidently assert that action at a distance is impossible!!!.

at some point you have to admit that there are actions across said space without direct collision of whatever size particles you wish to imagine exist

At some point you will have to admit that actions across said space are mediated by the collision of particles of whatever size you wish to imagine exist.

If you are unhappy with protons and electrons making contact (neutron fusing notwithstanding) then you must accept that there are smaller particles that mediate that contact. You may choose, if you wish, to further mediate the aether with a sub-aether and repeat inwards to infinity if you have the time. To accept action at a distance is to abandon sense and logic and any concept that might reasonably be called science.

On the basis that "space" must without any doubt whatsoever extend to infinity, we may conclude that somewhere between here and there is a multitude of "matter" oases. It might be fair and reasonable, if not downright necessary, to assume that the continuation of that space which contains that which we would recognise as being part of "our universe", may indeed be limited. In other words it is a description of necessity to say that the the universe is only a tiny infinitesimal part of the universe. However, this in no way precludes the inevitable existence of infinity and the possibility that influences that are at such great distance that they could not affect our present universe, might have, at some period in the past, conveyed an influence upon that which we now try to comprehend. All of which is effectively metaphysical speculation and conjecture, but whatever doubts may arise from the conceptual definition of the word "universe", we at least may take solace that no matter how far "our universe" may extend and no matter what exists beyond into infinity, we can can be absolutely sure that in all universes the following remains true and unalterable:

What we know with absolute, self-evident confident certainty:

1) All effects must have a cause.
2) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality).
3) Everything that has or can have motion is physical (this is the natural implication of 2)
4) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
5) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
6) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
7) F = ma, thus force can only be generated by mass and a change of velocity. This could also be stated that force is a transfer of momentum.
8) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
9) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision (i.e. contact = collision).
10) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
11) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
12) The universe is infinite. That is, whether or not, space is occupied by physical bodies.

Michael

[webolife]

"In ALL universes" --- this list becomes more remarkable, more fantastic, with every iteration!!!
We live in a very fine tuned universe here, to such a degree that even the slightest decimal alteration of some of the physical constants would render the possibility of earth, let alone life upon it, utterly impossible. Interactions between objects here are governed by those constants, so I am taking a step back to suggest that you at least limit your imagined certainties to this universe only... now, about those supposed effects from a distant realm beyond this universe... ? ? You acknowledge this as metaphysical, yet depend on undetectable/imagined particles as though they were physically verified... as if infinitely small mediating particles were a more physically tenable supposition than action at a distance...

I have no difficulty with electrons interacting, or with electrons and protons fusing as neutrons... but "smaller particles mediate that contact" -- by bumping into each other chaotically perhaps? Or how do the necessary alignments that would be the only reasonable alternative come about?

Oh, and I haven't heard you say yet whether your certain "uniform motion" is Newtonian, ie rectilinear?

[mjv1121]

webolife,

"In ALL universes"

DEFINITELY

whether your certain "uniform motion" is Newtonian, ie rectilinear

Is there any other kind of uniform motion?

Electrons don't tend to bump into each other - they are equipped with a "charge" that prevents such direct contact. Since the charge is absolutely and most definitely without any doubt the emission of "smaller" particles, it seems fair to described a collisions between electrons as mediated by smaller particles.

by bumping into each other chaotically perhaps?

Unless you propose that all the particles in the universe are in constant communication to organise and control there movements, then random or chaotic is the only reasonable choice.

Or how do the necessary alignments that would be the only reasonable alternative come about?

I don't understand the point/question here - please re-phrase/expand.

as if infinitely small mediating particles were a more physically tenable supposition than action at a distance

I would suggest "finitely" small.

Action at a distance is not in any way whatsoever, not in this universe or any other universe, tenable. It is a flat earth, it is fairies and pixies, witches and wizards, gods and devils, myth without basis, an utter lack of cognitive reasoning, it is a unicorn, turtles all the way down, it is guilty without proof, it is the barbaric inquisition of logical thought. Action at a distance is anti-science. All the time and thought and efforts of all scientists throughout history are made a mockery by this ridiculous absurdity. There is no depth to the contempt I have for such a hideous and repulsive insult to intelligence and the scientific endeavour. No, action at a distance is not tenable.

Michael

[Sparky]

Still having difficulty with

12) The universe is infinite. That is, whether or not, space is occupied by physical bodies.

There is no way we could know that for certain.
It is possible. But even assigning a level of probability to it seems highly questionable.

[mjv1121]

Sparky,

Is it possible that the universe is not infinite. Even if we choose to suppose that our universe is finite, we are merely stating that our universe is only a subset of the universe. The only way for the universe to be not infinite is if it had an edge, but then what is beyond the edge?.....infinity of course.

Michael

[phyllotaxis]

Sparky,

Is it possible that the universe is not infinite. Even if we choose to suppose that our universe is finite, we are merely stating that our universe is only a subset of the universe. The only way for the universe to be not infinite is if it had an edge, but then what is beyond the edge?.....infinity of course.

Michael

Or the edge of the computer disk that our reality program is running on.

Just sayin'

I truly believe the analogy to our understanding reality may be like someone looking through a microscope to discern what the lens is made of.
Our conclusions can only be inference, because the "lens" is all we can see anything through- even as the lens itself is invisible to the viewer. That lens, in a more abstract sense, is our senses/universe. We are confined to the tools we have to run the tests with- and those tests are viewing the universe that we can see.
Everything else is bound to that.

Would you agree?


(just keeping things in perspective)

[Sparky]

but then what is beyond the edge?.....infinity of course.

That i understand....But i still think, at this level of understanding, it is more of probabilities, than certainty.

If we found an edge, and beyond that we could see nothing, the probability of infinite would increase somewhat. But remember, we did find one edge. And assuming that completely empty space could have no edge is again a probability.

An edge with an impenetrable substance is a possibility, though highly improbable, in my mind, even though i have experience with "hard edges " and "impenetrability" with it too.....

Even If we would consider an impenetrable substance as a continuation of that line of infinity with a different medium, we would only have increased the probability level. We would never be certain.

[mjv1121]

phyllotaxis,

I truly believe the analogy to our understanding reality may be like someone looking through a microscope to discern what the lens is made of.
Our conclusions can only be inference, because the "lens" is all we can see anything through - even as the lens itself is invisible to the viewer. That lens, in a more abstract sense, is our senses/universe. We are confined to the tools we have to run the tests with - and those tests are viewing the universe that we can see. Everything else is bound to that.

Would you agree?

Yes and No. The pragmatist in me is inclined to agree that our brain interpreted observation is intrinsically unreliable, but at the same time it is all that we have in what we may usually consider to be a tangible sense. We do not know the underlying mechanisms by which our eyes and our brains operate and yet ultimately it is those tools that provide us with our reality and consequent interpretation of a universe.

However, in the first paragraph of my original post I declared that in order for there to be any point to our musings and theorising we must take the practical step of assuming that we are us and that the cosmic reality that we perceive to be real, is, in fact, real. In other words the only hope of progress is to move forward unencumbered by philosophical doubt and drudgery. To a great extent this is of course not possible, for in taking this approach, and in fact any scientific endeavour, we must know that from minute to minute we will be continually anchored to failure by our own self scepticism. The constant burden of carrying that baggage of doubt is the price that must be paid for a scientific attitude. This is a contradiction, which, for the sake of getting anywhere useful at all, results in the pretence of certainty; which is the best we can ever hope for. So instead of saying that "I exist therefore I am and everything that I perceive to be reality is reality even though I can never prove it to myself, but if I assume that it is the case then I can be certain about these things", I could just say "I am certain about these things".

So based on the above, we are not on a computer disk and we are not the lazy daydream of an alien child.

Even forsaking all the above I am inevitably inclined to "believe" that motion is real. Even if we are a daydream or a computer program I feel certain that motion is real. I cannot prove this to you beyond all doubt and I cannot prove it to myself beyond all doubt. So my belief system is that either our perceived reality is real or that it is at least a close enough an approximation that I am safe to believe that motion is real. If one is inclined to imagine a state of reality that does not involve motion, then I would be forced to agree to disagree, since there is unlikely to be any common ground.

Hopefully then I have established the basis for my "belief" in the reality of motion. It is hardly any more difficult to logically establish that everything is in someway divisible, that is to say particulate - wisps of "pure energy" is pathetically laughable and I dismiss it with the same ridicule and contempt that I dismiss all other childish superstition.

In summary: We may or may not exist in accordance with our perceptions, but regardless of all philosophical protestations, even as a child's daydream in a computer program, I am fully confident that in the true nature of reality all effects must have a cause and that motion is real and dictated by cause and effect. Given these certainties, the list below is self-evident and is far more reliable than any experiment and observation thereof. So, No, I do not agree that everything we can be certain of is bound by tests and viewing the universe. If it was your intention to describe our brain processes that result in our thoughts, as the lens, then still No. Whatever process of reality or pseudo-reality has resulted in our contemplation of ourselves and the fundamentals of universal existence, has provided us with the certainties below.

Sparky,
Whatever one takes to be the extent of a recognisable universe and whatever stance one takes on the nature of consciousness and reality, the concept and self-evident certainty of infinity is without doubt. Perhaps "our universe" may only extend a few trillion galaxy super clusters in any given direction, but edges, whether hard and impenetrable or open and empty, must still extend beyond the "edge". Admittedly such a concept may not be of very much use to us in our present situation.


What we know with absolute, self-evident confident certainty:

1) All effects must have a cause.
2) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality).
3) Everything that has or can have motion is physical (this is the natural implication of 2)
4) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
5) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
6) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
7) F = ma, thus force can only be generated by mass and a change of velocity. This could also be stated that force is a transfer of momentum.
8) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
9) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision (i.e. contact = collision).
10) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
11) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
12) The universe is infinite. That is, whether or not, space is occupied by physical bodies.

Michael

PS I do agree with this:

I truly believe the analogy to our understanding reality may be like someone looking through a microscope to discern what the lens is made of.

[Plasmatic]

Hopefully then I have established the basis for my "belief" in the reality of motion. It is hardly any more difficult to logically establish that everything is in someway divisible, that is to say particulate - wisps of "pure energy" is pathetically laughable and I dismiss it with the same ridicule and contempt that I dismiss all other childish superstition.

What you have established is the ineptness of Pragmatism to claim knowledge with skepticism of the senses as a foundational premise. However I think you may be a pragmatist (lower case) who simply hasent been introduced to the right reasons for rejecting skepticism (and Pragmatism) . But let's leave that be for a moment if you would.

What we know with absolute, self-evident confident certainty:

What basis do you found the certainty of the premises that follow the above statement? Necessity? If otherwise what arguments convinced you as such and where are they? "self evidency" rests usually on sensory data for most and even then usually requires one to explain what is meant by it.Let me tell you that I am the farthest from a skeptic in the philosophical sense and I regard pragmatism as anti-life and destructive. However I am not opposed to most of the claims you enumerated but consider some of the premises open and unresolved for me.

[mjv1121]

Plasmatic,

The first choice we must make is whether we "believe" in our own existence. If we do then we may refer to it as knowledge, though we may be tempted to qualify that knowledge with a judgement of the degree of reliability of that belief, but there is little to no point in that. Having made the leap of faith in the reliability of our perceptions, we may as well underline the decision by saying that "I am certain that I exist", although that certainty is presumed, the only other choice is to turn on the television and watch soap operas. I choose to avoid insidious televisual lobotomy and instead contemplate the mysteries of the universal existence.

Having chosen to be certain that I exist, I further choose to be certain that my perception of reality is, at the very least, a reasonable approximation of the truth. This doesn't immediately provide me with any insight into the underlying nature of the universe, but it does allow me to search for clues from within my perceptions. In my most enormously humble opinion the most obvious clue is motion. I refuse to believe that we (and/or our godlike alien programmers) exist in a huge universal crystal; a solid glass of compressed aether, where the perception, and indeed notion, of movement, is simply an illusion. Instead I choose to believe that motion is real.

Within the above context I will also admit to and allow a degree of pragmatism - to re-quote an ancient wise old sage:

I truly believe the analogy to our understanding reality may be like someone looking through a microscope to discern what the lens is made of.

Of course it is self-evident, by cognitive analysis and without any need for empirical confirmation, that effect requires cause. Of course, the fuel for said cognitive analysis is our sensory perception through experience, which pragmatically we may only trust with caution. But how far can we push that trust before legitimate scepticism bounds our ability to be certain?. As a philosophical declaration I feel happily safe to say that "I am certain that I exist, I am certain that motion is real, I am certain that effect requires cause" - this is the extent of my "belief system" with regards to scientific endeavour. Based on this and a complementary trust of my own ability for cognitive analysis (interpret as ego if it suits your own self-esteem) it is a relatively straightforward step to announce that the following are self-evident:

What we know with absolute, self-evident confident certainty:

1) The universe is infinite. That is, whether or not, space is occupied by physical bodies.
2) All effects must have a cause.
3) Anything that can affect the physical universe must be considered to be physical (this is really just a statement of definition so as to include light and fields and aethers in a broader definition of physicality).
4) Fundamentally all existence is particulate.
5) Everything that has or can have motion is physical (this is the natural implication of 3)
6) A body will remain at rest or in uniform motion unless acted upon by an external force.
7) All actions have an equal and opposite reaction.
8) Momentum cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be transferred.
9) Momentum can only be transferred by contact, that is, by collision (i.e. contact = collision).
10) Force can only be generated by collision. This might also be stated as force is the act of collision.
11) Action at a distance is impossible. This is in an absolute sense as opposed to a mediated sense.
12) F = ma, thus force can only be generated by mass and a change of velocity. This could also be stated that force is a transfer of momentum.

Whether or not it will have any bearing on my opinions or conclusions I am intrigued by the following and I would appreciate the details of your insight:

However I think you may be a pragmatist (lower case) who simply hasent been introduced to the right reasons for rejecting skepticism (and Pragmatism) .

And again, and perhaps more so, please enlighten me as to your philosophical stance:

Let me tell you that I am the farthest from a skeptic in the philosophical sense and I regard pragmatism as anti-life and destructive.

Michael

[webolife]

MJV.

Seriously.

Action at a distance is an OBSERVATION.

Our attempts to explain it are "science". To continually redound that it does not exist, or is anti-science, simply does not further any degree of certainty, or establish science, only your VERY DEEPLY HELD and APPARENTLY IMMUTABLE belief system... you have, frankly, become quite "religious" about this in the face of what I believe to be reasonable challenges, not only from me. You border upon ad hominem. Your goal [perhaps, I don't really know] is to shore up the foundation of your "quantums" theory which depends on inde-"finitely" tiny, unobserved and immeasurable, and extremely difficult to describe "particles" to be the agent of that "action at a distance". And your theory is not the only one here... therefore, I say again, what MJV BELIEVES are ABSOLUTELY sound premises for scientific pursuit are... oh, well, you fill in the blanks...

"Seeing" requires an indescribably large amount of alignment and resonance between uncountable different objects at astronomical distances, for starters, if particles bumping into each other is the mechanism offered for it. You claim that all this bumping MUST be CHAOTIC. How do you account for this alignment and/or resonance, or do you simply not acknowledge it, or is this another thing that you choose to ignore?

I see I glimmer of light in your thinking when you acknowledge that we cannot see the lens through itself.

[Plasmatic]

Michael said:

The first choice we must make is whether we "believe" in our own existence.

No the first step is to ask what existence (metaphysics) and belief (epistemology) is. As well as what a valid criteria for belief is and what constitutes knowledge. Your skeptical premise presupposes a whole host of hierarchically prior premises.

Your current criteria is, I believe, motivated by something good. The realization that one is paralyzed conceptually if one genuinely doubts one's own existence and the validity of one's only means of contact with mind-independent existents (the senses). You've decided that an arbitrary choice is the remedy. Given that arbitrary foundation, your consistent in deciding that one "may as well" maintain this position as if it's certain. Having dispensed with any attempt at a normative criteria for justification, all statements/premises one holds then are in the same epistemological boat. Arbitrary one and all. What you haven't concluded is that with these foundations truth is meaningless. (this is why Popper always put these types of words in quotes. To keep the pretense)

Your position is then " I will proclaim such and such with language of those who accept justification as necessary but since I don't choose that as true I need only proclaim my arbitrary proclamations as self evident".

Of course it is self-evident, by cognitive analysis and without any need for empirical confirmation, that effect requires cause.

I agree in a sense. Causality is not in need of, nor subject to proof. Causality is a corollary of the axiom of Identity. One discovers that this is true because one perceives existence. "Effect" and "cause" are concepts derived from perceptual input. One knows it is true because of what one has seen. One embraces a contradiction if one rejects causality or identity (as well as existence and ones own consciousness) . To detail these contradictions is a long road. As is the anti life consequences of accepting Pragmatism with its rejection of principles(itself a contradiction:the principle of no principle) resulting in a morality that amounts to:" the ends justify the means". I can recommend whole books to you on the topic. My chosen philosophy is called Objectivism.

I was mostly interested in your justification for your premises.

Is the premise that all entities are physical on the same order as Causality? Can Ontology and mereology have an axiomatic foundation on the same order? I'm not sure. I'm not opposed to it but it makes some questions quite difficult to answer. I was hoping for an argument(justification) for the necessity of the physicality of entities and therefore mediaries.

Edit: Also, you really need to ask yourself what you mean by "universe". I havent read the whole thread so if you have clarified this please direct me to the post.

[Plasmatic]

im going over the first pages and :

Web said on page 1:

I believe in a very real universe -- but I am not philosophically the materialist and objectivist that you are.

Why do you ascribe an objectivist (lower case) position to Michael? In what sense other than the one you proclaimed above for yourself?

[Plasmatic]

OK,Ive read the whole thread. Michael you need to read Bill Gaede's book. Ive sent a message to Alton to chime in here but the guy has now taken up another degree! Along with chemical physicist and engineer he is now becoming a lawyer.

Anyway,the whole "lets start with motion" thing is wrong. Motion presupposes that which moves. If one started here (with entities) then the obvious questions that arise are about physical mediaries acting in ways we do not see entities acting in perception. Once we lay out what it means to be physical (an entity) then we see the obstacles associated with mediational entities.

Michael, how does a flexible sea of balls not still presuppose an area where the balls are not touching? Or are you saying as long as some part of the ball is touching all the others your mediation is satisfied?