Most people...and I suspect YOU also...have an unshakable "belief" in gravity.

You can test it. Take a walk to the center of a bridge like the George Washington Bridge across the Hudson River...and put your "belief" to the test. See if it is "unshakable" or not. — Frank Apisa

#1
Our understanding or conceptualizing gravity might be false, or deficient to be true.(ie. not a pulling or pushing force, but a combination of both, or note even a force)

#2
It's empirical. Another huge problem.

I can count many other, but gravity is not really what I am looking for. The question is more epistemological, gravity does not really fit in here, trust me :-)

Even in the logical system: doubting requires existence, to be able to doubt; one should exist. Therefore; one should prove that he exists first, before he can say that he doubts.

The cogito argument is wrong in so many ways, each day you can find another fallacy, if you do your homework...

Doubting is a state of being; the proposition "I doubt" is indifferent than proposition "I am an existing thing that doubts, therefore I exist". Do you see the circularity here? It's like saying I am, therefore I am. :-)

But again, circularities may not be fallacies. My problem is bigger than that here; I do not believe in logic.

Your “creative” demon still has to make sense, it cannot deceive something that doesn't exist. — DingoJones

My creative evil demon might have the ability to delude with logic, in which I am conditioned to it, and think that the evil demon should make sense, while 'making sense' itself is a trap.

You are using logic to justify a belief, where logic itself is -just like math- an axiomatic made up system. Logic itself is a belief.

Before trying to make me believe in the "cogito" argument, make me believe in logic, or ANYTHING ELSE.

No.

A:i doubt
B:i am
C: A> B

Descartes accepts that he is a doubting (thinking) thing. Doubting is a state of being. How can you accept the your state of being, before you even come to a conclusion of your own existence?

He might not be really doubting.

Descartes is not creative about how good the evil demon might do his job.

If Matrix 4 comes out, and we find out the Real World (Zion) to be another Matrix, that'd be the creative evil demon I am looking for :-)

I do doubt my doubt. I might be believing in a God, or math. For me the doors are open, and it's disturbing state. It feels the same as lost, but it also feels a bit like freedom.

I wish Descartes doubted his doubt as well, might we have something better than the cogito argument?

Because there might not be a computer. It might just be your brains interpretation of a signal.
I agree that even if so, you might be more certain about the experience of looking to a computer screen, but even your experience or existence might be an illusion.

Regarding the question about foundationalism; I doubt that the unshakable belief we are trying to find can be the ground for other beliefs. So it's not necessarily foundationalism, id rather say scepticism.

I ask this:"Why are my simple questions stronger than even the strongest philosophical arguments?"

We look for the truth in answers, might the truth be hidden in the question?

Oh, many. The most simple one at least; no evidence for it to be true. It's blind belief. Isn't it? Why is the axiom true? Because it says so, hmmm.... let me think...

Not really. I doubt it as well.

2+2=4. I doubt it.
The whole theory of mathematics are based on principles and axioms. Those are assumed to be self-evident. Like the Principle of Identity. Why is the Law of Identity assumed to be true? The only answer you'll get is, it is obvious. No it is not. It's a dogma, there is no proof. But in the end, it works fine, so we hold on to it for the sake of pragmaticality.

Math works, but it's not a belief, it's a language, and the system of this language are based axioms. I doubt axioms.

Torturing babies... Honestly, ethic beliefs are even harder to establish. They keep us alive. We feel it's wrong or right, but do you see how deep the questioning might go?

I do not mean any specific belief, i mean literally there isn't any belief i can justify. If i were trying to be specific, believe me i would.

Take 'Unshakable belief' in the philosophical context, please.

Refusing to disbelieve doesn't make it unshakable, it just means that you aren't. :)

I may know the name Jessica, without knowing Jessica personally, and ask; "What is Jessica?" Is that absurd?

Sounds hasty..

Yes and no. Lets look from this perspective using logic.

P) I know what truth is
P2) I know what truth is
P<=>P2
How can I know if this proposition is true, without knowing previously what truth is then?

Is it necessary to know x, to formulate a question regarding x ?

May it be true that questioning(desire for certainty of truth) promises more than answers(meant/designed/forced by logical-, and various theories to be true)?

I do not know if I know anything.

Seems impossible. Thank you.

So can we say that, truth, originates from, and depends on, assumptions(meant to be true) such as above?

So happy that I became a member of the forum! I can not tell you how much I appreciate these answers, and you could not imagine how much this helps others, and what it means for them! Thank you!

Any word can be counted as a label then, that perspective does not help much.
— Monist
Why? Words are things. If x is a variable, then x can be anything, including a word. — Harry Hindu

x=x being true, can be put in words as 'the necessity of identity.'
If that is understood, now;

A. I did not understand the underlying reason of your statement:''words are not the thing itself'', how did you come to the conclusion that I am talking about the words. And how did you relate that conclusion with the word 'identity', without considering the concept of identity.
B. Words are things. Agreed. x can be anything, including a word. Agreed. What has this to do with the context here?
C. Where did you see that I am defending that x=x is true, I do not know. I ask why it is necessary to be so, since axioms are based on this very idea.
D. It is important to talk about a thing being itself, to understand what constitutes the being of a thing. For example; if identity is false for things, nothing may even exist. I try to catch what is going on, and why I do that is explained in my other reply.
E. You can talk about many things about the thing, one of them is their identity.
F. The absurdity of rational thought constituted on axioms is okay, but me questioning it is not... I prefer being free.

Some questions just aren't worth asking. — Harry Hindu

G. It reminds me of a Greek tossing Socrates on the street :-) I wish I could have that certain statements, without knowing the answers :-)

Thank you,

An argument:

Px = x has all properties that x has
Ox = x doesn't have at least one of the properties x has
x = x the law of identity
~(x = x) the law of identity is false

1. Px
2. ~(x = x) > Ox
3. Ox > ~Px
4. ~(x = x).....assume for reductio ad absurdum
5. Ox.....2, 4 MP
6. ~Px.....3, 5 MP
7. Px & ~Px....1, 6 conj (contradiction)
8. x = x 4 to 7 reductio ad absurdum — TheMadFool

Awesome, but excuse me please, can you explain why Ox > ~Px ?

Thank you so much!

For now, I am satisfied with the answers. But not with the constitution of beliefs on these given Axiomatic Laws and Logical Principles. So I will continue my journey with questioning them.

And absurd is okay.

Let's try it this way:
Apple=Banana is true, if the properties of apple and banana are completely identical. Certainly, they are not. So Apple≠Banana. It would explain why an apple couldn't be not an apple. But this logic is only true, if the properties of apple are identical to themselves.

If I start counting the properties of Apple now.......yes, they do meet the properties of Apple. As far I could observe the properties of x, they are identical to the properties of x, therefore x=x is true. This is inductive reasoning which does not guarantee anything.

Does identity exhaust what it is for the thing to be itself? Isn't an identity a label? A label is not the thing. Words are not the thing itself. Are you talking about the thing, or what we call it? Both are different things that have a relationship with each other. — Harry Hindu

Any word can be counted as a label then, that perspective does not help much.

And again, we are not talking about the x`s on your screen, which have different locations :-)

We are talking about a thing, being itself.

I should have used the word variable instead of unknown, in my language, we call that variable idea unknown. Semantic problems...

There is no such thing as a thing that has a relationship with itself. Things establish relationships with different things. — Harry Hindu

Identity is the relationship one thing bears only to itself.: — The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, CUP: 1995

Again I don't even understand the point of your question — Harry Hindu

Why is identity necessary?

I don't understand the difference between x and x=x. — Harry Hindu

Simple, x is an unknown value, x=x is the principle that it is a value.

In saying x, you are saying what it is. x=x is just redendant information and therefore useless. — Harry Hindu

If x=x is useless because it is redundant information, is first-order logic useless as well? Because, it literally depends on this axiom. For every x | x=x

Because if such an alternative existed, it wouldn't exist. — litewave

I see a conclusion, but no premises. How and why?

Your answers are irrelevant, off-topic and arrogant. The laymens goal is to learn, not to hurt you.

Well, what would be the alternative? A thing that is not what it is? An apple that is not an apple? — litewave

Why not?

I appreciate all the answers.

I accepted the risk of being an idiot when starting the topic, and I see the risk is true, as I see answers underestimating the question. Partly it is my fault. My ability to address the problem may be weak because this is not my native language, I will do my best to re-write my question.

+ To establish any knowledge, I have to believe in it
+ I am not able to believe and/or have no ground to build on with certainty.
+ There is some certainty in the language of math itself and is applicable to the world.
+ The basic idea of math is that any value has an identity(is equal to itself). And here the problem for me starts.
+ When applied to the real world: what is, is(even simpler: `being` or `thing`). It seems to me as a good starting point, because to believe anything, you should believe the thing(being) first.

But then, how do I believe a thing, is a thing.

Why x=x ?

If I can explain the necessity of identity, I can prove a thing can exist.

Mathematics is one of those things social scientists came up with to keep people from getting bored with life in a modern society. So are science, and other branches of story telling. Things to aim for. Go to school, Get a degree. Get a Job. Don't get bored so soon. — Per Chance

Off-topic

You might be interested in the idea of why we have a system of counting to ten, switch, then repeat because we have 10 fingers.

The Law of Identity is quite easy to understand. — Per Chance

What is the relation between the practicality of Base 10 and the necessity of The Law of Identity?

Decimal systems have the use of just naming quantities(switching to Base 12, does not change any quantity), Law of Identity does not deal with the names of a quantity, but the definition, it deals with the property of x.
Can you explain why you gave the example of our counting system? I compeletely miss the point.

For me, it is NOT QUITE EASY to understand, nor is any 'thing' quite easy for me to understand.

Thank you, I will try to fully grasp it.

I know that, proving 1+1=2 is hard
— Monist

Well, no, it isn't. — alcontali

Well, it was much harder for Russell and Whitehead, PA did not satisfy me for many reasons.

The starting-point rules, i.e. the system-wide premises, in a mathematical theory are always arbitrary, unexplained and unjustified beliefs. That is simply the essence of the axiomatic epistemology. — alcontali

Thank you for this reply, it helps me a lot, but does not solve my problem. Aren't axioms, self-evident assumptions? If so, when can we accept self-evident beliefs, just when they are practical? Do we have to analyse the relation between truth and practicality then?

You might only say this if somebody was trying to persuade you that x was not x but under what are the conditions might this be a possibility? — Mike Radford

Under what conditions is x=x true, when we just accept it? I might be persuaded that x=x.

It is difficult to see what is the content of the proposition, x=x is being presented to the reader. — Mike Radford

The proposition is simply: A thing resembles itself. The question is, "what is the proof?"

As with the x=x proposition it makes an assumption that numerical values remain constant — Mike Radford

Lets imagine that x is a variable, then again we end up with x=x. Thank you for your perspective.

Something is axiomatically true, we usually say, if its true by definition.
An apple is an apple because we have defined an apple as an apple.
But how do we know if a definition is correct or complete.
That is a difficult question, I would say. — Yohan

Exactly, I am trying to find a ground to stand on. Starting points known as axioms, simply suck. :-)

Meaning auto-supposes self-identity. — jorndoe

The Law of Identity states that a certain thing is identical to itself, and I ask why.

1+1=2 is a more meaningful proposition than simply 1=1. It tells us something about the definition of each quantity in the relationship and something about the relationship itself — Mike Radford

1=1 may or may not be meaningful, but is seems to be true, but why? (It is meaningful in the sense of understanding the internal relation of any quantity; the Law of Identity)

"an apple is an apple", but why? I do not get why any certain thing called 'x', should be 'x'.

The simpler it gets, the complexer explaining it.
— Monist

I really don't get the reason why anyone would ever use that phrase, "An apple is an apple.", unless they're just playing words games, which isn't a complex thing at all.

How is using that phrase different than saying, "An apple" while pointing at an apple? Is your pointing the equivalent of = ? — Harry Hindu

Instead of 'apple' try 'thing'. Saying "a thing" while pointing at the thing does not explain why the thing identical to the thing. It does not explain the relation between the thing and the thing. x=x does, it simply tells that the thing, is itself. The point is, why? :-)

I believe that The Identity of Indescernibles states that two distinct things do not resemble each other. While my question is why a thing resembles itself.

Imagine your consciousness is a radio wave, and your body is the TV. They do not depend on eachother, yet through the TV you watch (you watch your consciousness)

Thank you. Appreciated.