Except "all things possible" beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind, but I don't know why they'd be relevant in whining about. — Swan
What does logic "explain" about logic exactly..?
What is A+B=C 'explaining' about itself? — Swan
It seems to me that you are providing an objective explanation of what is "understanding" and "explanations" - one that is the case for everyone. So, is your explanation about explanations really how explanations are independent of my view of them, or do we each have our own view of what an explanation is? If so, then how can we even communicate?Yeah, on my view, understanding, and whether something counts as an explanation, are subjective--it depends on whether someone's curiosity, questions/issues, etc. have been satiated, and of course that depends on how they assign meaning, their experiences, their biases, and all sorts of things. — Terrapin Station
If "truth" is subjective then it seems logical to say 1. is the case. If there is no such thing as an "objective" truth, - only subjective ones, then your truth is understandable to you. If it's not understandable to you, then how can it be a "truth" for you? — Harry Hindu
This doesn't make my statement invalid or off-topic. I'm asking clarification of what you mean by "understanding" and "figure it out".I think this thread might be taking an unintended direction. I'm going to reword the premise of the OP:
If the blueprint of the universe was laid in front of humanity, would humanity be able to decipher and understand it.
#1: yes, we can figure it out.
#2: No, we are not evolved enough. maybe we never will be. — staticphoton
This doesn't make my statement invalid or off-topic. I'm asking clarification of what you mean by "understanding" and "figure it out". — Harry Hindu
How does empiricism play a role in the above? IOW one might think you mean via deduction alone. I am guessing that is not what you mean, but then I think it might be helpful to include the empirical side in our choices, because presumably, we would need to be able to somehow do research on everything and experience it via observation of some kind. IOW there are factors I think need to be explained in scenario one that might affect people's choice of one or two.1. There is nothing in the universe that can't be understood by human reasoning and logic. Even those problems for which we have not found solutions, we would be able to grasp and understand these solutions if they were somehow presented to us. Through logical thought and reasoning, there is nothing in the universe beyond the capacity of comprehension of the human mind. — staticphoton
How does empiricism play a role in the above? IOW one might think you mean via deduction alone. — Coben
Well, yes. I suspect he or she is including science, but I think that facet has to be described/included, since I think this opens up more issues in deciding. — Coben
If one doesn't feel interest in comprehending things unknown then one should leave threads about comprehending things unknown to those who are interested. — staticphoton
You might deduce that if scenario #1 holds true, that the reasoning capability of the human mind has reached its evolutionary apogee, and that the capacity of comprehending the workings of the universe are within reach of the homo sapiens. We are the end game. — staticphoton
Whatever road you choose to walk, realize the truth is only in your mind. — staticphoton
Both reason and logic are nothing more than theoretical a priori processes in the human rational system. They don’t explain anything in and of themselves, but only set the parameters for the methodology from which explanations become possible.
That being granted, it follows necessarily that the question as to whether reason and logic can explain everything, is insusceptible of a rational answer, because the major premise in both propositional constructions are themselves unjustifiable inductive inferences.
Nothing like using reason and logic incorrectly, in order to ask them to do something they’re not equipped to do anyway. — Mww
How does empiricism play a role in the above? IOW one might think you mean via deduction alone. I am guessing that is not what you mean, but then I think it might be helpful to include the empirical side in our choices, because presumably, we would need to be able to somehow do research on everything and experience it via observation of some kind. IOW there are factors I think need to be explained in scenario one that might affect people's choice of one or two. — Coben
In that case, the OP will have to scrap science, because it uses an entire bureaucracy of correspondence-checking formalisms that keeps scientific patterns in sync with experimental observations.
Pure deduction, i.e. "pure reason", only deals with abstract, Platonic worlds constructed from a basic set of (possibly arbitrary, speculative) beliefs. Pure reason is not about the real, physical world at all — alcontali
Well, yeah. Immanuel Kant already pointed out at length in his "Critique of Pure Reason" that science is not pure reason. On the contrary, science seeks to explicitly systematize experimental observations.
It is not possible to target the real, physical world and still hope to stick to pure reason. It cannot be done. — alcontali
The short answer to your question is 'no' for three reasons.
(1) 'Things' are thinged by humans relatively to a continuously evolving 'body of knowledge' which continues to raise further anthropocentric questions.
(2) As already pointed out, 'logic' (in the traditional sense) is merely one aspect of human reasoning. And as far as frontier science is concerned 'reasoning' is more highly dependent on mathematical models more abstract than set theory.
(3) Although abstract models may generate the 'prediction and control' aspects of what we call 'science' the question still remains as to whether that is sufficient to constitute 'explanation'. — fresco
That just does not follow — Banno
And that is abject bullshit. — Banno
I'm not sure what you mean by 'the workings of natural law'.
IMO There are no 'natural laws' except a limited number asserted by humans such as 'the second law of thermodynamics'. The word 'workings' presents its own problem because it tends to imply the concept of 'causality' which has questionable philosophical status — fresco
1) So, deduction first, testing later?Yes, empiricism would be limited to what we can physically experiment with and it would follow deduction as much as it can to "catch up". — staticphoton
#1 means we have the reasoning powers to define an all-encompassing physical model of the universe which eventual empirical results would prove true. — staticphoton
How would we ever know that we have simulated all natural phenomema?For example, if we could come up with a model that can faithfully simulate all natural phenomena, then that would satisfy the premise. — staticphoton
It seems to me that you are providing an objective explanation of what is "understanding" and "explanations" - one that is the case for everyone. — Harry Hindu
Now you are providing an actuality - what words mean independent of how anyone else interpreted what you said. You don't seem to realize that what you are saying is the way things are - either in your head, or outside of it. Is that really how things are in your head? In describing how things are in your head, you are explaining your understanding of how things are in your head. How do you know that you are right or wrong? How do you know that the scribbles on the screen actually represent what's in your head, and how would I know that?I actually didn't give what I'd say is an explanation or definition etc. of either--I just mentioned a characteristic. I wouldn't say that a definition of "understanding" is at all a definition of "explanation" by the way. I'd agree that explanations have to involve understanding, though. — Terrapin Station
Now you are providing an actuality - what words mean independent of how anyone else interpreted what you said. — Harry Hindu
Did I say that, or use the word, "subjective" in my post that you replied to? Instead of putting words in my mouth, and wondering about things I didn't accuse you of, you should address the points and questions in my previous post.You're not thinking that I'm someone who says, "Everything is subjective" are you? — Terrapin Station
Did I say that, or use the word, "subjective" in my post that you replied to? Instead of putting words in my mouth, and wondering about things I didn't accuse you of, you should address the points and questions in my previous post. — Harry Hindu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.