4a Is time traveling possible?

It wouldn't surprise me, if Stephen Law added the question about the possibility of time traveling to his list because it excites our imagination.

But more meaningfull is the fact that it stimulates us the think about the phenomenon time itself.

Because, if you have a moment, the more I studied on the concept of time, the more I discovered that there doesnt exist at all something that can be called time.

Oh yes, there is time, no doubt about that, however, nobody knows what it is, which means...we have a lot of theories.

Take the idea of time traveling. When you google on that, you absolutely need the capability of time traveling, if you want to check out all the hits, which I got: 264.000.000.

When we want to talk about time traveling we already have to begin with a big assumption. We must assume, that time is part of the fundamental structure of the universe, a dimension in which events occur in sequence.

Time travel, in this view, becomes a possibility as other "times" persist like frames of a film strip, spread out across the time line.

Sir Isaac Newton subscribed to this realist view. He was forced to assume that time is some absolute, an infinite to protect the idea of an eternal God.

So we commonly think of time as a stream that flows or as a sea over which we advance. If time flows past us or if we advance through time, this would be a motion with respect to some hypertime.

For motion in space is motion with respect to time, and motion of time or in time could hardly be a motion in time with respect to time.

If motion in space is meters per second, at what speed is the flow of time? Seconds per what? Moreover, if passage is of the essence of time, it is presumably the essence of hypertime, too, which would lead one to postulate a hyper-hypertime and so on ad infinitum.

The idea of time as passing is connected with the idea of events changing from future to past. We think of events as approaching us from the future, whereupon they are momentarily caught in the spotlight of the present and then recede into the past.

This is so closely related to our feeling that all our political or economical predictions are events that lie waiting in the future and will just come to us and move into the past.

In such a concept of time time traveling would be possible, I guess. However, we need to keep a sharp eye on the distinction of logical and physical possibility, for we will get confused by all kinds of paradoxes.

A classic one: I travel back in time and kill the father of my father, my grandfather. So my father will never be born. And consequently neither will I, though i am here in the past.

The interesting thing here is, that this only is a logical paradox, for what strikes me in such stories is that the timetraveler himself is left out of the picture completely as well as the concept of physical being.

I mean, when I travel back in time am I , myself, not affected physically by this process or do I have to assume that it is a completely immaterial process?

In other words, if we talk about a real physical proces what is the material substance of the time traveler, if you accept that all material processes are causal processes in time?

Even more complicated it becomes when we suppose that we can travel to the future. First of all this future must be a realized reality. It has to be "there" ....somehow, somewhere.

Suppose I am not too audacious and just jump 10 years into the future. There I see, how I die in a carcrash. That IS my future?

Whatever I do when I return to my own moment of time, I will end up in that carcrash. You mean that life is just a detemistic chain of cause and effect....no free will?

I have to stop....I need some more time. So the next lecture will be on time and time traveling too, if you do't mind....Too many unresolved questions left.


The Discussion

[13:20] itsme Frederix: mr. Bergson I missed the concept of duration
[13:20] herman Bergson: As I said..I had to stop....this is just the part that assumes that time is some kind of flow...stream
[13:21] Vico Rabeni: yes it is - but only in one direction
[13:21] Vladimir Apparatchik: Herman - I think your problem here is that you are thinking in time "jumps", travelling in time would be just like travelling in space I think
[13:21] herman Bergson: But only as a metaphor Vico
[13:21] itsme Frederix: Your thesis about hypertime is not reflecting the space-time continuum in modern relativity -
[13:22] Vladimir Apparatchik: Yes itsme
[13:22] herman Bergson: No Itsme as I said....this is more the Newtonian time concept
[13:22] Clear Clarity: I´ve read a book that says past is frozen, fixed, immobile, so there is no energy there. Because of that, we can't travel there
[13:22] itsme Frederix: Oke, but U used it nicely to tell some nice paradoxes
[13:23] herman Bergson: That, Clear , suggests that the past has some independent reality
[13:24] itsme Frederix: Clear in a way the same about the future ?!
[13:24] herman Bergson: And especially the ontological status of what we call past and future are an issue here
[13:24] herman Bergson: If they really have an ontological status....but the Myth of passage (through time) suggests it
[13:24] Clear Clarity: I guess so. I think the guy thinks of past as some imaginary thing, since if it exists, has mass, then it has energy
[13:25] herman Bergson: Ok....that is Einstein :-)
[13:25] Clear Clarity: (: yes
[13:25] itsme Frederix: Do we stick to Newtonian time (whatever it is) or can we add some more "advanced" concepts & I still miss "duree"
[13:25] Vladimir Apparatchik: And Einstein implies that both past and present and future all exist together
[13:26] Paula Dix: yes ive read somewhere time travel is possible according to einstein
[13:26] herman Bergson: If you dont mind Itsme I'll save that for the next lecture...
[13:26] herman Bergson: Acording to Newton time was some absolute...and I know since 1915 we have a different idea about that
[13:27] itsme Frederix: Oke, if we accept space-time continuum, and visualize (riemann space) time travel is nothing special - but takes some energy
[13:27] Paula Dix: a lot of energy?? :)
[13:27] herman Bergson: I think time travel as presented in literature and movies is a fiction
[13:28] itsme Frederix: all physical formula's do accept "negative" time (except entropy law thermo dynamics?)
[13:28] herman Bergson: Most interesting in this is StarTrek and space travel
[13:28] Vladimir Apparatchik: Not sure quantum mechanics does itsme
[13:29] Paula Dix: oh yes the worm holes!
[13:29] herman Bergson: yes..things like that..
[13:29] itsme Frederix: The thing in startrack is that travel in time means also space distortion/displacement! according to the rules I guess
[13:29] Paula Dix: yes, warp drive
[13:29] herman Bergson: Well...I guess an amazing impossibility
[13:30] herman Bergson: But so attractive
[13:30] Daruma Boa: perhaps not^
[13:30] itsme Frederix: What is impossible Herman
[13:30] Paula Dix: i think they slowly adapted the warp thing to become worm holes to fit into modern theories
[13:30] herman Bergson: This traveling through space and time as shown in StarTrek
[13:30] Vico Rabeni: like teleporting in sl
[13:30] herman Bergson: lol indeed Vico
[13:31] Yakuzza Lethecus: but isn´t that beaming ?
[13:31] Daruma Boa: hi q^^
[13:31] herman Bergson: Hi Qwark :-)
[13:31] Qwark Allen: ˜*•. ˜”*°•.˜”*°• Helloooooo! •°*”˜.•°*”˜ .•*˜ ㋡
[13:31] Qwark Allen: Hey!
[13:31] itsme Frederix: Maybe it happens all the time ;) but we do not notice it (so what is the mportance than - thinking back to last week brain vat)
[13:31] Clear Clarity: But they made real teleporting recently. Sure, it was just a nuclear particle, but they teleported it some meters
[13:31] Alarice Beaumont: Hello Qwark :-))
[13:31] Qwark Allen: ♥☺☮☺♥!!!Alarice !!! ♥☺☮☺♥
[13:31] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:31] Qwark Allen: daruma
[13:31] Qwark Allen: and all
[13:32] herman Bergson: Yes Clear...I have heard about that too....
[13:32] Qwark Allen: i`ve been trapped at a black hole
[13:32] Qwark Allen: and time stoped for me
[13:32] Daruma Boa: lol qwark
[13:32] Daruma Boa: how was it?
[13:32] herman Bergson: but micro physics is a completely different chapter....
[13:32] Daruma Boa: tell us
[13:32] Qwark Allen: very quiet
[13:32] Qwark Allen: eheheheh
[13:32] Paula Dix: lol qwark
[13:32] herman Bergson: Even the concept of time used there is , as I read, not compatible with the concept of time in macro physics
[13:33] Paula Dix: quiet & dark, qwark? :))
[13:33] itsme Frederix: Herman we still might gain someting from it - as micro neurology
[13:33] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:33] Qwark Allen: cause of gravity
[13:33] Vladimir Apparatchik: You should look much older to us now Qwark
[13:33] Qwark Allen: we don`t understand well, what is that
[13:33] Qwark Allen: no
[13:33] Qwark Allen: at this point i was alive
[13:33] Qwark Allen: and all of you death
[13:33] Qwark Allen: eheheheh
[13:33] herman Bergson: No indeed Qwark...the more you read about time the more you know , that we dont know
[13:33] Qwark Allen: it`s the opposite
[13:34] Qwark Allen: the bigger you are from the gravity point (earth) the faster is the time
[13:34] itsme Frederix: Some mentioned that speaking about macro & micro might misslead us to some continous concepts - which not neccesary have to be like that
[13:34] Vladimir Apparatchik: sorry - you are right
[13:34] Qwark Allen: the far you are, the slower time is
[13:34] herman Bergson: Yes Qwark, but that also has its physical effects
[13:34] Paula Dix: yes, matter "attracts" (slow) time, the same as it does to light, right?
[13:35] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: and in the theory of time traveling the time traveler himself is never affected
[13:35] Vladimir Apparatchik: Do we look older?
[13:35] Qwark Allen: ah
[13:35] Qwark Allen: i see
[13:35] Qwark Allen: we can travel to future
[13:35] Qwark Allen: never to past
[13:35] itsme Frederix: so Herman we created a timeless timer a unmoved mover - back to the old days
[13:35] Paula Dix: yes herman i never got that!!! traveller should get some effect also
[13:36] herman Bergson: Oh..that is a new approach....explain Qwark..plz
[13:36] Qwark Allen: cause of rosentall-einstein bridges
[13:36] Qwark Allen: when we bend space and time , and create one of those bridges, we can travel there
[13:36] herman Bergson: I'll check that Qwark..thnx :-)
[13:36] Qwark Allen: but it`s allways to future
[13:36] Daruma Boa: lol
[13:36] Qwark Allen: never to past
[13:36] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:36] Paula Dix: so we can speed time, but not slow it?
[13:37] Qwark Allen: i saw a doc recently with the guy with funny talk
[13:37] Qwark Allen: and wheel chair
[13:37] Qwark Allen: saying exactly this
[13:37] herman Bergson: Stephen Hawkins
[13:37] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:37] itsme Frederix: Quark yes, that is one of the "proves/theories" that implies one-way direction of time and neglects the inversability in other theories
[13:37] Vladimir Apparatchik: Qwark - we can have closed time loops possibly
[13:37] herman Bergson: He once remarked that there never have been timetravelers form the future...so timetraveling isnt probably impossible
[13:37] Qwark Allen: we are at a point in space
[13:38] Vladimir Apparatchik: but we can't go back before the time when we created the time machine that creates the loops
[13:38] Qwark Allen: to go to other and come back to a previous position of earth
[13:38] Qwark Allen: i don`t know how to do it
[13:38] Paula Dix: yes, except the UFOs are time travellers :))))
[13:38] Qwark Allen: that we don`t know
[13:38] herman Bergson: They have to be...
[13:38] Qwark Allen: we know they travel faster then light
[13:38] itsme Frederix: paradoxes again, speculation irrational reasoning, to uch brain jumops
[13:38] Qwark Allen: cause of the use of gravity
[13:38] Vladimir Apparatchik: we'll only get time travellers from the future once we create a timemachine
[13:39] Qwark Allen: they don`t travel to a point
[13:39] herman Bergson: Ok..then we'll wait for that Vladimir :-)
[13:39] Qwark Allen: it`s the point that gets close to them
[13:39] Qwark Allen: by creating a distortion at gravity field
[13:39] Paula Dix: I see, then the need of much energy, to distort space
[13:39] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:40] Qwark Allen: check element 115 at youtube
[13:40] Qwark Allen: and bob lazar
[13:40] Qwark Allen: you`ll understand how it works
[13:40] Paula Dix: ah, ok, from that comes the idea of black holes as worm holes?
[13:40] Qwark Allen: no
[13:40] itsme Frederix: Don't expect any visitors from future, neither alians coming to earth - we made an awwfull time ans place of it - So it exist, these alians are intelligent enough to neglect us.
[13:40] Qwark Allen: black holes are just huge stars that gravity took over of them
[13:41] Qwark Allen: at the end of their lifes
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme ..maybe we are in quarantaine....
[13:41] Paula Dix: but being so massive, arent they natural time travel machines?
[13:41] herman Bergson: for centuries already :-)
[13:41] Vladimir Apparatchik: This is a good link http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2009/05/14/rules-for-time-travelers/
[13:41] Qwark Allen: the theory says, that at a black hole, there isn`t such a thing, called time
[13:41] herman Bergson: Ah..rules for timetravelers
[13:41] herman Bergson: Yes we might need them
[13:41] Qwark Allen: eheheheh
[13:41] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:42] Clear Clarity: There is a movie that says we are some kind of virus infesting Earth... not a bad idea
[13:42] itsme Frederix: one thing for sure - its interessting and challanging way of passing time talking about time
[13:42] Qwark Allen: at the LHC, they will study that question
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme.....
[13:42] herman Bergson: One little sidetrack...
[13:43] Paula Dix: lol itsme
[13:43] herman Bergson: Did you ever think about how far a human can travel in a lifetime...even when he was able to use the speed of light..
[13:43] itsme Frederix: just about 80 years
[13:43] herman Bergson: We wouldnt even reach the edge of our galaxy alive....
[13:43] Qwark Allen: we can travel faster then the speed of light
[13:43] Yakuzza Lethecus: Can we age at the speed of light ?
[13:43] Qwark Allen: but not at speed of light
[13:43] Daruma Boa: and who knows how far??
[13:44] Qwark Allen: no
[13:44] herman Bergson: so the idea is that we are imprisoned in our solar system....
[13:44] itsme Frederix: do we exist at the speed of light
[13:44] Qwark Allen: cause of the mass that we gain by travelling so fast
[13:44] herman Bergson: and then the fantasy of time traveling is so appealing
[13:44] Paula Dix: hows that qwark?? faster than light??
[13:44] Yakuzza Lethecus: we might exist but there is no essence
[13:44] herman Bergson: Ye Qwark..that too....we have to go on a diet as well
[13:44] itsme Frederix: Yep there were some publications
[13:44] Qwark Allen: tachion particle, not discovered yet
[13:44] Qwark Allen: and the bend of space
[13:44] Paula Dix: ok
[13:45] Qwark Allen: tachion it`s 10 times the speed of a foton
[13:45] Clear Clarity: Only way out of Solar System will be movable "worlds"
[13:45] Qwark Allen: so we can travel 10 times faster
[13:45] herman Bergson: Ok....I think we traveled enough time into the future now to get ready for the other side of the time concept...in the next lecture
[13:45] Paula Dix: lol Clear yes, like Rama
[13:45] itsme Frederix: Qwark are you sure that is lineair
[13:45] Qwark Allen: by the regular ways , i mean
[13:46] Qwark Allen: it`s what some cientist say
[13:46] Qwark Allen: and writed about
[13:46] Qwark Allen: i`m only a reader
[13:46] Qwark Allen: :-)
[13:46] herman Bergson: So am I and even not a physicist...so this is heavy stuff..:-)
[13:46] Qwark Allen: but i believe we can throught some "worm hole" travel to future
[13:46] Qwark Allen: or to other place in the universe
[13:47] Daruma Boa: my opinion too
[13:47] Paula Dix: i hope so! :))
[13:47] Daruma Boa: perhas we land in sl^^
[13:47] herman Bergson: We wont reach them....were it only because we get killed by all radiation in space
[13:47] Qwark Allen: teleportation, will be possible in a near future
[13:47] Vladimir Apparatchik: Qwark - in Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum mechanics we could go back in time - but not to our universe
[13:47] Qwark Allen: cause of quantic computers
[13:47] itsme Frederix: one of the things is all those mathematical forms are translated/visualized to our perceptions - that makes weird pictures
[13:47] Paula Dix: oh, yes, the multiple universes thing!
[13:48] herman Bergson: Yes...parallel worlds....
[13:48] itsme Frederix: The point is Herman about // do they join somewhere
[13:48] Vladimir Apparatchik: So we kill our Grandfather in a different universe with a different me (or not me of course because he/me is then never born)s
[13:49] itsme Frederix: think about euclidian and non-euclidian geometry
[13:49] herman Bergson: I'll think about it , Itsme ^_^
[13:49] Paula Dix: seductive ideas, infinite universes where all is happening to each of us
[13:49] herman Bergson: not sure what....but I will :-)
[13:49] Daruma Boa: perhaps that topic is too big for our brain in the jar^^
[13:49] Paula Dix: lol
[13:49] Qwark Allen: we need first to try to know more about the reality here
[13:49] herman Bergson: Yes..all those ideas....
[13:49] Qwark Allen: we don`t know really much about this one
[13:50] itsme Frederix: So before speaking about // universes please define // and the axioms you use
[13:50] Daruma Boa: yes and we cant think so far
[13:50] herman Bergson: And even that appears to be pretty difficult Qwark :-)
[13:50] Qwark Allen: yes
[13:50] herman Bergson: Ok...let's say ..our time is up....
[13:50] Daruma Boa: which time?;-)
[13:50] Qwark Allen: we need a diferent mathmatic and physic to
[13:50] herman Bergson: In the next lexture I will try to bring some order in this time business.
[13:51] Qwark Allen: Hello sir energy phisic will help a lot
[13:51] herman Bergson: Hello Rodney...exactly in time ^_^
[13:51] Daruma Boa: lol
[13:51] Vladimir Apparatchik: Good idea Herman :)
[13:51] Daruma Boa: his time^^^
[13:51] Alarice Beaumont: oh sorry... phone.. gotta go..
[13:51] Qwark Allen: that is why so exciting this experiments at LHC
[13:51] itsme Frederix: we only used // in a space way, what about a universe hidding just 1221 years ahead that // in time?
[13:51] Rodney Handrick: Hey Herman
[13:51] Qwark Allen: loool
[13:51] Qwark Allen: lol
[13:51] Alarice Beaumont: oh i won't be on thursday :-(
[13:51] herman Bergson: And I'll also add Duration to the list
[13:51] Daruma Boa: bye alarice
[13:51] Daruma Boa: see u next week then
[13:52] Yakuzza Lethecus: i should travel back in time to visit the first 150 lectures i missed
[13:52] Paula Dix: lol
[13:52] itsme Frederix: Aliani maybe a // session will help, or a //Alian
[13:52] herman Bergson: Yes Yakuzza.....
[13:52] herman Bergson: Thank you all for taking the time to be here :-)
[13:53] Paula Dix: very interesting! :))
[13:53] itsme Frederix: well it was just // time, got plenty of that
[13:53] Yakuzza Lethecus: thx again herman
[13:53] herman Bergson: Me too Itsme..:-)
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ******* Herman *******
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ty
[13:53] Qwark Allen: got to go to
[13:53] Qwark Allen: OMG
[13:53] Clear Clarity: Thank you Herman
[13:53] Yakuzza Lethecus: so lets see how happy i can still be through philosophy on thothica
[13:53] Qwark Allen: darn time
[13:53] Yakuzza Lethecus: bye!
[13:53] Qwark Allen: always against us
[13:53] herman Bergson: Bye Qwark give my regards to Gemma ^_^
[13:53] Vico Rabeni: thank you
[13:53] Qwark Allen: ok
[13:53] Qwark Allen: i will
[13:53] Qwark Allen: :-)))
[13:53] itsme Frederix: OKE was fun, looking forward to the next lecture prof.
[13:54] Daruma Boa: i will go too
[13:54] Yakuzza Lethecus: thursday right ?
[13:54] Paula Dix: Yakuzza, whats going on on Thothica?
[13:54] Daruma Boa: see u thursday.
[13:54] Jangle McElroy: Thanks. I look forward ot reading the lecture, sorry I got calld away. Does that mean I was in 2 places within the same time event?
[13:54] herman Bergson: Thnx Itsme...I'll work on it..
[13:54] Daruma Boa: bye and thank u herman
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes Jangle ..you were multitasking in parallel worlds :-)
[13:54] Paula Dix: lol
[13:54] Jangle McElroy: I hope one of me got to eat.
[13:55] Yakuzza Lethecus: Its if does philosophy make u happy or so
[13:55] Yakuzza Lethecus: ,,Does philosophy make ur happ"
[13:55] Yakuzza Lethecus: something like that
[13:55] Jangle McElroy: :)
[13:55] Yakuzza Lethecus: bye
[13:55] herman Bergson: At least your mind was fed Jangle
[13:55] Clear Clarity: Going... goodbye everybody
[13:55] Jangle McElroy: It will be nourished :)
[13:55] Yakuzza Lethecus: it started together with this class :(
[13:55] herman Bergson: Bye Clear

3c The final lecture on Skepticism

Let's begin with some more logic.

(( P entails Q) AND NOT-Q) entails/logically implies NOT-P
That is te logic the skeptic uses to show that he is right. To prove that this is a valid reasoning we create a so called truth-table. Looks like this.

((p --> q) & ~q) --> ~p
..1..1.. 1. 0. 01.. 1.. 01
..1..0.. 0. 0. 10.. 1.. 01
..1..1.. 1. 0. 01.. 1.. 10
..1..1.. 0. 1. 10.. 1.. 10

.....(3) ...(4) (1). (5). (2)

Step (5) is the final evaluation. It says: whatever truth-value p and q have, you will always get to the same conclusion. That is what those four 1-s mean.

This is the well known 'modus tollendo tollens' law of logic.
Information from Wikipedia -------------------------- quote

Modus tollens became well known when it was used by Karl Popper in his proposed response to the problem of induction, falsificationism.

However, here the use of modus tollens is much more controversial, as "truth" or "falsity" are inappropriate concepts to apply to theories (which are generally approximations to reality) and experimental findings (whose interpretation is often contingent on other theories). Thus (to take a historical example)

If special relativity is true, then the mass of the electron has a specific dependence on velocity.
Experimentally, the mass of the electron does not have this dependence (Kaufmann (1906)[4]).
Therefore, special relativity is false.

Einstein rejected this argument on the grounds that the alternative theories that appeared to be validated by the experiment were inherently less plausible than his own. -- END QUOTE

I give you this quote because it is so interesting and gives rise to many philosophical considerations. But not now....let's stick to the skeptic and the possibility to find a refutation.

Ok ....this was the original deduction:
If I know that I sit at my computer, then I know that I am not a brain in a vat.
I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat. So,
I do not know that I sit at my computer.

What we have to do is to show that "I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat" makes no sense, or even that the whole argument makes no sense

St. Augustine's "Contra Academicos" (354 – 430) was the last major attempt before the Renaissance to come to grips with skeptical questions in epistemology (theory of knowledge).

Augustine was strongly attracted by Cicero's views and the Platonism of the Middle Academy. Part of the resolution of his personal religious crisis was his realization, presented in"Contra Academicos" and earlier writings, that skepticism can be completely overcome only by revelation.

From this standpoint philosophy becomes faith seeking understanding and I assume that not everyone of you will be satisfied with this conclusion. At least I, myself, dont think that this standpoint is very convincing. Yet this conclusion held till Descartes.

The Cogito of Descartes (died 1650) seemed a refutation of skepticisme. We CAN know something for certain, namely, "I think, so I am." Of course skepticism was refashioned and redirected to show that Descartes had found nothing certain at all.

Without hesitation you may call David Hume (died 1776) as the creator of our modern skepticism. When we examine what we believe and what leads us to believe it, we find that "Philosophy would render us entirely Pyrrhonian, were not Nature too strong for it." , as Hume said.

The skeptical problems notwithstanding, we are naturally constrained to believe all sorts of things. according to Hume. Under normal conditions we find that we are led by nature to believe that the future course of events will resemble the past course, and on this we base our so-called "reasonable" or "scientific" views and expectations about the world.

But nature does not refute complete skepticism. It only prevents us from believing in, or accepting, the doubts that result from skeptical reasonings.

In 1764 Thomas Reid, also a Scottish philosopher concludes that when the conclusions of philosophy run counter to common sense then there must be something wrong with philosophy.

Nobody can believe and act by complete skepticism, he claimed, and as a solution he formulated his comon sense realism. Nowadays this approach to face skepticism is called Philosophicla realism.


That is also the origine of our own brain in the vat, an idea formulated by Hilary Putnam in 1981. The funny thing is that Putnam has clarified that his real target in this argument was never skepticism, but philosophical realism.

Philosophical realism is the view that the categories and structures of the external world are both causally and ontologically independent of the conceptualizations of the human mind.

Later Putnam adopted a rather different view, which he called "internal realism". Internal realism is the view that, although the world may be causally independent of the human mind,

the structure of the world—its division into kinds, individuals and categories—is a function of the human mind, and hence the world is not ontologically independent.

So the premis "I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat." is false, when we adhere this philosophical realism and begin the debate about what it means when I say "I KNOW P.

Our skeptic argument depends on the assumption that the external world is mind-independent and that it is logically possible for sense experience to represent there to be a physical world of a certain character even though there is no physical world, or at least no physical world of that character.

We can deny that assumption of independence. We can maintain that facts about physical objects hold simply in virtue of the holding of the right facts about sense experience.

Any world in which the facts of sense experience are as they actually are is a world in which there is an external reality of roughly the sort people take there to be. In fact the later view of Putnam.

We could choose another strategy and claim that the whole skeptic argument is in fact an empty shell. Is it a hypothesis: is my brain in a vat or not? Get real, who cares? Whether the hypothesis is true or false....it makes no difference at all.

I keep experiencing the same reality, having the same sensory experiences, so what is the big deal with this skepticism? Well...there is one weak point in this view. It still is logically possible that one day some creature comes by and show me that I am a brain in a vat.

You also could say...OK this skeptical argument holds and makes sense, but only in a context where you demand extremly high epistemological standards, for instance in a philosophical debate.

But in the normal daily context, or in a context of practical scientific research this argument has no meaning at all.

Now what should we conclude? Have we found a definite refutation of skepticism? I dont think so and I wonder if it is necessary.

The fundamental claim of skepticism is, that we should be aware of the impossibility of THE FINAL ANSWER. Everytime a philosopher shows up, claiming he or she has the final answer (think of people like Dawkins, Rand, Marx and so on) the skeptic will raise his hand and ask a question.

Skepticism is not a philosophy like materialism, idealism or empiricism, it is a basic philosophical attitude like history shows. And here we might conclude with the observation that skepticism is a part of our nature, which keeps us open minded.



The Discussion

[13:36] Samuel Okelly: hello every1 :) apologies for being late
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:36] Ze Novikov: smiles
[13:37] herman Bergson: Well for now this wil be my last word on skepticism....but we will run into it time and again I am afraid
[13:37] itsme Frederix: why afraid?
[13:38] herman Bergson: not literally Itsme..of course...
[13:38] herman Bergson: In fact ..I love it ^_^
[13:38] itsme Frederix: sorry was close reading
[13:38] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:38] herman Bergson: Most interesting is that we cant escape this kind of reasoning
[13:39] Aby Karsin: Do you think that skepticism always leads to a dead end (no knowledge so no action perhaps)?
[13:39] itsme Frederix: More interesting is that we might get a use out of it, just sharpening our reasoning and thoughts
[13:39] herman Bergson: No Aby..that is not the meaning of skepticism
[13:39] Alarice Beaumont: no.. skepticism helps to proof and motivate peopel to go on looking
[13:39] herman Bergson: It is not denying knowledge at all
[13:40] herman Bergson: It questions the justification of knowledge
[13:40] Cailleach Shan: One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
[13:40] Aby Karsin: insn' skepticism saying that we can't have a complete knowledge?
[13:40] Cailleach Shan: This is my dictionary definition....
[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: well.. i don't think scepticism is negativ...
[13:41] herman Bergson: I dont know what you mean by complete knowledge, Aby, but absolute certainty...yes that is questionable for the skeptic
[13:41] Alarice Beaumont: one need natural scepticism to explore things
[13:41] Ze Novikov: indeed
[13:41] Rodney Handrick: agreed
[13:42] herman Bergson: Yes....that is why Skepticism through history never was a philosophpy
[13:42] Aby Karsin: i was aiming to Montaigne when I said that
[13:42] itsme Frederix: mmm Herman told us already skeptism is natural, and now we create a degree natural natural
[13:42] herman Bergson: As I said in another lecture...
[13:42] Alarice Beaumont: accepting everything like it is would be a step backwards
[13:43] herman Bergson: to some extend philosophy has been the continuing fight against skepticism through the ages
[13:43] Ze Novikov: yes
[13:43] herman Bergson: I think that the real target of the skeptic is dogmatism
[13:43] itsme Frederix: philosophy no doubt makes a claim it can not prove but which is in my opinion valuabl
[13:44] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme ..I agree..skepticism doesnt upset me at all..^_^
[13:44] itsme Frederix: what about sofists
[13:45] herman Bergson: hmmm....we should re-read Plato's dialogs on that issue Itme
[13:45] Samuel Okelly: i see skepticism as highlighting the limitations, in an epistemological sense, of what it means "to know"
[13:45] herman Bergson: Oh yes Samuel....absolutely
[13:46] Ze Novikov: bingo !!
[13:46] itsme Frederix: but, there is always a but, we should not loose our ground by highlighting
[13:46] herman Bergson: So look forward to question 19...^_^
[13:47] herman Bergson: Just a little deviating from the subject....
[13:47] herman Bergson: When I saw this modus tollendo tollens I thought...where did that come from
[13:47] herman Bergson: who invented it....
[13:47] herman Bergson: why should I accept it....
[13:48] herman Bergson: and then you dig into the history of logic......amazing
[13:48] herman Bergson: Aristotle never thought of this way of reasioning
[13:48] herman Bergson: he never wrote about the :if ....then " relation in logic
[13:49] herman Bergson: It took 300 years....Philo of Alexandrai...who did
[13:50] herman Bergson: and in the Middle Ages it was al,most ignored too, because they focused on Aristotelian syllogisms
[13:50] herman Bergson: With the rise of science....hypothetical reasoning..........mankind was willing to accept this way of deduction...
[13:51] herman Bergson: and then we have reached 1590 or so Francis Bacon and all after him
[13:51] herman Bergson: And now this way of reasoning is the core of our logic...amazing
[13:51] herman Bergson: But this just as a side track ^_^
[13:53] itsme Frederix: On the other way, in math the prove using a statement and proving it would lead to a contradiction was used in early days (euclidian)
[13:53] herman Bergson: Cailleach ..you show typing but it never shows???
[13:53] Cailleach Shan: So Herman, if I really am just a 'brain in a jar' then everything is just the way it is and all I have to do is just sit and watch the play. I quite like that idea.
[13:53] herman Bergson: chat lag...
[13:53] Gemma Cleanslate: well i do not
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: i think she is caught in the type
[13:54] herman Bergson: Yes. Itsme..the Stoics knew of this kind of reasoning too...but the syllogistic logic of aristotle was dominant for ages
[13:54] Gemma Cleanslate: that happens
[13:54] itsme Frederix: just for the record, we are all a brain in the jar/skul as long as we think we are just brain
[13:55] herman Bergson: Yes Cailleach...life is like in the Matrix..^_^
[13:55] herman Bergson: Another remark for the future...
[13:55] herman Bergson: that quote from Wiki
[13:56] herman Bergson: Were Einstein didnt accept the Popperian falsifiacation because his theory was more plausible...
[13:56] herman Bergson: That is a very interesting observation...
[13:56] itsme Frederix: in a way these logic lectures make us speakless, and herman sparkling
[13:56] herman Bergson: I guess it wil show up when we discuss the possibility of knowledge
[13:57] herman Bergson: Itsme...plz ^_^
[13:57] Cailleach Shan: lol.... that's very logical Itsme
[13:57] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:57] herman Bergson: Ok...call me Spock from now on
[13:57] Ze Novikov: lol
[13:57] itsme Frederix: meant to be a good gesture
[13:57] Ze Novikov: where are the ears?
[13:57] Samuel Okelly: when it is asked "... Get real, who cares? " arent we being asked to give up on searching for "truth"? because in order for us to "get real" we surely need to establish what "real" actually is
[13:57] herman Bergson: I appreciate that Itsme ...:-)
[13:57] Cailleach Shan: Prof. Spok
[13:58] herman Bergson: You may choose....
[13:58] herman Bergson: we have the Startrek Spock and the educator Dr. Spock of RL
[13:58] itsme Frederix: Sartre
[13:58] bergfrau Apfelbaum: herman and class! : -) thanks for the interesting hour! unfortunately I must now go :-((( need still another gift. it is logical that I come too late if I do not go now
[13:59] Ze Novikov: :))
[13:59] herman Bergson: It is Bergy...:-)
[13:59] itsme Frederix: Berg you might gain from relativism and speed of light
[13:59] bergfrau Apfelbaum: :-) sry"" see u on tuesday
[14:00] herman Bergson: Ok..:-)
[14:00] itsme Frederix: Nice lecture Herman, give us some tools and training in reasoning
[14:00] herman Bergson: Well...I have stirred your jars / vats enough I think...:-)
[14:00] Gemma Cleanslate: might be good
[14:00] Ze Novikov: again thxs herman very much...see you all next week if not sooner..
[14:01] itsme Frederix: its mostly java what you find in a jar
[14:01] Gemma Cleanslate: I will be away next week and will miss 2 classes
[14:01] herman Bergson: No..LSL script Itme..:-)
[14:01] Cailleach Shan: Me and my jar will time travel back to my RL reality now..... cu everyone and thanks.
[14:01] Samuel Okelly: thanks again herman :) cheerio for now every1 :)
[14:01] herman Bergson: Oh dear Gemma.....take care and be strong :-)
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: yes thank you :-)
[14:02] herman Bergson: Bye Samuel
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: Bye
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: all
[14:02] Rodney Handrick: bye
[14:02] Alarice Beaumont: this was a lot today again :-)
[14:02] itsme Frederix: Good lecture good class thx all I was able to participate
[14:02] Socratle Kiranov: bye (en bedankt)
[14:02] Alarice Beaumont: bye everyone :-))
[14:02] itsme Frederix: Socrate that is niet grieks
[14:02] Socratle Kiranov: nope :)
[14:03] Socratle Kiranov: sorry
[14:03] Yakuzza Lethecus: thx
[14:03] Yakuzza Lethecus: cya all!

3b A brain still in the vat

Let me start with explaining some basics of logic. To illustrate that I will use two statements:
P = clouds reach degree X of saturation
Q = clouds produce rain

P --> Q means P entails Q. In normal English it means: If clouds reach degree X of saturation, clouds produce rain. Every weatherforcast is based on that fact. And now comes the logic into play.

A. Suppose P is true and Q is true. That is the normal situation. When it rains and you check the saturation in the clouds you will find degree X.

B. Suppose P is true an Q is false. That is a very odd situation. It is not raining, though saturation is degree X. That can't be possible, for if it were possible, no reliable weatherforcast as shown in A would be possible anymore.

So we must come to the conclusion that when I know that P and P entails Q then we may say that we know Q too, or in technical terms: the epistemic status of P and Q are equivalent.

What is most important to understand here is a fundamental epistemological principle: this is a guiding principle in deductive reasoning.

C. You can say .....wait. I can think of more situations. Suppose there are no clouds and yet it is raining. That is absurd too.

No it isnt. That degree X of saturation causes clouds to convert into rain, does not imply that there cant be any other cause for rain. If P is false and yet it is raining, it only means that we need to do some more research on causes of rain.

D. Hold on! I got another one: P is false and Q is false too, heheh .... ^_^ Come on, you are joking. Of course you are right: look outside...it is a sunny day with a clear blue sky.

Now look at the reasoning I showed you in my former lecture:
If (P) I know that I sit at my computer, then (Q) I know that I am not a brain in a vat.
I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat. So,
I do not know that I sit at my computer.

What is the way of the skeptic? He attacks the Q in P --> Q. He says, that there is no way to establish the truth of Q, that is, I have no way to find out whether or not I am a brain in a vat, because whether I am in a vat or not, my sensory experiences are all the same.

The emphasis here is on KNOWING things and as we saw, one way of obtaining knowledge is by deduction.

But I have no means to be certain of Q, I can't know it. There is no escape here, by principle I have to admit that this means the I can not KNOW for certain that P. Are you still with me? ^_^

What is here the big philosophical lesson to learn?

If we want to show that the skeptic is wrong, we have to show that the way he interprets the entailment (P --> Q) is wrong.

If what I have said so far wasn't easy for you and I can understand. You also can imagine that showing that the skeptic is wrong, isn't easy either. But , yes, it has to be on this technical level of logic and epistemology, that we have to face the skeptic.

Let us summarize: The skeptic does not take things for granted. He may deny the existence of God, other minds than his own, a world of material objects behind what is immediately given to our senses,

anything other than himself and his experiences , even his own mind as anything but a set of experiences (David Hume (1711-1776), objective moral values,

the possibility of getting any knowledge other than by the senses, or by the Inductive Principle, or even by reason itself.

Alternatively, the skeptic may simply doubt these things rather than deny them outright, and skepticism may be simply a methodological theory. So you can be a skeptic in various degrees.

I hope you are not disappointed about the fact that I did not come up yet with a plethora of refutations of skepticism

Based on what I have said so far we may conclude, that philosophers arent lunatics who tell you there doesnt exist a real world and that everything is just the product of your private imagination. That is not the philosophical problem.

The problem is that we say that we KNOW this real world, which might lead to the conclusion that we can be 100% sure that there is just one material world of which we can have clear , undubitable and certain knowledge, a kind of absolute truth asit were.

So this means that we would be able to obtain knowledge that is derived from an unshakable outside (our minds) source. That is what skepticism questions. Not that we can have knowledge, but the absoluteness and certainty of that knowledge.

This has important consequences. It means for instance that we have knowledge of the universe. We look through telescopes, receive data from satelites and so on.

Is there a way to be absolutely certain that the way we see the universe is how the universe really looks like? Or looks the universe just the way we look at it?

When discussing our first question about the origin of the universe we already ran into serious trouble understanding our situation. So these are not such a simple questions at all.

Now that I have clarified the way a skeptic reasons, I hope you will agree with me, that we definitely need another lecture to discuss the possibilities of finding a way out of skepticism or to consider the option: is skepticism that bad at all? This is a real adventure.


The Discussion

[13:31] herman Bergson: quod dixi dixi :-)
[13:31] herman Bergson: So far on the logic (of skepticism)
[13:32] Gemma Cleanslate: ah
[13:32] ChatNoir Talon: So, the question is focused on epistemology, skepticism or both?
[13:32] herman Bergson: The focus is actually on entailment...
[13:33] Ze Novikov: can you make your proposition into a logical equation??
[13:33] Thoth Jantzen: if it weren't for skepticism, we'd never have invented the wheel, let alone be sitting here discussing this. ;o)
[13:33] herman Bergson: Our logical axiom that P --> Q where Q is false cant be a true deduction
[13:33] ChatNoir Talon: Then we'd probably have to define first what do we mean by "is" :P
[13:34] herman Bergson: No...you could see it like this....
[13:34] Ze Novikov: P does not equal Q but Q might equal P?
[13:34] herman Bergson: P is a set ....say [a,b,c,d,e]
[13:34] Ze Novikov: the variable being x
[13:34] Ze Novikov: yes
[13:35] herman Bergson: so when you know P you also KNOW [a,b,c,d,e]
[13:35] itsme Frederix: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entailment (some background reading)
[13:35] herman Bergson: well...maybe you dont know ...say a, yet you have to deduce it from P if P is true
[13:35] ChatNoir Talon: See? That's my problem right there.. I don't think we can actually KNOW anything... I believe we can think, infer, believe, suspect, deduce, etcetera, but to me knowing means having infallible truth
[13:35] Bittersweet Lime: that must not be the case - think of the set of real numbers - an ordered set, we know it - tell me the first member! :-)
[13:36] Thoth Jantzen: that depends on whether or not what you know about P is complete, no? and what it 'entails'.
[13:36] herman Bergson: Wait....
[13:36] herman Bergson: We not yet have defined what it means to say I KNOW P
[13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: ah yes
[13:36] ChatNoir Talon: right
[13:36] herman Bergson: that is question 19 ^_^
[13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: lol
[13:37] herman Bergson: What is important here is that you see here the heart of deductive reasoning
[13:37] itsme Frederix: should it be known that P , or can it exist on itself
[13:37] herman Bergson: to say that a is true because P is true means....do research..verify your deduction
[13:38] herman Bergson: Popper however would say....show that a is NOT true....than P is FALSE
[13:38] herman Bergson: again a theory down the drain..:-)
[13:39] Bittersweet Lime: that would be wrong - an effect can be true even the cause is non existing - there might be other causes
[13:39] herman Bergson: What I meant by saying that this lecture was special to me is, that today I could write down this text completely understanding what it is all about...
[13:39] Daruma Boa: thats true
[13:39] herman Bergson: this is one of the cornerstones of our thinking
[13:40] ChatNoir Talon: :)
[13:40] ChatNoir Talon: Ah
[13:40] Gemma Cleanslate: you OWN it
[13:40] herman Bergson: What do you mean BitterSweet?
[13:40] herman Bergson: I would say when you deduce a from P and a is false then P is false
[13:41] Bittersweet Lime: I referred to the sentence before - if a is not true - then b has to be false - that is not a valid conclusion
[13:41] herman Bergson: no no...that wasnt the conclusion
[13:41] Bittersweet Lime: [13:38] herman Bergson: Popper however would say....show that a is NOT true....than P is FALSE
[13:42] itsme Frederix: what if P did not exist, what about a
[13:42] herman Bergson: And what is special to me too is that is is completely clear how skepticism critizices our way of thinking if it is about absolute truth
[13:43] herman Bergson: That is a completely different question Itsme...
[13:43] Thoth Jantzen: hmm
[13:43] herman Bergson: that is an ontological question....
[13:43] itsme Frederix: but often used in discussions
[13:43] herman Bergson: then it is the wrong argument...
[13:43] itsme Frederix: agree
[13:43] Thoth Jantzen: i think 'truth' is the question - how does 'absolute' add to the word?
[13:43] herman Bergson: In logic you dont talk about what exists and what not..that is a semantic issue of reference..
[13:44] Cailleach Shan: I know that I don't know what I don't know.
[13:44] herman Bergson: You talk about TRUE and FalSE only
[13:44] itsme Frederix: isn't "truth" not ontological
[13:44] herman Bergson: no...
[13:44] herman Bergson: you can call it whatever you like....blue , green..square
[13:44] Thoth Jantzen: truth, in my view, is context dependent. some things may be true in specific contexts, or across many...
[13:45] herman Bergson: Wait...
[13:45] itsme Frederix: truth is a sence of true/false but more then just true - it got worth in it
[13:45] herman Bergson: Here we are using a number of meanings of the word truth...
[13:45] herman Bergson: In logic it is just a word...computers call it 1 and 0
[13:46] itsme Frederix: only binairy computers
[13:46] Bittersweet Lime: truth is always related to something - you cant reason without relations - so you have to have axioms - and so truth is realtive to those axioms
[13:46] herman Bergson: Yes...you could say that...
[13:46] Thoth Jantzen: context
[13:46] Thoth Jantzen: :o)
[13:46] Cailleach Shan: Does a 'foundation statement' have to be 'true' to make deductive reasoning.
[13:46] herman Bergson: But that isnt an ontological issue
[13:46] itsme Frederix: truth is a statement - true just a fact
[13:46] herman Bergson: Let me explain..
[13:47] herman Bergson: this is a serious issue in philosophy....
[13:47] herman Bergson: With Wittgenstein....a statement is true when the state of affair occurs
[13:47] Bittersweet Lime: proof systems are always related to systems - there is no proof without to assume some axioms
[13:47] herman Bergson: that is an ontological interpretation of truth...
[13:48] herman Bergson: It deals with the fact that the statement refers to something that is not the statement
[13:48] herman Bergson: and that is exactly our issue here
[13:48] Thoth Jantzen: well like bitter said...
[13:48] Thoth Jantzen: such a statement and what it refers to constitute a 'system', no?
[13:48] herman Bergson: is there an external world to which statements indubitably refer to?
[13:49] herman Bergson: no BitterSweet....you are right....but here the axioms are the philosophical problem
[13:49] Thoth Jantzen: the same as an observer and the observed do as well.
[13:49] Bittersweet Lime: it is irrelevant - it would be a system and have axioms
[13:49] herman Bergson: where did you get them from
[13:49] itsme Frederix: Herman at least you propose an external observer
[13:50] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:50] herman Bergson: What do you mean Itsme?
[13:50] itsme Frederix: you talk about statements
[13:51] itsme Frederix: maybe observer is to weak, creator
[13:51] Bittersweet Lime: see, a statement is meaningless if you dont have a relation - I will show you - ajrakllkasdrklsd s arjls jaj rkla sdklrj kl - that is my statement - now what does it mean?
[13:51] herman Bergson: yes ... and the way they are declared true is the problem.....true in the sense that you can say I KNOW that P
[13:52] itsme Frederix: I KNOW is in a way passive, you might say I CREATED that
[13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: i guess we will have to research that
[13:52] Bittersweet Lime: you cannot make statements without a relation to something you already know - and this goes back until you have axioms - which you assumed to be valid
[13:52] herman Bergson: You forget the problem of the difference between meaning and reference Bittersweet
[13:53] herman Bergson: I agree Bittersweet....but how to jsutify your axioms?
[13:53] Bittersweet Lime: there is no justification - the nature of axioms is that they are assumed and create a system
[13:53] Samuel Okelly: i agree that axioms are, as bitter says, "assumed" or "believed" to be true but on what do we base this belief?
[13:53] herman Bergson: Are they undubitable knowledge, beliefs, guesses?
[13:53] itsme Frederix: axioms are truly created
[13:53] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme but how?
[13:53] herman Bergson: Based on what?
[13:54] itsme Frederix: lazyness
[13:54] Cailleach Shan: lol
[13:54] itsme Frederix: common business
[13:54] ChatNoir Talon: Based on an agreed reality between the ones observing said axioms, right?
[13:54] itsme Frederix: agreement
[13:54] herman Bergson: Falling back on axiomatic systems doesnt solve our philosophical question
[13:54] Jangle McElroy: Aren't axions ' self evident ' - as in ' water is wet'
[13:54] itsme Frederix: tautology is another thing
[13:54] ChatNoir Talon: But water may be dry if iced... oy this is giving me a head ache :p
[13:54] herman Bergson: Jangle...self evident and a tautology arent the same
[13:54] Bittersweet Lime: axioms are the building blocks to create systems - so they can be anything - if wrong or not is irrelevnt - you can create an invalid system as well with those
[13:55] Ze Novikov: can wet equal frozen?
[13:55] herman Bergson: The skeptic claims that we have no proof of an external world...that is the issue here..and axioms wont solve that
[13:55] Thoth Jantzen: depends on our definitions...and supporting axioms, i gues, no?
[13:56] Bittersweet Lime: what do you mean by external?
[13:56] Thoth Jantzen: not ALL skeptics claim that...
[13:56] herman Bergson: True Thoth..
[13:56] Thoth Jantzen: some claim we are all part OF the same world, looking at it from different perspectives within it.
[13:56] herman Bergson: By external I mean independent of our sensory experiences
[13:57] itsme Frederix: but in a way axioms mark the border of "external"
[13:57] Bittersweet Lime: ah, then australia is external to me
[13:57] Jangle McElroy: Sorry, you lost me mentioning tautology itsme / herman - 'Water is wet' isn't tautoogy in my understanding.
[13:57] ChatNoir Talon: Australia is extrernal to most
[13:57] itsme Frederix: axioms do not belong to the system but found it in a external (nothingness)
[13:58] herman Bergson: That is a philosophical view Itsme :-)
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: i see this continuing on thursday
[13:58] Gemma Cleanslate: :-)
[13:58] herman Bergson: At least Australia is far away for me ^_^
[13:58] Qwark Allen: indeed
[13:58] Qwark Allen: cya then
[13:58] itsme Frederix: well at least its a view and at least some avatars see it
[13:58] Bittersweet Lime: but the conclusion is wrong that they would have to be founded "in" something at all - they can be abstract
[13:58] ChatNoir Talon: You can fortune-tell, Gemma :-)
[13:58] Cailleach Shan: lol Oz is my cousin..
[13:59] Daruma Boa: bye q
[13:59] Daruma Boa: and gemma
[13:59] itsme Frederix: abstract foundings why not, no problem
[13:59] Bittersweet Lime: like math - it is constructed inwhere?- inside nothing - it is simply there - we discover its rules
[13:59] Thoth Jantzen: umm
[13:59] Thoth Jantzen sits on his hands
[13:59] ChatNoir Talon: lol
[13:59] herman Bergson: Ok....I think you all have enough questions to do research on now till Thursday :-)
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: oh ok lol
[13:59] Gemma Cleanslate: yes
[14:00] ChatNoir Talon: Yay! Homework!.. oh, wait... that's not fun...
[14:00] herman Bergson smiles
[14:00] ChatNoir Talon: :P
[14:00] herman Bergson: You are free to do as yo like
[14:00] Cailleach Shan: I need a little lie down.....my brain hurts.
[14:00] ChatNoir Talon: Right with ya Cailleach
[14:00] itsme Frederix: well we can add Bayes to entailment and explore other worlds of reasoning
[14:00] herman Bergson: Ok...
[14:01] herman Bergson: Re -read this lecture and discussion in the blog
[14:01] herman Bergson: Watch out NEW URL
[14:01] Samuel Okelly: attempting to find "proof" for "belief" will take more than just one more lesson i think herman :)
[14:01] Daruma Boa: think i must^^
[14:01] Ze Novikov: Tyvm herman and see you all next time, same place, same dimension...
[14:01] herman Bergson: http://thephilosphyclass.blogspot.com
[14:01] Daruma Boa: hope to have time on thursday^
[14:01] Thoth Jantzen: for me, 'knowing' is 'believing' to a very high degree of probability....
[14:01] herman Bergson: Sure Ze..with pleasure ^_^
[14:02] ChatNoir Talon: Thanks for the class Herman! ^^
[14:02] itsme Frederix: Good structured Herman, nice lecture
[14:02] Daruma Boa: blogger is not foud says it
[14:02] Thoth Jantzen: ...high enough so the knowledge likely won't get refuted in this lifetime, anyway.
[14:02] Cailleach Shan: Thanks Herman.... I will continue breathing in and out! That's all I really know for sure.
[14:02] Thoth Jantzen: ;o)
[14:02] herman Bergson: MAYDAY...TYPO!!
[14:02] ChatNoir Talon: daruma, Herman made a typo :P
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: ♥ Thank Youuuuuuuuuu!! ♥
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: Herman
[14:02] Daruma Boa: oh ha, herman^^
[14:02] Gemma Cleanslate: see you thursday all
[14:02] ChatNoir Talon: http://thephilosphyclass.blogspot.com
[14:02] herman Bergson: http://thephilosophyclass.blogspot.com
[14:03] ChatNoir Talon: Bye y'all!
[14:03] Daruma Boa: yeah, better
[14:03] Daruma Boa: thanks
[14:03] Daruma Boa: bye gemma^
[14:03] Alarice Beaumont: thanks Herman.. i will have to reread all that....too much conclusions and false and true lol
[14:03] herman Bergson: ok Alarice...
[14:03] herman Bergson: Getting it in the blog first thing in the morning
[14:07] herman Bergson: Thank you all

Stephen Law will be lecturing at Open Habitat on Saturday 6 June at 11:30am to 12:30pm
(which is 7:30pm to 8:30pm Linden time) and you are all invited. There will be an update between now and then on the details (the group it is running through is The Open Habitat Project) which can be found in search.

3a A brain in a vat

Suppose that it really happened. On night I sat at my computer and an alien attacked me. He put my brain in a vat on my desk and linked it to my computer and then started the SL Viewer. (I complete have forgotten that.) And here I am -in mouselook - My nerve endings have been connected to a my super-computer (a Mac :-) which causes me to have the illusion that everything is perfectly normal. There you are, the pictures, the walls, my books, etc.; but really all I am experiencing is the result of electronic impulses travelling from the computer to the nerve endings. Do I live in a completely virtual world or is it all real what I see. How could I tell? If I know that I sit at my computer, then I know that I am not a brain in a vat. I do not know that I am not a brain in a vat. So, I do not know that I sit at my computer. Of course I have the experience of sitting at my computer now, but how can I tell whether it is an illusion or real in an external world? How do I find arguments to proof that all experience is real, independent of my mind, so to speak. To have certain and undubitable knowledge in this situation would mean that I know that my brain is in a vat next to my keyboard, but there is no way of getting to that knowledge. The philosophical sceptic doesn't claim that we know nothing - not least because to do so would be obviously self-defeating (one thing we could not know is that we know nothing). Rather, the sceptic's position is to challenge our right to make claims to knowledge. We think we know lots of things, but how can we defend those claims? What grounds can we produce to justify any particular claim to knowledge? Our supposed knowledge of the world is based on perceptions gained via our senses, usually mediated by our use of reason. But are not such perceptions always open to error? This isn't a modern line of questioning our certainty of knowledge. The best of all philosophers in that was Descartes, who in 1641 in his "Meditations on First Philosophy" invented an Evil Genius. In the Evil Genius world, nothing physical exists, and all of your experiences are directly caused by the Evil Genius. So your experiences, which represent there to be an external world of physical objects (including your body), give rise to systematically mistaken beliefs about your world (such as that you are now sitting at a computer). And in this world of delusion there was only a tiny light: the COGITO......I THINK. In fact Descartes got a little bit trapped in his own skepticism, for his way out wasn't as fancy as his way in. The history of philosophy can be seen, in part, as a struggle with skepticism. The attacks of the skeptics also have served as a check on rash speculation; the various forms of modern skepticism have gradually eroded the metaphysical and theological bases of European thought. Most contemporary thinkers have been sufficiently affected by skepticism to abandon the search for certain and indubitable foundations of human knowledge. Instead, they have sought ways of living with the unresolved skeptical problems through various forms of naturalistic, scientific, or religious faiths. This is the basic philosophical problem concerning our knowledge of an external world. In a second lecture I'll try to bring forward some arguments against this kind of epistemological skepticism. In the meantime, everytime I go offline in SL and shut downn my computer I ask myself......what is my avatar doing now? The Discussion [13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: lol [13:26] Daruma Boa: haha [13:26] Qwark Allen: ehehh [13:26] Ze Novikov: having a beer [13:26] Gemma Cleanslate: dancing [13:26] Daruma Boa: relax [13:26] Ze Novikov: lol [13:26] itsme Frederix: Herman I checked that once - its really offline [13:26] Thoth Jantzen: there are some things we're better off not knowing, heman. [13:26] Daruma Boa: LOLOL [13:27] herman Bergson: And Vladimir..yes movies like the Matrix and 13th Floor play with these ideas [13:27] Jangle McElroy: What sound does a virtual tree falling make? [13:27] herman Bergson: Yes Thoth with your godly vision you might know :-) [13:27] ChatNoir Talon: It makes -crash- [13:27] Qwark Allen: depends on the script in [13:28] Nikki Jolbey: lol [13:28] Jangle McElroy: :) [13:28] herman Bergson: Our knowledge of the external world is our question for today [13:28] itsme Frederix: Despite the broken limit of 17 ;) I think I got the idea, but what is the point we discus here right know (that makes 25 including). [13:29] Gemma Cleanslate: real or not [13:29] herman Bergson: Come on Itse...we arent bureaucrats here.... [13:29] Qwark Allen: we are blind to the reality that surrounds us [13:29] Daruma Boa: sl or rl [13:29] Samuel Okelly: it is an act of “faith” to hold that our sensory info corresponds to an objective external reality [13:29] Qwark Allen: rl at least [13:29] itsme Frederix: What about "not real" is real to! Just another reality [13:29] Qwark Allen: no we can`t [13:29] hope63 Shepherd: what we see.. but not what is.. [13:29] herman Bergson: Yes Samuel....that is in fact the situation [13:29] itsme Frederix: Please first define "real" [13:29] Marya Blaisdale: We aren't blind to reality Qwark, we just see one aspect of it, as it relates to us - there is a difference there [13:29] Qwark Allen: cause our sensorial organs are to weak [13:30] Jangle McElroy: Is debate made more complex through added virtual world dimension? Since 'I think therefore I am' days? [13:30] Daruma Boa: there are more senses to see and feel [13:30] Jangle McElroy: 17 word cap doesn;t help grammer :) [13:30] Qwark Allen: we can have a intuition of what reality is [13:30] hope63 Shepherd: the objectiveness is common sense agreements.. [13:30] herman Bergson: Just keep in mind that philosophers like Hume and Kant were trapped by this problem themselves [13:30] Qwark Allen: but for sure don`t know, what it is [13:31] herman Bergson: That intuition may be an illusion too, Qwark [13:31] hope63 Shepherd: put it this way: we see and agree with others on what we see.. [13:31] Marya Blaisdale: There only becomes a trap, imo, when people forget about context, or the importance of context, and attempt to comprehend 'everything' at the same time, which of course, is not possible [13:31] herman Bergson: Yes Hope that is one step....consensus and pragmatism [13:31] itsme Frederix: How can you say something "whole" about a system if you are trapped in the system. You cann't [13:31] hope63 Shepherd: a bee.. a bat.. any other animaqls sees too.. but completely different things.. [13:32] Marya Blaisdale: right, itsme [13:32] herman Bergson: That is the quintessence of the sceptical argument Itsme :-) [13:32] Qwark Allen: and we can start by learning how much really our "sensors" sense [13:32] itsme Frederix: And it real proven, in mathematical reality [13:32] herman Bergson: I remeber me saying here that we are trapped in our minds [13:32] Qwark Allen: to have a idea of what we are missing at it [13:32] Vladimir Apparatchik: Herman, Prof Bostrom of Oxford argues that it is almost certain we live in a computer simulation - worth looking at [13:32] hope63 Shepherd: trapped in the whole construction of a human.. [13:32] Jangle McElroy: All things are ultimately imaged and heard in our heads. Virtual or otherwise. [13:32] itsme Frederix: The next thing is if we cann't we shouldn't or ... [13:33] Jangle McElroy: or in our minds I should say [13:33] herman Bergson: Yes I read about Nick Bostrom... [13:33] Yakuzza Lethecus: hey everyone [13:33] Qwark Allen: worst even, is how our brain composes what doesn`t understand well, like at vision [13:33] Marya Blaisdale: hi Yakuzza :) [13:34] herman Bergson: Yet we can live our daily lives ...scientist seem to do their job too [13:35] herman Bergson: It seems we have found ways to create a real world yet [13:35] itsme Frederix: Maybe its the Evil one (ypo spoke about) that is making us think these things. Lets be practical and keep our thiny place in life [13:35] hope63 Shepherd: define real [13:35] herman Bergson: What do you mean by being practical Itme [13:36] herman Bergson: REAL..yes good question Hope [13:36] itsme Frederix: Some thing cannot be spoken/thought about - do not get hacked by those [13:36] herman Bergson: I'll define [13:36] itsme Frederix: Oke define real [13:36] Gemma Cleanslate: CAILLEACH! [13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:37] herman Bergson: What I meant by 'real' is some kind of stable context we can live in [13:37] hope63 Shepherd: c al.. HELLOO [13:37] herman Bergson: Welcome Cailleach ^_^ [13:37] itsme Frederix: Gemma is greeting every existing virtuallity [13:37] Gemma Cleanslate: lol [13:37] Cailleach Shan: Thanks Herman. Sorry to be so late. I will just sit and listen. [13:37] Jangle McElroy: So Real doesn;t have to be absolute, a completely fixed idea. [13:38] herman Bergson: No Jangle [13:38] herman Bergson: Just a context [13:38] herman Bergson: in which our concepts get their meaning [13:38] ChatNoir Talon: SL is real, it's just isn't physical.. to us RL dwellers [13:38] itsme Frederix: real is what I can think about (and what I know I cann't think about) [13:38] Daruma Boa: there are real avas behind the keys ^^ [13:38] Anne Charles: a context that can vary by the individual [13:39] herman Bergson: Yes Anne, but you also see wider contexts...say..Science for instance [13:39] Jangle McElroy: Real can be anything we perceive it to be. And human perception changes - child vs. adult for example [13:39] hope63 Shepherd: what about the time there were no humans.. coupéle of million years ago.. was there a "real 2 world? [13:39] Rodney Handrick: true hope [13:40] herman Bergson: That is another philosophical problem, Hope... [13:40] itsme Frederix: more concrete Hope, what about if you do not "exist" [13:40] herman Bergson: but a genuine one [13:40] Samuel Okelly: is it being suggested here that “objective reality” is relative? [13:40] herman Bergson: If Hope says..Here I am ...he exists for me... [13:40] hope63 Shepherd: i exist is another question itsme.. [13:41] itsme Frederix: Oke but lets blow up the example Hope gave, what about before the big banfg (or whatever) [13:41] Vladimir Apparatchik: One interpretation of quantum mechanics is that "reality" doesn't exist until it is observed by a conscious being [13:41] herman Bergson: Yes Samuel....the idea of an 'objective reality" has been abandoned [13:41] itsme Frederix: Vla then we need an observer of that consious being [13:41] herman Bergson: That means that the mind creates reality Vladimir [13:41] Samuel Okelly: by whom herman? [13:41] Marya Blaisdale: Well Vladimir, then that can go back to the question about what is consciousness (which I think is a separate issue) [13:42] Daruma Boa: by everyone himself [13:42] Vladimir Apparatchik: Indeed - deep waters ! [13:42] Marya Blaisdale nods :) [13:42] herman Bergson: By a number of philosophers, Samuel....or I should formulate it otherwise... [13:42] Jangle McElroy: Your avie disappears from your screen on exit after left screen of others. When did existance stop? [13:42] Scope Cleaver: Many of the idealists... [13:42] herman Bergson: The idea of an "objective reality/ external world" hasnt been abandoned [13:43] herman Bergson: But the septic argument is that you can t claim there exists one, you cant justify your knowledge claim [13:43] herman Bergson: Belief in it...ok.....but not undubitable knowledge of it [13:44] itsme Frederix: My argument would be .. so what ... what makes the difference [13:44] Scope Cleaver: But you can't go from that to the conclusion that there isn't one of course [13:44] herman Bergson: That Itsme is exactly the point.... [13:44] Scope Cleaver: itsme: yes, thats the idea, is it a difference that makes a relevant difference [13:44] Vladimir Apparatchik: Another interpretation of quantum mecahics is that all possible worlds exist - there is a multi-reality . We are just in one tiny part [13:44] herman Bergson: Your point of view has important consequences for science [13:45] Scope Cleaver: I think for the purpose of language words still refer, we agree? [13:45] itsme Frederix: I guess most science has adoped that view already [13:45] herman Bergson: That is a start Scope ^_^ [13:45] herman Bergson: Are you refering to Putnam's approach? [13:46] Scope Cleaver: I am refering to a paper by Chalmers on the semantics of words in simulations [13:46] herman Bergson: Yes Itsme....since Kuhn and Feyerabend I guess science has taken that view [13:46] herman Bergson: Ah..ok.... [13:46] Scope Cleaver: chairs can still be refered successfully as chairs here [13:47] itsme Frederix: Feyeraband also stated that it is the doing that counts not the motiv or explanation [13:47] Scope Cleaver: even if they are made out of bit, I think ultimately the ontology of the world shouldn't that much impact on how we work with it, it's a different issue [13:47] Scope Cleaver: The *structure* of it is what would matter, mostly for science if thats the topic... for a scientific program [13:47] herman Bergson: Yes....for those who dont know Kuhn or Feyerabend.... [13:47] herman Bergson: In a nutshell..... [13:48] Jangle McElroy: itsme, how does that affect reality for criminal intent, when no action completed / observed? [13:48] Scope Cleaver: if you were a brain in a vat herman, your scientific method would still be valid is my point [13:48] Vladimir Apparatchik: Yes scope - its mathematical structure. Mathematics is reality - the rest is just "simulation" [13:48] herman Bergson: Those Philosophers of science said...we just stick to a theory/explanation of reality that works as long as it works [13:48] Scope Cleaver: *nods* [13:48] Scope Cleaver: I think there is a bit of whitehead in that as well [13:48] herman Bergson: if we get too many anomalies we change the theory...regardless what "reality" might be [13:49] Qwark Allen: yes hermaan [13:49] Scope Cleaver: Agreed yes [13:49] itsme Frederix: Jangle the enemy of good is ... ment to be good [13:49] herman Bergson: Thank you ^_^ [13:49] Jangle McElroy: Minority Report [13:49] Scope Cleaver: You can derive truths even in an evil demon world... ㋡ [13:49] Scope Cleaver: inference is still a valid scientic tool I eman [13:50] Thoth Jantzen: hmm. [13:50] herman Bergson: Yes Scope...it works....but still based on beliefs...called axioms [13:50] Samuel Okelly: are we confusing “reality” with "personal perception of reality" i wonder [13:50] Nikki Jolbey: isnt reality a personal perception? [13:50] Scope Cleaver: I don't think you need beliefs, you can offset that in the world [13:50] herman Bergson: HOLD ON... [13:50] Rodney Handrick: I believe it is Nikki... [13:50] Scope Cleaver: You can deal with probabilities just like they do in Quantum physics [13:51] herman Bergson: The remark of Samuel needs to be answered.. [13:51] Jangle McElroy: Reality is only personally encountered, we can't experience it for others, only theorise their experience [13:51] Thoth Jantzen: math is really just a language we use to describe reality, math being really little more than descriptions of relationships, etc. [13:51] Scope Cleaver: Ultimately Samuel you can't guarantee that both are tied [13:51] herman Bergson: THERE ARE SOME PRESENT THAT DIDNT READ THE RULES.....??? ^_^ [13:51] itsme Frederix: mmm ... so what makes the difference between 'a brain in a vat opinion" and a "human as we like to think about" [13:51] Thoth Jantzen: (lag is bad so it's too hard to type much) [13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: :-) [13:51] Gemma Cleanslate: yes [13:51] Rodney Handrick: hmm..I don't know about that Scope [13:52] Gemma Cleanslate: shhhhhhh [13:52] herman Bergson: Samuel said: are we confusing “reality” with "personal perception of reality" i wonder [13:52] Cailleach Shan: Is there a difference? [13:52] Jangle McElroy: Answered above, obviously not well :) [13:52] herman Bergson: That is exactly what it is all about Samuel... [13:52] Scope Cleaver: thats the Kantian problem right? [13:53] herman Bergson: We tend to think of an external reality and that what goes on in our mind [13:53] itsme Frederix: Should we grow from "personal percepttion of reallity' to shared perception? [13:53] herman Bergson: And a lot of philosophers didnt get any further than the content of their mind.... [13:54] Vladimir Apparatchik: That's what science does - the shared perception [13:54] itsme Frederix: thats what etics tries [13:54] herman Bergson: And all who claimed to go beyond the mind, have to answer for that [13:54] Jangle McElroy: Surely perception is never shared? At least within any great degree of accuracy ? [13:54] herman Bergson: Science works by consensus.... [13:55] Gemma Cleanslate: sorryy to leave [13:55] herman Bergson: and even that only among certain groups of scientists [13:55] herman Bergson: dissidents arent appreciated always [13:55] Jangle McElroy: Science works by repeatable truths perhaps? But the debate amongst scientists shows not consensus :) [13:55] Thoth Jantzen: perceptions are not shared, but can be compared. [13:55] Samuel Okelly: so we can conclude that all "knowledge" starts and ends with faith? [13:55] Scope Cleaver: Not all science is consensus based though... [13:56] Marya Blaisdale: faith? [13:56] itsme Frederix: Still it is a little strange that we focus on the mind/thought a.s.o. - is it because we do not have that mote tools to deal with life? [13:56] Jangle McElroy: Bye guys [13:56] Thoth Jantzen: how about replacing 'faith' with 'supported belief'? [13:56] Anne Charles: Thanks, Professor, must go, bye all [13:56] Daruma Boa: bye anne [13:57] Samuel Okelly: ill stick with "faith" ;-) [13:57] Marya Blaisdale: supported belief is more accurate than faith [13:57] herman Bergson: Yes Thoth.....but there sneaks in another thing.... [13:57] Thoth Jantzen: faith is something unsupported by evidence or logic. [13:57] Vladimir Apparatchik: Scientific Theories eg Relativity are shared "preceptions" - agreed frameworks [13:57] herman Bergson: what does that supporting mean? [13:57] Samuel Okelly: saying that marya makes an assumption that "faith" is not supported [13:58] Jangle McElroy: It is largely through the ability to replicate the finding / experience, that reality is established in science. Not consensus. [13:58] Thoth Jantzen: supported belief is based on observational evidence and logical resaoning. [13:58] Vladimir Apparatchik: I like that Marya - supported belief [13:58] herman Bergson: OK..... [13:58] Samuel Okelly: the same can be said about faith thoth [13:58] herman Bergson: I think that we have reached a point that points to the next lecture. [13:59] Marya Blaisdale: that is what faith is, by definition, Sam [13:59] Thoth Jantzen: there is a 'good chance' this is 'true'. of course we cannot 'know' with certainty in this world... [13:59] herman Bergson: you already suggest answers to the sceptic argument.. [13:59] Thoth Jantzen: ...but we can achieve pretty high probabilities that something is true. [13:59] Marya Blaisdale: Faith = Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence [13:59] Jangle McElroy: Reality is faith? [13:59] Samuel Okelly: i disagree marya [13:59] Marya Blaisdale: then you disagree with the dictionary there, Samuel [13:59] Thoth Jantzen: on what grounds, sam? [13:59] Vladimir Apparatchik: Or some things are "truer" eg Einstein is truer than Newton [14:00] Cailleach Shan: There could be a whole lecture of 'one's' understanding of Faith! [14:00] Thoth Jantzen: Newton is truer than King James [14:00] Thoth Jantzen: ;o) [14:00] itsme Frederix: Vla read Feyerabend about that . [14:00] Jangle McElroy: But Einstein never had to see the things he proved through logical deduction. [14:00] Ze Novikov: ty Herman... see you all next week.... [14:00] Jangle McElroy: Bye Ze [14:00] Rodney Handrick: Bye Ze [14:00] herman Bergson: OK.....Ze :-) [14:01] Thoth Jantzen: there were many other ways those things coule be seen, jangle. [14:01] Vladimir Apparatchik: Never taken to Feyerabend - anything doesn't go in my view [14:01] Samuel Okelly: fides et ratio [14:01] herman Bergson: Time to put an end to our discussion... [14:01] Thoth Jantzen: e.g. the M-M experiment, etc. [14:01] Daruma Boa: thank u herman [14:01] herman Bergson: We dont need to solve the problem here and now ^_^ [14:01] Jangle McElroy: That's philophy all over :) [14:01] itsme Frederix: or ever [14:01] Samuel Okelly: thanks again herman :) [14:02] Rodney Handrick: thanks Herman [14:02] Samuel Okelly: cheerio every1 :) [14:02] Nikki Jolbey: thank you herman : ) [14:02] herman Bergson: My pleasure...you were a good class today ^_^ [14:02] Scope Cleaver: thanks herman ㋡ [14:02] Yakuzza Lethecus: thx! [14:02] Thoth Jantzen: you only had to use caps a couple of times. ;o) [14:02] hope63 Shepherd: rather well behaved he meant..:9 [14:02] Vladimir Apparatchik: Thanks Herman - that was better than the chapter in the Philosophy Gym [14:02] Cailleach Shan: Thanks Herman... I see the quality hasn't diminished while I was away. [14:02] Jangle McElroy: Have a break until next week as a reward Herman [14:02] itsme Frederix: Nice issues - a lot as been said as usuall) THX all [14:02] herman Bergson me smiles [14:03] herman Bergson: Yes Vladimir..:-) [14:03] herman Bergson: The chapter in the book is a bit biased and even unclear to some extend [14:04] Daruma Boa: see tomorrow or next week;-) bye [14:04] herman Bergson: Bye Daruma :-) [14:04] Marya Blaisdale: How was it one sided, Herman? [14:04] Jangle McElroy: Bye Daruma [14:04] herman Bergson: CLASS DISMISSED...^_^ [14:04] herman Bergson: And Thank you all [14:04] Nikki Jolbey: Thank you

Posted by herman_bergson on 2009-05-08 03:14:45