Your Purpose in Life

Originally posted by DeepThought
Because that is the way conditionals work, it's a logical tautology. If A then A is absolutely certain, it is necessarily true and doesn't depend on contingent facts for its truth. So if our knowledge of contingent facts is uncertain then we can be absolutely certain that our knowledge of contingent facts is uncertain.

Can we know with certainty that "A" is a fact?

Originally posted by DeepThought
Particle physics results are among the best tested things in science, they are not accepted until the probability that the result could come about by chance is one part in around 500 million - but there is still that one chance. I think that that is what Ghost was talking about, it's not a matter of comprehension but of being sure we know what we think we know because it may not be true.

It must be noted that particle physics results have been found to be wrong because of errors in the process rather than chance ie if your calculation that there is one part in 500 million that you are wrong is wrong, then how big the number is doesn't really matter.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Can we know with certainty that "A" is a fact?

It doesn't matter, it was wrapped up in a conditional. If A then A is unconditionally true whatever the status of A is.

What you seem to be trying to get at is can we know for certain that we cannot know any empirical facts with certainty? We know that the senses can be deceived, for an example see here [1] it is very difficult to see more than one or two of the spots at any one time, so since our senses can be deceived we cannot be certain that the evidence of our own eyes is true. We can infallibly know that we exist, we directly experience it. Experiences not involving only our inner selves are mediated and we cannot rule out that the mediation is flawed in some way, in the optical illusion in [1] our visual cortex can't cope properly with the image. There is no way of ruling out ontological solipsism, all empirical facts are defeasible. So yes, we can be certain that empirical facts which depend on the senses involve uncertainty.

Now it is your turn to answer my question. For what reason do you think that the universe cannot be infinitely old? How can you rule out eternal inflation?

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37337778

Originally posted by twhitehead
Actually, no, I do not know that already. I think the reason you chose such a poor example is because all examples will be poor examples and there are in fact no good examples of previous thinking that was thought to be definitive by real intellectuals that was later changed by new information.

[b]The notion that you can determine a fact to a point whe ...[text shortened]... that the moon isn't real. And no, 'whimsical' is not how I would describe that sort of thinking.

Actually, no, I do not know that already. I think the reason you chose such a poor example is because all examples will be poor examples and there are in fact no good examples of previous thinking that was thought to be definitive by real intellectuals that was later changed by new information.

I think you need to give the above statement a little more thought and perhaps instigate a retraction. (It feels like you have backed yourself into a corner and are now flailing your arms around in desperation).

😵

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I think you need to give the above statement a little more thought and perhaps instigate a retraction. (It feels like you have backed yourself into a corner and are now flailing your arms around in desperation).

😵

Given that you attempted several strawmen and have now resorted to vague mumblings, I take it you are admitting defeat.

🙂

Originally posted by twhitehead
Given that you attempted several strawmen and have now resorted to vague mumblings, I take it you are admitting defeat.

🙂

...there are in fact no good examples of previous thinking that was thought to be definitive by real intellectuals that was later changed by new information.

Okay, how about the re-classification of Pluto as a planet? or Einstein's theory of relativity bringing new information to Newton's views on space and gravity? (up to that point thought to be definitive by real intellectuals). Turns out space is distorted in the presence of a large mass and that gravity is not instantaneous at all distances but actually travels at the speed of light. 😲

Vague mumblings give way to kick ass argument.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Okay, how about the re-classification of Pluto as a planet?

Ouch. Worse and worse. I suggest you do a bit of research into that one.

or Einstein's theory of relativity bringing new information to Newton's views on space and gravity? (up to that point thought to be definitive by real intellectuals).
OK, that one is much better.
So would you say that Einsteins theory is now definitive? Quantum mechanics? String theory?

Vague mumblings give way to kick ass argument.
Really, you need to rethink that Pluto one before you use the term 'kick ass'. It could turn into kicked ass.

Originally posted by Fetchmyjunk
Three years with the living messiah compared to a whole life with an ordinary, now dead man.

Or just a minute with me.... Ha!

Originally posted by twhitehead
Ouch. Worse and worse. I suggest you do a bit of research into that one.

[b] or Einstein's theory of relativity bringing new information to Newton's views on space and gravity? (up to that point thought to be definitive by real intellectuals).
OK, that one is much better.
So would you say that Einsteins theory is now definitive? Quantum mechanics ...[text shortened]... eed to rethink that Pluto one before you use the term 'kick ass'. It could turn into kicked ass.[/b]

At this point, and with the information currently at hand, Einstein's theory 'could be' seem to be definitive. But then, who knows what new information might come to light in the future.

Forget Pluto. You stated previously that there were no good examples of definitive thinking being changed by later information. - As you have now stated that the Einstein example is 'much better' are you ready to concede your 'no good example' argument was complete pants and throw yourself humbly on your sword.

If this were a chess game, you should have resigned 3 moves ago.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
At this point, and with the information currently at hand, Einstein's theory 'could be' seem to be definitive. But then, who knows what new information might come to light in the future.

So you would not say it is 'definitive thinking'?
Which are you more sure of, that relativity is definitive, or that the moon exists?

Forget Pluto.
But that's my favourite popular mistake that people make when talking about changing information 🙁

You stated previously that there were no good examples of definitive thinking being changed by later information. - As you have now stated that the Einstein example is 'much better' are you ready to concede your 'no good example' argument was complete pants and throw yourself humbly on your sword.
I am not convinced that Newton mechanics were considered definitive thinking. First convince me that an equivalent set of laws exists today.

If this were a chess game, you should have resigned 3 moves ago.
On RHP, it is sometimes worth playing on in the hope your opponent will be timed out 🙂

Besides, all you captured was a couple of pawns. You are yet to even try for the queen, and my king is perfectly safe. My original argument was that there are some things that we can be absolutely sure of to the point that no new information is going to change it.
If 'new information' demonstrated that the moon was fake and didn't exist, then I would suspect I was mad rather than accept the new information and change my belief. And the moon is not one of the things I am most sure of.

Occasionally, I will look back at this thread and reiterate some things.

I know why my heart beats.
I know why I breath.
I was born with a certain physical infirmity (unspecified ) . Why I even know why I was born with that physical infirmity.

I know why I married the woman I married and why I had the children I had.
I know why the fortunes AND misfortunes of life have come my way.

This understanding is not reserved for some elite people. It is available to all who love God and are called according to His eternal purpose. I know that ALL things, that is ALL things - are being engineered by God for good to those who love Him and are called according to His eternal purpose.

" And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.

Because those whom He foreknew, He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son that He might be the Firstborn among many brothers." ( Rom. 8:28,29)

My purpose is to be conformed to the image of the Firstborn Son of God. And God causes everything in my life to work together for the accomplishing of that conformation.

This should be the common assurance of everyone who comes to Jesus Christ for salvation and cooperation with God's eternal purpose.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If this were a chess game, you should have resigned 3 moves ago.
On RHP, it is sometimes worth playing on in the hope your opponent will be timed out 🙂

Besides, all you captured was a couple of pawns. You are yet to even try for the queen, and my king is perfectly safe. My original argument was that there are some things that we can be absolutely ...[text shortened]... e new information and change my belief. And the moon is not one of the things I am most sure of.[/b]

lol

I think on this occasion I will do the gentlemanly thing and force a draw. (Probably a case for 3 fold repetition) although feel quite confident checkmate is within my grasp.

Feel free though to clarify the Pluto misunderstanding.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Feel free though to clarify the Pluto misunderstanding.

Pluto was reclassified not because of anything new we learnt about Pluto and not because we found out something we formerly thought was certainly the case was not the case, but because we discovered other Pluto sized objects and we couldn't handle having twenty planets about the size of earths moon. So we now call them 'dwarf planets'.
We are still not even sure we have found all the earth sized planets.
We were not wrong that Pluto was a planet, we just changed the label.

I am certainly not arguing that we know everything and new things are never discovered. There are most likely species of plant right outside my window that have never been described by science. There are almost certainly species of bacteria right outside my window, or even in my stomach, that have never been described by science. I even hold out hope that there are significantly different forms of life that have not yet been discovered. Most single celled life forms we know about we found because we knew what we were looking for before we looked.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Pluto was reclassified not because of anything new we learnt about Pluto and not because we found out something we formerly thought was certainly the case was not the case, but because we discovered other Pluto sized objects and we couldn't handle having twenty planets about the size of earths moon. So we now call them 'dwarf planets'.
We are still not e ...[text shortened]... led life forms we know about we found because we knew what we were looking for before we looked.

A reasonable explanation. 😉

Originally posted by DeepThought
It doesn't matter, it was wrapped up in a conditional. If A then A is unconditionally true whatever the status of A is.

What you seem to be trying to get at is can we know for certain that we cannot know any empirical facts with certainty? We know that the senses can be deceived, for an example see here [1] it is very difficult to see more than one ...[text shortened]... an you rule out eternal inflation?

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37337778

Stephen Hawking thinks so.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ..."