For those of you who are not familiar with the term “brute fact”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact
“…The more common but less technical definition of brute fact is "a terminus of a series of explanations which is not itself further explicable"…”
Most people (including myself initially) assume there MUST be at least one brute fact and the reasoning behind this goes a bit like this:
If we assume that there are NO brute facts then that would appear to lead to what seems to be a contradiction and this is how;
if fact X is explained by fact Y which is explained by fact Z which is explained by fact X (back to the start) then this is a circular explanation which would beg the question what explanation is there fact F for that circular explanation for surely that explanation fact F must be a fact outside that circle else it would be just part of the same circle and thus wouldn’t explain it!
So this would mean any COMPLETE explanation of facts must not be circular if there are no brute facts. But that would mean that if fact X is explained by fact Y then fact Y must be explained by a fact Z (that is itself not part of X or Y ) but then fact Z must be explained by a fact V (that is itself not part of X or Y or Z) but then fact V must be explained by a fact W …..and so on for infinite!
Now, I (like most people) initially intuitively feel there is something logically erroneous with the thought that it can be “ …..and so on for infinite! “ because this would require literally an INFINITE series of explanations of facts with NO terminus of the series of explanations! -and somehow that just intuitively feels logically wrong. But I have started wondering is it REALLY logically wrong!? -I mean, are we just assuming here that just because we cannot imagine it (i.e. imagine an INFINITE series of explanations) that it MUST be logically wrong? -if that is the ONLY reason why we assume this then there is no reason why our intuitive feeling on this could be wrong and thus in fact there COULD actually be an INFINITE series of explanations in reality!
So I now put forward the following hypothesis:
There are no brute facts other than the brute fact that there are no brute facts
I have decided to call this the “bruteless hypothesis”.
Now don’t misunderstand me here -I am NOT proposing that this hypothesis is true nor that I have any premise for believing that it is ‘probably’ true -I am just putting this hypothesis forward here for discussion; and what I want to know is this:
Is there any LOGICAL argument that can be given that can prove that the bruteless hypothesis must be false?
There are certain implications if the bruteless hypothesis is true:
Firstly, there would be an INFINITE series of explanations.
Also, I presume there would have to be an INFINITE series of physical laws with any law X being derived from a more general physical law Y which is derived from a more general physical law Z…on to infinitum! -this would be impossible to imagine and so may seem an absurd idea but, remember, just because it is impossible to imagine doesn’t mean it isn’t true for the only way to literally rule the possibility out is through LOGIC and not merely by pointing out that it cannot be imagined!
Also, it would mean the COMPLETE truth about literally everything would be always unknowable for although there would be nothing stopping us from knowing part of this truth, to understand the COMPLETE truth about literally everything would require a brain that can store and simultaneously understand literally an infinite number of facts and that would mean even if your brain was as large as the universe, it still wouldn’t even came close to being large enough to store and understand that!
Note that, PROVIDING there is no logical contradiction with the notion of the bruteless hypothesis, it would be impossible to prove the bruteless hypothesis even if it was true and impossible to disprove the bruteless hypothesis even if it was false -thus it isn’t a scientific hypotheses (which is why I didn’t put this in the science forum)
I have also formed a more extreme version of the bruteless hypothesis that I call the “strict bruteless hypothesis” (as opposed to the “loose bruteless hypothesis” ) that basically says there are NO brute facts and even the fact that there are no brute facts is not a brute fact because we simply haven’t discovered the explanation for it yet!
Any thoughts?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonDude, this is general. Here we do the la-la and the wha?.. To your right,
For those of you who are not familiar with the term “brute fact”:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brute_fact
“…The more common but less technical definition of brute fact is "a terminus of a series of explanations which is not itself further explicable"…”
Most people (including myself initially) assume there MUST be at least one brute fact and ...[text shortened]... a brute fact because we simply haven’t discovered the explanation for it yet!
Any thoughts?
down the hall, and you'll find yourself right back in science. Have fun.
Oh, la-la! Wha?..
Originally posted by JigtieI didn’t put it in science forum because my hypothesis isn’t a scientific one!
Dude, this is general. Here we do the la-la and the wha?.. To your right,
down the hall, and you'll find yourself right back in science. Have fun.
Oh, la-la! Wha?..
To be a scientific hypothesis about reality, there has to be some way of disproving it if it is wrong in reality.
-that’s why I put it in general.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonWha?.. 😛
I didn’t put it in science forum because my hypothesis isn’t a scientific one!
To be a scientific hypothesis about reality, there has to be some way of disproving it if it is wrong in reality.
-that’s why I put it in general.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyHow is that example a “brute fact”? A human body only temporary exists because eventually we die -that is an ‘explanation’ for that fact thus that fact isn’t a “brute” fact.
Yes... the simple presentation of one brute fact (such as the fact that the human body is a temporary abode, a tent for a finite time span).
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonOkay. Let's do it with Pablum: #1 Any single "brute fact" denies the hypothesis. #2 Fact is Andrew Hamilton and Grampy Bobby will die...
How is that example a “brute fact”? A human body only temporary exists because eventually we die -that is an ‘explanation’ for that fact thus that fact isn’t a “brute” fact.
an inescaple, incontrovertible and brute fact of reality. #3 That brute fact proves it false. #4 Rest is relativistic philosophical speculation.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby….an inescaple, incontrovertible and BRUTE fact of reality
Okay. Let's do it with Pablum: #1 Any single "brute fact" denies the hypothesis. #2 Fact is Andrew Hamilton and Grampy Bobby will die...
an inescaple, incontrovertible and brute fact of reality. #3 That brute fact proves it false. #4 Rest is relativistic philosophical speculation.
..… (my emphasis)
But it isn’t a BRUTE fact that we will all die because, if you don’t die of anything else first, you would eventually die of old age within a finite period of time -and THAT is an ‘explanation’ of the fact that we will all die thus the fact that we will all die is not a BRUTE fact.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonEnjoyed reading your profile, Andrew. Shame on me for not doing so before the fact... of assuming objectivity and posting to your thread.
[b]….an inescaple, incontrovertible and BRUTE fact of reality
..… (my emphasis)
But it isn’t a BRUTE fact that we will all die because, if you don’t die of anything else first, you would eventually die of old age within a finite period of time -and THAT is an ‘explanation’ of the fact that we will all die thus the fact that we will all die is not a BRUTE fact.[/b]
😉