It's all a mystery really.....

Originally posted by knightmeister
How do you know that there exists an “ultimate truth”?
-----------hammy----------------------------

Myabe you think there is no ultimate truth at all and that all talk of ultimates or certainty is false? Maybe you think that truth is relative and not ultimate and that there can be no certainty?

The problem is that if you think this then I migh truth - that is the ultimate truth of existence , namely , that there is no ultimate truth.

…Myabe you think there is no ultimate truth at all and that all talk of ultimate OR CERTAINTY is false?
.… (my emphasis)

What?
How you are relating this “OR CERTAINTY” in your mind to “ultimate truth”?
I may or may not be certain of some facts regardless of whether or not there is or I think there is a “ultimate truth”.

I think there probably is no “ultimate truth” because there is currently not a shred of evidence/logic that I am aware of to support the existential hypothesis that there exists an “ultimate truth”.

…You could go on to say "there are no absolute certainties about existence "
….

Why would I say that?

….Even if there is no ultimate truth - that is the ultimate truth of existence , namely , that there is no ultimate truth...…

Err -no -that is illogical.
If there is no ultimate truth then the mere fact that there is “no ultimate truth” doesn’t explain why everything exists.
How on earth would stating the mere fact that “there is no reason why things should exist” “explains” why things DO exist!? -I mean, how does one logically follow from the other? -answer -it doesn't.
Therefore, logic determines that the mere fact that there is “no ultimate truth” CANNOT be itself an “ultimate truth” !!!
-else it would like be saying “if P then NOT P”.
-do you agree?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But it is not a requirement of a phenomenon to have a cause (known or unknown) in order for it to be labelled "inexplicable" .

Something can be inexplicable because there is some cause somewhere but we just can't find it or explain it. OR- It can be labelled inexplicable because it has no cause.

The definition of inexplicable is erhem "incap don't you just accept you have goofed on this one and eat your humble pie and move on.

…But it is not a requirement of a phenomenon to have a cause (known or unknown) in order for it to be labelled "inexplicable" .
.…
Incorrect -if it has no unknown cause nor unknown reason of any kind then it is not "inexplicable".

…OR- It can be labelled inexplicable because it has NO CAUSE.
…. (my emphasis)

Do you mean no KNOWN cause by “NO CAUSE” or do you mean no UNKNOWN cause?
If you mean no KNOWN cause then I would agree.
But if, as I suspect, you mean no UNKNOWN cause, then it would be peculiar and totally inappropriate to label that as “inexplicable” because there is no UNKNOWN cause yet to know and explain.

….The definition of inexplicable is erhem "incapable of being accounted for or explained” . So I feel compelled to ask you whether the brute fact of existence itself is capable of " being accounted for or explained”. If you cannot answer yes to this question - then the answer must be no.
...…

Err -how can the answer be yes or no if there is nothing there to EITHER explain (in which case the answer would be “yes” ) OR FAIL to explain (in which case the answer would be “no” )?
-if there is nothing there to either explain or fail to explain then the question of whether or not I can “explain it” (when there is no “it” !!! ) becomes a totally meaningless nonsense question. Your question is leading because it assumes something that is not so.



Ok, tell me at what point I misunderstand you here:

1, Judging from your previous posts, you agree there must be at least one thing that is a brute fact? -yes or no?

2, Do you also agree that LOGIC dictates that there must be at least one thing that is a brute fact? -yes or no?

-I am going to continue as if you would answer “yes” to this but please correct me if I am wrong:

3, Do you also agree that if LOGIC dictates that there must be so, then it is NOT "inexplicable"? -yes or no?

If yes (and the correct answer to (3) is yes) then;

4, Do you also agree that it LOGICALLY follows from (2) and (3) that the mere fact that there must be at least one thing that is a brute fact is NOT "inexplicable" because it is deducible from logic? -yes or no?

If yes (and the correct answer to (4) is yes) then;

5, Given the fact that, by definition, a brute fact is something that has neither a known nor an unknown reason or cause or explanation : Do you also agree that it LOGICALLY follows from (4) that the mere fact that there is something that has neither a known nor an unknown reason or cause or explanation DOES NOT make it "inexplicable"? -yes or no?

If yes (and the correct answer to (5) is yes) then;

6, Do you also agree that it LOGICALLY follows from (5) that if EXISTENCE has neither a known nor an unknown reason or cause or explanation then that mere fact DOES NOT make it "inexplicable"? -yes or no?

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…But it is not a requirement of a phenomenon to have a cause (known or unknown) in order for it to be labelled "inexplicable" .
.…
Incorrect -if it has no unknown cause nor unknown reason of any kind then it is not "inexplicable".

…OR- It can be labelled inexplicable because it has NO CAUSE.
…. (my emphasis)

Do you mean no K ...[text shortened]... se or explanation then that mere fact DOES NOT make it "inexplicable"? -yes or no?[/b]

But if, as I suspect, you mean no UNKNOWN cause, then it would be peculiar and totally inappropriate to label that as “inexplicable” because there is no UNKNOWN cause yet to know and explain.
------------------hammy----------------------

Why do you keep thinking that's the "CAUSE" that I am saying is inexplicable. It's not the cause it's the thing itself.

A brute fact is inexplicable because it has no explanation or cannot be accounted for.

There is NOTHING in the definition of "inexplicable" that requires anything more than the thing being "incapable or explanation or of being accounted for".

Your argument is sound and fine and dandy but it's all unecessary and irrelevant. If something is incapable of being explained then it is "inexplicable" . That's all you need. The rest is just stuff you are adding on to the definition ad hoc.

Let's use the example of a quantum singularity . If it has no cause and it is a brute fact then it's "impossible to explain or account for it" - it is therefore inexplicable. Slam dunk. No further complications necessary.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But if, as I suspect, you mean no UNKNOWN cause, then it would be peculiar and totally inappropriate to label that as “inexplicable” because there is no UNKNOWN cause yet to know and explain.
------------------hammy----------------------

Why do you keep thinking that's the "CAUSE" that I am saying is inexplicable. It's not the cause it's the thing - it is therefore inexplicable. Slam dunk. No further complications necessary.

…It's not the cause it's the thing itself. .…

What does that mean? although the fact that 1+1=2 has an “explanation", does the fact that 1+1=2 does not have a “cause” make it intrinsically “inexplicable”?

The rest of your post answers non of my questions -I will never understand your position until if and when you answer questions (1) to (6). I would therefore appreciate very much if you would indulge me by reading and then very carefully analysing and then answering these 6 questions as your answers may shed light as to exactly where I fail to understand you 🙂

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…But it is not a requirement of a phenomenon to have a cause (known or unknown) in order for it to be labelled "inexplicable" .
.…
Incorrect -if it has no unknown cause nor unknown reason of any kind then it is not "inexplicable".

…OR- It can be labelled inexplicable because it has NO CAUSE.
…. (my emphasis)

Do you mean no K se or explanation then that mere fact DOES NOT make it "inexplicable"? -yes or no?[/b]

4, Do you also agree that it LOGICALLY follows from (2) and (3) that the mere fact that there must be at least one thing that is a brute fact is NOT "inexplicable" because it is deducible from logic? -yes or no?
------hammy--------------------

I think I understand your perception now. I agree that it is entirely logical that there must be one brute fact . I think the fact (F) that there must be such a brute fact (BF) is totally logical and deducible.

However , the fact that we can arrive at this point logically is irrelevant to the question of it (BF) being "inexplicable". Just because F can be logically deduced does not mean that BF has been explained. They are different issues.

Why ? You might ask. The reason is that the way a piece of information is arrived at is distinct from the information itself. For example , let's say that you could logically deduce (via process of elimination and evidence ) that a man had flown around the world on a plate of jelly. You could in theory arrive at a point where this could be deduced as very very probable and highly likely. BUT it would still leave you with a problem and a phenomena that cannot be explained.

The error you have made is that you have confused "being able to logically deduce" with "being able to explain or account for". These two are not the same. We can deduce that there must logically be a brute fact of existence , but this does not explain it or account for it. It only tells us that this must logically be true. But this is not the same as saying what must be logically true is actually logical. This is a cognitive error on your part.

In short just because one can logically explain how one arrives at a fact does not mean that the fact itself is explicable. All it means is that you can explain how you arrived at this deduction.

I can logically deduce from certain facts and reasoning that man X is going crazy. I can explain very clearly how I reached my conclusion. Does that mean that man X's behaviour is logical clear and explicable?

Similarly a mad scientist could chaotically arrive at a very clear and logical solution to a problem by random chance.

You are confusing F with BF and you have forgotten that they are not the same thing.

BF is inexplicable because you cannot explain why or how it exists. You can explain how you arrived at your deduction but not BF itself.

Originally posted by knightmeister
4, Do you also agree that it LOGICALLY follows from (2) and (3) that the mere fact that there must be at least one thing that is a brute fact is NOT "inexplicable" because it is deducible from logic? -yes or no?
------hammy--------------------

I think I understand your perception now. I agree that it is entirely logical that there must be one bru ...[text shortened]... or how it exists. You can explain how you arrived at your deduction but not BF itself.

…However , the fact that we can arrive at this point logically is irrelevant to the question of it (BF) being "inexplicable". Just because F can be logically deduced does not mean that BF has been explained.
.…

-but that is not what you always appear to be saying in your previous posts -you appear to have said that a brute fact is “inexplicable” merely BECAUSE of the fact that it has no cause/reason/explanation makes it “inexplicable”!!!
But if there must be, BY LOGIC, at least ONE brute fact, then that “BECAUSE” is no longer logically valid because there is nothing “inexplicable” about the mere fact that it has no cause/reason/explanation.

-but then that begs the question; if a brute fact is NOT “inexplicable” merely BECAUSE of the fact that it has no cause/reason/explanation, then why do you think it is “inexplicable”? -you say it is because it “isn’t explained”? -well, then that brings us back to the question of what is there to “explain” -you say it is the mere fact that you cannot “explain” the brute fact that makes it “inexplicable”

-but, and this is the critical question here that I hope you will answer:

how can it be “inexplicable” to NOT be able to “explain” a brute fact if LOGIC determines that, by the very definition of brute fact, the brute fact INEVITABLY cannot be explained!!!?

Now think very carefully about this above question -do you agree that if fact F is deducible from logic then fact F is not itself “inexplicable”?
If you agree, than you must logically understand (1) for the mere fact that a brute fact cannot be explained is just a tautology (i.e. true by definition) and thus NOT “inexplicable”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…However , the fact that we can arrive at this point logically is irrelevant to the question of it (BF) being "inexplicable". Just because F can be logically deduced does not mean that BF has been explained.
.…

-but that is not what you always appear to be saying in your previous posts -you appear to have said that a brute fact is “inexp ...[text shortened]... cannot be explained is just a tautology (i.e. true by definition) and thus NOT “inexplicable”.[/b]

how can it be “inexplicable” to NOT be able to “explain” a brute fact if LOGIC determines that, by the very definition of brute fact, the brute fact INEVITABLY cannot be explained!!!?

Now think very carefully about this above question -do you agree that if fact F is deducible from logic then fact F is not itself “inexplicable”?
If you agree, than you must logically understand (1) for the mere fact that a brute fact cannot be explained is just a tautology (i.e. true by definition) and thus NOT “inexplicable”.

---------------hammy-------------------------

I think what's basically happening here is we are misunderstanding each other.


Below is the key area of misunderstanding.....you think I am saying something I am not.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how can it be “inexplicable” to NOT be able to “explain” a brute fact if LOGIC determines that, by the very definition of brute fact, the brute fact INEVITABLY cannot be explained!!!? ---hammy-----
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not say that it is "inexplicable not to be able to explain" a brute fact. On the contrary , it is quite logical and proper that one is not able to explain a brute fact by definition (otherwise it would not be a brute fact).

In this we are in agreement. Now, just slow down and keep things simple. Let's try something else. Let's say that the brute fact of existence is that there is a huge ball of energy sitting in the centre of existence from which all physical laws eminate or originate.

This ball would be the "brute fact" of existence. The cause of all other causes yes? The ball would be the point at which we could go no further in our explanations or understandings because it would be uncaused.

Ok , so we might say to ourselves " the fact that this ball exists is exactly logical , we knew that there must be some brute fact of existence , and here it is "

Ok, but is this an explanation for why or how the ball exists? No , it is not. The fact that the ball exists is logical deducible. But the ball itself cannot be explained , we cannot say why it is there , it's an impossibility because it just IS. The ball (the BF) is inexplicable. The ball cannot be explained. We can explain why it is logical that the ball exists but we cannot explain the existence of the ball.

So unless you think that such a ball (if we found one) could be explained then you have to say that it is incapable of being explained. There's a word for something that cannot be explained ---INEXPLICABLE-----

My question to you is do you think that such a ball could be explained? If you don't then what would be your problem with calling the ball inexplicable?

Originally posted by knightmeister
how can it be “inexplicable” to NOT be able to “explain” a brute fact if LOGIC determines that, by the very definition of brute fact, the brute fact INEVITABLY cannot be explained!!!?

Now think very carefully about this above question -do you agree that if fact F is deducible from logic then fact F is not itself “inexplicable”?
If you agree, than ed? If you don't then what would be your problem with calling the ball inexplicable?

…Ok, but is this an explanation for why or how the ball exists? No , it is not. The fact that the ball exists is logical deducible. But the ball itself cannot be explained , we cannot say why it is there , it's an impossibility because it just IS. The ball (the BF) is inexplicable. The ball cannot be explained. We can explain why it is logical that the ball exists but we cannot explain the existence of the ball.

So unless you think that such a ball (if we found one) could be explained then you have to say that it is incapable of being explained.
.…

That is all correct -it cannot be “explained” because there is NO unknown explanation about a brute fact.

…There's a word for something that cannot be explained ---INEXPLICABLE-----
….

-not if there is no mystery to explain. I would agree that, generally, if something “cannot be explained” then there is USUALLY (but not always! ) a mystery there and thus it is USUALLY “INEXPLICABLE”.
BUT, in this context, we are specifically talking about brute facts and brute facts have no either known or unknown explanation by definition. Thus there is no “mystery” because to be a “mystery” there has to be an unknown explanation. And, and I hope you would agree with me here, in everyday conversations, when most people say “INEXPLICABLE” they are implying “mystery“
-this is why I think your use of the word “INEXPLICABLE” to describe brute facts is inappropriate.

(the above inadvertently answerers your next two questions)

For this reason, I would prefer this more specific definition for “INEXPLICABLE”:

inexplicable = something that cannot be explained because the reasons for it are as yet unknown .

-this definition would prevent this confusion because it clearly implies that there MUST exist some as yet unknown reasons for it for it to be “inexplicable“.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The word 'exist' can be difficult as we may use it to include only current events or to include the past as well. Maybe 'part of reality' is a better phrase. Of course relativity renders any concept of 'current events' rather problematic as there is no universal 'now'.

In the famous two slit experiment, a photon of light either takes one route or anoth ...[text shortened]... n in another dimension independent of time, or they may be simply 'brute facts'.

The book I used to start reading about Quantum mechanics actually started with the two split experiment to explain the uncertainty principle. And it was very interesting for me. Although it my readings didn't reach me to answer the questions raised by you at that time. The way you stated you statement about cause and "unknown cause" was so confusing to me. Any way the topic of quantum mechanics and quantum computing is an interesting topic and my be I will do some research in this topic after finishing my PhD.

The main problem here as you stated:
I just get upset whenever someone makes the unfounded claim that it is a known fact that the universe works in a cause effect fashion. There is simply no reason to assume that quantum events have a cause. They may, they may not. Their 'cause' may be in the past, in the future or even in another dimension independent of time, or they may be simply 'brute facts'.

For almost the same reason I get upset when someone refuse the claim that the universe works in a cause effect fashion just because there are some events that their cause is unknown.

As you can see both positions are equally possible, and valid. But as from out observation of the universe, it was always the case that every event has a cause, so when it comes to events that their cause is unknown that we assume that they follow the same faction until it is proven other wise.

So the assumption that those events have a cause that we don't know will remain valid until it is prover that a specific event doesn't have a cause. Why? because using observation we can't see an event without a cause. I hope that I made myself clear.

Originally posted by ahosyney
For almost the same reason I get upset when someone refuse the claim that the universe works in a cause effect fashion just because there are some events that their cause is unknown.

As you can see both positions are equally possible, and valid. But as from out observation of the universe, it was always the case that every event has a cause, so when it ...[text shortened]... cause is unknown that we assume that they follow the same faction until it is proven other wise.

Here you are stating that "But as from out observation of the universe, it was always the case that every event has a cause". That is a false statement that even you will admit is false. You do know that some events are not known to have causes. You even admit it in your next sentence.
I will give you some allowance for the fact that you are not a native English speaker, but you repeat the claim several times, so I can only assume that it is what you mean.

So the assumption that those events have a cause that we don't know will remain valid until it is prover that a specific event doesn't have a cause. Why? because using observation we can't see an event without a cause. I hope that I made myself clear.
It is wrong to make assumptions and even worse to base claims on assumptions. In other threads you and others have used the above assumption to make claims about the origin of the universe.
Since the vast majority of events are not known to have a cause, I find it totally unreasonable to make the assumption that all events do. I equally would consider it wrong to simply assume that some events have no cause - I think the question should be left open until some indicator one way or another comes to light.

However it must be noted that certain laws of physics such as Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle essentially claim that for certain events we cannot know the cause.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Ok, but is this an explanation for why or how the ball exists? No , it is not. The fact that the ball exists is logical deducible. But the ball itself cannot be explained , we cannot say why it is there , it's an impossibility because it just IS. The ball (the BF) is inexplicable. The ball cannot be explained. We can explain why it is logical tha ...[text shortened]... implies that there MUST exist some as yet unknown reasons for it for it to be “inexplicable“.

That is all correct -it cannot be “explained” because there is NO unknown explanation about a brute fact. ----------------------------------------------------------hammy----------------------------------------------

...and my point is that it doesn't matter whether there exists an explanation or not (known or unknown)

That's your problem. The definition of inexplicable is simple (apart from the one you are concocting for yourself).

If something is incapable of explanation (for whatever reason) then it is inexplicable. My imaginary ball fits that description.

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHY IT IS INEXPLICABLE.

It 's like something that something is not red because the reason it's red is because someone painted it. Who cares why it is red - It's RED!!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…Ok, but is this an explanation for why or how the ball exists? No , it is not. The fact that the ball exists is logical deducible. But the ball itself cannot be explained , we cannot say why it is there , it's an impossibility because it just IS. The ball (the BF) is inexplicable. The ball cannot be explained. We can explain why it is logical tha ...[text shortened]... implies that there MUST exist some as yet unknown reasons for it for it to be “inexplicable“.

inexplicable = something that cannot be explained because the reasons for it are as yet unknown .

-this definition would prevent this confusion because it clearly implies that there MUST exist some as yet unknown reasons for it for it to be “inexplicable“.[WORD TOO LONG]

Which is all fine and dandy but unless you can find a widely accepted defintion of inexplicable that matches your definition then it's no good. You can make up your own definition if you like , but the way I am defining the word "inexplicable" fits the generally accepted definition of the word.

My understanding is that your definition is unique and made up.

I feel entirely justified in refuting your definition because it is eccentric and ad hoc. and does not match the dictionary definition.

What do you have to say about this?

Originally posted by knightmeister
How do you know that there exists an “ultimate truth”?
-----------hammy----------------------------

Myabe you think there is no ultimate truth at all and that all talk of ultimates or certainty is false? Maybe you think that truth is relative and not ultimate and that there can be no certainty?

The problem is that if you think this then I migh ...[text shortened]... truth - that is the ultimate truth of existence , namely , that there is no ultimate truth.

Even if there is no ultimate truth - that is the ultimate truth of existence , namely , that there is no ultimate truth.

Could you be any more blatantly contradictory?

Also, I would like some clarification on what constitutes an 'ultimate' truth. For instance, what conditions would suffice to make a truth an ultimate truth? Is there something that confers the ultimacy?

Originally posted by knightmeister
But if, as I suspect, you mean no UNKNOWN cause, then it would be peculiar and totally inappropriate to label that as “inexplicable” because there is no UNKNOWN cause yet to know and explain.
------------------hammy----------------------

Why do you keep thinking that's the "CAUSE" that I am saying is inexplicable. It's not the cause it's the thing ...[text shortened]... - it is therefore inexplicable. Slam dunk. No further complications necessary.

If it has no cause and it is a brute fact then it's "impossible to explain or account for it" - it is therefore inexplicable.

Under your libertarian construal, do you consider instances of free will to be inexplicable?

Originally posted by knightmeister
That is all correct -it cannot be “explained” because there is NO unknown explanation about a brute fact. ----------------------------------------------------------hammy----------------------------------------------

...and my point is that it doesn't matter whether there exists an explanation or not (known or unknown)

That's your problem. The def ...[text shortened]... se the reason it's red is because someone painted it. Who cares why it is red - It's RED!!

It 's like something that something is not red because the reason it's red is because someone painted it.

You lost me. 🙄