Absolutism - follow up 2

I don't think this people have a clue about the so called law of induction. Just because everything we know had a cause, doesn't mean that every other thing has a cause. Coming to such conclusions is just another belief, a belief in the "law of induction".

I think he should read Hume:

Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive inferences? He presents an argument in the form of a dilemma which appears to rule out the possibility of any reasoning from the premises to the conclusion of an inductive inference.

Besides, the act of a coin flip may be by some one, but the turning out to be head, or tail for that matter, has no cause, and that's why it is random - without any "thing" making the choice. But a classical coin is not a purely random thing, so the "coin" I'm talking about is the Quantum coin - an example would be spin state of an electron.

Either way, belief in god or in things like the law of induction, is ultimately a belief, not a fact.



But I think I've a solution, an answer to Hume's discarding of the "law of induction":

Ok, so let's say that some "thing" has been happening and has been true for much, or rather all, of our observation. So, this thing is kind of permanent and valid and is a law-like thing, a thing that's been consistent, permanently asserting it's truth. Now, why should this be true in the next step? Why trust in inductive reasoning or induction?

Well, the answer to this lie in the ideas involved in the "State[ment]verse:
https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/statementverse.html
https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-nature-of-nature.html


For convenience, let's call the statement that's been consistently and permanently true, as "A". Now A has been true forever, i.e. to this point. [By the way, up to this point is referred to as "forever", because the time that's experienced or that exists is up to here, the "ever" is up to here, this moment].

Now, discarding, or rather questioning, "induction" with respect to A means that we cannot be certain of the truth or application of A as far as the next step is concerned. [By the way, according to ideas involved in "State[ment]verse", since only the "present" state exists and is true with respect to the present state, A cannot be inductively held as applicable or as true even in the past. But anyway, that's another topic].

Now, there is no reason for A to be true here onward. So, even some B (not A or "Not" of A) can be true. Discarding A would suggest supporting "Not A" i.e. some B. But we aren't completely discarding A here. It's just that A may not be true, it's not that A will definitely not be true or that B/Not-A will definitely be true. So A maybe true but may not be i.e. A may be true or B may be true. There's no guarantee/certainty.

But here's a thing: That A is not necessarily true with respect to the "next step/moment/event", means that A may be true, B may be true. These two complement each other. For A true B is false, for A false B is true. So, A/"A is true (or exists) the next step" is B/"B is not true the next step", B/"B is true the next step" is A/"A is not true the next step".  So, A being not-B and B being not-A, A is non-existence of B, B is non-existence of A. So, with the next step, A exists/B doesn't exist, A doesn't exist/B exists, B exists/A doesn't exist, B doesn't exist/A exists. A complements B, and they nullify each other.

In simple words, the argument that A cannot be certainly true the next moment inherently, though not explicitly, means some B (not A) could be true the next moment. But we can argue back that, just as not A, B can be true next moment, not B (A) can also be true. Yes, A may not be true, but A may be true. Nothing guarantees A (not B) be necessarily true, but nothing guarantees B (not A) necessarily be true either. One cannot definitely say "A cannot be true next moment", just like one cannot say "B cannot be true next moment". So, the argument that "one cannot definitely say 'A can be true next moment'", is balanced by the argument that "one cannot say 'B can be true next moment'". 

So, what remains? What remains is that what exists, this moment. A is true here, and all we can speak for is what exists or what is real, not what is not. So, there is nothing one can say about the "next moment" (or that "moment before" for that matter). The "other", i.e. other than or with respect to what exist doesn't exist. So to say this and that about what doesn't exist with respect to what exist, about non-existence, is foolish. To say this and that about what doesn't exist, is to claim that exists and that "this" and "that" about that exists, when in fact that doesn't. So, doing so would clearly be a lie. One cannot claim anything about non-existence because it does not exist and hence the claim cannot be proven true. To claim such is to say non-existence exists. 

But it can be said with guarantee about what exists. Anyway, this tendency of ours to fall for such claims about what doesn't exist, is an attempt to expand oneself or one's existence beyond existence (itself), and with an eventual goal to become ever existent (immortal) or move in that direction and climb that "ladder of immortality". 
Examples of  such tendency are everywhere: The idea of "Fundamental laws of nature", the foundational principles/axioms of mathematics, logic, reason, god, etc. Detail is discussed here:
https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/08/absolutism-search-for-absolute.html
https://dhiresh114.blogspot.com/2021/08/absolutism-follow-up-1.html



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Absolutism – The search for the Absolute

I often ask myself, what? why?, I can find many hows, so hows are not primary for me. It is the easiest among them. No matter what the answer is, or how many answers there are, it all fades to insignificance. What does not fade in insignificance is the question itself. It stands strong and proud as ever. Trying to find the answer, the search has always been for an answer. The answer that is supposedly nothing but that is expected to be the representation of the Absolute – that which is invariant, immortal, Permanent. But everything, every answer fades and is temporary, goes extinct, vanishes into nothing, into insignificance. The ‘answer’ that was supposed to express and teach immortality, itself fades to non-existence, itself consumed by death so to speak. Never ever came to realization, that the Question that has been staring at me, and that I’ve been staring at, is the one that has never abandoned me. It has always stood there facing the answer that were supposed to destroy it, and,...
Read more

NOTHING = EVERYTHING

Image
What is Everything? Let me define everything as such: Everything is that which ‘exists’. It is that which is ‘real’. It is the ‘state’. Existence is experience, it is measure, it is ‘state’. So, for state A, A exists. For state B, state B exists, and so on. Now, does state B and/or state C and/or any state ‘not A’, exist for A? The answer is that for any state A, the state, any state, ‘not A’ or ‘A complement’, is absolutely undefined. One cannot say that “B exists for A”, one cannot say “B doesn’t exist for A”. So for state A, state A is everything, it is the universe for itself. For state B, state B is everything/universe, and so on. So, ‘everything’ is not absolute, it’s relative. Now, of course, for state A, state A is absolute, it is ‘absolute everything’ for itself. For B, B is ‘absolute everything’, and so on. The thing that needs to pointed out is that, any state is quantized. State is a quantized entity. It cannot be reduced to any smaller parts. It is the smallest entity, and...
Read more

On the nature of Nature

Image
  ON THE NATURE OF NATURE We have been discussing about the design and developing new and clearer theories that we think can precisely define the nature of nature. We have been trying to explain her grand creation on the basis of the observations or events that take place around us. We are doing so from the beginning of our human history. We observe, explain, predict and test. The explanation sometime and in some condition agrees and sometime in some other condition disagrees or fails. But still we are confident that we can describe nature of nature in a way that is certain by making a realization that our views still lack something. Today we are known about many subjects of nature but still we believe there is a perfect model that perfectly explains the design of nature. Is keeping such belief a mistake? Nature on the fundamental level has no law. Nature demands not to act in any certain perfect way or pattern. There is no any limitation to how nature can act. Nature is absolutely...
Read more