I find it intellectually dishonest for her to post responses on a static webpage to a discussion that was dynamic, as it does not leave room for me to rebut those remarks on the static page. Here is my rebuttal. Hopefully the page will have an additional addendum at the bottom with this (or at the very least a link to this page stating "For Trick's rebuttal on my statements click here":
TRICK0171's RESPONSE TO THE PREFACE
This discussion with Youtuber, trick0171, is about certainty, or absolute knowledge. trick1071 takes a position that nothing can be known with certainty, one that is common in the scientific community, largely as a result from the false philosophical slant given to quantum indeterminism.
trick1071 is an intelligent fellow, but his intelligence has cursed him with the ability to create definite categories entirely from the scientific mindset of speculation. He will state things that he believes are true, but deny that these are true, because "truth" is something entirely other than what human minds can conceive. It is basically the same kind of mindset as priests, who state that only Christ can know the truth, and therefore, they priests can never lie.
I decided to publish the discussion, which unfolded as comments to variablast's video A slice of reasonable certainty, partly to show trick0171 that the discussion would keep going in circles, because he would always state things that he believed to be absolutely true, and yet insist that nothing he was stating could ever be called absolutely true; partly to show others that science has indeed become a religion.
N.B. I have used my thinker's licence to insert comments occasionally. They're in small text, and indented. trick0171 raised many points along the way that I decided to ignore, owing to the need to focus on the basics, but I have taken the opportunity of this letter to address a few of them. Most of them are little jokes.
"one that is common in the scientific community, largely as a result from the false philosophical slant given to quantum indeterminism."
This has nothing at all to do with our conversation. Just a side note on this unrelated topic: I consider myself a determinist as I find indeterminism (in the sense of causal indeterminism) unlikely. I also do not believe in any notions of free will. Another fun topic for another time.
"but his intelligence has cursed him with the ability to create definite categories entirely from the scientific mindset of speculation."
Not at all. My ideas about absolute knowledge have NOTHING to do with the method of science at all.
"He will state things that he believes are true, but deny that these are true, because "truth" is something entirely other than what human minds can conceive."
Again FALSE. I do not deny anything is true. I deny that we can have absolute knowledge of what is true. We are talking about KNOWLEDGE here - not truth. You seem to confuse these much.
"It is basically the same kind of mindset as priests, who state that only Christ can know the truth, and therefore, they priests can never lie."
SERIOUSLY? you are SERIOUSLY making this claim? Yours is closer to this because you are making the positive EXTRAORDINARY CLAIM that "absolute knowledge" exists. My claim is that the burden of proof is on you for this.
"that the discussion would keep going in circles, because he would always state things that he believed to be absolutely true, and yet insist that nothing he was stating could ever be called absolutely true"
This is my very contention about YOUR stance. You will always state that you can have absolute knowledge that A=A (which depends on the logic axiom), but you are using that very axiom to derive that you can have absolute knowledge. It is your reasoning that is circular here. Mine is not because I understand what an axiom is.
"partly to show others that science has indeed become a religion"
I hardly apply any science in our debate, so it is odd you would state this claim.
"N.B. I have used my thinker's licence to insert comments occasionally. They're in small text, and indented. trick0171 raised many points along the way that I decided to ignore, owing to the need to focus on the basics, but I have taken the opportunity of this letter to address a few of them. Most of them are little jokes."
I find them very distasteful, particularly because they are on a static page that will not change. I cannot rebut these silly comments on such a static page, so it is intellectually dishonest to place them there. I am now going to rebut each comment and hopefully you will add my rebuttal to the end of the static page as an addendum. Either that or remove them and just point to this thread.
TRICK0171 Entirely nonsensical IN ANY WAY THAT IS LOGICAL.
trick0171: Of course. I totally agree. Any god that self-contradicts itself such as the Christian god is entirely nonsensical in any way that is logical. Of course you know that most agnostics are agnostic to all god definitions. Some definitions are even more improbable than others due to how they are defined - and all are so improbable that it is not worth considering. Agnosticism is more of a philosophical stance on knowledge.
KELLYJONES00 Entirely nonsensical.... is that absolutely nonsensical, or only probably nonsensical, there?
trick0171: I'm saying we can never have absolute knowledge. I'm saying we can only have probable knowledge. Does this help? I don't think we are disagreeing here. Or are you disagreeing that we can have probable knowledge as well?
KELLYJONES00 Who is we? Is trick0171 referring to absolutely everyone, and saying it is absolutely certain that everyone everywhere can have only probable knowledge.....? If he is saying it is only probable that everyone is unable to know anything with absolute certainty, then he has left room for at least one person that may know something with absolute certainty sometime - by his own reasoning.
TRICK0171 Hohummm - I already said this how many times now. I am not saying I am "absolutely certain", but rather in the confines of what is LOGICAL.My reasoning does not leave much room, but I cannot be absolutely certain of my reasoning.
TRICK0171 Your quote: "Also, trick0171, it's not logically possible to say that "a thing is what it is" is based on perceived reality."
trick0171: I never said that "a thing is what it is" is based on percieved reality. I said our KNOWLEDGE that a thing is what it is is based on our perceived reality. A very important distinction. In other words "a thing is what it is" may very well be a truth, and I have no doubt it PROBABLY is a universal truth. If reality is what it seems to us, it most certainly is a truth. We cannot know that reality is what it seems to us, and therefore we cannot say we have absolute knowledge that it is a truth.
KELLYJONES00 Check again.
I believe my stance has been "Since I am forced to recognize this is axiomatic - I cannot have absolute knowledge." all along. So tell me where I am addressing the Truth of "a thing is what it is" and not the Knowledge of "a thing is what it is", because I do not see it.
TRICK0171 Yes, the quote "to say something is probable requires absolute knowledge" is indeed a mansion of mirth.
trick0171: "to say something is probable requires absolute knowledge"
No it does not.
KELLYJONES00 A mansion of mirth?
trick1071 starts to play intellectual games. He can know stuff, but can never know truths, he state emphatically, and yet - miraculously - he can define truths!
I am not playing intellectual games (and such a poor ad-hom type mischaracterization requires proof). My definition of truth only applies to my logical system. I can never have ABSOLUTE knowledge of truths, that is what we are discussing - right?
TRICK0171 Your quote: "If you really wanted to say everything was probable,and really understand that deep in your mind, you'd not even be able to say, "I don't know", because even this would require certainty of lack of knowledge."
trick0171: I said possible - NOT probable. I know I am repeating myself a lot here, but we can only accept the axiom of our perceived reality - which I indeed do. From that point on is where I derive my "knowledge" from - but due to this, it can never be absolute.
KELLYJONES00 Where did he say possible?
None of my statements on "probability" concluded that everything was "probable" (meaning equally as likely). So per your quote above, everything I suggested prior to the comment is that everything was POSSIBLE, not probable. The probabilities I mention had to do entirely with the likeliness given the axiom of our reality.
TRICK0171 I never said that I could have a logical debate without relying on A=A. The point I am addressing is that A=A either relies on an axiom (reagarding logic) or is aximatic itself, and therefore we (per the logic I am able to use) cannot have absolute knowledge of it.
trick0171: I know it seems hard for you to fathom, but even me thinking "I do not know", does not mean that "I do not know" with absolute certainty, even though it sounds absurd logically. It assumes I am understanding the word "I" the word "don't" and the word "know". It assumes I have an idea of what "know" is and that the idea about "knowing" is correct. It assumes I have language, and that language is meaningful. It assumes I exist. It assumes a certain construct of reality. Etc, etc, etc...
KELLYJONES00 The only argument trick0171 can make is to present an alternative to truth, that is not based on A=A. But he can't, because presenting an alternative will always rely on A=A. This isn't a limitation of a perceived reality, or of reality, or of perception; it is literally impossible everywhere for there to be something that is not.
"it is literally impossible everywhere for there to be something that is not."
Again, you make an illogical leap tp this conclusion.
trick1071 decisively defines absolute knowledge and absolute truth as things that can never be attained by consciousness, apparently a definition that applies absolutely...
AGAIN - SERIOUSLY?? This is getting very repetative. I am not applying ANYTHING I say "absolutely", only logically.
TRICK0171 It may be "true definitively", but we cannot know that with absolute certainty.
trick0171: I never said no one's knowledge can be ultimately true, just that we cannot know if our knowledge is ultimately true. I think this is an important part. But you are right - lets focus on one thing at a time here.
KELLYJONES00 So, is it true definitively that no one can ever know, anywhere in the Universe, that they can know that they know anything that is ultimately true?
TRICK0171 My conviction has a LOGICAL bases. I am confident of it. This does NOT mean I can be absolutely certain of it. Understand that not having absolute certainty does not mean I cannot have "human knowledge" given the axiom of my reality.
trick0171: "is the simple basic truth that "a thing is a thing"." Sorry, but you need to justify the claim that it is a simple basic truth when talking about absolute certainty. It is a simple basic truth given (and I will repeat this again) the assumption that reality is how it appears to us.
"[A=A] is the essence of truth."
No, that is not the essence of truth.
KELLYJONES00 How can he state anything about truth with such direct conviction, given his views? Perhaps he is still formulating his views, and this entire conversation is a burbling of bubbles from an uncooked meal? If so, trick0171 lacks integrity, for someone who has a relationship to truth would admit as much.
TRICK0171 There are areas that I have given some attitude, this was not one of them. I can point to comments of yours where you appear to give the same type of attitude, including some of these little sarcastic quipps you have just made. Most attitude I give is usually a play off of the person I am debating, so do understand that it is usually a reflection of your own "attitude" (or at least my perception of it)
trick0171: Good, because we should only use the word "truth" for the "truth that is" and call the value we obtain through deduction reasoning something else - at least for this debate. It is important we do not confuse words.
Lets talk about the assumption of "without truth, there is no truths", because, though I agree with this, I would say I only agree because it is intuitive and what we consider axiomatic. My claim is not that the statement "Without the LOI, there is no "reality is how it appears" is untrue; my claim is that we cannot know it to be true with absolute certainty.
KELLYJONES00 Damn, I almost got him to drop that silly attitude.
OK - On to the continuation of our debate here: