| Subject: Re: proof |
Author:
Adrian
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03:02:28 05/23/03 Fri
In reply to:
Dena
's message, "Re: Dumb poll because I don't want to do work" on 21:54:48 05/14/03 Wed
>Actually, how does anyone prove that anyone exists to
>begin with?
Proof means to demonstrate that something is so, to a rigorous enough level that the audience believes that it is so.
"What constitutes a proof?" is an interesting question in mathematics. The four-color mapping problem was proved by a computer analysis of hundreds of possible configurations. The analysis showed that every possible configuration could be proved. Mathematicians debated whether these really were all possible cases and whether this strategy of "proof by computer exhaustion" really constituted a mathematical proof.
Proofs are considered proofs because they are irrefutable and logically consistent. Given certain axioms, it necessarily follows that X is so.
In order to prove that someone exists, you must accept certain axioms, and show that the person's existence follows from those axioms.
Descartes said, "I think therefore I am." This is based on the proposition that if an entity can think, then it must exist.
Critics can call it circular logic. The premise "If an entity thinks" *already* assumes that there *is* an entity, even before you get to the conclusion. The very use of the word "I" already assumes that there is an "I". Descartes is using the assumption that there is an entity called him, and that entity thinks, therefore it exists.
The question "Do I exist?" is rather circular. A more appropriate question would be, "Is there an I?".
Certainly, other people in the world act as if there is an entity called you. Does the fact that other people believe it mean that it is true? No, people believe a lot of false propositions.
Certainly, there is a human body that is spatially associated with you. More specifically, it's billions of cells, each containing their own cellular material and DNA. In fact, your cells are almost identical to your relatives' cells. If you have an identical twin or a clone, then some of your cells may be exactly identical to that person's.
What percentage of cells must be distinct from your twin's before you are separate people? 25%? 90%? At least one distinct cell?
What happens if you and your identical twin have 100% the same cells, no biological difference whatsoever? Then we get into concepts of soul and consciousness. Theologians say that you have different souls. Psychologists say that you have different consciousnesses.
How do you prove that a soul exists? It's difficult to prove. :)
Carl Sagan: "What if I proved to you that reincarnation does not exist?"
Dalai Lama: "We would abandon it. We would disown it. We would denounce it. Now, how are you going to prove that reincarnation does not exist?"
Carl Sagan: Shocked. No answer.
If you do prove something, and no one ever hears or believes your proof, have you really proved it? It's a "tree falls in the forest" question.
The question of existence is based on belief, not on proof. Proof is a logical method of establishing belief. I can demonstrate to you that, under the rules of addition, 2 + 2 = 4, but if you refuse to believe me, have I really proved it to you?
No. You have to believe that something is so. Ideally, you base your belief upon evidence.
If you want to investigate the nature of your existence, you must do that within yourself. No one else can prove to you that you exist. Just because they present a sound argument, that doesn't mean they're right. If you start believing or disbelieving the nature of existence based solely on what somebody else says, you might as well join David Koresh's Waco cult and call him the messiah.
It is unwise to be a philosophical lemming that believes propositions about existence just because Person Y tells you so. You can only "prove" to yourself whether you do or do not exist. It cannot be done between people. That is just persuasion and agreement.
It has to be an ontological experience. "Look within yourself and see if it is so."
Unfortunately, parents don't like to pay for college while you're too busy having ontological meditations. :) So don't read my post and go off into a straw hut. :)
Having said all that, listening to other people's arguments can guide your search, but it should not determine it.
No one was ever called beautiful or ugly before there was somebody else with which to compare. If there was only one person (say Adam), there would be no such thing as "beautiful" or "ugly." Yet Adam would have a body, and when Eve was created, she would have a biological response to Adam's body either one way or the other. It is only by the presence of Eve that Adam can investigate the question of whether he is beautiful or ugly. However, Adam should not take Eve's word at its face. He should hear what she has to say, think about it, and look within himself for his answer.
Ultimately, it is Adam himself who determines his beauty. :)
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 