[MD] Probability

[Case]

> [Case]
> No, I have said repeatedly, is it True beyond a reasonable doubt that
> there is no Absolute Truth. This is not an Absolute Statement. It is a
> statement of probability that allows for the possibility that an
> Absolute Truth could come knocking on the door. One more time only
> slowly here: It is true by the standards of truth set by courts of law
> and the scientific community that nothing is absolutely true. But both
> allow for the possibility of error or falsifiability.  

[Platt]
Ah. Now it comes out plainly for all to see. Case's standards of truth 
are the courts and the scientific community. Since THEY say nothing is 
absolutely true, therefore nothing is absolutely true. This is called 
TRUTH BY AUTHORITY. One might as well cite the Church as an authority 
on truth, as indeed millions on this planet do.  

I don't know about what Pirsig thinks about the courts, but he said 
this about science: "Intellectuals . . . know what they're talking and 
writing about, because what they say isn't culturally relative. What 
they say is absolute. This is because intellectuals follow science, 
which is objective." ( Lila, 22) 

Once again we see the contradiction. Objective science is absolutely 
certain that nothing is absolutely certain.

[Case]
Once again what we see is Platt's absolute failure to understand the issues
at hand. The standards of truth promoted by Law and Science are neither
Absolute nor Subject to Authority. They would more properly be seen as Truth
by consensus. 
   
> [Platt]
Are you really claiming that you are a brain in a vat? Are you 
seriously suggesting your memory was implanted by clever demons? Your 
asking for proof in this context is like me asking what proof do you 
have that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Really Case, have you 
abandoned reason and experience completely?

[Case]
No, but I am saying I can not "Prove" absolutely that you are not a brain in
a vat. I submit that you can't either.

> [Platt]
How do you know with certainty that NOW is the moment of absolute 
certainty if the NOW is inaccessible to us? 

[Case]
I would set this up as a truth by definition. Ham pulls this move at the
drop of a hat. Most of Ham's posts are about defining and redefining things
that either don't exist or are irrelevant except to his scheme of things. 

I confess, it really does make my palms sweat. But as Gödel points out it
can't be avoided. I have acknowledged several times in the past that I
accept certain things to be true on faith. But I would prefer to make a leap
of faith over a speed bump than off a cliff.

I would also point out that this spot where I choose to make my leap of
faith is pretty far back. Euclid starts with a Point in space. I would claim
that when he moves to the second dimension. That is two points making a line
he has actually created a third dimension. Having even two points implies a
temporal dimension. I just bring this up because we typically think of Time
as the fourth dimension but I am saying it is the first.

[Case]
> I said that we as organisms have evolved a nervous system that records
> and constructs a representation of the physical world.

[Platt]
You seem to be absolutely certain about that. Don't you see that you 
keep making statements of certainty, then deny there is any certainty?

[Case]
I am saying this is a highly probable account of what is going on. I have
said nothing about its certainly. It has high Quality idea. I am saying I
think it is this way and if you could think of why it is not I would be
interested in hearing why.

> [Case]
> Yes but you do not understand Gödel. And to anticipate your response: I
> have explained the significance of this at least three times to you.
> Perhaps you should do a bit of homework. 

[Platt]
Are you saying that because logic cannot prove it's own validity that  
logic is something we should pay no attention to? Maybe we should 
ignore all mathematics for the same reason. C'mon Case. Do you really 
want us to ignore self-contradictory statements? How about you doing a 
little homework in Logic 101. 

[Case]
No, we should pay attention to it. But we should recognize its limitations
and its value. It is excellent for checking our work but it does not produce
new ideas. It is not a creative process.

I have not made any self contradictory statements. By the way, Gödel's
Theorem is accepted as part of mathematics. It is not just what some guy
says. He offered up a formal proof and it is accepted by mathematicians
everywhere.
 
[Platt]
Appreciation is a two way street. Haven't seen much toward
this side. But, as I've learned, that's to be expected.

[Case]
Indeed it is a two way street. This was a higher quality response from you
than usual. But you still don't show much in the way of understanding the
issues.