The Epistemic Communication Dilemma Why Infinite Consequences Require Perfect Communication My Personal Argument

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
,
1

The Epistemic Communication Dilemma

Why Infinite Consequences Require Perfect Communication

This argument proceeds deductively. It begins from a general principle of justice rather than from any particular religious doctrine. Theological claims are introduced only after the general principle has been established. Consequently, the argument applies to any system assigning permanent consequences based upon communicated obligations.

Definitions

Justice: A consequence is just only if the individual had a fair opportunity to understand the obligations whose violation incurs that consequence.

Responsibility: The degree to which an individual may justly be held accountable for an action.

Understanding: Accurate comprehension of the obligations imposed upon an individual.

Perfect Communication: The transmission of information between entities without ambiguity, interpretation, or inference.

Infinite Consequence: A consequence that is permanent or eternal and cannot be reversed or compensated.

Principle of Epistemic Justice

The justification for assigning responsibility depends upon the recipient’s justified understanding of the relevant obligations.

Therefore:

- Greater consequences require greater justification.

- Greater justification requires greater certainty that the recipient understood the obligation.

- Greater certainty requires greater communicative clarity.

Thus:

The required clarity of communication is proportional to the severity of the consequences for misunderstanding.

The Recursive Ambiguity of Language

Natural language cannot achieve perfect communication.

Reason:

1. Any statement admits multiple interpretations.

2. Any clarification is itself another statement.

3. That clarification likewise admits multiple interpretations.

4. Therefore every clarification generates the possibility of further clarification.

5. This recursion has no termination point.

Consequently, no finite written language can eliminate all ambiguity.

The Communication Dilemma

Assume:

1. God is omniscient.

2. God is omnipotent.

3. God is perfectly good.

4. Eternal condemnation exists.

5. Eternal condemnation depends upon correctly understanding divine obligations.

6. Divine obligations are communicated through finite language.

Then:

7. Infinite consequences require perfect communicative clarity.

8. Perfect communicative clarity cannot be achieved through finite language.

9. Therefore finite language cannot serve as a sufficient basis for justly assigning eternal condemnation.

These premises cannot all be maintained simultaneously.

At least one premise must therefore be rejected or modified.

Possible resolutions include rejecting:

- eternal condemnation,

- the sufficiency of scripture or language,

- the necessity of correct doctrinal understanding,

- or one or more traditional divine attributes.

Extension: Private Revelation

Suppose scripture is supplemented by private revelation, spiritual guidance, or internal experience.

Such revelation must satisfy two conditions:

1. It must reliably distinguish genuine revelation from ordinary human cognition.

2. It must be publicly verifiable or otherwise provide a reliable method for distinguishing correct interpretations from incorrect ones.

If no such method exists, then competing claims of revelation remain epistemically indistinguishable.

Therefore private revelation does not eliminate the communication dilemma.

Rejection versus Misunderstanding

Two distinct possibilities exist.

Rejection

The recipient correctly understands the obligation but freely refuses to comply.

Misunderstanding

The recipient never correctly understands the obligation.

Only rejection can justly ground punishment for disobedience.

If misunderstanding cannot be reliably eliminated, then no observer can reliably distinguish rejection from misunderstanding.

Therefore eternal condemnation cannot be justly assigned whenever misunderstanding remains a genuine possibility.

Conclusion

Justice requires responsibility.

Responsibility requires understanding.

Understanding requires communication.

Communication sufficient to justify infinite consequences requires perfect clarity.

Perfect clarity cannot be achieved through finite language.

Therefore any theological system that simultaneously affirms divine omniscience, omnipotence, perfect goodness, eternal condemnation, and revelation through inherently ambiguous language bears the burden of resolving this epistemic inconsistency.

Either:

- eternal condemnation does not exist,

- divine revelation must occur through a non-ambiguous medium,

- correct doctrinal understanding is not the basis of judgment,

- or one or more assumptions concerning divine perfection must be abandoned.

This constitutes the Communication Dilemma for Eternal Condemnation.

1 Like
2

Our existence is an imperfect one and humanity was introduced into creation in the very beginning knowing nothing at all.

As such it is no surprise the systems we create are imperfect as a direct result.

Certainly there is room for improvement concerning our morality, ethics, and conceptualizations of justice.

Will there ever be a perfected human logic or pure reason? I have my doubts on all that.

:clown_face:

3

Why such negativity?

I would suggest that they knew how to survive. After all humanity is still here.

The reason the systems human beings create that are imperfect is because those systems are created for the Wrong reasons.

Once you human beings learn how to look at and see 'the world/the Universe’s properly and Correctly, then this when the the True improvement actually begins.

Yes

you are back to negativity.

By the way, everything human beings have created was once doubted, by someone.

1 Like
Honesty & Openness
4

Didn’t read all of the OP, but this reminds me of “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”. In actuality, all that is required is that they are the best explanation of the data/evidence.

Still you are conflating explanation with results.

The end does not justify the means because the means/data demonstrate the end/explanation, not vice versa.

Recognition of personhood is the reality all persons (except original) are born into — we choose to stay in that recognition or diverge from it by giving more value/recognition to some persons over others. Divergence/distortion causes dissonance/pain/suffering we attempt to resolve, similar to attempts to resolve hunger and other pains tied to needs. Restoration and building of resonance causes consonance/pleasure/joy. Or whatever words are better.

5

To begin, I found your argument very compelling and very well written. However, I noticed that no one has yet to engage with your argument. To engage, even though I agree, it doesn’t make me biased towards your statements being well written. I find a lot of philosophical writing is written very poorly and as Hume says, is pure sophistry. People like to say things in a complicated way when they can’t say it simply, so to put things simply, I think that your argument is further strengthened when looking to Locke for his views on ideas and the nature of knowledge. I find it very difficult to argue against the idea that there isn’t such a communication problem for everything because following Locke’s view, we can only have our own ideas of other people’s ideas, so even if somehow we were able to communicate as clearly as possible and even if everyone were to seem to be in agreement with the usage of terms and their hyper specific definitions, it would still be impossible to account for misunderstanding because we can never know the ideas of others and only our ideas of them, which of course are entirely dependent on how the person communicates those ideas. I do ask though, to further to discussion, due to the purpose of communication being shared meaning, do you think that we ever achieve shared meaning? And if so, do you think that we can ever achieve shared meaning to the extent that it would solve this communication problem of misunderstanding that you have described?

1 Like
6

To overcome any so-called “problem” of misunderstanding is to just want to seek out and obtain clarification itself. With clarity misunderstanding does not exist.

For example, we can never know the colours of others and only our ideas of colours, but this never means that misunderstanding has to exist.

If fact, through this example it can be very clearly demonstrated what ‘truth’ is based upon and how ‘truth’ is achieved, understood, and known exactly. Thus, further reducing the misunderstandings that existed in the days when this is being written.

2 Likes
7

I think we achieve shared meaning to a functional degree but never perfectly. Human language is fundamentally symbolic. It doesn’t transmit experiences directly; it transmits representations that each individual reconstructs internally. We can continually reduce ambiguity through refinement, but every clarification is itself another symbolic representation requiring interpretation. The only hypothetical way I can imagine approaching true shared meaning would be direct transmission of mental states rather than symbols, something analogous to a neural interface that could encode and decode thought itself. Whether even that would completely eliminate misunderstanding is uncertain, because it raises further questions about whether subjective experience itself can be perfectly shared. In that sense, I remain hopeful but skeptical.

1 Like
8

How do you determine that a clarification has been correctly understood rather than merely producing another interpretation requiring further clarification?

1 Like
9

I agree that the solution to misunderstanding is found through seeking clarity, but you would have to find a way to know with certainty that the clarity you have is entirely accurate and not just that it seems to be accurate as you act on what you think you are certain of. This is a part of the problem of having knowledge or knowing anything at all. I would say that personally, I think that to know something, you have to not only believe it to be true, then the reasons you have for believing it also have to be true, and they cannot just happen to be true. A good example hypothetical that explains what I mean is this, let’s say that you are in a car driving past a field. In this field you see what looks like a sheep. This ‘sheep’ is in fact not a sheep, but is a dog that looks, acts, and perfectly resembles a sheep. It even has a speaker attached to it that is hidden within the fake wool coat that then plays sheep sounds so you hear a sheep as well. Let’s say that in this same field, there is a sheep hidden behind a rock that is large enough to where you cannot see behind it. You would be correct in saying that there is a sheep in this field, but not because you know that there is a sheep in the field. You are only correct because there happens to be a sheep in the field, but due to being deceived, the reason why you say that there is a sheep in the field, is not the actual reason why you would be correct that there is a sheep in the field.

This hypothetical demonstrates the criteria I hold for knowledge, being that you cannot only believe that something be the case for you to know it, the reasons for why you believe it must also be true, as well as the reasons not just happening to be true, because if that sheep behind the rock were to, let’s say magically fall through some portal (this is a hypothetical so allow for some goofy stuff), then the sheep that makes your belief that there is a sheep in the field correct, would no longer be in the field, yet you would still believe there is a sheep in the field because of the dog that looks like a sheep. I find certain knowledge to be difficult because it this strenouse criteria, but nonetheless very important, otherwise we would have no meaning behind what it means to know something.

With this criteria of knowledge as well as Locke’s ideas on being unable to truly know other’s ideas, and only your own ideas of their ideas, I do not think that true clarity can be reached in a way that would satisfy those criteria. You wouldn’t know that you don’t misunderstand them, you can just act based on your ideas and then from there you may happen to have been right and you achieve your desired outcome from acting on your believed clarity.

For all intents and purposes, it may be correct that all that matters is whether or not when we do something, if we get the outcome we desire, but this problem is a genuine one because without true certainty about the causes of things if there ever can be true certainty, then lets say in the practical application of knowledge, you do as we have for thousands of years before modern medical knowledge, and you believed in the humors or that the brain was just a pineal gland with animal spirits as Descartes believed, and you take those beliefs and try to save someone’s life, but instead end up killing them by trying to help them. If we can know truly how everything works with certainty and the causes of everything, then we can solve problems with certainty, but I don’t know if this is possible.

1 Like
10

Well if this is true, to you, then ‘you’ will never achieve a perfect shared meaning with anyone.

Now, what is the difference between a ‘functional degree’ and ‘perfectly’ anyway?

If, for example, there exists a shared meaning, then how could it get any better or perfect from this?

What is the difference between ‘shared meaning’ and ‘true shared meaning’, exactly?

11

Again, through clarification. By just asking the other person if ‘my interpretation’ is a correct understanding, then we can determine and know, for sure, if ‘it’ has been correctly understood.

12

Of course, which through further clarification, for example, by asking, “Is ‘my interpretation’ or ‘my understanding’ correct?” how clarity is obtained and found to be entirely Accurate and Correct, or not.

Also, one would have to a fool to think or believe that they are certain before they have obtained the actual clarity or proof first.

What you perceive as a “problem” I certainly do not. But, then again, we are looking and seeing things here from very different perspectives.

Even the meaning for the ‘problem’ word we are using in a very different way. Let the other words here as well. See, the reason we have not reached and gained ‘shared meaning’ yet is because we have not yet sought out clarification and obtained clarity, yet.

One if the reasons I chose to not believe and not disbelieve things is because of the added unnecessary layer of complexity, which you just highlighted here.

I found just asking clarifying questions to those who are Truly open and honest to be a far better, simpler, and easier way to obtain fully understood ‘shared meaning’.

I suggest that you do not say what you do not yet know is the Truth, and just choose your words better and speak and say what is only the Truth instead. But, of course, and as always, you are absolutely free to speak, say, and do whatever you want to.

you appear to be overcomplicating what is certainly not, to me.

Why do you even want to begin to believe something to be true that may not be anyway? In fact, why do you even want to believe anything anyway?

If something is true, then it is. And, if you know it is, then you still do not even have to believe. you just already know it anyway.

Well then could there be something wrong with ‘that criteria’?

Obviously one does not have use ‘that criteria’, which, to me, is really another unnecessary complicated way of looking and seeing anyway.

you will never know if you do not understand another one if you never ask them. Once more, through seeking out clarification, and obtaining actual clarity, you can and if they are open and honest with you, you will then know, for sure, you do understand or if you are still misunderstanding.

To gain understanding, and remove misunderstanding, it really is this simple and easy.

It has already been done. For example, how the Universe works is already known, for sure, or with certainty, and thus already known in a way that can not be refuted.

By the way, finding answers and solutions to all the so-called “problems” in Life is also already known, with certainty.

13

It seems you are correct that there is a misunderstanding between us. You say that it is really simple and that there is no problem at all, but you do not explain why. You restate that you just have to ask someone if your understanding of something is correct or not, but that does not provide a level of certainty that I am talking about. An simple example would be if you have interpreted a situation ir a couple words slightly differently than how a person meant them, but through describing to them what you think they mean and them affirming that you understand, they instead misinterpret what you are saying and falsly affirm your understanding. This may seem like an impractical hypothetical, but I have had this happen to me multiple times in my life because some topics are complex or sometimes people have varied enough meaning that a misunderstanding cannot be solved through just asking the person for clarification. You misunderstand the fundamental problem with communication because your solution does not account for this. I am also not overcomplicating anything. If you think for a moment about what you know, belief is a fundamental part of knowledge. Do you know anything that you do not believe to be true or false? You would have to show that you can know something without believing it and not simply state that you just know things without involving belief. Saying that you can know something without belief is not an argument. You are just making an unsupported claim with no justification by doing so. Belief is essential to knowledge because if for example, I know that lets say I am a certain height, or weight, or I am a certain age, or even something like I know that I am holding dirt in my hand. I have to believe that my senses do not deceive me when holding the dirt and I have to believe that the measurements of such things as weight, height, and time are accurate, at least relative to some overall standard that they are based on. This example demonstrates the necessity of belief to have knowledge. You cannot know anything if the reasons for why you know something, are not actually the reasons that something is true. Or in my sheep example, which clearly demonstrates this, if you ‘know’ there is a sheep in the field, but there is only something that looks like a sheep, but you are wrong, then how can you claim to just know it? You would say you know if because you believe that the thing you saw was a sheep. If you disagree then you would have to be purposefully intellectually dishonest and ignore the fact that we all use belief as the basis for knowledge. And something is not being made to be more complex than it actually is just because you do not see the complexity or choose to ignore it.

Honesty & Openness
14

Tell me, why would you participate in a philosophical forum if all you’re going to do is make assertions? Philosophy is about asking questions, not telling everyone you have the answers to everything and they can stop thinking now. If you don’t want to engage with my argument in good faith, I’m sure you can find plenty of other posts to agree with.

1 Like
15

@Dev
@Acltalls

Anew is a troll.

:clown_face:

16

Did I say there is no problem at all? Or is this another misunderstanding here?

If the ‘it’ word here is referring to gaining understanding so there is no misunderstanding, then ‘it’ really is very simple and easy. you just seek out and obtain clarification and clarity first. Again, through asking clarifying questions like, for example, “What does the ‘it’ word that you used referring to, exactly?”

See, once you clarify, then I can move on with understanding, and without making assumptions, which is what very easily and very simply leads to misunderstandings.

As I have been saying and showing throughout these philosophy forums.

Now, the reasons why I usually make claims, without explaining why in the beginning, is because I wait, patiently, for those who are curious and show interest. Then I explain.

The reason I do this is to show, with verifiable proof, that it was because people did not seek out clarification and obtain clarity from each other, like they did in the days when this was being written, why so much misunderstanding existed back in those ‘olden days’, which explains why there was so much distrust, bickering, conflict, and warring in ‘those days’, when this was being written.

That is because you are talking about things not related to other people’s views. Whereas, I obviously was.

Did you not previously understand this?

Talking about the former is one thing, talking about the latter is another.

Look, reflective listening, with open and honest clarifying communication provides understanding. From which peace and harmony come from.

Whereas, having assumptions and beliefs leads to misunderstandings, which just about all conflicts, fights, and wars begin from.

If you affirm that another’s understanding of what you meant is true, right, accurate, and/or correct, then how would anyone know that your affirmation is a false affirmation?

There is absolutely nothing hard nor complex in Life, including all topics.

If you are not able to solve a misunderstanding with another, then if ‘I’ was ‘you’, then I would rid “myself” if that (and the other) belief.

And, again, how and when do and the other know when either of you have affirmed each other’s understanding as being true or right that is was really a false affirmation?

And, how could you let that happen on multiple occasions? Why did you not prevent it from happening again after the first time?

Here is another prime example of APE-thinking, and for why do much misunderstanding persisted in the days when this was being written.

If this is what you really want to believe is true, then why are things here complicated and complex, for you?

And, you believe, absolutely, that it has to be ‘this way’, right?

Yes, every one of them except one.

No one ever alluded to this, let alone said it anywhere. Why did you assume this?

Really?

Did you notice that you just made an unsupported claim here, and certainly without any actual justification at all?

Why do you, supposedly, ‘have to’ believe this?

Notice how absolutely indoctrinated these people, in ‘these days’ had been and had become. They literally believed they could not function and live if they did not believe things. Which is absolutely hilarious considering what the irrefutable Truth and Fact is.

LOL you are joking here, right?

If you are not, then how exactly does that demonstrate what you claim it does?

Once again, but you may have missed it, you would have to be an utter fool to aim you know something before you have the actual proof for it first.

But what you and/ or others do is certainly not necessarily what I would do at all.

I would certainly have never said anything that you would in that sheep example of yours. I have learnt to not be so shallow, narrow, nor closed.

LOL I already informed you that I have chosen not to use belief for knowledge.

Ut, because you are going to believe absolutely otherwise, then, like “greenfuse”, you are going to claim that it is ‘I’ who is the one who is dishonest here.

Which, again, is absolutely hilarious to watch ‘play out’ here.

If you choose to 'see" complexity, whee I do not, then by all means please keep doing so.

Honesty & Openness
17

I never said all I am going to do is make assertions. Why did you presume or believe such a thing?

Once more, I make assertions, and then wait, patiently, for those who want to learn and understand more.

See how curiousity had completely died off from human beings in the days when this was being written.

LOL I never thought, let alone said, stop thinking now. In fact, I said, I write and wait patiently for those who are curious.

LOL if anyone said that they had answers to anything or everything, then I, for one, would keep asking them questions until they proved “themself”, either way.

I engaged with it, you chose to not engage with with I said and meant. Instead you have just assumed I have meant something else. But do not feel left out here as all the others responders here have done the exact same thing. It was a very common occurrence, in the days when then is being written.

18

It seems you may be right. They outright said in a response to me that the thing I perceive as a problem, they do not. Then when I say they said that, they then say that they didn’t say they see no problem at all. I can’t say for sure if it’s trolling, but it seems like they misunderstand most of what I am saying.

1 Like
Honesty & Openness
19

What you actually said was:

And how I actually replied was:

20

I’ll respond one last time because I don’t see a point in a longer discussion due to fundamental disagreements about many things and that you pick statements and analyze them in isolation without looking at them in the broader context of what I say.

What you said was, “What you perceive as a “problem” I certainly do not.”

I replied with, “You say that it is really simple and that there is no problem at all, but you do not explain why. You restate that you just have to ask someone if your understanding of something is correct or not, but that does not provide a level of certainty that I am talking about.”

To which you replied with a question asking if you said there was no problem at all. It seems there is either a fundamental disagreement on the definitions of words or you lack the necessary level of reading comprehension to have this discussion because you also said that there are solutions already to these so called problems. A solved problem is no longer a problem. And based on you saying that you do not see what I see as a problem, I meant that you do not think that there is a problem at all with what I see as a problem. I didn’t think I needed to be even more clear in the usage of my words because I was hoping that given the context, you would understand the exact problem that I am saying you do not see as one at all. I did not say that you said that there were no problems at all, but reading back through, you do say that there are solutions to the so called problems I bring up, which unless you think a solved problem is still a problem, then by your statement, there are no problems at all because they all have solutions and are just so called problems, implying that they are not real problems.

I don’t see the point in a philosophical discussion if you’re going to be extremely firm in your beliefs and not allow for true curiosity and learning something new and challenging your views because the entire time you just pushed for your view with no real engagement with what I said. You made no arguments and stated that something is a certain way with no justification beyond making the statement itself, therefore, I have no arguments to engage with, just a statement to either disagree with or agree with. I cannot challenge the validity of your logic when you have provided none.

If you want a further discussion, then you’ll have to actually engage with what I am saying in all of it’s context and not pick statements that lose meaning in isolation as most statements do when they are part of a larger argument.