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

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
,
41

They were someone else’s words.

OF COURSE. But this has absolutely nothing to do with ‘commonly used’.

There is no such thing as ‘the’ english dictionary.

There are countless dictionaries written. Some are written in the english language.

And, as I have mentioned and pointed out a few times already. Many different dictionaries have very different meanings/definitons for the exact same word, as well as the exact same dictionary can have many different, and some times opposing, definitions for the exact same word. So, once again, which one is the ‘commonly used’ meaning or definition?

you are not able to supply ‘the answer’. As there will always be someone else who will say that use ‘that word’ in a different way or with a different definition. And, then you and them will argue over which one is the ‘common usage’.

As can be clearly seen and proved throughout forums on the internet.

LOL Every dictionary is, more or less, just as easy to use and the other ones are.

And, the most poignant point is see how you go to just one of countless dictionaries, for “your” “commonly used definitions”, while another will go to another dictionary for “their” “commonly used definitions”.

you appear to be like one here called “greenfuse” who believes that the definitions that it uses are the ones that everyone does use or should use, and also claims that ‘the definitions’ it uses are also the “commonly or widely used definitions”.

Yet, it could be very easily shown and proved that even you two would come to a disagreement very quickly here. That is, if you two took up the challenge.

Imagine being so narrow or closed that you think or believe that other’s should use ‘the dictionary’ that you use.

I NEVER ever disagreed that there is a commonly used form of words. I just know that neither you nor “greenfuse” could KNOW what ‘it’ is, exactly.

What is, for example, the ‘commonly used form or definiton’ for the word ‘argue’?

And, I guarantee that on just about every occasion that I have used that word here, you and “greenfuse” have not known how I am using that word. Even though ‘the definition’ is used in most, if not all, dictionaries.

AGAIN, ‘common meaning’ exists.

However, no one knows, for sure, how another is using a word, exactly, until clarification is sought, and clarity is obtained.

ONCE MORE, a huge reason why there is so much bickering, conflict, and fighting in the world is because people only ‘assume’ what another is saying and meaning and do not seek out actual clarity and understanding.

Now, because people do not seek out clarity, and rely on their pre/assumptions only, so much misunderstanding ensues.

No one can know, for sure, what another is thinking, feeling, and meaning, until actual clarification and clarity is sought out and obtained.

This has been proved absolutely True over and over again. Thanks, once more, to these forums and these posters here.

True. A ‘common way’ exists. But, AGAIN, no one knows it, absolutely and for sure, until clarificaiton and clarity is sought and gained.

Just like ‘we’ can all know how another is ‘feeling’. But, until clarification and clarity is sought and obtained, ‘we’ are only pre/assuming, or guessing. And, obviously, all pre/assumptions and guesses, by definition, can be Wrong and/or False.

42

And, it is this belief, example, and definition why these human beings, back in the ‘olden days’, when this was being written, took so, so long to learn, understand, and know what the actual irrefutable Truth is, exactly.

43

I said ‘could’. Did you miss this:?

In the second quote I said that AFTER you said and wrote what you did.

So, you NEVER knew ‘that’ until AFTER I said and wrote it.

And, again, you seemed to have MISSED the ‘might’ word, as well.

But, I said and wrote that AFTER you said and wrote what you did.

Here, ‘we’ have another one to support my previous ‘unsupported claims’. I do this, and instead of just staying focused on ‘that’, they want to find reasons for not wanting to stay learning, understanding, and know more nor anew here.

Look, you wanted me to support and prove that the Universe is infinite. I have done that.

Now, did I support and prove to you that the Universe is infinite, or not?

How about ‘we’ focus on ‘that’, only?

44

I do NOT do any such thing at all.

ONCE MORE, I neither believe nor disbelieve anything here.

ONCE MORE, ‘knowing’ something is true and right is very, very different from ‘believing’ something is true and right.

ONCE MORE, one can ‘know’ something, absolutely, and still never ‘have to believe it’.

It is like I have to explain the ‘exact same thing’ to everyone I have a discussion with here.

There is NO ‘double standard’ at all.

This is because I have chosen to neither believe nor disbelieve things. But, you and others are absolutely free to choose to do so, if you really want to.

you have completely and utterly misunderstood ‘me’ and misinterpreted ‘my words’.

Once you learn and understand that I do not believe nor disbelieve anything here, then you will understand how and why there is not a double standard here at all.

When I say, ‘I know something’, people have to understand that this never means that ‘I believe something’.

you have not yet understood me here.

Again, this is because you started presuming things, which have absolutely nothing at all to do with me.

This is completely moot, because you previous assumptions were completely and utterly Wrong.

45

Yes this is perfectly acceptable. We do not need to have anymore meta conversations about behavior.

To start, you have supported your claim that the universe is infinite, but that is not the same as proving it.

Basing my statements solely off of what you have said here, I ask, why the false dichotomy? Why can this distance either go on infinitely or end with another object? Why can this distance not simply end and not reach another object? In your definition of space, does it consist of something? Or is there nothing in the space between objects?

46

You claim that you know things, but how can you just know something without any belief involved? Do you know that God exists? No, you believe that God exists, because that is what faith is. You can’t know that God exists because you cannot know something that does not exist within the realm of experience. If you would like to know more about that, then you can ask me or read immanuel Kant where he defines the bounds of that which is knowable. I asked earlier what your background was because I can’t tell if you have read any philosophical texts and know of these ideas or not because many of the ideas that I refer to stem from these texts. You can of course reject these texts.

47

There are honestly too many questions to ask you about this. For example, do you know that everytime you attempt to take a breath in that you will be able to? What reasoning supports that claim to knowledge? You only have the reasoning that everytime you have done so before, you have been able to, so it will happen again in the future and right now, but this is not knowledge. You do not know that it will happen just because it has happened before. You can only believe that it will because of the habit that has formed where it continues to happen. There is no certainty here because it would not logically contradict if you were to right now stop breathing.

I think the issue here may be that we are completely opposite in our view on knowledge and beliefs. I do not think that you can truly know anything, only that you can believe it. But you think the exact opposite.

My reasoning is mainly that you cannot prove that our perception is not entirely a deception and that our minds are not being fed information. If it were true that I was just a brain in a vat, or living entirely in a simulation, I could not prove otherwise, mainly because the criteria for proof could not be met while under the conditions of being a brain in a vat or in a simulation. To know if you were, you have to somehow go outside of yourself, but this is impossible, so questions like these are unanswerable. I think that it doesn’t matter whether we are truly a brain in a vat or in a simulation because when it comes to practicality and living, I have to live as though everything is real even if I cannot know for a fact that it is. For all intents and purposes I am not a brain in a vat or in a simulations, but this does not mean that I know I am not, just because functionally it makes no difference.

1 Like
48

I would like this very much.

Obviously.

However, the proof that the Universe is infinite exists.

What statements?

What do you mean by ‘false dichotomy’, exactly?

Are ‘you’ claiming that ‘I’ have “falsely framed an issue as having only two options even though more possibilities exist”? Or, do you mean something else?

It might be able to. When, and if, someone can explain how this could logically and physically occur.

Can you think of absolutely any way how ‘space’ or ‘a distance’ could end, without reaching an actual object?

If this could be either a theoretical or empirical possibility, then I would like to be the first one to be informed of how, exactly.

If, and when, something is presented, then ‘this discussion’ can continue and move forward.

So, if absolutely any human being at all can explain how it could be logically or physically possible for ‘space’, a distance, to end, without meeting a physical object, then please share your insightful knowledge with ‘us’ here.

These are the type of discussions I have been looking for.

A distance.

There is ‘a distance’ between objects.

I think what will help you here, and speed up this discussion somewhat if you focus on something more like, ‘What do objects consist of, exactly?’

But, as always, you are absolutely free to take this discussion in whatever way you like.

49

Yes, as you have defined space, it is distance, but what is there within this distance? Is there anything at all or is it simply nothingness between these objects?

50

Very, very simple and easily.

Yes.

See how ‘these people’ ask questions, pretending that they are interested and curious, but really, laughably, believe that they already know, for absolutely sure, what the one and only could be, and worse still, is.

you are so far off track and mistaken here, I am now not sure you could be brought back on to the Right TRACK here.

I will explain this to you, even though you never asked. I believed God did not and could not exist. That was; until ‘the proof’ of who and what the word God had been actually referring to, all along, was shown to me. Then, I could not refute ‘the claim’ God exists. I have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, had ‘faith’ in anything here. And, I certainly do not believe God exists. Again, because I KNOW, without doubt, that what is attributed to the word God irrefutably exists.

Here is another prime example of one who BELIEVES, absolutely, that God does not exist, has the exact same issue as one who BELIEVES, absolutely that God does exist, has.

They both will fight to “the death” over their beliefs, without ever once asking ‘the other’, ‘What do you mean by ‘God’, exactly?’

LOL People like these fight over things, without even once even considering, ‘What even is ‘the definition/s’ we are using here?’

Why do you believe, absolutely, that God can NOT exist within the realm of experience?

What led you to have and hold, absolutely, onto ‘this belief’?

Do you have actually irrefutable proof that God could not possibly exist, within the realm of experience’?

As always, your open and honest answer/s would be very, very much appreciated.

Oh, I get it now. When one person says and claims something, then it MUST be absoltuely true, right, accurate, and/or correct.

I just find it hilarious how all of these human beings pick and choose other human beings to back up and support their ‘currently’ held onto beliefs.

And, see how it cannot back up and support its belief and claim here with any actual proof, and instead just says something like, “Go and read this or that”. Like it expects that ‘I’ will see what it “sees” there.

They only stemmed from the people who they came from, and then put it in books. But, you are like the “christian” who says and claims, “Go look in the bible”, then you will find and see ‘the truth’ of things. Like them, you also believe that your chosen ‘text book/s’ hold ‘the truth’.

you also have faith, and believe, in ‘the books’ you read and tell others to read. Exactly like other religious people do.

you can also refuse to look at ‘my words’ and focus on deflecting to other things that are completely off topic here.

Now, you asked me questions about ‘space’ and ‘distance’ why it needs to end with objects. How about ‘we’ focus back on ‘this’ now.

51

The logical and theoretical possibility is mainly based on the fact that we do not know if there is such a thing as something being truly infinite. Also, when looking at how distance functions, it is in relation to an object, so it would either be a distance towards an object or a distance from an object. Something being infinite or infinity as a concept is something that is widely accepted to be possible, but one of the goals of philsophy is analyze presumptions. We only know infinity through the exxageration of the finite. We do not actually know for a fact that anything is infinite or even can be. We only know of that which is finite. It makes sense to say that the opposite of finite is infinite, but that does not mean that there is something that actually exists that has that property.

Following the lack of certainty that the infinite exists beyond there being the claim that it does, I would say that space may end leaving there to be a realm of something that cannot contain anything within it. No objects nor even concepts. However, I do think that space is not absolute so it technically not have an end, but this thing we call space, is really just the lack of something. So I agree that nothingness may be the only thing that can be said with a higher level of certainty than anything else, to be infinite, if such a thing does exist.

This topic of nothingness brings back up something I have mentioned before. Before I said that by calling the concept of nothing ‘nothing’, we have therefore established it as being more than what we have defined it as. I know that you have said that you do not believe there to be complex topics because everything can be understood and made simple. This topic is simple to me then, even if it may not be yet to you. I’ll explain it as simply as I can:

My argument:

If something is defined as having no properties of any kind and is devoid of any form of substance material or non-material, and due to lacking properties, lacks existence, then giving that something a name, which we have done by calling it nothing, you have now given it a property. That property being that it is has a name. It is now something because we have given it a property, but true nothingness lacks any kind of property.

Therefore, when you refer to the concept of nothing, it is not the same thing as true nothing, which lacks a name.

I bring this topic back up because I think that it is relevant to the discussion of space and distance. It is relevant to the discussion because this so called space that we have a concept for, is really just nothing, but not the concept of nothing, it is true nothingness which lacks any properties. In this nothingness, distance nor any other thing exists. I would use this to argue that in a way, distance does end, but only in the sense that if you reach a place that lacks all properties, then of course you cannot have distance there, because then that place would have the property of containing distance within it.

52

I am focusing on key parts of your argument. You are stating that you know things, and your knowing is the basis on which all of your views are founded, so I will argue against your claim to know.

53

I am basing my argument about God from this post you put about your definition of God.

You can’t claim that any of the three attributes that you say God has obviously exist without first proving such a thing so I ask these following questions:

How do you know omnipotence is possible? Or that omniscience is possible? Or that omnipresence are possible? How do you know that anything could have such properties?

What is the proof you have of the transcendent mind? How do you define the transcendent mind? What is the mind in relation to people if God is the mind itself in the invisible sense? Are you claiming that we are God? As in we are a part of God and God a part of us?

54

I think you were meaning to ask something different here, but to answer your question here, which appears to also have absolutely nothing at all to do with how the Universe is infinite, spatially.

Firstly, how does it follow that you asking me, “Do you know that every time you attempt to take a breath in that you will be able to?” is an ‘example’ of, “There are honestly too many questions to ask you about this”, exactly?

Also, starting a new post and writing in the first sentence “… ask you about ‘this’,” is not really good communication. What is the ‘this’ word even referring to, exactly?

Anyway, i did not previously know that every time i attempt to take a breath then, as you claim i will, i will be able to.

Does this have absolutely anything to do with ‘space’ needing an object to end or not?

As well as not knowing I also do not care at all.

Besides it never being knowledge I had nor thought, it also has, to me, absolutely nothing at all about the Universe being infinite.

Why did you ask me about the Universe being infinite and my claim that the proof already exists, but you clearly seem far more interested about other things here?

I NEVER even thought it did.

I, again, NEVER even thought it will, or even about it, let alone ever believed such a thing. I NEVER believed it before, and I certainly would never ‘now’.

I agree, there is certainly NO certainty here.

However, there is certainty that the Universe is infinite and eternal, like there is certainty that the earth revovles around the sun and not the other way around.

Okay.

But what is your view or belief on the Universe and it being infinite in size?

Can ‘we’ focus on ‘this’?

If this is what you do not think, then okay.

Should the ‘rest of us’ rely on you and trust you for what is the true and right correct knowledge here?

If you think or believe that you can not truly know anything, then you can not truly know if what you think here is correct, is correct, right?

See, what is happening here once more. people who believe things like, “There are no truths”, “There are no absolute or objective truths”, or “We can not know anything for sure”, do not realize they are expressing absolute or objective truths, while believing and claiming that they do not even exist.

And, if there are no truths or no objective or absolute truths, then what they are saying and claiming are not true either. If ‘you’ claim ‘I’ cannot truly know anything, then ‘you’ will have to admit that ‘you’ cannot truly know anything either. Which means that if you cannot truly know anything, then what you claim here about how you can only believe things, is also something that you cannot truly know.

  1. There is no such things as “your minds” nor “our minds”.

  2. Also, if you really want to claim that you cannot prove your perception is not entirely a deception, then you have to admit that you could be entirely being deceived here.

  3. All human beings are being fed information, all of the time. If you human beings are noticing and recognising all or any of them is another thing.

If this is what you really want to believe is absolutely true, then okay.

Why can somethings been proved, and thus known, but other things cannot be, to you?

But anyway, how does absolutely any of this have to do with ‘my claim’ that the Universe is infinite, exactly?

So, again, some things are absolutely true and you can know them absolutely so, but others are not.

I also think all of this does not matter.

What I find matters is if you believe or not that the Universe could be infinite or not.

See how quickly these people can go off track, and remain completely and utterly off track.

55

Just ‘space’ and ‘the distance’?

Why do you speak as though there ‘must be’ some thing?

And, what are you even thinking or believing ‘could be’ within ‘this distance’?

This would all depend on ‘what distance’ are you thinking about and referring to, exactly?

you need to be far more specific, if you really want specific answers?

56

Okay great. But I am not sure I have yet starting presenting an argument.

Yes. I thought ‘we’ had already gotten way past this.

This is absolutely False and Wrong.

Why did you say and state such a thing as this?

What is the basis for your claim here?

you say and wrote, ‘so’ here as though your claim is right and true. Which, again, it is NOT.

Also, where even is ‘my claim to know’? And, what does this claimed ‘claim of mine’ entail, exactly?

57

You misunderstand me here. I am not claiming that you cannot know anything. I am saying that because I cannot with certainty say that I know something, I then claim that I can only believe things. I do not know if I can know anything. I only have beliefs. I believe that things are true, but I cannot claim to know with certainty that they are. I understand that from claiming that I can only believe things, that that can mean that I am also indirectly claiming that I cannot know anything. But this is not my argument. I am saying that the only thing I can do with certainty is believe things. I cannot with certainty claim I know things. This view does not stem from a lack of desire to know things, but I have no reasons beyond the habitual reoccurances of things as the founding for my beliefs. I can never claim that I know that something will happen just because it has already happened.

I bring this up as I have said in another post, because to challenege your views, I have to challenge the root of your views, and that is your claim to know certain things. All of your arguments depend on your claims to know certain truths with certainty, so this is where my challenge starts.

58

I have realized that through rereading many of your responses to me, that you make tons of assumptions. I never claimed to not believe in God. I only claimed that you cannot know things that exist outside of the realm of experience.

Why criticize me or others for using assumptions when you are constantly doing just that.

Also your statement that about what I refer to just being a book someone wrote or just what other people have said, doesn’t negate any argument I make because literally everything we use to communicate is based on what other people have done or said. You don’t have langauge without that. So it refutes nothing

59

But I NEVER said it was ‘my definition’. So, why did you just say and claim that it is ‘my definition’?

But, I already did prove that.

Did you miss, misunderstand, or misinterpret this as well?

When the definition of ‘omnipotence’ is the quality of having unlimited or very great power, then how I know ‘omnipotence’ is not just possible but is actually happening and occurring is through observation.

The, eternal and infinite, Universe is Creating all things, always, NOW.

Again, The Universe is infinite and eternal, so all things can be known. Also, what already knows all things, or is ‘omniscient’, already exists and is knowing everything.

Because ‘the way’ the Universe and the Mind work, exactly, is how such properties actually exist.

Again, how I know ‘the Things’ with these attributes is from experiences and observations.

The Fact that ‘we’ can know things, from within others.

But, and do not forget, that without seeking clarification and obtaining clarity, ‘we’ could be Wrong.

Within human beings there is the ability to Create just about anything, if not everything, and to learn, understand, and reason absolutely everything. This ability comes from the Open Mind.

How I define the ‘Mind’ as what enables human beings to learn, understand, reason, and create all that they have and will.

Great question.

Again, the Mind is what allows human beings, individually and collectively, to keep on learning.

So, just like it is claimed that God is within Everything, the Mind, which is always open and which allows human beings to learn, understand, and reason absolutely any and every thing, is also within, in relation to people.

I know you absolutely hate when I use the ‘obvious’ word, but, obviously, when you cut up a human body, and it does not matter into how many pieces, the Mind, like God, will never be seen, with the human eyes.

It is sometimes said and claimed that there is an eternal search to ‘know thy Self’. Human beings have evolved, from other things, and human beings do not stop evolving. The next level or stage of evolution, itself, is when human beings have evolved out of and past the human being stage, the next level is God. When the Universe, and God, Itself, finally came to 'know thy Self, then an invisible part, within human beings, which helps, guides, and allows, them to learn, understand, and know any and all things, then ‘this invisible part’ is God.

And, ‘you’ used the word ‘we’ here Correctly. As it is when ‘we’ are ‘working together’, collectively, as One, to create the Truly Peaceful and Harmonious World, in which we ALL want and desire, then this is when ‘we’ are not just a part of God, but are evolving into and becoming and Being God, Itself.

When ‘we’ are doing only what is Right, in Life, and Creating the Right world for everyone, then this is when ‘we’ end up living with God, and evolved into God, Itself.

60

Are you absolutely sure, and so know, for sure?

And, when ‘you’ talk about ‘you’ only, then ‘I’ cannot disagree at all. Only ‘you’ know ‘you’ well enough.

When ‘you’ speak like this and express the absolute Truth of things. I could never ever disagree at all.

I also congratulate for being Truly Open and Honest here. What ‘this one’ is doing here is speaking the Truth only, and this is, exactly, how the actual Truths of things are found, and known.

Why do you believe that you cannot claim to know with certainty that some things are true?

Can ‘you’ not know, with certainty, that ‘you’ exist, and/or that ‘thoughts’ exist, for example?

Also, do not forget that if you ‘believe’ things are true, this means that ‘they’ could actually be False or Wrong.

And, if what you ‘believe’ here is False or Wrong, then ‘you’ could actually know things, for sure. See, if you only ‘believe’ that you cannot know things, for sure, then ‘this belief’ could be Wrong. Therefore, that means that you can actually know things, for sure. Like, for example, ‘I exist’.

And, if you can know this, for sure, then your belief that you can only believe things and not know things for sure, is Wrong and False. Therefore, the actual and irrefutable Truth is. ‘you can actually know things, for sure’.

This is only what ‘you believe’ is true, right?

If yes, then remember ‘what you believe is true’ could be Wrong.

you appear not to be seeing the contradictions here.

Again, are you sure it is ‘me’ who is misunderstanding here?

Can you really not see that saying and claiming something like, “I cannot, with certainty’, claim I know things” is actually ‘claiming to know, with certainty, that you cannot know things’?

What ‘we’ have here are more examples of how ‘beliefs’, themselves, stop human beings from seeing the actual Truths in Life, and only “seeing” what they believe is true.

you can, but if you do not, then that is great.

But, again, I have absolutely no idea what ‘this’ has to do with absolutely anything that I have actually said and claimed here.

To me, what you say and write here I do not understand how it has anything to do with what I have said and written here.

Remember, I have been talking about how the Universe is infinite, and eternal, and how I know this, with certainty. Again, the proof for this I have seen, so the certainty exists

But, all of ‘my arguments’ do not depend at all on ‘my claims’ to know certain truths with certainty.

All of ‘my arguments’ depend on ‘the proofs’ and ‘facts’, only, for ‘my claims’.

That ‘I’ am certain of ‘my claims’ is a completely other issue and point. Just like ‘the one’ who was arguing for ‘their claim’ that the earth revolves around the sun, depended upon ‘the proof’ for ‘their claim’ and absolutely not on ‘the certainty’ or ‘lack of certainty’ of ‘their claim’.

These are two completely things, which you appear to have conflated. So, if ‘your challenge’ starts with me knowing, with certainty, of my claims are true, then ‘we’ are really not going to progress forward.

Would you like to, instead, challenge ‘my words’ alone here about ‘my claim’ that the Universe is infinite, and/or eternal?