Belief Vs. Knowledge

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Ok so now you're acknowledging that you know Earth exists?

 

Well, right now, I can't see outside so I'm not acknowledging anything other than room I'm in exist to me (and that might not exist in the physical sense or in the same manner to other people).  Every other time I remember going outside, there has been ground for me to walk on so it has existed to me.  If you wish to call that Earth (though my memory does not allow me to assume (even if it is true) that the ground has many of the shared characteristics with what is generally called Earth.  I'd rather call it ground), then my memory has told me the Earth has existed in the past, but my memory might not be right and even if itis it might not in the future (past peformance is not an indication of future peformance (as I stated in one of the posts above)).

[alexey]

Peter,

What is this mumbo jumbo? Simple yes or no question: Do you know that Earth exists?

[PeterMP]

Even for me this conversation seems useless and pointless.

 

I've posted several papers by intelligent and thoughtfull people suggesting that we might be a simulation.  Your "knowledge" requires that to not be the case, but you cannot prove that is not the case nor disprove that it is.

 

Your knowledge is based on assumptions that you assume to be true.

 

Your knowledge is based on faith, but you criticize others for believing things based on faith.

[alexey]

Peter,

Can you know things while knowing that you can be wrong?

This position allows you to say "I know Earth exists" without tying yourself into a pretzel. What do you think?

[Zguy28]

You can say that... but can you explain the reasoning you use? How does the resurrection of Jesus prove his metaphysical claims?

Here is a guy who said some stuff, and did magic. Let's say we accept the magic stuff. How does his ability to do magic prove that he was right about all the stuff he said?

Let me clarify, it doesn't directly, on its own prove divinity on the part of Jesus. It validates all that he said and did, which includes claims to divinity.

 

Jesus didn't do magic, he did miracles like healing sicknesses and disease visibly (leprosy, blindness, etc.) and raising dead back to life. So please, don't try to use the old "if I say it enough, people will begin to frame it that way". Besides, its insulting.

 

He did miracles and healings, forgave sins, and he taught with authority and in that teaching clearly proclaimed not only that he was God but that he had come to replace the temple and to bring new revelation (In the Jewish context, who does that except God?) and fulfillment. He challenged the authority of Jewish leaders of the day and was killed for it. But he didn't stay dead! He proved his claim that in three days he would come back and proved that God was in him, and thus also in his words and his work.

[alexey]

Let me clarify, it doesn't directly, on its own prove divinity on the part of Jesus. It validates all that he said and did, which includes claims to divinity.

...

I will not call it magic, but i am sorry i still cannot understand how this validation thing works.

Is it something like this:

Stuff that Jesus did was so ..., that he could not have possibly been wrong about anything he said?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Can you know things while knowing that you can be wrong?

This position allows you to say "I know Earth exists" without tying yourself into a pretzel. What do you think?

 

How would you define three concepts:

 

1.  knowing something (I know the Earth exist.)

2.  knowing something while acknowledging you could be wrong (I know the Earth exist (but really I don't, I'm just not going to mention that part).

3.  having faith (I have faith the Earth exist.)

 

What is the distinction between those 3 things?

 

Is the distinction only set so that you can claim you know things that you don't really know (#2) while preventing others from doing the same so that on their face your arguments seem stronger (i.e. you can say the Earth exist, but Zguy can't say that God exist)?

[alexey]

How would you define three concepts:

1. knowing something (I know the Earth exist.)

2. knowing something while acknowledging you could be wrong (I know the Earth exist (but really I don't, I'm just not going to mention that part).

3. having faith (I have faith the Earth exist.)

What is the distinction between those 3 things?

Is the distinction only set so that you can claim you know things that you don't really know (#2) while preventing others from doing the same so that on their face your arguments seem stronger (i.e. you can say the Earth exist, but Zguy can't say that God exist)?

I will treat this as an honest question and not a gotcha.

I see 1 and 2 as the same. Knowing that you could be wrong makes knowledge possible.

Here is how I see the difference between knowledge (1,2) and faith (3): with knowledge, you can ask questions "how do you know", and you will get an explanation all the way until you get to "I do not know". With faith, at some point explanations will run out but claims of knowledge will continue.

[PeterMP]

I will treat this as an honest question and not a gotcha.

I see 1 and 2 as the same. Knowing that you could be wrong makes knowledge possible.

Here is how I see the difference between knowledge (1,2) and faith (3): with knowledge, you can ask questions "how do you know", and you will get an explanation all the way until you get to "I do not know". With faith, at some point explanations will run out but claims of knowledge will continue.

 

As I've pointed out already in this thread, I think most people make a distinction between faith and knowledge and so do reference sources.  I doubt you'll find many people (some do) make claims of faith (I have faith or I believe X) that will also claim much knowledge.  And you've seen that in this thread and I suspect was even the basis of this thread (knowledge vs. belief where in most cases belief is tied to faith and faith is not tied to knowledge).

 

People do make claims of knowledge and then continue to make claims of knowledge (or at least don't admit lack of knowledge and instead try and change the argument or start to argue inconsequestial details), but that happens both ways, and I've seen that in this thread too.

 

Also in terms of a discussion, I'm not sure what the difference in the positions is.

 

You say you know the Earth exist.

 

Zguy says he knows God exist.

 

You can probably go through more "layers" of evidence than Zguy before you get to a question you don't want to answer than Zguy, but in the end that doesn't mean there is more support for the Earth exist than God exist.

 

If you have a sand foundation, it doesn't matter how many floors up you are.

 

In reality, you "know" something you can't even start to put a probability on that its actually true and so does Zguy.

 

My preference (and I think I've communicated to him pretty well that he doesn't know) would be that Zguy not use the word know and instead use the words faith/belief, which I think could better match varioius reference sources (which I've already given) and common usage.

 

But when push to comes I'm not sure him saying he knows God exist is any better/worse than you saying you know the Earth exist.

[alexey]

Peter,

Are you saying that claims "I know God exists" and "I know Earth exists" are built on equivalent epistemological foundations?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Are you saying that claims "I know God exists" and "I know Earth exists" are built on equivalent epistemological foundations?

 

Well, the underlying assumptions are different and come from different places, but they are similar in aspects (we cannot with any certainity determine what the probability is) and those similarities underlying the assumptions is the sand in my analogy- not really their origin.

 

If I say, if I make assumption A, I can demonstrate B, and then from B demonstrate C, and from C demonstrate D, and from D demonstrate E.

 

And somebody else says if I assume X I can demonstrate Y.

 

The person that says I know E is in no better shape than the person that says I know Y UNLESS the probability that assumption A is true higher than X and the fact that the first person has built several layers on that initial assumption doesn't say anything about the probability of that assumption (despite what people that should know better frequently like to suggest the fact that computers and air planes seem to work in no way validates the assumptions the underlie science.)

 

If the probability of assumption A being true = the probability of assumption X being true, E is not more likely to be true than Y.

 

And the fact that the chain is longer in the first case is not evidence that the probability that assumption that A is true > the probability that assumption X is true.

 

(I really should be getting paid for this.)

[alexey]

Peter,

On one hand, we are talking about the "assumption" about the existence of the natural world, or this simulation, or whatever you want to call it, the place where we inhabit a planet in a solar system with cars and trains and aeroplanes. Without that "assumption", there is no language, no discussion, no meaning, nothing. Without that "assumption" Peter does not exist and he stops wasting my time.

Now what do we have on the other hand? What is this equally good if not better assumption X that allows us to prove mythogy?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

On one hand, we are talking about the "assumption" about the existence of the natural world, or this simulation, or whatever you want to call it, the place where we inhabit a planet in a solar system with cars and trains and aeroplanes. Without that "assumption", there is no language, no discussion, no meaning, nothing. Without that "assumption" Peter does not exist and he stops wasting my time.

Now what do we have on the other hand? What is this equally good if not better assumption X that allows us to prove mythogy?

 

I anticipated and directly addressed your point in my post.  You are trying to point to the "chain" and say that's evidence that the underlying assumption is true.

 

A simulation could take on a very different form than this being a real physical world.  In a simulation you cannot make many of the conclusions you want to make.  You cannot make the conclusion that planets actually exist (have you ever actually seen a planet and even for those that have how do you know the memory is reliable?)

 

If you simply want to say something exist, I think that's a certainity and so is a much safer assumption than Zguy's God exist assumption.  But you don't want to say that.  You want to say that at all times (at least for hundreds of years), the whole universe as we know it exist.  That's a very different thing.

 

alexey, from my perspective you act a lot like Zguy.  You don't REALLY know the Earth is real, and Zguy does not really know God exist.  He will go in circles and over and over essentially the same ground to not admit that he does not know that God is real.

 

You do the same thing with respect to science and the physical world.

 

Can you clearly admit that you do not REALLY know that the Earth is real (or can you provide real evidence the papers I linked to before are wrong or that they require the things you've listed actually exist)?

 

(And if you do not like/trust my opinion on the subject, ask somebody who has similar views to you and whose opinion you trust more what they think.)

[alexey]

Peter,

Looks like we are bumping against the special place you carved out for god claims.

You say it is impossible to know that reality is real, and therefore it is impossible to know that not reality is not real.

I agree with that - we cannot know whether reality is real and whether not reality is not real.

I do not claim to know that reality is real, but I do claim to know that this reallity, whatever it is, includes the planet, or whatever it is, on which we live, or whatever it is we do. Ok? No knowledge, no faith, no belief, no assertion that reality is really real.

Within this reality, or whatever it is, we can explore things and figure out patterns. We can give names to things. We can gain knowledge about things that bump into each other by seeing how they bump into each other. We can gain knowledge about things that do not bump into each other by doing (blank). When we do (blank), some other people, or whatever they really are, can come and say, or whatever they really do: You are making **** up!!! And then we can say no we are not making **** up, we know these things exist because (blank).

I understand that (blank) is called epistemology - how we know what we know. I understand how this works for actual things in reality, whatever it is, but not for god. Can you fill the (blank) for me?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

Looks like we are bumping against the special place you carved out for god claims.

You say it is impossible to know that reality is real, and therefore it is impossible to know that not reality is not real.

I agree with that - we cannot know whether reality is real and whether not reality is not real.

I do not claim to know that reality is real, but I do claim to know that this reallity, whatever it is, includes the planet, or whatever it is, on which we live, or whatever it is we do. Ok? No knowledge, no faith, no belief, no assertion that reality is really real.

Within this reality, or whatever it is, we can explore things and figure out patterns. We can give names to things. We can gain knowledge about things that bump into each other by seeing how they bump into each other. We can gain knowledge about things that do not bump into each other by doing (blank). When we do (blank), some other people, or whatever they really are, can come and say, or whatever they really do: You are making **** up!!! And then we can say no we are not making **** up, we know these things exist because (blank).

I understand that (blank) is called epistemology - how we know what we know. I understand how this works for actual things in reality, whatever it is, but not for god. Can you fill the (blank) for me?

 

First, when I did initially introduce the concept that this reality wasn't real, you didn't even complain because I used it to make a point with respect to Zguy (we talked about us being brains in a jar).

 

It was only when I made that point with respect to you, did it become an issue.

 

And, you didn't immediately say it was a valid point.  Your first claim was that it wasn't worth discussing, that I was treating philosophy papers as science, and then that I couldn't use what appear to be valid statistics/math to claim that this universe might be a simulation.

 

And again, the more general you want to make your claims the higher the probability of you being right goes up.  And the same is true for Zguy.  The claim of a Christian God and all of the associated things must be lower than simply claiming the presence of a higher power.

 

Now, let's expore your claim of the utility of studying things to gain knowledge in the concept that this is a simulation with simulators (which you now appear to agree is possible (can I say reasonable?)).

 

I spend the day studying what happens when things bump into each other. What I have really learned?

 

Have I learned something about how things are going to bump into each other in the future?

No.  There is no guarantee that the simulators aren't going to change how the system behaves in the futre.

 

Have I learned something about how things bump into each other in other places?

No.  There is no guarantee that the simulators haven't put in different behaviors in different parts of the simulation.

 

Have I learned something about how things bumped into each other in the past?

Not unless I've done the identical thing as somebody in the past and gotten the same exact result, which realistically doesn't happen.  It is possible that the simulators changed something even on a very small scale as compared to the past.

 

And even more distressing, it is possible that the past didn't really happen in this "reality"/"exsistance".  That this simulation started "today", and the "past" is something built into the simulation (e.g. a pre-programmed starting point).

 

So I ask, if this is a simulation, by studying how things bump into each other, what have you really learned?

[alexey]

Let me try another avenue. Here are two statements:

1) "We cannot know whether reality is real, therefore all claims of knowledge require faith."

2) "All arguments require a premise that reality is real, therefore all conclusions are based on faith"

I disagree with both of them. What about you?

[alexey]

...

And again, the more general you want to make your claims the higher the probability of you being right goes up. And the same is true for Zguy. The claim of a Christian God and all of the associated things must be lower than simply claiming the presence of a higher power.

Are you saying that a talking cat in a hat is less likly then a taking cat without a hat?

...

I spend the day studying what happens when things bump into each other. What I have really learned?

Have I learned something about how things are going to bump into each other in the future?

No. There is no guarantee that the simulators aren't going to change how the system behaves in the futre.

Have I learned something about how things bump into each other in other places?

No. There is no guarantee that the simulators haven't put in different behaviors in different parts of the simulation.

Have I learned something about how things bumped into each other in the past?

Not unless I've done the identical thing as somebody in the past and gotten the same exact result, which realistically doesn't happen. It is possible that the simulators changed something even on a very small scale as compared to the past.

Are you saying that knowledge requires absolute certainty?

[JMS]

Let me clarify, it doesn't directly, on its own prove divinity on the part of Jesus. It validates all that he said and did, which includes claims to divinity.

 

Jesus didn't do magic, he did miracles like healing sicknesses and disease visibly (leprosy, blindness, etc.) and raising dead back to life. So please, don't try to use the old "if I say it enough, people will begin to frame it that way". Besides, its insulting.

 

 

And turned water into wine,  walked on water,  influenced the weather, exorcised deamons and turned relatively few loaves of bread into many times that many spontaniously.

 

The only distinction between miracles and magic is ones own perception..

 

Miracle - a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.

 

Magic - the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

 

Interestingly the bible condemns magic rather strongly...

Deuteronomy 18:11-12

or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. ¹² Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you

 

 

Exodus 22:18

 “Do not allow a sorceress to live.

 

So this is where the historical distiction comes.   Witchcraft was seen as a sin...   Miracles as Prophets such as Moses, and then Jesus performed were not sins but an expression of God's favor.

 

 

He did miracles and healings, forgave sins, and he taught with authority and in that teaching clearly proclaimed not only that he was God but that he had come to replace the temple and to bring new revelation (In the Jewish context, who does that except God?) and fulfillment. He challenged the authority of Jewish leaders of the day and was killed for it. But he didn't stay dead! He proved his claim that in three days he would come back and proved that God was in him, and thus also in his words and his work.

 

All of the prophets brought new revelation to the jewish understanding of God's will.    The reason Jesus was killed was because he was the only one who proclaimed he was the son of god,   he was not part of the religious heirarchy but a relative pesant,  and because he didn't pander to the relighous authorities but as you say challenged them / threatenned them.     And not just God in him.. but he was God.   Jesus is eternal,  begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father.

[JMS]

1) "We cannot know whether reality is real, therefore all claims of knowledge require faith."

2) "All arguments require a premise that reality is real, therefore all conclusions are based on faith"

I disagree with both of them. What about you?

 

The scientific method catagorizes knowledge as defined by observation into things which can be proven,  things which can't be proven,  things which must be accepted as true with no evidence and pure guesswork.   Scientific Laws, Theories, Postulates, and Hypothesis.     The reason why all scientiifc knowledge comes from faith is because once a scientist observes something they want to explain he starts by creating a hypothesis.. a guess;  and then sets about by proving or disproving his hypotheis with subsequent experiements and observations.   Sometimes the guess is all he contributes along with his observations.   A scientist doesn't start with the iron clad provable repeatable law.. that only comes after hypothesis,  personal belief, confidnence.... or faith.

 

I would argue faith also plays a role when scientific laws are overturned through the same mechanism..     In it's purest sense,  the highest order of scentific understanding "laws"  don't require faith,  once the law is proven but proving it requires a lot of faith..   This leaves most of scientific understanding as termed (theories, postulates, and hypotheis) still reliying on faith even after they are  developed as far as science can take them.   Faith in ideas which can not be observed, quantified or are not provable..  Knowledge which is supported only by the colective faith of scientists ad termed the best explaination to what has been observed;  but not provable.

[alexey]

The scientific method catagorizes knowledge as defined by observation into things which can be proven, things which can't be proven, and how widely accepted the explainations are for what can't be proven. Laws, Theories, and Postulates. ..

This is a common mistake. In science, laws are observations, theories and hypothesis are explanations.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[PeterMP]

Are you saying that a talking cat in a hat is less likly then a taking cat without a hat?

Are you saying that knowledge requires absolute certainty?

 

A talking cat without details of a hat is more likely than a taking that also must have a hat.

 

I'm happy to talk about knowledge in terms of probability.

 

Even speaking in terms of probability, you are living in a simulation, and you spent your day studying what happens when things collide.  What have you really learned?

[alexey]

A talking cat without details of a hat is more likely than a taking that also must have a hat.

I'm happy to talk about knowledge in terms of probability.

Even speaking in terms of probability, you are living in a simulation, and you spent your day studying what happens when things collide. What have you really learned?

Wait a second, are you discussing probabilities of talking cats while questioning our ability to learn about the natural world?

[alexey]

Peter,

I do not want you to waste any more time on this. If you think that you can meaningfully discuss probabilities of imaginary things, then we are at an impasse.

[PeterMP]

Wait a second, are you discussing probabilities of talking cats while questioning our ability to learn about the natural world?

Yes.

 

But you didn't answer the question, what did you learn?

[PeterMP]

Peter,

I do not want you to waste any more time on this. If you think that you can meaningfully discuss probabilities of imaginary things, then we are at an impasse.

 

I must have missed something.

 

Did you disprove that its possible for God to exist or only that he can make talking cats?

 

(or in the context of a simulation replace simulators for God)

 

**EDIT**

and to be clear, I'm talking about the probability from our perspective, not the actual probability if you have all the possible information.