Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Home > Forums > Teen Ink Forums > Philosophy and Thought > How Do I Know I'm Real

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
Next thread » « Previous thread

How Do I Know I'm Real

stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 26 at 2:40 am

DrBug:
"You are essentially saying: to try and disprove logic, you have to be stupid"
 
I wouldn't say that, but I would say it is a silly thing to try to either prove or disprove logic itself. It's just a necessary basic assumption, it can't be proven or disproven because it is, itself, the basis of proof.
 
"A circular argument is not necessarily a false argument."
 
It doesn't mean that the conclusion is false, but it does mean that your argument doesn't prove anything.
 
"I thought you agreed a while back that there are certain axioms we must assume before we even attempt to understand the universe, logic's existence being one of them?"
 
Yep yep! That's what I believe. To form a coherent worldview, I think you have to assume:
1. that a world outside of your own mind exists
2. that we are capable of making correct observations through our senses, even if those sense do sometimes lie to us, and
3. that we are capable of using logic to make correct conclusions (i.e. that if an argument is made with only valid logic and only true premises, then its conclusion must be true). Or to put it another way, we have to assume that the accepted laws of logic are true and applicable in all cases.
 
Smitty:
"I can know that every possible universe adheres to logic because if they exist they are making a claim to the law of excluded middle"
 
What do you mean by "they're making a claim"?
 
"Because they accept this one law they must accept the others."
 
Do you have a reason to believe this is true?
 
"Your using logic to try to disprove logic which actually proves logic."
 
I'm not. And if I were, it wouldn't prove anything. If anything, it might be a failed reductio ad absurdum.
 
"Your saying that my argument is circular reasoning."
 
Not your argument specifically, but yes, any logical argument that can be made to attempt to prove the validity of logic will inherently be circular and therefore invalid.
 
"In other words you’re saying that logic can’t be valid because it is committing a logical fallacy."
 
This is not what I'm saying.
 
"I would say that logic is necessary. Not a necessary assumption."
 
It's a necessary assumption that logic works, i.e. that any conclusion that is based on both true premises and valid logic must be true.
 
 
 
Sorry if all this is totally incoherent. It's 1 AM and I just woke up, so I'm not sure if I'm capable of making sense yet.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 26 at 11:36 am

You're making more sense than I'm used to, SDD, it's making me nervous ;) XP
 
"It's just a necessary basic assumption, it can't be proven or disproven because it is, itself, the basis of proof."
 
Sounds about right, I'm half afraid to agree with you cause I know it will come back to me (JK LOL). If logic is the basis of proof, that does mean we can prove things using logic. Ugh, that didn't make much sense.
 
Okay, so when we say you can never really prove things, we base this claim on the fact that logic cannot be proven. Yet logic itself is the basis for proof, which means we can prove things using logic, right?
 
Here's an argument for logic, lol.
You say that if we make an argument for logic it would innevitably be circular, making it invalid, right? This is true, but what if we made an argument against logic? We can't, obviously, as we would have to use logic to disprove logic, effectively destroying our argument before it began.
 
What I'm saying is, you can make arguments for logic, though while invalid, would be perfectly logical, but you cannot make arguments against logic, because any argument you made would refute itself. I believe that's pretty sound reasoning in believing logic is the basis of proving things, even if I can't prove logic itself. Sound about right?
 
I would also agree with your list of basic assumptions, lolz. I would add Reliability of Memory to the list though. A lot of people ask the question: Well, how do you know that God didn't create us all yesterday and give us the memories of our lives, lives that never really existed before yesterday? I think we just basically have to assume that our memories are reliable, kinda like our senses, not 100% but somewhere close to there.
 
I'd say we also have to assume that tomorrow will be like today, in that the universe will always follow the laws of nature. There's no way you can really prove that without begging the question.
 
Also, let me rephrase what Smitty said, instead of "I can know that every possible universe adheres to logic because if they exist they are making a claim to the law of excluded middle"
 
I know that every possible universe adheres to logic because their very existence would declare the law of excluded middle (that any proposition must either be true or false).
 
Universes must either exist or not exist. There is no middle ground. It's a true or false proposition. Make sense? I think what Smitty is saying is that he knows all Universes will follow logic becasue they all follow the one rule of logic. There isn't a universe out there without logic...though how this doesn't begin with the assumption that logic is an immaterial, universal constant...I don't know lol! Smitty, correct me if I'm wrong.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 26 at 11:56 am

I just realized (or rerealized), something, SDD. Everything we do and think about, we autimattically assume logic. I mean, to say that logic is a necessary assumption, is to use logic. To say that we should have a coherent worldview is logical.
 
Ugh ugh ugh. There's no way to get away from it ;)

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Mr.packerbear12This teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 26 at 1:17 pm

*headache*      

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 26 at 2:36 pm

"What I'm saying is, you can make arguments for logic, though while invalid, would be perfectly logical, but you cannot make arguments against logic, because any argument you made would refute itself."
 
Well, a logical argument for or against logic would each be equally invalid, since they're both just based on a fallacy, albeit a different one in each case. Which is what I mean by saying that it's silly to try to prove or disprove logic. The fact that we accept it as the basis for proof means that neither case can ever work. But yes, that's pretty much right.
 
"I would add Reliability of Memory to the list though. A lot of people ask the question: Well, how do you know that God didn't create us all yesterday and give us the memories of our lives, lives that never really existed before yesterday?"
 
That's a very good point, I'm surprised that hadn't come up before.
 
"I'd say we also have to assume that tomorrow will be like today, in that the universe will always follow the laws of nature."
 
I don't really think so... I think it's fair to put it down to inductive reasoning. We can be functionally certain that the laws of nature won't spontaneously change tomorrow, since 1. it's neve happened before in the history of the universe as far as we know, and 2. we have no reason to believe that it would. And I figure that asymptote of certainty is good enough, at least for me.
 
"Universes must either exist or not exist. There is no middle ground. It's a true or false proposition."
 
That's already taking the conclusion as a premise, though.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
DoctorbugThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 30 at 5:19 pm

"I don't really think so... I think it's fair to put it down to inductive reasoning."
 
By inductive reasoning, yes, but isn't it the nature of inductive reasoning to be unable to prove things using it? I mean you have have pretty good evidence, but never any proof, if you know what I mean.


 

"Universes must either exist or not exist. There is no middle ground. It's a true or false proposition."

 

That's already taking the conclusion as a premise, though.
 
I had realized that...haha :P

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddudeThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Jul. 30 at 10:24 pm

"isn't it the nature of inductive reasoning to be unable to prove things using it?"
 
Not with absolute certainty, no, but it can easily get us a conclusion that we can take as certain beyond a reasonable doubt, which is the best anyone can get for most problems anyways. Like I said, it's an asymptote of truth.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
vitriolic replied...
Jul. 31 at 2:06 pm

I have a lot of issue with this thought, too. Given, I have some dissociative symptoms of my mental health issues, and that makes me feel like I'm constantly living in a dream.
I don't believe in God, but I do like the idea of "God" being a scientist who created us. It's a very interesting theory. How do I know that I'm not the last person on earth, and all of this is a hallucination brought on by insanity? The very idea of our existence is one that can be pondered endlessly. What is real? What can define reality in itself? It's an interesting ideology. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Liv.HarrisThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Aug. 1 at 8:11 pm

Just wqanted to say something to you guys;
Thank you so much for the debating and the great answers. I will show this to anyone that says teenagers don't give a second thought to the world.
I also wanted to say that this is really awesome, and watching all of your thoughts unfold is amazing.
You have shown me some stuff that I have never thought about before. Great skills guys! :) Thanks again XD

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback