Home > Footnotes to footnotes for The Metaphysics of Religious Mysticism

Footnotes to footnotes for The Metaphysics of Religious Mysticism

Again, I might as well but my response in a new entry.

Drvilson: philosophy is concerned with how facts should be interpreted or what should be done with them. Philosophy ends when one has established what one intends to do, after that it’s a scientific question. But do not be mistaken, there is also the philosophy of science, for certain facts cannot be ascertained through observation yet are necessary to resolve in science.

For instance, one of the founding assumptions in physics is that the laws of physics do not arbitrarily change. No experiment could resolve this matter, and there is no logical proof. We make this assumption not because we think that it’s true but because the alternative does not lead anywhere.

Furthermore, arithmetic has been successfully derived from modular logic (through set theory), which is a strengthening of predicate logic (which is a strengthening of truth function logic), which can be viewed as a shorthand for operations with the single operator nand, and so to understand math necessitates an understanding of logic, and to understand science necessitates an understanding of math.

And here again is a philosophic question: is math factual? If we are to interpret factual as empirical we end up with the dilemma of needing to interpret our experimental data with math. I might make the argument: one thousand out of one thousand times mathematics is useful. How are we to accept this argument without math, without the knowledge that something that happens one thousand out of one thousand time is probable? (how would we even be able to construct the idea of probability?) However, if math was not factual, what it is?

Which it is I do not know. It has been a philosophic issue for many years now, and I do not suspect I will resolve the issue or that it will be resolved in my life time. However, I certainly would not say it is irresolvable.

BingoTheClown: If I did not sacrifice logical precision for readability I would never end saying anything. I do not view that trying to discuss thoroughly a matter necessarilly involves of going over every single condition under which a given statement is true and the every single condition under which it is false and every single condition that has not yet been resolved. I suggest you do not interpret my arguments as "true/false", but rather as a series of statements some of which may be useful to contemplate. I do my best, but I am not infallible nor may it be possible to speak in absolute precise terms. For instance, logic is not exhaustive which essentially means you can go about describing logic for an infinite amount of time, so anything that contains logic as a feature we would assume is also non-exhaustive.

To even attempt to do you what you wish I would either have to resort to symbolic logic which I doubt anyone would bother deciphering or my arguments would be hundreds of pages long. And even then I may only be insignificantly more precise. Languages are necessarily imprecise since we cannot directly communicate what we think words means; furthermore, I would also wager, my own, at least, mind is imprecise. On top of all this, the attempts to render symbolic logic devoid of meaning (as in treat systems of symbols mechanically) have all failed, and so even our most precise language, the language of mathematics, is still somewhat vague. Or, do you mean I should devote myself to the development of telepathy?

In this particular essay to achieve logical precision I would have to analyse every single conceivable belief system, some of which it has never occurred to anyone to believe in. I am unaware of how I am able to go about doing this, please inform me.


copyright 2006 - 2020 Eerik Wissenz