Is The Objective Existence Of The Physical Universe Self Evident?

[Katholish]

ThomasToo,
I have read the Meditations and am familiar to some degree with Cartesianism and the historical context in which it arises. That being said, Descrates was wrong and the Scholasticiam against which he was rebelling was correct. Sense data is fundamentally reliable and the basis of all knowledge. Sure there can be errors in sense perception, but that doesn’t make the process unreliable, rather it points to some impairment of function. Properly functioning senses do not produce error.

You are assuming I (or you) am (or are) a physical being. It is possible that we exist as pure spirit and everything we see (&c) is simply some trick played on us by some (equally incorporeal) deceiver spirit. There are nonpysicals truths we can come to know; there is nothing in, for example, mathematics, for example, that depends necessarily on a physical universe at all.

Nope, not possible that we are pure spirits. I don’t know about you (because I have no direct experience of you), but I have a body. For me to question whether I have a body or not would be insanity. While the concept of mathematics is immaterial, our knowledge of math depends on a physical universe and sense perception. I also add that spacial dimensions within math are dependent on the concept of a material universe even if not derectly dependent upon the actual existence of said universe.

I would disagree with your definition. I think a self-evident proposition is one whose denial is necessary contradictory. The denial of, for example, the Statue of Liberty is not an inherent contradiction the same way denying the proposition ‘all bachelors are unmarried’ (the negation of this would be ‘there exists a married bachelor’) which is obviously a contradiction. Further, since the notion of self-evidence is inherently and inexorably logical (as opposed to evidential) the self-evidence of a proposition must necessarily be true if you are standing on Liberty Island, Liberia, Luna City, Mars or Proxima Centari or in 2010, 2110 or 1810.

We are simply using the terms analogously. The term self-evident is used in different ways. For instance, when the Declaration states, “we hold these truths to be self-evident” your definition must deny such a claim while my definition can include it.

I assumed the purpose of the OP was to ask whether the existence of the material universe was obviously and did not require proof, which would correspond with my definition. The issue seems to be whether our knowledge in this matter is absolutely certain or if there is room for doubt. Neither of our definitions for self-evident would leave room for doubt, but I agree with you insofar as in using your definition, the material universe is not self-evident because it is not logically necessary.

 

[ThomasToo]

ThomasToo,
I have read the Meditations and am familiar to some degree with Cartesianism and the historical context in which it arises. That being said, Descrates was wrong and the Scholasticiam against which he was rebelling was correct. Sense data is fundamentally reliable and the basis of all knowledge. Sure there can be errors in sense perception, but that doesn’t make the process unreliable, rather it points to some impairment of function. Properly functioning senses do not produce error.

Sorry for the presumption on your education. Can we prove that sense data is reliable?

Nope, not possible that we are pure spirits. I don’t know about you (because I have no direct experience of you), but I have a body. For me to question whether I have a body or not would be insanity. While the concept of mathematics is immaterial, our knowledge of math depends on a physical universe and sense perception. I also add that spacial dimensions within math are dependent on the concept of a material universe even if not derectly dependent upon the actual existence of said universe.

I think I have a body, but again–as I asked above–, how can you prove it? What dimensions exist in maths? In all my maths classes I never relied on 3+1-D space (3D + time); and I’m talking about upper level math not calculus.

We are simply using the terms analogously. The term self-evident is used in different ways. For instance, when the Declaration states, “we hold these truths to be self-evident” your definition must deny such a claim while my definition can include it.

I assumed the purpose of the OP was to ask whether the existence of the material universe was obviously and did not require proof, which would correspond with my definition. The issue seems to be whether our knowledge in this matter is absolutely certain or if there is room for doubt. Neither of our definitions for self-evident would leave room for doubt, but I agree with you insofar as in using your definition, the material universe is not self-evident because it is not logically necessary.

I don’t think the Declaration of Independence was being philosophically rigorous so it’s not fair to bring it up here.

I’ll take that last bit as saying I win! =] But I think, speaking epistemologically, my definition is the only one that passes muster.

 

[Katholish]

Can we prove that sense data is reliable?

In arguing that the reliability of sense data is self-evident and a foundation of all knowledge, it would act like a first principle, i.e. prior to logical proof. As such, it cannot be “proven” but is in fact a first premise.

What dimensions exist in maths? In all my maths classes I never relied on 3+1-D space (3D + time); and I’m talking about upper level math not calculus.

Spatial concepts such as height and width or even angle.

I don’t think the Declaration of Independence was being philosophically rigorous so it’s not fair to bring it up here.

I’ll take that last bit as saying I win! =] But I think, speaking epistemologically, my definition is the only one that passes muster.

My point is that both are valid meanings. (I don’t think the Declaration was merely being poetic but indeed arguing that those rights do not need to be proven and are obvious.)

Regardless of the term used, we still differ on the fundamental concept of whether the physical universe is known to exist with certainty and whether it requires some kind of proof or if it is obvious and beyond doubt.

 

[ThomasToo]

In arguing that the reliability of sense data is self-evident and a foundation of all knowledge, it would act like a first principle, i.e. prior to logical proof. As such, it cannot be “proven” but is in fact a first premise.

‘Assumed to be true’ and ‘self-evident’ are not the same thing.

Spatial concepts such as height and width or even angle.

That’s not math; those are words added on to explain the analogue of math to space. Having taken classes like topology and abstract algebra there’s not really anything in higher math that has anything to do with the physical world.

I agree with you insofar as sense experience must be assumed a priori before we can do much of anything and in that sense the universe cannot, strictly speaking, be proven. We must assume it to be real which is a very different claim that saying it is self-evidently (that is to say necessarily true and could not be otherwise).

 

[flyingfish]

When i say self evident, i mean something like, “I think therefore i am” or “All bachelors are unmarried”. I know for certain that a bachelor is unmarried because it would be a contradiction if one was married. Such a person would not be a bachelor. I know for certain that i exist because my thinking something necessitates the existence of my thinking.

Can we claim the same certainty for the existence of the physical universe?

I don’t think you can say that. It would be consistent with observations if I were the only thing that existed, and my subconscious was generating the perception of other people and the physical universe.

In fact, assuming there is a physical universe, we don’t experience it. We experience our brain’s model of it. We can only hope that there is some correspondence between our senses/brain’s interpretation and “reality”.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

The existence of a physical universe along with the reliability of the senses is something so basic that it is a foundation of all knowledge. .

An illusuion or a simulation can be the foundation of my knowledge. Nothing about having knowledge of something neccessitates that the physical universe is objectively real as opposed to a simulation or illusion; although it is my understanding that we can know in general that “something” is neccesarily objective or rather exists apart from our minds. This is what i call sub-realism or basic-objectivity.

You ask if I can explain why it is self-evident, and I hope you appreciate some of the irony in that question. Things that are self-evident like first principles cannot be logically proven or adequately explained. They are simply self-evident. It would be like asking me to explain why the principle of non-contradiction is self-evident. It just is. That is what self-evident implies…

This is not actually true in terms of metaphysical truth. That i exist is self evident, but i can show you why that is neccesarily true by deducing my existence from my “knowledge” of existence.

Modern Philosophy after the Cartesian Revolution has attempted to deny what is self-evident and was so enamored with this experiment as to be blind to the fact that every conclusion based on a denial of sense reliability (and therefore denial that the physical universe is self-evident) has been absurd.

I disagree for reasons posted above. I don’t think that cartesian denied self evident principles. He just begins without affirming them. Its a method.

 

[itinerant1]

When i say self evident, i mean something like, “I think therefore i am” or “All bachelors are unmarried”. I know for certain that a bachelor is unmarried because it would be a contradiction if one was married. Such a person would not be a bachelor. I know for certain that i exist because my thinking something necessitates the existence of my thinking.

Can we claim the same certainty for the existence of the physical universe?

A proposition is self-evident because the predicate is included in the essence of the subject, as “Man is an animal,” for animal is contained in the essence of man. If the essence of the predicate and subject is known to all, the proposition will be self-evident to all. If it is only known to some, then it will be self-evident only to those who are so educated.

But what is your proposition about the universe? Is it “The physical universe exists”? Such a proposition cannot automatically be claimed to be self-evident because the meaning of “universe” remains undefined in your proposal…

Perhaps you meant to ask whether the existence of a physical reality external to and independent of the knower is self-evident. That is a very different matter than the question of whether the existence of the physical universe is self-evident.

That is, I may define the universe as the totality of consistently interacting things. How do we know that such a universe by that definition exists? It does, but it is not self-evident. It is a matter of reasoning from experience, but it cannot be scientifically proven by the methodology of science because we cannot get outside the universe to observe and confirm its existence as such.

 

[itinerant1]

But the whole point of Descartes’s cogito (I think, therefore I am) was that he could doubt the existence of the physical universe. A quote from his Meditations is ‘I had the persuasion that there was absolutely nothing in the world, that there was no sky and no earth, neither minds nor bodies; was I not, therefore, at the same time, persuaded that I did not exist?’ (II, 3). He forwarded that some sort of deceiver could distort his senses into thinking we saw (and heard, smelled, tasted and touched) was false but since he could doubt that he knew his mind had to exist.

There is nothing about the universe that necessarily makes its existence so. If it could be otherwise then is it not self-evident. The universe could not exist hence it is not self-evident.

One could argue that Descartes methodological doubt was extremely artificial and thus proved nothing other than that he could pretend well enough to deceive himself. This is evident in his “cogito ergo sum”, which is misleading because the intellect does not work that way. The primary act of the intellect is not that it knows, or that it thinks, but that it knows some thing. The act of knowing or thinking is always a knowing of some thing, whether real or imagined. Only by a secondary recursive act can we reflect on the fact that we know some thing.

That is, and where Descartes led modern philosophy astray, ideas are never “that which*”* we know; ideas are, rather, that “bywhich” we know. The distinction is critical and the import for Descartes Meditations is that they were an utter failure.

Realistically, Descartes should have said, “I know, there I am.”

 

[jpk1313]

When i say self evident, i mean something like, “I think therefore i am” or “All bachelors are unmarried”. I know for certain that a bachelor is unmarried because it would be a contradiction if one was married. Such a person would not be a bachelor. I know for certain that i exist because my thinking something necessitates the existence of my thinking.

Can we claim the same certainty for the existence of the physical universe?

I will at this time say no, the physical universe is not self evident. I know I exist becuse I think I exist but I have no proof that the physical universe is nothing more than a hallucination, come to think about it I have no proof the op is real and not just something created by my mind to keep me entertained. But if only I exist and everything is created by my mind that must make me God, which would certainly explain why the world is such a cess pool. But than again maybe I’ve just driven myself insane with all this philosophical speculation and just think there is no proof for anything but myself.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sense data is fundamentally reliable and the basis of all knowledge.

How do i know that?

Sure there can be errors in sense perception, but that doesn’t make the process unreliable.

It doesn’t prove that my senses is reliable either.

Nope, not possible that we are pure spirits.

How do you know that it is impossible that you are a pure spirit and that what you perceive isn’t being generated by another spirit?

I don’t know about you (because I have no direct experience of you), but I have a body.

You see a body that appears to be your body. You do not have certain knowledge of that fact.

For me to question whether I have a body or not would be insanity.

It depends on why you are questioning it. It is certainly reasonable to believe that there is in fact a universe since it dominates our experiences to the extent that it has a direct effect on us, and thus we are encouraged to take it seriously. It is the root of everything we have learned, and thus we are obliged to deal realistically with what we know since it is not to are benefit to think otherwise and we have no practical reason to do so. But if one is trying to establish what we can truly know for certain without possibility of error, then it is entirely sane and relevant when one questions the metaphysical basis of our knowledge in respect of our particular experiences; such as our experience of the universe. When we say that this thing exists, what is our “epistemological justification” - that is the question.

Nothing you have said thus far has proven to me that the universe is not an illusion or a simulation of some sort, and in respect of epistemology i see no reason to consider the question insane. I am merely taking epistemology seriously. But you are free not to.

While the concept of mathematics is immaterial, our knowledge of math depends on a physical universe and sense perception.

Perceiving something is only evidence that you are perceiving something; it is not evidence that you are sensing something that exist objectively.

I also add that spacial dimensions within math are dependent on the concept of a material universe even if not derectly dependent upon the actual existence of said universe.

Are saying that it is possible that the underlying logic that mathematics requires in order to be consistent is caused by the existence of the objective universe? Are you saying that if you see something, then it necessarily exists independently of your mind?

We are simply using the terms analogously. The term self-evident is used in different ways. For instance, when the Declaration states, “we hold these truths to be self-evident” your definition must deny such a claim while my definition can include it.

Perhaps then “self evidence” doesn’t mean certain knowledge of objective truth. In which case i am asking if we can know for certain that the universe exists objectively. The fact is i can doubt the objective existence of my subjective knowledge if it doesn’t exist necessarily.

I assumed the purpose of the OP was to ask whether the existence of the material universe was obviously and did not require proof, which would correspond with my definition. The issue seems to be whether our knowledge in this matter is absolutely certain or if there is room for doubt. Neither of our definitions for self-evident would leave room for doubt, but I agree with you insofar as in using your definition, the material universe is not self-evident because it is not logically necessary.

Are saying here that you agree with me that we don’t have certain knowledge about the objectivity of the universe?