Is The Objective Existence Of The Physical Universe Self Evident?

[MindOverMatter2]

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?

 

[coolduude]

I voted yes, it is self evident. To vote against that is, IMO, nonsensical.

But I have to ask, MOM2, where are you going with this thread?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I voted yes, it is self evident. To vote against that is, IMO, nonsensical.

But I have to ask, MOM2, where are you going with this thread?

First explain why, and how it relates to my definition of self evident.

 

[Langdell]

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?

Oops. I voted “yes” without reading the OP. If I could, I would change my vote to “no,” because I don’t think it’s self-evident in the strict sense of the OP.

.

 

[coolduude]

First explain why, and how it relates to my definition of self evident.

If you say so!

“I think, therefore I am”. The same prinicpal can be applied to the universe. “We observe, therefore it is”. We can’t observe something that doesn’t exist. Unicorns, for example. They cannot be observed. They don’t exist.

However, God cannot be observed per se, but He does exist. He can be observed through miracles (which, for some reason, are rejected by many atheists and agnostics).

Hope that explains it enough

 

[Katholish]

Yes. It is self-evident.

 

[Call_Me_V]

He can be observed through miracles (which, for some reason, are rejected by many atheists and agnostics).

If you’d like to start a new thread on that topic, I’m sure many of us would be happy to explain why we don’t buy into those miracles.

To answer the OP, I don’t think that the existence of the universe is logically self-evident the way that you seem to be describing, in the same way as “all bachelors are unmarried”. The existence of the universe is not, as best I can tell, logically necessary (if I was robbed of all my sense, unable to detect the universe, I would not be able to logically reason my way to the existence of the universe, as best I can tell). I think that your position on the existence of the universe would have to be determined by whether or not you considered your senses reliable.

V

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If you say so!

“I think, therefore I am”. The same prinicpal can be applied to the universe. “We observe, therefore it is”. We can’t observe something that doesn’t exist.

I agree that we can’t observe something that doesn’t exist. However we can observe illusions of objectivity or simulations of objectivity or ideas from our imagination without the contents being real objective realities. I agree that there is such a thing as “something objective”. In fact i believe you can demostrate what i call a “sub-realism”- or objectitivity in general - with out assuming that anything exists apart from your mind. But what i am asking is, can we know for certain that the “universe” is objective.

Unicorns, for example. They cannot be observed. They don’t exist.

I have never observed a unicorn. However this is not a valid basis upon which one can justify the conclusion of non-existence. Its like saying, i have only ever seen white ducks and thus there are no black ducks. Such an arguement can only be probable, since i have no reason to think that the existence of a black duck somewhere is an impossibility. Neither of us are all - knowing.

Hope that explains it enough

Not really since you haven’t demonstrated why anybody should think that the universe is an objective phenomena.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I don’t think it’s self-evident in the strict sense of the OP.

Why not?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Yes. It is self-evident.

Can you please explain why?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

To answer the OP, I don’t think that the existence of the universe is logically self-evident the way that you seem to be describing, in the same way as “all bachelors are unmarried”. The existence of the universe is not, as best I can tell, logically necessary (if I was robbed of all my sense, unable to detect the universe, I would not be able to logically reason my way to the existence of the universe, as best I can tell).

Are you saying that, as far as you can comprehend, physical reality is not neccesary?

I think that your position on the existence of the universe would have to be determined by whether or not you considered your senses reliable.

So are you are saying that i would have to first trust and assume the reliability of my senses before i can objectively demonstrate physical truths? Note that when i say physical truth, i do not mean here merely true in appearence, but rather i mean true as in objective.

 

[Call_Me_V]

Are you saying that, as far as you can comprehend, physical reality is not neccesary?

If you’re talking about the Universe outside of yourself, then no, I don’t think that you could, using only logic, but none of your senses, determine the existence of the rest of the Universe outside of yourself.

So are you are saying that i would have to first trust and assume the reliability of my senses before i can objectively demonstrate physical truths? Note that when i say physical truth, i do not mean here merely true in appearence, but rather i mean true as in objective.

Yes, I think so. If not for your senses, if you were basically just a mind, incapable of observing anything, I don’t think that you could demonstrate any physical truth. Logical truths, yes, but not truths about the way the world is outside of you (how could you, if you couldn’t detect it?). I’m open to being wrong of course, and I’m interested to see where you’re going with this.

V

 

[DysonSphere]

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

I don’t know. What is the definition of “physical universe”?

 

[Katholish]

Can you please explain why?

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. 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.

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.

 

[Langdell]

Why not?

My reasoning is pretty much the same as V’s above. There’s no way I can deductively establish that everything that appears to be the physical universe is not an illusion that I’m solely responsible for.

At the same time, I agree with Katholish that that degree of certainty is not necessary for us to reason reliably about the universe.

.

 

[ThomasToo]

If you say so!

“I think, therefore I am”. The same prinicpal can be applied to the universe. “We observe, therefore it is”. We can’t observe something that doesn’t exist. Unicorns, for example. They cannot be observed. They don’t exist.

However, God cannot be observed per se, but He does exist. He can be observed through miracles (which, for some reason, are rejected by many atheists and agnostics).

Hope that explains it enough

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.

 

[coolduude]

MOM2:

Here’s what I’ve come up with.

Since we are human and have senses the universe is indeed self-evident.

However, as another poster mentioned, if we were but a mind and had no senses at all with which to observe, the universe would not be self-evident (but it could still be reasoned to exist).

I hope I got it this time.

 

[ThomasToo]

MOM2:

Here’s what I’ve come up with.

Since we are human and have senses the universe is indeed self-evident.

However, as another poster mentioned, if we were but a mind and had no senses at all with which to observe, the universe would not be self-evident (but it could still be reasoned to exist).

I hope I got it this time.

Assume that you have taken psychedelic drugs. You will now observe things that are not truly there.

Assume you are asleep and dreaming. You will now observe things that not only aren’t there but are physically impossible.

QED Our senses are not necessarily true indications of the state of affairs outside our mind.

Besides, the whole notion of a self-evident proposition is that its truth is wholly independent of any argument or point of evidence. If it is self-evident that the universe exists then it’s self-evident whether or not we have any senses; it’s nonsensical to say its self-evident if we have senses and not if we don’t.

 

[Katholish]

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.

There is a difference between logical necessity which is what you are referring to and being self-evident. Self-evident refers to something which does not require logical proof. If you and I were standing in New York Harbor, we wouldn’t need logical proof that the Statue of Liberty exists, we could both see it, and it would therefore be considered self-evident to us. Because the Statue of Liberty is not visible to all men at once, it is not universally self-evident, but is particularly self-evident. The physical universe on the other hand is experienced by all men at the same time, and is hence universally self-evident.

If you wanted to, you could possibly even argue that the existence of the physical universe is logically necessary assuming that you exist, because afterall, you are a physical thing, and your mode of knowing is intrinsically bound up in what is physical.

 

[ThomasToo]

There is a difference between logical necessity which is what you are referring to and being self-evident. Self-evident refers to something which does not require logical proof. If you and I were standing in New York Harbor, we wouldn’t need logical proof that the Statue of Liberty exists, we could both see it, and it would therefore be considered self-evident to us. Because the Statue of Liberty is not visible to all men at once, it is not universally self-evident, but is particularly self-evident. The physical universe on the other hand is experienced by all men at the same time, and is hence universally self-evident.

If you wanted to, you could possibly even argue that the existence of the physical universe is logically necessary assuming that you exist, because afterall, you are a physical thing, and your mode of knowing is intrinsically bound up in what is physical.

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.

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.

I’m surprised you haven’t had to read Descartes in your work at Notre Dame; I would suggest his Meditations or, preferably, Discourse if you want to read more on the topic.