Whether all knowledge is absolutely certain knowledge?

[Birdmanman]

That is why we must have Faith!
WWW.CATHOLICPRAYERGROUP.NET

Faith is absolutely certain! However, be careful of Fideism, which is condemned (in one form of another) and is not a part of our Faith. Faith is certain and can show us more about God and other awesome things than reason alone could, but reason can give us real certain knowledge too.

newadvent.org/cathen/06068b.htm (On Fideism, or basically denying reason)

 

[Birdmanman]

OK, Modal Police here…

Your premise (2) is ambiguous. You could be saying either of two things:

(a) Necessarily, an absolutely certain belief is true.

This makes sense. But then you cannot validly conclude that “A belief which cannot be shown to be false and is not actually false is absolutely certain.”

(b) An absolutely certain belief is a belief that is necessarily true.

But does this mean that the object of the belief (the proposition) is necessarily true? Surely not. It could be absolutely certain that the sun is shining, even though the sun could have (modally) not been shining.

Then it must mean that it is necessarily the case that, necessarily, if some proposition is known, it must be true. But this is trivial and uninteresting.

Thank you, Prodigal_Son, for your engaging response!
To be quite honest, I do not fully understand what you mean when you say “you cannot validly conclude that a belief which cannot be shown to be false and is not actually false is absolutely certain”. How is such a conclusion invalid? Do you mean that there are beliefs that are neither true or false, and so simply showing a belief to not be false, and for a belief to not be false, does not necessarily make it true? If beliefs are true or false, and a belief is not false, then it is true (I’m sure this is obvious, and I did not mean to insult your intelligence by stating this).

I think, in your response, I mean (a) when I state premise (2). However, the argument is pretty trivial, and really seems more like an exercise in grammar, although my reasons for doing such an exercise are not trivial, and stem from another thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Thank you, Prodigal_Son, for your engaging response!
To be quite honest, I do not fully understand what you mean when you say “you cannot validly conclude that a belief which cannot be shown to be false and is not actually false is absolutely certain”. How is such a conclusion invalid?

(2a) Necessarily, an absolutely certain belief is true.

2a says all absolutely certain beliefs are true. It does not say that any true belief is absolutely certain. So we do not know that true beliefs are absolutely certain.

 

[Birdmanman]

(2a) Necessarily, an absolutely certain belief is true.

2a says all absolutely certain beliefs are true. It does not say that any true belief is absolutely certain. So we do not know that true beliefs are absolutely certain.

But, in my definition of absolutely certain (which is distinct from ‘having personal certitude of a belief’), any absolutely certain proposition, in order to be absolutely certain, cannot possibly be false. But it seems to me that a true proposition, at every point at which it is true, is not possibly false. So, a true proposition is an absolutely certain proposition, so long as it is true.
If “beliefs” are believed proposition, and if believed propositions for which the belief is justified and true are knowledge, then, whenever knowledge is true, which it always is whenever it can be called knowledge according to this definition, knowledge is thus also absolutely certain.
(Like I said, this might turn out to be trivial or grammatical)

 

[Fairwinds]

It would seem that all knowledge, legitimately so called, is absolutely certain knowledge:

1. Knowledge is (a.) true (b.) belief that is (c.) sufficiently justified (Definition of knowledge)
2. Absolute Certainty (or an absolutely certain belief), means that a belief cannot possibly be false. (Definitional)
3. What is true cannot be actually shown to be false and is not actually false. (Self-evident)
4. A belief which cannot be shown to be false and is not actually false is absolutely certain. (From 2. and 3.)
5. All knowledge, as properly defined in 1. (satisfying conditions a,b, and c), is absolutely certain. (From 1., 3., and 4.)

Thus, there is no probable knowledge, but only probable belief.

Does anyone have any objections? I would love to learn more or be corrected on this matter.

quantum mechanics demonstrates you’e wrong about certainty.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But, in my definition of absolutely certain (which is distinct from ‘having personal certitude of a belief’), any absolutely certain proposition, in order to be absolutely certain, cannot possibly be false.

No, but then you’re appealing to (2) to defend (2). Or rather you’re appealing to (2b) to defend (2a). This won’t do.

 

[Birdmanman]

quantum mechanics demonstrates you’e wrong about certainty.

Hi Fairwinds,
How certain are you of the legitimacy quantum mechanics ?
But seriously, in which of my statements does quantum mechanics say I am wrong?

 

[Birdmanman]

No, but then you’re appealing to (2) to defend (2). Or rather you’re appealing to (2b) to defend (2a). This won’t do.

I think I’m appealing to a definition…I don’t see how that is wrong, could you explain?

1. Absolute certainty (or, an absolutely certain belief) means that a belief cannot possibly be false.
   Rephrased: (2’) A belief qualifies as an ‘absolutely certain belief’ (according to my definition) if the belief is not false, and cannot possibly be false.

Thus, it is necessary, according to this definition of absolutely certain belief, that,
(2a) necessarily, the absolutely certain belief is true.

Please note, when I say, “a belief”, I mean a believed proposition, and not the act of believing itself.

Is it that, when you say “An absolutely certain belief is a belief that is necessarily true”,I can understand you to mean “An absolutely certain belief is a belief that could not have been false, or could not possibly have been false”? (I am not really familiar with modal logic, except from what I have heard of Plantinga’s argument for God’s existence)

So, with the example you gave earlier, I would agree; it can be absolutely certain that (according to what I mean by ‘absolute certainty’), when the sun is shining, it is true that the sun is shining, and it is not at the same instant possibly false that the sun is shining, since the sun is already shining, and what is true now is not also possibly false now (although the same truth in a different instant is possibly false later, so tomorrow the proposition “the sun is shining” is possibly false, but right now (today, at this hypothetical instant) the proposition “the sun is shining” is true and is certainly true since the sun really is shining).
I think you will find this trivial, and I hope I have not taken up too much of your time.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

1. Absolute certainty (or, an absolutely certain belief) means that a belief cannot possibly be false.
   Rephrased: (2’) A belief qualifies as an ‘absolutely certain belief’ (according to my definition) if the belief is not false, and cannot possibly be false.

Thus, it is necessary, according to this definition of absolutely certain belief, that,
(2a) necessarily, the absolutely certain belief is true.

So you’re saying that we can derive

(2a) Necessarily, an absolutely certain belief is true.

from

(2) An absolutely certain belief cannot possibly be false.

But I am saying that either 2a and 2 are semantically identical – they mean the same thing – or you cannot derive 2 from 2a. Why can’t you derive it? Because, in this case, 2 means “An absolutely certain belief is such that the proposition believed is necessarily true.” But in 2a, the content of the belief just happens to be true.

This is what is called a scope fallacy, in modal logic.

A comparison: Suppose we agree that “Necessarily, everything I know is true.” This is a true statement, because knowledge entails truth. But it does not follow logically that “Everything that I know is necessarily true.” Many things that I know could have been false, if the world was different.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I think you’re making a logical error here.

Oh, and don’t worry about taking up too much of my time. I study philosophy for a living, so I like this stuff.

 

[Fairwinds]

Hi Fairwinds,
How certain are you of the legitimacy quantum mechanics ?
But seriously, in which of my statements does quantum mechanics say I am wrong?

the theory (used in the scientific sense of the term) is well established by experimental data.

as to the proposition that knowledge can be certain, it is not ever going to be certain.

this is from wikipedia, on the [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle]uncertainty principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle]uncertainty principle)

its a good explanation.

“In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.” (emphasis added)

 

[Mount_Carmel]

Is all that is physical and temporal in the world/universe all that is? Can only the physical and temporal, that is/appears subject to the laws of decay and entropy, ever explain its own pop-up existence in the ‘eternal ether’? If not, then how can we have physical temporal based certainty?

Is it possible to know whether or not Schrodinger’s Cat is alive or dead without opening the box? The reality is it is one OR the other, NOT BOTH - that is the certainty.

 

[Fairwinds]

…

Is it possible to know whether or not Schrodinger’s Cat is alive or dead without opening the box? The reality is it is one OR the other, NOT BOTH - that is the certainty.

the Cat is only an analogy of what happens on the subatomic level.

and maybe the best way to put this is that all possibilities are real until the system interacts with another (measurement, for example) and the possibilities resolve. you can run real life single/double slit experiments and afterwards “look” at the results and you get different results depending on how you “look”. so its accurate to say all results exist until that point. but on the macro level, these interactions happens constantly; a real cat would know if its alive or dead.

as I see it, the human mind hasn’t evolved in a way that QM uncertainty makes “common sense”, since we do not experience the subatomic world in the way we experience, cats, for example. so there’s no good language to describe this kind of uncertainty, except in an abstract way, through math.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

With the singular exception of ‘God’, who in anycase is not an effect, ‘He’ just IS - all effects have a cause(s), it is just that we don’t aways percieve or understand them. Without a cause {nudge] there is status quo/stacis.

It is human lack of complete knowledge that adds uncertainty to our perceptual soup - though ironically some of those least able in lateral thought and questioning are among those who think they perceive things with ‘crystal’ certainty.

 

[Bookcat]

No. All knowledge is not absolutely certain knowledge.

(moral certainty is an example of knowledge that is not absolutely certain…but which is sufficient)

 

[Birdmanman]

So you’re saying that we can derive

(2a) Necessarily, an absolutely certain belief is true.

from

(2) An absolutely certain belief cannot possibly be false.

But I am saying that either 2a and 2 are semantically identical – they mean the same thing – or you cannot derive 2 from 2a. Why can’t you derive it? Because, in this case, 2 means “An absolutely certain belief is such that the proposition believed is necessarily true.” But in 2a, the content of the belief just happens to be true.

This is what is called a scope fallacy, in modal logic.

A comparison: Suppose we agree that “Necessarily, everything I know is true.” This is a true statement, because knowledge entails truth. But it does not follow logically that “Everything that I know is necessarily true.” Many things that I know could have been false, if the world was different.

Maybe I’m missing something, but I think you’re making a logical error here.

Oh, and don’t worry about taking up too much of my time. I study philosophy for a living, so I like this stuff.

Okay, I think I see what you’re saying.
To revise the argument to avoid modal confusion:

1. Knowledge is (a.) true (b.) belief that is (c.) sufficiently justified (Definition of knowledge)
2. Absolute Certainty (or an absolutely certain belief), means that a belief cannot now be false, even though the belief could have possibly been false ‘before’ now.(Definitional)
3. What is true cannot now be actually shown to be false and is not now actually false. (Self-evident)
4. A belief which cannot now be shown to be false and is not now actually false is absolutely certain. (From 2. and 3.)
5. All knowledge, as defined in 1. (satisfying conditions a,b, and c), is absolutely certain now. (From 1., 3., and 4.)

(What is true now cannot also now be false).
This definition of absolute certainty does not really tell us too much though, and so I may need to seek another definition.

 

[Birdmanman]

the theory (used in the scientific sense of the term) is well established by experimental data.

as to the proposition that knowledge can be certain, it is not ever going to be certain.

this is from wikipedia, on the [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle]uncertainty principle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle]uncertainty principle)

its a good explanation.

“In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.” (emphasis added)

Hi again!
Really though, how certain are you that the uncertainty principle is true? Even if it is, it speaks to physical things only and knowledge about their make-up, and not to logical propositions in themselves. Now, however, we are using the word “certainty” in a way that admits to both “certainty” and “certitude”.
We can be certain (have certitude) and it is certain that either the Uncertainty Principle is true or it is false.

 

[Fairwinds]

Hi again!
Really though, how certain are you that the uncertainty principle is true? Even if it is, it speaks to physical things only and knowledge about their make-up, and not to logical propositions in themselves. Now, however, we are using the word “certainty” in a way that admits to both “certainty” and “certitude”.
We can be certain (have certitude) and it is certain that either the Uncertainty Principle is true or it is false.

I specified I was using the term in the way a scientist would use it.

the theory is one of the best established in science, a substantial amount of experimental data confirms it, no evidence contradicts (any contradictory evidence would disprove it). this is proof in a scientific sense.

Einstein is said to have asserted that God does not play dice in his opposition to QM. but, apparently, from** our** perspective, God does play dice and there is an inherent randomness and unpredictability in creation.

personally, I believe if we could see the universe through God’s eyes and mind, this wouldn’t be the case, but we can’t do that. we we’re stuck with a mind and senses that evolved and operate in a world where this QM stuff cannot be intuitively understood; nevertheless acknowledge its existence and understand it through a glass darkly.