Thank you for the formula but how does that apply to my problems? — Truth Seeker

It's not a magic incantation. Bayes formula requires that you take the first step, with your best guess. Then you have to do the work of finding new evidence to support or deny your intuitive answer. It's pragmatic, not magic. It's subjective, not science.

Would you be satisfied with a statistical solution to your personal problems? As I said before, if you seek the feeling of certainty, Faith is the answer. Philosophy is not about certainty, but merely diminishing doubt. :smile:


Bayesian inference is a method of statistical inference in which Bayes' theorem is used to update the probability for a hypothesis as more evidence or information becomes available. Fundamentally, Bayesian inference uses prior knowledge, in the form of a prior distribution in order to estimate posterior probabilities. Bayesian inference is an important technique in statistics, and especially in mathematical statistics. Bayesian updating is particularly important in the dynamic analysis of a sequence of data. Bayesian inference has found application in a wide range of activities, including science, engineering, philosophy, medicine, sport, and law. In the philosophy of decision theory, Bayesian inference is closely related to subjective probability, often called "Bayesian probability".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_inference

Thank you for telling me about Bayesian inference. It is fascinating but it is not possible to answer my questions about the true nature of selves and universes.

We don't know and probably can't know whether living things are real souls without real bodies, real souls in real bodies or real bodies without real souls.

We also don't know and probably can't know whether the universe is actually real or is a simulation or hallucination or dream or illusion. The most likely scenario is that we will all die without knowing the true nature of selves and universes.

I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death.

↪Manuel Or we can accept skepticism and carry on from there without stressing about certainty, knowing that we will die is as likely or less than that we were born. — Lionino

Stressing about Skepticism is futile, agreed. If Hume cannot overcome it and Kant cannot defeat it, what hope do mere mortals have?

Still, it's worth keeping it in mind as a problem. For ignoring it completely defeats the point of what is right about it, that we cannot attain certainty - in this world at least.

I think we can know with 100% certainty that within an existing universe, change will always occur.

In a way that's like saying the most certain thing is that uncertainty will always exist (due to its link woth transience/transformation/change).

Thank you for your reply. There are trillions of things that we know with 100% certainty e.g. the Earth orbits the Sun, London is the capital of the United Kingdom, the Sun rises in the East, living things die, etc.

How do you know you are able to make synthetic judgements, that is taking two concepts and uniting them into one? And not that the new concept you summoned is a quimeric one that seems related but is completely unrelated to the previous two.

Not to say if Earth is Earth. Derrida’s concept of iterability involves the idea that every repetition is an alteration, every recurrence is a difference

Ah yes, 100% certain by any human lifespan I'm sure. However as we tend to expand our search to great magnitudes as astronomers do searching the stars, none of what you mentioned is indefinitely certain.

The sun will die, the earth will be consumed by it and so will no longer "orbit it" nor will the sun "rise from the east - the east of what?". Even less certain, London will likely not always be the capital of England, perhaps the UK won't always be recognised as such (welch and Scottish independence could see to that), as for living things well, should they go extinct, the sentiment "living things die" will from there on be irrelevant as there are no livng things left.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, but when I say things with 100% certainty, I refer to those things that are as fundamental and enduring in the universe as perhaps the universe itself. "That which remains true and valid for the longest duration" - is how I measure their magnitude of certainty.

So no, sadly i have to disagree that there are trillions of things that are 100% certain in a longevital sense. They are certainly 100% certain in a brief moment. But i guess this is contingent on the semantics of what we mean or qualify as "certain". Archaeologist can never be 100% certain about anything beyond a certain distance in the past. They can offer at best the most appropriate explanation/theory. Time is the ultimate dissolution of certainty.

For me the more brief and rare an event is, the less scientifically certain we can be about it. Especially retrospectively with the passage of time.

And on the macro scale, change is only one of few things I can conceive that meets that criterion of "absolute certainty". On the micro scale of self referentiality, I think therefore I am, may suffice.

Not to say if Earth is Earth. Derrida’s concept of iterability involves the idea that every repetition is an alteration, every recurrence is a difference — Lionino

I would agree. Like the buddhist concept that the same river can never be stepped into twice. Everything changes from moment to moment. So when we talk of "certainty" it is one of two things: a) that which cannot change and is eternal or b). That which is for the most minute of moments, for the briefest time, defined and certain. Before it changes of course.

It would suggest certainty at the two extremes of the scale of "Time", but for very different reasons.

[quote="Truth Seeker;888964"]I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death.[/quote]
If you are a sensitive feeling person, I doubt that you will find comfort in Analytic Philosophy. And you are not likely to find the feeling of certainty in a Hegelian dialogue on fundamental questions, that has been going back & forth for ages. But maybe you can reach a resolution with the angst-inducing vagaries of the world in the aloof solace of Stoicism, or the self-reliant meaning of Existentialism, or the introspective mindfulness of Buddhism. :nerd:


Existentialism vs. Absurdism :
As Camus explains, individuals are able to gain a sense of satisfaction in life, in spite of its meaninglessness. Whereas existentialism accepts the possibility that we might create our own meaning through our goals and achievements, the absurdists deny that meaning can be found at the outcome of any rational endeavor.
https://www.culturefrontier.com/existentialism-vs-absurdism/

I am not talking about the future. When the Sun expands it will incinerate the Earth. That does not mean that the Earth is not orbiting the Sun right now. London is currently the capital of the United Kingdom. If in the future, the Earth becomes one country and United Kingdom ceases to be a country then London will no longer be the capital of the United Kingdom but that does not mean that it is not the capital of the United Kingdom now. When we observe the rising of the Sun from Earth, it rises over the horizon form the East - not North, not South, not West.

Certainty does not depend on the duration something is true. It is certain that the Earth orbits the Sun now. The fact that the expansion of the Sun will incinerate the Earth does not make it any less certain that the Earth orbits the Sun now.

Thank you for your reply. I don't need to find comfort. I have accepted that which I cannot change. I do my best to save and improve all lives. I have not managed to save and improve all lives but I have saved and improved some lives through my words, actions and inactions.

That's a nice little cage you have built for yourself.

I cry about the fact that there is so much suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world. If I could, I would make all living things forever happy - including the dead ones and the never-born ones. I wish I could make all living things all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful then there would be no suffering, inequality, injustice and death. — Truth Seeker

This seems to be around about the mentality of the perpetually paralyzed.
I was in this mentality for some time - I eventually realised that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems. I evolved from it.

On the contrary, it is the lack of compassion and caring that creates the problems in life. If everyone cared about everyone then the world would be a much happier place. Murder, torture, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, slavery, exploitation, etc. would vanish. The world has enough to meet everyone's needs. It does not have enough to meet anyone's greed. If only everyone would commit to saving and improving all lives. I am not paralysed. I have saved and improved some lives already and plan to save and improve even more lives.

To say you know something implies a commitment to something being true, and for me that implies certainty — Lionino

Good for you. If something is known, then one can conclude that it is true.

One can hardly discern whether there is something "true" about the game they just made up to communicate or whether it is a useful fiction. — Lionino

In Chess, it is true that the bishop stays on it's own colour.

I'm not at all sure we are disagreeing here.

Are you trying to apply mathematical operations to English? Because
* "It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone" and
* "It is not set in stone that there is something set in stone"
can mean completely different things, even though both are made of a negative with a positive. — Lionino

Maybe I need to rephrase the second one to: Nothing is set in stone, which is set in stone. I think I just didn't negate it enough at the beginning and make the statements firm enough. As far as I can see, both of these
"It is set in stone that there is nothing set in stone."
and
"Nothing is set in stone, which is set in stone."
end up meaning that nothing is set in stone, since they overall negate themselves. I cannot see other meanings, but maybe I am missing something?

We do use these positive/negative patterns in language, although when I was at school in the UK, it was always stressed that we should avoid them and that they are frowned upon due to how much confusion they tend to cause. Due to this, I think that most people in the UK are aware of them, if only to avoid using them. (Although, I do sometimes hear mostly younger people wrongly saying, "I didn't do nothing" to mean, "I didn't do anything." "I didn't do nothing" would mean that they did do something.)

I had a double negative question in a philosophy exam when I was studying in Canada, and I was so surprised that I thought for a moment they had made a mistake. They hadn't though. I asked the professor about it and he said it was a common type of question there. (Actually, it may be a common philosophy question in the UK too, but I wouldn't know, as I have never studied philosophy in the UK.)

Probability, not Certainty — Gnomon

So you are now saying Bayesian inference is only probably correct...?

On the contrary, it is the lack of compassion and caring that creates the problems in life. If everyone cared about everyone then the world would be a much happier place. Murder, torture, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, slavery, exploitation, etc. would vanish. The world has enough to meet everyone's needs. It does not have enough to meet anyone's greed. If only everyone would commit to saving and improving all lives. I am not paralysed. I have saved and improved some lives already and plan to save and improve even more lives. — Truth Seeker

More of the same, really.

What do you mean by that?

You can know with 100% certainty that logical possibility alone does not warrant belief.

I agree.

It's sanguine platitudes, out of touch with reality. There seems to be some underlying belief in a 'perfect world' which has absolutely no basis for its conception, let alone actually trying for it.
This project has lead to the deaths of 100s of millions across the human epoch. No one more than I recognizes the internal need to carry with you empathy, compassion and psychological adaptiveness with respect to them - But hte idea that this will solve problems (particuarlly ones you note) is absurd, for many reasons, not least of which is the historical abject failure (an in fact, patent harm) of that project.

I eventually realised that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems. — AmadeusD

Doesn't solve problems for who? For you, or for the people being shown compassion and caring? If you are saying that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems for those being shown compassion and caring, that doesn't seem to make sense to me. Isn't it compassion and caring that results in people taking action to help others?

What project? Selfishness and ruthlessness have resulted in the deaths and misery of so many living things. If every human became a vegan egalitarian, the world would be a much happier place for humans and all the sentient beings we hold captive, exploit and slaughter.

I agree with you.

Any group larger than about five.

Isn't it compassion and caring that results in people taking action to help others? — Beverley

No. It is an understanding and rational apprehension of the problem, and in turn, a viable solution. There are precisely zero examples of any problem which isn't an interpersonal (i.e an emotional disagreement or similar) problem, being solved by crying and thinking yourself into a black hole.

What project? — Truth Seeker

It is perfectly clear in my post what I am talking about. Pretending that compassion and caring solve problems, when they are literally internal emotions, is incoherent and has lead to countless deaths and the absolute incapability of society-at-large to develop faster than a snail.

If you are saying that compassion and caring doesn't solve any problems for those being shown compassion and caring, that doesn't seem to make sense to me. — Beverley

Of course compassion and caring solve many problems, but not all. Clearly not all. For example, in the event of a plague compassion and caring helps enormously, but many will still die.

I am not pretending that compassion and caring solve problems. They actually prevent many problems and solve many problems. I take it you have never needed a mother and a father and doctors and nurses and midwives to come into existence and stay alive. I wonder which species you belong to. Perhaps you are visiting from another planet and trying to understand sentient life on Earth. I will be happy to give you extensive education on the importance of empathy, compassion and caring for living things on Earth.

Perhaps you are visiting from another planet — Truth Seeker

I've wondered about that. :cool:

I didn't claim that compassion and caring make all living things immortal. Living things die for many reasons. Selfishness and ruthlessness have resulted in the deaths and misery of so many living things. If every human became a vegan egalitarian, the world would be a much happier place for humans and all the sentient beings we hold captive, exploit and slaughter.