2 hours ago, Boydstun said:
I think it would be cheap to simply define the externally unknowable as nonexistent. Those of us who think all existents are knowable (i.e. any among them is knowable) need an argument to that proposition as its conclusion, and it should be an argument that does not lead down the primrose lane of Hegel.
That which is eternally (not externally) unknowable, meaning, no one knows it, no one has ever known it or will know it, by definition, must be non existent. Not something that exists an there is no interest in knowing it.
You could make the case that “that which is unperceivable by some species is not necessarily non existent”. But I am making the case with: unperceivable by any possible species.
Now, it may be inappropriate of me to say “eternally unknowable” as in contemplating “one hand clapping”. But I don’t know how else to do it.
In order for a fact to be known, there must be somebody to know it. But the physical universe would still exist, even if there never were any consciousnesses.
It is not possible for something to be unknowable in principle to any rational consciousness that may exist. But if there were no consciousnesses, that would make things “unknowable” in a way that would be consistent with them existing.
6 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
In order for a fact to be known, there must be somebody to know it. But the physical universe would still exist, even if there never were any consciousnesses.
It is not possible for something to be unknowable in principle to any rational consciousness that may exist. But if there were no consciousnesses, that would make things “unknowable” in a way that would be consistent with them existing.
I gather there were 17 minutes in which the universe was everywhere undergoing nuclear fusion. From what we know of life and its cells and their chemical requirements and environments, and from what we know of any organization of nature we have been able construct as an instrumentation and control device, which seems necessary for being a possible acquirer of knowledge, I think it is safe to say that at that interval, the universe had nobody to know it. Good thing we came along latter and identified it.
On 6/27/2022 at 4:35 PM, Easy Truth said:
That which is eternally (not externally) unknowable, meaning, no one knows it, no one has ever known it or will know it, by definition, must be non existent. Not something that exists an there is no interest in knowing it.
You could make the case that “that which is unperceivable by some species is not necessarily non existent”. But I am making the case with: unperceivable by any possible species.
Now, it may be inappropriate of me to say “eternally unknowable” as in contemplating “one hand clapping”. But I don’t know how else to do it.
I think you are on to something, ET. If we are thinking of things unknowable because they are things-in-themselves in Kant’s strongest sense, then we can make a case that there are no such things. However there are other things, things that had plenty of identity, that we nor anyone can know. Those are certain particularities of the past that have left no traces in the present because nature with its second law of thermodynamics has rubbed out all the traces they left. We are unable to find any traces of them not due to some feebleness in our observational instruments and inferential abilities, but because of an inconsiderateness of the natural world. I’ve not found any such unknowable particularities of the past a great loss to intelligent life. I mean like where were the particular carbon molecules that are part of the composition of my body over the entire course of their history since those molecules were first formed? When it comes to fiction, there are things unknowable because there just is no there there in the matter. Did John Galt usually part his hair? Future particular facts in the real world seem rather like that one. Not only because we haven’t the capability of projecting all the potentials of present actualities into the future, but because which of those potential will be actualized is not yet set. Not even whether next year will be so good for strawberries as this year. There are some unknowable things in mathematics, of course, because knowledge there is restricted to proofs, and some mathematical theses have been proven unprovable. We can live with that just fine.
1 Like
16 hours ago, Doug Morris said:
But the physical universe would still exist, even if there never were any consciousnesses.
If there is an identifier, then there is identification.
If there are no identifiers at all, ever, then it’s a moot point.
To say that it is certain that things exist when there is no way know it, is to utter an arbitrary statement.
The position taken is that things do exist even if there is absolutely no way to be certain of it.
The position taken is that there is a logical necessity that things exist “before” consciousness.
Then there must be causal connection between the material universe and consciousness.
Except that it is not deterministic.
The only conclusion that is reasonable at this point is: “therefore our understanding of consciousness is inadequate”.