Some Thoughts on The Arbitrary

Metaphysics and Epistemology
21

5 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

“Any idea or claim in any form, when any substantive portion thereof is wholly causally disconnected from reality, is, insofar as that portion is so disconnected, arbitrary.”

Looks good, I can’t find a problem with that. But you have to account for one more thing that seems to be associated with “the arbitrary”. The idea that you can’t disprove it.

The idea that it is not true or false.

I suspect (not sure) that In most cases, that which is causally disconnected would be demonstrably false/nonexistent.

22

18 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

I suspect (not sure) that In most cases, that which is causally disconnected would be demonstrably false/nonexistent.

This is where the onus of proof is delegated to the one making the positive assertion - i.e., that it is the demonstrably true/existent. There is no onus to ‘disprove’.

23

11 minutes ago, dream_weaver said:

This is where the onus of proof is delegated to the one making the positive assertion - i.e., that it is the demonstrably true/existent. There is no onus to ‘disprove’.

Yes indeed.  One cannot prove the negative with positive evidence, one can only demonstrate that there is a lack of any evidence.

Nothing in existence serves as evidence which proves the non-existence of the Devil, it’s not as if the fabric of space time could purposefully post little signs saying “No Devil here”.  One can only point to the fact that no evidence has been shown supporting a claim to the positive… and in absence of any, there is nothing further to discuss.

 

EDIT: But here I agree with you and ET both… one does not prove non-existence of say the Devil but in the face of claims to purported evidence one can demonstrate the lack of any evidence by skewering/debunking that purported evidence.

24

On 7/26/2021 at 10:28 PM, necrovore said:

The answer to all such statements , according to Objectivism, is: an arbitrary claim is automatically invalidated. The rational response to such a claim is to dismiss it, without discussion, consideration, or argument.

Regarding the meaning of “to invalidate”. It seems that Peikoff is using the statement in the context of a debate or conversation. As in, proper rules of debate demand that you ignore what the other guy said if it is judged to be an arbitrary claim.

Because in the context of “thinking”, to invalidate could mean to consider as false.

It’s difficult to integrate because arbitrary refers to nothing in particular (similar to a contradiction). But it’s not false. The arbitrary does not belong in the realm of reason and/or logic.

Perhaps invalid means false and/or arbitrary. Campbell interprets invalidate as meaning false and he may be mistaken.

Quote

“Automatically invalidated” appears to mean that whenever one identifies a statement as arbitrary, one is entitled, without further ado, to conclude that it is false, consequently ruling it out of any further consideration.

Now regarding another issue

23 hours ago, necrovore said:

A statement has to be put into a context in order to be judged as true, false, or arbitrary (or “possible,” “probable,” etc.). Further, the same statement can be true in one context, false in another, and arbitrary in yet another, although this might hinge on certain words that have different meanings in different contexts.

If I hear “tiger liked a moon”. I have no context, which tiger which moon etc., I also don’t know much about tigers or moons.

Clearly I can’t judge it as true or false, it’s meaningless.

By establishing context do you mean after studying the subject? (a masters degree in moons and tigers)

Nevertheless, the statement is still going to be meaningless even after that. There’s just not enough information there.

If you cannot establish context, do you automatically judge it as arbitrary? As in could lack of knowledge (on the listener’s part) also be a lack of context?

I would argue that absence of context, also can indicate arbitrary. (you don’t have to establish context to consider something arbitrary). Although it may be the “subjective” sense of arbitrary.

25

14 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

If you cannot establish context, do you automatically judge it as arbitrary? As in could lack of knowledge (on the listener’s part) also be a lack of context?

 

Your example would not even be a statement in that case. It would be gibberish. As far as lacking knowledge about the subject, you should still be able to recognize if there is evidence and context, despite not having enough assumed background information.

26

Gibberish would be completely un-understandable like “wertWQq2t43qt@$#%@^%”. 

“Tiger liked a moon” would qualify as an arbitrary claim or a sentence although one can immediately tell that it is meaningless.

“The devil made him steal the car” won’t resolve to true or false (and is meaningless).

“Tiger liked a moon” and “The devil made him do that” can pass a basic spell and grammar check. Both are neither true or false. The difference is the meaninglessness is more obvious in one than the other.

Meanwhile, gibberish is also not true or false. It also is not in the realm of logic. It also is to be dismissed and ignored.

Perhaps there is continuum between “the obvious arbitrary” and “the hidden arbitrary”. 

“The arbitrary” is a non-determinable statement masquerading as a determinable true/false statement.

Gibberish does not have that deceptive quality. There is no masquerading. One immediately knows it’s neither true or false.

What concerns us the most about “the arbitrary” is the fraudulent quality that one must be on the lookout for.

27

Although gibberish may share certain traits with “the arbitrary”, there is a key difference.

An arbitrary claim can serve as an assumption, while gibberish cannot.
 

28

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

“Tiger liked a moon” would qualify as an arbitrary claim or a sentence although one can immediately tell that it is meaningless.

I thought you were trying to make a bizarre ungrammatical sentence. So forget that. 

You won’t know it’s arbitrary until you ask the person. You can reasonably expect that it isn’t arbitrary. It may be a person named Tiger. There may be a tiger that looks at the moon a lot at night, so that is at least some kind of evidence that a tiger likes a moon. 

10 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

“The devil made him steal the car” won’t resolve to true or false (and is meaningless).

Sure it can be. “My evidence is that he said Hail Satan last time I saw him.” It’s bad evidence, but it is evidence in the sense that it is offered as a reason to believe the claim. You can then easily disprove the statement. You can demonstrate that the connection does not hold in reference to the evidence. If the person said “I have no evidence, I just know it!” that would be arbitrary. 

I’m also distinguishing how these words are grammatical, are syntactically correct, but have no connection with evidence or reasons to believe. It would be impossible to say why this statement is true or false, even if it is true or false. 

29

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

If the person said “I have no evidence, I just know it!” that would be arbitrary. 

Yes, that would clearly be arbitrary.

3 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Sure it can be. “My evidence is that he said Hail Satan last time I saw him.” It’s bad evidence, but it is evidence in the sense that it is offered as a reason to believe the claim. You can then easily disprove the statement. You can demonstrate that the connection does not hold in reference to the evidence.

But “the how” is important. I would agree that there is “no evidence or no valid evidence”.

At some point you will have to demonstrate the undemonstatable. You will have to “show” that the devil does not exist.

But you can’t show that which can’t be shown (in perpetuity). (since it does not exist)

And that is part of the way to indicate the fallacy, in concert with Occam’s razor (why add a devil when you don’t need one).

Unless you have another way to disprove it.

At this point, it seems there is a strong relationship between “arbitrary claim” and proving a negative.

Therefore, I would hypothesize that defining the “arbitrary claim” as “being a claim that can’t be disproven” is okay and maybe even  preferable.

  • It does not contradict the “no evidence” or “bad evidence”.
  • It does not contradict the lack of connection to causality (or reality for that matter).
  • It does not contradict the need to dismiss it.

Objections are welcome.

30

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Therefore, I would hypothesize that defining the “arbitrary claim” as “being a claim that can’t be disproven” is okay and maybe even  preferable.

But if a claim is true it can’t be disproven…

[Edit] You might want to say “a claim that can’t be proven or disproven…”

There might also be a case where a claim can’t be proven or disproven right now but can be later.

31

2 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

But you can’t show that which can’t be shown

You can do that if the person has evidence, that’s my point. When somebody makes a positive claim, with a reason to believe, you can demonstrate that the claim is true or false. You can show that the devil does not exist if a person is at least engaging in providing reasons for their belief. You can do that by pointing out contradictions or statements that don’t follow. Why isn’t this possible if the person has given you reasons? But as soon as they stop engaging with giving reasons, it all becomes arbitrary. 

“Proving a negative” doesn’t apply here because the person is trying to prove a positive, that the devil exists. 

 

32

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

But if a claim is true it can’t be disproven…

[Edit] You might want to say “a claim that can’t be proven or disproven…”

Good point.

I personally would go with that.

But there will be objections to the fact that axiomatic truths can’t be proven.
I don’t understand it so I can’t say much about that.

On a side note: Many will argue that axiom are simply assumptions. I think Ben Shapiro made the case that “you have to start somewhere”. It came across like axiom are arbitrary assumptions.

Bottom line, we come full circle, back to Peikoff.

There is True, False, neither-True-or-False

Almost like 3 states of logic, 2 of them determinable and a third indeterminable.

Arbitrary may in fact be “the neither true or false” in the simplest terms.

Although, it does not exist in any logic diagram that I’ve ever seen. And it is not part of logic or reason.

But it’s there. And serves as foundation for other information.

Meanwhile there are two species of the neither-True-or-False.

I divide them as the subjective vs the objective.

The subjective arbitrary being the “to be determined”. It is based on the listener’s perspective.

While the objective arbitrary is eternally arbitrary and does not matter who said it or who heard it. Independent of the claimant or listener. It just is arbitrary, period.
 

33

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

“Proving a negative” doesn’t apply here because the person is trying to prove a positive, that the devil exists. 

But you would be saying “the devil does not exist” and trying to prove that.

If you identify “the devil exists” as an arbitrary, and/or “the devil does not exist” as proving a negative, you would dismiss the argument in both cases.

34

14 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

But you would be saying “the devil does not exist” and trying to prove that.

Proving something false does not necessarily mean you you have proved the opposite true. A successful proof of nonexistence could only be done by the successful proof of something that exists, and that it is impossible for the 2 alleged things to exist simultaneously. I can prove that a claim that the devil exists is false if evidence or reasons to believe are provided, prove that all that truly exists primarily are concrete entities, and based on those, and lastly that the devil cannot simultaneously exist as both a non-concrete and concrete entity because that would be a contradiction (assuming that by devil they mean some spirit-entity). “Proving a negative” would be directly trying to prove that the devil does not exist. That would not be possible. 

“Let me demonstrate that this thing before us does not exist by showing you the evidence that this thing gives off no evidence.” You are literally trying to prove that nothing has no evidence, that’s why it sounds like a mess and borders on incoherent. It would also be arbitrary because your claim has no evidence of any kind. 

51 minutes ago, Easy Truth said:

There is True, False, neither-True-or-False

That violates the law of excluded middle. There is nothing in between true and false. It’s only there for people who have fallen into an arbitrary psycho epistemology. Something like this:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nagarjuna

 

35

12 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

There is True, False, neither-True-or-False

That violates the law of excluded middle.

Agreed, it can’t be part of logical determination. (Although it is part of logical input. We use arbitraries as input data)

It does not to refer to anything outside of mind.

It is obviously purely epistemological.

It’s likely something like infinity, zero, imaginary numbers, the concept “nothing” or even contradiction.

Useful in some way in thinking but non existent.

36

It turns out that arbitrary assertion has another element that has to be accounted for.

Arbitrary is the neither-True-or-False-That-could-be-True-or-False

That takes out “gibberish” out of the running. Gibberish can’t be True or False. By that definition, Gibberish would not be an arbitrary assertion.

 

 

 

 

 

37

6 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

That takes out “gibberish” out of the running. Gibberish can’t be True or False. By that definition, Gibberish would not be an arbitrary assertion.

To put it another way, it has to be an assertion to be an arbitrary assertion. Gibberish isn’t an assertion of anything.

38

11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

We use arbitraries as input data)

Pretty sure you are equivocating again. One moment you’re talking about arbitrary claims, then the next moment you are talking about arbitrary selections or declarations, and treating both as the same concept. Claims are only true or false, that’s it. Arbitrary declarations are neither true nor false, there is nothing true or false about them because they are not meant to say anything about reality. Arbitrary claims that are neither true nor false don’t even exist in a mental way. 

Anyway, what do you mean that we use arbitraries as input data? 

11 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It’s likely something like infinity, zero, imaginary numbers, the concept “nothing” or even contradiction.

Claims made with any of these are either true or false. I don’t know what you mean. 

39

50 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Anyway, what do you mean that we use arbitraries as input data? 

There is arbitrary in a positive sense and there is arbitrary in a negative sense.

Arbitrary in a positive sense is when we say “let’s assume ABC for the sake of argument and go from there”. It is also an arbitrary assertion to say “let x be 4” and then prove your point.

We are using the data, x is 4 as an arbitrary input data and building the rest of the proof etc based on that assertion.

And then there is arbitrary assertion in the negative sense. The one that we associate with causing damage. Like “devil”, “God” etc. That is also input data and treated as true by the religious types. Their system is built on those imaginary facts.

So ultimately an arbitrary assertion used as a foundation of one’s knowledge says quite a bit about reality. In a problematic faith based way.

I won’t go into right now but “the arbitrary assertion” does have some survival value. Sometimes we have to assume the best, be optimistic. “Everything is going to be alright” in many cases is in fact an arbitrary assertion.

55 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Pretty sure you are equivocating again.

Sometimes I am and currently, until we parse it out completely, it is inevitable. The way Peikoff defines it allows for equivocation. We will clarify and eliminate the ambiguity as we move forward.

I suspect that you may be equivocating knowledge with valid knowledge or truth. Knowledge can be garbage too.

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

13 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

It’s likely something like infinity, zero, imaginary numbers, the concept “nothing” or even contradiction.

Claims made with any of these are either true or false. I don’t know what you mean. 

The only thing I was trying to point out is that “the arbitrary” does not exist out there. Zero also does not exist out there.

Not that these claims are arbitrary. 

40

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Sometimes I am and currently, until we parse it out completely, it is inevitable

You aren’t accidentally equivocating, because we’ve already determined that these are different concepts, yet you keep on insisting on using them as the same concept. Or you haven’t shown that they are the same concept. You can make distinctions among arbitrary claims, you can make distinctions among arbitrary declarations, but you can’t make any good distinctions among a combination of arbitrary claims and arbitrary declarations. I’m not sure if I am wording that very well, but I mean something like you can’t have a species out of sparrows and grasshoppers. 
 

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Not that these claims are arbitrary. 

Okay, then you take back that there is a such thing as something that is neither true nor false even in your mind.