What's our most basic assumptions?

[Cheerful Charlie]

I think, therefor I am.
- Descartes

Therefor things exist. Some things think.

Nothing comes from nothing.
- Paramenides

That is nothing does not have the potential to become something. Therefor something has always existed.

The concept of an omni-everything creator God soon self destructs because it is incoherent and self contradictory.
Therefor that God does not exist and did not create the something that has always existed.

Science gives us knowledge about the world. Religion, mysticism, occultism and bad metaphysics never have and never will. Do not waste time with them except to debunk them for benefit of those who have not figured that out.

 

[steve_bank]

Given the last 200 years in sconce there can be no assumptions, only models that match observation. Unless of course you are thinking in pre 20th century philosophy and metaphysics.

Do we grok EB?

 

[Speakpigeon]

The world is as we perceive it.
Our senses paint an accurate picture of reality.

Which relies on
- there is something that is not me
- there is a world out there
- the senses reflect something outside ourselves.
- the senses reflect that world outside ourselves.
- stuff you dont see changing probably stays the same
Etc

Possibly, but the OP is about whatever assumptions people make: What would be our most basic assumption when we try to understand anything about reality? Not, what should be...

It's not about necessarily what could be argued to be more fundamental. If I experience redness, I will assume, at least in most contexts, that there's something red out there. So, OK, this implies that there's something out there in the first place but not necessarily that there being something out there is an assumption I make.

Seyorni's assumption already includes that there's a world out there. S/He doesn't necessarily have to make any extra assumption that there's a world out there. It's already implied in his or her assumption (I'm making the assumption "he" and "her"are the only option applicable).
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Stuff happens for a reason (the assumption of adequate determinism).

Yes, seems good to me.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The assumption that there's a reality to begin with.

This one is disqualified by the wording of the OP's question: What would be our most basic assumption when we try to understand anything about reality? The question its assumes a reality and that we may try to understand it. And I wouldn't know how to ask about our assumptions without the question itself assuming a reality. It thought about it and dismissed the idea. Maybe yu could start your own thread with your own wording?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

The world is as we perceive it.
Our senses paint an accurate picture of reality.

There is a more basic assumption which is true.

There is me and there are the things I perceive.

I am perceiving things.

Something is perceiving them.

I perceive therefore I exist.

The most basic assumptions are well known already.

Descartes explained it a while ago.

I'll dismiss that, although I agree as to your assumption about what Descartes explained, because, as you say yourself we know "there is me" and "there are the things I perceive", although !i would quibble that it's not "the things I perceive" but the things I experience.

Things we know are not assumptions.

assumption
4. Something taken for granted or accepted as true without proof; a supposition.

EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I think, therefor I am.
- Descartes

Therefor things exist. Some things think.

I'll dismiss that. I know I think. Not an assumption.

See also previous post.

That is nothing does not have the potential to become something.

This one's good to me.
EB

 

[untermensche]

I'll dismiss that, although I agree as to your assumption about what Descartes explained, because, as you say yourself we know "there is me" and "there are the things I perceive", although !i would quibble that it's not "the things I perceive" but the things I experience.

A perception is just a kind of experience.

Your quibble is absurd.

Things we know are not assumptions.

We do not know there is anything out there.

We assume the ground will hold us.

Sometimes, very rarely, it doesn't.

 

[steve_bank]

Death and taxes? All politicians lie? The Earth is not flat?

 

[Ford]

There's a lot of basic, practical assumptions we make that help us get through the day. Chief among them is that there's going to be another day. We go to sleep assuming we're going to not only wake up the next day, but that tomorrow the rules will be the same as they were today.

Up is up, down is down, and when you open the fridge the light inside is going to come on more or less without fail.

 

[Bomb#20]

Er......

Tell you what. Consider changing the thread title to 'which of our most basic assumptions do I, Speakpigeon, personally think are worth talking about?' (subtitle: I am going to leave out what is arguably the single most basic one).

Hey, that's privilege coming with posting the OP. Seems fair enough. ... Shouldn't be difficult to find one I haven't ruled out that seems more basic than the others.
EB

Dude! Why are you trying to exclude that one by pulling rank? You don't need rank, and if you did, it's too feeble for the task you've set it. There's no rank in philosophy.

The assumption that there's a reality to begin with.

This one is disqualified by the wording of the OP's question: What would be our most basic assumption when we try to understand anything about reality? The question its assumes a reality and that we may try to understand it. And I wouldn't know how to ask about our assumptions without the question itself assuming a reality. It thought about it and dismissed the idea. Maybe yu could start your own thread with your own wording?
EB

Dude, why are you trying to exclude that one by contradicting yourself?

I think, therefor I am.
- Descartes

Therefor things exist. Some things think.

I'll dismiss that. I know I think. Not an assumption.

See also previous post.

There you go, finally. You said the OP question assumes a reality, but that's wrong. It doesn't assume a reality; as you said in the previous post, "Things we know are not assumptions." "The assumption that there's a reality to begin with doesn't count." is correct; but not because you're the threadmeister. The reason it doesn't count is because there's no such thing. That there's a reality to begin with is a theorem, not a premise. We know there's a reality. I think. Therefore I am. Therefore something is. Q.E.D.

So what's the actual most basic assumption? I'd nominate "The world was not created last Tuesday."

That is nothing does not have the potential to become something.

This one's good to me.
EB

Sure it's good; but the conclusion he infers from it isn't. And "nothing does not have the potential to become something." isn't an assumption either. It's a tautology.

That is nothing does not have the potential to become something. Therefor something has always existed.

Show your work.

 

[ruby sparks]

That is nothing does not have the potential to become something. Therefor something has always existed.

Show your work.

I have deliberated over whether 'there is a reality' is an assumption or whether it has been proved by 'I think therefore I am' (which, to be pedantic, could/should imo be changed to 'there is thinking therefore there is something rather than nothing' since this removes uncertainty over what 'I' is) and on the whole I'm inclined to accept that it's a strong proof (for there being a reality, not an 'I').

I would agree with you if you are saying (to Charlie) that saying that something (reality in some form) has always existed is not warranted, at least not without detailed argument. In fact, reality might exist only when I am (or there is) thinking, and not when I am not (or there isn't). Or would you disagree? This, I think is about the nature or permanence of reality rather than merely whether it (ever) exists. Or would you say that while reality may not always have existed, it does not or cannot go in and out of existence after it has started to exist?

At the very least, I think that if we can't easily say it has always existed then surely we can't easily say it will always exist either, so maybe this opens up the (remote) possibility that it is intermittent?

I confess I have no work to show for this.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Parmenides
"Nothing comes from nothing."

Nothing has no potential to create anything. This is obvious common sense. Modern physics and cosmology has lead to observations that seem to indicate we live in an infinite multiverse. Which also solves the fine tuning problem. To deny Parmenide's dictum is simply a case of skepticism run wild. How true nothing could create something is not a fruitful idea. It is a how many angels can dance on a head of a pin type time waster.

 

[Bomb#20]

Parmenides
"Nothing comes from nothing."

Nothing has no potential to create anything. This is obvious common sense.

Agreed. That is not the part in dispute.

To deny Parmenide's dictum is simply a case of skepticism run wild. How true nothing could create something is not a fruitful idea. It is a how many angels can dance on a head of a pin type time waster.

Agreed. That is not the part in dispute.

Therefor something has always existed.

That is the part in dispute.

You are proposing to jump from an analytic statement of pure logic to a synthetic statement about events 14 billion years ago that no one was around to see -- Aristotelian armchair science at its worst. Time is a dimension of reality just like galactic north. Claiming the universe didn't start 14 billion years ago is no different from claiming it doesn't end 14 billion light years north of here -- it's the sort of statement you need to justify with empirical evidence, not mental exercises like "Nothing comes from nothing" or "The universe must be infinitely large because if there were an edge then a spearman standing at the edge could throw his spear beyond it." The ancient Greeks didn't quite have the analytic/synthetic distinction down.

If you still disagree, please entertain for the moment the hypothesis that reality is 14 billion years old. How do you deduce from this that it was created by "true nothing"? Why couldn't it exist without having been created? What is the difference between "(Began to exist) implies (created by true nothing)" and "(Began to exist) implies (created by God)"?

 

[Bomb#20]

I would agree with you if you are saying (to Charlie) that saying that something (reality in some form) has always existed is not warranted, at least not without detailed argument. In fact, reality might exist only when I am (or there is) thinking, and not when I am not (or there isn't). Or would you disagree?

As far as pure logic goes, I agree. We can of course argue that it must be possible for reality to exist even when there is no thinking, because thinking evolved from non-thinking matter; but that's bringing the empirical evidence for evolution into the game. (Likewise, it's certainly legitimate for CC to argue that something has always existed because physicists have made observations that imply a multiverse or whatever; but that doesn't validate the "Parmenides: therefore forever." line of argument.)

This, I think is about the nature or permanence of reality rather than merely whether it (ever) exists. Or would you say that while reality may not always have existed, it does not or cannot go in and out of existence after it has started to exist?

At the very least, I think that if we can't easily say it has always existed then surely we can't easily say it will always exist either, so maybe this opens up the (remote) possibility that it is intermittent?

I'd agree that word games can't prove it won't end. As far as I can see, the four options -- (), [], (] and [) -- are all logical possibilities. As far as existing intermittently goes, I think that's the wrong way to think about it. To say reality began in 14 billion BC, and will end in 9 trillion AD, and then will begin to exist again in 142 quadrillion AD, is self-contradictory. To put both intervals on the same time scale is to imply that time itself will continue to exist from 9 trillion AD to 142 quadrillion AD; but time is a dimension of reality so if time exists then reality exists. So it would make more sense to describe your hypothetical "intermittent" reality as a multi-segment reality where the segments have no temporal relationship to one another. Analogously, we wouldn't say one segment of reality is ten feet north of the other but there isn't any real ten foot wide space in between. We'd just say there are two pieces and you can't get from here to there. But this is a linguistic issue, not an ontological disagreement.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Agreed. That is not the part in dispute.


Agreed. That is not the part in dispute.

Therefor something has always existed.

That is the part in dispute.

You are proposing to jump from an analytic statement of pure logic to a synthetic statement about events 14 billion years ago that no one was around to see -- Aristotelian armchair science at its worst. Time is a dimension of reality just like galactic north. Claiming the universe didn't start 14 billion years ago is no different from claiming it doesn't end 14 billion light years north of here -- it's the sort of statement you need to justify with empirical evidence, not mental exercises like "Nothing comes from nothing" or "The universe must be infinitely large because if there were an edge then a spearman standing at the edge could throw his spear beyond it." The ancient Greeks didn't quite have the analytic/synthetic distinction down.

If you still disagree, please entertain for the moment the hypothesis that reality is 14 billion years old. How do you deduce from this that it was created by "true nothing"? Why couldn't it exist without having been created? What is the difference between "(Began to exist) implies (created by true nothing)" and "(Began to exist) implies (created by God)"?

Hard evidence tells us that this island Universe is about 14 billion years old. The best scientific evidence leads to the idea that we live in an infinite multiverse.

God is a hypothesis. God as a hypothesis has so many problems, that hypothesis cannot be true. It is an a priori claim we can thus ignore. Again, nothing has no potential to create anything. We can rule that out as highly unlikely based on sound reason. If you think it is a good idea to throw reason and rationality out the window for a bad idea, I cannot follow you there.

When you get to that sort of empty hypothesizing, why not claim the Universe was created by fairies, or sprang out of nothing 5 minutes ago with the past as a mere illusion? Once you go there with that sort of hypotheses not constrained by reason and rationality you abandon any hope of understanding the world by following hard evidence and abandoning unfruitful ideas and methodologies.

 

[Bomb#20]

Agreed. That is not the part in dispute.


Agreed. That is not the part in dispute.

Therefor something has always existed.

That is the part in dispute.

You are proposing to jump from an analytic statement of pure logic to a synthetic statement about events 14 billion years ago that no one was around to see -- Aristotelian armchair science at its worst. Time is a dimension of reality just like galactic north. Claiming the universe didn't start 14 billion years ago is no different from claiming it doesn't end 14 billion light years north of here -- it's the sort of statement you need to justify with empirical evidence, not mental exercises like "Nothing comes from nothing" or "The universe must be infinitely large because if there were an edge then a spearman standing at the edge could throw his spear beyond it." The ancient Greeks didn't quite have the analytic/synthetic distinction down.

If you still disagree, please entertain for the moment the hypothesis that reality is 14 billion years old. How do you deduce from this that it was created by "true nothing"? Why couldn't it exist without having been created? What is the difference between "(Began to exist) implies (created by true nothing)" and "(Began to exist) implies (created by God)"?

Hard evidence tells us that this island Universe is about 14 billion years old. The best scientific evidence leads to the idea that we live in an infinite multiverse.

The best scientific evidence leads to the Standard Model. There's no infinite multiverse in the Standard Model. The infinite multiverse is a speculative attempt to go beyond the Standard Model, supported by flimsy evidence. If and when the evidence for it becomes solid, it will become the new Standard Model. In the meantime, all we can say about it with confidence is "maybe".

God is a hypothesis. God as a hypothesis has so many problems, that hypothesis cannot be true. It is an a priori claim we can thus ignore. Again, nothing has no potential to create anything. We can rule that out as highly unlikely based on sound reason. If you think it is a good idea to throw reason and rationality out the window for a bad idea, I cannot follow you there.

No, the reason you can't follow me there is because I'm not going there. I was not inviting you take the God hypothesis seriously; I was inviting you to compare your own argument with the God hypothesis and notice how parallel they are. "created by true nothing" as a hypothesis has so many problems, that hypothesis cannot be true.

Do you understand the logical principle that (P implies Q) is an equivalent claim to (not Q implies not P)? In case you don't grasp that, read up on it.

Assuming you do grasp that principle, apply it to your claim, "That is nothing does not have the potential to become something. Therefor something has always existed." The "therefore" means you are claiming that the one implies the other. Your argument for that implication was "How true nothing could create something is not a fruitful idea." And you have indicated that the "something" you think has always existed is an infinite multiverse. So in a nutshell, your reasoning is:

True nothing can't create something. Therefore true nothing didn't create the multiverse. If true nothing didn't create the multiverse then the multiverse had no beginning. Therefore the multiverse had no beginning. Therefore the multiverse has always existed.​

You are relying on "If true nothing didn't create the multiverse then the multiverse had no beginning." as a premise. So apply contraposition to that "if P then Q" step. That premise is equivalent to this premise:

"If the multiverse had a beginning then true nothing created the multiverse."​

That is a premise you are relying on. But as you said "How true nothing could create something is not a fruitful idea.". I agree with you on that point. So, since we are agreed that that's not a fruitful idea, why should we accept the above premise? How does the hypothesis that the multiverse had a beginning lead to the conclusion that "true nothing" created it? Show your work.

 

[untermensche]

Parmenides
"Nothing comes from nothing."

Nothing has no potential to create anything. This is obvious common sense. Modern physics and cosmology has lead to observations that seem to indicate we live in an infinite multiverse. Which also solves the fine tuning problem. To deny Parmenide's dictum is simply a case of skepticism run wild. How true nothing could create something is not a fruitful idea. It is a how many angels can dance on a head of a pin type time waster.

Nothing could not have created all that can be observed in some way.

But something unlike all that can be observed in some way could have.

Something we cannot observe in any way and therefore cannot know anything about and do not understand in any way and cannot make conclusions about.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I'll dismiss that, although I agree as to your assumption about what Descartes explained, because, as you say yourself we know "there is me" and "there are the things I perceive", although !i would quibble that it's not "the things I perceive" but the things I experience.

A perception is just a kind of experience.

Your quibble is absurd.

An elephant is just something so why bother with the word "elephant"?

You're logic sucks. We use different words to mean different things. Experience is not perception. To perceive is to experience a perception but a perception requires some organ to perceive and things outside our experience we assume exist whether we perceive them or not. So, no, my quibble is not absurd, it's just lost on you.

Things we know are not assumptions.

We do not know there is anything out there.

We assume the ground will hold us.

Sometimes, very rarely, it doesn't.

That's irrelevant. You're really the king for that sort of disgusting squishy squid. You said "The most basic assumptions are well known already". That's just a nonsensical thing to say. Things we know are not assumptions.

Anyway, that, too, will be lost on you.
EB

- - - Updated - - -

Death and taxes? All politicians lie? The Earth is not flat?

My most basic assumption about you is that you're delusional.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

There's a lot of basic, practical assumptions we make that help us get through the day. Chief among them is that there's going to be another day. We go to sleep assuming we're going to not only wake up the next day, but that tomorrow the rules will be the same as they were today.

Up is up, down is down, and when you open the fridge the light inside is going to come on more or less without fail.

Alright, these are basic assumption but they don't all look like your "most basic". Another day, yes, good. Up and down, I guess, is a sort of assumption. I'll dismiss the fridge thingy, though.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Er......

Tell you what. Consider changing the thread title to 'which of our most basic assumptions do I, Speakpigeon, personally think are worth talking about?' (subtitle: I am going to leave out what is arguably the single most basic one).

Hey, that's privilege coming with posting the OP. Seems fair enough. I would hope you're making assumptions by the shitload everyday of your life just enough to survive. Shouldn't be difficult to find one I haven't ruled out that seems more basic than the others.
EB

Dude! Why are you trying to exclude that one by pulling rank? You don't need rank, and if you did, it's too feeble for the task you've set it. There's no rank in philosophy.

Sorry, I can't seem to be able to see how that's relevant to the bit it's suppose to comment on. I'll assume you've read whatever you had already assumed I was talking about. Well, read again.

The assumption that there's a reality to begin with.

This one is disqualified by the wording of the OP's question: What would be our most basic assumption when we try to understand anything about reality? The question its assumes a reality and that we may try to understand it. And I wouldn't know how to ask about our assumptions without the question itself assuming a reality. It thought about it and dismissed the idea. Maybe yu could start your own thread with your own wording?
EB

Dude, why are you trying to exclude that one by contradicting yourself?

The answer is I didn't.

I think, therefor I am.
- Descartes

Therefor things exist. Some things think.

I'll dismiss that. I know I think. Not an assumption.

See also previous post.

There you go, finally. You said the OP question assumes a reality, but that's wrong. It doesn't assume a reality; as you said in the previous post, "Things we know are not assumptions." "The assumption that there's a reality to begin with doesn't count." is correct; but not because you're the threadmeister. The reason it doesn't count is because there's no such thing. That there's a reality to begin with is a theorem, not a premise. We know there's a reality. I think. Therefore I am. Therefore something is. Q.E.D.

No. The OP's question does assume there's a reality. I grant you it's arguable we know there's a reality and if so it's not an assumption but different people may see things differently and still insist they don't know but assume a reality. There are more than one way to skin a cat.

So what's the actual most basic assumption? I'd nominate "The world was not created last Tuesday."

O-kay. Why not. It's certainly an assumption.

That is nothing does not have the potential to become something.

This one's good to me.
EB

Sure it's good; but the conclusion he infers from it isn't. And "nothing does not have the potential to become something." isn't an assumption either. It's a tautology.

???

Well, could you explain this one? I'm not bright enough to see it in the dark.

That is nothing does not have the potential to become something. Therefor something has always existed.

Show your work.

Please step outside to sort your different. Thanks.
EB