I Think Therefore I Am - rebuttal
in [Math]
|
Prev: tanx=x
Next: Laurent series question
From: Tonico on 13 Mar 2010 06:28 On Mar 13, 9:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > existence by means of physical experiment". > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > based on this observation is that he exists. > > I dont buy it. > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > Logic <=> Existence > > So what do we mean by that. Well...we can devise many experiments > which can be performed in nature which will obey the laws of logic. > For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will > notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an > example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show > very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe. "We can show very easily that..."?? Who's "we" there, and how do you intend to "show" whatever if not by THINKING? Descartes was way more on the money than you, imo. Tonio > > And if this universe were a perfectly logical machine, something like > a Newtonian clock, then we would reasonably expect that we have > demonstrated existence BECAUSE nature is imitating mathematics, and > math is based on existence. > > Nonexistence on the other hand seems to exhibit a kind of "anti- > logic". So, until someone starts performing experiments that > explicitly demonstrate a physical manifestation of nonsense.....we can > safely assume that we all exist and the universe exists as well. > > It seems to me that this approach is MUCH more valid than Descartes' > approach, and it really exhibits the usefulness of nonexistence and > nonsense. > > There is much more to this story, because QM is inherently > probabilistic and so that needs to be explained. There is a perfectly > reasonable explanation of how that ties in, but I have no time at the > moment. > > The important thing to READ in what I am saying is that Logic occurs > when you have mathematical existence, and Nonsense occurs when you > have nonexistence. If you can devise physical experiments which > exhibit logical processes in such a way that logic becomes > "observable" in some sense, then you have demonstrated existence. > > This approach makes MUCH more sense than what Descartes said, basing > his silly conclusions about existence on his very weak observations of > his own thought processes which occur in his mind. That is practically > SILLY. > > JUST TO RECAP : > > Descartes makes an observation that "he thinks". From this he > concludes that he exists. > > I dont see why that would neccesarily follow anyway - but thats what > he said. > > It makes more sense to try to observe a "physical manifestation of > logical processes in nature" and marry that to an understanding of > math and then existence. I am completely stunned that he didnt take > that approach, but that is how things happened. > > As an aside - this line of reasoning _is_consistent with other things > I have said about Existential Indeterminacy and Conjectural Modelling, > I just dont have time to go into every detail at this time, nor do I > care to because people dont even this stuff anyway. So who cares.
From: Huang on 13 Mar 2010 07:57 > > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > > existence by means of physical experiment". > > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > > based on this observation is that he exists. > > > I dont buy it. > > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > > Logic <=> Existence > > > So what do we mean by that. Well...we can devise many experiments > > which can be performed in nature which will obey the laws of logic. > > For example, take 2 apples and combine them with 5 apples. You will > > notice that you now have 7 apples. This simple experiment is an > > example of logic exhibiting itself in the physical world. We can show > > very easily that logical processes are at work in this universe. > > "We can show very easily that..."?? Who's "we" there, and how do you > intend to "show" whatever if not by THINKING? > Descartes was way more on the money than you, imo. > > Tonio > When I say "we" I am saying that you, or I, or anyone else would be able to follow my general line of reason and it will work equally well for "everyone". I am not saying that everyone will agree with me, nor that they should. But merely that my line of reason does make sense to me, and would make sense to "all people" WLOG if they were to keep an open mind about it. You could probably argue that in order to make an observation that it is neccesary to "think" somehow, or to use one's mind to complete the process of observing. Well then, I guess you can just go challenge all of physics if you wish to be so contrary about it. But most people are not so difficult minded when it comes to understanding observations of physical phenomena. There are things which count as observations which are not appreciated as such. Some gedanken experiments regarding observability: [a] There are 3 apples on the table. We place 6 more apples on the table. There are now 9 apples on the table. THIS IS PHYSICS !!! You just demonstrated that addition "works" in the physical universe. If you had 3 and you added 6 to yield 54, then you would have problems. But nobody ever "observed" that. Do you see why this process of "observing addition" is so interesting ? [b] Take a piece of paper and write th statement "This Statement Is False". The mere fact that you can write such a statement on a piece of paper constitutes a "physical experiment" and also a "physical observation" of paradox. Most people do not regard these things as physics experiments - and they are WRONG. I see no reason to defend Descartes. "I think therefore I am" is no better or worse than "Maybe I think so therefore maybe I am". Descartes cannot PROVE that he thinks, and his claim is NOT REPRODUCIBLE. I cannot use my brain to reproduce his thought process. The fact that he relies on his thoughts as part of a physical experiment means that his results will NEVER be reproducible by any subsequent physicist - so why does'nt Feynman call "that" voodoo physics ?????? Hmmmmmmmm ???????? Those who are brave enough to reply will be defeated. The human brain makes for a very lousy piece of scientific equipment. It cannot even be calibrated. What happens in one brain cannot be reproduced by another with any kind of parameters on accuracy or measurability. His claim that "he thinks" is meaningless. However - if I take 2 shits on your pillow, and then I take another 3, you will certainly have a total of 5. This is a physical process that is[a] Observable [b] reproducible [c] falsifiable [d] qualitative [e] quantitative - NEED I GO ON ???
From: glird on 13 Mar 2010 13:02 On Mar 13, 2:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > existence by means of physical experiment". > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > based on this observation is that he exists. > > I dont buy it. > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > Logic <=> Existence Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". glird
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 13:05 On Mar 13, 1:02 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 2:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > > existence by means of physical experiment". > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > > based on this observation is that he exists. > > > I dont buy it. > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > > Logic <=> Existence > > Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. > "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". > > glird I am therefore I think.
From: mpc755 on 13 Mar 2010 13:08
On Mar 13, 1:05 pm, mpc755 <mpc...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 13, 1:02 pm, glird <gl...(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > > > On Mar 13, 2:55 am, Huang <huangxienc...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Descartes said "I Think Therefore I Am", and if you are like me then > > > you too may have questioned this as a basis for "establishing > > > existence by means of physical experiment". > > > That is what Descartes did. He used a physical experiment, the process > > > of thought itself, and he observes that he thinks, and his conclusion > > > based on this observation is that he exists. > > > > I dont buy it. > > > One reason I dont buy this as a valid means of establishing existence > > > based on physical experimental evidence/observation is because we do > > > not even really know what thought is. Thoughts are not really regarded > > > as physical entities, they are typically regarded as being some type > > > of metaphysical thing. There are many other reasos, but Descartes' is > > > certainly far from being a rigorous proof of existence. > > > As an alternative I would propose the following, which may have > > > already been proposed by others - I dont really know - but here goes : > > > > Logic <=> Existence > > > Since logic IS thinking, and "sum" is a form of existence. > > "Cogito ergo sum" is the same as "logic = existence". > > > glird > > I am therefore I think. Nature abhors reference frames. |