The existence or non-existence of Absolute Certainty cannot be proven.

I thank Con for his well-constructed arguments but I must point out that the resolution not only stands but became unfalsifiable once my opponent admitted that the “brain in the vat” hypothesis is unfalsifiable. If our reality is false then we cannot determine whether the law of identity is true in all cases as actual reality may not have the same consistency of our perceived reality. Since my opponent cannot prove that our reality is absolutely certain he cannot accept that the law of identity is absolutely certain. This is why I argued that an all knowing entity is required to prove or disprove all absolute certainty. Con: “I claim with absolute certainty that something is something, and by that I point to the truth that something exists. Were nothing to exist, I would not be, and there is no alternative to this truth; therefore, something is. If something is, then that something must be something - it cannot be nothing, for as I have proven, if it were nothing then I would not be.” Response: It is impossible to have any type of empirical knowledge about nothing because nothing has never been observed in our reality. Even an empty vacuum in space is not considered true nothingness because it is bubbling with virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time (http://en.wikipedia.org..., First Youtube Link: http://www.youtube.com...). The evidence indicates that true nothingness does not exist in reality but is only a concept. In my following arguments I will demonstrate how our universe defies the law of identity and will demonstrate why the statement of something = something may be false or paradoxical. The Law of Identity fails in certain cases: Regardless of the case that the law of identity may be false due to alternate realities, there is reason to believe the law of identity is false even in our perceived reality. If I can show evidence of at least one thing which contradicts the law of identity then I will not have proven the law of identity as false rather I will have shown that there remains a possibility of it being false. This conclusion supports my resolution that we cannot prove the existence of absolute certainty. So far I have two examples where the law of identity apparently fails. Example 1: The law of identity falls apart in the realm of the quantum. A photon is a particle, and a photon is also a wave (http://en.wikipedia.org...). This is a paradox established by quantum theory through empirical evidence and indeed does break the law of identity as the photon is both a particle and not a particle at the same time. It is a wave and not a wave at the same time. Different interpretations of particle-wave duality seek to explain this paradox nonetheless it is an essential property of our universe. You may state that a photon is a photon but must also realize that this statement means nothing if you cannot define what a photon is without redundancy. This paradox means that a photon is not itself because a particle is not a wave yet a photon is both a particle and a wave. In mathematical terms: 1. Photon = Photon 2. Photon = Particle 3. Photon = Wave 4. Particle ≠ Wave 5. Photon ≠ Photon Premise 1 contradicts the logical conclusion shown in 5. Therefore, A ≠ A in this case supporting the possibility that the law of identity is false. Example 2: The law of identity does not hold in regards to virtual particles (https://en.wikipedia.org...) as well. These virtual particles are actually pairs of particles and antiparticles which pop in and out of existence due to quantum fluctuations (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Apparently these particles violate the law of conservation of energy for small amounts of time and indeed create something from nothing. The law of identity does not hold in this case as nothing = something meaning something ≠ something and nothing ≠ nothing when virtual particles come in and out of existence. Sorry for this long video (Second Youtube Link: http://www.youtube.com...) but it helps to explain this phenomenon and shows that prominent scientists such as Lawrence Krauss have a real scientific basis to support the claim of “something from nothing.” The law of identity exists only as a concept: It is important to note to the readers that the Law of Identity is just a concept. It does not have any sort of physical presence in the universe. Therefore the universe doesn’t behave in accordance to our concept of the law of identity rather we created this law as a concept to explain the consistency of the universe. To repeat, nowhere in the universe would you find the physical manifestation of the law of identity rather the law of identity exists only in our brains as concepts. This point does not seek to perpetuate my case or my opponents, as the definition provided by my opponent of the word “exist” allows the law of identity to exist as a concept by definition. The principles of Logic are not proven: Logic is a system and a tool constructed by us humans to describe our known universe. Because this system is man-made, the principles are assumed, and our knowledge is limited, the system may be faulty. I bring the discussion of logic into this debate as the law of identity is one if its basic assumed principles. Because logic is based on empirical evidence and empirical evidence can be false (explained in detail in round 2) logical principles may also be false. Replace “empirical evidence” in my last sentence with “experience” and it will still hold. This means that logic itself can be doubted because both evidence and experience can be inconsistent with reality. Concluding Remarks: My opponent has only pointed to one thing to assert absolute certainty (the law of identity) I believe that I have shown many reasons to doubt its absoluteness as well as its physical existence and now challenge my opponent to find another specimen. If Con cannot find one thing that is unquestionably true then he must concede that absolute certainty cannot be proven to exist. Con did not respond to my claim that empirical evidence may be false, therefore I assume he concedes this point and therefore must concede absolute certainties based on empirical evidence cannot be proven true or false. The existence of an all knowing entity must be proven to prove the existence of absolute certainty. The resolution now stands unfalsifiable as my opponent cannot prove or disprove an omniscient entity or a simulated reality. I thank Con for a stimulating debate and await his response. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org...