This House Believes That Sense Experience Is The Ultimate Source of Knowledge!

I wrote my argument, and the second before I would press 'Review' my laptop crashed. In any case as is the spirit of a debate I will not talk in depth about the issues I have already dealt with, rather I shall only mention them here. The first and foremost is the onus: Marc accepts that the onus rested more greatly on him yet instead of providing positive arguments he has just provided counters. I should remind him that he must give arguments why sense experience is necessary, and why he believes logical positivism is the correct philosophy. It is not right for him to simply provide examples, as he has been doing. Secondly I should like to re-highlight the contradictions of Marc's case where his quotation goes against his analysis, where he did not prove analytic a posteriori, and did not show why Mathematics falls in this category. I should also remind everyone that he did not attack the major arguments of mine of Mathematica, of Space, and of Time. lastly I have problems with his definition because it makes y position seem like one where I deny sense knowledge, when I simply believe that empirical knowledge exists, alongside a significant amount of rationalistic knowledge. Also as a side note let us not fall into semantics as to a priori meaning 'before' we use its philosophical meaning which refers to knowledge which is independent of empirical knowledge. Oh, and one more thing, throughout his argument Marc makes the mistake of thinking we are debating the nature of reality, when we are simply debating the nature of the Ideas of reality which exist in cognition. With that, let us begin. 9. Of Space:(9.1) The definition of Space is the Idea of Space which allows us to perceive objects by endowing them with the quantificational effects such as dimensions. Space then is the knowledge that our mind uses to be able to perceive different objects. I never used any other meaning. One thing that should be clarified is that, unlike Marc insinuates, Space does not exist as a physical quantity. I believe this is shown by Einstein's Theory of General Relativity; in any case since Marc was the one who first asserted Space and Time are physical quantities let him be the one to prove it. (9.2) This actually helps me build another argument. Since my original arguments were not touched upon (Marc only gave contentions to the topic not to the reasoning) then here it is. If, as Marc believes, Space was empirical then we would not be able to constantly comprehend Space. As Space is constantly changing, our empirical understanding of Space would only apply to that certain area. If let us say we go to a place with a different mass (since mass effects Space-Time) then we should not be able to understand objects. No Space must exist a priori for only then would we be able to connect it so to an infinite amount of possibilities. Only then would we have such a smooth understanding of Space. Also as I already pointed out we cannot show Space without applying it to an object. Had we garnished the idea of Space a posteriori then we would have been able to conceptualize Space without applying it to an object: we would have done so by connecting it to the original sense we gained it from. We can imagine a spicy flavor without having to think of a chilly, we cannot think of Space that way. (9.3) If Marc claims Space does not exist in the mind then let him give us an example we can think of without using Space. There is a reason God is so difficult to comprehend, so esoteric a concept. It is because we have given God a nature which transcends Space and Time and therefore we cannot comprehend him. The same is with Quantum Theory, if Space and Time were empirical then why is it so hard to understand Quantum Theory? Surely we would have learnt the new logic it follows, instead it continues to baffle us because we need Space and Time to understand, and we cannot garnish them through experience. Space is then a priori. 10. Of Time:(10.1) Once more I find it very necessary to point out that Time does not exist as a physical entity, as shown by Einstein. If my opponent believes it does then he must provide evidence for me to accept this claim of his. Physical Time then cannot be measured, as it would take an impossibly fast amount of mathematics to do such a thing. As Time continues to change, we only believe it is measurable. This helps me, because if we believe it to be measured, so we attack causality to all phenomenon this shows that the Idea of Time is antecedent to causality. We understand that even though Time changes our brains adapt which they can only do if they have a general idea of Time, this general Idea of Time must be present a priori. (10.2) Marc commits many appeals to authority, until he informs me what this new system is, establishes this system beyond doubt and connects it to the motion his argument is quite useless. He has done this multiple times now. 11. Of Logical Positivism: (11.1) I do not understand it how Marc has propagated this theory, presented absolutely no evidence for it, and expects the onus to rest on me to disprove it. In any case I will disprove it: and by doing so I will break his entire case as his entire case (a quick read of his arguments will tell you) rests solely on this theory. That is: something can only be true once it is empirically tested. (11.2) I will use the theory to debunk the theory. In essence the theory states that if something is to be true then it must be empirically tested. This theory itself cannot be tested empirically. There is no empirical test to show that something is only true when it is empirically tested. The theory then collapses. Also there is no way to semantically separate sentences about sense experience from other sentences, a distinction upon which LP rested in its attempt to show that all sentences could be reduced to a formal language about sense experience. 12. Of Mathematica:(12.1) I now come once more to my strongest point. All Mathematics is synthetic a priori. In this I really do not have to refute that Mathematics is a posteriori for that was never really argued, instead the only thing Marc did argue was Mathematics being analytic. He shows no argument for this, also he does not show why if Mathematics is analytic it must be a posteriori. (12.2) I could spend a lot of space arguing that analytic a posteriori does not exist, but I have absolutely no need to. Firstly Marc does not lay out an argument, he cites sources. Secondly Marc still does not show why Mathematics is analytic a posteriori, he never tackled my original arguments. My points however remain, firstly Frege's system was dismissed and I ask Marc to quote where Frege's system was defended in the Principia. Since in any mathematical equation we know that the predicate does not contain the derivative we know Mathematics is a priori, even Hume agrees so. The source Marc mentions proves my point. For in the equation 7+5=12 no amount of analysis of 7 and 5 separately will result in 12, only when they are intuitively combined is there any judgement. (12.3) My point about it being a priori was, however, never answered. Instead Marc said there is a difference in Pure and Applied Mathematics, his own source (Hume) names Algebra which is pure, and Geometry which is applied. The reason for this is that there is no procedural difference in Pure and Applied Mathematics. If I simply solve the equation 3x=12 to x being 4 it is Pure, if am however given a situation where I have 3 candies, I need 12 and someone asks me to tell him how many more candies I would need, if I use the same theorem it is then Applied.[1]Here is an example of a pure equation: Here is one of Applied: Even the applied one uses the term 'cos', now cos stands for cosant and is a purely theoretical ratio. Does that mean that it will lead to an incorrect conclusion if used to derive another hypothetical value, instead of finding the measurement of Global Warming? If Marc believes so he must provide evidence to support this belief, otherwise it is mist. (12.4) It is then clear that all Mathematics is synthetic a priori, and therefore independent of sense experience. Marc must show why when the same equation is used to find out the number of candies I need it is valid, but as soon as it is used purely Mathematically it is not. This is funny because in both cases, even the first the equation was not garnered from experience. As I said Gödel's Theorem shows this quite beautifully. For me to prove 1+1=2 I could easily take two candies, but to count the candies I would need number present. I may give this number a unique name and shape but the idea of number must exist a priori.[1]http://fractus.uson.mx...13. Of the Subjectivity of Empirical Knowledge:(13.1) We must realize that all empirical knowledge is subjective. While the statement the desk is solid may not be under debate, what one perceives as solid would be. For a very thin man a table may be very stable, ask Bigshow to move it around and he will most likely not find it as stable. Similarly those with a high resistance to heat (or SEP patients who can't feel anything) will not feel even boiling water very hot because senses are subjective. (13.2) Senses then lack any form of the concept of necessity, which means that all those constructs which have a conceptualization of necessity are necessarily a priori. This then includes all Mathematics and the formal sciences, such as logic. 14. Of Reasoning: (14.1) I will discuss this later but my basic points will be on the lines of impure a priori existing. If I have seen a tree falling, I shall have an Idea a posteriori, however using logic, and reasoning I can come to the valid conclusion that should another tree experience similar conditions it will also fall. This I will know impure a priori. The resolution then collapses miserable. I thank Hashirama/Shikamaru for this debate. Ajab