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

I thank Con for his well-written arguments and refutations as he had made this quite the learning experience for me. However, Con claims that I use semantic trickery to try to break the law of identity. I take this as a misunderstanding by my opponent. Semantics are not used to establish my point. I do not use biased definitions to propagate my case only fair definitions as well as inductive and deductive reasoning. I leave this to the fair-minded audience to decide. I know I have written quite a lot about this subject but if the reader had only one argument to read I must say it is the Münchhausen trilemma outlined below. The Münchhausen trilemma shows the impossibility of attaining absolute certainty: In my final arguments I will demonstrate how the Münchhausen trilemma makes it impossible to know with absolute certainty, any type of knowledge even in the arena of mathematics and logic. The trilemma is a set of three possible responses to the question asking “How do I know that it’s true.” This question can be asked in any field of knowledge and can be answered with proof, however the same question can be asked of the proof and any succeeding proofs. The only three possible responses to this dilemma are as follows: 1. The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other. 2. The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum. 3. The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts. All three of these possible attempts to attain absolute certainty must fail. The failure of all three is addressed most effectively by Hans Albert: 1. One can justify with a circular argument, but this sacrifices its validity 2. All justifications in pursuit of certain knowledge have also to justify the means of their justification and doing so they have to justify anew the means of their justification. Therefore there can be no end. We are faced with the hopeless situation of 'infinite regression'. 3. One can stop at self-evidence, common sense, axioms, fundamental principles, speaking 'ex cathedra,’ or at any other evidence, but in doing so the intention to install absolutely certain justification is abandoned. I think this is the most powerful argument as it exposes each and every possible type of proof as well as their succeeding proofs as susceptibly to fallibility. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that logical axioms are true you can only explain that they are self-evident by declaring them so. If a proposition (or axiom) is claimed to be self-evident it is an argumentative fallacy to assert that disagreement with the proposition indicates a misunderstanding of it. It is impossible to prove that ‘something exists’ as the proof for this proof and all succeeding proofs must be proven 100% certain, in either a circular, infinitely regressive, or axiomatic way. All three possibilities to prove proof and any succeeding proofs necessarily fail in doing so therefore absolute certainty is impossible to prove. Furthermore, since logic itself cannot be justified to be absolutely certain, and both Con and I use logical systems to assess our points, both of our points may be fallible. Absolute certainty only comes to an all-knowing entity whose existence cannot be proven. Simultaneous Wave-Particle Duality The first sentence in my source (http://en.wikipedia.org...) states that all particles exhibit both wave and particle properties. Therefore I must expand my conclusions for all particles (localized objects) [https://en.wikipedia.org...] not just photons. My opponent states, “A single photon can not be observed to be both a wave and a particle simultaenously.” Although the spelling is incorrect, the principle is correct if following the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics; but not all interpretations follow this view as the Cophenhagen interpretation may be incorrect. My opponent knows this but failed to mention it to the fair-minded audience. Hidden variable theory proposes that the system exhibits both particle properties and wave properties simultaneously. The article also states that electromagnetic radiation (EMR) acts as a wave and as a particle simultaneously. Everything I said here is from the original source I proposed. Therefore mathematically and logically: 1. Object = Object 2. Object = Wave 3. Object = Particle 4. Wave ≠ Particle 5. Object ≠ Object This argument shows how the law of identity does not follow in accordance to reality as 1 contradicts with 5 showing that A ≠ A, or A does not act as A in all cases. It is important to notice that since all localized objects exhibit wave-particle duality, anything that is a localized object or has many localized object may not follow the law of identity. Our perceptions are susceptible to fallibility: Our perceptions do not always act in accordance to reality - this is quite obvious for anyone that has been tricked by an optical illusion. Here is a list of the most prominent unfalsifiable skeptical theories, which undermine the justification of all knowledge: Brain in the vat, Dream argument, Descartes' Evil demon, five-minute hypothesis, simulated reality. Even if one believes these theories to be improbable, one must accept the unfalsifiability of these theories and support the resolution that absolute certainty is impossible to prove. Emperical evidence is not known absolutely either because an infinite amount of tests are required for absolute certainty. Cogito ergo sum – I think therefore I am: This phrase uttered first by Descartes commits the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. The premise ‘I think’ already presupposes the conclusion that ‘I’ exists. It is possible that ‘I’ does not really exist and thoughts come to us from some other thing, in any case this phrase only validates the conclusion that something exists to think. I have shown in my first response that perhaps the existence of nothing is possible, but Con can never disprove it as it is unfalsifiable by principle. I have also shown how every proof requires proof but can only be done in three ways which all fail (Münchhausen trilemma). Therefore the proof that ‘something exists’ cannot be proven with absolute certainty because the proof would either be circular, infinitely regressive, or axiomatically declared ‘ex cathedra’ (with authority). Regardless of these restrictions on Con, suppose Con did somehow prove that ‘something exists’ and disprove all other possible theories of nothingness existing as well; he will only have proven it to himself. He cannot prove it to anyone else. When I created this debate I did not write explicitly who absolute certainty must be proven to rather it was assumed. What would be the point of this debate if we only proved things to ourselves? Con cannot prove to me to that ‘something exists’ because he doesn’t know that I exist even if I say I do. Accordingly, he cannot prove this to any readers either; Con can be nothing more than a solipsist. Concluding Remarks: It is of utmost importance to agree that the impossibility to prove anything absolutely certain, is not an absolutely certain truth in itself. Although it is impossible to attain absolute certainty, one must get as close as possible to the truth while remembering our uncertainty. Believing things based on degrees of certainty and reasonably doubting absolute claims is the best way to progress in our world and the most honest way to live. I thank Con for the admirable debate but alas the resolution stands firm. The existence of absolute certainty was not proven in this debate and probably never will be. Note: Had to delete 7000 characters worth of responses and arguments to post this :(. Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org... https://en.wikipedia.org...