From: vixie@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.philosophy
Subject: Re: Religion vs science: two questions, with answers
Date: 19 Dec 92 18:55:02 GMT
	<VIXIE.92Dec5101805@cognition.pa.dec.com>
	<craigen.36.723746031@ace.acadiau.ca>
Organization: DEC Network Software Lab
NNTP-Posting-Host: cognition.pa.dec.com
In-reply-to: craigen@ace.acadiau.ca's message of 7 Dec 92 16:33:51 GMT

[Larry Hammer]
> [...] It has been pointed out that it is a matter of faith that the
> universe actually exists outside your sensory perceptions, [...]

[Paul Vixie]
> Could you post a reference for this?  I don't think I agree, but I'd
> like to see the original proof rather than argue its shadows here.
  
[Doug Craigen]
>   This actually has a very long history.  I believe it got started by 
> Descartes.  I read an essay of his in which he (humbly of course ;-)) 
> started by saying that he was going to logically destroy aethism once and 
> for all.  He started by playing the 'doubt game' to its limit, ending with 
> questioning one's own existence.  He then started rebuilding by arguing that 
> he must have some sort of existence, even if it was in actuality something 
> very different than what he thought it to be (eg. as the dream of another 
> creature).  His arguement has been popularized as "I think, therefore I am", 
> but I don't recall those exact words appearing anywhere in the essay.  He 
> then presented an argument as to why the other thing he could be sure of was 
> that God existed.  My impression has been that he opened a great 
> philosophical can of worms with the extent to which he doubted, and his 
> rebuilding is easily ripped apart.

Thank you for presenting Descartes' argument.  I'm glad that you also presented
your own views, since Descartes is not here to defend himself :-).  In general
I prefer to present views that I agree with and understand, and only mention
their source or predecessor to give proper credit.  This short-circuits any
possible ad hominim replies.

>   In the present context, how would you ever prove that there is a Universe 
> out there which is what you perceive it to be (even aside from all the 
> observer-dependent Universe arguements thrown about by physicists in 
> connection with QM), or that you are what you perceive yourself to be?  We 
> operate by "faith" on this point because without doing so we have nothing to 
> go on at all.

If you view a system of knowledge as starting from postulates and then going
into theory and proof and observation, then it is true, as you suggest, that
one's postulates are not "provable" or even "verifiable" in the usual sense;
all "proof" depends on the postulates themselves, so proofs would be circular.

However, it is possible to "validate" a postulate, which is different from
"proving" it in that one is not proving that it is "true"; one needs only
prove that without that postulate, no system of knowledge is possible.  The
easiest way to do that is to show that all statements contain the unstated
assumption that such-and-such a postulate is true; any statements to the
contrary are therefore self-contradictory.

Of course, whether you consider "self-contradictory" to be the same as "false"
depends on your postulates :-).  So this whole argument can't begin until you
decide that you are looking for a rational explaination of existence et al.
If you don't want a rational explaination, no postulate will make sense and
knowledge as such will tend to be somewhat arbitrary, at least by rational
standards.

Aristotle, then Aquinas, and more recently Rand, presented basically three
postulates.  If there is any interest, I will present validations of them.
Note, though, that although I encountered these postulates and the validations
of them by reading the works of other philosophers, my understanding of them
and any explainations I offer of them are my own -- these are _my_ views.

The postulates, as grist for the mill, are:

	1. something exists
	2. any existent has specific identity; it is itself
	3. i exist, conscious of other things that exist

Note that these three, by themselves, do not differentiate between existing
as the dream of another creature, or existing more or less as we "seem" to.
All that comes later, and are higher-level constructs depending only on
observations, reason, and the above postulates.  Validation of observation
and reason are also higher-level constructs.  The above postulates are the
only things that cannot be "proven" in the system I understand; however, I
cannot see that any system could exist without these three postulates, and
I can, as I said earlier, provide "validations" of these postulates if anyone
is interested.

This is all a very far cry from "faith".  I don't have "faith", of the
philosophic kind (see below, 2a1,2a2,3; I'm equivocating on 2b1,2b2).

REF: (according to Webster)

1. faith \'fa-th\ \'fa-ths, 'fa-thz\ n or faiths [ME feith, fr. OF feid, 
   foi, fr. L fides; akin to L ] pl fidere to trust - more at BIDE 1a: 
   allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY 1b: fidelity to one's promises 
   2a1: belief and trust in and loyalty to God 2a2: belief in the traditional 
   doctrines of a religion 2b1: firm belief in something for which there is no 
   proof 2b2: complete confidence 3: something that is believed esp. with 
   strong conviction; esp : a system of religious beliefs : by my faith - in 
   faith 
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab	
Palo Alto, California, USA         	"Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vixie@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie		they're the same thing, anyway.  Find
<paul@vix.com>     vixie!paul		your own path, and stay on it."  -me