Absolute Certainty

[DeadlyGambit]

Does it exist? Is anything absolute?

My friend and I were debating this a couple weeks ago, and lately I've been thinking about it alot. My friend argued that NOTHING is absolute. That is, we can never be certain that something is undoubtedly and absolutely true. However, I think that some things can be known with absolute certainty, namely those that are in the realm of mathematics and deductive logic. For example, 2+2 ALWAYS equals 4, or "All A are B and All B are C, therfore All A are C". These things we know with absolute certainty, right? Granted these examples seem, I don't really know how to put it, far removed from everyday reality. Like looking at an argument form such as the one above and saying it is absolutely true seems far different than observing something in the natural world and being able to say the same thing about it. I'm not quite sure of what I'm trying to say here /images/graemlins/confused.gif.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on absolute certainty? Can we ever know anything for sure?

-Matt

[Peter666]

"My friend argued that NOTHING is absolute."

Is he absolutely sure about that?

[Siegmund]

I tend to see it the same way as the OP does.

The only problem with referring to real-world events in absolutes is that people have a tendency to leave off a few conditions, and give only the "then" part of what's really an if-then statement.

For instance, "There are at least two cards of the same suit in every poker hand" is a real-world statement based on the mathematical fact "if five cards are chosen from a standard 52-card pack (thirteen of each of four suits), there will be at least two cards of the same suit among the chosen cards" -- but the real-world possibility of running across a poker game with a bug, or playing badugi, or a defective deck gets glossed over in everyday speech to save time.

There are a heck of a lot of absolutely true statements out there, but most of them are if-thens and the real world sometimes fails to satisfy the if, and the real flaw in our reason is assuming the "if" is always satisfied.

[bunny]

I dont know that mathematical statements would satisfy your friend. Perhaps you have made a deductive error.

I cant see how he could disagree with the claim you have absolute knowledge of your subjective experiences though. You know what it's like for you to experience pain. You know what it feels like to see blue. Etcetera. I think these are examples of absolute certainty - though not very helpful ones as they dont provide common ground with anyone else.

[Piers]

Absolute certainty is a state of mind. Most people are absolutely certain of a lot of stuff, much of it incorrect.

[LA_Price]

The statement "nothing is absolute" is an absolute statement is it not? So doesn't that nullify itself?

[Matt R.]

I exist?

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Does it exist? Is anything absolute?


[/ QUOTE ]

Philosophy usually distinguishes between objective certainty (that which is demonstrable) and subjective (what I think is certain). Objective certainty is only possible with what Kant called analytic a priori statements which are basically tautological or definitional. His example was all bodies are extended. Similar statements are those of logic and though Kant didn't agree, I think the same is true of math. The problem is all are either abstract(logic and math) or trivial (definitions). The other kind of statement Kant identified he call a priori synthetic which would include scientific statements and any statement about the external world(excluding definitional).

There have been recent attacks on this distinction but I think they are useful as starting points. I would agree with bunny that subjective experience gives absolute certainty about our mental or emotional states, but I don't think we can obtain demonstrable objective certainty about the external world. Subjective certainty is obtainable about many things, even that which is false.

We are sinful humans in rebellion against God - we gave up the possibility of real certainty apart from God a long time ago. Our angst, doubts, fears and uncertainties are the result of that rebellion. Even Christians "see through a glass" darkly - but we are being renewed into "the true knowledge of Him who loved us".

[Subfallen]

Wittgenstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wittgenstein) laid siege to certainty like no one before or since...so read him if you want to get a feel for the philosophical maturity necessary to really approach the subject.

Be warned, however...the man was a genius of the very highest order, and it hardly bodes well for his aspiring reader to note that,

[ QUOTE ]
It [the Tracticus Logico-Philisophicus] was examined by [Bertrand] Russell and [G.E.] Moore; at the end of the thesis defence, Wittgenstein clapped the two examiners on the shoulder and said, "Don't worry, I know you'll never understand it."

[/ QUOTE ]

[t.conley]

I think the key here is the word absolute. Nobody contains complete knowledge (though I admit that this could be wrong because by stating this I am also admitting my own knowledge is incomplete). But instead of just giving up on the whole idea of absolutes, you must weigh the evidence and make the best educated guess. An example is that I have found that there are some things I do not know and have also found that this is the case with everyone I have ever met. Therefore it is my best guess that no human contains complete knowledge. Am I absolutely sure of this? No, but evidence does seem to point to this being an absolute, thus I do believe it is rational of me to both believe in absolutes and be absolutely sure of it (or as least as absolute as is possible for me).

[GoodCallYouWin]

The laws of thermodynamics are fairly absolute.

[DeadlyGambit]

[ QUOTE ]
I dont know that mathematical statements would satisfy your friend. Perhaps you have made a deductive error.

[/ QUOTE ]

But mathematical statements are absolute, no? Adding 2 and 2 will ALWAYS produce 4, the solution will never be any different. This is at least one thing that we can be absolutely certain of. You don't agree?

[Peter666]

There are the metaphysical absolutes:

- It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time in the same manner
-A finite whole is greater than any of its parts.

And there is the absolute that you know you are concious. However, you cannot know absolutely if other people are conscious.

These truths are self evident.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont know that mathematical statements would satisfy your friend. Perhaps you have made a deductive error.

[/ QUOTE ]

But mathematical statements are absolute, no? Adding 2 and 2 will ALWAYS produce 4, the solution will never be any different. This is at least one thing that we can be absolutely certain of. You don't agree?

[/ QUOTE ]
I do agree I was speculating on what a complete skeptic regarding certain knowledge might claim. It seems to me that an extreme nit might point out there is an admittedly slim possibility that everyone who has ever checked has coincidentally made an identical error and that 2+2 does not in fact equal 4 (despite the fact that we all think it does). They may say this miniscule possibility precludes certainty.

[GoodCallYouWin]

[ QUOTE ]
There are the metaphysical absolutes:

- It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time in the same manner


[/ QUOTE ]

OH RLY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat)

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
There are the metaphysical absolutes:

- It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time in the same manner
-A finite whole is greater than any of its parts.

[/ QUOTE ]
It used to be obvious that two observers would agree on the time elapsed between two events, then Einstein showed that was wrong. How can you be certain a new Einstein isnt going to demonstrate that one of these two are possible?

[oe39]

if sklansky replies you'll get his silly between one in a google and one in a google plex speech

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

It used to be obvious that two observers would agree on the time elapsed between two events, then Einstein showed that was wrong.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the difference is the 2 you quote are analytical and yours is synthetic - but that distinction is more fuzzy now. I do think the idea is valid but the application isn't as obvious as Kant thought. And of course, there are always tricks of definition. What is the whole and what the parts? What does to be mean? Even if something is certain analytically it can't be applied with certainty to the world. 2 what + 2 what = 4 what?

[DeadlyGambit]

[ QUOTE ]
The laws of thermodynamics are fairly absolute.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can something be fairly absolute?

It is interesting that you mention thermodynamics though. In nature, heat never spontaneously flows from a cooler to a hotter body. You can't apply heat to water in order to make ice. But could a scientific statement like this be considered absolute? I don't really think this something we can be absolutely certain of. Perhaps in some far off corner of the universe our scientific laws don't apply. I think Hawking said something like this could be the case at the furthest point of the universe, like where it is still expanding in the big bang. I don't really remember though, so someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[GoodCallYouWin]

I said fairly in a tongue in cheek manner. The laws of thermodynamics are :

#1 - Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
#2 - The entropy in a closed system always tends to increase (and never decreases).
#3 - ???
#0th - Profit

They are real and absolute.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I think Hawking said something like this could be the case at the furthest point of the universe


[/ QUOTE ]

As I understand it the known natural laws didn't apply from the Big Bang and before 1X10 -43 seconds or something.

Plus, God isn't bound by them since He invented them.

[DeadlyGambit]

[ QUOTE ]
I was speculating on what a complete skeptic regarding certain knowledge might claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahhh, how coincidental. We must have the same friend. He did in fact say something close to what you mentioned. It is extremely difficult to have a philosophical discussion with a complete skeptic. He kept going back to the old "but how do you know for sure" thing. I remember him also questioning the orgin of numbers and counting when I brought up the whole math thing. However the details are a bit fuzzy now thanks to the brewhaha we imbibed during the conversation /images/graemlins/smirk.gif.

[Peter666]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are the metaphysical absolutes:

- It is impossible for the something to be and not be at the same time in the same manner


[/ QUOTE ]

OH RLY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat)

[/ QUOTE ] YA RLY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._P._Wigner)

[DeadlyGambit]

[ QUOTE ]
Plus, God isn't bound by them since He invented them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you absolutely certain?

Bringing God into this whole thing kinda f's it all up. Christians will just claim that God is absolute. Obviously this cannot be substantiated.

As an aside NR, I am a christian. For you (I presume) and I, God is absolute. But like I said, I just think the introduction of God into this debate muddles things up.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

But like I said, I just think the introduction of God into this debate muddles things up.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it just demonstrates how muddled we already are. Philosophy has long sought certainty and failed utterly. The reason we get muddled is because we ignore the One Absolute who IS. As Van Til said, God is the concrete universal discussed by the idealists, the solution to the one and many problem. If we show that all human thought is useless to solve the ultimate riddles of existence, it should clarify to discuss the One who solves those riddles.

I believe we do have certainty because God made our minds in His image and He made the universe rationally penetrable by our minds. We lose that certainty because we have cut ourselves off from the only possible source of certainty.

[demon102]

sure things can be absolute in a vacuum, but as soon as u add 1 variable that could have an impact of an outcome it could change a 100% certainty to a 98% certainty very easily, so In my head if something has a 95% + chance of happening its good enough for me to be absolute

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
My friend argued that NOTHING is absolute. That is, we can never be certain that something is undoubtedly and absolutely true. However, I think that some things can be known with absolute certainty, namely those that are in the realm of mathematics and deductive logic.

-Matt

[/ QUOTE ]

In "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" Quine famously argued against the analytic-synthetic distinction while arguing for holism, and claimed that "the unit of empirical significance is the whole of science." On Quine's view all of our beliefs are revisable in the face of recalcitrant experience, including those of pure mathematics and logic.

My advisor recounted a conversation he once had with Quine about Quine's claim that all our beliefs are revisable. "Even the law of non-contradiction?" he asked. He said Quine thought for a while, and then said, "Ok, maybe not the law of non-contradiction."