How Do We Know, really Options

[Bartman]

How do we know of everything is anything.
How do we know that 2+2=4
How do we know that it dosen't equal 3
How do we know that the matrix isn't real that when we dream that isn't actually our real life.
We think 2+2 =4 because that is what we are told it is only 4.
We think it is 4 so that is what it is but we could be really wrong.
Is anyone else confused cause I am

[usr.c]

Linguistically, how do you know how to reply to "How are you?" It is because you and the people around you have agreed on the meaning of the words in that phrase. "How are you?" could well have been decided to mean "I am old", in which case your brain would respond differently to it.

With regards to Science or Mathametics, there's not much room (according to what I know at least) for conjecture or confusion as is the case with language. Observability of an event dictactes how your brain interprets it. So if you put a stick in front of you and then put another one next to it, it is inevitable that there are two sticks in front of you.

Same with Science, if you add Potassium to water then there will be a reaction whether you like it or not. How do you know? Your eyes tell your brain that.

So unless God is playing an evil trick on you and sending wrong signals from your senses to your brain, you have to assume that they are accurate and go on from there

[darkneo]

what the heck did you just say ali ?

[snapplehooligan]

I think Ali said it best, but as far as the mathematics goes there are postulates and proofs for everything from 1+1=2 to the fact that the derivative of volume is equal to surface area. Naturally they vary in complexity and everything relies on previous proofs... as Ali said, it all boils down to just being something that we, as a civilization, agree apon.

*For the math of 2+2=4 see http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51521.html and http://mathforum.org/dr.math/problems/gora10.27.html they haven't quite resolved it, but there is a bit of reading if you're interested... that site has proven to be an outstanding resource for me in studying mathematics.*

[darkneo]

ohhhh......right... i get it now... i think

[Mario]

lol.. wtg ali!

actually 2+2=4 on the basis that 1+1=2 so u can substitute 1+1 for each 2 equaling four.... (when i see my math professor ill get the url to the site that has this essay.. but someone for their PhD solved 1+1=2 in a HUGE essay.. lol)

and also..

Their is no defenite answer to everything. Mathematics is based on Theory. So is Science. It is all based off of human observation and foundings. Unless someone shows up and shows us that "6 by 9 is 42" we cant assertain that we are wrong. That is why science is pretty accurate because their based off human perception. So to Try to Prove what you are asking is Nearly Impossible (but probable). Your Real Question Should Be:

Disprove That We Dont Exist. (or prove it)

Because the fact everything we do as humans is based off perception... its very extremely hard to logically assertain an answer to this Postulate (errr i think thats the rite spelling.. lol) So you need to think of everything as a double negative because unless you do their becomes the absence of logic.. and without logic you can not properly percieve an answer to the "right" standings (or even to make sense because even that is based off of logic)

Gotta love life, we could be wrong, no one can disprove that, but you cant prove it either!!

[usr.c]

There are Philosophers like Kant who have written about similar issues when talking about the metaphysical world. Here's part of his "The Critique of Pure Reason": http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/k/k16p/k16p7.html

I'm not an expert on him so I don't know much about his works or views. Enjoy!

[Mario]

Kant.. forgot bout him.. :|


<-- kinda astounded yall can pull urls' out so friggen fast lol.. yall needa gimme your search engines or somethin.. ali u should make a post of "useful and the best urls" lol.. so i can bookmark em all heh

[Anger Management...]

wow, i just read this, and not to toot my own horn or anything, but im like really smart and all-compared to the average person my age- and this is just WAAAAAAAAY too deep for me.


now, what u were saying about proving that we exist, it CANNOT BE PROVEN unless we develop some seriously out there technology to prove it for us. about the matrix issue that started this entire string, well i have to agree with the guy on that one on the simple basis of, why does everything "taste like chicken" i mean seriously, im always hearing people say, "WOW, it tastes like chicken." moreso that our dreams are, as a general rule "hyper-realistic" considering many times u r in the middle of the weirdest, or best dream of ur life and suddenly get pulled back to this potentially limbo-like statte that we currently "exist" in. i mean who knows, maybe our dreams are real and are really happening on another plane of existence that we cant see, and yet weve been seeing it for millenia through our dreams.




and now, im done because my brain REALLY hurts rite now.

[equinom]

I know 2 + 2 = 4 because that's what my fingers tell me.

[dafox]

equinom hit the mark with his comment! wow that was a good read. if God has a big plan for us all do we really have freedom of choice. theres another lil thing to think about.

Good on everyone that had some input flippin fantastic effort

[Anger Management...]

this is officially WAAAAAY too deep for me, so uh, buh bye

[usr.c]

equinom's right, and that's in fact how Kant deduced that 2+2=4

There are actually two schools of thought that I know of when it comes to the issue of human free will:

The first, known as determinism, says that human beings have no free will whatsoever and that every action they perform or event that they are involved in is a result of one or more predetermined causes.

The second says that one is free to do as they wish in this world regardless of their fate or as dafox said "God's big plan for them". An action is the result of one's motives and motives are purely under the person's control.

Both these ideas extend out of the principle of causality, which says that for everything there is a cause. Here's an example someone once sent me:

Boiling is a natural phenomenon requiring a cause, in accordance with the principle of causality. We consider the warmth of water as its cause. Like boiling, this warmth requires a prior cause. If we take boiling and warmth as two parts of the chain of existence or of the succession of agents and causes, we find that it is necessary to add to this chain another part; for each of the two parts is in need of a cause. Therefore, they require a third part. Also, the three parts together face the same problem. They need a cause of their existence, since every one of them is subject to the principle of causality. This is constantly and always the case with the chain of cause, even if it includes infinite parts. So, since every part of it requires a cause, the chain as a whole requires a cause. The question 'Why does it exist?' extends as far as the parts of the chain extend. No decisive answer to this question is possible, as long as the succession in the chain does not lead to a part that is self-sufficient and not requiring a cause, so that this part can put an end to the succession and give the chain its first eternal beginning.

I pretty much think that I have free will to do as I please, but sometimes even the simplest of actions can go back along an infinite chain of causes just like the previous example.