Submitted by ziq at June 26, 2018 at 10:28 AM in AskRaddle
Viewing a single comment thread.
View all comments
There's no such thing as "proof" outside of maths and formal logic.
Okay, great deflection, so how can you go about 'sort of' showing things are real?
I suspect you made a lot of assumptions from my two-word comment that was just matching the tone of the first commentator. It's not a deflection though, we really can't prove things in a system we do not know the limits of.
In earnest, my view is that there is stuff out there, but human understanding relies exclusively on abstraction, symbolic representation, and building models of the world. If we have useful (fit-for-purpose) models that make predictions which hold, then that model is "sort of" real. If we never hit upon outcomes that falsify it, and it explains the things we want explanations for, it's in a very strict sense as good as the reality.
That's what I mean with "sort of real".
I'm sorry if I came off as aggressive, but 'sort of real,' has always came off as a weak, but almost correct point of view. It's some weird logical safe ground where the 'sort of' saves our view from being totally wrong and acts as a shelter that only gives us temporary protection from the elements.
I'm literally just interested in talking about this subject and there isn't really any room for 'blah blah blah you're making assumptions,' like of course I'm making assumptions just as you also make assumptions about what I mean.
Fair enough, and that's why I gave quick summary of what I think it is the case, to reassure you that I'm not just being flippant.