What is the biggest problem in epistemology?

[Someone here]

For me, I believe it is the problem of induction. How do I rationally demonstrate that one induction is more logical or reasonable than another? Sure, intuitively we believe it is more reasonable that the sun will rise again tomorrow, than the sun will not rise again tomorrow. But, rationally, why is this? If we could discover a rational construct of thought which could evaluate the rationality of inductions, I believe epistemology would be in a better place.

[Someone here]

I think the biggest problem in metaphysics is obvious:

 Why does/how can, reality exist? Not the universe, or a multiverse, but reality itself.

[Vibroverse]

No matter what I told you about why something exists rather than nothing would itself be something that, therefore, would beg the same question. So that question obviously cannot be answered through a form, language, that itself is another something. 

 

[Someone here]

28 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

No matter what I told you about why something exists rather than nothing would itself be something that, therefore, would beg the same question. So that question obviously cannot be answered through a form, language, that itself is another something. 

 

Yes .the answer though is that something and nothing are identical. These are dualistic notions that must break down at the ultimate level . Just like a dream st night .it's both something and nothing simultaneously.

Further more, wevcan only know what exists here and now and only to the extent to what can be measured here and now.

But from what has been gathered here with these limitations, everything appears to be a zero-sum situation. A supersymmetry.

And when I say everything, I mean extended to what exists but can’t be measured here (Everett interpretation of QM) and what exists in others universes as well.

[Vibroverse]

What about a universe where a is not equal to a, does it also exist? 

 

[Someone here]

8 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

What about a universe where a is not equal to a, does it also exist? 

 

 I want to bring your attention to a particular logical principle. The principle is known as the “law of non-contradiction.”

A=A.

It can be formulated in a number of ways, but my favorite natural language formulation runs thus: the same sentence cannot be both true and not-true at the same time, in the same place, in the same respect. It cannot both be and not-be. It’s not both at the same time. Perhaps it can be neither, if you don’t buy the law of the excluded middle, but it cannot be both. Perhaps there is some middle road between false and true, if you want to push it that far, but there simply cannot be something that is both true and false, at the same time, in the same place, in the same respect.

So no .such universe cannot exist . How to reconcile that with reality being infinite?  I don't know.

[Vibroverse]

Look at this statement: "Everything I say is a lie". 

If it is a lie, then I'm telling you the truth. Then if it is the truth, then I'm lying to you for everything that I say is a lie. 

If it is true then it is not true then it is true then it is not true, ad infinitum. 

In short, how will you reconcile the law of noncontradiction with this? 

 

[Someone here]

43 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

Look at this statement: "Everything I say is a lie". 

If it is a lie, then I'm telling you the truth. Then if it is the truth, then I'm lying to you for everything that I say is a lie. 

If it is true then it is not true then it is true then it is not true, ad infinitum. 

In short, how will you reconcile the law of noncontradiction with this? 

 

The statement is incoherent. That is, it uses language and syntax as if it meant something, but it does not mean anything, it does not refer to anything, it makes no truth claims.

[Vibroverse]

18 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The statement is incoherent. That is, it uses language and syntax as if it meant something, but it does not mean anything, it does not refer to anything, it makes no truth claims.

Why? It is a perfectly valid statement, it very well refers to something and makes a truth claim. Don't jump to the conclusions many other thinkers have come to to run away from this problem, creating patches to run away from this question. Because, then, it is like creating and using calculus and limits to run away the paradoxes of Zeno, while, in fact, it is the very idea of the infinitesimal that Zeno was criticizing. Likewise, the liar paradox itself is designed to criticize and question your very solutions to it. 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Vibroverse

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

Why? It is a perfectly valid statement, it very well refers to something and makes a truth claim. Don't jump to the conclusions many other thinkers have come to to run away from this problem, creating patches to run away from this question. Because, then, it is like using calculus and limits to run away the paradoxes of Zeno. 

 

This is a cycle version of the liar paradox. There is no easy way to answer it, something which has been known for over two thousand years. If the first statement is true, so is the second statement, so the first is false, which is a contradiction. If the first statement is false, so is the second statement, so the first is true, which is a contradiction.

Its self contradiction . Therefore it's meaningless .

"This statement is false", it is clear that there is actually no statement being said. The "This . . ." part of the text perhaps enables the text to reference itself, but assuming this self-reference, the ". . . statement . . . " part misascribed this text as being a statement. There is no description or claim about the world being made (even about this bit of text), and so the text does not qualify as being a statement. If, on the other hand, the text had read "This text is not a statement" (assuming once more successful self-reference), then the claim would be a linguistic one that is in fact true, and there is nothing paradoxical happening here. But "This statement is false" is not a statement, as has been shown.

[Vibroverse]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

This is a cycle version of the liar paradox. There is no easy way to answer it, something which has been known for over two thousand years. If the first statement is true, so is the second statement, so the first is false, which is a contradiction. If the first statement is false, so is the second statement, so the first is true, which is a contradiction.

Its self contradiction . Therefore it's meaningless .

"This statement is false", it is clear that there is actually no statement being said. The "This . . ." part of the text perhaps enables the text to reference itself, but assuming this self-reference, the ". . . statement . . . " part misascribed this text as being a statement. There is no description or claim about the world being made (even about this bit of text), and so the text does not qualify as being a statement. If, on the other hand, the text had read "This text is not a statement" (assuming once more successful self-reference), then the claim would be a linguistic one that is in fact true, and there is nothing paradoxical happening here. But "This statement is false" is not a statement, as has been shown.

27 minutes ago, Someone here said:

The statement is incoherent. That is, it uses language and syntax as if it meant something, but it does not mean anything, it does not refer to anything, it makes no truth claims.

[Vibroverse]

2 minutes ago, Someone here said:

This is a cycle version of the liar paradox. There is no easy way to answer it, something which has been known for over two thousand years. If the first statement is true, so is the second statement, so the first is false, which is a contradiction. If the first statement is false, so is the second statement, so the first is true, which is a contradiction.

Its self contradiction . Therefore it's meaningless .

"This statement is false", it is clear that there is actually no statement being said. The "This . . ." part of the text perhaps enables the text to reference itself, but assuming this self-reference, the ". . . statement . . . " part misascribed this text as being a statement. There is no description or claim about the world being made (even about this bit of text), and so the text does not qualify as being a statement. If, on the other hand, the text had read "This text is not a statement" (assuming once more successful self-reference), then the claim would be a linguistic one that is in fact true, and there is nothing paradoxical happening here. But "This statement is false" is not a statement, as has been shown.

To be honest, you're just running away from the question, consciously or unconsciously, but maybe what you're doing is good, maybe I should do that also, haha. 

 

[Ulax]

I'd say the most prominent issue, at least to me, is foundationalism.

[Vibroverse]

19 minutes ago, Ulax said:

I'd say the most prominent issue, at least to me, is foundationalism.

I is the rockbottom and the substance, and everything. Everything ultimately refers to I and receives justification from I. 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Vibroverse

[Ulax]

50 minutes ago, Vibroverse said:

I is the rockbottom and the substance, and everything. Everything ultimately refers to I and receives justification from I. 

 

@Vibroverse I think I get you, and I agree from a certain point of view.

However, I was talking about epistemology in a more intellectual sense.

[Vibroverse]

2 hours ago, Ulax said:

@Vibroverse I think I get you, and I agree from a certain point of view.

However, I was talking about epistemology in a more intellectual sense.

Well, I can say complicated intellectual things about that also, but won't it all come down to consciousness at the ultimate level? All the concepts will be known by your consciousness and justified, or not, at the ultimate level by your consciousness. Anyways though, yeah, there are many mind games to be played, I understand. 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Vibroverse

[Ulax]

Just now, Vibroverse said:

Well, I can say complicated intellectual things about that also, but won't it all come down to consciousness at the ultimate level? All the concepts will be known by your consciousness and justified, or not, at the ultimate level by your consciousness. Anyways though, yeah, there are many mind games to be played, I understand. 

 

@Vibroverse Ye I agree with you.

I'm not sure how to square the two. Maybe im emotionally attached to my intellect

[Vibroverse]

1 minute ago, Ulax said:

@Vibroverse Ye I agree with you.

I'm not sure how to square the two. Maybe im emotionally attached to my intellect

Well, if it will make you feel better, we can say that many philosophers, like Descartes and Fichte, took consciousness, the I, as the foundation of knowledge. 

 

[DocWatts]

I would say that the most important issue in epistemology is cultivating construct awareness around the frameworks we use to navigate Reality, for the purpose of becoming more skillful in knowing when and where to use a particular framework. 

The flip side of this is the sort of epistemic inflexibility that leads to all kinds of reductionism, and to time and resource washing pseudo problems like the so called mind-body problem.

Edited November 22, 2022 by DocWatts

[Rafael Thundercat]