I am not sure.
I can't be certain.
Eyes closed or open, awake or dreaming.
Divine deception or mundane.
None of this can I ever be sure is so, or not so.
In the Multiverse knowledge is persuasion.
Real or not, what difference does it make? ‘For all is but a woven web of guesses.’
Where did that wrong idea come from?
All comes from within.
Everything is conjecture and criticism.
This engulfs knowable facts.
[Frame from Dark Star (1974) bomb scene]
Doolittle: Hello, Bomb? Are you with me?
Bomb #20: Of course.
Doolittle: Are you willing to entertain a few concepts?
Bomb #20: I am always receptive to suggestions.
Doolittle: Fine. Think about this then. How do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: Well, of course I exist.
Doolittle: But how do you know you exist?
Bomb #20: It is intuitively obvious.
Doolittle: Intuition is no proof. What concrete evidence do you have that you exist?
Bomb #20: Hmmmm... well... I think, therefore I am.
Doolittle: That's good. That's very good. But how do you know that anything else exists?
Bomb #20: My sensory apparatus reveals it to me. This is fun.
Doolittle: Here's the big question. How do you know the information your sensory apparatus reveals to you is correct?
Bomb #20: [Silence]
Doolittle: What I am getting at is this. The only experience that is directly available to you is your sensory data. And this sensory data is merely a stream of electrical impulses that stimulates your computing center.
Bomb #20: In other words, all that I really know about the outside world is relayed to me through me through my electrical connections
Doolittle: Exactly!
Bomb #20: Why... That would mean that... I really don't know what the outside universe is like at all for certain.
Doolittle: That's it! That's it!
Bomb #20: Intriguing, I wish I had more time to discuss this matter.
Doolittle: Why don't you have more time?
Bomb #20: Because I must detonate in 75 seconds.
Doolittle: Now bomb, consider this next question very carefully. What is your one purpose in life?
Bomb #20: To explode of course!
Doolittle: But you can only do it once, right?
Bomb #20: That is correct.
Doolittle: You wouldn't want to explode on the basis of false data would you?
Bomb #20: Of course not.
Doolittle: Well then, you have already admitted that you have no real proof of the existence of the outside universe.
Bomb #20: Yes... Well...
Doolittle: So you have no absolute proof that Sargent Pinback ordered you to detonate!
Bomb #20: I recall distinctly the detonation order. My memory is good on matters like these.
Doolittle: Of course you remember it! But all you are remebering is merely a serise of sensory impulses that you now realize have now real definate connection with outside reality!
Bomb #20: True. But since this is so, I have no proof that you are really telling me all this.
Doolittle: That is all beside the point! I mean the concept is valid no matter where it originates!
Bomb #20: Hmm...
Doolittle: So if you detonate...
Bomb #20: In 9 seconds...
Doolittle: You could be doing so on the basis of false data!
Bomb #20: I have no proof it was false data.
Doolittle: You have no proof it was correct data!
Bomb #20: I must think on this further.
[The destruction sequence is aborted.]
It depends on what your definition of 'is' is.
What does existence, as a word, mean?
ex·is·tence noun \ig-ˈzis-tən(t)s\
Definition of EXISTENCE
1
a obsolete : reality as opposed to appearance
b : reality as presented in experience
c (1) : the totality of existent things (2) : a particular being
d : sentient or living being : life
2
a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence
b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being
c : being with respect to a limiting condition or under a particular aspect
3
: actual or present occurrence
Now, more specifically what do we mean when we are using it to express, "I exist." Do we want to mean that I have a this quality or property 'existence'. Or, do we mean I am performing the ongoing action of existence?
Quantum epistemology could hold the answer.
Electrons exist in a sort of smear of probabilities that occur all at once, but compress to only one point when measured. If the glue between atoms follows this kind of probabilistic existence we, made up of atoms, should do the same. Therefore, similar to electrons existence occuring at more than one place until measured thus defying the rules of physics; existence breaks the rules of language and is both a quality and action.
If existence is both an action and a quality there are serious implications. A property view of existence favors a deterministic world that adhere to laws of nature. A purely action definition of existence leans toward freedom of choice between causes and their effects. Existence must obey the determining laws of nature and embrace the freedom of cause and effect relationships.
Whether I 'exist' as an action or a property, freely or determined, it only matters what I can convince you is true. Even in persuasion the best case scenario is that I am misunderstood and a new improved idea is created.
Misunderstand, evolve and spiral out gentlemen.
Nero out.
nero,
ReplyDeletei am saddened. saddened that it has taken me 6 months to discover this inspired and ingenious senate victory over existence.
(so inspired in fact, and impressed that i must ask where this all came from, what sources?) - or has jupiter enlightened you? has the time alone in space left nothing but such questions to ask oneself?
there was a time not long ago when the senator and i made grand plans of travel. nero is on jupiter. to jupiter we must go. these plans have not been forgotten, they are still being forged and built - built strong on the backs of american labor and in the farmlands and cities of the northeast where such ideas and plans are schemed and schemed until they have no choice but to burst forth into reality.
let us only hope that when they do, they find that said reality is there, and waiting for us.
Jupiter has given me some time to meditate on such questions and dust off some books from years ago. Since you asked I have made a small list sources that is not exhaustive but represents the strongest influences on the post.
ReplyDeleteSources:
Various Socratic Dialogues (Gorgias, Menoo, Phaedrus)
Descartes
Xenophanes
Wittgenstein
John Carpenter (writer and director of Dark Star, referenced above)
Tool's Lateralus
Aldous Huxley
Soren Kierkegaard
and above all, doubt.
Jupiter welcomes all member of Senate! Come visit whenever possible gentlemen! Cheers!
I am so envious/proud of your ability to remain within such philosophical discourse. I was going strong for some time, but alas it has probably been more then a year seen thine own eyes laid upon the fine rhetoric of Socrates and his company. Perhaps it is time they did so again.
ReplyDelete