Can you prove ANYTHING about reality, without making any assumptions?

[punkdbass]

So I was just up until 5am arguing about God and philosophical things with a Christian and athiest friend of mine, and we talked about whether or not you can prove things about reality.

Im in a math proofs/logic course right now, and one of the things I've learned is that any proof you write inevitably has assumptions within it. All math/logic proofs can be traced back to its original building blocks where assumptions are made. In other words, all axioms, definitions, proofs, etc within the relm of logic all rely on assumptions at some level.

So I understand we can prove things about our idealizations of reality(meaning when certain things about reality are assumed to be true).. but is it possible to prove anything about reality without assuming anything?

My athiest friend says one of the main principles of philosophy is that you can't prove or unprove anything(without making assumptions at some level). But the irony of having such a belief, is that by nature of your belief, you must be open to the possibility that you CAN prove things about reality, simply because by your own belief, you can't prove otherwise.

So what I am asking is.. is it possible to prove anything about reality, without making ANY assumptions? The closest answer I have found is if one accepts the matrix theory as being valid, then technically you can prove things about reality.. but this relies on the assumption that the matrix theory is valid, which is certainly something you can't prove and must assume.

 

[9Westy9]

sounds similar to pyrrhonism/ fallibilism (my personal position).

 

[punkdbass]

sounds similar to pyrrhonism/ fallibilism (my personal position).

Interesting. I've never heard of those before but I googled them and they do sound a lot similar to what I've described. Thanks for sharing

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

This also sounds somewhat like Plato's theory of forms, and Kant's transcendental idealism. The Buddha had similar ideas as well.

 

[Student of X]

So what I am asking is.. is it possible to prove anything about reality, without making ANY assumptions? The closest answer I have found is if one accepts the matrix theory as being valid, then technically you can prove things about reality.. but this relies on the assumption that the matrix theory is valid, which is certainly something you can't prove and must assume.

Prove to others? Or to yourself and yourself alone?

 

[Quintessence]

So what I am asking is.. is it possible to prove anything about reality, without making ANY assumptions?

No.

However, you can make more or less reasonable assumptions and, from there, attempt to keep a relatively consistent framework for proofs based on these reasonable assumptions.

For example, it is pretty reasonable to assume that if I have an object I call a ruler and it is marked at particular increments, that I may use this object to reliably measure the length of other objects. Given that, it is very reasonable for me to measure an object and say it is 23 centimeters long and call nonsense on someone who claims it is 32 centimeters long instead.

 

[punkdbass]

Prove to others? Or to yourself and yourself alone?

Ether, doesnt matter, as long as you aren't going to start talking about faith.

My Christian friend, who we were arguing with, basically implied that he could prove things to himself through faith. I have faith in many things, but I don't consider faith and proof to be in the same playing fields, and i don't think they need to be nor should be. And if you understand the nature of "faith" and the nature of "proof" then it doesn't make any sense to talk about both of them together for this thread

 

[punkdbass]

No.

However, you can make more or less reasonable assumptions and, from there, attempt to keep a relatively consistent framework for proofs based on these reasonable assumptions.

For example, it is pretty reasonable to assume that if I have an object I call a ruler and it is marked at particular increments, that I may use this object to reliably measure the length of other objects. Given that, it is very reasonable for me to measure an object and say it is 23 centimeters long and call nonsense on someone who claims it is 32 centimeters long instead.

Yeah this is what I believe basically.. we can show things to be very plausible, reasonable, likely, etc, but we can't show them to be 100% true, at least not without making assumptions at some level.

 

[9Westy9]

Prove to others? Or to yourself and yourself alone?

If you can prove something to yourself yet not to others is it really proof at all?

 

[Willamena]

So I understand we can prove things about our idealizations of reality(meaning when certain things about reality are assumed to be true).. but is it possible to prove anything about reality without assuming anything?

You've already assumed one: a distinction between your idealizations of reality and reality.

 

[Student of X]

Ether, doesn't matter, as long as you aren't going to start talking about faith.

My Christian friend, who we were arguing with, basically implied that he could prove things to himself through faith. I have faith in many things, but I don't consider faith and proof to be in the same playing fields, and i don't think they need to be nor should be. And if you understand the nature of "faith" and the nature of "proof" then it doesn't make any sense to talk about both of them together for this thread

Well, OK. I would be on the side of your Christian friend here. I have "proved" things to myself through "faith". I have proved to myself that psychic ability is real. Unfortunately, disbelief in psychic ability can prevent one from experiencing it. Fortunately, belief in psychic ability can help one experience it. It's what parapsychologists call the sheep-goat effect and what religious people call faith.

Here is a blog entry by Charles Tart on the subject:

[...]

"Gertrude made one of the most important discoveries ever in parapsychology, one with strong spiritual implications and one which I think none of the spiritual traditions knows about, for while it's something that can happen in everyday life, it's pretty much unobservable except under laboratory conditions. She gave many classes of students ESP tests, guessing at concealed cards, but, before giving or scoring the tests, she had students fill out questionnaires that asked, among other things, whether they believed in ESP.

When she analyzed the results separately for the believers - the "sheep" - and the non-believers - the "goats" - she found a small, but significant difference. The sheep got more right than you would expect by chance guessing, they were occasionally using ESP. The goats, on the other hand, got significantly fewer right than you would expect by chance.

Think of it this way. If you were asked to guess red or black with ordinary playing cards, no feedback until you'd done the whole deck, you would average about 50% correct by chance. If you got 100% correct, you don't need statistics to know that would be astounding. But if you got 0%? Just as astounding!

The sheep thought they could do it, they got "good" scores, they were happy. The goats knew there was no ESP, nothing to get, they got poor scores, they were happy, that "proved" their belief. These were not people who were sophisticated enough about statistics to know that scoring below chance could be significant…

Many other experimenters replicated this effect over the years.

The only way I've ever been able to understand it is to think that the goats occasionally used ESP, but on an unconscious level, to know what the next card was and then their unconscious, acting in the service of their conscious belief system, influenced them to call anything but the correct one." (bold mine)

[...]

Pioneering Parapsychologist Gertrude Schmeidler Has Died | Charles T. Tart

 

[punkdbass]

You've already assumed one: a distinction between your idealizations of reality and reality.

Okay what's your point? Let's say there actually is no distinction of our idealizations of reality and reality itself. How could you prove that our idealization of reality is in fact the right one? You wouldnt be able to.. It's certainly possible that it is, but the whole point of the philosophy I've presented in my OP is that you can't prove it without making assumptions at some level.

But come on man.. obviously basic geometry and numbers themselves - things we use to describe and create our idealization of reality, do not in fact exist in reality.

 

[Willamena]

Okay what's your point? Let's say there actually is no distinction of our idealizations of reality and reality. How could you prove that our idealization of reality is in fact the right one? You wouldnt be able to..

Definitionally. If there is no distinction between our idealizations of reality and reality, then there can be no idealization of reality that is not reality. There can be no "wrong" idealization of reality.

But come on man.. obviously basic geometry and numbers themselves - things we use to describe our idealization of reality, do not in fact exist in reality.

Do you mean that they don't exist materially? Because that's not saying the same thing.

 

[punkdbass]

Well, OK. I would be on the side of your Christian friend here. I have "proved" things to myself through "faith". I have proved to myself that psychic ability is real. Unfortunately, disbelief in psychic ability can prevent one from experiencing it. Fortunately, belief in psychic ability can help one experience it. It's what parapsychologists call the sheep-goat effect and what religious people call faith.

Here is a blog entry by Charles Tart on the subject:

[...]

"Gertrude made one of the most important discoveries ever in parapsychology, one with strong spiritual implications and one which I think none of the spiritual traditions knows about, for while it's something that can happen in everyday life, it's pretty much unobservable except under laboratory conditions. She gave many classes of students ESP tests, guessing at concealed cards, but, before giving or scoring the tests, she had students fill out questionnaires that asked, among other things, whether they believed in ESP.

When she analyzed the results separately for the believers - the "sheep" - and the non-believers - the "goats" - she found a small, but significant difference. The sheep got more right than you would expect by chance guessing, they were occasionally using ESP. The goats, on the other hand, got significantly fewer right than you would expect by chance.

Think of it this way. If you were asked to guess red or black with ordinary playing cards, no feedback until you'd done the whole deck, you would average about 50% correct by chance. If you got 100% correct, you don't need statistics to know that would be astounding. But if you got 0%? Just as astounding!

The sheep thought they could do it, they got "good" scores, they were happy. The goats knew there was no ESP, nothing to get, they got poor scores, they were happy, that "proved" their belief. These were not people who were sophisticated enough about statistics to know that scoring below chance could be significant…

Many other experimenters replicated this effect over the years.

The only way I've ever been able to understand it is to think that the goats occasionally used ESP, but on an unconscious level, to know what the next card was and then their unconscious, acting in the service of their conscious belief system, influenced them to call anything but the correct one." (bold mine)

[...]

Pioneering Parapsychologist Gertrude Schmeidler Has Died | Charles T. Tart

I appreciate the interesting post, but for the sake of this debate, I'd really rather not bring faith into the picture because I feel like we'd be going off on a big tangent. I know what faith is, and I have a decent understanding of what logic/proof is, and I don't think we should put the 2 concepts in the same playing field for this thread.

Oh and by the way, Im in a statistics class right now.. and I definitely find statistics super interesting but the bottom line is you literally can't prove anything in statistics.

 

[Me Myself]

I do think it´s imposible

Believing in anything is an act of faith.

 

[punkdbass]

Definitionally. If there is no distinction between our idealizations of reality and reality, then there can be no idealization of reality that is not reality. There can be no "wrong" idealization of reality.

You just used an If, Then statement. To prove such a statement, you have to ASSUME P, and then show that that Q is true. So in other word's you just made an assumption.. and are doing nothing to show me that you can prove things without making assumptions

Do you mean that they don't exist materially? Because that's not saying the same thing.

I'm saying numbers and basic geometry don't exist in nature.. for example the shape of a "square" doesnt in fact exist in reality. If you zoom in far enough, the square will have bumps and ridges and will not be the idealized concept of a square that we imagine.

 

[Willamena]

You just used an If, Then statement. To prove such a statement, you have to ASSUME P, and then show that that Q is true. So in other word's you just made an assumption.. and are doing nothing to show me that you can prove things without making assumptions

I responded to your question in kind, with the same wording you'd used.

All proofs involve assumption. When we "prove," we start from a particular position from which to compose our proof, and advance from there. That position is assumption; there is no other place to begin a proof at.

My proof was definitional, which means we rely on the meanings of the words involved to make the proof. If we begin with (this definition), we come to this (logical conclusion). If there is no distinction between idealization and reality, then there can be no "wrong" idealization of reality.

I'm saying numbers and basic geometry don't exist in nature.. for example the shape of a "square" doesnt in fact exist in reality. If you zoom in far enough, the square will have bumps and ridges and will not be the idealized concept of a square that we imagine.

So, by "in nature" do you mean... "materially"? Because, it would seem our nature to recognize numbers and dimensions.

 

[Student of X]

I appreciate the interesting post, but for the sake of this debate, I'd really rather not bring faith into the picture because I feel like we'd be going off on a big tangent. I know what faith is, and I have a decent understanding of what logic/proof is, and I don't think we should put the 2 concepts in the same playing field for this thread.

Oh and by the way, Im in a statistics class right now.. and I definitely find statistics super interesting but the bottom line is you literally can't prove anything in statistics.

Fair enough

Have you ever had faith in something? I'm just wondering how you know what faith is.

 

[punkdbass]

Fair enough

Have you ever had faith in something? I'm just wondering how you know what faith is.

Thanks

And yes, I am Jewish, I have faith in God. I also have a lot of faith in science in math - because I think both fields require faith at some level since their building blocks rely on assumptions. I also have faith in logic. I can't proof to you that the rules of logic are true, but I have a lot of faith and trust in them.

I can't prove to you that gravity exists. But I live my life with faith that it does, otherwise I'd probably go crazy and not be able to walk anywhere without the fear of flying off the earth lol I could go on and on but if you were wondering if I am a religious person who has faith in God, then yes I am.

 

[punkdbass]

I responded to your question in kind, with the same wording you'd used.

All proofs involve assumption. When we "prove," we start from a particular position from which to compose our proof, and advance from there. That position is assumption; there is no other place to begin a proof at.

Oops I apologize! I forgot in my post before your's I said "Let's say there actually is no distinction of our idealizations of reality and reality itself" And thus made the assumption for you.

But anyways getting back to the OT, do you think it is possible to proove things about reality without making any assumptions then? Since your original post in my thread didn't address the question.. jw what you think.