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

[Willamena]

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.

Let me put it this way: if you don't start with an assumption, you have nothing to prove.

You've no reason to be doing "proving" unless there is some inherent doubt to begin with.

 

[punkdbass]

Let me put it this way: if you don't start with an assumption, you have nothing to prove.

You've no reason to be doing "proving" unless there is some inherent doubt to begin with.

Hmm, makes sense to me. Like I said, Im just now taking a math proofs/logic course so Im kind of new to the formality of the subject, so sometimes I miss the obvious things..

So in other words your saying the question of "can you prove things without making assumptions?" literally makes no logical sense at all?

 

[Willamena]

Hmm, makes sense to me. Like I said, Im just now taking a math proofs/logic course so Im kind of new to the formality of the subject, so sometimes I miss the obvious things..

So in other words your saying the question of "can you prove things without making assumptions?" literally makes no logical sense at all?

An assumption is what you're trying to prove.

 

[mrdaniel777]

Well, one thing that is absolutely true is: "I Exist". We cannot deny our own existence becouse by doing it so it would show our existence.
I am not my arms, neither my legs, since I can continue existing without them. So, I'm not exactly my "body", I am what/who is aware of it. (not sure if it's absolutely right as the above, but I think it is)

 

[Quintessence]

Well, one thing that is absolutely true is: "I Exist". We cannot deny our own existence becouse by doing it so it would show our existence.
I am not my arms, neither my legs, since I can continue existing without them. So, I'm not exactly my "body", I am what/who is aware of it. (not sure if it's absolutely right as the above, but I think it is)

What about the philosophies that teach that self is an illusion? There is no "I" there is a whole of which the "I" is a part of?