CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
Certainly not at the macro (i.e. observable) level, but in quantum mechanics there is a quantifiable duality to reality. For example, light travels both as a wave and as a series of particles. The Schrodinger Cat thought experiment exemplifies this.
Even in the macro level. 2 individuals with different perspectives can both be right.
No, not if their perspectives conflict with one another. Either they both believe the same thing or one of them is wrong. In the observable universe something either is or it is not. It cannot be both at the same time.
When we talk about quantum mechanics, we talk about probabilities and not certain events. It's like saying, I don't know what's there, but it maybe this or maybe that, assigned with some probability of it being certain.
"of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers"
"expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"
Objectivity is by definition contingent on observation.
There can only be ONE ultimate reality. That ultimate reality is God.
You're just one of those people that makes himself feel important by tearing other people down. But the rest of us see you as a pathetic little man. I feel sorry for you. Have a nice day ;)
Didn't mean to 'tear you down', if anything it's your fault for propping yourself up on a pedestal of bullshit...
I didn't realize correcting your unquestionable doctrine would incur such a wrath!
Did I hit a nerve somehow?
Or are you just so petty, insecure and flea brained, that when you make yourself look like an idiot, you drop the subject and lash out emotionally with ad hominem...yeah, that fits nicely. ;)
That's right. 2 individuals with different perspectives can both be right.
Right about the single objective truth which Amarel just mentioned. Two perspectives does not equal two objective truths. It equals two perspectives on the same objective truth. Understand?
Why can't reality ever be in contradiction with itself at the same time? That's predicated upon a human conception of possibility which cannot be proved.
1: Everything which can ever be discussed by humans is based on human conception. It is irrational for a human to seek understanding from outside that which humans can conceive.
2: If one abandons their acknowledgment of the law of non-contradiction, one must also abandon acknowledgement of logical derivatives such as proof and reason.
We've been over this before Jace. You can believe in the impossible, but that isn't rational.
It is entirely rational, because by it's own parameters reason cannot prove itself (nor can it be proved from without itself). If the soundness of reason cannot be established, then the certainty of its conclusions cannot be known. Therefore, we cannot be certain of the law of non-contradiction.
I have never suggested that we seek understanding from outside what we can conceive. Beyond being irrational, that seems impossible. My point is only that from within our conception we cannot have certain knowledge.
Recognizing the uncertainty of the law of non-contradiction, and so also of proof and reason here, does not force one to abandon a belief in or utilization of them. You are hastening to conclusions which in no way follow from the observation.
I do not believe in the impossible, but instead believe that what seems impossible may be possible. That is a critical distinction. By contrast, your view seems to suppose that it is impossible for human conception to be flawed such that reality could be otherwise than we conceive of it. That isn't borne out by either reason or experience, really.
You can be certain that you experience. To doubt it would be experienced doubt.
It is entirely rational, because by it's own parameters reason cannot prove itself (nor can it be proved from without itself). If the soundness of reason cannot be established, then the certainty of its conclusions cannot be known.
It's as though we never had the last debate. When you say reason cannot prove itself, you're pretending that reason is not proof itself. It is not rational to doubt the rationality of the concept of "rational" on the grounds that it cannot be proved (a rational process).
This is getting really old. If you wish to continue, accept a real life contradiction and watch me reply to you and not reply to you at the same time.
Honestly, I don't remember the last debate and it seems like you're making the same elementary strawmen anyways so it doesn't look like we ever advanced beyond the preliminaries (in effect at least). If this is uninteresting by virtue of its redundancy then by all means desist. Otherwise you may as well stop bringing up that we've talked about it before.
I am not "pretending" that reason is not proof itself, but thanks for yet another disingenuous representation of my stance that obviates addressing my argument. It is a basic precept of reason that a thing cannot stand as proof of itself. Unless you can articulate why reason should be exempt from its own rule, then it is subject to that rule and therefore cannot be proved by virtue of itself.
My accepting a real life contradiction and watching you reply and not reply is conceptually infeasible to me, but that doesn't disprove my point because my argument is that this conception is not a valid basis for certainty. All it proves is that within our conception non-contradiction is a law; it proves nothing beyond our conception in the least.
how, exactly, can you be certain that you do not experience?
and if you are certain that you don't, what do you do if you don't?i.e,only if you believe in "action" of any sort, of which if you're on the disputing side, according to you, nothing should ever "happen" at all. Which would in turn lead to a contradiction which is because of how we have "defined" what "happen" is. And again, that is only if you choose to work with logic, which is hardwired with statements that are strictly true or false, never possibly in between. So , you have to be irrational to possibly have such a situation, but again, true and false is what is defined when we logically try to look at stuff, not when we are being irrational, so if you actually use logic, to try and prove that irrationality has to be used to have two or more objective truths, you choose to agree upon the "terms and conditions" of rationality, but choose to violate it. So the best approach for you would be to be irrational from the beginning, which would also involve not replying to another's argument which is disputing yours, irrespective of what state your position is. so, by already choosing to reply to another, you choose to choose logic, but not abide by what it fundamentally lies upon. Let's hope you give time to what I've said here, hope you understand what I'm trying to convey.
You have seriously mistook my meaning. I am not certain that I do not experience, and I do not dispute the possibility of action. Mine is an argument from logic about the epistemic limitations of logic, namely that we cannot be certain of any conclusion derived from logic because the soundness of logic cannot be proved. So that while logic may necessarily lead us to conclude that two contradictory truths cannot exist together, logic must also lead us to conclude that the preceding conclusion is uncertain as we cannot know that logic is sound. At no point have I stepped outside logic in forming this argument, because I am not observing anything about whether there actually are two contradictory truths.
Even if I had stepped without logic to make my point the rest of your objection does not follow. For an irrational agent there can be no 'best' approach and no course of action may be precluded to them either, because both are consequences of logical rules which have in this case been rejected by the agent in question. For a logical agent it may be insufferable that an irrational agent use some logic some of the time, but it is of no concern to the irrational agent in the least. They are not in service to logic, not bound by it, even though they occasion to use it.
Mine is an argument from logic about the epistemic limitations of logic, namely that we cannot be certain of any conclusion derived from logic because the soundness of logic cannot be proved.
logic, as you and I both know, is set to fundamental rules, or foundations.Irrationality uses no fundamental rules or foundation, and hence does not add up to predictability of any sort, except for that of chance. logic is perfectly functional until you question logic, but right there, you have questioned its foundation, which does not allow logic to be used over.
however, even in that case, logic does provide a very acceptable answer, that is, it asks you to turn to irrationality, as there is no preceding pure logic to its fundamentals. that right there is the soundness of logic. It is our brain which has set these fundamental rules, not logic itself, hence the uncertainity while questioning its fundamentals.
Surely if there was a case where two objective truths existed, someone could point it out? The closest I've seen to this is the assertion that light behaves both as a wave and a particle. However, this doesn't mean that light is both a wave and a particle, it simply means that light acts in the same manner as a wave in some respects and acts in the same manner as a particle in other respects.
Also, as Amarel stated, there is merely one objective truth in the picture. This objective truth is simply being perceived differently by two different observers.
Perception and reality, while related, are not the same thing. Our perception is our mental representation of reality that is based on information gathered from our senses. This information can be lacking, or as with optical illusions, our brain can be incapable of representing the data accurately. In the example in the picture the two observers each have limited information and thus have incomplete perceptions that only contain an element of the "truth".
So... we can't always be 100% sure of what the objective truth is. And yet, some people are willing to die defending what they believe is an objective truth ;)
Yes, I can see how it seems strange but we can't be 100% sure of anything except "I experience therefore I am". Nonetheless every action we take is predicated on what we perceive to be true. Every action we take, therefore, is taken despite uncertainty. To act only when things are certain then, is to never act.
