logical proof of causality without empirical?

[Faust]

I'm still confused about how causality is logically proven without relying on any empirical observations. It's said that causality is logically proven because something can't exist on its own, but isn't this essentially empirical?

[Jamesh]

I base all the truths I hold on empirical observations. They are always how I confirm what a-priori truths my mind might generate. It is checking an a-priori concept with empirical observations that allows the feeling of certainty.

It might be that after the mind becomes accustomed to absolute truths, as confirmed by empirical means, that new a-priori ideas are confirmed by empirical data in one's subconcious. I now tend to confirm a-priori thoughts, by checking against my [empirically derived] knowledge of duality. If something IS, then what is the opposing IS NOT. When I have both the IS and IS NOT, then the truth is confirmed and requires no empirical investigation.

[average]

it has no a priori logical basis without some sort of metaphysics

and it has no empirical basis either

[Kevin Solway]

it has no a priori logical basis without some sort of metaphysics

and it has no empirical basis either

Are you talking about empirical observations having no a priori basis nor empirical basis?

[Pincho Paxton]

I'm still confused about how causality is logically proven without relying on any empirical observations. It's said that causality is logically proven because something can't exist on its own, but isn't this essentially empirical?

It's not logically proven, and it doesn't even work with fuzzy logic for me. I see many things without known cause. The unknown cause of sentience is another sentience, and once you get into a repeating pattern like this you are already in a paradox, and once you realise that you are in a paradox it is best to stop reading information before the paradox begins. So you stop reading information before sentience. Therefore sentience becomes its own cause, and exists on its own.

[Kevin Solway]

I'm still confused about how causality is logically proven without relying on any empirical observations.

Trying to prove something based on empirical observations is like building a house on sand. All empirical observations are inherently uncertain and cannot be relied upon because the senses are inherently limited and fallible.

That's why philosophical proofs cannot rest upon mere empirical observations.

[Imadrongo]

I'm still confused about how causality is logically proven without relying on any empirical observations.

Trying to prove something based on empirical observations is like building a house on sand. All empirical observations are inherently uncertain and cannot be relied upon because the senses are inherently limited and fallible.

That's why philosophical proofs cannot rest upon mere empirical observations.

And since everything we have is based on empirical observations, all our 'proofs' are inherently uncertain, and there is no such thing as "absolute truth".

Now Kevin will question whether our concepts are based on the empirical world. How about this: if you can prove our concepts are not based on the empirical world and are somehow concrete, absolute, or infallible, then you can convince me there are absolute truths. As it is all you have is that it is "uncertain" where are concepts came from, which makes them no better than that uncertain empirical world for finding "truth" in.

[xerox]

...

[Kevin Solway]

Logic (a system of reasoning) to prove logic (a system of reasoning).

That which I call logic is not a "system" of any kind. Rather, systems of reasoning , or systems of logic, are based on logic and make use of logic.

[Kevin Solway]

And since everything we have is based on empirical observations

Prove that this is so.

There is no such thing as "absolute truth".

Are you uncertain about that? It doesn't sound like it.

As it is all you have is that it is "uncertain" where are concepts came from

It doesn't matter where they come from since it doesn't impact on our ability to reason.

Reasoning is always about "things", and the things simply present themselves to us. There is no possible way for us to know for certain exactly where those things come from. Our entire lives could be part of a computer simulation for all we know. So, philosophically speaking, there's no point in pursuing the source of things since that path doesn't lead anywhere.

We simply reason about what appears to us.

[average]

it has no a priori logical basis without some sort of metaphysics

and it has no empirical basis either

Are you talking about empirical observations having no a priori basis nor empirical basis?

I'm talking about it as a mental construction being projected upon empirical observations, while having no a priori basis.

[Imadrongo]

As it is all you have is that it is "uncertain" where are concepts came from

It doesn't matter where they come from since it doesn't impact on our ability to reason.

Reasoning is always about "things", and the things simply present themselves to us. There is no possible way for us to know for certain exactly where those things come from.
...
We simply reason about what appears to us.

OK good, now you are admitting that the "things" you reason about could be wrong, which would make your conclusions wrong. ==> Enlightenment, absolute truth, yada yada, might just be an illusion.

[David Quinn]

Now Kevin will question whether our concepts are based on the empirical world. How about this: if you can prove our concepts are not based on the empirical world and are somehow concrete, absolute, or infallible, then you can convince me there are absolute truths.

We've already gone through this, Neil, and you have already acknowleded the reality of some absolute truths. For example, the absolute truth that no one can ever adopt an objective perspective (in the sense of escaping their own consciousness and peeking at what lies beyond).

The whole issue is dead and buried with this one example alone.

-

[average]

Now Kevin will question whether our concepts are based on the empirical world. How about this: if you can prove our concepts are not based on the empirical world and are somehow concrete, absolute, or infallible, then you can convince me there are absolute truths.

We've already gone through this, Neil, and you have already acknowleded the reality of some absolute truths. For example, the absolute truth that no one can ever adopt an objective perspective (in the sense of escaping their own consciousness and peeking at what lies beyond).

The whole issue is dead and buried with this one example alone.

-

but in a stricter sense, no concept, idea, or truth is ontologically absolute.

do you agree?

[Ataraxia]

For example, the absolute truth that no one can ever adopt an objective perspective (in the sense of escaping their own consciousness and peeking at what lies beyond).


-

Yes, it's paradoxical that a relativist type of statement actually provides an absolute truth.

[Kevin Solway]

We simply reason about what appears to us.

OK good, now you are admitting that the "things" you reason about could be wrong, which would make your conclusions wrong. ==> Enlightenment, absolute truth, yada yada, might just be an illusion.

Appearances themselves can never be "wrong". Appearances are just appearances. And since my philosophical reasoning makes no assumptions about these appearances, it, likewise, cannot be wrong.

Error can only enter into the equation when you start speculating.

[Ataraxia]

Appearances themselves can never be "wrong". Appearances are just appearances. And since my philosophical reasoning makes no assumptions about these appearances, it, likewise, cannot be wrong.

Error can only enter into the equation when you start speculating.

Kevin;

Lets say, for arguments sake, you and i are both avid watchers of AFL football.

I say :"Royce Hart is the best footballer in the history of the game.I saw him play and have seen all footballers play since and theres is no doubt in my mind he is the best.I also have empirical evidence that he took the most marks,was picked for the team of the century,and so forth"

You say:"Gary Ablett was the best footballer in the history of the game in my experience.He kicked more goals played in more grand finals etc."

As far as either of us are concerned we are not speculating.We have real life observations and empirical evidence to back our statements.

Are both these statements absolute truth?Trivial truths? both? Or something else?

[xerox]

...

[Jamesh]

That which I call logic is not a "system" of any kind.

Ignore what Kevin says, he is not expressing himself sufficiently well enough, of late. It's like he is purely a creature of habit.

Logic is always a dualistic system. It cannot be otherwise. Logic is the most simple possible system of A and Not A, at least that is how logic works, something either is or is not.

In relation to our conception of things however, there is always a logical multi-directional cascading effect as any perceived dualistic "A and Not A" set can be dualistically compared to another "A and Not A" set either within or outside of the thing being considered. Reality is relative, because reality is an omni-directional or dualistic formation of logic.

The process of reality is dualistic, the outcome is non-dualistic. Logic, as a named thing is a thing, and therefore is a non-dualistic image of reality. Logic is THE EFFECT of A and Not-A coexisting as a whole, as by co-existing as a whole, this allows a dualistic division into the abosulte of A and Not-A. Causality is and cannot be other than dualistic.

[Kevin Solway]

Error can only enter into the equation when you start speculating.

Lets say, for arguments sake, you and i are both avid watchers of AFL football.

I say :"Royce Hart is the best footballer in the history of the game.I saw him play and have seen all footballers play since and theres is no doubt in my mind he is the best.I also have empirical evidence that he took the most marks,was picked for the team of the century,and so forth"

You say:"Gary Ablett was the best footballer in the history of the game in my experience.He kicked more goals played in more grand finals etc."

As far as either of us are concerned we are not speculating.We have real life observations and empirical evidence to back our statements.

Are both these statements absolute truth?Trivial truths? both? Or something else?

These statements are not absolute truth because they involve speculation.

The fact is, we have no guarantee that we have observed, or can remember all the players in the history of the game. We have no guarantee that we have actually observed any of the players in the history of the game.

As an absolute statement, all I could say is that of all the players I can remember, player X is the best player, based on what I personally consider to be good qualities. But this statement would not be claiming that the player definitely existed anywhere outside of my own imagination.

[Kevin Solway]

That which I call logic is not a "system" of any kind. Rather, systems of reasoning , or systems of logic, are based on logic and make use of logic.

This l dont understand.

I'm just highlighting the fact that most people consider "logic" to be some kind of a system of knowledge, and therefore that logic is some kind of academic construction, as per most dictionary definitions. This is a major mistake.

systems of logic, are based on logic and make use of logic

Like A=A, a repetitious expression of the self evident.

Regardless of how self-evident it is, people everywhere confuse a system of logic for logic itself. That is, they confuse A with that which is not-A.

logic is a methodology . . .

Logic is a lot simpler than that. A "methodology" sounds a lot too much like a "system".

Logic only fails when memory fails, because A=A requires memory.

[David Quinn]

Now Kevin will question whether our concepts are based on the empirical world. How about this: if you can prove our concepts are not based on the empirical world and are somehow concrete, absolute, or infallible, then you can convince me there are absolute truths.

We've already gone through this, Neil, and you have already acknowleded the reality of some absolute truths. For example, the absolute truth that no one can ever adopt an objective perspective (in the sense of escaping their own consciousness and peeking at what lies beyond).

The whole issue is dead and buried with this one example alone.

-

but in a stricter sense, no concept, idea, or truth is ontologically absolute.

do you agree?

Contradictions such as "objective perspective" and "married bachelor" are absolute, in that there is no possibility of these things appearing anywhere, at any time.

-

[Ataraxia]

Ok lets take the historicty out so we can avoid memory contentions

[
As an absolute statement... player X is the best player, based on what I personally consider to be good qualities.

Right, so as long as we qualify a statement with "in my experience,or what i consider good qualities" or something similar then it will always be absolutely true(assuming we aren't lying)
And it becomes like: "Theres a coffee mug on my desk"(assuming thats what I'm really observing)

Therefore, opinions personally qualified and observations of the world have the same truth value.ie Absolute.

But this statement would not be claiming that the player definitely existed anywhere outside of my own imagination.

Yes,likewise the coffee mug on my desk.

[average]

Contradictions such as "objective perspective" and "married bachelor" are absolute, in that there is no possibility of these things appearing anywhere, at any time.

Edit;

yet the definitions themselves only exist mentally, as you think of them.

They are appearances themselves, that come and go.
Yet appearances that can only be thought of meaningfully and coherently in a certain way.

Like a picture expressing an image that can only be seen coherently from a certain angle.

[Pincho Paxton]

Error can only enter into the equation when you start speculating.

Lets say, for arguments sake, you and i are both avid watchers of AFL football.

I say :"Royce Hart is the best footballer in the history of the game.I saw him play and have seen all footballers play since and theres is no doubt in my mind he is the best.I also have empirical evidence that he took the most marks,was picked for the team of the century,and so forth"

You say:"Gary Ablett was the best footballer in the history of the game in my experience.He kicked more goals played in more grand finals etc."

As far as either of us are concerned we are not speculating.We have real life observations and empirical evidence to back our statements.

Are both these statements absolute truth?Trivial truths? both? Or something else?

These statements are not absolute truth because they involve speculation.

The fact is, we have no guarantee that we have observed, or can remember all the players in the history of the game. We have no guarantee that we have actually observed any of the players in the history of the game.

As an absolute statement, all I could say is that of all the players I can remember, player X is the best player, based on what I personally consider to be good qualities. But this statement would not be claiming that the player definitely existed anywhere outside of my own imagination.

The second quote is not a true argument, because it changes the first quote's logic. First quote has a set of mathematical rules which an argument has to adhere to. Like this...

"Let's say Johnny Higgins has 150 IQ, and I say That he is the brightest boy in my class"

At this point you have to accept that the first mathematical rule is 150 IQ, and can't argue against it by saying that it isn't.

"Then you say that Harold Palmer has 6 A levels"

Second mathematical rule = 6 A Levels.

You now have to reply with

150 IQ <> 6 A Levels

Any argument that you make that alters these numbers is irrelivent.