Truth and Language 3 - Disaster narrowly averted
My discipline almost went out the window. I had a conversation with a friend today where I tried to explain my metaphysical hunch. I was this close to throwing away caution and writing it here.
But that would be terrible. Who needs a rambling, uninformed theory of everything with no justification? What if it were nonsense? What if it were perfect sense, but it was just a rephrasing of a bunch of ideas already thought up by everybody else?
No no. I've got to stay this tedious course.
So, thought experiments:
EXPERIMENT 1: Consider an omniscient--all knowing--being. What are its beliefs? Are they justified? If so, how? Is this being possible, given your definition of justification and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?
Q: What do we mean when we say "belief"? Is this a precise term?
EXPERIMENT 2: Take an exemplar of a concept that seems concrete to you: a chair, a cat, an orange. Remove atoms from it one by one. At what point, if any, does this object cease to be an exemplar of the original concept?
But that would be terrible. Who needs a rambling, uninformed theory of everything with no justification? What if it were nonsense? What if it were perfect sense, but it was just a rephrasing of a bunch of ideas already thought up by everybody else?
No no. I've got to stay this tedious course.
So, thought experiments:
EXPERIMENT 1: Consider an omniscient--all knowing--being. What are its beliefs? Are they justified? If so, how? Is this being possible, given your definition of justification and Godel's Incompleteness Theorem?
Q: What do we mean when we say "belief"? Is this a precise term?
EXPERIMENT 2: Take an exemplar of a concept that seems concrete to you: a chair, a cat, an orange. Remove atoms from it one by one. At what point, if any, does this object cease to be an exemplar of the original concept?