Certain or Uncertain

[Demon Lord Jubei]

One thing thats been bugging me for a fair few days is the question...

(from an eternal/timeless perspective)

Is there anything in life that is certain? eg death. Immortality could be possible, just not right now...

Is there anything in life that is uncertain? eg fate. Does fate exist, and, if so does it control us, can it be changed. Im trying to link this to destiny.

Is it all reliant on perspective? Can it be said that nothing in life is certain, and at the same time, in the same perspective, nothing in life is uncertain?

[Lore]

Death is a certainty in life, the fact is our bodys cannot keep going forever, they have to stop sometime. As the saying goes: There's no getting out of this life alive.

[DarkWolf]

This is the same as the topic talking about the absolutes that may exist.

An absolute or ultimate certainty is something that can never be denied or scrutinised. In order to acknowledge a certainty you must have something you cannot possibly think of as being "unreal" or "false" in any way, shape or form. This is immensely hard as all you have to view the world are your perceptions - perceptions that may not necessarily be certain or true as it has been shown that such perceptions can be manipulated to some degree and theories are existing, quite strongly, to think "maybe it isn't real?"

In other words unless you're able to acknowledge something without requirement for a method of perception (by current understanding: this is impossible) you're never going to really come across a certain truth beyond your existence. Unless you're omniscient (God-like knowledge allowing you to perceive everything as fact and literally all-knowing) how can you correctly define a perception, which can be scrutinised and manipulated, as being an absolute certainty?

Your perceptions may very well say they exist - but only to you. It does not guarantee they can be perceived by others. Even the people and their opinions and their acknowledgements can be nothing more than false perceptions that exist only to you. They exist to you but what existing perceptions you have are not guaranteed to be existing perceptions for anyone else and due to this can not be rightfully absolute certainty.

Although what of my existence? I form these thoughts and perceive things - whether those perceptions are true or not - so surely I exist to some level? Maybe I am just the figment of another's imagination - but that still means I exist beyond my ability to perceive and so perhaps that's the only certainty we have? That we exist.

Cogito ergo sum. - I think therefore I am.

For more discussion and debates over this very same topic please click here (http://www.werewolf.com/vb/showthread.php?t=420 0).

[AriaWolf]

Everything is uncertain in one way or another.
There is only one thing that is certain, and that is that nothing is certain.

[DarkWolf]

Everything is uncertain in one way or another.
There is only one thing that is certain, and that is that nothing is certain.
I fail to see that logic. You deny your own existence? How are you thinking? How are you forming the will of interacting with perceptions (such as typing) - you claim these are not certain to you?

And if "nothing is certain" then surely that makes you a liar in the claim that "only one thing is certain" - seeing how these terms contradict the other in a premature and useless paradox summarised from your fondness of this ancient cliché of such concepts?

[FMtRIS]

Heisenberg Uncertainty: A photon can be measured in momentum but the more certain the momentum is, the position becomes less known.

There can be a close approximation in human certainty but its never quite fulfilled in the way which was determined. It might be close but natural processes (entropy) and things like the Heisenberg Uncertainty demonstrate that few things are indeed certain on a large scale and with thermodynamics in place. This can also be said of truth. There are self evident truths such as dropping an egg from a height will produce a broken egg but grey areas, such as philosophical and theological truths are always evolving and dependent on individual truths. Like the Heisenberg dilemma, certainty is weighed on one's position of that absolute against the result of initial certainty. Its improbable that the human mind can grasp the totality of one's actions that will result in an absolute certain end on a complex level.

[rodrigo]

"Cogito Ergo Sum"
And what if thought was but an ilusion, a natural response to the enviroment? What if thought was predictable as eating is for one who hungers? What are the senses then? Are they different from reason? And how can existence be a consequence of thought? ( It is not what Descartes intended, I know )Does it mean that a chair does not exist, or that a chair exists only if it`s perceived? How can you assert that thought is this magical mecanism which determine the existence of things, or that thinking is proof we exist?

How do men know what exists if they can`t really know what does not exist? For what does not exist is not inteligeble.

"Although what of my existence? I form these thoughts and perceive things - whether those perceptions are true or not - so surely I exist to some level?"

How can you tell this and not be affected by your perception? Your "perceiving things" is doomed to be a perception, or not?* Isn`t that a paradox as stupid as "the only certainty is that there are no certainties"? Only a very straight mind would deny the paradoxes, for they might be - who knows - the truth of the Universe, even if they`re opposite.

Concearing death, how can one prove it empirically and live to tell the story? Death is no ceartainty, I think - not to say that things which are proved empirically are certain.

* The fact your`re perceiving is a thing to be perceived, but then it would prove you exist, but then this would also be your perception...ad infinitum.

I`m sorry if my english is bad

[DarkWolf]

You fail to understand what "existence" means- yes it may be that I am nothing more than a figment of perception or imagination - but that still means I exist. If I had no form of existence then I could not be thought of, perceived, able to perceive anything, or have the ability to perceive my thoughts. So yes I do exist. You read my words and respond to them; does that not mean I exist? To you I could be nothing more than a perception, or imagination, but that means I still exist as a perception. Or it could be I'm the one perceiving you instead, which also means I exist.

I have not stated that the perception of things is not a perception itself. It's not even a paradox. The idea is: the perception of things isn't what grants or proves existence - but rather your ability to perceive things proves you do exist to some degree (if not but a mere concept) otherwise you would not have any ability to perceive anything, or think, as you'd be nothing - nobody would be perceiving you, you would be a real person or a concept or imagination - you'd be literally nothing.

Your existence is what allows you to perceive anything - whether those perceptions are real to anyone else or not is irrelevant. Your perception of them doesn't prove their existence, but it does prove yours - if only to you.

[rodrigo]

"yes it may be that I am nothing more than a figment of perception or imagination - but that still means I exist."
If that`s correct, you`ve proven the existence of God, my friend. He surely is, to many, a piece of imagination, or even perception - and, according to what you`ve said, this proves he exists. Humpty Dumpty also exists if we think this way, or is it that what exists is our thought of them ( if "anything" exists )
"If I had no form of existence then I could not be thought of, perceived, able to perceive anything, or have the ability to perceive my thoughts. "
And who says you do? And "what if thought was but an ilusion", and in this world - which you don`t have acces to, `cause you think - thoughts are originated from nothing
"(if not but a mere concept)"
I don`t agrre with it, a concept is something, but not the thing it relates. "Rodrigo" is not the person who`s typing now. It would be impossible to completely define things with concepts of them. ( I don`t know if that`s what you were talking about )
I think what you said was this: What proves us our existence is the perception that we think, that we have such an abillity. Is what you`re saying that perception can`t be realized by Nothing, and that we must exist if we perceive?
If that`s so, I`m still ceptic about it. I mean, God didn`t descend form Heaven and told me this. Even if he had, I`d probably not recognize him - but that`s irrelevant.
What I asked you - and if I asked you it was because I don`t actually know it - was about the nature of things which exist, given our ignorance of things which aren`t. I don`t think it is enough to say: things which are perceive; the rest doesn`t.
It all could be summarized in the question that follows, that is a little stupid: Do the things inexistent know they do not exist? And if we were nothing, would we? I don`t think we could answer such a question, for I believe we`re something - and even if we were Nothing, and Nothing didn`t know Nothing was Nothing, we still wouldn`t know. (Sorry about this mess)
"Your "perceiving things" is doomed to be a perception"
It is a paradox = two simultaneous opinions. One is that you can prove we exist by the fact we perceive things; the other, that we can`t - for it would be just a perception. But that doesn`t even matter.
I surely don`t know what "existence" means, that`s why I`m discussing it with you. Actually, I think that we should`ve started this discussion by trying to define the word. For, if we take it for the ability of perceiving things, what the hell would we be perceiving but other perceivers? And that`s strange; imagine we both exist - and, to make it more simple, only the both of us - would that mean that when I see a chair I`m actualy perceiving you, or myself. The chair is a great issue here! What proves she exists? If we can`t prove it, does it exist? ( that`s a stupid question, but I`ll leave it `cause I`m stupid )

I`m taking the most unlikely argument. That doesn`t mean I exclusively believe in what I`m saying .

[DarkWolf]

You misinterpret me: People perceiving me is irrelevant. I perceive myself, though, and that is relevant. I still possess the ability to perceive, it the possession of the ability not the use of such ability which proves to myself (and myself only) that I exist. Whether I exist as what I perceive I am existing as is irrelevant. If I am indeed non-existant I would not have the ability to perceive anything, and not be aware enough of my existence. I would have no thought, no reason, no concept of self. I can doubt reality all I want - but it's the act of doing so that proves, to me, that I exist in some form. It does not make anything else exist.

But then, maybe we're being too strict on "existing"- perhaps perceptions make them exist for surely the concept and our ability to perceive means they exist as something - even a perception is something, if but a concept - and therefore exists to the one perceiving it. So yes, maybe God is real for those who perceive his existence.

As for the chair existing - what chair? ;)

"Your "perceiving things" is doomed to be a perception"
It is a paradox = two simultaneous opinions

No... A paradox is two contradicting facts that are both correct. The statement that they are opinions only ensures it is not a paradox and being simultaneous is irrelevant: they need to be contradicting each other.

We could go on discussing this forever because we need to define what perception is and while intriguing it's technically irrelevant. This thread is about things which are certain and to myself I am certain that I exist and do so without doubt. Whether I'm certain to anyone else is not an issue of concern.

[rodrigo]

I understood what you`re saying, but I don`t agree with it. I don`t think existence is the ability of perceiving your own perception. It may be, but thre`s no way one can be sure about it, and that`s the thread we should be following. I don`t think we can be absolutely sure about anything, for as much as we run, we can`t leave ourselves, or our human reality. And this reality is full of doubts.

I have no authority to assert that the "things" we call perception are indeed perception as we would classify them - It is weird. Perhaps its not something that depends on anyone but - let`s take a Teocentric poit of view - on God. What if we were ilusions put inside God`s brain, we would not exist as we think of existing. If we were the thought of an absolute Inteligence, we wouldn`t be - the thought would be, but not us. Geez! It`s too hard to argument that I don`t exist, why is that so? Look where you`ve taken me...I`m talking about things such as...tooth-fairy? why not!

Not all that doesn`t exist is nothing. Is the tooth-fairy nothing? No! Therefore, it is not valid to say that what perceives must exist because Nothing can`t perceive.

What if the Universe laws are not what we think of them? What if they don`t follow human logic? What if Nothing can, in fact, engender something? If it was so, and the logic of the UNiverse was different from ours, we wouldn`t actualy know, would we? And that might be happening and we wouldn`t know. If all you perceive is ilusion, including the fact that you perceive, would you know it? And would you exist? Existence could be then something completely different than what we take it for. Nothing could do things and still be nothing.(?)

"So yes, maybe God is real for those who perceive his existence."
That looks like a sophist saying. It`s not the existence I was looking for. I`m talking about true existence, which can`t be imagination only. Don`t misunderstand me; the imagination is true, but not its content, it`s imagination!

Para= next too, or oposite, which is the same. Doxa = opinion, it is the oposite of aletheya(spelling might be wrong), the truth
Paradox doesn`t mean contrary truths. It means opinions which come next to one another in a statement. If they`re opinionS - and not an opinion - they must be different, obviously; if they come in a statement they`re simultaneous. Sim= togetherness(?)

It`s meaning has been changed, I should have used the common meaning.

[rodrigo]

I`m saying the same over adn over, and so are you. We`d better agree that we disagree.

[Buddha Monkey]

The only thing that is certain is taxes!

Why is that? If you buy something (such as the computer you are using), then your paying taxes. If you work, you pay taxes. If you live in ANY type of home, then you are paying taxes.

Almost everything else can be seen as uncertain. Is Darkwolf a great and funny guy (normally), to me that's certain. To you, that may be uncertain (and I don't mean to bring up the argument of perceptions that has already been done to death.)

Am I a real person, instead of some bot? To me, that's certain, to you, it's uncertain.

Unless it's something that HAS to be (such as, at this moment in time, death, and taxes), it's going to be uncertain.

Hell, the laws of gravity arn't really certain. There are way's to defeat them (Mag Lift's do it.)

[chriz]

I agree with DW. I am certain I exist. I dunno about the rest of you... ;)

[Buddha Monkey]

I agree with DW. I am certain I exist. I dunno about the rest of you... ;)
But to go the other way, how can I, or anyone else, be certain that you exist? Because you typed that onto a computer as DW stated? How do I know that you and DW arn't the same person, or that I'm the only person on this site that's not part of the same mind?

[chriz]

You can't be.

[LV426]

I told chriz he could exist, therefore he does. The rest of you are still up for review.

[EP-GingerSnaps]

I know one thing that is certain, questions like these will continue to appear no matter the answer received.

[MichaelCra]

I would like to go onto the fate part I believe in fate but I kind of have a twisted view of it I don't believe that every person has a set fate from there birth. I believe that by each decision we make are fate changes. Ex. Like say I don't have a girlfriend and I can either wait for this girl I really like or I could go out with a girl I know likes me but I really don't like that much. Either way I can't know my ending but by not waiting I could miss a chance with the girl I really wanted maybe never get another chance, but then again this is all just my opinion.