Death After Life vs Death Before Life

[mumblethrax]

You can't make a single claim, and the reason is because it conflates both a negative claim and a positive claim. It's only by breaking a claim into the smallest possible units that any logical conclusions can be drawn from it. Compound claims are much more complicated.

There's no innate distinction between positive claims and negative claims.

"There is a duck that is not green." First, you have to establish that a duck exists. That's the positive claim. Only having first established that can you discuss what colour the duck might or might not be.

"There is a duck" in this case is non-specific, and "breaking the claim down" in this way leads to incorrect assumptions about how to evaluate the claim. If I can establish that birds don't exist, the claim is false, and there's no need for further evaluation. These are conjoint conditions.

In the case of the original claim, I think "a universe exists" is trivially easy to prove, leaving only the negative claim that the universe has no god, which cannot be proved.

The claim is non-specific. If you were to somehow establish that God exists in the only universe available to us, "There is a universe with no God" would remain unproven.

But it's notable that it's the difficulty of proving the claim that is the stumbling block, and not whether or not it is phrased as a negative. "There's an empty car in my driveway" is not even slightly difficult to prove or disprove. If there's no car in my driveway, it's false. If there is a car in my driveway, and it's empty, it's true. If there's a car in my driveway and it's not empty, it's false. Nothing about any of this would make the assumption that there is not an empty car in my driveway reasonable.

 

[arthwollipot]

There's no innate distinction between positive claims and negative claims. The fact that the claim entails other claims is sort of immaterial.

There is an innate distinction between positive claims and negative ones. How would you go about proving the claim "there are no green cats"? You would have to point to literally every single cat in the world and say "that one's not green, that one's not green, that one's not green" and even then the chances are that you will miss a cat that's hiding under the couch from the weird human trying to find it.

Similarly with the claim "the universe (which has for the purposes of this argument already been established to exist) contains no gods". You have to literally point to every place in the universe in order to establish that there isn't a god hiding in that place. And that is absurd.

 

[mumblethrax]

There is an innate distinction between positive claims and negative ones.

No, there isn't. P = ~(~P). These are equivalent propositions--one is negative, the other is not (necessarily).

How would you go about proving the claim "there are no green cats"? You would have to point to literally every single cat in the world and say "that one's not green, that one's not green, that one's not green" and even then the chances are that you will miss a cat that's hiding under the couch from the weird human trying to find it.

Yes, that's how you'd do it. How would you go about proving the claim "There are green cats?" In exactly the same way. The problem has nothing to do with "positivity" or "negativity"--it has to do with unconstrained search areas.

Similarly with the claim "the universe (which has for the purposes of this argument already been established to exist) contains no gods". You have to literally point to every place in the universe in order to establish that there isn't a god hiding in that place. And that is absurd.

Oh, it's worse than that. The claim was "There exists a universe with no Gods." Even if you found God hanging out around Alpha Centauri, you still wouldn't be able to falsify the claim.

But this is a positive claim--it's positing the existence of such a universe. Again, the stumbling block has nothing to do with positivity or negativity.

 

[arthwollipot]

No, there isn't. P = ~(~P). These are equivalent propositions--one is negative, the other is not (necessarily).


Yes, that's how you'd do it. How would you go about proving the claim "There are green cats?" In exactly the same way. The problem has nothing to do with "positivity" or "negativity"--it has to do with unconstrained search areas.

The difference is that I can point to one green cat to prove the positive claim. I would need to point to a potentially infinite number of non-green cats to prove the negative.

 

[mumblethrax]

The difference is that I can point to one green cat to prove the positive claim. I would need to point to a potentially infinite number of non-green cats to prove the negative.

You can point to one green cat to disprove the negative claim.

There's no difference vis a vis the search for green cats.

 

[arthwollipot]

You can point to one green cat to disprove the negative claim.

There's no difference vis a vis the search for green cats.

Disproving a claim is not the same as proving one.

 

[mumblethrax]

Disproving a claim is not the same as proving one.

Disproving the negation of a claim is, in fact, the same as proving the claim, provided that there are only two possibilities (that the claim is true or false). If "There are green cats" is true, "There are no green cats" is false. A pretty common approach in mathematics to proving a claim is to disprove its negation.

In both cases, discovery of a green cat ends the search and allows us to evaluate the truth of the claim. Which is why the idea that there's something special about negative claims in this respect is odd.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Right, and I'm saying this is wrongheaded and will lead you to weird, overconfident conclusions.

You would be wrong. See theprestige's comment above for how you're not actually understanding what I'm saying.

ETA: Also the amount of scepticism I have towards a claim depends entirely upon the size of the claim and it's importance. If you claim you have a tree outside your window, unless I already know in advance that you do not I'm probably going to accept it as read because 1. Why would you lie? and 2. It's not important even if you did lie.

If you want to claim you had pizza for lunch, sure why not? If you want to claim that there is a soul...no. No that I will need evidence for before I accept it, thus I will accept the negative until such time as you have demonstrated it.

 

[mumblethrax]

You would be wrong. See theprestige's comment above for how you're not actually understanding what I'm saying.

I'm understanding what you're saying just fine. It's a very commonly believed bit of pseudologic.

No that I will need evidence for before I accept it, thus I will accept the negative until such time as you have demonstrated it.

And this is, and always will be, an error. A lack of evidence for P does not imply ~P.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

But I'm not saying it MEANS not p. I'm saying that we have no reason to accept P, therefore we take not P as true until shown otherwise.

How the hell else would you deal with any claims?

Someone claims there is a god. That is claim P.

Now, I say provide evidence, if you cannot provide evidence, I will operate under the assumption ~P until shown evidence for P. Once I am shown convincing evidence I will change my view to P.

You deal with this...how? How do you deal with any claim made about the world?

There are only two possibilities afterall, P or ~P. Once presented with the claim for P, you can either accept P and live as though it is true, or not accept P and live as though it is false until shown otherwise.

It's hardly pseudologic, it's literally logical argumentation.

 

[suren]

In case if someone don't know what the null hypothesis is. The null hypothesis is the assumption that no relation exist between two (or maybe more?) observable events/phenomena. We are certain that those events/phenomena have taken place/exist, but we are not certain whether those events/phenomena have any relation or not.

Here is an example of null hypothesis:
"People with depression are not smarter or dumber (on average) than people with no depression".

 

[mumblethrax]

But I'm not saying it MEANS not p. I'm saying that we have no reason to accept P, therefore we take not P as true until shown otherwise.

I know. This is an error.

Now, I say provide evidence, if you cannot provide evidence, I will operate under the assumption ~P until shown evidence for P. Once I am shown convincing evidence I will change my view to P.

There are no grounds for doing so.

There are only two possibilities afterall, P or ~P. Once presented with the claim for P, you can either accept P and live as though it is true, or not accept P and live as though it is false until shown otherwise.

You are conflating the possible truth values of a proposition with propositional attitudes. I do not need to take a position for or against a proposition. P will be either true or false, but it does not follow that I need to take a position on whether it is true or false if I don't have enough information to make a judgment. It's ok to say "I don't know."

I mean, consider what you're proposing here. Say someone claims there is life on other planets. My view, prior to talking to him, is that I don't know whether there is life on other planets. If he spectacularly fails to persuade me that there is life on other planets...I should then take the view that there isn't life on other planets? A bad argument for is not a good argument against.

It's hardly pseudologic, it's literally logical argumentation.

It's exactly pseudologic. You will not find a logician who will sign on to this.

 

[arthwollipot]

I think the problem here is in the attempt to discuss real-world questions with Formal Logic. Propositional calculus is useful for deriving theorems of pure mathematics, but it doesn't apply to situations like whether there is a tree outside the window, whether a cat is green, or whether there is a god.

 

[steenkh]

It would be strange if formal logic could not be applied to the real world, because that would mean that the formal logic is wrong.

I read Mumblethrax’ posts as arriving at the same conclusions as MarkCorrigan, but using other words, and stricter logic.

Isn’t the problem here that we often use shortcuts, or rules-of-thumb, like “you can’t prove a negative”, or Occam’s Razor as if they lead to insights that are always true? And we use concepts like the Null hypothesis from formal logic in combination with the rules-of-thumb.

 

[arthwollipot]

It would be strange if formal logic could not be applied to the real world, because that would mean that the formal logic is wrong.

No, just that formal logic applies only to a very strict set of circumstances. That doesn't mean that real life can't be logical, but it can also be illogical, and it can be logical without conforming to the structured rules of the propositional calculus.

I read Mumblethrax’ posts as arriving at the same conclusions as MarkCorrigan, but using other words, and stricter logic.

Isn’t the problem here that we often use shortcuts, or rules-of-thumb, like “you can’t prove a negative”, or Occam’s Razor as if they lead to insights that are always true? And we use concepts like the Null hypothesis from formal logic in combination with the rules-of-thumb.

Exactly. Formal logic doesn't apply to rules of thumb.

 

[psionl0]

No, just that formal logic applies only to a very strict set of circumstances.

That is not true. A necessary condition of any "set of circumstances" is that they be consistent with the rules of formal logic. However, it is not sufficient that they conform to the rules of logic.

 

[Tassman]

I didn't exist long before I was born and similarly I will not exist after I die. At least that's what many people on this forum think.

If so, does it mean that the nonexistence before I was born (let's name it nonexistence 1) the same thing as the nonexistence after my death (let's name it nonexistence 2)?

Even some famous people seems have claimed a similar thing:

So if they are 100% identical it seems that nonexistence 2 can be followed by life (consciousness) like nonexistence 1. So in some sense life after death is possible. Or perhaps there is no "self" or "consciousness". What are your thoughts about that?

There is absolutely no evidence for consciousness and intellect beyond the physical activity of the living brain.

 

[Explorer]

This debate is surely influenced by the importance, that we, on this forum and elsewhere, attribute to individual consciousness. Understandable, for the reasons of a widespread fear of one's own death, and the unknown. We know we are made of the same stuff of the universe, and the universe contains the essential ingredients in at least one part of itself, that created through the laws of physics an evolved form of organic life that ponders on its own existence. It can be argued that we, human life, is a common consciousness of the universe, and that it is the more relevant description rather than apportioning it to individual humans. If we accept that, then non-existence before and after death, ceases to become important, rather like Twain's quote. More importance perhaps should be given to humanity as an ever growing wave of mass consciousness, dynamically moving along a timeline of existence, where that total of reflexive thought is part of an inevitable development in the evolution of our universe.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This debate is surely influenced by the importance, that we, on this forum and elsewhere, attribute to individual consciousness. Understandable, for the reasons of a widespread fear of one's own death, and the unknown. We know we are made of the same stuff of the universe, and the universe contains the essential ingredients in at least one part of itself, that created through the laws of physics an evolved form of organic life that ponders on its own existence. It can be argued that we, human life, is a common consciousness of the universe, and that it is the more relevant description rather than apportioning it to individual humans. If we accept that, then non-existence before and after death, ceases to become important, rather like Twain's quote. More importance perhaps should be given to humanity as an ever growing wave of mass consciousness, dynamically moving along a timeline of existence, where that total of reflexive thought is part of an inevitable development in the evolution of our universe.

Got any skins, mate?

 

[Explorer]

Got any skins, mate?

Now that's a philosophy!