Ever felt insignificant?

[Flosshilde]

Let's have another crack at this. I'm starting with your comment that it doesn't seem 'logical' not to prove a negative claim. Here is the position in Logic:

The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists, rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a logical fallacy to claim that X exists unless you can prove that there is no X - in other words, to accept X's existence as the default position until it is disproved - since disproof of the one is not proof of the other.

But why should the burden be on the person who makes the positive claim? Experience tells us that not everything that people claim to be true is actually true. It is not a good idea to proceed upon false beliefs, and most people will want some evidence and reasoning to support any claim being asserted to be true. So the burden is on those who make claims of X's existence to offer sufficient reason and evidence in support of those claims.

But someone making a claim of non-existence cannot ever logically prove it. To know that X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things, and to attain this level of knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the universe. Therefore, to establish the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities - omniscience and omniprescence - that don't exist in our human experience.

That's logic. As far as science goes, it has always been the case that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, and science works on that basis - the bleach will kill only 99% of household germs not because it won't kill 100%, but because it can't be proved that there will never be a single germ left. You can do that sort of thing only in mathematics (though not with proof of germs).

There we are. And I didn't mention a deity once. ...?... Doh!...

Trouble is, Pabs, religion has nothing to do with logic.

[Pabmusic]

Trouble is, Pabs, religion has nothing to do with logic.

Quite agree, Flossy. I was actually responding to a Scotty comment in which he complained that something wasn't 'logical' or 'scientific'.

[Bumfluff]

To answer the question, I've never felt significant, let alone insignificant.

[Dave2002]

That's logic. As far as science goes, it has always been the case that it is impossible to prove that something does not exist, and science works on that basis - the bleach will kill only 99% of household germs not because it won't kill 100%, but because it can't be proved that there will never be a single germ left. You can do that sort of thing only in mathematics (though not with proof of germs).

I think it depends what you mean by science. In mathematics, which is supposedly logical, it is possible to prove that some things do not exist. I'll give one seemingly trivial example, and one not so trivial.

I can assert that there is no real number x greater than one such that x=x^2. This is provable.

I can also mention Fermat's last theorem, which states that for all integer values n greater than 2 there are no integers x,y and z which satisfy x^n+y^n=z^n. Fermat's theorem has been proved, though it is difficult.

Often, in mathematics, there is a relation between solutions and non existence proofs. In the first example, we can consider x^2-x=0 which has solutions x=0 and x=1. Additionally, we can assert that no other values of x which satisfy this relation are possible. There are an infinite "number" of non solutions to this problem. For any quadratic equation, once we have found 2 solutions, we can assert that there are no other solutions. For a cubic equation, once we have found 3 solutions we can assert that there are no other solutions, and so on.

Thus it is possible to prove non existence in some circumstances.

The assertion that this is not possible in science can therefore only be true if mathematics is not held to be part of what some call science. To many people mathematics and science are strongly bound together.

[Pabmusic]

I think it depends what you mean by science. In mathematics, which is supposedly logical, it is possible to prove that some things do not exist. I'll give one seemingly trivial example, and one not so trivial.

I can assert that there is no real number x greater than one such that x=x^2. This is provable.

I can also mention Fermat's last theorem, which states that for all integer values n greater than 2 there are no integers x,y and z which satisfy x^n+y^n=z^n. Fermat's theorem has been proved, though it is difficult.

Often, in mathematics, there is a relation between solutions and non existence proofs. In the first example, we can consider x^2-x=0 which has solutions x=0 and x=1. Additionally, we can assert that no other values of x are which satisfy this relation are possible. There are an infinite "number" of non solutions to this problem. For any quadratic equation, once we have found 2 solutions, we can assert that there are no other solutions. For a cubic equation, once we have found 3 solutions we can assert that there are no other solutions, and so on.

Thus it is possible to prove non existence in some circumstances.

The assertion that this is not possible in science can therefore only be true if mathematics is not held to be part of what some call science. To many people mathematics and science are strongly bound together.

I can't argue with that. For the purpose of this discussion I was treating mathematics as an exception to the general scientific standard of proof (as witness the post you quote, and also post 38).

[scottycelt]

Trouble is, Pabs, religion has nothing to do with logic.

That is perfectly true but again hopelessly irrelevant. There are many things that can seem illogical in this world yet true. Love, for instance, can be very illogical. So was Hereford beating Newcastle in the FA Cup, but it was nonetheless true.

My reference to logic was over the question of 'proof' and that one claim of 'certainty' (based on no little faith) requires 'proof' whilst another (also based on no little faith) does not. This has nothing to do with the perceived merits or credibility of either claim.

If I trip over a stone, whilst out walking, and break my nose and then return to my wife, tell her what happened, and then she says 'hmmm, nonsense, Scottycelt, I don't believe a word of this 'tripping over a stone', you've been in another brawl with some of those nice, gorgeous-looking atheists again, haven't you? ... '. well, if she demanded proof, I might find it difficult to prove to her that, on this occasion at least, she was hopelessly wrong ...

However, I would also see absolutely no logical reason not to ask her, in turn, to provide some counter-evidence for her confident claim that I did not trip over that stone!

Get the idea now, Flossie ... ?

[Pabmusic]

...you've been in another brawl with some of those nice, gorgeous-looking atheists again, haven't you? ...

"Gorgeous-looking"? Now that might require proof that Mrs S. is not deluded.

[heliocentric]

I can't argue with that. For the purpose of this discussion I was treating mathematics as an exception to the general scientific standard of proof (as witness the post you quote, and also post 38).

Maybe something basic about the argument here is the question of how fundamental logic is. Given that logic and mathematics are inseparable, and that all new discoveries (and even many predictions) about the physical nature of reality at least since Newton have been couched in mathematical terms, it would seem reasonable to suggest that logic and mathematics are "discovered" rather than "invented" and are fundamental to the nature of reality, in other words that there's nothing about that nature which isn't in principle graspable in those terms. Which in turn suggests that if something seems to lie outside logic it can't be a fundamental aspect of reality.

An additional problem is that the everyday use of words like "logic" and "proof" is not as precise as its meaning in mathematics, or for that matter in the other sciences. If you're going to try and say something meaningful about the ultimate nature of reality, as far as it's accessible to human beings, casual everyday definitions can only lead to statements like "love... can be very illogical" which appear to say something profound but under closer scrutiny don't really mean anything at all. Religionists seem often to be greatly exercised by questions of ontology, but when they approach it in such a dilettantish and homegrown way it raises the suspicion that their "arguments" are a smokescreen to hide something like "it's all in this holy book so everything you say is wrong" rather than a real attempt to engage in debate.

[Pabmusic]

...An additional problem is that the everyday use of words like "logic" and "proof" is not as precise as its meaning in mathematics, or for that matter in the other sciences. If you're going to try and say something meaningful about the ultimate nature of reality, as far as it's accessible to human beings, casual everyday definitions can only lead to statements like "love... can be very illogical" which appear to say something profound but under closer scrutiny don't really mean anything at all. Religionists seem often to be greatly exercised by questions of ontology, but when they approach it in such a dilettantish and homegrown way it raises the suspicion that their "arguments" are a smokescreen to hide something like "it's all in this holy book so everything you say is wrong" rather than a real attempt to engage in debate.

Excellent post, Helio.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

seconded Pabmusic ...

standing in the open gazing at the immensity of the night sky in Arizona or on the deck of a cargo ship in the Indian Ocean neither logic , science rationality nor belief really came into it ..... it was a sublime experience beyond all possibility of calculation, measurement or imitation ,,,[to borrow the odd telling phrase from wickipedia] ...

reflecting back such experiences of sublime awe and terror add to the significance i feel in my life .....

i felt truly insignificant strolling along an immensely crowded street in Hong Kong and realising that there were another few people on the mainland as well .... being one of the unnumbered multitudes is insignificance and somewhat frightening as a complete outsider to the language and culture all around me ...

but the pernicious insignificance is that that is dished out by the global metropolitan elite, living in its cocoon of wealth and barbed wire .... who, as that immortal speech of Orson Wells in the Third Man defines it, see human beings as ants for their own purposes and tread on us ....

[teamsaint]

So to follow on from CdaJ's post, perhaps the trick might be to feel like a significant, if small part of it all.
We are our thoughts. "To see he world in a grain of sand" etc.

Incidentally, doesn't quantum physics tell us that things can go in and out of existence, or exist in two places at once, or also both exist and not exist at the same time?

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

doesn't quantum physics tell us that things can go in and out of existence, or exist in two places at once, or also both exist and not exist at the same time?

it depends on what you might mean by things i'd guess ....

[Pabmusic]

...Incidentally, doesn't quantum physics tell us that things can go in and out of existence, or exist in two places at once, or also both exist and not exist at the same time?

If you believe you can prove something satisfactorily in quantum physics, let alone disprove anything, you may be on your way to a Nobel Prize.

[amateur51]

Maybe something basic about the argument here is the question of how fundamental logic is. Given that logic and mathematics are inseparable, and that all new discoveries (and even many predictions) about the physical nature of reality at least since Newton have been couched in mathematical terms, it would seem reasonable to suggest that logic and mathematics are "discovered" rather than "invented" and are fundamental to the nature of reality, in other words that there's nothing about that nature which isn't in principle graspable in those terms. Which in turn suggests that if something seems to lie outside logic it can't be a fundamental aspect of reality.

An additional problem is that the everyday use of words like "logic" and "proof" is not as precise as its meaning in mathematics, or for that matter in the other sciences. If you're going to try and say something meaningful about the ultimate nature of reality, as far as it's accessible to human beings, casual everyday definitions can only lead to statements like "love... can be very illogical" which appear to say something profound but under closer scrutiny don't really mean anything at all. Religionists seem often to be greatly exercised by questions of ontology, but when they approach it in such a dilettantish and homegrown way it raises the suspicion that their "arguments" are a smokescreen to hide something like "it's all in this holy book so everything you say is wrong" rather than a real attempt to engage in debate.

[teamsaint]

If you believe you can prove something satisfactorily in quantum physics, let alone disprove anything, you may be on your way to a Nobel Prize.

well, its an incentive...I will keep posting speculatively, and maybe I will hit on some answers !