4 ms·

Why would it? "Everything else" may behave the way it does because it's embedded within reality. But reality in itself isn't "in" anything, so it may or may not

by smhost 8y ago

Why would it? "Everything else" may behave the way it does because it's embedded within reality. But reality in itself isn't "in" anything, so it may or may not have the same properties as ordinary objects. So it may or may not be legitimate to carry out that final inductive step. Who knows. Who cares.

coldtea 8y ago
Reality though consists of many tons of "everything else".
- smhost 8y ago
  But in order to carry out the final inductive step, you have to invoke something outside of nature that causes nature to exist. And the problem is that we don't even know whether reason can be applied to things outside of nature. I mean, our rules of reasoning about objects realiably break down when we try to apply induction to objects even at the fringes of our ability to observe. What makes you so sure that we can reach the supernatural realm with reason?
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >But in order to carry out the final inductive step, you have to invoke something outside of nature that causes nature to exist. And the problem is that we don't even know whether reason can be applied to things outside of nature. In terms of proof, we also don't know whether reason can be applied to things within nature -- it's still depending on axioms. But we still believe it to be true and to be applicable everywhere inside nature regardless of specific context, and I see no reason (pun intended) not to extend this belief even outside nature.
    - smhost 8y ago
      There has to be some measure by which we can say that something is reasonable. And I think that measuring our reasoning against nature is the only way we can approach a valid model of the world. In contrast, we can't measure our reason against the supernatural realm. And like I said before, there are areas where our reasoning does break down even within nature (such as at the center of a black hole), and there we say "we don't know" rather than believe that our reasoning holds.

by smhost 8y ago

coldtea 8y ago

Reality though consists of many tons of "everything else".

smhost 8y ago
But in order to carry out the final inductive step, you have to invoke something outside of nature that causes nature to exist. And the problem is that we don't even know whether reason can be applied to things outside of nature. I mean, our rules of reasoning about objects realiably break down when we try to apply induction to objects even at the fringes of our ability to observe. What makes you so sure that we can reach the supernatural realm with reason?
- coldtea 8y ago
  >But in order to carry out the final inductive step, you have to invoke something outside of nature that causes nature to exist. And the problem is that we don't even know whether reason can be applied to things outside of nature. In terms of proof, we also don't know whether reason can be applied to things within nature -- it's still depending on axioms. But we still believe it to be true and to be applicable everywhere inside nature regardless of specific context, and I see no reason (pun intended) not to extend this belief even outside nature.
  - smhost 8y ago
    There has to be some measure by which we can say that something is reasonable. And I think that measuring our reasoning against nature is the only way we can approach a valid model of the world. In contrast, we can't measure our reason against the supernatural realm. And like I said before, there are areas where our reasoning does break down even within nature (such as at the center of a black hole), and there we say "we don't know" rather than believe that our reasoning holds.