5 ms·

"If you agree that there is a hand, we will grant you all the rest..." From the tiny book "On Certainty" by Wittgenstein. Really interesting and thought-provok

"If you agree that there is a hand, we will grant you all the rest..." From the tiny book "On Certainty" by Wittgenstein. Really interesting and thought-provoking.

lkbm 5y ago
More context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand TL;DR: Descartes (and others): We can't know for certain that the external world exists. GE Moore: "Here is one hand, and here is another. There are at least two external objects in the world." Wittgenstein was pointing out that this doesn't address any of the actual claims. (I think "agree" is a confusing word to use in the translation. "Know" would work better.) EDIT: I'd also like to throw this Moorean SMBC sub-comic because I love it and it's relevant: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100512after.gif https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100512after.gif -- from https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1879 https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1879
- johnisgood 5y ago
  Here is one hand, And here is another. There are at least two external objects in the world. Therefore, an external world exists. As if there would not be hands in a simulated world!
  - HEmanZ 5y ago
    My thought on this, what's the difference to an agent between a real world an a simulated one? Why aren't all worlds effectively simulated?
    - number6 5y ago
      At least simulated by our brain. Most would say filtered but what is the difference?
    - johnisgood 5y ago
      There is no difference. It would only matter if you could wake up from the simulated one. Everything in this world seems real, and since I have not waken up to confirm that this is not even real, I might as well just consider it real and go on with my life.
    - galaxyLogic 5y ago
      You are basically asking if it's possible to know whether we live in a simulated world or not. That is a good question. One possible answer would be "It depends on the quality of the simulation". If we are living in a simulated world there could be a simulated drug the so-called red pill which allows you to see the execution of the simulation. If we started seeing Fortran source-code in the sky and the code would seem to be about running a world-simulation, and we would also see data-expressions in the sky that curiously described the world we experience outside of us then I think we would be pre-disposed to think it looks like we are simulated beings in a simulated world.
      - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
        > Fortran source-code in the sky Held together with Perl, don't forget. https://xkcd.com/224/ https://xkcd.com/224/
  - dlkf 5y ago
    The Cartesian begins with a hidden assumption - let's call it the internalist assumption - that in order for me to know that "here is one hand," there needs to be no possibility that we are in a simulated world (for if it's possible I'm in a simulated world, then I don't really know that here is one hand). Moore's point is: why is the internalist assumption any better than the assumption that here is one hand?
  - scoofy 5y ago
    The point isn't about the external world. It's about deduction vs induction, the point is about axioms. Axioms are arbitrary, thus deductive reasoning is ultimately arbitrary. If there is a hand then everything else falls out deductively. Using induction, it's trivially true that there is a hand. Using deductive reasoning to prove an inductive proposition is ultimately a waste of time, using inductive reasoning to create a correct framework for deductive reasoning is ultimately unknowable. Both of these together is how we live our lives and create our standard model, which is ultimately imprecise at best, and wrong at second best. This is Moore's point, that we are wasting our time trying to deductively prove the existence of an external world when it's trivially provable. We may not get accurate axiomatic framework, but we can never get that anyway. Much of the point of philosophy is properly delineating between these two methods of reasoning. Much of analytic philosophy is finding areas where language blurs the two.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - johnhowardstein 5y ago
  - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
    It seems to conflate the existence of a hand with the perception of a hand (specifically an 'external' hand). Neither implies the other.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tympious 5y ago
https://archive.org/details/oncertainty00witt https://archive.org/details/oncertainty00witt

"If you agree that there is a hand, we will grant you all the rest..." From the tiny book "On Certainty" by Wittgenstein. Really interesting and thought-provoking.

lkbm 5y ago

More context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Here_is_one_hand TL;DR: Descartes (and others): We can't know for certain that the external world exists. GE Moore: "Here is one hand, and here is another. There are at least two external objects in the world." Wittgenstein was pointing out that this doesn't address any of the actual claims. (I think "agree" is a confusing word to use in the translation. "Know" would work better.) EDIT: I'd also like to throw this Moorean SMBC sub-comic because I love it and it's relevant: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100512after.gif https://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20100512after.gif -- from https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1879 https://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1879

johnisgood 5y ago
Here is one hand, And here is another. There are at least two external objects in the world. Therefore, an external world exists. As if there would not be hands in a simulated world!
- HEmanZ 5y ago
  My thought on this, what's the difference to an agent between a real world an a simulated one? Why aren't all worlds effectively simulated?
  - number6 5y ago
    At least simulated by our brain. Most would say filtered but what is the difference?
  - johnisgood 5y ago
    There is no difference. It would only matter if you could wake up from the simulated one. Everything in this world seems real, and since I have not waken up to confirm that this is not even real, I might as well just consider it real and go on with my life.
  - galaxyLogic 5y ago
    You are basically asking if it's possible to know whether we live in a simulated world or not. That is a good question. One possible answer would be "It depends on the quality of the simulation". If we are living in a simulated world there could be a simulated drug the so-called red pill which allows you to see the execution of the simulation. If we started seeing Fortran source-code in the sky and the code would seem to be about running a world-simulation, and we would also see data-expressions in the sky that curiously described the world we experience outside of us then I think we would be pre-disposed to think it looks like we are simulated beings in a simulated world.
    - MaxBarraclough 5y ago
      > Fortran source-code in the sky Held together with Perl, don't forget. https://xkcd.com/224/ https://xkcd.com/224/
- dlkf 5y ago
  The Cartesian begins with a hidden assumption - let's call it the internalist assumption - that in order for me to know that "here is one hand," there needs to be no possibility that we are in a simulated world (for if it's possible I'm in a simulated world, then I don't really know that here is one hand). Moore's point is: why is the internalist assumption any better than the assumption that here is one hand?
- scoofy 5y ago
  The point isn't about the external world. It's about deduction vs induction, the point is about axioms. Axioms are arbitrary, thus deductive reasoning is ultimately arbitrary. If there is a hand then everything else falls out deductively. Using induction, it's trivially true that there is a hand. Using deductive reasoning to prove an inductive proposition is ultimately a waste of time, using inductive reasoning to create a correct framework for deductive reasoning is ultimately unknowable. Both of these together is how we live our lives and create our standard model, which is ultimately imprecise at best, and wrong at second best. This is Moore's point, that we are wasting our time trying to deductively prove the existence of an external world when it's trivially provable. We may not get accurate axiomatic framework, but we can never get that anyway. Much of the point of philosophy is properly delineating between these two methods of reasoning. Much of analytic philosophy is finding areas where language blurs the two.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- johnhowardstein 5y ago
- MaxBarraclough 5y ago
  It seems to conflate the existence of a hand with the perception of a hand (specifically an 'external' hand). Neither implies the other.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tympious 5y ago

https://archive.org/details/oncertainty00witt https://archive.org/details/oncertainty00witt