On the readily apparent as evidence of existence or non-existence:

Required Reading: Philosophy of Perception; Epistemology

While denying sense data is impractical, it would be equally impractical to deny the existence of a potential object or even a fantastic object when there is evidence to support it or when there is no evidence to the contrary. This is the basis of what I will call healthy scepticism.

Healthy scepticism is to be distinguished from unhealthy scepticism by the fact that it does not deny what is readily apparent. In order to illustrate unhealthy scepticism, I refer to a legend of an early sceptic, who upon adopting scepticism of even what is readily apparent was killed by a cart when he walked in front of it, disbelieving its existence. Conversely, healthy scepticism operates upon the assumption (but not the certainty) that what is readily apparent is evidence to its own existence by its being apparent in the first place. I say that it does not operate on a certainty because, while it is impractical to disbelieve what is readily apparent, it is equally impractical to believe that what is readily apparent is objective truth (more on that another time). 

Likewise, it is illogical to believe in what is not readily apparent, or in what is apparently not. The former - what is not readily apparent - is merely name given to the potential for either existence or non-existence, while the latter - the apparently not - is made readily apparent by the absence of evidence and cannot be verified by any available means.

What is not readily apparent cannot be used as substantive evidence for the existence or potential existence of anything. Only what is within the immediate reach of human experience is readily apparent, and effective in evidencing the existence of a thing.

In cases where something is not readily apparent, it is best to reserve judgment (as I may yet argue is best in all cases), however it is not within human capacity to continue to be active in life without behaving as though what is apparent is real, and what is not immediately apparent could be real – regardless of whether it is believed true. That said, one should neither believe that the apparently not is categorically true or false either. Even so, reaction or no reaction to a lack of stimuli is not required for active life.

Next Week: We'll see...

...

On what is readily apparent:

Having explained the infinite thing at length - a thing not readily apparent (and indeed, not likely perceivable) - it strikes me that it is necessary to illustrate what is not apparent by explaining its application to what is readily apparent; what is perceivable.

All that is ‘given’ to the perceptual doors (the senses), and is readily apparent without the aid of tools or theoretical equations, lies within the world or realm of perception. These are empirical perceptions. What is perceivable is shared to varying degrees by all sensitive humans. Anything that is perceived by one person can, under the similar circumstances be perceived by another person (for there can be no same circumstances). While we can’t quantify the perceptions of others, the acknowledgement of shared sensations allows for inferred empirical perception.

Generally, what is readily apparent is that which has the capacity to be discovered by human means, through the senses, or with tools (like a microscope). It is impractical to deny what is readily apparent, as that would deny the senses, which in turn would deny the realness of the real.

There are two ways of being readily apparent. Something can be apparently so, and apparently not. Both are readily apparent, but the latter can be used as evidence of existence, while the latter can be used as evidence of non-existence.

Next time: On the readily apparent as evidence of existence or non-existence, in which I explain
the concept of 'healthy scepticism.'

On the paradox of infinite divisibility:

Required Reading: Asymptotes, Zeno's Paradoxes, Infinite Divisibility, On the Present


Preface: Last week, I went on about how there was no way of pinpointing any moment in time accurately, because accurate measurements require infinitely smaller increments. It is a dynamic relationship which means that truly accurate measurement of anything at all is impossible.


While it seems obvious that events do happen, and must have begun to happen at some point; any attempt to figure out at which point an event actually occurs only tells us the times when the event was or wasn't happening.

The starting point for an event is always a moment that we get close to, but never meet; a sort of asymptote (remember calculus, kids?). For convenience sake, I'm applying the concept of asymptotes to any thing that gets close to, but never reaches a given measure (anything that approaches zero or infinity). Asymptotes imply infinity in that no matter how close a curve gets to an axis, it will never intersect with it because of the infinite divisibility of the space between them.

The fact that accurate measurements for beginning and end points are asymptotic (see what I did there?) suggests that each event has either always been occurring, never occurred, or is actually one event that has no beginning or end; an infinite event. The best guess of anyone as to the starting point of an event is defined by when it did not commence, as opposed to the moment that it did - because we'll never figure out what that moment is.

It’s important to note that here, as in Zeno’s original Arrow and Dichotomy paradoxes (remember the required reading?); the infinite divisibility of both space and time seems to preclude movement (or in this case, commencement of events). However, as in all of Zeno’s paradoxes, we know from experience that despite the fact that from one moment to the next, there is no way of knowing exactly when something started moving and where it moved to, the fact is that it does start moving, and does move somewhere.

Here is a possible explanation for this problem: Just as objects in space do not displace space by existing in it (they are the space they occupy - more on this in a few weeks), objects and events in time do not displace time. Basically, what I'm saying is that space and time are absolute - not relational (these are fancy philosophy terms). We estimate when the beginning and end of events happen, in terms of time. The unity and identity of each event is maintained no matter how many divisions are made in the duration between those beginning and end points - just as objects maintain their form from one point in space to another. No matter how many arbitrary divisions we make in time, an event maintains its duration, just as an object maintains its size no matter how small the increments that we measure it with are.

So, the interpretation of the present as being a relative estimate rather than an exact point is a useful fiction, which allows us to distinguish between relative (and inaccurate) starting points and relative end points in time or space.

Are relative time and space a valid substitute for knowing exact values? My position is that, technically, we can't tell the difference in our every day life, and the problem doesn't really have any noticeable effect on us as it is.

On the other hand, the indeterminacy of one of the fundamental elements of human perception is at once puzzling and intriguing. What does it mean, on a subconscious level, that events never actually start happening?


Next Week: On Simultaneity in which I dance around the idea of whether or not two things can happen at the same time, when one thing can barely seem to happen in the first place.

Drinking human tea

It seems to me
that used bathwater
is simply human tea.

Human tea
would be
caffeine-free.

So, what do you do with a first blog post, anyway? Write a mission statement?
How 'bout I just write some words, and then we'll talk about what happened when I'm done.

For the last year or so, I've been sitting at work, mourning my university lifestyle. Not so much the social aspect, because, as you will no doubt discover, I have no social skills and not much interest in cultivating them. I am an asshole.
What I've been missing is learning things.
"Mein gott! What kind of crazy talk is this?" you ask, because you're German.
Well, mein Liebling, the truth is, in my field of study - Philosophy, I was actually learning stuff that mattered to me. Stuff that explains... the sorts of things that normal people accept at face value. My favourite subject was metaphysics, and as can be assumed from the name, it talks about the way things work, rather than getting bogged down with all that boring math crap.

So, for the past year, I have been trying to stimulate my brain in an otherwise mind-numbing office environment by surfing wikipedia. I had already been harbouring dreams of publishing some kind of compendium of "all the things that I know to be true," - something in the style of those 18th and 19th century philosophers who thought they were all that and a bag of carp (many of them had moustaches!).
Why would I want to do that, when others had done it already? Well, as it turned out (and here's one of the reasons that I am not a social animal), "all the things that I hold to be true" are radically divergent from all the things that everyone else thinks to be true.

So, combining wikipedia's information and my deductive reasoning, sometime last year I started writing that compendium, so that others could read it and summarily be converted to my way of thinking - or, you know, tell me to fuck off.

Here's the point I've not been coming to: I'm going to start posting hunks of that compendium to this blog. Up to this point, it has been languishing in a 30 page Word file on a USB key. Soon it will be stagnating in the void that is the Internet.

For your better understanding, here is a basic rundown of the way that these posts will work:

1. The title - This will generally take the form of "On blank:" denoting that a) i will be discussing something, and b) that something will be blank.

2. Required reading - This will usually be a wikipedia link, or a link to a previous entry that you'll want to read in advance, so you know what the heck I'm talking about. I will try not to use this much, and actually explain new stuff as I go.

3. The words -I will do my best to describe "the things that I hold to be true." It won't be very academic. I'm not just restating other people's ideas. I am forcing their ideas to have sex, and then running off with their babies. I've done my best to translate academic language into English. Sometimes, it'll be something heavy like religion, other times it'll be something dumb like why I sometimes think I hear music when I'm standing in a crowd. I've also got pages and pages about time travel. I'm a geek.

4. Recommended reading - this will be the stuff to read if you're hardcore. I'll list books you should read if you really want to get up to your ears in junk that I barely scratch the surface of.


Feel free to poke holes in my ideas. I'm only posting this stuff on the recommendation of someone else.