---

Kristy Ventura Writes:

I have a four page report due on the question, If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound? I picked the answer Yes but I don't know where to start to find a way to back up my answer. Please help!

Eric Replies:

I suggest you do not concentrate so much on deciding upon your own answer to the problem, but instead turn your attention to defining and clarifying the question it poses, which concerns the epistemological status of empirical evidence (appearance and reality). Such philosophical puzzles are not primarily designed to push students towards firm conclusions, but to encourage careful examination of evidence. In this way, you reveal your appreciation of the subject you are studying. At the end of your report, you can give your own opinion concerning the problem, but by the time you've finished analysing it (if you do the job honestly and properly), you may well find your certainty no longer secure.

Ask yourself, "What is Sound?" "What defines a Sound?" "What do we mean by the word Sound?"

A sound is a detected vibration of the air. A sound is defined by being detected. A sound that is unrecorded, undetected, cannot be known (it is not a sound, by our definition). But, that which cannot be known, by definition, cannot be pronounced upon with absolute certainty. Therefore, there might be undetected vibrations of the air, which would be heard as sounds (if there were someone there to hear them), or there might not be.

However, if a falling tree does not cause the air to vibrate when there's no one there to hear such vibrations, then the laws of physics are illusory. If a falling tree causes vibrations that would be heard as sound when there is someone to hear it, but not when there's no one to hear it, how does the tree "know" when to make a sound and when not to make a sound? How does it "know" when there's no one there? We'd also have to include mechanical sound recording in this, seeing as such devices appear to detect sounds, even when no human ear was present at the capture of the recording. To defend the "no sound" option, satisfactory answers to such questions would have to be proposed. It appears to me, any such answers would all require the existence of unknown and unknowable supernatural agencies. Hiding one unknown under another is absurd, and Occam's Razor should be applied.

If out of sight is out of mind, then why do such things as natural disasters constantly surprise us? How is surprise possible, if unperceived things do not have independent existence?

I hope these few little pointers will set you thinking, because that's the point. I could write a great deal more, but that's your job.

What Constrains and Defines the Possible?[Return to Reactions page] or [Home Page] or [Top of Page]

Mike Turner Writes:

What constrains and defines the possible? Is this a merely semantic distinction, an epistemological reduction, or does the distinction have ontological reality? In other words, is anything possible, or isn't it?

Eric Replies:

What constrains and defines the possible? I'm not really sure. I suppose it is that set of assumptions we have concerning reality. But, of course, this gives rise to the obvious question: where does this set of assumptions originate? I think I'd answer, from evolution and from experience. There is, of course, a body of scientific knowledge which tends to indicate what is possible, yet this area appears to be constantly revisable.

Logic indicates that nothing is absolutely certain (problem of induction), which would seem to indicate that nothing can be known to be absolutely impossible. The only areas of certainty are those which are tautological (1 + 1 = 2), or those which cover all possibilities (the sun will rise tomorrow, or it will not).

Mike Turner Writes: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Top of Page]

On the question of the possible, for a believer the question is easily resolved - the possible is what GOD deems permissible, and being all Good, GOD would permit all that would  contribute to the growth and development of Goodness. Theology carries on from there. But what if you feel you cannot posit or assume Divinity? The atheist must discover a natural barrier to infinity, or there is no logical constraint upon possibility save the principle of non-contradiction. But I am having doubts about logic and its limitations. Formal logic, language, and maths may, if I at all grasp Godel's point, be insufficient epistemic devices for the establishment of ontological truths. And then there's the paradox of Hilbert's Hotel and other stuff I can't quite grasp. I don't see how we can posit an  infinity of "all possible worlds" wherein our own 'world', and every other, would be finite. Why must our universe be finite, if we are prepared to accept an infinite number of finite worlds? It would seem to me that if anything is infinite, then everything is one thing, identity, discrimination and distinction are, in material terms, an illusion. Nothing is knowable, and existence is a chaotic madhouse of smoke and mirrors. But it isn't! The World may not be totally predictable, but it is at least partly understood. So there must be a limit to the possible. There cannot be an infinite number of 'possible worlds' ontologically. In fact, infinity could have no actuality except as a cognitive invention, a semiotic device for epistemology, like pounds and litres and so forth. In which case not even GOD, if Real, is infinite!

Eric Replies: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

I think Godel's point is that all symbolic systems which attempt to be comprehensive, will eventually produce a paradoxical contradiction, due to the very nature of comprehensive symbolic systems. Such systems cannot include freedom, or the random, without being contradictory within the system. Some part of the system will end up indicating the opposite of some other part. It is my opinion that such contradictions are indeed inevitable in such systems, due to the inflexible clarity of the symbolism created. This clarity is predetermined by the nature of human understanding. Our assumption, in creating and applying such systems, is deterministic. We expect pattern, we expect to find rules. And there is indeed pattern and there are rules, according to both Science and experience. But the more comprehensive you wish the system to be, the more difficult it becomes to maintain its consistency. It is like applying a ruler to a live snake. In reality things are flexible and moving, the systems we create to stand for reality can not match this, because our understanding grasps things by breaking down or building up, by defining Events. If we kill the snake, we can attempt to measure it accurately - but can no longer claim to be measuring a live snake, and the problem of "straightness" will arise. Terms which are relative must be used in dealing with reality, but relative terms introduce the possibility of the random decision. We are free to decide what will satisfy us, regarding such issues as straightness, for example. At one end of such a system we have a human mind, attempting to understand through the mental models it has created, on the other we have an ongoing process. It is quite obvious to me that no mental model can ever be entirely accurate, it can merely serve to satisfy the individual. Reality, I suggest, cannot be understood entirely byway of words, numbers, beliefs or anything else. It's best understanding, I suggest, is to live it, to experience it. This we all do, instinctively: it is built into us, even more so than our assumption of pattern.

As to infinity, there's no such thing, so far as we can know from reality. We have no proof of it. We have a word "Universe", which we say is everything there is. By definition, this cannot be bounded by an outside, seeing as the outside would be without time or space, which is unimaginable. Of course, there is the suggestion that the universe is expanding, and may go on expanding, forever. But Forever is made of time, and time is within the universe. Therefore, such expansion must be creating time and space as it goes, so to speak. The universe is, therefore, a potential infinity, if the expansion continues forever. But, as I mention on my website (see Aristotle's solution to the Zeno paradox), Potential is in the eye of the beholder. In other words, it cannot ever possibly come to exist, seeing as the definition of infinity is to be without end. Infinity in reality, then, is open-ended - a non-actual application of human judgement - we conceive of it mentally, abstracting it through a human understanding. We give it a tacit end, due to our human habit of breaking down the process which is reality into Events. But "Events" are merely logical fictions. They do not actually exist, anymore than infinity does. Reality is not made up of events, but of reality, an ongoing process which we cannot pronounce upon definitively.

In fact, we could say that this argument brings us back to the original question. We may not be able to precisely define the possible, but it appears to me that we can logically define the impossible. What is impossible? Well, logically, infinity is impossible, by definition. It is not an event, it is a process, which we posit will go on forever. Forever does not end, and therefore cannot exist, so far as the human mind is concerned, because it can only be conceived of, never experienced. By definition, this is so.

By the way, as an afterthought, Possible and Impossible are contingent mental conceptions based upon induction. As such, their ontological status is mental. They exist only as conceptions. All such conceptions are logical fictions. Their relation to reality is always problematical, in that they only obtain meaning within the mind. They are created by introspection. They are abstractions. Although they must ultimately be based, at some remove, upon a human observation of reality, they cannot be a physically separable thing in the physical world. The same can be said of words like Value. Such concepts obtain meaning through a common human context, and relate to a common human condition. If I say, "This food is valuable because it will keep me alive," then the relativity of such terms becomes obvious. If there were no human beings, what would become of this "Value" which is supposedly inherent in the food?

Value, then, is a human invention. So, I would contend, is possibility and impossibility. For example, I might say, "It's impossible for a man to fly, unaided," but surely it's obvious that this statement relates entirely to the human condition, and its usual context within reality. Saying what constrains and defines such a term is as difficult as saying what constrains and defines the meaning of a word like "and". The word "and" does not relate to anything real in the physical world, yet it remains meaningful and useful to us. It is a relational word; a mental, all-purpose tool, which we have created to help deal with our relationship to reality. This does not mean that it is unimportant, or without any real meaning. It is important and meaningful from within it's mental environment, within the human skull. It is important and meaningful to human beings.

Mike Turner Writes: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

The problem of epistemology is that it is only a facsimile of ontology, but it's all we've got to work with. I think that so long as we don't 'concretise the abstract', as Whitehead warns us, we can work with 'possible' and 'impossible'. After all, 'meaning' is an abstraction, but without meaning, who needs experience? A problem I've long had with mystic epiphanies; but then again, I've never had one myself. On the other hand, strict atheist naturalism denies all abstraction, including 'meaning'. I've got an even bigger problem with that. After all, Mind must have some ontological validity. Cogito ergo sum.

What you say re Infinity is more than helpful. One problem I have with a lack of 'infinity' is the problem of Change. Infinity is a question of time, and time is non-existent without matter and space, and without time, (i.e., before and after), how can Creation take place? And without some kind of 'before/after' event, a 'Big Bang", how did nothing become something? Another difficulty is with the non-reality of discontinuous 'events'. I'm trying to square this with Whitehead's prehended reality, if I may put it that way. I'm not sure that 'reality' doesn't come in 'quantum packets', so to speak. I'd like to hear more about this, if you would.

Eric Replies: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

It is true that a strict definition of the concept of infinity would imply that a beginning is impossible. However, there are ways around this problem. We could say that the universe is infinite “one way only”. In other words, it has a beginning, but not an end to expansion. Of course, this makes any explanation of where the universe “came from” difficult.

In my opinion, as regards primary qualities, reality is a continuum. As regards secondary qualities, reality is wholly perceived as relevant to the human. As regards human apprehension, this is a combination of the two. We are aware of both sets of qualities in our apprehension. As I say in my website, human perception comes at a “maximum speed” so to speak. The speed depends on many variables, the sense organs available and physical and environmental conditions being the most influential. When we are conscious, our sensory experience of reality appears seamless. It is the operation of the brain which separates and defines things. Because of the complexity of the human brain, this distinction begins almost at birth, however, it is not impossible to regard reality as seamless, seeing as we constantly do so, when we are daydreaming or indulging in introspection. At such moments, the world presented by the senses is one mass of undifferentiated data. You can catch a glimpse of it, if you try. Unfortunately, as soon as you look, your interest almost instantly activates the usual, “human perception” aspect of reality.

Mike Turner Writes: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

I'm not sure that this is possible. Even at a molecular level, discrimination takes place between different elements. It may even be a nuclear phenomena based in the four forces, I don't know. At any rate discrimination entails information and selection, at least at an accept/reject, pull/push, attract/repel level, which might be some kind of basic consciousness, basic choice, which, evolving to the human level, is inevitable and essential.

I would start by asking, “Why do we discover pattern in the universe? What is pattern, i.e., how are we able to recognise it? Is pattern ontological, independently existent, or merely a mental construct? Do the patterns of math, physics, logic etc. exist? Do we discover them, or do we create them with our minds?

Eric Replies: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

At the subatomic level, discrimination is problematical. Fields and forces are posited, which would appear to fill all the "empty" areas, subatomic particles are said to "smear". Some particles are even said to have no mass at all, and pop in and out of existence. The traditional view of definable particles occupying a definable position appears no longer tenable. Human discrimination in dealing with reality involves the creation of Events, and does not begin with information, but rather with raw data. Information is imposed upon raw data by the mind. Of course, if we seek the source of this ability, it is an evolved one, derived from a long-time interaction with reality.

I believe that patterns in reality do exist. The key word here is Believe. We both create and discover such patterns. We discover them by examination of the world, by induction, by using the brain provided to our physiological type by the long-time interaction of the blind forces of nature on a particular type of matter, resulting in an evolutionary adaptation to the environmental context.

We create the patterns because we perceive them in a unique, human way. A way not open to other lifeforms. They gain human validity through human inter-subjectivity.

The patterns are there, because the view we have of reality works (not perfectly, revision is constant). This is the pragmatic confirmation of existence. However, to define the pattern, a human being was necessary. To discover the pattern, a human perceiver was necessary. To define the pattern as something discrete within reality, a human being was required. To articulate the pattern and investigate it, a human being was necessary. Chronologically speaking: Before, was reality; During, is reality interpreted in a valid, uniquely human way; After will be reality.

Mike Turner Writes: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

This sounds reasonable, but I don't have a clear understanding of your meaning. For myself I simply assume that pattern entails consciousness. The reasons for that assumption derive from the miniscule amount of stochastic principle, probability theory, and fractals that I've managed to grasp these past months. Pretty thin soup, I grant you. Pattern recognition entails human consciousness, pattern formation does not. Humanity, indeed the universe, is contingent upon pre-existing patterns imbedded in natural laws. In other words, the Weak Anthropic Principle. The only way to deny this is to deny the reality of the universe itself. But I would go further and assert that these patterns require consciousness in their formation, just as the patterns we create require consciousness. Which would be my motive for accepting the Strong Anthropic Principle.

The Ontological Argument For God

Joanne Roberts Writes: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

How convincing is The Ontological Argument as a proof for the existence of God? After all it is an a Priori argument and so with us having no experience of God existing it can't be very convincing and cannot be proof that God exists!

Eric Writes: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

Speaking for myself, I find the ontological argument for the existence of god to be without any logical foundation. It appears to prove nothing to an unbeliever. It cannot convince anyone of the existence of god, unless they already believe in the existence of god.

Anselm’s argument is that existence is a kind of perfection.

The highest perfection mentally conceivable must include existence.

God is the highest perfection mentally conceivable.

Therefore god must exist.

Anselm’s argument, then, revolves around tracing the roots of our conceptions regarding terms like Perfection, Value, Morality, Goodness, etc. How can such conceptions come to be, and what is their relation to reality? How do such terms acquire meaning? Anselm, in effect, is saying that our conception of perfection cannot have any meaning (any objective value) unless it exists somewhere (in god).

But I would argue that many terms have meaning without having any existence (in the sense of a simple physical reference point) outside of the human brain. Many terms are derived from a consensus of human judgement regarding the observed acts of other human beings. This comes about due to a shared human physiological form and a shared human experience of reality.

There are Terms and there are physical Things, and the existence of the former does not necessarily imply the existence of the latter. A moment’s thought will usually clarify for most people the fact that Goodness, for example, is a conception which springs from a human context, and based upon a shared human experience of reality. Anselm believes that this is not so, and that terms like goodness imply an absolute reference point, pre-existing: a reference point allowing us to recognise individual instances of the good in our every day lives. The implication being that without such a reference point, what would enable us to recognise and separate the Good from all the rest of reality? The roots of this idea are in Plato’s theory of forms, of course.

There is also a second strand to Anslem’s argument: the matter of infinite regress. If we say that there is no final, absolute goodness, we are left dangling, so to speak, we cannot trace the cause of goodness, we can only trace it back to a cause which has a cause, which in turn has a cause, and so on. The roots of this aspect of this question lie in Aristotle, and his conclusion that there must be a final cause, an “Unmoved Mover”. Anselm has taken these two strands and woven a pretty piece of fabric - or fabrication, if you prefer.

Both these strands of argument arose from the application of logic to a body of knowledge within a particular socio-historical context, namely, the state of knowledge at the time of the ancient Greeks. The terms used by the ancient Greeks provided a limited vocabulary for philosophy. We must remember that the Greeks were inventing philosophy. It is hardly surprising that they made mistakes, constrained by such circumstances. Indeed, it’s amazing that they did so well.

To give just one example: the word Value itself, for instance, does not relate to any particular, but still has meaning and can be used to communicate a meaning. This is because human beings have a shared experience of reality. This shared experience is the reference point. There is no need of any other. A shared bodily form and a shared type of mentality (the physiology of the human brain) is all that is required. If some people need to add a god, that is a choice. It is a statement of faith. True faith does not require logical proof (luckily for Anselm). That’s one of the most dangerous things about it.

What Is The Point Of Metaphysics?

Amy Lister Writes: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

I'm an undergraduate philosophy student constantly having to defend my choice of study. I was impressed by your defence of the study of philosophy, so I thought I'd write to you for help.

My true love is epistemology (and I have no problem telling people why it's useful, sometimes until their eyes glaze over), but I'm currently doing a unit of metaphysics - and my defence problem has become twofold! Not only must I deflect criticism of the subject, but my lecturer has set the essay topic "The study of metaphysics is a complete waste of time. Discuss."

When I sat down to deny this, I realised I couldn't! I'm sure there IS a point to it, but I can't think of any at all. Can you help me?

Eric Writes: [Return to Reaction and Comments page] or [Return to Home Page] or [Return to Top of Page]

It could plausibly be argued that all human activity is a complete waste of time, seeing as the ultimate end to all human activity is death, and the ultimate end of the meaningfulness of all things is suggested by the coming end of the universe and all humankind. Any counter to this argument will be a metaphysical one, and most people will produce arguments against it, although it is perfectly logical and reasonable. It therefore follows that metaphysics is what impels the mind to continue to value its own existence and continued activities, in the face of such knowledge. If we say: "What use is metaphysics?" we are in fact opening ourselves up to the counter: "What use is anything?" Implicit in the essay topic is a tacit dichotomy between the pragmatic view (our activities should all be concerned with practical problems with definite solutions resulting in our greater material comfort) and the metaphysical view (what does all this activity ultimately amount to? What is it leading to? Where does it get us? And ultimately, what does it all mean? Does our existence have meaning, and if so, what?). The practical sceptic will tend to want to produce "Ends" where the End in question suits their own pragmatic view of reality. But the thing to remember is that "Ends" are not absolutes existing within the fabric of reality, they are imposed upon it by the human mind. The counter is to step further back from the practical reply, to put it into a wider context, and then see how it fares.

To defend metaphysics, then, we will need to counter the pragmatic sceptic with a metaphysical scepticism of our own. What will satisfy the individual as regards metaphysics is a subjective matter. It cannot be universally agreed upon. This is the great strength and weakness of metaphysics (depending upon the individual's own point of view and particular mind set). It deals with areas where there cannot be objective confirmation but only, at best, agreement between the particular human beings discussing it. This makes it a never-ending debate. It is our human view of the value of closure in all things (that all things have a definable beginning and a definable end) which prompts the pragmatist to protest this reply. But it is my view that all things have this basic truth to their reality: they are a process, which ultimately can be viewed as One (if you step back far enough, all reality is one process) . The process does not have a definable end that we can confidently predict because we cannot get outside of the process, seeing as the process is everything there is, including ourselves.

---