He cannot justify it. He cannot prove it. Therefore, this entire statement has been built on a faulty foundation, thus rendering it meaningless.
I think that in order to prove something, you must have to show it in an infinite amount of times. For example, in order to prove that all bojects within x distance from the earth fall towards the earth by means of gravity. Now you would have to drop an infinite amount of things from x distance or less from the earth to prove that this statement is true. Let us say that this is in fact done perfectly. Therefore the statement that all objects fall to the earth si true.
Now lets take it to my statement. "The only fact that man can know is that he knows nothing else..." Okay, we must demonstrate this to work in an infinite amount of cases in order to prove it. In order to prove this statement, we would have to prove an infinite amount of things wrong. This can be done! I can say that there is an apple on the table. The uncertainty in the position of the apple times the uncertainty in the velocity of the apple times the mass of the apple can never be smaller than a certain quantity. This quantity is extremely small and is called Plank's constant. Noe before I continue, I must explain what a second really is. A second is a measurement of time at the rate man sees it at. It can also act as numbers. For example, 1 second = 1 - 2. There are an infinite amount of rational numbers between 1 and 2. Just like there are an infinite amount of point in time in one second. Okay, back to the apple. The apple is resting on the table for an infinite amount of points in time. The more accurately we know the position of the apple, less the accurately we can know the velocity. So, let us assume that we know the position of the apple exactly. Then it would be impossible for us to konw its velocity. In other words, there is an infinite amount of uncertainty. Since there are an infinite amount of point in time, we do not know something an infinite amoun for points in time therefore we proved an infinite amoun of things wrong. Man can know with certainty that he knows nothing else.
Even though we cannot be 100% sure, there is an extremely high probability that everyone who speaks English uses the absolute definitions. This probability is so high that we know "for sure" that everyone means what he or she means. Ask yourself this: Why would someone use definitions of English words that no one else accepts as true? It would not benefit that person in any way, shape or form. It would just be plain old dumb!
Yes, we cannot be certain to know if everyone is using the same definitions of english words. We know this already. And yes the probablity is so high that we accept that everone uses the same definitions. But this also leaves an extremely small chance that two may misunderstand each other when speaking english.
How can you teach someone to communicate the exact same way that everyone else does. Let us say there is a baby, Jill. How can Jill learn to speak the language english? We could point to an apple and say the words 'apple' to Jill. She would probably over time understand that the word apple represents that object. There is a small chance that she would misunderstand the word apple because she was looking past the apple at a toaster oven. In fact, every time someone tries to point to an apple and explain to her what is is, there might be a toaster oven behind it every time! Although this chance is small and usually ignored, it still exists. Jill would think that a toaster oven is an apple in english. There is an even smaller chance that Jill would misunderstand the meanings of all english words. This could be done for bread, eggs, stoves, pencils, paper, etc...There is also a chance that people would communicate to Jill in a way that she thinks she understand what they are trying to tell her and the responses she gives them always makesome sense to them. This chance is so small, that no one even bothers to think about it. (Except of course for people like us lol). If Jill tried to define words, she could look them up in the dictionary. She does not understand the dictonary completely! This just does not work for english, but also for every way of communicating! THe chance is small but it still exists... This creates an extremely small uncertainty in the way we talk to each other.
To start off, there is only one reality that exists in this universe. That which is, is. There is no denying reality. Reality is and will always be real. The way one detects what is real is by his or her senses (touch, smell, taste, sight, and hearing).
I agree that there is one reality. It is the positions of energy in the universe, period. But it is possible that people view the universe in different ways. Obviously, these are the senses.
All people, provided that they have no defects, have the same instruments or means of detecting reality. Our brains all function the same way, provided that there are no defects, as well. Therefore, an apple to person A is the same thing as an apple to person B, provided that there are no imperfections with the senses of both people.
You are already assuming something! You are assuming that everone views the universe in the same way! There is a chance that people do not view the universe in the same way. It look at a wall. It is blue to me. If I could view the universe the same way you view the universe but keep my memory of what colors are to me through my own eyes, the wall wold be orange. Obviously, my eyes are different than yours. We could compare the wall to various objects thta are also blue, but we would both view them very similarly and conclude that they are both 'blue.' But blue si english and there is a chance that our views on what 'blue' means could be extremely different. This is explained above.
I know you say that if we assumed that our eyes were exactly the same, we would view blue the same. But we cannot assume when talking about our own universe. You described a fantasy universe.
Person A, using absolute English definitions, says to Person B: "I see an apple on the table."
Person B hears these sounds, and recognizes them as English words. His brain translates these words into ideas which he can perceive and think about. Person B then formulates a response, and, using absolute English definitions, says to Person A: "I see an apple on the table as well."
Person A hears these words and thinks to himself, there really must be an apple on the table. I have detected it and he has detected it, therefore there is an apple on the table, in real or actual reality.
Person B concludes the same thing.
Now, what does this mean? It means that it is possible for one to understand another person and to comprehend a portion of his reality. After all, absolute reality can only be formulated via the exchanging of people's own perceptions of reality.
As explained above, we cannot be certain that two are communicating with the same language even though this chance is soooooo small. We have to bring the situation inot our universe. We cannot assume that they both have the same eyes. If you assume something, there is no way that you can be certain. Why wold you assume something if you are not certain? An assumption is basically something that makes sense from the start and there is enough evidence to convince someone of normal intellect (relativly speaking).
Now, what does this mean? It means that it is possible for one to understand another person and to comprehend a portion of his reality. After all, absolute reality can only be formulated via the exchanging of people's own perceptions of reality.
Ya I quoted twice but who cares. It is the most important part! As explained 3 empire state buildings above, one cannot be certain that he is communicating the same way another is. There is a chance that they have a different take on english or what ever language they are using. Some in truth, there is also a chance that every word may be misunderstood! In other words, the reality is that they cannot perfectly communicate with each other. If this rare thing occurs, then person B cannot comprehend person A. If every word spoken from them is misunderstood, then they cannot exchange their perspective on the universe. This is possible in our universe. But in order to view the universe exactly the way other does, we would have to have the exact chemical make up, the exact position in space time, and the exact velocity. EXACTLY! This is impossible. Two particles cannot share the exact position in space time (dont get into branes and calabi yau manifolds). They can colide, but they cannot have the exact position, mass and velocity. One can have his own view of the universe, but no two can have the exact same one.
One cannot view the universe the same way another can because they wold have to be exact to the other person!
I think my statement is perfect now...
"The only fact man can know is the fact that he knows nothing else except for his definitions and/or obsevations of the universe."
) for debating the topic using your own thoughts and examples, rather than just slinging references at each other.
