[QUOTE=davar55;316092]The uncertainty principle is intriguing, and far be it for me to
simply dismiss it. But while any being's omniscience would be
contradictory and impossible, i.e. no one can know everything,
I think the U.P. is ultimately a measurement and technology issue,
not science or epistemology, i.e. in principle, we could get closer
to measuring both values than we now think we can.[/QUOTE]

Sigh...

You talk a lot, but you don't appear to take anything away from the evidence.

I believe the term is "stupid idiot" / "average human".

Happy to be corrected...

[QUOTE=chalsall;316093]Sigh...

You talk a lot, but you don't appear to take anything away from the evidence.

I believe the term is "stupid idiot" / "average human".

Happy to be corrected...[/QUOTE]

Personalizing again. Not worth it.

[QUOTE=davar55;316096]Personalizing again. Not worth it.[/QUOTE]

Oh, come on Davar55.

You must realize that the audience is expecting an answer.

Let's play this...

If you don't know, and I don't know, then they might not know.....

[QUOTE=davar55;316081]
Inconsistent beliefs are a result of any religious philosophy contaminating
one's logical, scientific thinking processes. If one accepts that the
principle of explosion does in fact apply to all thinking and to everyday
life as well, then making that an axiom almost assures consistency.[/quote]
I hold inconsistent beliefs, yet I am not religious. Further, I generally do not ponder these inconsistencies other than to acknowledge them, as they do not get in the way of me studying physics and mathematics.

And by the way, you have been generally demonstrating a circular belief system.

[QUOTE=davar55;316081]
But starting with consistency in philosophy, the basis of knowledge,
all science can be grounded consistently.[/quote]
Perhaps, if you take certain tenants of axioms on faith (that is, as far as we can percieve, those axioms are true, but we can't [i]prove[/i] it).

[QUOTE](that is, as far as we can percieve, those axioms are true, but we can't [I]prove[/I] it).[/QUOTE]

We think that we perceive that we think that we perceive that we think.....

(or vice versa.)

[QUOTE=Dubslow;316099]Perhaps, if you take certain tenants of axioms on faith (that is, as far as we can percieve, those axioms are true, but we can't [i]prove[/i] it).[/QUOTE]

That is the fundamental truth.

We can't prove it, of course....

[QUOTE=davar55;316082]The words fundamentalness, universality, and truth can be defined
in an axiomatic system I call a good dictionary.
The full philosophical definitions and their means of being used even
at the basic metaphysical axiomatic level are demonstrable.[/QUOTE]You may find [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth"]Tarski's undefinability theorem[/URL] an interesting read.

In my study of the surprise examination paradox, I ran into [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6b%27s_theorem"]Löb's theorem[/URL]. I highly recommend trying to understand what it says. This article [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic"]on doxastic logic[/URL] may be helpful.

[QUOTE=Dubslow;316099]I hold inconsistent beliefs, yet I am not religious. Further, I generally do not ponder these inconsistencies other than to acknowledge them, as they do not get in the way of me studying physics and mathematics.
And by the way, you have been generally demonstrating a circular belief system.
Perhaps, if you take certain tenants of axioms on faith (that is, as far as we can perceive, those axioms are true, but we can't [I]prove[/I] it).[/QUOTE]

Holding inconsistent beliefs means accepting some contradiction. In my
book, that just doesn't work, it must get in the way at some point.
Without knowing where your inconsistency is, I wouldn't venture to
say where it will let you down.

I know for certain that my philosophy is not circular, but is hierarchical.

Axioms can be validated in philosophy. Faith means for no good reason.

[QUOTE=kladner;316103]We think that we perceive that we think that we perceive that we think.....

(or vice versa.)[/QUOTE]

Or we know that we know because we perceive and we think.

[QUOTE=davar55;316123]Or we know that we know because we perceive and we think.[/QUOTE]

I am not always sure about the knowing. I think that I perceive. But the thinking is sometimes questionable, if not always. I can't be certain about the perceptions, either.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;316108]You may find [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_theory_of_truth"]Tarski's undefinability theorem[/URL] an interesting read.

In my study of the surprise examination paradox, I ran into [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6b%27s_theorem"]Löb's theorem[/URL]. I highly recommend trying to understand what it says. This article [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic"]on doxastic logic[/URL] may be helpful.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the reading pointers.

Tarski's only applies to formal systems, not natural language in which
it is possible to define and validate all the way down to basics.