[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 233 KB, 500x789, Muenchhausen_Herrfurth_7_500x789.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16304638 No.16304638 [Reply] [Original]

In epistemology, the Münchhausen trilemma is a thought experiment used to demonstrate the impossibility of proving any truth, even in the fields of logic and mathematics. If it is asked how any given proposition is known to be true, proof may be provided. Yet that same question can be asked of the proof, and any subsequent proof. The Münchhausen trilemma is that there are only three options when providing further proof in response to further questioning:

The circular argument, in which the proof of some proposition is supported only by that proposition
The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
The dogmatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts which are merely asserted rather than defended

>> No.16304641

>>16304638
>using particulars to solve a universal
ngmi

>> No.16304667

>>16304641
Based.

>> No.16304672

Can I use this in the court of law? How can they prove i committed something without infinite regression?

>> No.16304964
File: 82 KB, 1200x675, occam’s-razor_superstock_4266-21632690[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16304964

>>16304672
that analogy doesn't really work what is on trial in this case is the whole of human knowledge, the starting point a priori is that yes we can have a solid base to build our knowledge but on rigourous inspection things start to get "moushy" and things get into a circular argument revolving around: "humans are the measure of all things"

philosophyy is still a thing even with all the "scientism" of modernity because we still don't really know how to unlock this circle and ultimately even science is under it

and maybe a simple way to look at things is: the logos/God created the universe, the logos/God created humans "in his image" with the capacity to create too therefore is not a real problem that "humans are the measure of all things" BUT this is not a rigurous proof (but it might be truth) and this argument gets trumped just by saying God is just a human invention and again we go back to the circular argument...

theres a related opinion within mathematicians that: "it might be possible that every idea ever invented by any mathematician in their mind might actually turn out to be a real description of something in the world... it could be that its impossible for us to conceive of something in our mind that isn't instantiated in reality somewhere"

some people consider the argument for God out of occam's proposition, they consider this possibility too "complex to be truth" but apparently quantum mechanics would be simple...

>> No.16304975

>>16304638
>I have one apple
>you have one apple
>we have two apples
ez, next question.

>> No.16304977

>>16304638
Literally everyone since Plato and even before have been aware of this so called trilemma. The way forward is obviously to find the best possible premises and build up on them. One might say two plus two equals four is based on dogmatic precepts, and I will say such a person is simply delusional.

>> No.16304997

it's cringe because it's about "proving" a truth. Like proving it to someone else. When in fact you could just directly know the truth without a need for proof. Maybe you couldn't cause other people to know it but who cares, it's stil the truth. You can use your intellectual faculty to interface directly with the "truth" above us all, so this "trilemma" is a great cringe indeed

>> No.16305082

>>16304672
No, because most legal systems require the judge/jury to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. This is very different from proof.

>> No.16305090

Is it true that we can’t prove truth?