Tdarcos wrote:What do you mean, 'the myth of Choice'?
I mean that your philosophy, along with most other philosophies, and along with the real-life moment to moment way that we appear to interact with the world, assumes that the world is populated by individuals, making decisions.
I know exactly what you mean, and I figured that one out. The following is from a posting I did on Usenet back in October:
The axiom of "existence exists" is self-proving because you cannot argue against it without using its concepts. As soon as you open your mouth to make the argument, you prove your own existence to do so.
I will proceed to make a base argument as what is definitely provable and what is not.
I exist. I know this because I receive sense impressions of the world around me. I could not know anything without this world doing so. What this world is, is to me an external environment consisting of the general appearance as we usually perceive it to be consisting of other people and various objects and events.
My existence is axiomatic and conditional; it exists until my life ends, but it need not be proven (to me) because it is self-proving. The existence of the external world is axiomatic and unconditional, it need not be proven because it is self-proving.
Even if I am imagining all of you and everything, and I am alone in the universe - while I believe that to be highly unlikely - that part of my brain would exist to create the illusion.
So there are two things that are axiomatic and self-proving, that I exist and there is a world around me or something creating it.
A stronger argument against me self-creating the outside world and it actually existing is I would have to invent everything from scratch with no knowledge of anything; I would have no basis to create it.
But it does not mean what I see is what is really there; anyone who's watched The Matrix
can blow away that argument faster than you can say "Fields... Endless fields." Someone could be feeding me sense impressions to make me think the world is what I think it is.
But they would exist so the argument still stands. Notwithstanding John Meyer's opinions.*
I exist, and something else exists that appears to be "the real world" exists. These are self-proving axioms and the only ones I can guarantee are correct. That there is a universe around me is self-proving, the actual content of that universe is not. The content of the universe as it is to me is something which I have to make a "leap of faith" to believe in. That it is still a very tiny leap and is basically a small step to do so, it is still something I can only "believe in", I have to take it on faith because I cannot unequivocably prove it.
So existence is proven - in fact, is self proving - because you can't not use it to argue otherwise. The existence of something other than myself is proven because I couldn't have this conversation otherwise.
"I don't know much.. and that may be, all I need to know."
- Aaron Neville, "Don't know much"
* Welcome to the real world she said to me / Condescendingly... / I just found out / There's no such thing as the real world / Just a lie you got to rise above
- John Mayer, "No Such Thing"