Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we have to rely on presumptions. Column for Computerra #119
{ "title": "", "summary": "", "body": "We cannot prove that there is a whole world behind our perception. All we can do is establish that we adapt better if we model this world based on the assumption that it exists. And we are faced with unlimited possibilities for improving our models BATRIMG<N>BATR." }
←
Dmytro Shabanov
→
The Regular Share of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History
{ "title": "The Regular Fate of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History", "summary": "Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we are forced to rely on presumptions", "body": "<← Dmytro Shabanov →> The Regular Fate of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we are forced to rely on presumptions Anomalous Frogs and Environmental Health: Searching for New Approaches on the Border of Europe and Asia Column for Computer #118 Column for Computer #119 Column for Computer #120 Having not yet exhausted the topic of the evolution of human ecological niches, which I discussed in the last three columns, I decided to interrupt their series and talk about something else. This topic is also not new: I have addressed it several times, discussing its various aspects in different columns. Now I will do something different: I will gather the key thoughts together and present them in the form of a primer. Why suddenly so? The new year, 5774 from the creation of the world (according to the Jewish version), I met by starting to read a course for masters, which is called \"Historical Development of Biosystems\". Studying the history of the formation of a phenomenon is a completely necessary condition for its understanding. In the introductory lecture, I tried (both for the students who were listening to me and for myself) to understand once again the boundaries to which science can lead us. I am ready to understand the feelings of those who perceive science as a temple. The walls of this temple can be appropriately decorated with murals on classical themes. Le Verrier discovers Uranus on the tip of a pen, Goethe discovers the intermaxillary bone in humans, American radio astronomers (Penzias and Wilson) record the predicted relict radiation by Gamow, \"biologists greet their Mendeleev\" after Vavilov's report on homological series of variability... Natural and exact sciences demonstrate the possibility of prediction and proof. Where causal relationships can be established sufficiently reliably, science shows real wonders. An ordinary LED flashlight is a visible proof of the validity of quantum mechanics (in classical physics, it is simply inexplicable), the relativistic correction, which is routinely calculated in GPS navigation, visibly confirms the theory of relativity. There are areas where, based on the state of the objects being considered, we can confidently judge their consequences or causes. M → N; N → O; O → P; P → Q… But can we confidently assert how Z will end or what A it all started with? No! We can only confidently talk about those transitions for which we have understood the causal patterns... The fact is that scientific thinking occurs according to very strict, controlled rules. This is both its strength (in the described \"territory\" science allows us to come to trustworthy, and often even very practical, conclusions) and its weakness (in the absence of initial data or if the rules of transition from initial data to conclusions remain unknown, science fails). No, no, I was not talking about the fantasy of a scientist in scientific research and the formulation of hypotheses! Guesses are guesses, but any of them must be incorporated into the complex of existing data and representations, and for this, it must be properly substantiated. And how to move further, beyond the limits of what is understandable to today's science? We will enter the realm of philosophy. There are many different judgments and points of view! Let's try to figure them out. The picture below shows four worthy gentlemen who can be considered characteristic representatives of four approaches (schools, lines...) in philosophy. From the point of view from which this column is written, the main difference between these approaches is that they offer to take on faith different (but equally amazing) statements. [IMG_1] Of course, Moses is not the only author of the idea that the world was created by God. This idea exists in the form of different religions, takes the form of theism (faith in God, actively managing the world) or deism (the idea that God's role is limited to creation), but in general remains the same. Democritus, nicknamed the Laughing, believed that true being belongs only to atoms. What we perceive is only a reflection in us of the true being, the being of atoms. The point of view of the pugilist Plato seems to be quite different from that of Democritus. In fact, it also postulates the existence of something primary in relation to our being, only Plato chose something other than Democritus as the primary cause. The \"line of Plato\" and the \"line of Democritus\" (as well as the \"line of Moses\") still have their explicit and implicit supporters. For example, do not rush to write off Platonism: almost all of mathematics is Platonic in its approach... Berkeley is often associated with the idea of solipsism, which can be expressed as follows: \"Only I exist, and everything else is my fantasy\". Berkeley's point of view was different. He understood that everything given to us is our perception. If so, existence is perception, esse est percipi, and nothing can exist outside of perception (human or divine). Berkeley's idea is in some way symmetrical to Democritus'. Both Berkeley and Democritus, it seems, understood that we know the world through our perception. The difference is that Democritus confidently stated that behind our perception is something that truly exists (atoms, etc.), while Berkeley believed that there is nothing behind it. Can we prove that one or the other is right? On this last question, philosophy has given a clear answer: no. And it was given by David Hume, who once and for all proved that our knowledge is limited to our perception. We can imagine in different ways what is outside of perception, but we cannot prove or disprove its existence. And what about discussions about \"proofs of the existence of God\"? Since Hume's time, it has been clear that they cannot exist. The existence of God is just as impossible to prove as its absence, the existence of matter is just as impossible to prove as its non-existence. Starting with Hume, there have been many scientists who have realized this idea and found support for their work in it. I provide portraits of some of them after the portrait of Hume himself. [IMG_2] Thomas Huxley coined the word \"agnosticism\" in the course of disputes with supporters of the \"line of Moses\". The Medusa spouses and their colleagues in modeling the future of the Earth inevitably had to understand that any knowledge is the creation of models, and nothing, except models, is accessible to us. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, discussing the process of cognition, were forced to recognize that it is impossible to prove the correctness of a model. One can assume that behind the models there is something (hence the word \"realism\"), but we cannot know anything except the models, which can be different. And here, dear readers, I want to share with you a fact that amazes me. I work at a good university with long-standing academic traditions. Our students are taught a philosophy course, saying that it is necessary for the formation of their worldview. Graduate students are forced to pass a philosophical minimum, saying that it gives them support in their scientific activities. Neither in the philosophy course for students nor in the course for graduate students are Hume and his ideas mentioned at all! You may not agree with me that Hume's ideas are the most important in the entire history of philosophy, but you cannot deny that they were expressed and not refuted? How can you throw out of philosophy courses the analysis of the relationship between perception and knowledge, which dates back to Hume? I do not understand... How to explain such silence? One can assume that modern philosophers either formed during the time of the dominance of diamat or studied with those who were crippled by this dogmatic doctrine. During the reign of communist ideology, Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin was considered the main philosophical authority, a political adventurer of the early 20th century. Lenin argued that there is a \"basic question of philosophy\" that has ontological and epistemological aspects. The ontological aspect is related to the definition of what is primary: matter or idea. As we understand, this dichotomy is false. First of all, we should have thought about whether we can confidently assert the existence of something \"primary\", apart from the fact of our own existence. In the epistemological aspect of the \"basic question\", there is more sense: it consists in whether the world is knowable. What Hume gave an answer to, in diamat it was accepted to hush up. It is impossible to prove one or another model of the world — and therefore, it is impossible to know it. But among the models, we can choose those that allow us to solve the problems that stand before us — therefore, it is also incorrect to consider the world unknowable... I do not know if my version about the diamat roots of Hume's silence in philosophy courses is correct. Maybe the apologists for the philosophical foundation of the scientific picture of the world do not understand the significance of Hume's conclusions, or maybe they just do not want to talk about what is unprofitable for them. What is important is this. The \"temple of science\" has no foundation. Inside it, we can talk about proof (based on the adoption of certain axioms). It is impossible to prove the adoption of these axioms. Philosophy does not help solve this problem; it has been clear since the 18th century that it cannot prove the foundations of science. The question that makes sense to solve is different: on what basis can we choose the appropriate initial assumptions from the multitude of possible ones? What does \"appropriate\" mean? Contributing to the achievement of the goals that we set for ourselves. Choosing between different possible terms, I confidently prefer the word \"adaptive\", and I do this for the following reason. Being inside the \"temple of science\" (the one that hangs in the air), we see that our knowledge is part of the process of adaptation of living organisms. Starting from a certain moment, an important aspect of adaptation is the creation (in the psyche, based on perception) of various models and the choice between them. Some models allow us to create the aforementioned LED flashlights and GPS navigators; others require human sacrifices. Depending on what we consider the criterion of adaptability, our choice may be different. Individual adaptation is one of the phenomena that each of us can observe. Each of us is undoubtedly given the fact of perception (percipimus ergo sum) and reaction to it — positive or negative, pleasure or suffering. The difference in the evaluation of different perceptions gives rise to needs. To satisfy these needs, we are able to take actions. What we perceive can change as a result of our actions, and these changes are often patterned. By analyzing perception (including that which is a response to our actions), we can find patterns. We take these patterns into account when building models of what we perceive. Some of these models make our actions more adaptive (more effective in satisfying our needs). Perception — its evaluation — needs — actions — patterns — models — adaptation... If we consider that the most adaptive picture of the world is the one that is most easily spread among gullible people, we will slide into one or another version of \"mind viruses\" (© Richard Dawkins). If we decide that an adaptive picture of the world is the one whose adoption is most likely to ensure the longest existence of humanity, our choice will be quite different. You have probably guessed which of the two options I prefer? Note that the criteria for choosing a more adaptive picture of the world depend on this picture! This means that in one case, with one set of initial settings, one picture of the world will be optimal, and in another case, another. You may not like it... Making this choice for myself, I am looking for a picture in which the phenomenon of science is most meaningful. Someone else will prefer a solution in which their loved ones, with whom they were separated by death, are with a benevolent God. \"— Our rabbi talks to God every day! — Where do you know that from? — The rabbi himself says so. — He's lying! — How can he lie if he talks to God every day?\" Both positions are perfectly logical. The choice between them depends on what we are looking for: an honest description of reality, comfort, or something else. Depending on what we are looking for, what tasks we are trying to solve, we choose those or other initial assumptions that we will rely on. Following Alexander Pavlovich Rasnitsyn, we can use the term \"presumptions\" to denote them. [IMG_3] For example, Alexander Pavlovich proposed a set of presumptions on which his science — paleontology — relies. These assumptions, accepted \"by default\", Rasnitsyn did not come up with: they were felt by science itself over the centuries of its development. It was only necessary to realize them and express them explicitly. We accept certain presumptions not because we can prove them. It is possible that we will have to abandon them. We rely on them only because they allow us to find solutions to the problems that stand before us. This logic works both for those who do not believe the rabbi from the quoted anecdote and for those who believe him. Everything else is self-deception, as it became clear to Hume. You have not yet remembered Baron Munchausen, who pulls himself out of the swamp by his hair? Yes, without \"external\" support, science can find a foundation in itself. In my opinion, this is not such a bad solution. We cannot prove that behind our perception is a whole world. All that is available to us is to establish that we adapt better if we model this world based on the assumption that it exists. And before us opens up the possibility of unlimited improvement of our models... <← Dmytro Shabanov →> The Regular Fate of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we are forced to rely on presumptions Anomalous Frogs and Environmental Health: Searching for New Approaches on the Border of Europe and Asia Column for Computer #118 Column for Computer #119 Column for Computer #120" }
{ "title": "The Regular Fate of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History", "summary": "Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we are forced to rely on presumptions", "body": "<← Dmytro Shabanov →> The Regular Fate of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we are forced to rely on presumptions Anomalous Frogs and Environmental Health: Searching for New Approaches on the Border of Europe and Asia Column for Computer #118 Column for Computer #119 Column for Computer #120 Having not yet exhausted the topic of the evolution of human ecological niches, which I discussed in the last three columns, I decided to interrupt their series and talk about something else. This topic is also not new: I have addressed it several times, discussing its various aspects in different columns. Now I will do something different: I will gather the key thoughts together and present them in the form of a primer. Why suddenly so? The new year, 5774 from the creation of the world (according to the Jewish version), I met by starting to read a course for masters, which is called \"Historical Development of Biosystems\". Studying the history of the formation of a phenomenon is a completely necessary condition for its understanding. In the introductory lecture, I tried (both for the students who were listening to me and for myself) to understand once again the boundaries to which science can lead us. I am ready to understand the feelings of those who perceive science as a temple. The walls of this temple can be appropriately decorated with murals on classical themes. Le Verrier discovers Uranus on the tip of a pen, Goethe discovers the intermaxillary bone in humans, American radio astronomers (Penzias and Wilson) record the predicted relict radiation by Gamow, \"biologists greet their Mendeleev\" after Vavilov's report on homological series of variability... Natural and exact sciences demonstrate the possibility of prediction and proof. Where causal relationships can be established sufficiently reliably, science shows real wonders. An ordinary LED flashlight is a visible proof of the validity of quantum mechanics (in classical physics, it is simply inexplicable), the relativistic correction, which is routinely calculated in GPS navigation, visibly confirms the theory of relativity. There are areas where, based on the state of the objects being considered, we can confidently judge their consequences or causes. M → N; N → O; O → P; P → Q… But can we confidently assert how Z will end or what A it all started with? No! We can only confidently talk about those transitions for which we have understood the causal patterns... The fact is that scientific thinking occurs according to very strict, controlled rules. This is both its strength (in the described \"territory\" science allows us to come to trustworthy, and often even very practical, conclusions) and its weakness (in the absence of initial data or if the rules of transition from initial data to conclusions remain unknown, science fails). No, no, I was not talking about the fantasy of a scientist in scientific research and the formulation of hypotheses! Guesses are guesses, but any of them must be incorporated into the complex of existing data and representations, and for this, it must be properly substantiated. And how to move further, beyond the limits of what is understandable to today's science? We will enter the realm of philosophy. There are many different judgments and points of view! Let's try to figure them out. The picture below shows four worthy gentlemen who can be considered characteristic representatives of four approaches (schools, lines...) in philosophy. From the point of view from which this column is written, the main difference between these approaches is that they offer to take on faith different (but equally amazing) statements. [IMG_1] Of course, Moses is not the only author of the idea that the world was created by God. This idea exists in the form of different religions, takes the form of theism (faith in God, actively managing the world) or deism (the idea that God's role is limited to creation), but in general remains the same. Democritus, nicknamed the Laughing, believed that true being belongs only to atoms. What we perceive is only a reflection in us of the true being, the being of atoms. The point of view of the pugilist Plato seems to be quite different from that of Democritus. In fact, it also postulates the existence of something primary in relation to our being, only Plato chose something other than Democritus as the primary cause. The \"line of Plato\" and the \"line of Democritus\" (as well as the \"line of Moses\") still have their explicit and implicit supporters. For example, do not rush to write off Platonism: almost all of mathematics is Platonic in its approach... Berkeley is often associated with the idea of solipsism, which can be expressed as follows: \"Only I exist, and everything else is my fantasy\". Berkeley's point of view was different. He understood that everything given to us is our perception. If so, existence is perception, esse est percipi, and nothing can exist outside of perception (human or divine). Berkeley's idea is in some way symmetrical to Democritus'. Both Berkeley and Democritus, it seems, understood that we know the world through our perception. The difference is that Democritus confidently stated that behind our perception is something that truly exists (atoms, etc.), while Berkeley believed that there is nothing behind it. Can we prove that one or the other is right? On this last question, philosophy has given a clear answer: no. And it was given by David Hume, who once and for all proved that our knowledge is limited to our perception. We can imagine in different ways what is outside of perception, but we cannot prove or disprove its existence. And what about discussions about \"proofs of the existence of God\"? Since Hume's time, it has been clear that they cannot exist. The existence of God is just as impossible to prove as its absence, the existence of matter is just as impossible to prove as its non-existence. Starting with Hume, there have been many scientists who have realized this idea and found support for their work in it. I provide portraits of some of them after the portrait of Hume himself. [IMG_2] Thomas Huxley coined the word \"agnosticism\" in the course of disputes with supporters of the \"line of Moses\". The Medusa spouses and their colleagues in modeling the future of the Earth inevitably had to understand that any knowledge is the creation of models, and nothing, except models, is accessible to us. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, discussing the process of cognition, were forced to recognize that it is impossible to prove the correctness of a model. One can assume that behind the models there is something (hence the word \"realism\"), but we cannot know anything except the models, which can be different. And here, dear readers, I want to share with you a fact that amazes me. I work at a good university with long-standing academic traditions. Our students are taught a philosophy course, saying that it is necessary for the formation of their worldview. Graduate students are forced to pass a philosophical minimum, saying that it gives them support in their scientific activities. Neither in the philosophy course for students nor in the course for graduate students are Hume and his ideas mentioned at all! You may not agree with me that Hume's ideas are the most important in the entire history of philosophy, but you cannot deny that they were expressed and not refuted? How can you throw out of philosophy courses the analysis of the relationship between perception and knowledge, which dates back to Hume? I do not understand... How to explain such silence? One can assume that modern philosophers either formed during the time of the dominance of diamat or studied with those who were crippled by this dogmatic doctrine. During the reign of communist ideology, Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin was considered the main philosophical authority, a political adventurer of the early 20th century. Lenin argued that there is a \"basic question of philosophy\" that has ontological and epistemological aspects. The ontological aspect is related to the definition of what is primary: matter or idea. As we understand, this dichotomy is false. First of all, we should have thought about whether we can confidently assert the existence of something \"primary\", apart from the fact of our own existence. In the epistemological aspect of the \"basic question\", there is more sense: it consists in whether the world is knowable. What Hume gave an answer to, in diamat it was accepted to hush up. It is impossible to prove one or another model of the world — and therefore, it is impossible to know it. But among the models, we can choose those that allow us to solve the problems that stand before us — therefore, it is also incorrect to consider the world unknowable... I do not know if my version about the diamat roots of Hume's silence in philosophy courses is correct. Maybe the apologists for the philosophical foundation of the scientific picture of the world do not understand the significance of Hume's conclusions, or maybe they just do not want to talk about what is unprofitable for them. What is important is this. The \"temple of science\" has no foundation. Inside it, we can talk about proof (based on the adoption of certain axioms). It is impossible to prove the adoption of these axioms. Philosophy does not help solve this problem; it has been clear since the 18th century that it cannot prove the foundations of science. The question that makes sense to solve is different: on what basis can we choose the appropriate initial assumptions from the multitude of possible ones? What does \"appropriate\" mean? Contributing to the achievement of the goals that we set for ourselves. Choosing between different possible terms, I confidently prefer the word \"adaptive\", and I do this for the following reason. Being inside the \"temple of science\" (the one that hangs in the air), we see that our knowledge is part of the process of adaptation of living organisms. Starting from a certain moment, an important aspect of adaptation is the creation (in the psyche, based on perception) of various models and the choice between them. Some models allow us to create the aforementioned LED flashlights and GPS navigators; others require human sacrifices. Depending on what we consider the criterion of adaptability, our choice may be different. Individual adaptation is one of the phenomena that each of us can observe. Each of us is undoubtedly given the fact of perception (percipimus ergo sum) and reaction to it — positive or negative, pleasure or suffering. The difference in the evaluation of different perceptions gives rise to needs. To satisfy these needs, we are able to take actions. What we perceive can change as a result of our actions, and these changes are often patterned. By analyzing perception (including that which is a response to our actions), we can find patterns. We take these patterns into account when building models of what we perceive. Some of these models make our actions more adaptive (more effective in satisfying our needs). Perception — its evaluation — needs — actions — patterns — models — adaptation... If we consider that the most adaptive picture of the world is the one that is most easily spread among gullible people, we will slide into one or another version of \"mind viruses\" (© Richard Dawkins). If we decide that an adaptive picture of the world is the one whose adoption is most likely to ensure the longest existence of humanity, our choice will be quite different. You have probably guessed which of the two options I prefer? Note that the criteria for choosing a more adaptive picture of the world depend on this picture! This means that in one case, with one set of initial settings, one picture of the world will be optimal, and in another case, another. You may not like it... Making this choice for myself, I am looking for a picture in which the phenomenon of science is most meaningful. Someone else will prefer a solution in which their loved ones, with whom they were separated by death, are with a benevolent God. \"— Our rabbi talks to God every day! — Where do you know that from? — The rabbi himself says so. — He's lying! — How can he lie if he talks to God every day?\" Both positions are perfectly logical. The choice between them depends on what we are looking for: an honest description of reality, comfort, or something else. Depending on what we are looking for, what tasks we are trying to solve, we choose those or other initial assumptions that we will rely on. Following Alexander Pavlovich Rasnitsyn, we can use the term \"presumptions\" to denote them. [IMG_3] For example, Alexander Pavlovich proposed a set of presumptions on which his science — paleontology — relies. These assumptions, accepted \"by default\", Rasnitsyn did not come up with: they were felt by science itself over the centuries of its development. It was only necessary to realize them and express them explicitly. We accept certain presumptions not because we can prove them. It is possible that we will have to abandon them. We rely on them only because they allow us to find solutions to the problems that stand before us. This logic works both for those who do not believe the rabbi from the quoted anecdote and for those who believe him. Everything else is self-deception, as it became clear to Hume. You have not yet remembered Baron Munchausen, who pulls himself out of the swamp by his hair? Yes, without \"external\" support, science can find a foundation in itself. In my opinion, this is not such a bad solution. We cannot prove that behind our perception is a whole world. All that is available to us is to establish that we adapt better if we model this world based on the assumption that it exists. And before us opens up the possibility of unlimited improvement of our models... <← Dmytro Shabanov →> The Regular Fate of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we are forced to rely on presumptions Anomalous Frogs and Environmental Health: Searching for New Approaches on the Border of Europe and Asia Column for Computer #118 Column for Computer #119 Column for Computer #120" }
←
Dmytro Shabanov
→
The Regular Share of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History
{ "title": "The Regular Fate of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History", "summary": "Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we are forced to rely on presumptions", "body": "<← Dmytro Shabanov →> The Regular Fate of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we are forced to rely on presumptions Anomalous Frogs and Environmental Health: Searching for New Approaches on the Border of Europe and Asia Column for Computer #118 Column for Computer #119 Column for Computer #120 Having not yet exhausted the topic of the evolution of human ecological niches, which I discussed in the last three columns, I decided to interrupt their series and talk about something else. This topic is also not new: I have addressed it several times, discussing its various aspects in different columns. Now I will do something different: I will gather the key thoughts together and present them in the form of a primer. Why suddenly so? The new year, 5774 from the creation of the world (according to the Jewish version), I met by starting to read a course for masters, which is called \"Historical Development of Biosystems\". Studying the history of the formation of a phenomenon is a completely necessary condition for its understanding. In the introductory lecture, I tried (both for the students who were listening to me and for myself) to understand once again the boundaries to which science can lead us. I am ready to understand the feelings of those who perceive science as a temple. The walls of this temple can be appropriately decorated with murals on classical themes. Le Verrier discovers Uranus on the tip of a pen, Goethe discovers the intermaxillary bone in humans, American radio astronomers (Penzias and Wilson) record the predicted relict radiation by Gamow, \"biologists greet their Mendeleev\" after Vavilov's report on homological series of variability... Natural and exact sciences demonstrate the possibility of prediction and proof. Where causal relationships can be established sufficiently reliably, science shows real wonders. An ordinary LED flashlight is a visible proof of the validity of quantum mechanics (in classical physics, it is simply inexplicable), the relativistic correction, which is routinely calculated in GPS navigation, visibly confirms the theory of relativity. There are areas where, based on the state of the objects being considered, we can confidently judge their consequences or causes. M → N; N → O; O → P; P → Q… But can we confidently assert how Z will end or what A it all started with? No! We can only confidently talk about those transitions for which we have understood the causal patterns... The fact is that scientific thinking occurs according to very strict, controlled rules. This is both its strength (in the described \"territory\" science allows us to come to trustworthy, and often even very practical, conclusions) and its weakness (in the absence of initial data or if the rules of transition from initial data to conclusions remain unknown, science fails). No, no, I was not talking about the fantasy of a scientist in scientific research and the formulation of hypotheses! Guesses are guesses, but any of them must be incorporated into the complex of existing data and representations, and for this, it must be properly substantiated. And how to move further, beyond the limits of what is understandable to today's science? We will enter the realm of philosophy. There are many different judgments and points of view! Let's try to figure them out. The picture below shows four worthy gentlemen who can be considered characteristic representatives of four approaches (schools, lines...) in philosophy. From the point of view from which this column is written, the main difference between these approaches is that they offer to take on faith different (but equally amazing) statements. [IMG_1] Of course, Moses is not the only author of the idea that the world was created by God. This idea exists in the form of different religions, takes the form of theism (faith in God, actively managing the world) or deism (the idea that God's role is limited to creation), but in general remains the same. Democritus, nicknamed the Laughing, believed that true being belongs only to atoms. What we perceive is only a reflection in us of the true being, the being of atoms. The point of view of the pugilist Plato seems to be quite different from that of Democritus. In fact, it also postulates the existence of something primary in relation to our being, only Plato chose something other than Democritus as the primary cause. The \"line of Plato\" and the \"line of Democritus\" (as well as the \"line of Moses\") still have their explicit and implicit supporters. For example, do not rush to write off Platonism: almost all of mathematics is Platonic in its approach... Berkeley is often associated with the idea of solipsism, which can be expressed as follows: \"Only I exist, and everything else is my fantasy\". Berkeley's point of view was different. He understood that everything given to us is our perception. If so, existence is perception, esse est percipi, and nothing can exist outside of perception (human or divine). Berkeley's idea is in some way symmetrical to Democritus'. Both Berkeley and Democritus, it seems, understood that we know the world through our perception. The difference is that Democritus confidently stated that behind our perception is something that truly exists (atoms, etc.), while Berkeley believed that there is nothing behind it. Can we prove that one or the other is right? On this last question, philosophy has given a clear answer: no. And it was given by David Hume, who once and for all proved that our knowledge is limited to our perception. We can imagine in different ways what is outside of perception, but we cannot prove or disprove its existence. And what about discussions about \"proofs of the existence of God\"? Since Hume's time, it has been clear that they cannot exist. The existence of God is just as impossible to prove as its absence, the existence of matter is just as impossible to prove as its non-existence. Starting with Hume, there have been many scientists who have realized this idea and found support for their work in it. I provide portraits of some of them after the portrait of Hume himself. [IMG_2] Thomas Huxley coined the word \"agnosticism\" in the course of disputes with supporters of the \"line of Moses\". The Medusa spouses and their colleagues in modeling the future of the Earth inevitably had to understand that any knowledge is the creation of models, and nothing, except models, is accessible to us. Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow, discussing the process of cognition, were forced to recognize that it is impossible to prove the correctness of a model. One can assume that behind the models there is something (hence the word \"realism\"), but we cannot know anything except the models, which can be different. And here, dear readers, I want to share with you a fact that amazes me. I work at a good university with long-standing academic traditions. Our students are taught a philosophy course, saying that it is necessary for the formation of their worldview. Graduate students are forced to pass a philosophical minimum, saying that it gives them support in their scientific activities. Neither in the philosophy course for students nor in the course for graduate students are Hume and his ideas mentioned at all! You may not agree with me that Hume's ideas are the most important in the entire history of philosophy, but you cannot deny that they were expressed and not refuted? How can you throw out of philosophy courses the analysis of the relationship between perception and knowledge, which dates back to Hume? I do not understand... How to explain such silence? One can assume that modern philosophers either formed during the time of the dominance of diamat or studied with those who were crippled by this dogmatic doctrine. During the reign of communist ideology, Vladimir Ulyanov-Lenin was considered the main philosophical authority, a political adventurer of the early 20th century. Lenin argued that there is a \"basic question of philosophy\" that has ontological and epistemological aspects. The ontological aspect is related to the definition of what is primary: matter or idea. As we understand, this dichotomy is false. First of all, we should have thought about whether we can confidently assert the existence of something \"primary\", apart from the fact of our own existence. In the epistemological aspect of the \"basic question\", there is more sense: it consists in whether the world is knowable. What Hume gave an answer to, in diamat it was accepted to hush up. It is impossible to prove one or another model of the world — and therefore, it is impossible to know it. But among the models, we can choose those that allow us to solve the problems that stand before us — therefore, it is also incorrect to consider the world unknowable... I do not know if my version about the diamat roots of Hume's silence in philosophy courses is correct. Maybe the apologists for the philosophical foundation of the scientific picture of the world do not understand the significance of Hume's conclusions, or maybe they just do not want to talk about what is unprofitable for them. What is important is this. The \"temple of science\" has no foundation. Inside it, we can talk about proof (based on the adoption of certain axioms). It is impossible to prove the adoption of these axioms. Philosophy does not help solve this problem; it has been clear since the 18th century that it cannot prove the foundations of science. The question that makes sense to solve is different: on what basis can we choose the appropriate initial assumptions from the multitude of possible ones? What does \"appropriate\" mean? Contributing to the achievement of the goals that we set for ourselves. Choosing between different possible terms, I confidently prefer the word \"adaptive\", and I do this for the following reason. Being inside the \"temple of science\" (the one that hangs in the air), we see that our knowledge is part of the process of adaptation of living organisms. Starting from a certain moment, an important aspect of adaptation is the creation (in the psyche, based on perception) of various models and the choice between them. Some models allow us to create the aforementioned LED flashlights and GPS navigators; others require human sacrifices. Depending on what we consider the criterion of adaptability, our choice may be different. Individual adaptation is one of the phenomena that each of us can observe. Each of us is undoubtedly given the fact of perception (percipimus ergo sum) and reaction to it — positive or negative, pleasure or suffering. The difference in the evaluation of different perceptions gives rise to needs. To satisfy these needs, we are able to take actions. What we perceive can change as a result of our actions, and these changes are often patterned. By analyzing perception (including that which is a response to our actions), we can find patterns. We take these patterns into account when building models of what we perceive. Some of these models make our actions more adaptive (more effective in satisfying our needs). Perception — its evaluation — needs — actions — patterns — models — adaptation... If we consider that the most adaptive picture of the world is the one that is most easily spread among gullible people, we will slide into one or another version of \"mind viruses\" (© Richard Dawkins). If we decide that an adaptive picture of the world is the one whose adoption is most likely to ensure the longest existence of humanity, our choice will be quite different. You have probably guessed which of the two options I prefer? Note that the criteria for choosing a more adaptive picture of the world depend on this picture! This means that in one case, with one set of initial settings, one picture of the world will be optimal, and in another case, another. You may not like it... Making this choice for myself, I am looking for a picture in which the phenomenon of science is most meaningful. Someone else will prefer a solution in which their loved ones, with whom they were separated by death, are with a benevolent God. \"— Our rabbi talks to God every day! — Where do you know that from? — The rabbi himself says so. — He's lying! — How can he lie if he talks to God every day?\" Both positions are perfectly logical. The choice between them depends on what we are looking for: an honest description of reality, comfort, or something else. Depending on what we are looking for, what tasks we are trying to solve, we choose those or other initial assumptions that we will rely on. Following Alexander Pavlovich Rasnitsyn, we can use the term \"presumptions\" to denote them. [IMG_3] For example, Alexander Pavlovich proposed a set of presumptions on which his science — paleontology — relies. These assumptions, accepted \"by default\", Rasnitsyn did not come up with: they were felt by science itself over the centuries of its development. It was only necessary to realize them and express them explicitly. We accept certain presumptions not because we can prove them. It is possible that we will have to abandon them. We rely on them only because they allow us to find solutions to the problems that stand before us. This logic works both for those who do not believe the rabbi from the quoted anecdote and for those who believe him. Everything else is self-deception, as it became clear to Hume. You have not yet remembered Baron Munchausen, who pulls himself out of the swamp by his hair? Yes, without \"external\" support, science can find a foundation in itself. In my opinion, this is not such a bad solution. We cannot prove that behind our perception is a whole world. All that is available to us is to establish that we adapt better if we model this world based on the assumption that it exists. And before us opens up the possibility of unlimited improvement of our models... <← Dmytro Shabanov →> The Regular Fate of the Forest-Steppe, or Hidden Springs of History Philosophical primer: what we know, what we will never know, and when we are forced to rely on presumptions Anomalous Frogs and Environmental Health: Searching for New Approaches on the Border of Europe and Asia Column for Computer #118 Column for Computer #119 Column for Computer #120" }