I'm not switching contexts at all.  It's a simple point that one can not know whether something exists or not without verification.  So, did cancer exist back then?  Well, let's consider the question from two perspectives, ours and theirs.

From our perspective, we have evidence of mummies, and we have evidence of a cancerous tumors in those mummies.  Practically, this evidence suggests that, yes, cancer did exist back then, and may have been the cause of their deaths.  We know this (practically) because we 1) have verified the evidence, and 2) have applied the rules of inductive inference to conclude that these mummies had cancer, and this conclusion comes with a very, very high level of confidence.

Ultimately, from a strictly rationalist point of view (which often appears to conflict with practical reasoning), what we can absolutely conclude is that we have evidence of mummies with tumors in them.  Practcally, we conclude these mummies were alive and died with cancer in them, which aligns with what we know about cancer and mummies.  Ultimately, we can't conclude these mummies were ever alive to begin with (though again, practically, it would be silly to ignore the evidence).

From the mummies' perspective (granting their prior living existence), they wouldn't know, because they presumably couldn't know. You have to accept this. The answer depends upon the perspective and what is verifiable.

You have no basis to assume it has an objective existence independent of your mind.  I already explained how you are making a "totally unnecessary and wholly unfalsifiable assumption," and then explained why it is unfalsifiable.


I'm not sure I understand this question.  What matters is whether your assertion is consistent and verifiable.


Until the point at which someone verifies a person has cancerous cells in their body, then nobody knows whether they have cancer or not.  A person may be aware of subtle (or drastic) changes to their experience of being just prior to verifying that they have cancer, but you cannot conclude before verification that a person has cancer, or that they died from it.


Assuming you've never taken the appropriate measures to verify for yourself, do you have cancer right now?  Can you answer that question definitively unless you've verified it?  Furthermore, can you verify this independent of your mindful awareness of it?

No, I said like three times that we can know what is true absolutely in terms of our mind/brand of logic as it relates to the reality we inhabit.  Then I also referenced the quantum mechanics analogy a couple times to explain what it would be like to entertain the idea of rationalizing about something in the context of a logic higher than our own.  You're being extremely selective in the bits and pieces you're choosing to respond to, but I think we can agree that I have responded directly to virtually all of your contentions.  Please, re-quote my posts, or I can do the same to show you where I have addressed these issues (I mean this seriously, not patronizingly).

I also mentioned in previous posts that knowing something absolutely can also include "knowing absolutely what we cannot know absolutely."

Yet, unfortunately, most atheists falsely believe that empirical proof is required to believe in something, when in fact empirical proof is only required to believe in something empirical.  This is a huge and fundamental error given that real, abstract structures (e.g. mathematical ones, etc. ) self-apparently exist and require zero empirical proof to confirm.

Asserting something exists is a theoretical confirmation.  "It exists" is a theory of "it."  

I don't know why you keep thinking that something can just exist in the absence of an abstract (i.e. mental) metric to differentiate between existence and non-existence.  If I ask you "does it exist?" and you can't choose between "1" and "0," i.e. "yes" or "no," then you have no idea whether it exists or not.  You can't just assume it does, else you have created a new theory of "it" with zero rational basis.  Again, there have been exactly zero cases where anything has been affirmed to exist outside of its corresponding theory of existence.  All you're doing is throwing out an unnecessary and wholly unfalsifable assumption.  To falsify it would require that you can affirm it's true in the absence of affirmation.  Good luck with that one.

An analogy is the unfalsifiable assumption of a Positivistic Universe upon which the entirety of the Scientific Method rests.  The Positivistic Universe assumption states that all objects have a static, concrete nature that perseverates independent of observation.  This assumption is empirically unfalsifiable, for to falsify it would require obtaining empirical data via observation in a Universe totally void of any observers.  The only reason it works is because the Scientific Method defers to Philosophy -- specifically, the rules of sound inference and an awareness of the limits of logical induction -- to justify its continued use (i.e. by blaring its limitations at every conceivable turn).  However, the Positivistic Universe assumption was logically falsified thousands of years ago, a la Plato (see my earlier post a few pages back referencing his work on sameness and difference) and likely others before him.  We know logically, that all things different reduce to a common medium, which includes differential entities such as empirical phenomena and the mental theories/models we use to describe them.

Edit:  Reworded.

The two do not contradict each other.  Conceding to a possibility of some higher level of logic is not inconsistent with saying that we can know absolutely what is true and not true in terms of our own mind and brand of logic in relation to Reality (Edit: Or, to absolutely know what we absolutely cannot know).  For example, we can know absolutely that this possibility is totally irrelevant of consideration inasmuch as we know we will never, ever, be able to address the question.  This is absolutely infallible.  We need to first identify a limit of theorization so that we know our boundaries and don't overstep them.  We are limited to playing in a sandbox with impenetrable boundaries, and you keep entertaining the idea of somehow penetrating them.  The idea is to identify exactly where and why these boundaries exist so that we don't needlessly waste our time pursuing the impossible.  Providing a resolution to the possibility of some concrete logic higher than our own outside of "we'll never know because it is impossible" is, well...impossible.

It is self-apparent that random and non-random are abstract models.  You can continue to ignore the obvious, or just simply accept what is right in front of you at all times.  You can never get away from this.

It's as self-apparent and simple as recognizing your own existence.  When you're thinking of what "random" and "non-random" are, those thoughts are models of those things.  Period.  Any word corresponds to a theory of that word, and we use these words -- which themselves are self-contained within a coherent, consistent language -- to describe what we perceive in a consistent way.  This is so incredibly simple because it is self-evident at all times that absolutely everything real corresponds to, and interdependent with, its theory.  Theories give rise to a coherent, consistent reality.  

It's in front of your nose.  It's...right...there.

Here's a task for you: Name one -- just one -- example of something that has been affirmed to exist outside a theory of that thing existing.  Anything!  Just one!  Never in the history of human kind has something been affirmed to be true outside of a theory, because what is true corresponds to a true theory!

Logic is a predicate for truth, NOT vice-versa. The only way something true exists is by way of a relational statement.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and truth ONLY exists inasmuch as sound, rational statements exist.  It is logically self-apparent that no truth exists outside of logical statements.  Therefore, what is "true" is a product of an understanding of mind set in ratio to what is being described as "true."  True things exist only because they are inherently related to, and described by, mind according to the rules of logic.

I don't know how many ways I can try to explain something so incredibly simple and obvious.  Again.  It's.  Right.  There.  This is knowable at a 100% level of confidence at all times.

To answer your final question, is demonstrable that 1) absolute truth exists, 2) absolute truth is knowable (i.e. we can be 100% certain that we have arrived at the best answer we can possibly hope to achieve), and thus 3) there is a correct answer.

Absolutely we should exclude the possibility as a relevant consideration to us.  Why should you voluntarily jump down a never-ending rabbit hole when you can simply step over it?

If we can't really know (anything existing outside the boundaries of mindful comprehension), we are left with what we can know, and what I do know.

Again, wrong question, and false dichotomy.  I provided a method by which we can form an understanding of how "true random" relates to "non-random."  Random and non-random are, again, simply abstract models that provide an explanation.  But, they fail to account for themselves, and thus carry only relative -- not objective -- descriptive power.  Self-determinism describes how "true random" and "non-random" are both interrelated and exclusionary, in an objective manner.  It provides a cause for the formation of "true random" and "non-random" models in general.  

"Random" and "non-random" are theoretic models...a product of mind.  These things can't be known to exist outside of mind and theory.

Correction:  You are left to speculate.  I am correct.

Again:


It's not a matter about excluding the possibility of a higher logic or something of the sort that exists beyond the human mind.  It's about recognizing that you are posing a consideration which we know will forever be impossible to answer aside from, "We don't know, we can't know, and we will never be able to know."  It's a totally irrelevant consideration to us.  I'm not saying one way or the other because our brand of logic specifically inhibits our ability to do so.  

We simply have to do the best we can, i.e. by identifying the logical limits of theorization, and relating those limits to Real phenomena in order to reach a tautological and fundamental understanding of Reality in terms of mind.  That's it.  That is the best we can do, and will forever be the best we can do.  You're hypothesizing in La-la Land.

Addressing the emboldened passages in order:

1) Is this a possibility?  Simply put, not a relevant one.  Any consideration of this type is totally irrelevant since we are totally limited to our brand of logic.  Accordingly, what is relevant is understanding the best that we can do, and I addressed this point by specifically noting that it is necessary to identify the logical limits of our capacity to theorize.  Your consideration, here, can be addressed in similar fashion to how metaphysicists consider hypothetical events occurring outside the scope of perception. "If a tree falls in the forest and it is not observed, did it actually fall?"  Bad question, as we totally lack any means of providing a definitive answer.

2)  This statement negates itself.  When you say, "Reality is not an abstract model," that in itself is an abstract model.  Even simply saying  'Reality exists' is an abstract model.

A theory/model is simply a description of something.  That's it.  For example, if you open a dictionary, every single definition is an abstract theory of the thing described. This is inescapable. You cannot talk about Reality's existence outside of the abstract models we describe.  Phrased another way, no model/theory of Reality means that we can't even affirm Reality exists.  The existence of Reality is totally dependent upon a theory of it; no theory --> no Reality (that we can affirm or is of any relevance to us).

Edit:  When I say that theories/models are simply a description of something, I would clarify this by further noting that it is precisely due to theories/models that Reality and its constituents are defined.  In the lack of a theory/model, there is no definition -- literally.  Reality gains its definition in a literal sense via theories/models, and the mechanism by which this occurs is a metrical one.  That is, theories/models employ metrics, i.e. abstract scales of measurement, to define Reality.  This starts getting into the reasons why I believe in Intelligent Design, for without a mind to employ metrics with which to define Reality, Reality entirely lacks any definition, including the fundamental definition of "existence."  "Existence" is born of a simple difference metric, i.e. "1 vs. 0," or "yes, existence vs. no, not-existence."

Edit 2:  To exemplify my first edit, consider space.  If a metric is employed which can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If instead a metric is employed which cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

But such a perspective evokes self-contradicition, for if your argument exists as an abstract model, then you must conclude that it, too, is indeterminate, and thus provides absolutely zero determinate value upon anything that you would describe as indeterminate.  You shoot yourself in the foot by precluding any possibility of objectively describing anything.  Your indeterminate model would be mutually exclusive from anything you attempt to squeeze into its scope.  And that's aside from the more simple fact that the word "indeterminism" axiomatically implies you can't use it as a determinate cause for something else.

But, in general you're still missing the point.  A model or theory of something, such as an indeterministic one or any other, is self-apparently an abstract construct.  It is a construct of your mind, as is the nature of any theory or model.  You fail to consider any basis by which you can even arrive at such a model, which is unfortunate.  You talk like a Positivist, as if there is some concrete truth of Reality independent of our minds and the models/theories we construct therefrom, and if we only had more knowledge we could arrive at a definitive conclusion -- of what kind, I don't know, and perhaps you could explain to me what, exactly, is the kind of knowledge we would need that would enable us to arrive at some definitive conclusion.  In my previous post, I described the kind of knowledge needed to arrive at such a definitive conclusion, and also the process by which we could utilize this knowledge to construct a viable model.

Any model/theory is constructed out of a relationship of mind to reality, and so your consideration of indeterminism as an viable model must necessarily be able to also explain how you are able to construct an indeterminate model to begin with.  You're putting the cart before the horse, so-to-speak, by effectively taking the abstract rules of theorization for granted.  Consequently, your indeterminate model, which in your words would serve as explanation for why things exist at all, fails to include the existence of itself, thereby rendering it self-inconsistent and invalid.

If by "endless" you mean "closed," then okay. (You are correct that I deployed tautology.  Points for that.)

Determinism: x ... A --> B --> C --> D ...   (where x = some unknown primary cause)

There is no unknown primary cause in self-determinism.  I think of "endless" and "infinite regression" as a line extending infinitely, not a closed loop, and not synonymous with "endless process" or something similar.  In any case, we can skip these semantics.

What determinism does not explain is how mind factors into theory-making.  If we have an explanatory model, great, but if we want the model to be truly comprehensive, then it also must account for and explain itself.  Models and theories, no matter what kind (e.g. even scientific ones, etc.) contain purely abstract elements of the mind which determine the nature of models and theories themselves.  So, if it is these purely abstract elements that enable and catalyze theory-making, and if these theories are what help us ultimately explain the Reality we inhabit, then we might as well just look to these abstract elements and see what they might tell us about Reality all by themselves.  They are the tools with which we create these mental constructs (i.e. theories/models), and so we should see how they allow us to gain an understanding of Reality in terms of mind.

I'd point out a third time that logic is self-referential.  It says, "Sound logic is logical because sound logic says so," and accordingly, any logical theories/models derived therefrom are simply logical constructs which refer back to theoretical properties of logical self-referentce.  This self-referential property lends itself to a logical 'boundary,' or a limit of logic that acts as a core from which we can identify limits of theorization.  If we know that a limit of theorization exists, and what it is, then we can extract categorical relationships between this thoeretical limit and real objects/events in order to provide a fundamental explanation of them in terms of the mind, and in terms of theoretical self-reference.

For example, knowing that deterministic and indeterministic explanations exist and that we are capable of forming theories/models in these contexts, we can relate each of these distinct contexts back to the self-referential properties from which they necessarily arise, and instead describe them in the context of self-reference itself.

And, "so what?"  Well, for starters this eliminates infinite regression precisely because any attempt to falsify it would necessarily challenge self-reference itself and evoke self-inconsistency, thereby serving to reinforce the original model.

I guessed "law enforcement office."  But I don't know.

Sometimes, good ol' street justice makes me smile:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1921844/posts

I discussed falsifiability.  But I'll explain it further.

There are different kinds of falsifiability.  One kind is the scientific kind.  Another is the logical kind (of which the scientific kind is a mere derivative).

A logical model can be falsified on two levels.  On a lower level, it can be falsified if new information is discovered that should necessarily be explained by the model (i.e. the information falls within the scope of the model) but isn't.  This renders the model internally inconsistent and thus intrinsically invalid.  On a higher level, it can be falsified if a greater, more comprehensive model of greater scope not only accounts for and explains all information contained by the original model, but also accounts for and explains information which falls outside the scope of the original model.  This renders the model externally inconsistent and thus extrinsically invalid.

The *ideal* model is one that can never be falsified.  How would this work?  Well, suppose you have a model about which any attempt to falsify it only serves to reinforce it.

Consider the following statement:  "Absolute truth exists."  Any attempt to falsify this statement actually reinforces it.  For example, if we then consider the statement "absolute truth does not exist," it is akin to saying "it is the absolute truth that absolute truth does not exist," and thus the statement renders itself contradictory and invalid.  If one were to try to argue that this latter statement is not implied by the former -- perhaps by suggesting that all truth is relative -- then "it is the relative truth that absolute truth does not exist" carries no objective weight whatsoever, and therefore we cannot ascribe any objective validity to it.

Regarding your 2nd statement, yes it does.  Consider again the truism, "Sound logic is soundly logical because sound logic says so."   So, what causes logic to be logical?  Logic does.  But, what causes logic to be logically capable of ascribing sound logic as logical?  Again, logic does.  It is its own primary cause.  Logic is a self-contained system, and thus relies only upon the logical rules of self-containment to be logical.  Similarly, Reality is its own primary cause.  There is nothing real enough which could be a real primary cause for Reality other than Reality itself.  If the primary cause is Real, then it is axiomatically self-contained within the Real set.

Self-determinism is different from "vanilla" determinism in that it closes the causal loop as opposed to leaving it open and incomplete.  An infinite regression does not result from  a closed loop.  Consider, for example, a computer feedback loop in which individual proxies relay informational feedback to a central syntax controller.  The controller receives this feedback, processes it according to a utility function, and transmits it back again to the proxies, and the cyclical process continues.  This is a mechanical type of self-determinism.

So, why doesn't a self-determined Reality require an external primary cause in the same way that a computer feedback loop, self-deterministic as it may be, requires a computer programmer?  The answer lies mostly in the question.

If you ask, "So...what caused Reality's self-configuration?", the question itself can possibly throw you off.  Generally, most people would interpret this in a time-based fashion, assuming that there must be a cause that must occur before its effect.  We know from Einstein that this is a topological understanding of causality, and a real understanding of causality is one that involves superposition.

Edit:  The mechanism by which Reality primarily causes itself is perception.  That is, real perceivers perceive and affirm the existence of Reality; Reality is self-referential.  This is self-apparent, and we can observe this mechanism in action via every moment of our experience.  We are constituents of that mechanism.  Some parts of Reality (e.g. us) perceive and affirm the existence of other parts of Reality.  Just as logic is self-referential, so is Reality.

Friendly reminder:  There have been numerous instances where posting pictures of pot have constituted probable cause for arrest.

Edit:  Contrary to my name, I don't smoke pot.  It's an Italian mob reference.

If you admittedly lack the knowledge to arrive at a definite conclusion...


...then maybe you shouldn't have an expectation of what the explanation ought to be, and then try to fit a square peg into a round hole when you get one.

Edit:  What don't you generally understand about self-determinism after:


?

But the context in which you had originally discussed determinism is one of infinite regression, and the context in which you had originally discussed determinism and indeterminism is one of mutual exclusion:


Thus, your own explanation is self-inconsistent.  First, it is inconsistent in that you acknowledge the issue of deterministic infinite regression, then make the determinate assumption that there is some unknown causal agent 'x' which determines that which we don't comprehensively understand, by virtue of "no 'true' randomness" (thus contradicting the idea that causal agent 'x' can be a source of prime causation at all).

Second, it is inconsistent in that you acknowledge you must choose between a determinate or indeterminate explanation (and then you do so, choosing a determinate one), and then switch the context of your argument to one in which it should be possible to explain, at least in part, deterministic events in relation to indeterminate ones (else they would remain treated as mutually exclusive).

In other words, the inconsistency arises from a shift in argumentative context.  A self-determinate model homogenizes these contexts such that they can be explained relatively in terms of each other, and absolutely in terms of the model as a whole.  That is, it provides a means of describing determinism and indetermism as both mutually-exclusive and not mutually-exclusive simultaneously.  As a result, there is no need for a shift in argumentative context.

Your objection is precluded by:


...lending to infinite regression (i.e. what caused this deterministic relationship, or the deterministic process itself?).


...lending to mutual exclusion (i.e. indeterminism cannot in any way account for causality)


...lending to resolution (i.e. by providing a consistent explanation of how determinism and indeterminism are interrelated and exclusionary in a single, descriptive understanding).

1)  The point is that we know deterministic and indeterministic explanations of events both exist and that they are at odds with each other.  Treated as the only two options, we're left with a paradox in need of resolution.  Regardless of what that resolution is, we know it's desperately needed, else we're forever at an impasse, similar to the impasse between classical and quantum physics.  Neither type of explanation is sufficient for comprehensive explanation.  

Accordingly, I'm not "excluding" both options, but rather circumventing the impasse that arises from assuming that they must be explained in terms of themselves, when neither has the ability to do so.

http://tinypic.com/r/lbhjn/8
Determinism: A ⇒ B  (leaving no explanation for A)
Indeterminism: A (leaving no explanation for A or anything external or intrinsic to A)
Self-determinism: A ⇒ A (closes the loop)
Intrinsic self-determinism: A' ⇒ A₀, A₁, A₂... (provides completeness and self-consistency for A', precludes anything external to A', and providing explanation for A₀, A₁, A₂...)  


I'm trying to show you that a 3rd, better option must necessarily exist by virtue of the incompleteness of both determinism and indeterminism.

Determinism is a model which fails to account for itself, but accounts for that which it contains.
Indeterminism is a model which fails to account for itself or anything else.
Self-determinism accounts for itself and that which it contains.  By virtue of this alone, it is self-evidently a better model. The proof is in the pudding, so-to-speak.

All you would have to do to falsify the self-determinism model (i.e. falsify in the sense that it is necessarily weaker than determinate or indeterminate models) is to find a determinate or indeterminate event which cannot be explained by it, thereby rendering it internally invalid.  Else, you must necessarily concede to its superiority.

Remember, a model is simply a picture of how something works.  "Proof" of a model as a superior alternative to any other is determined by its consistency, and since I am simply trying to show you that it is a better model than a determinate or indeterminate one, the only type of consistency we care about is internal consistency.  In other words, it only needs to prove itself consistent inasmuch as consistently explaining determinancy and indeterminancy.  This is why "the proof is in the pudding."  You might be more concerned about whether a self-determinate model is extrinsically invalid, but due to the incompleteness of determinate and indeterminate models, we know that neither of these would extrinsically invalidate a self-determinate model.