On 7/12/2010 6:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think we can use reason to defeat reason.

What machines can do is to use reason to go /beyond/ reason, and find some non provable or non rational truth.

What do you mean by a non-rational truth? A statement that is true but unprovable or a statement for which there is no evidence or is contrary to the preponderance of evidence, i.e. no reason to believe it true? I can understand using reason and experience to find statements that are true but unprovable (either axiomatically or empirically. But if we find a non-rational truth doesn't that mean finding some evidence for it and hence making it a rational truth?

This is not a defeat of reason. It is the complete contrary, I would say.

Bruno

On 02 Jul 2010, at 22:55, rexallen...@gmail.com <mailto:rexallen...@gmail.com> wrote:

Any thoughts?

http://speculativeheresy.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/3729-time_without_becoming.pdf

"I call 'facticity' the absence of reason for any reality; in other
words, the impossibility of providing an ultimate ground for the
existence of any being. We can only attain conditional necessity,
never absolute necessity. If definite causes and physical laws are
posited, then we can claim that a determined effect must follow. But
we shall never find a ground for these laws and causes, except
eventually other ungrounded causes and laws: there is no ultimate
cause, nor ultimate law, that is to say, a cause or a law including
the ground of its own existence. But this facticity is also proper to
thought. The Cartesian Cogito clearly shows this point: what is
necessary, in the Cogito, is a conditional necessity: if I think, then
I must be. But it is not an absolute necessity: it is not necessary
that I should think. From the inside of the subjective correlation, I
accede to my own facticity, and so to the facticity of the world
correlated with my subjective access to it. I do it by attaining the
lack of an ultimate reason, of a causa sui, able to ground my
existence.

[...]

That’s why I don’t believe in metaphysics in general: because a
metaphysics always believes, in one way or the other, in the principle
of reason: a metaphysician is a philosopher who believes it is
possible to explain why things must be what they are, or why things
must necessarily change, and perish- why things must be what they are,
or why things must change as they do change. I believe on the contrary
that reason has to explain why things and why becoming itself can
always become what they are not- and why there is no ultimate reason
for this game. In this way, “factial speculation” is still a
rationalism, but a paradoxical one: it is a rationalism which explain
why things must be without reason, and how precisely they can be
without reason. Figures are such necessary modalities of facticity-
and non-contradiction is the first figure I deduce from the principle
of factiality.

You don't spell out what this principle of facticity is, but it seems that it refers not to the world, but to our explanations of the world. It is explanations that may be contradictory, not facts. And so the principle reduces to the well known one that every explanation is in terms of something else (hopefull something we understand better).

This demonstrates that one can reason about the absence
of reason- if the very idea of reason is subjected to a profound
transformation, if it becomes a reason liberated from the principle of
reason- or, more exactly: if it is a reason which liberates us from
principle of reason.

Now, my project consists of a problem which I don’t resolve in After
Finitude, but which I hope to resolve in the future: it is a very
difficult problem, one that I can’t rigorously set out here, but that
I can sum up in this simple question: Would it be possible to derive,
to draw from the principle of factiality, the ability of the natural
sciences to know, by way of mathematical discourse, reality in itself,

We may have a complete explanation of reality - but we can never know that we do.

Brent

by which I mean our world, the factual world as it is actually
produced by Hyperchaos, and which exists independently of our
subjectivity? To answer this very difficult problem is a condition of
a real resolution of the problem of ancestrality, and this constitutes
the theoretical finality of my present work."

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/>



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to