Is there any justifiable case for absolutism (claiming 100 percent certainty) besides formal systems like maths & logic? If so, what & why?

9 Answers

  • 9 months ago

    I'm responding here to your comment because of problems I've been having since the Y!A format change: My mind is the only thing that my mind experiences directly. If I honestly think I like chocolate, that reality is defined by my thought. Realities that exist outside of my mind are not defined by my thoughts. All my other so-called knowledge is in doubt; it is only my best guess, based on my interpretations of sensory stimuli. I might feel very certain, or very uncertain, but never one hundred percent. I might feel more certain than I should or less certain. My best guess might be good or bad. I might have a lot to go on, or only a little. Even if I have a lot, I might be missing some bit of information that would lead me to different interpretations. I think I do a pretty good job of owning up to my fallibility. My abilities are limited. The information to which I am privy is limited. I admit all these things. I wish more people would do the same.

  • RP
    Lv 7
    9 months ago

    Yes. Two of the most obvious are death and change. Life without either is unthinkable.

  • 10 months ago

    There is a whole science about that, called epistemology. It is shockingly rare that we can assume or declare certainty, but there are times we can.

  • 10 months ago

    Our anonymous answer provides a clue in that it asks What kind of logic?

    For from the description of "besides formal systems like Maths & Logic" we can note

    further entities from the other areas of knowledge such as philosophy & science.

    The "a priori experience" or old philosophic system was one such which was absolute

    besides math formal systems. Too absolute by all accounts.

    The sensory or bucket theory of science of two answers remind us that science 

    always utilises human sensory abilities which are otherwise non-objective & unreliable in the absolute sense asked for.

    The "certainty factor" of the formal systems, maths & logic, rely on a select math

    derivative (say algebra) to describe & justify its own logical axioms, its own

    logical system. As such they can & do change, as required to maintain certain

    foundations.. one of which is the reliable moral foundation of deduction, & of

    deductive inference. Giving science & applicable maths more expert sensory

    reliability to that work so called.

    With such formal & informal systems I agree that we do not need further

    "absolutism" or proof-of-certainty requirements.   


  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • Anonymous
    10 months ago

    What KIND  of logic? Formal (symbolic) logic, classical inductive/deductive logic,  computational logic, or one of the half-dozen other recognized forms of logic? Next time, be more clear and precise.


  • 10 months ago

    A priori experience of Reality that transcends rational thought and logic, such as the oneness of Everything and the illusion of space and distance.

  • 10 months ago

    Nothing is 100% certain.  According to physics, as I understand it (which isn't all that much), there is always the slightest probability of anything being or not being possible.  For example, you may be 100% certain you are looking at your dog.  However, there is a slight chance that it is actually a replica or a clone or a doppleganger of your dog, or that you have entered a simulation and your dog is just a digital character. 

  • j153e
    Lv 7
    10 months ago

    Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory is the putative basis for mathematics, and it has been proven by Godel to be unable to justify completely its certitude.  Thus, no, not presently.

  • 10 months ago

    I would argue that even logic and math lacks that level of certainty because everything depends on some basic assumptions which are not demonstrable, and thus are not certain.  Nothing is 100 percent certain because we (living beings) are not objective due to a reliance on sensory systems that interpret in their very functional behavior.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.