Theory On Probabilities

My theory on probabilities is the answer that I reached through contemplating the nature of truth and truthseeking. The basic premise is this. Even if there existed such a thing as objective truth, we cannot reach it due to us being creatures of mind and ego; humans have a conception of self through which to filter information. Without this concept of self I would not be me, and thus it is naturally so that I am grateful for this gift of nature, but it may also be so that being me may hinder the search for truth. If we cannot reason in terms of truth, then what about probabilities. Let’s say that you believe in the basic laws of nature(such as the pull of gravity), then this means you see the probability as higher of it being so than that of it not being so. This is then a frame of reference to use when deciding on the probabilities of other concepts and ideas, and thus deciding on them as having a higher probability of being true and thus acting as if they were true until the scale is tipped. Many great thinkers throughout history have been struggling with finding truth, and this is good, we should struggle for that is how we make progress, but I am somehow baffled by this… why do they seem so intent on finding absolute truth. There is no need to be 100% certain on something, and if you say that you are, then either you are a liar or an omnipotent god. It is perfectly sound to decide on general principles through your own logic; that which makes sense to you, and then using this frame of reference to narrow in on other things that seem to have a high probability of being true.

One thought on “Theory On Probabilities

  1. Super Interesting. Pronabilities… maybe someone else has written about this.

    a few comments:

    you write: “being me may hinder the search for truth”… or you can simply say that our search for truth is biased.

    ” acting as if they were true until the scale is tipped. ” till they are falsified… (Karl Popper)

    “There is no need to be 100% certain on something, and if you say that you are, then either you are a liar or an omnipotent god. “. True.

    “Why do I not believe in god for example? Well, it has a low probability of being true based on what I already see as most likely of being true.” Well, not everyhing can be explained by references to reason. That can easily spill over into logocentrism. Except logos, you also have ethos and pathos…

    but
    exciting. Looking forward to read more.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s