Karl Popper

Discussion of Metaphysics / Philosophy of Karl Popper's Problem of Induction & the Evolution of Absolute Truth
Karl Popper Pictures, Quotes 'Objective Knowledge'

In my opinion, the greatest scandal of philosophy is that, while all around us the world of nature perishes - and not the world of nature alone - philosophers continue to talk, sometimes cleverly and sometimes not, about the question of whether this world exists. They get involved in scholasticism, in linguistic puzzles such as, for example, whether or not there are differences between 'being' and 'existing'. (Popper, 1975)

---

---

Introduction to Karl Popper

The philosophy of Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn are very similar - they argue that truth is evolving and can never be absolutely known. As it turns out they were wrong, thus ultimately harmful for the evolution of Human Knowledge.

I apologise if this is abrupt - but we can now deduce what reality is without opinion, so this is stated absolutely simply because it is true. This is explained in more detail below and in the main pages listed above.

Geoff Haselhurst

---

---

---

Realism of Karl Popper

Popper was a Realist but did not Believe that we Could Demonstrate True Knowledge of Reality

My thesis is that realism is neither demonstrable nor refutable. Realism like anything else outside logic and finite arithmetic is not demonstrable; but while empirical scientific theories are refutable, realism is not even refutable. (It shares this irrefutability with many philosophical or 'metaphysical' theories, in particular also with idealism.) But it is arguable, and the weight of the arguments is overwhelmingly in its favor. (Popper, 1975)

Popper followed in Kant's footsteps and thus incorrectly believed that there was no synthetic a priori (that leads to logic) knowledge deducible from Space and Time. The Metaphysics of Space and Motion solves this problem, thus Realism is now Demonstrable from the Two Principles of the Wave Structure of Matter WSM. (Which makes the weight of arguments for Realism even more overwhelmingly in its favor!)

I completely agree with Karl Popper that;

Denying realism amounts to megalomania (the most widespread occupational disease of the professional philosopher). (Popper, 1975)

---

---

Postmodern Philosophy of Karl Popper

A piece of knowledge is never false or true - but only more or less biologically and evolutionary useful. All dogmatic creeds are approximations: these approximations form a humus from which better approximations grow. (Mach)

Ernst Mach was a profound logical positivist who was also very influential, as his ideas greatly influenced Einstein, and thus all of twentieth century Physics and Philosophy (including of course, Popper and Kuhn). Certainly Mach's Principle (that the mass of Matter is determined by all other Matter in the Universe) is one of the most profound and important principles discovered by Humanity. Nonetheless, Mach's logical positivist views are insidious, and in part have contributed (with Kant) to the current confusions that now abound in Postmodern philosophy. Let us now analyze some of Popper's arguments upon this important subject.

Even if we assume that we have been successful - that our physical theories are true - we can learn from our cosmology how infinitely improbable this success is: our theories tell us that the world is almost completely empty, and that empty space is filled with chaotic radiation. And almost all places which are not empty are occupied either by chaotic dust, or by gases, or by very hot stars- all these in conditions which seem to make the application of any method of acquiring physical knowledge logically impossible.
To sum up, there are many worlds, possible and actual worlds, in which a search for knowledge and for regularities would fail. And even in the world as we actually know it from the sciences, the occurrence of conditions under which life, and a search for knowledge , could arise - and succeed- seems to be almost infinitely improbable. Moreover, it seems that if ever such conditions should appear, they would be bound to disappear again, after a time which, cosmologically speaking, is very short. (Popper, 1975)

This argument is way to atomic in its view, and completely ignores Mach's Principle (and modern observation) that all matter is both similar, and intimately interconnected throughout the Universe.

All we can do is to search for the falsity content of our best theory. We do so by trying to refute our theory; that is, by trying to test it severely in the light of all our objective knowledge and all our ingenuity. It is, of course, always possible that the theory may be false even if it passes all these tests; that is allowed for by our search for verisimilitude. But if it passes all these tests then we may have good reason to conjecture that our theory, which (we know) has a greater truth content than its predecessor, may have no greater falsity content. And if we fail to refute the new theory, especially in fields in which its predecessor has been refuted, then we can claim this as one of the objective reasons for the conjecture that the new theory is a better approximation to truth than the old theory. (Popper, 1975)

What is interesting here is the tacit assumption that no theory will ever explain all things, but there is no real reason for this assumption (other than that history showed that no theory had yet explained all things).

---

---

Karl Popper's Negative Solution to the Problem of Induction

Their authors do not take Hume's logical criticism sufficiently seriously; and they never seriously consider the possibility that we can, and must, do without induction by repetition, and that we actually manage without it. It seems to me that all the objections to my theory which I know of approach it with the question of whether my theory has solved the traditional problem of induction - that is, whether I have justified inductive inference. Of course I have not. From this my critics deduce that I have failed to solve Hume's problem of induction. (Popper, 1975)

Hume's Problem of Induction is: How can it be shown that inductive inferences (at least probabilistic ones) are valid, or can be valid? This problem is a typical muddle since it uncritically pre-supposes the existence of a positive solution to what I have called 'Hume's problem' ; but Hume has proved that no positive solution exists. (Popper, 1975)

The above quotes from Karl Popper demonstrate how knowledge can become corrupted over time. David Hume DID NOT prove that no positive solution (of Causation and Necessary Connection) is possible, but simply that no positive solution existed, and that Hume kept an open mind as to whether this could indeed be solved (as it now has been with the Metaphysics of Space and Motion).
Please see Philosophy David Hume

Of course, I have not solved the problem of how such interaction takes place; and indeed I suspect that this problem is insoluble - not only for interaction between mental and physical states, but more generally. For while, for example, we know that electrical charges repel one another, we have no 'ultimate explanation' of how they do it, even if we accept Maxwell's theory. We do not have any general theory of causality (at any rate not since the breakdown of Descartes' theory that all causality is push). (Popper, 1975)

The Principles of the Wave Structure of Matter explain both Charge and Mass as properties of the Wave-Center due to the interactions (and change in velocity) of its In and Out-Waves with other Matter in the Space around them.

Kant pointed out that, with his empiricist dogmatism, Hume had not considered the possibility that there was a principle of causality which was valid a priori. (Popper, 1975)

This is absolutely correct, and is found in the Principles of the Wave Structure of Matter. See links on the side of the page.

In fact Popper actually admits that it may be possible to have a metaphysical language which correctly describes (deduces) Reality, and that if this were the case then it would replace his negative/skeptical solution of Hume Problem of induction with a positive solution to Hume's Problem of Causation and Necessary Connection.

There could easily be a little quarrel about the question which is the deeper problem; Hume's Problem of Causation, or what I have called the Problem of Induction. One could argue that if the problem of causation were positively solved - if we could show the existence of a necessary link between cause and effect - the problem of induction would also be solved, and positively. Thus one might say, the problem of causation is the deeper problem. I argue the other way round: the problem of induction is negatively solved; we can never justify the truth of a belief in a regularity. But we constantly use regularities, as conjectures, as hypotheses; and we have good reasons sometimes for preferring certain conjectures to some of their competitors. It is through the falsification of our suppositions that we actually get in touch with 'reality'. It is the discovery and elimination of our errors which alone constitute that 'positive' experience which we gain from reality. (Popper, 1975)

It is important to explain and solve Popper because many scientists believe that Truth is always an approximation which is constantly evolving. In fact this is not the case, the solution to Metaphysics (to explain the One thing, Space, which must necessarily connect the Many things, matter) is a final solution, an Absolute and Eternal Truth, as there is nothing more simple than One, thus no further evolution of theories is possible. Thus Popper's negative solution to the Problem of Induction must now be discarded, as he writes;

If a theory corresponds to the facts but does not cohere with some earlier knowledge, then this earlier knowledge should be discarded. (Popper, 1975)

Thus Popper's negative solution to the problem of induction (that all truth is evolving, we can never know the Absolute Truth, but only know what is false through scientific method) is correct while we do not know the necessary connection between things (e.g. cause and effect) and conversely, Popper's problem of induction is solved once we solve Hume's Metaphysical problem of Causation and hence understand the 'necessary connexions' between 'what exists' in Space.

I really recommend reading the philosophy and metaphysics pages which relate to these arguments.

References

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago 1962
Popper, Karl Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press 1975

---

---

Links / Karl Popper, Postmodern Philosophy & Philosophers

Metaphysics: Philosophy - Uniting Metaphysics and Philosophy by Solving Hume's Problem of Causation, Kant's Critical Idealism, Popper's Problem of Induction, Kuhn's Paradigm.

Philosophy: Absolute Truth - Absolute Space - Absolute Truth comes from Necessary Connection which requires One Thing, Absolute Space, to Connect the Many Things (Matter as Spherical Wave Motions of Space). On the Absolute Truth and Reality of the Existence of Absolute Space as a Wave Medium. And ending such nonsense as 'The ONLY ABSOLUTE TRUTH is that there are NO ABSOLUTE TRUTHS' (Feyerabend) as Aristotle wrote, 'Finally, if nothing can be truly asserted, even the following claim would be false, the claim that there is no true assertion.'

Philosophy: Importance of Truth & Reality to Humanity - Wisdom from Truth from Reality. (Thus Humanity must know Reality to be Wise.)

Philosophy: Free Will Vs Determinism - Wave Structure of Matter explains Limited Free Will in a Necessarily Connected (Logical) Universe.

Philosophy: Postmodernism - On Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Popper Kuhn. The End of Postmodernism Relativism & the Rise of Realism.

Philosophy: Realism Idealism - The Rise of Absolute Truth and Realism, the End of Post Modern Relative Idealism. Berkeley, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Einstein. 'The more plebeian illusion of naive realism, according to which things 'are' as they are perceived by us through our senses ... dominates the daily life of men and of animals; it is also the point of departure in all of the sciences, especially of the natural sciences.' (Albert Einstein)

Hume, David - The Spherical Wave Structure of Matter in Space explains Hume's Problem of 'Necessary Connexion', Causation and Skeptic ism. 'Experience only teaches us, how one event constantly follows another; without instructing us in the secret connexion, which binds them together, and renders them inseparable. ... What that medium is, I must confess, passes my comprehension; and it is incumbent on those to produce it, who assert that it really exists ... I cannot imagine any such reasoning. But I keep my mind still open to instruction, if any one will vouchsafe to bestow it upon me.'

Kuhn,Thomas - On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions - Kuhn's Paradigm shift from Space and Time to Space and Motion as the New Metaphysical Foundation for the Sciences. 'The historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them.'

Nietzsche, Friedrich - Famous Philosopher Nietzsche on Postmodernism and Beyond Good and Evil. God is not Dead, God is What Exists and Causes all things thus God is Space and (Wave) Motion.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig - The Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Wave Structure of Matter gives Absolute Meaning to our Language. Answering Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus & Philosophical Investigations. 'Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language. For philosophical problems arise when language goes on holiday.'

Help Humanity

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
(Mohandas Gandhi)

"When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter. ... Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept 'empty space' loses its meaning. ... The particle can only appear as a limited region in space in which the field strength or the energy density are particularly high. ...
The free, unhampered exchange of ideas and scientific conclusions is necessary for the sound development of science, as it is in all spheres of cultural life. ... We must not conceal from ourselves that no improvement in the present depressing situation is possible without a severe struggle; for the handful of those who are really determined to do something is minute in comparison with the mass of the lukewarm and the misguided. ...
Humanity is going to need a substantially new way of thinking if it is to survive!" (Albert Einstein)

Our world is in great trouble due to human behaviour founded on myths and customs that are causing the destruction of Nature and climate change. We can now deduce the most simple science theory of reality - the wave structure of matter in space. By understanding how we and everything around us are interconnected in Space we can then deduce solutions to the fundamental problems of human knowledge in physics, philosophy, metaphysics, theology, education, health, evolution and ecology, politics and society.

This is the profound new way of thinking that Einstein realised, that we exist as spatially extended structures of the universe - the discrete and separate body an illusion. This simply confirms the intuitions of the ancient philosophers and mystics.

Given the current censorship in physics / philosophy of science journals (based on the standard model of particle physics / big bang cosmology) the internet is the best hope for getting new knowledge known to the world. But that depends on you, the people who care about science and society, realise the importance of truth and reality.

It is Easy to Help!

Just click on the Social Network links below, or copy a nice image or quote you like and share it. We have a wonderful collection of knowledge from the greatest minds in human history, so people will appreciate your contributions. In doing this you will help a new generation of scientists see that there is a simple sensible explanation of physical reality - the source of truth and wisdom, the only cure for the madness of man! Thanks! Geoff Haselhurst (Updated September, 2018)

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. (Max Planck, 1920)

	Tweet  Follow @philosophytruth
	Geoff

Connect with Geoff Haselhurst at Facebook

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good people to do nothing."
(Edmund Burke)

"In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
(George Orwell)

"Hell is Truth Seen Too Late."
(Thomas Hobbes)

---

---

---

---

On Truth & Reality The Spherical Standing Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) in Space
Deducing Most Simple Science Theory of Reality	Metaphysics of Space, Dynamic Unity of Reality	Maths Physics On Mathematics Logic & Reality
Albert Einstein's Special & General Relativity Theory	Quantum Physics Wave Theory of Light & Matter	WSM Cosmology Finite Universe & Infinite Space
Philosophy Wisdom from Truth & Reality	Theology God Religion Spirit Morality	Life Evolution Ecology Nature Environment
Human Health Nutrition Diet Medicine Drugs	Education On Teaching Truth & Reality	Politics Utopia True Democracy Political Science

---

---