I assume, therefore I am

These were the thoughts that were running through my head the other day, when it was noticed that I had way too much free time in my hands. "Who am I? What do I perceive? How do I know what I perceive is consistent with the truth? What if there is no truth? What if esse est percipi? What if to be is to be Perceived?"

I shall endeavour to answer these questions within the bounds of reasonable assumption. First of all, there are two classes of schools of thought as far as philosophy is concerned: Rationalism and Empiricism.

Rationalism is that branch of philosophy that takes a set of logical statements broadly proven to be true, or at least assumed as such by stuffy windbags who think they know everything, and takes them in conjunction with each other in order to build compound logical statements that would be true if the fundamental statements were true. In effect, one could build up the most complex set of arguments and prove them as true or false as the case may be, if one knew the right set of logical statements proven to be true, in other words, the first principles. A pure Rationalist who frequently gets ahead of his or herself would argue that any truth, however complex can be arrived with a few statements that may be inherently true, like "The Sun Rises in the East".

Empiricism, on the other hand, is slightly pragmatic; it considers only statements that have already been proved true, and makes no attempt to further or extrapolate the proved argument to prove another one, for it was not experimentally proved. In English, a Rationalist proposes, an Empiricist disposes, the Rationalist then attempts to demonstrate against his or her will, and if successful, the Empiricist accepts or rejects.

As one can clearly see, the two schools of thought are at odds with each other. A Rationalist is today's Theoretical Physicist, the Empiricist the Particle Physicist, and each views the other with utter disdain. But one thing that both the schools of thought have missed is the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental one. I refer to the one where we innately assume that what we have proved is absolute.

For example, to prove that the Earth is round, Magellan circumnavigated the globe. This was based on the assumption that Magellan really did so and that he was not pulling a fast one on the Portuguese public. If one were to prove that he indeed circumnavigated the globe, he has merely proved that one of the projections of our planet is a closed geometric figure. In order to prove that it is a sphere, one must prove that every projection of our planet is a circle. Magellan had considered only one plane, presumable along the equator, and has merely proved that it was a closed figure, not a circle. It might just as easlily have been an ellipse or a hexagon about the plane of the equator along which he sailed. So it would only be reasonable ( as defined by philosophers ) to reject Magellan's proof of demonstration as a rigorous empiricist. But how about all the later evidence? How may one process the satellite imagery of our planet in innumerable perspectives? We accept this visual proof of our planet's roundness as valid because we can see one of the projections of our planet as a circle. This in conjunction with other photographs taken from different points of reference leads us to the conclusion that since the projection of our planet at different points of reference taken at random is a circle, it must be a sphere. But a purist empiricist would argue that one has only proved that various projections of our planet are circular, but one has failed to prove that it is circular from every possible point of reference and therefore the proof is not valid. So, considering the apparent foolishness and the head-up-his-arse-ness of the empiricist, one simply cannot produce infinite number of photographs to convince him. Instead, we ask him to assume uniformity, that is, we ask him to apply the rule of induction, the rule of extrapolation that says since the projection of the earth at the given point of reference is a circle, the projection from a point that is infinitesimally close to the given point would still be a circle. Therefore, from every point, the projection of the earth to every plane is a circle, and therefore, it is a sphere. This now moves into the realm of rationalism, which can satisfactorily prove that the given logical statement is true based on the truth value of a more simple logical statement, which in this case is empirical evidence.

The statement, however can also be approached in a purely rational way, without any empirical evidence.
The first logical statements are:

• The universe obeys all laws of physics and mathematics consistently. 
• The earth is made of matter.
• The earth exists in the universe.
• Matter experiences the force of gravitation.
• The law of gravitation is true and accurate.
• An attractive force pulls matter closest to the point of origin of the force as possible.
• The sphere is the only solid curve as solution to the collection of all points that are of no greater distance, with respect to another point, than a fixed arbitrary value.
• All the above statements are true.

So, these statements taken in conjunction with each other would suggest that the earth would experience the force of gravitation as it is made of matter and exists in a universe that obeys all laws of physics and mathematics. This force of gravitation, as suggested by the law of gravitation, is an attractive force, and therefore, tends to pull matter to points closest to itself possible. As suggested by the law of gravitation, the point of origin of the force of gravitation is the centre of mass of the object in question, the earth. As the centre of mass of the earth exerts the force of gravity on all other points on the earth, it tends to get as close to the centre of mass of the earth. This would mean that there is a great tendency for points of the earth to get as close to the centre as possible, and therefore, as dictated by statement 7, it would be a sphere.
QED.

Thus, one can prove that the earth is spherical without any satellite imagery, but it would be foolish to assume that this proof is absolute. The empiricist who looked at the rationalist explaining the proof to him would have had a contemptuous countenance as he could provide the rationalist with countless examples of meteors and asteroids that are of any shape but spherical even though all statements collected by the rationalist as first principles were true, his reasoning sound. The only explanation is, he must have overlooked some statements he must have included in his proof, for example: The force of friction and cohesion binds all points in a solid to a degree of freedom so minute, that it forbids the points to move as close to the centre of gravity of the solid as would otherwise be possible.
This would mean that even though all these were true, some other phenomenon occurred that let the earth violate the above statement overlooked by our rationalist and let the points move around freely. While the theory is that the earth melted into a liquid due to the heat of friction, other such objects were less fortunate, with solidity trapping them in hideous shapelessness. This now seems satisfactory, there is also empirical evidence to buttress the claim, there is visual proof of magma underneath the earth's surface and everyone is happy.

However, there are inherent flaws in both the above reasons that simply escape one's attention. These are what one says one takes for granted. First of all, to debunk the impossible to prove empirical proof, even if one were to, by some magical feat that demystifies infinity and transcends it, produce infinite photographs of the earth from every possible point of view, I would not be seeing those photographs as they were, but I would only see it as I perceive. There is simply no way of telling whether what I see is a faithful reproduction of what is, or anything exists at all beyond what I perceive. If the former were true, I would see only what I wanted to see, or some unseen force, within or without, wanted me to see. So I might just as easily see them as circular projections of the earth as another empiricist sees triangular projections of the earth. So, my proof is rendered in-absolute, and completely dependent on the observer. The latter on the other hand, would mean I could see whatever I want, it simply doesn't exist, a mere hallucination on a scale that is grander than anyone ever imagined possible. In either case, the proof becomes observer dependent robbing them of the absoluteness required to prove a fact. Therefore, by proving something empirically, one simply gets over this inconvenience by ignoring it or assuming the credibility of one's senses.

The above reasoning in itself is not empirical, it is the extrapolation of existent ideas to arrive at a contradiction. Thus, it is a rational explanation and no one has produced infinite photographs of the earth. But if I were to somehow prove that a rational proof can be discredited in the same way, it would mean that the above proof of indeterminability in itself has been rendered null and void. This, however, does not mean that empirical evidence can now be justified, as it is not so simple a universe to assume that the negative of a negative is a positive, but is an indeterminate state, assumed in most cases to be positive through induction and extrapolation with the assumption of uniformity of the universe. As in the school of Hegelianism, an idea can be comprehended by robbing oneself of it; the second part of the An-sich: Anderssien: An-und-für-sich series that mean in itself: out of itself: in and for itself. Hegelianism argues that any development of any idea is a triadic process; the first is the idea itself, the second, the opposite or sublation of the idea in the pursuit of its greater significance and the final re-institution of the idea in a more refined and agreeable form. So, in this triadic process, I would only be in the second stage of Anderssien if I disproved and therefore robbed myself of the ability to prove rationally. The third stage would be to outline a rational proof disproving the rational proof leading to another indeterminate state.


The proof is as follows:
We have taken a set of eight statements generally construed as true by general judgement and have built up more complex ideas based on them ultimately arriving at the fact that the earth is round. If, however, by some unaccounted factor, one of the basic ideas were to be discovered false, the entire supposition comes crashing down. The theorem of Rationalism is, "If any idea or phenomenon can be proved as logically sound and consistent by rational arguments, it is logically sound and consistent."
To prove the above theorem, the following statements are taken as first principles:

• The idea or phenomenon to be proved can be proved rationally
• The capability to rationally prove the idea or phenomenon is within our intellectual confines.
• The theorem itself.

Now, if I were to disprove any of the above statements, the whole school of rationalism comes down precipitately. Let us take the first statement; it is straightforward, it is merely an assumption that the idea can be proved rationally. There is no way one can prove it unless they use the proof of contradiction. Assuming that any statement cannot be proved rationally would imply that it cannot happen as one considers the fundamental principles of physics and mathematics to predict the phenomenon or idea. If the idea cannot be proved, it therefore cannot happen. Even this proof has an underlying assumption, which if disproved can crash the argument. The assumption is that the fundamental principles of physics and mathematics are absolute and of immutable veracity. If we can somehow prove that a phenomenon not predicted by these principles can occur, we have successfully disproved the contradiction, thereby disproving statement 1 of the set of first principles. For example, existent physics and mathematics could not predict the uncertainty in the position and momentum of a particle with sufficient accuracy and therefore have been incorporated into physics as an inherent limitation of the observer and the system which, in the absence of the observer, is in an indeterminate intermediate state, just as the Schrodinger's cat. For a brief instant, just after the observation of the limitation of existing physics and the redress of that limitation, mathematics collapsed, rationalism failed and had to be propped back up again with this work around correction introduced into physics. This suggests that the platform we hold for absolute truth in itself is not immutable, but changes with time, as new phenomena are unravelled. The observer does not lead, but lags the system, with a varying set point that accounts for errors produced in the previous iteration. This would mean that any argument can be proved rationally by playing with the most fundamental axioms of physics. Therefore, it is impossible to disprove the first statement.
Moving on to the second one, one can never prove the statement. If we do not have the capability to prove the statement, we will not have the capability to disprove the statement, and the statement will stay in an indeterminate state, glossed over by an assumption that we can prove the phenomenon under question, and see where it goes from there. The third statement leads to ad infinitum and therefore has been left alone. Ergo, it is impossible to prove rationally that a rational proof is valid for any idea or phenomenon. If I cannot prove the credibility of my tools, I cannot use them. If I cannot use them, I cannot prove the fact that I cannot prove the credibility of my tools. We have now entered a state of mutual contradiction that can only be allayed by an assumption on one side to keep the wheels moving. The assumption is that rationalism is valid and therefore applicable.


This, however is not the absolute standard for reason, there can never be an absolute standard. If there can never be an absolute standard, there can be no reason, only a set of conditions, as in, if this were true, that is true. Therefore, I merely assume that this is true, accept it as my most fundamental principle and build ideas from there. But there is no way to tell if it is true, for there is no such thing as the truth.