User:Joseane/Sandbox

Tristan Tondino seems to have demonstrated that certain debates can be shown to be indistinguishable from computer viruses. The proof/paradox begins by analyzing The Gettier problem and is copied below for consideration. Note: it does not imply every belief is as good as every other belief. The proof seems to have wide-ranging implications in many fields including philosophy, psychiatry and neurology.

Tondino’s Paradox

Where K=JTB

Let K=Knowledge, T=Truth and JB=Justified Belief Let K = 10 Let T = 10 Allow 10 to represent certainty. Now when we consider the hypothesis K=T. We see it is tautological K=T=10 (Tondino called this the Vervoort Axiom)

Now let’s consider a Justified Belief. For a belief to be justified it requires at least one element of evidence. It seems there are strong beliefs and weak beliefs and strong and weak evidence. Now let’s imagine a system which could generate an infinite number of items of evidence. Let’s represent this system by the number 9.9 recurring. Looking at our Hypothesis K=JTB

K(10)= JB(9.9…)+T(10)

Now there seems to be two options: A) 10=19.9… which seems clearly false or B) that since 10 is our limit, by the Vervoort Axiom we have only restated our tautology. We should therefore remove T from our hypothesis, which leaves: K(10)=JB(9.9…)

The debate over belief versus knowledge seems to be impossible to complete. No matter how large the debate is, and how many years it continues, it seems to reproduce a circle of varying diameters.

It is Tondino's contention that it cannot be shown that knowledge is not very justified belief, which means the debate cannot be completed. Tondino therefore suggests that the debate is similar to a computer virus. 9.9 recurring as it approaches 10 will run out of time before it can be completed. The entire debate, its history is very likely an obsessive use of brain activity similar to playing that game with a piece of paper that says turn over on both sides. The only way out of the problem would seem to be to isolate the question.

If this argument holds, philosophers should choose the weaker of two versions.

Assume all we have are our beliefs of varying degrees of quality, end the debate and study why we believe what we believe. New Philosophy would then be experimental in nature with an emphasis on isolating viral debates that impede progress toward a just and better world.

Note: an infinite number of justifications can also be found for any belief demonstrating the same paradox.