Münchhausen Trilemma
en.wikipedia.org
Münchhausen Trilemma
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: Münchhausen Trilemma
#2So Popper was unsatisfied by this trilemma of ‘three equally unsatisfying options’, but Euclid several millennia earlier (and virtually everyone since) was perfectly satisfied with option (3).
Re: Münchhausen Trilemma
#3So Popper was unsatisfied by this trilemma of ‘three equally unsatisfying options’, but Euclid several millennia earlier (and virtually everyone since) was perfectly satisfied with option (3).
There is no satisfying answer to the question of what axioms one should take. You either can't prove what seems obvious or you end up with some very strange theorems.
Re: Münchhausen Trilemma
#4So Popper was unsatisfied by this trilemma of ‘three equally unsatisfying options’, but Euclid several millennia earlier (and virtually everyone since) was perfectly satisfied with option (3).
> The trilemma, then, is the decision among the three equally unsatisfying options. Karl Popper's suggestion was to accept the trilemma as unsolvable and work with knowledge by way of conjecture and criticism.
That makes sense.
But, Popper still shows how he was kind of ahead of his time with this question.
And I'd also say that we need (2) in addition to (3), that's what makes logical arguments possible!
The "dogmatic" axioms are defined as being "obviously true", so they better be simple :)
Re: Münchhausen Trilemma
#5So Popper was unsatisfied by this trilemma of ‘three equally unsatisfying options’, but Euclid several millennia earlier (and virtually everyone since) was perfectly satisfied with option (3).
I mean option two doesn’t seem untenable either honestly - you keep digging down until you hit bedrock, and even if you never find bedrock the process of digging is still enriching and educational and results in advancement of knowledge.