Demon (thought experiment)

In thought experiments philosophers occasionally imagine entities with special abilities as a way to pose tough intellectual challenges or highlight apparent paradoxes. Examples include:

  • Descartes’ malicious demon – Cartesian skepticism (also called methodological skepticism) advocates the doubting of all things that cannot be justified through logic. Descartes uses three arguments to cast doubt on our ability to know objectively: the dream argument, the deceiving God argument, and the malicious demon argument.[1] Since our senses cannot put us in contact with external objects themselves, but only with our mental images of such objects, we can have no absolute certainty that anything exists in the external world. In the evil demon argument Descartes proposes an entity who is capable of deceiving us to such a degree that we have reason to doubt the totality of what our senses tell us.
  • Laplace's demon is a hypothetical all-knowing being who knows the precise location and momentum of every atom in the universe, and therefore could use Newton's laws to reveal the entire course of cosmic events, past and future. Based upon the philosophical proposition of causal determinism.
  • Maxwell's demon can distinguish between fast and slow moving molecules. If this demon only let fast moving molecules through a trapdoor to a container, the temperature inside the container would increase without any work being applied. Such a scenario violates the second law of thermodynamics.
  • Morton's demon stands at the gateway of a person's senses and lets in facts that agree with that person's beliefs while deflecting those that do not. This demon is used to explain the phenomenon of confirmation bias.
  • In aphorism 341 of The Gay Science, Nietzsche puts forth his eternal recurrence concept. In it, he employs a demon with special metaphysical knowledge as an agent for forcing reevaluation of perspective on one's own life.
  • The Darwinian Demon is a hypothetical organism which can simultaneously maximize all aspects of its fitness.

Similar entities

There are other creatures which feature in thought experiments about philosophy. One such creature is a utility monster, a creature which derives much more utility (such as enjoyment) from resources than other beings, and hence under a strict utilitarian system would have more or all of the available resources directed to it. Newcomb's paradox supposes a being who is believed to be capable of predicting human behavior; Robert Nozick suggested a "being from another planet, with an advanced technology and science, whom you know to be friendly".[2]

gollark: Why?
gollark: I'm giving people permission to try and gather data on me if they want, on the condition that they tell me while doing so, give me the results of this, and delete any copies they might retain of it without giving them to anyone else. Unfortunately this is pretty unenforceable. I can pay in melons, though.
gollark: <https://www.zdnet.com/meet-the-team/us/oliver-marks/> ← me
gollark: I think I've been pretty clear that I'd prefer Nobody to not gather people's datas without asking them *beforehand*, but if he does do that anyway then he should notify people he's doing it.
gollark: If he *isn't* telling people about his data gathering escapades then he may not receive the appropriate complaint volume, so maybe I should just *assume* he's looking up someone's data at random times and complain?

References
  1. Important Arguments from Descartes' Meditations Archived 2017-09-26 at the Wayback Machine by David Banach Archived 2017-09-13 at the Wayback Machine Department of Philosophy, St. Anselm College (retrieved 8-24-2007)
  2. Nozick, Robert (1969). "Newcomb's Problem and Two Principles of Choice". In Rescher, Nicholas (ed.). Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel (PDF). Springer. p. 114.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.