I imagine developing a relationship for three months with someone on the Internet. I thought about that this morning. One just writes without talking on the phone or doing video chat. This may be a circumstance that develops on internet dating sites occasionally. What would it be like if the relationship suddenly was enfiladed as an unreal one? One might experience a feeling of deep loss, as if grieving, if one had loved the person.
https://suno.com/s/9EsHWbHqPJ8S3PFo Love as a Phenomenal Field Strength v1
That scenario is a paradigm for considering in one of my philosophical areas of interest named epistemology; knowing what and how one knows. The emotional attachment one may develop over time may form a strong bond and could overcome subjective logic and judgment concerning the certainty one may have of it being actual rather than false via deceit. Credulity must be a function or derivative of love to a significant extent, for remote relationships. One may ask how it is possible that someone can love another whom they cannot even verify as being real, rather than an imposter?
It brings up the point about certainty and the odds for certainty and belief; if one is less than 100% certain they aren’t being deceived in a relationship regarding the real identity of the other, how can a subject have love for another, yet they do? Does a cold percentile evaluation calculating the probability of the other being genuine, with logical analysis, stand a chance against emotion? Additionally, if one is 90% sure (or of the opinion) that the identity of the other is genuine is that even meaningful when it seems as if 100% certainty (or 99% more properly) should be requisite for love?
Entertaining probabilities about something being the actual state of affairs is different than love of someone regardless of the improbability of it being a valid, assumption about the reality of a state of affairs, being the actual state of affairs. A relationship and uncertainty of identity of another may bring one to that position that is analogous to the Cartesian metaphysical doubt. I think, therefore I am, was all Descartes could be certain of. In the case I have illustrated one can only be certain of personal existence, and the others, partially- if one knows the other isn’t an artificial intelligence, yet one can't be certainty of anything else about the other. Sometimes things that are probable yet aren't empirically verifiable need to be taken on faith, even if one may be wrong.
One could not exist in ordinary life in a reasonable way if one insisted on verifying the certainty of everything that exists before acting. Instead on has implicit assumptions about reality and acts on the probabilities of empirical concerns being valid unless proven otherwise, or at least given reason to have substantial doubt about the reality of a select portion of experience.
There was one subtle point that is a little elusive to capture concerning the analogy of the metaphysical doubt. It brought me to consider alternate points such as the comparison of the Cartesian metaphysical doubt to the uncertainty of the actual nature of being that is perceived with the senses, knowing that quantum mechanics are involved and that one is interacting with some sort of quantum fields that seem to make the appearance of a real world- a solid world, exist for one experiencing it.
https://suno.com/s/ixFPSFydR1BNgU1n God is Love
