The List of Undisputable Givens and Laws

DarkCloud · April 7, 2002, 18:22

(Okay, I hope that none of these are disputable; if they are not, then I have accomplished my purpose... If they are, please tell me how and I will attempt to crush any dispute.)

I.
The purpose of life is to breed and reproduce

II.
All things die.

III.
Genetic Variations in species do occur

IV.
The Scientific Method is flawed
-There are too many interfering factors prohibiting the method from working at full efficiency.
An incomplete listing:

1.) elements may interfere slightly and scatter others.
2.) Specific lighting
3.) Age of materials
4.) Position
5.) Vibrations
6.) Movement of air
7.) Air pressure
-Unless all these and more can be conquered, I maintain my stance, unmovingly

V.
The assumption that things exist is proven because things interact!

David Floyd · April 7, 2002, 18:26

Quote:

The purpose of life is to breed and reproduce

Why? Who gives anyone the moral authority to dictate the purpose of my life?

Immortal Wombat · April 7, 2002, 18:27

I - Not to breed, just to reproduce

II - depends what you mean by things.

IV - Its not flawed, its just very difficult to do perfectly

DarkCloud · April 7, 2002, 18:39

Quote:

Originally posted by David Floyd

Why? Who gives anyone the moral authority to dictate the purpose of my life?

David- it is fairly obvious that that fact is indisputable.
It is meant for all types of life.
If life did not reproduce, then how would life exist.

Also, if that is not at least one purpose of life- why does all life contain reproductive organs?
--
Immortal Wombat-

Has its perfectness ever been done?
I think a vaccum may be good- but then you would have to prove its validity in the real world with every possible factor weighed in on each experiment- it would take years to prove how things react or something of that sort.

A vaccum or perfect implementation of the method would merely prove that unaffected, a single particle has the properties which were discovered- when, however, its atoms react with other elements, the reactions change, and each must be plotted in its own instances.

Immortal Wombat · April 7, 2002, 18:42

No, it has never been perfected. So?

Its implementation may be flawed, but it in itself is perfect.

loinburger · April 7, 2002, 18:43

Seeing as how I and IV are under dispute, the list needs to be revised. I'm also going to dispute V just for the hell of it; your reasoning is flawed because you cannot prove beyond all doubt that interactions are not actually independent events that are completely unrelated to "things interacting." The fact that you might not exist also calls your judgment on the matter into question.

loinburger · April 7, 2002, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
David- it is fairly obvious that that fact is indisputable.
It is meant for all types of life.
If life did not reproduce, then how would life exist.

Saying that reproduction is necessary for life is not the same thing as saying that reproduction is the purpose of life.

DarkCloud · April 7, 2002, 18:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
No, it has never been perfected. So?

Its implementation may be flawed, but it in itself is perfect.

yes, I do agree that it IS possible but only in theory for Observation to work (the scientific method)

However, I postulate that theory will and has never been carried through 100% correctly. And thus it is inherently flawed because humans frequently make mistakes.

Perhaps a case can be made for it.

However, I stand by empiricism and logic as the only paths to truth until Observation can be perfected, for empiricism and logic have been proven to work.

loinburger
I consider the argument that I do not exist to be superflous because I think I exist. Cogito ergo sum! Cogito ergo sum!

Quote:

you cannot prove beyond all doubt that interactions are not actually independent events that are completely unrelated to "things interacting."

Then how can you say that if I hit a glass window with a hammer, the hammer's atoms are not interacting with the glass window?
The window broke, and therefore the glass particles moved.

The fact that the things can be touched and interact in that method also proves their existance...

----A note:
This thread is also part of the debate; it is however, disputable: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=46925

DarkCloud · April 7, 2002, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger

Saying that reproduction is necessary for life is not the same thing as saying that reproduction is the purpose of life.

Perhaps I worded it incorrectly.

Since:

Reproduction is necessary for life.
Life needs reproduction to happen for it to exist.
How does life exist?
Through Reproduction which creates life.
Life is created through reproduction.
The purpose of reproduction is to create life.
When life is created it instincitvely needs to reproduce.
Reproduction is necessary for life.
Therefore: The Purpose of Life is to reproduce to create more life.

Immortal Wombat · April 7, 2002, 18:58

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
yes, I do agree that it IS possible but only in theory for Observation to work (the scientific method)

However, I postulate that theory will and has never been carried through 100% correctly. And thus it is inherently flawed because humans frequently make mistakes.

And you also postulate that 100% efficiency is necessary for it to be considered a valid method for determining truths sufficient for humans to accept it as truth?

Immortal Wombat · April 7, 2002, 18:59

Darkcloud, there are many better arguments for why the purpose of life is reproduction.

DarkCloud · April 7, 2002, 19:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

And you also postulate that 100% efficiency is necessary for it to be considered a valid method for determining truths sufficient for humans to accept it as truth?

True.

Until 100% efficiency is achieved, the system is flawed.
there must be no doubt in an orderly universe.

IF the universe cannot be ordered logically then there is no such thing as a universe for it cannot be comprehended and make any logical order or sense.

kolpo · April 7, 2002, 19:06

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud

Perhaps I worded it incorrectly.

Since:

Reproduction is necessary for life.
Life needs reproduction to happen for it to exist.
How does life exist?
Through Reproduction which creates life.
Life is created through reproduction.
The purpose of reproduction is to create life.
When life is created it instincitvely needs to reproduce.
Reproduction is necessary for life.
Therefore: The Purpose of Life is to reproduce to create more life.

That is not necassary. In genetic programming does data reproduce itself, the reproducing is needed for the succes of the genetic programming. But the propose of the existance of that data is not to reproduce, the propose is to find a better solution for a given problem even while the enivorment has been changed so that the best solutions would survive is still reproducing not the main goal. Same can be applied to life, maybe is the propose of life not just creating other things that life but is there also another propose, you can't prove that my agrument againsts your argument is wrong and because of that can't you prove that your agrument is right.

loinburger · April 7, 2002, 19:06

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Then how can you say that if I hit a glass window with a hammer, the hammer's atoms are not interacting with the glass window?
The window broke, and therefore the glass particles moved.

It is impossible to prove beyond any doubt that the window didn't simply break on its own, independently of the hammer.

Ramo · April 7, 2002, 19:06

IV contradicts II and III.

V makes no sense, whatsoever.

I is flawed because it relies on "purpose," a subjective term. As techno pointed out, necessity doesn't imply a purpose.

Quote:

However, I stand by empiricism and logic as the only paths to truth until Observation can be perfected, for empiricism and logic have been proven to work.

Empiricism relies on observation.

Quote:

The fact that the things can be touched and interact in that method also proves their existance...

Again, that doesn't make sense. How can you make sure that the observer isn't flawed in some way?

DarkCloud · April 7, 2002, 19:10

Quote:

Originally posted by loinburger

It is impossible to prove beyond any doubt that the window didn't simply break on its own, independently of the hammer.

At the very least, one could prove that the atoms of the wind that the hammer moved caused the window to break.

When things move, atoms move (yes I know this contradicts my observation principle, but I have already exhausted the arguments within my principle and although I feel that I have correctly debunked your theory, I now move beyond and provide extra evidence.)

Immortal Wombat · April 7, 2002, 19:14

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
At the very least, one could prove that the atoms of the wind that the hammer moved caused the window to break.

No one couldn't. Or rather, no-one could.

Quote:

When things move, atoms move

Atoms move all the time. There is no way to prove that all the atoms in the window did not simultaneously leap sideways

Ramo · April 7, 2002, 19:15

Quote:

At the very least, one could prove that the atoms of the wind that the hammer moved caused the window to break.

Not with any certainty. Not indisputably.

Sprayber · April 7, 2002, 19:16

VI. This thread is going nowhere

DarkCloud · April 7, 2002, 19:21

Quote:

Originally posted by kolpo

That is not necassary. In genetic programming does data reproduce itself, the reproducing is needed for the succes of the genetic programming. But the propose of the existance of that data is not to reproduce, the propose is to find a better solution for a given problem even while the enivorment has been changed so that the best solutions would survive is still reproducing not the main goal.

The "finding of a better solution" to evolve better is merely a by-product of reproduction.

Before the genes can find a better solution they must reproduce. Reproduction is necessary to facilitate the creation of new genes which can better attack a solution.

Quote:

Same can be applied to life, maybe is the propose of life not just creating other things that life but is there also another propose, you can't prove that my agrument againsts your argument is wrong and because of that can't you prove that your agrument is right.

I don't deny that there can be other purposes,

but I would argue that your suggestion is merely a sub-purpose of life's reproduction.

Ramo

Quote:

IV contradicts II and III.

I see what you mean, because the sceientific method proves number 3... But you are incorrect in your assumption because II and III can be experienced through logic and empiricism.
Because I touch something, I can know it is dead. Through logic when something does not breath, I can prove that it is dead.

Through empiricism I can prove that genetic variations occur by probing the bodies and through feeling the shapes. (I will admit that this does border on Observation however and in possibly 10% of the cases, mere experience of the hands will not suffice and that observation is necessary)

V- Things interact, thus they exist.
-
Necessity is Purpose because purpose is an aim to oneself. Necessity is an aim to existence.

IW-

Quote:

Darkcloud, there are many better arguments for why the purpose of life is reproduction.

Such as?

kolpo · April 7, 2002, 19:34

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud

The "finding of a better solution" to evolve better is merely a by-product of reproduction.

Before the genes can find a better solution they must reproduce. Reproduction is necessary to facilitate the creation of new genes which can better attack a solution.

No it is not! I as programmer created those data things not to reproduce but to create better solutions, that was my only motivation! Because that was the only reason I created them is it not finding solution that is a by product of reproduction, but is it reproduction that is a by product of my desire to find a solution!
Those data parts on themself have no propose on themself! They have only a propose viewed in the bigger picture of giving me a solution for a given problem.

Can you prove that that is with life not the case? If you can't 100% prove that can't you prove that the propose of life is reproduction.

Btw, Can you prove that logic is correct? If not, can't you prove anything.

Ramo · April 7, 2002, 19:35

Quote:

I see what you mean, because the sceientific method proves number 3... But you are incorrect in your assumption because II and III can be experienced through logic and empiricism.

The scientific method is essentially the practice of using empiricsm.

Quote:

Because I touch something, I can know it is dead.

Not disputably.

Quote:

Through logic when something does not breath, I can prove that it is dead.

That doesn't prove that all things die.

Quote:

(I will admit that this does border on Observation however and in possibly 10% of the cases, mere experience of the hands will not suffice and that observation is necessary)

Experience is the same thing as observation.

Quote:

V- Things interact, thus they exist.

You're just restating the same thing. You've yet to prove it.

Quote:

Necessity is Purpose because purpose is an aim to oneself. Necessity is an aim to existence.

That doesn't make sense.

Immortal Wombat · April 7, 2002, 19:44

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
IW-
Such as?

Actually, I think its pretty much the same as what you are saying. Life exists because something found a means to replicate itself, therefore life exists as a complicated extension of that replication. Its is very hard to express though, and you placed a therefore in an unfortunate position.

kolpo · April 7, 2002, 19:50

Can you define "Undisputable Givens and Laws" ?

For every idea is there at least 1 person who doesn't believe it. So nothing is undisputable.

The idea of the existance of laws, that there is something as laws is not proven.

All posible ways to determineted or something is undisputable like logic, observation, expereince aren't accept by all people on this earth and are because of that disputable.

Many philosofers like Kant said that logic isn't correct. Why should we assume that logic is correct? There is no prove, no rail reason to assume that.

The whole idea that things that exists can be written down in words is also disputable.

For there to be something to be viewn as proven must there be some things simply accepted, but by doing that is all proof that follows from that no longer real proof because it is based on things that are simply believed like some people belief in the holy cow. From that point of view is a scientist(who also accepts certain not proven basic ideas like the correctness of logic) nothing better then someone who looks in the stars to find the truth. Both base themself on unproven grounds.

Provost Harrison · April 7, 2002, 20:11

I see DarkCloud is giving us one of his little polemics

loinburger · April 7, 2002, 20:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I see DarkCloud is giving us one of his little polemics

I thought it was going to be a list of mathematical formulae or a bunch of truth tables. How wrong I was...

MrFun · April 7, 2002, 20:41

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkCloud
(Okay, I hope that none of these are disputable; if they are not, then I have accomplished my purpose... If they are, please tell me how and I will attempt to crush any dispute.)

I.
The purpose of life is to breed and reproduce

I don't have a problem with that one in the aspect that homosexual couples can contribute to the perpetuation of posterity in several different ways, with adoption being just one of the methods.

But maybe in one aspect I do disagree with this law being claimed as indisputable. Are all heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals who choose not to have children (however way possible), to be seen as deviants??

I do not think so, in that aspect.

Vandal-1 · April 7, 2002, 20:46

The purpose of life is to know love and transcend physical mechanics.Are we machines? and cannot any of the task of number crunching ,data in vaccuum task be assigned to a machine?. may be the machine is as much alive as the man it replaces( or will/can be) given all your premises go unchallenged life is not purely physical but depends on the physical

your anger toward me for saying this betrays the truth.Catch a clue down there in the philosophy department already.

Immortal Wombat · April 7, 2002, 20:47

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun
Are all heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals who choose not to have children (however way possible), to be seen as deviants??

I think by Life, DarkCloud meant life as in all living things, the existance of a reproducing organism as defined in his other thread. Not any individual lives, or ways in which people choose to live their lives.

ps. Could not "heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals" be replaced with "people" ?

MrFun · April 7, 2002, 20:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

I think by Life, DarkCloud meant life as in all living things, the existance of a reproducing organism as defined in his other thread. Not any individual lives, or ways in which people choose to live their lives.

ps. Could not "heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals" be replaced with "people" ?

What do you think, Immortal?

Of course all three sexual orientations can be replaced with the word people.