The List of Undisputable Givens and Laws

[Guynemer]

VII: Ming is a bastard.



VIII: The Detroit Tigers stink worse than a festering, poorly-ventilated, never-emptied septic tank.

[Urban Ranger]

IX. A is A
X. A is not ~A
XI. Either A or ~A, but not anything in between

XXXXII. The answer is 42.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
IX. A is A
X. A is not ~A
XI. Either A or ~A, but not anything in between

XXXXII. The answer is 42.

That's more like it.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by MrFun
What do you think, Immortal?
Of course all three sexual orientations can be replaced with the word people.

So just out of curiosity, why didn't you replace the three sexual orientations with the word people?

[MrFun]

I wanted to remind everyone that homosexuals and bisexuals are people, just like heterosexuals.

But anyway, let's not stay on that topic --- move on.

[DarkCloud]

Kolpo

Originally posted by kolpo

No it is not! I as programmer created those data things not to reproduce but to create better solutions, that was my only motivation!

Wait? are you talking about a life generator on a computer- that's not life at all!

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.

Okay, then is it agreed that the purpose of life is to reproduce to produce descendants that are superior?

Your argument seems to make sense!

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

I can only prove that logic is correct through logic.

Logic is correct because-

"Logic is correct because without logic, you have a conclusion that doesn't fit the premises, and thus the whole thing becomes inconsistent"
"And inconsistencies are, by their nature, incorrect"
Quote courtesy from the archives of Imran Siddiqui.

and:



Immortal Wombat

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

that had to be caused by something.
Their movement was caused by something [the hammer]
If a coincidence happens every time a hammer hits a window- it is not coincidence- it is cause and effect.

Ramo

Empiricism relies on observation.
How can you make sure that the observer isn't flawed in some way?

Then one must only take logic as the only way to prove things.
However, to prove that the observer isn't flawed- repeat the actions until they have been experienced by many people (and yes, I DO realize that all may be flawed)
however, if a poisonous cactus is touched by 100 people and 100 survive, then the fact that the cactus is poisonous does not matter to those people... The cactus' poison would not matter until someone who is susceptible to it touches it. Then the fact that it is poisonous is proven.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ramo


The scientific method is essentially the practice of using empiricsm.

True.

That doesn't prove that all things die.

Logic can prove that all things die because since things are created things naturally die. At least all things that we know, and we know that the universe came from somewhere before, so that somewhere before, something died and created our universe... and our universe has a finite amount of matter, thus it has a finite amount of rate of decay before it dies.

Experience is the same thing as observation.

Not quite, but Experience is what you touch- such as if you touch a cactus, but yes, they are VERY related and in that case you are correct- but not 100%...

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

What exactly do you want me to prove? That things interact? Or that the fact that they interact proves that they exist?

"Necessity is Purpose because purpose is an aim to oneself. Necessity is an aim to existence. "
That doesn't make sense.

Necessity is what man needs.
Purpose is what man wants.

Prupose is an aim to get what one wants for oneself.
Necessity is what a person wants to exist.
Thus, a person needs necessity and thus,
necessity is purpose.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

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.

True. It is easier to attack a statement than to defend one.
Someone needs to compile an Apolyton book on argumentation and debate.

Kolpo

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.

I am attempting to state several laws which cannot logically be disputed for their truth rings forth.

That 1 person is not important if he does not make logical sense.
Something is undisputable when it has no logical holes, as I hope my revised I. will be:

Here is the revised list:

I. The purpose of life is to reproduce and produce superior descendants.

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!

VI. (Numbers 2 and 3 are apparently contradicted by IV.)

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.

Because Logic makes sense. Logic "proves" things, Faith does not, neither does observation because people can interpret them differently, Logic is the only universal interpretation of subjects and ideas.

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.

Yes, I suppose, I "accept" logic, but I did defend it 2 posts above. and by saying that it is the only universal interpretaion of subjects and ideas.

Logic is truth.
Truth is attained through logic.

loinburger

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

Sorry, I would have liked to do that, but I am not very good in math- if you'd like to supply some however
I am open to ideas.

Mr Fun

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??

Not necessarily, they are merely not following their purpose. I wouldn't say that their deviation is horrid, but if everyone followed it, there would be no species left. It is only logical that if children are not born- the species is not perpetuated.

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

Yes, I meant all iving things.

[Carver]

Like they say about the south of the U.S.:

XII. Palestine will rise again!

[Ramo]

Then one must only take logic as the only way to prove things.

Sounds like you're a fan of Aristotle.

What you're missing is that good logic also relies on observation, barring pure theory (i.e. mental jacking off). I suppose you can assert things not based on observation, but the problem is that people tend to make really bad assumptions when they're not grounded in rigorous science (which itself is grounded upon a set of assumptions).

Absolute proof is impossible, so I'm satisfied with the next best thing - the scientific method.

However, to prove that the observer isn't flawed- repeat the actions until they have been experienced by many people (and yes, I DO realize that all may be flawed)

Like you just pointed out, that is an adequate proof.

however, if a poisonous cactus is touched by 100 people and 100 survive, then the fact that the cactus is poisonous does not matter to those people... The cactus' poison would not matter until someone who is susceptible to it touches it. Then the fact that it is poisonous is proven.

That doesn't make any sense.

Logic can prove that all things die because since things are created things naturally die.

How?

At least all things that we know,

There, you're using observation and the scientific method.

and we know that the universe came from somewhere before,

Proof?

so that somewhere before, something died and created our universe...

Proof?

and our universe has a finite amount of matter, thus it has a finite amount of rate of decay before it dies.

Proof?

Not quite, but Experience is what you touch- such as if you touch a cactus, but yes, they are VERY related and in that case you are correct- but not 100%...

There are things that I consider "experience" that I haven't touched - I've experienced smells, sights, sounds, more generally observed.

What exactly do you want me to prove? That things interact? Or that the fact that they interact proves that they exist?

Both.

See, you've made a lot of assertions in this thread that you haven't backed up. Some I consider reasonable assumptions, but none I consider indisputably true.

Necessity is what man needs.
Purpose is what man wants.

Prupose is an aim to get what one wants for oneself.
Necessity is what a person wants to exist.
Thus, a person needs necessity and thus,
necessity is purpose.

That still doesn't make any sense. A simple dictionary definition can refute your assertion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Absolute proof is impossible, so I'm satisfied with the next best thing - the scientific method.

Possible with logic and mathematics.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by loinburger


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

now THAT would be an interesting thread, a lot of the 'givens' for mathematics over the (sp)millenia were proven not be over the last 20 or 30 years. Some would really surprise you

[Immortal Wombat]

Immortal Wombat

Quote:

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

that had to be caused by something.
Their movement was caused by something [the hammer]
If a coincidence happens every time a hammer hits a window- it is not coincidence- it is cause and effect.

Not so. Atoms move, they vibrate at different speeds depending on their natural energy level, their heat, the bonds in the compound or mixture or whatever. As they are vibrating back and forth, their movement could conveivably (though at almost infinite improbability) all synchronise, making them all move one way only - they would all leap forward just before the hammer reaches the window.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ramo


Sounds like you're a fan of Aristotle.

Sounds like some ancient philosophers are ripping me off again!
First Spinozo steal my theory of god in all things.
Then McTaggart and time
now this fiend- Aristotle.

I am however, planning on reading some original works by him= someone finally convinced me that it was more logical to read the OLDEST philisophical works before works by Bertrand Russel/ Sartre/Spinozo/etc.

What you're missing is that good logic also relies on observation, barring pure theory (i.e. mental jacking off). I suppose you can assert things not based on observation, but the problem is that people tend to make really bad assumptions when they're not grounded in rigorous science (which itself is grounded upon a set of assumptions).

Logic is yes, based upon some main proofs- but it is better than anything else- faith can contain lies... The worst logic can is contain misstatements and that is why it is constantly refined- However, I believe that logic has reached a point where all the base statements have been proved- or at least enough of them to be necessary to prove anything else which the world is based upon.

Absolute proof is impossible, so I'm satisfied with the next best thing - the scientific method.

I sort of disagree- Man can know everything and man will! Man must only discover HOW he can know everything- and that shall be done with logic.

And, as you already stated- the scientific method is but an aspect of logic- why not support logic when it incorporates parts of the scienticic method (but not the horrid parts; if the logic is correctly carried out it only uses the scientific method of retesting for the basest laws; and uses those laws to prove other things... If carried out correctly- this logic would be indisputable)

Quote:

however, if a poisonous cactus is touched by 100 people and 100 survive, then the fact that the cactus is poisonous does not matter to those people... The cactus' poison would not matter until someone who is susceptible to it touches it. Then the fact that it is poisonous is proven.

That doesn't make any sense.

It wasn't really arguing with you- but it was saying that even if the people's obeservations of whether the cactus was true would not matter even if they were incorrect- for incorrect observations- if incorrect for 100 people... do not matter!

The observation's incorrectness does not matter because it does not affect anyone by its incorrectness. When, however, the observation's incorrectness is revealed, then logic may take advantage of it an revise and grow stronger.

I think that may be a bit clearer.

Logic can prove that all things die because since things are created things naturally die.

How?

1. Everything decays. This is proven. A basic fact. Science has found nothing which does not decay.
2. Thus, since everything decays- everything dies. For something to live, it must have a corporeal state which is attacked by the elements and cause it to decay and then eventually, die.

quote:

and we know that the universe came from somewhere before,

Proof?

Through basic scientific data about decay.

quote:

so that somewhere before, something died and created our universe...



Proof?

You have me there. There is no proof for this other than logic.

1. Our universe came out of something.
2. Everything in our universe dies.
3.
a. Whatever our universe came out of could possibly have been a previous universe.
OR
b. Therefore, our universe, being a part of itself, will eventually die.
4. If our universe dies, then it can possibly form into a new universe.
5. Which will die and create a new universe.

quote:

and our universe has a finite amount of matter, thus it has a finite amount of rate of decay before it dies.

Proof?

You possibly have me here- because this is proven through observations... But considering that everything "finite" on earth which we know. It follows that the unversers willl be finite.

There are things that I consider "experience" that I haven't touched - I've experienced smells, sights, sounds, more generally observed.

Experience, at least in how I define it, is touching for, when one touches something, one is generally experiening the creature correctly, because, when something is seen at a distance, perspective can cause its size to change. When something is smelled, perhaps this works in chemicals- but nothing else, for hearing, this does not work much in science other than possibly biology.

See, you've made a lot of assertions in this thread that you haven't backed up. Some I consider reasonable assumptions, but none I consider indisputably true.

The only assumption I have made that I really have not backed up is how logic can be better than empiricism if Logic uses some minimal empiricism.

I believe #1 is WELL backed up and #5 is FAIRLY WELL backed up #4 MAKES COMPLETE SENSE and was backed up, at least some people agreed. and yes it does contradict 2 and 3. Which probably should be removed.

That still doesn't make any sense. A simple dictionary definition can refute your assertion.

I got those definitions from the dictionary!

[DarkCloud]

quote:


Immortal Wombat
quote:


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



that had to be caused by something.
Their movement was caused by something [the hammer]
If a coincidence happens every time a hammer hits a window- it is not coincidence- it is cause and effect.



Not so. Atoms move, they vibrate at different speeds depending on their natural energy level, their heat, the bonds in the compound or mixture or whatever. As they are vibrating back and forth, their movement could conveivably (though at almost infinite improbability) all synchronise, making them all move one way only - they would all leap forward just before the hammer reaches the window.

Atoms move- yes!
But how could they always syncronise without the movment of the hammer- and if they synchronised EVERY time then that would merely prove my point- except in a different way- it would prove that point that the hammer moving towards the window causes the atoms of the window to become upset and leap forward to escape the forward-motion of the hammer.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
1. Everything decays. This is proven. A basic fact. Science has found nothing which does not decay.

That's not proof. I've never seen God, but I doubt that you (or almost anybody else) would accept that as "proof" that God does not exist.

Through basic scientific data about decay.

1. Our universe came out of something.

Where's your proof? By "proof" I mean "proof," not "evidence."

2. Everything in our universe dies.

I fail to see how a rock dies, seeing as how it isn't alive.

3.
a. Whatever our universe came out of could possibly have been a previous universe.
OR
b. Therefore, our universe, being a part of itself, will eventually die.

Examples of decay do not constitute proof of decay. You would need to prove that the universe is decaying before b can hold water. a is pure speculation.

4. If our universe dies, then it can possibly form into a new universe.

"Possibly" isn't "Certainly."

Experience, at least in how I define it, is touching for, when one touches something, one is generally experiening the creature correctly,

Nerve endings are not foolproof. They are every bit as fallible as sight and scent.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
But how could they always syncronise without the movment of the hammer- and if they synchronised EVERY time then that would merely prove my point- except in a different way- it would prove that point that the hammer moving towards the window causes the atoms of the window to become upset and leap forward to escape the forward-motion of the hammer.

This would not prove your point. It would give evidence supporting your point.

[MrFun]

Here's one indisputable law:

all humans strive towards happiness

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


This would not prove your point. It would give evidence supporting your point.

If it happenes EVERY TIME then it matters not whether it is true or not since it happens EVERY TIME it is correct!
If it ever changes, then it is incorrect however, logically if EVERY TIME it is true, it is correct!

and mr fun- that is incorrect or at least I believe it is so because- people commit suicide... in doing so they are not striving to happiness.
-
loinburger-

1. Everything decays. This is proven. A basic fact. Science has found nothing which does not decay.



That's not proof. I've never seen God, but I doubt that you (or almost anybody else) would accept that as "proof" that God does not exist.

If that is not proof- then nothing can be proven. If that is your definition of proof- then nothing exists. Do you agree with that statement- or can you prove that somehting exists?
If you cannot- then i ignore that route of argument because things DO exist- even if they didn't I would ignore that fact and open myself to ridicule because that is merely a ridiculous argument.

I also do not quite understand the "god" argument. the fact that no one has seen god does not disprove him. If no one had experienced god or been able to logically prove his existence, then, obviously God would not exist. However, his existence is logical... 50-50 for and against.

. Everything in our universe dies.



I fail to see how a rock dies, seeing as how it isn't alive

A rock dies through decay.

3.
a. Whatever our universe came out of could possibly have been a previous universe.
OR
b. Therefore, our universe, being a part of itself, will eventually die.



Examples of decay do not constitute proof of decay. You would need to prove that the universe is decaying before b can hold water. a is pure speculation.

Yo uare true about "a"
But "b" is true because all elements decay- ti has been proven.

quote:

4. If our universe dies, then it can possibly form into a new universe.



"Possibly" isn't "Certainly."

loinburger- remember my 'time' thread- of course you do- you contribuited! - there are many possibilities for the end of the universe. That is merely one of them.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
If it happenes EVERY TIME then it matters not whether it is true or not since it happens EVERY TIME it is correct!
If it ever changes, then it is incorrect however, logically if EVERY TIME it is true, it is correct!

We assume that it will happen again becuase it has been experimentally shown to have happened in the past. The key words here are assume and experimentally, not know and logically. It's a pretty safe assumption, but it is an assumption nevertheless.

and mr fun- that is incorrect or at least I believe it is so because- people commit suicide... in doing so they are not striving to happiness.

They would be happier dead than alive, therefore they kill themselves. I'm don't think I agree with MrFun's assertion, though; I'm just too tired at the moment to debate the point.

If that is not proof- then nothing can be proven.

A = A, by definition.

If that is your definition of proof- then nothing exists.

Prove it.

Do you agree with that statement- or can you prove that somehting exists?

I disagree with that statement. I can't prove that something exists, nor can I prove that nothing exists. I operate on the assumption that something exists, but that doesn't mean that I know that something exists.

If you cannot- then i ignore that route of argument because things DO exist-

So the only way that you can win an argument is to ignore somebody's counterargument? Bravo.

even if they didn't I would ignore that fact and open myself to ridicule because that is merely a ridiculous argument.

The argument is that you haven't proven anything. I would hardly call this "ridiculous."

I also do not quite understand the "god" argument. the fact that no one has seen god does not disprove him.

Exactly. The fact that you have not seen an object that does not decay does not prove that there is no such object.

However, his existence is logical... 50-50 for and against.

What are you talking about? How can something be logically true and be logically false at the same time?

A rock dies through decay.

A rock is not alive, therefore it does not die.

But "b" is true because all elements decay- ti has been proven.

I am still waiting for your proof. All you've done so far is ignore my counterargument.

loinburger- remember my 'time' thread- of course you do- you contribuited! - there are many possibilities for the end of the universe. That is merely one of them.

Fine, but "possibly" is not "certainly." Statement 4 is no more a statement of proof than any of your other statements.

[Vandal-1]

Reality is my dream from which you cannot shake me,and within its bond allI see and all I feel is all know that,s really real.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger
We assume that it will happen again becuase it has been experimentally shown to have happened in the past. The key words here are assume and experimentally, not know and logically. It's a pretty safe assumption, but it is an assumption nevertheless.

Through constant repracticing in empiricism- a fact is proven. If it is done thousands of times under millions of different conditions- it is proven as true and it IS ture until it is proven wrong.

The fact that it IS wrong does not matter until it is foudn to be wrong. Something can be wrong and also be true at the same time if there is not "true proven" alternative to the "falsely accepted truth" things will still function.

They would be happier dead than alive, therefore they kill themselves. I'm don't think I agree with MrFun's assertion, though; I'm just too tired at the moment to debate the point.

Yes, there is probably a better explanation;

I disagree with that statement. I can't prove that something exists, nor can I prove that nothing exists. I operate on the assumption that something exists, but that doesn't mean that I know that something exists.

Something exists because it is HERE. EVERYONE CAN TOUCH IT. Everyone can see it. It logically fits patterns! There are no exceptions to the rule (I know this statement will get me in some trouble ), etc.

Exactly. The fact that you have not seen an object that does not decay does not prove that there is no such object.

That object, if it does not fit the logical parameters, is outside science, not subject to its laws, and therefore does not exist in the world of man, physics and mathematics and is therefore illogical and does not exist.

Your argument there could be used to argue anything exists- in fact it could argue that there is a giant invisible monkey on my shoulder- there is not. You cannot argue it if it 1. is not logical and 2. is not empirical. If there was an invisible monkey, then it would exert mass upon me... Unless it had no mass, in which case its existence would not matter befcause without mass, it cannot affect that world and it does not truly 'mean' anything to science.

quote:

However, his existence is logical... 50-50 for and against.


What are you talking about? How can something be logically true and be logically false at the same time?

God can logically exist because 1. He IS the universe and created it
Or 2. The Universe created itself randomly.

Qualification Note: Logic rules out the "outside force" existing outside the universe theory because allegedly nothing does except the dimensions.
-
Logic can argue 50-50 in a few cases. Depending on the logical courses. There are a few basic questions where logic can work either way, and from there a few basic logical systems can be made- for as you mentioned, some things cannot be 100% proven (although I disagree that my existence cannot be proven)
for example, I would say that there are 4 schools of thought.
1- Humans Exist, God Exists
2- Humans Dont Exist, God Does not Exist
3- Humans Exist, God Exists
4- 1 human exists, God Exists

A rock dies through decay.

A rock is not alive, therefore it does not die.

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING- Death=Decay in the statement I listed- would you like me to change it to: "all things die or decay", I suppose I shall to make it more clear *sigh* But thank you, I did want to clarify my system.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Through constant repracticing in empiricism- a fact is proven.

An "assertion" is "given supporting evidence" by empirical affirmation. Newton's Laws of Motion had oodles of supporting evidence, right up until people refined their instruments enough to detect discrepancies in their application. They were never proven, any more than General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics have ever been "proven."

but that that If it is done thousands of times under millions of different conditions- it is proven as true and it IS ture until it is proven wrong.

Newton's Laws were never "true." They were "good enough." There's a difference.

Something that has been proven true cannot be proven false, ever. The Pythagorean Theorem has been proven true, thus it can never be proven false. Newton's Laws were never proven true, which is why it was possible to prove them false.

The fact that it IS wrong does not matter until it is foudn to be wrong. Something can be wrong and also be true at the same time if there is not "true proven" alternative to the "falsely accepted truth" things will still function.

Newton's Laws were "good enough" for hundreds of years (in fact, even today they're "good enough" for nearly all physics problems), but that doesn't make them true. You're mixing your definitions for "practical" and "proven." Something can be practical without having been proven true, just as Newton's Laws were practical despite the fact that they were never proven true.

Something exists because it is HERE. EVERYONE CAN TOUCH IT. Everyone can see it.

Everybody might be deluding themselves.

It logically fits patterns!

As does the assertion that everybody is deluding themselves.

There are no exceptions to the rule

Prove it. Don't just offer evidence, but prove it. The assertion that "stuff exists" is a fair assumption, but it is not provably true; ultimately, the assertion resides on the question-begging assumption that we are not merely deluding ourselves. Since this is the very assumption that is in question, you cannot establish a proof without first proving that your assumption is correct; since this would require circular argumentation, you cannot prove that your assertion is correct.

That object, if it does not fit the logical parameters, is outside science, not subject to its laws, and therefore does not exist in the world of man, physics and mathematics and is therefore illogical and does not exist.

Scientific "laws" are not hard and fast rules by which we can make statements like "Objects that do not adhere to our scientific laws cannot exist." Rather, "laws" are really just established "theories" that have been shown through repeated testing to be quite useful. If data is acquired that deviates from a theory, then the theory must be revised. So too if data is acquired that deviates from a scientific law, since a scientific law is just an overblown scientific theory.

Therefore, you cannot say "Nothing exists that does not adhere to our scientific laws," since our scientific laws are built from only partial knowledge; they have not been proven true.

Your argument there could be used to argue anything exists- in fact it could argue that there is a giant invisible monkey on my shoulder- there is not.

Prove it.

You cannot argue it if it 1. is not logical

I'm not saying "A = ~A" here, which is logically incorrect. I'm saying "Scientific knowledge is incomplete," which is not logically incorrect (unless you can establish a contradiction to prove me wrong...)

and 2. is not empirical.

If it is not empirical, then it is not of practical use. For all you know you do have a giant invisible monkey on your shoulder, but since this giant invisible monkey does not seem to affect you in any way, the monkey is of no importance to you. This does not prove that there is no monkey, it merely establishes a sound justification for why the existence of the monkey is irrelevant.

If there was an invisible monkey, then it would exert mass upon me... Unless it had no mass, in which case its existence would not matter befcause without mass, it cannot affect that world and it does not truly 'mean' anything to science.

The existence of the invisible massless monkey is irrelevant for the time being. You cannot prove to me that the invisible massless monkey is not going to suddenly eat your brains, though. Since the odds of an invisible massless monkey eating your brains are quite slim you dismiss this possibility as irrelevant, yet you've proven nothing, you've merely justified your assumption.

Logic can argue 50-50 in a few cases. Depending on the logical courses.

There are times when a logic produces an indeterminate or undefined solution, but there are never times when logic can prove something half true and half false.

for example, I would say that there are 4 schools of thought.
1- Humans Exist, God Exists
2- Humans Dont Exist, God Does not Exist
3- Humans Exist, God Exists
4- 1 human exists, God Exists

A false assertion can be used to prove pretty much anything. Just look at a truth table: F==>T = T. What you've described here are four different sets of assumptions that are in question (I'm assuming that you intended one of them to be "Humans Exist, God Does Not Exist", since assumptions 1 and 3 are identical). Since they are contradictory, not all of them can be correct. However, until it can be proven which set of assumptions is correct (if any), then the validity of any conditional statement involving these assumptions is in question.

would you like me to change it to: "all things die or decay", I suppose I shall to make it more clear

Yes, that would help.

[Ramo]

DC:

You're making a lot of logical fallacies.

First of all, an absolute (indisputable) proof can use no assumptions except the framework of logic itself. An absolute proof related to the physical world does not exist. I need to know that my information is absolutely accurate, but an observer can always be flawed. Therefore all of your assertions are not indisputable laws, and a couple I don't find valid after making some reasonable assumptions (1 and 5 comes to mind). Furthermore, all of the other assertions you're making are not indisputable, as they either rely on scientific observations, or you've simply made up.

Secondly, just because a principle is valid for a finite set of objects in a set, does not make it valid for all objects in the set. For instance, take the set of all odd numbers:
{1, 3, 5, 7,...}
Obviously, the first term is prime. So is the second. So is the third. So is the forth. But, obviously, the assertion that all odd numbers are prime is ludicrous.

And, as you already stated- the scientific method is but an aspect of logic- why not support logic when it incorporates parts of the scienticic method

You've got it the other way around. Logic (like other kinds of math) is nothing more than a tool for the scientific method.

(but not the horrid parts;

What horrid parts?

I got those definitions from the dictionary!

Go to a dictionary.

Hell, I'll do it myself. From dictionary.com:

ne·ces·si·ty Pronunciation Key (n-ss-t)
n. pl. ne·ces·si·ties

The condition or quality of being necessary.
Something necessary: The necessities of life include food, clothing, and shelter.

Something dictated by invariable physical laws.
The force exerted by circumstance.
The state or fact of being in need.
Pressing or urgent need, especially that arising from poverty.

pur·pose Pronunciation Key (pûrps)
n.
The object toward which one strives or for which something exists; an aim or a goal: “And ever those, who would enjoyment gain/Must find it in the purpose they pursue” (Sarah Josepha Hale).
A result or effect that is intended or desired; an intention. See Synonyms at intention.
Determination; resolution: He was a man of purpose.
The matter at hand; the point at issue.

Like I said, not the same thing.

[SnowFire]

Ramo: I've only read the first post and all of your replies & rebuttals, because they were pretty amusing on the whole. But....

Obviously, the first term is prime

What?!! This from Ramo the triple Math/Physics/Something major? Sure, maybe the first term is prime, but 1 doesn't fit some properties that other primes have. I suppose you can argue that it is prime, but it's no more obvious than it is obvious that my purpose is to breed & reproduce.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


An "assertion" is "given supporting evidence" by empirical affirmation. Newton's Laws of Motion had oodles of supporting evidence, right up until people refined their instruments enough to detect discrepancies in their application. They were never proven, any more than General Relativity or Quantum Mechanics have ever been "proven."

Newton's Laws were never "true." They were "good enough." There's a difference.

If newton's laws were not true, we would float off the earth into space. (Yes, I know not all were true, but I am talking about the 'basic' theory of gravity.)

Something that has been proven true cannot be proven false, ever. The Pythagorean Theorem has been proven true, thus it can never be proven false. Newton's Laws were never proven true, which is why it was possible to prove them false.

That is because math is an abstract concept- not able to be proven true or false except through itself- math uses itself to prove itself. Much like God- sometimes. That is why math is true, only because it can prove itself with itself- not because it is irrevocably "correct" Math in itself was entirely created by humans. Now, its applications always existed, but Math is but an abstract idea that was created.

Math was still being created in the time of Newton and Leibniz!

Newton's Laws were "good enough" for hundreds of years (in fact, even today they're "good enough" for nearly all physics problems), but that doesn't make them true. You're mixing your definitions for "practical" and "proven." Something can be practical without having been proven true, just as Newton's Laws were practical despite the fact that they were never proven true.

Because Newton's laws work like math and prove themselves AND other experiences prove that they are true- proves that newton's laws are true.

Everybody might be deluding themselves.

And that is why I ignore that argument- I have to have SOMETHING to base this system on.

Prove it. Don't just offer evidence, but prove it. The assertion that "stuff exists" is a fair assumption, but it is not provably true; ultimately, the assertion resides on the question-begging assumption that we are not merely deluding ourselves. Since this is the very assumption that is in question, you cannot establish a proof without first proving that your assumption is correct; since this would require circular argumentation, you cannot prove that your assertion is correct.

Look! It is impossible to prove that something is true even if things which have not yet been discovered are applied to it. Technically the thing would be true even if the things are discovered. The theory is merely enlarged if other things are discovered.

IT is impossible to even prove the existence of other things because people haven't seen them. It is impossible to prove it either way, so it does not matter at all until those things are discovered.

Therefore, you cannot say "Nothing exists that does not adhere to our scientific laws," since our scientific laws are built from only partial knowledge; they have not been proven true.

You cannot prove that it is only partial knowledge. If nothing is ever discovered that does not fit the laws- how can you disprove them.

If it is not empirical, then it is not of practical use. For all you know you do have a giant invisible monkey on your shoulder, but since this giant invisible monkey does not seem to affect you in any way, the monkey is of no importance to you. This does not prove that there is no monkey, it merely establishes a sound justification for why the existence of the monkey is irrelevant.

True, and it also establishes that the questioning of whether something is incorrect because something else has not yet been discovered is irrelevant.

That discussion is not important because the thing has not yet been discovered and does not 'visiblly' affect the laws. As far as the laws are concerned the thing does not exist because it doesn't affect the laws- or if it does, it does so uniformly in every test except for perhaps one. That is why everything must be tested (but like I said before, I do agree that the sci method is flawed unless EVERY POSSIBLITY can be tested- and theoretically, yes, every possiblity can)

There are times when a logic produces an indeterminate or undefined solution, but there are never times when logic can prove something half true and half false.

Indeterminite or undefined is exactly what half true and false is! You can choose between either path of logic.

A false assertion can be used to prove pretty much anything. Just look at a truth table: F==>T = T. What you've described here are four different sets of assumptions that are in question (I'm assuming that you intended one of them to be "Humans Exist, God Does Not Exist", since assumptions 1 and 3 are identical). Since they are contradictory, not all of them can be correct. However, until it can be proven which set of assumptions is correct (if any), then the validity of any conditional statement involving these assumptions is in question.

Yes you were write about god does not exist as my meaning.'

All of them "could " be correct because none can ever be proven 100% unless humans could exist 'outside' the universe and observe a civilization I playback of time.

-
I have changed it to die or decay, although not in every post- but now you know my meaning

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ramo
DC:

You're making a lot of logical fallacies.

First of all, an absolute (indisputable) proof can use no assumptions except the framework of logic itself. An absolute proof related to the physical world does not exist. I need to know that my information is absolutely accurate, but an observer can always be flawed. Therefore all of your assertions are not indisputable laws, and a couple I don't find valid after making some reasonable assumptions (1 and 5 comes to mind). Furthermore, all of the other assertions you're making are not indisputable, as they either rely on scientific observations, or you've simply made up.

Secondly, just because a principle is valid for a finite set of objects in a set, does not make it valid for all objects in the set. For instance, take the set of all odd numbers:
{1, 3, 5, 7,...}
Obviously, the first term is prime. So is the second. So is the third. So is the forth. But, obviously, the assertion that all odd numbers are prime is ludicrous.

Ah yes, but it is impossible to test EVERY term to infinity, (if infinity exists) for infinity would go on forever and the testing would have.

I do agree that once a disrepency is discovered, the assumption is incorrect- however when no disrepencies exist, then the logical proof is true.

You've got it the other way around. Logic (like other kinds of math) is nothing more than a tool for the scientific method.

You are saying that logic proves observations- correct?
Well, then I could say that faith proves observations conversely- however logic can be proven by the observations whereas faith must be accepted, yes?
That is why logic is superior! If one only bases logic on a few basic principles, and constructs only a limited number of systems, invariably one will be correct!

What horrid parts?

I'm not sure what I was talking about when I said that- but I think it related to how I hate empiricism and love logic.
--
purpose- that which we strive for.
necessities- something we need.
-
Okay, I agree- Purpose is what we need... I see no problem with saying that Purpose is what we need- in which case they are the same thing and they reach the same conclusions.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
If newton's laws were not true, we would float off the earth into space. (Yes, I know not all were true, but I am talking about the 'basic' theory of gravity.)

Newton's laws aren't true, and we're still not floating off. The theory that the earth is flat also isn't true, and we're still not floating off.

We don't stick to the earth solely because scientific law states that we ought to stick to the earth; rather we stick to the earth and then scientific law attempts to explain how we're sticking to the earth. Theory doesn't alter evidence.

That is because math is an abstract concept- not able to be proven true or false except through itself- math uses itself to prove itself. Much like God- sometimes. That is why math is true, only because it can prove itself with itself- not because it is irrevocably "correct" Math in itself was entirely created by humans. Now, its applications always existed, but Math is but an abstract idea that was created.

Which is why mathematical proofs can exist; we define our postulates (A = A, for example), and then we can logically prove things. Our postulates are correct by definition, therefore conditional statements that use these postulates are correct.

Physical science uses assumptions, not postulates. It is impossible to prove that an assumption used in physical science is correct, since its assumptions are based on empirical data and not abstract definitions.

Math was still being created in the time of Newton and Leibniz!

It's still being created today.

Because Newton's laws work like math

No they don't. Newton's laws are based on empirical evidence and are therefore assailable, while mathematics is based on postulates and is unassailable. Newton's laws are incorrect, by the way, thereby refuting that they were ever proven true.

and prove themselves AND other experiences prove that they are true- proves that newton's laws are true.

Newton's laws are incorrect; they are still used in most situations since they are fairly accurate, but they are ultimately wrong and have been replaced by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They aren't true, and they were never true; they used to be good enough, and even now for most practical purposes they're still good enough.

And that is why I ignore that argument- I have to have SOMETHING to base this system on.

You need to make the assumption that people are not merely deluding themselves, and this is generally a fair assumption to make. Just don't believe for an instant that you've proven that your assumption is correct.

Look! It is impossible to prove that something is true even if things which have not yet been discovered are applied to it.

Exactly. It is impossible to prove scientific laws, since they are based in empirical evidence.

Technically the thing would be true even if the things are discovered. The theory is merely enlarged if other things are discovered.

That is not generally true. General relativity has little to no theoretical relation to Newtonian mechanics, and neither does Quantum Mechanics. Evolution is not merely an "enlarged" theory of Creationism. Modern thermodynamics has no theoretical relation to old theories about phlogistan. Etc.

IT is impossible to even prove the existence of other things because people haven't seen them. It is impossible to prove it either way, so it does not matter at all until those things are discovered.

It is the duty of the mathematician to prove that his theorem is correct. If the theorem isn't proven, then it isn't proven; the mathematician cannot simply say "Fermat's last theorem is correct, because you haven't proven it false!" The claimant is the one who must offer proof.

You cannot prove that it is only partial knowledge.

I don't need to. You need to prove that it is complete knowledge, otherwise you've proven nothing. The claimant is the one who must offer the proof.

True, and it also establishes that the questioning of whether something is incorrect because something else has not yet been discovered is irrelevant.

So you admit that you cannot prove whether or not there is an invisible massless monkey on your shoulder?

Indeterminite or undefined is exactly what half true and false is! You can choose between either path of logic.

The only logical states I've ever heard of are true, false, indeterminate, and undefined. By definition, something is only one of these states, not multiple states. Unless you're thinking about fuzzy logic, which is really just probability.

All of them "could " be correct because none can ever be proven 100% unless humans could exist 'outside' the universe and observe a civilization I playback of time.

Since it cannot be proven which (if any) assumption is correct, the assumptions cannot be used to logically prove anything. F ==> T = T, just as F ==> F = T.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Ah yes, but it is impossible to test EVERY term to infinity, (if infinity exists) for infinity would go on forever and the testing would have.

This is why induction proofs are so popular. You get to test every possible term, without all the hassle of performing an infinite number of tests.

I do agree that once a disrepency is discovered, the assumption is incorrect- however when no disrepencies exist, then the logical proof is true.

The logical proof is true when it has been proven that no discrepancies can possibly exist.

That is why logic is superior! If one only bases logic on a few basic principles, and constructs only a limited number of systems, invariably one will be correct!

I take "a few basic principles" to mean "a few unprovable assumptions." If you use a false assumption to prove something, then you've really accomplished absolutely nothing. F ==> F = T, just as F ==> T = T.

Until your "few basic principles" can be proven to be correct (meaning that there is no possible way that they could ever be disproven!), then the term "invariably" in your last sentence must be replaced by the term "possibly."

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


Newton's laws aren't true, and we're still not floating off. The theory that the earth is flat also isn't true, and we're still not floating off.

We don't stick to the earth solely because scientific law states that we ought to stick to the earth; rather we stick to the earth and then scientific law attempts to explain how we're sticking to the earth. Theory doesn't alter evidence.

I didn't say that thoery altered evidence. However evidence is created by theories.
Before the world was created there were laws- man is merely discovering them.


-
I also want to apologize If I am being too vindicitave in this, but I want to find a basic system of laws so that we can build something on it- I am glad to receive ideas- but I would like it if someone would provide a basic undeniable law other than "nothing can be known"
-

No they don't. Newton's laws are based on empirical evidence and are therefore assailable, while mathematics is based on postulates and is unassailable. Newton's laws are incorrect, by the way, thereby refuting that they were ever proven true.

Math is easy to disprove as well- because it could be said as not existing because it is not a tangible object.

Newton's laws were true 'for the time'
And the Theory of Gravity does mean that people don't float off the earth- if there was no such thing- people would float off the arth.

Newton's laws are incorrect; they are still used in most situations since they are fairly accurate, but they are ultimately wrong and have been replaced by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. They aren't true, and they were never true; they used to be good enough, and even now for most practical purposes they're still good enough.

Yes, I realize that there is no Unified Theory of Everything- but what if you consider that Newton's laws only apply to earth and General RElativity and Quantum Mechanics apply only to the molecular level and space. [Note: I know nothing of aeither of those so please call me if I am merely sprouting BS]

-
Okay, it's thundering now, so I'll get to the rest later.