The List of Undisputable Givens and Laws

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
technophile- you have faith that nothing exists-

No I don't, I have faith that something exists. Same as you. I'm just trying to get through to you that you don't have proof that something exists, but rather that you have faith just like the rest of us.

you have proven nothing because you have not proven that ALL humans have many defects.

I don't need to. In order to refute the claim that "X is perfect," I only need to provide one example in which X is flawed. I have done so.

Besides, you have yet to prove that a single human is perfect.

Some humans are perfect in each region; sight, smell, feel, etc.

There has never existed a human that is perfect in each region, as explained in my post just prior to this one. Senses are the result of extremely complex bio-chemical reactions that are notorious for their imperfection. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is sufficient for proving that reactions are not perfect, since they occur near a level in which Uncertainty runs rampant.

Prove me wrong.

The only way you could prove your point that people cannot experience things would be to prove that ALL the humans are fooled ALL the time.

Wrong. You are assuming that my point is that empiricism is always wrong. I have argued no such thing, rather I have argued that empiricism is imperfect. In order to substantiate such a claim I merely need to provide evidence of one instance in which empiricism is flawed. I have already done so, and you have performatively contradicted yourself as a result.

Which Is theoretically impossible to do.

Prove it.

[Ramo]

When and If a Unified Theory of Everything is discovered

I just wanted to point out that you're mincing the names of two theories: The Grand Unified Theory and the Theory of Everything.

The GUT unifies the strong force with the electro-weak and the TOE unifies gravity with the GUT.

[DarkCloud]

Thank you Ramo!
Now I am no longer ignorant!
I didn't know all that before

loinburger- I'll get to you as soon as I can- it may take me a week however, please be patient
thakn you.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
loinburger- I'll get to you as soon as I can- it may take me a week however, please be patient

Not a problem, I'm busy over here too. Graduation's in three weeks, which essentially means that I've got three weeks to finish two AI projects (one big and one middling), a big Numerical Analysis project (partial differential equations can bite my ass), and maintain my passing grade in French. The less I'm allowed to procrastinate here, the better.

[DarkCloud]

Good luck with your graduation (from college, I assume)?

Apoly-

No I don't, I have faith that something exists. Same as you. I'm just trying to get through to you that you don't have proof that something exists, but rather that you have faith just like the rest of us.

You don't have proof that nothing exists because it is impossible to disprove the fact that something exists.

I don't need to. In order to refute the claim that "X is perfect," I only need to provide one example in which X is flawed. I have done so.

Besides, you have yet to prove that a single human is perfect.

I can prove that a human may have perfect hearing. Or perfect Eyesight. For eyesight- look the the airforce's airmen!

and Yes, you need to prove that NO HUMAN is perfect to disprove the fact that there is reality. For, if even 1 human is perfect who perceives the world as real, your argument falls apart- and it has.

It is impossible to prove that ALL HUMANS are flawed ALL THE TIME because at least one human has 1 perfect sense.

How would you go about verifying this?

For sight- How good is his vision? Is he 20x20... 5x5 etc. Etc.
Easy to prove.

The test observers failed to detect these changes almost all of the time

"almost all the time" not all the time- thus you cannot fool everyone ALL the time.

I've proved my logical system: "Empiricism is imperfect." Therefore, it would be irrational for you to continue to adhere to the logical system that "Empiricism is perfect."

Since there is nothing to replace the system People must use it. It is the most perfect of all systems. And logic is still more perfect than empiricism, if logic is carried out carefully.

A system that contradicts mathematics would also be self-contradictory, and self-contradictory systems cannot exist--they destroy themselves.

It wouldn't be self-contradictory if it did not use math to disprove math.
You, for example are using empiricism to disprove empiricism, thus your system is self-contradictory and therefore useless.
If empircism was disproved from something OUTSIDE the system, ti would call into question the entire system.

But the Uncertainty Principle is already correct. At least, nobody has found any evidence that refutes it.

Then why did you say it was FLAWED!

You are engaging in a performative contradiction. You cannot argue that empiricism is flawless while at the same time arguing that the empirical evidence is flawed. It is logically impossible to have it both ways.

You would therefore revise the evidence through further empiricsm. That empricical revision would prove that empiricsm is correct all the time.

In order to prove that empiricism is flawed I only need to prove that you can fool some of the people some of the time (for if empiricism were flawless then I would not be able to fool anybody ever). I have already proven this. QED.

All you have proved that empiricism is flawed when flawed people use it.
If a person who has a particular perfect sense uses it, it is not flawed.
Under your example, a mop could be proved dangerous because some idiot will eventually poke his eye out with it.
A mop is not dangerous if used correctly- much like empiricism.

And you misunderstand that you have 'disproved' it.

So what? I might think that broccoli tastes terribly while somebody else thinks that broccoli is delicious. This in no ways proves that broccoli is not broccoli. Similarly, the cattle prod is still a cattle prod, regardless of what value judgments people make with regards to the cattle prod.

Correct there.

How are you defining "levels"? What empirical evidence can you provide to support your claim?

Levels as in the Subatomic, the molecular, the things that are made up of molecules, quarks, and spacial (as in space)
Things react differently in each level, therefore each level has its own truth which (this is not proven: reacts with each other through a 'cross linear level' which unites all the levels)

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
You don't have proof that nothing exists because it is impossible to disprove the fact that something exists.

What are you talking about? I never said that I have proof that nothing exists.

I can prove that a human may have perfect hearing. Or perfect Eyesight. For eyesight- look the the airforce's airmen!

Their eyesight is not perfect, as explained in the example I previously gave, as well as due to the Uncertainty Principle.

and Yes, you need to prove that NO HUMAN is perfect to disprove the fact that there is reality. For, if even 1 human is perfect who perceives the world as real, your argument falls apart- and it has.

All human senses are subject to the Uncertainty Principle. Therefore, all human senses are inherently flawed.

It is impossible to prove that ALL HUMANS are flawed ALL THE TIME because at least one human has 1 perfect sense.

I've proven that ALL HUMAN are flawed SOME OF THE TIME, therefore empiricism is flawed.

For sight- How good is his vision? Is he 20x20... 5x5 etc. Etc.
Easy to prove.

These are arbitrary measuring systems with no basis in reality. Disprove the Uncertainty Principle and you can prove that somebody has perfect vision. Find a reputable study that contradicts McConkie and Churchland and you might be able to build a case that perfect vision is possible.

"almost all the time" not all the time- thus you cannot fool everyone ALL the time.

Nobody was correct in all of the tests, or even for a majority of the tests.

Since there is nothing to replace the system People must use it. It is the most perfect of all systems.

People must use it but they must also recognize that it is flawed, rather than claiming proofs based solely on empirical evidence.

It wouldn't be self-contradictory if it did not use math to disprove math.

What?

You, for example are using empiricism to disprove empiricism, thus your system is self-contradictory and therefore useless.

My system does not rely on self-contradiction, rather my proof that your system is flawed relies on a contradiction inherent to your system.

You have two options: accept the empirical evidence that empiricism is flawed, or reject the empirical evidence that empiricism is flawed (thereby accepting that empiricism is flawed). You are forced to either accept that empiricism is flawed, or you are forced into a contradiction. Make your choice.

If empircism was disproved from something OUTSIDE the system, ti would call into question the entire system.

It is much more relevant to disprove empiricism from within the system, as I have done.

Prove that ALL people are perfect ALL of the time. For that matter, prove that ONE person is perfect ALL of the time (by disproving the Uncertainty Principle, or even by finding a reputable study that contradicts McConkie and Churchland).

Then why did you say it was FLAWED!

Because it has not been proven. Until it has been proven to be correct ALL of the time, it must be assumed to be flawed. That's what good science is all about.

You would therefore revise the evidence through further empiricsm. That empricical revision would prove that empiricsm is correct all the time.

Can't you see the contradiction in your statement? If empiricism is correct all of the time, then you wouldn't need to revise the evidence. You cannot reject empirical evidence by claiming that it is flawed while at the same time claiming that empiricism is perfect.

All you have proved that empiricism is flawed when flawed people use it.

And, since everybody is flawed, I've proved that empiricism is flawed. Disprove the Uncertainty Principle.

If a person who has a particular perfect sense uses it, it is not flawed.

And, since nobody has a single perfect sense, I've proved that empiricism is flawed. Find a study that contradicts McConkie and Churchland.

Under your example, a mop could be proved dangerous because some idiot will eventually poke his eye out with it.

Yup, this would prove that a mop is dangerous.

Dangerous: Being able to do harm.

If the mop is able to poke somebody's eye out, then it is dangerous.

A mop is not dangerous if used correctly- much like empiricism.

Humans are fundamentally incapable of using empiricism with perfection, since their senses are inherently flawed.

And you misunderstand that you have 'disproved' it.

How so?

Levels as in the Subatomic, the molecular, the things that are made up of molecules, quarks, and spacial (as in space)
Things react differently in each level, therefore each level has its own truth which (this is not proven: reacts with each other through a 'cross linear level' which unites all the levels)

Where's your evidence of this?

[Ramo]

I can prove that a human may have perfect hearing.

Impossible. The human ear only can only detect a limited volume range.

Or perfect Eyesight. For eyesight- look the the airforce's airmen!

I don't know any air force men who can see light outside of the range of visible light. Tell ya what, find me one of these airforce guys who can circumvent the diffraction limit of the angular resolution of his eyes.

If you can get this far, show me an experiment disproving the HUP.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ramo


Impossible. The human ear only can only detect a limited volume range.



I don't know any air force men who can see light outside of the range of visible light. Tell ya what, find me one of these airforce guys who can circumvent the diffraction limit of the angular resolution of his eyes.

If you can get this far, show me an experiment disproving the HUP.

Perfect- as in perfect within a good range.

If man could see all know all and hear all- he would be god... Withink the ragne of visible thoguth, man can see perfectly. Thus he can experience things clearly.

---
I'll get to technophile later.
---
However I'll add this statemnent to clarify my statment earlier about the refutations of systems.

If something is disproved by the system in itself, the disproval only calls into question that particular instance.

If something is disproved by antoher system which is accepted as correct, then it calls into question the whole system... And yes, it also calls in to question the accepted system.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Perfect- as in perfect within a good range.

That ain't perfect, then. If I say something like "I am a perfect free-throw shooter, where 'perfect' is defined as 'has at least a 30% free-throw percentage'," then don't you see that I've completely misapplied the term "perfect"? Similarly, you cannot say "Some people have perfect eyesight, where 'perfect' is defined as '20x20 vision'," because that is a gross misapplication of the term--perfect vision means perfect vision, not flawed vision, i.e. you don't have perfect vision unless you can see everything, and you've just admitted that humans cannot do this.

If man could see all know all and hear all- he would be god... Withink the ragne of visible thoguth, man can see perfectly. Thus he can experience things clearly.

If I'm stumbling around in a darkened room with tape over my ears and huge rubber gloves covering my hands, do I have perfect perception of the room? Of course not. So if man is metaphorically stumbling around the universe with senses that are only valid "within a certain range", then how can you say that man perfectly perceives the universe?

[Ramo]

Perfect- as in perfect within a good range.

There is no range (be it in frequencies, distances, whathaveyou) in which human vision is perfect. Under certain ranges, human vision may not contain significant errors, but that certainly doesn't imply that human vision is perfect within this range.

We're only dealing with a reasonably simple lense. There's nothing magical about it.

If man could see all know all and hear all- he would be god... Withink the ragne of visible thoguth, man can see perfectly

Visible thought?

If something is disproved by the system in itself, the disproval only calls into question that particular instance.

No, a system which is self-contradictory is logically false. Period. Full stop.

Again, the only thing an external contradiction proves is that either the system is wrong or the external data is wrong. In other words, it is not a definitive disproof. It's much weaker than finding an internal contradiction.

[reds4ever]

none of the above are 'givens,' as in proofs, lets get down to some proper 'givens'

here's a starter, we can go from there

AB = BA when A and B are real numbers

next?

[Ramo]

Only if you assume the accepted algebra of real numbers.

[Sava]

I don't think you are correct in saying the purpose of life is to reproduce. You would be correct in saying "The nature of life is too reproduce. Those that don't become extinct."

The scientific method is not flawed. The purpose is to theorize. Later, when something contradicts a theory, the theory is changed or completely proved false. The purpose is not to form law, but to theorize about the physical world.

[reds4ever]

no, i don't, i know seemingly straight forward proofs were called into question in the eighties, but i don't pretend to understand the math behind it, but YOU prove AB = BA when A and B are real numbers wrong.

in the mean time i'll stick with Euler, Gauss, Diophantine etc, it's all i get get my head around!

[Sava]

I do disagree with the statement that mathematics would be a universal language. The symbols we use to represent numbers are a language in itself. There are 10 characters 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 9 that form all numbers. Have you ever thought as to why we consider ten to be a sort of universal constant? Humans have ten fingers and ten toes. The math problem 10 * 10 * 10 seems easy because of the way our number system is organized. If humans had 12 numbers, I bet the numerical system would have 12 characters. 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,x, andy... (I'm just using them as variables). So in that system... the number 12 in the decimal system would be 10 in the 12digit system. Most computer users grasp this concept. If two mathematically literate species ever communicate, there will have to be a translation between the number system. It is not even a given that such a species would have the same mathematical concepts as humans. Did you know the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans had no concept of negative numbers. They didn't exist. What if there is another species that is trying to communicate mathematically using some kind of concept that would be as foreign to us as negative numbers were to the Greeks.

This could be a new thread entirely... I'll stop before I make my brain hurt more.

[reds4ever]

0 to 9 is just base 10, we can express numbers in any base, base 8 is octal, 16 is hex (0 to 9 and A to E), 2 binary ( 1 and 0)etc

but your right in that that's why it's instintive to multiply by 10

[Ramo]

no, i don't, i know seemingly straight forward proofs were called into question in the eighties, but i don't pretend to understand the math behind it, but YOU prove AB = BA when A and B are real numbers wrong.

I can't. That's part of the definition of real numbers; i.e, they're commutative. I'm just saying that the premise that "A & B are real numbers implies AB = BA" is true if and only if you define real numbers as commutative a priori (if you decide to call matrices "real numbers," the premise isn't true).

Saying "A & B are real numbers implies AB = BA" is indisputable is equivalent to saying that "coffee is caffinated beverage made from coffee beans" is indisputable.

[SnowFire]

I haven't dealt with a prime number in years. Forgive my mental lapse; do prime numbers have to be greater than 1 or 2?

The response already given is on target about having 2 distinct factors, but that's still a definitiony thing. Why not define primes to be numbers with 2 or less factors? How about the number -1? Etc. Primes are usually defined as numbers strictly greater than 1 with only 2 factors.

There are several reasons for this, but probably the best one is the fundamental theorem of algebra. Every number can be uniquely factored into primes, right? Well, if 1 is prime, this isn't true. 6 can be factored into 3*2, or 3*2*1, or 3*2*(1^2), etc. A prime is supposed to be an indivisible building block to build off of; not an identity like 1.

If you ever take Rings & Fields, or possibly Group Theory, you can see this there as well. When running around funky different fields or groups, you will still find a unique identity for the group operation, and in the case of fields, its own primes.

[Ramo]

Ah, thanks.