"Conservatives only use hate & fear while Liberals use logic & reason."

[Drogue]

Originally posted by skywalker
x^2 does equal x when x is 1 or 0

You can interchange x and 1 if x = 1

He's wrong, but your reasons that he is wrong are also wrong

Yes it does, but then it must hold for both.

(x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
x + 1 = 1

Does not hold when x is replaced with 1.

I can't explain it right, but the answer is consistancy. There are built in logic in maths that menas that 1 cannot equal 2, because it would involve inconsistency. It's too late for me to work it out, and I can't remember the lecture on it, but I do remember it was consistancy that means his proof does not hold water.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes, relativism in moderation makes sense. Where moderation lies is another discussion...

My point was that relativism in the absolute sense was untrue, because there ARE absolute truths.

[Whaleboy]

(x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
x + 1 = 1

Drogue: Put simply, you cant divide both sides by (x - 1).

Elijah - if it's internally consistent, it CANNOT claim things like 1 = 2. By definition, every single distinct number is only equal to itself.

Only for this universe, or rather better put, this plane of perception. Dont get me into metaphysics. Thats the beauty of consistent world views . Its like philosophical postmodernism.. it really is everything!

He's wrong, but your reasons that he is wrong are also wrong

The difference is that I'm deliberately wrong! We spend ages in GCSE maths trying to come up with flawed proofs for absurd conclusions!

No they don't. You need to be consistant.

Spelling Nazi is still sleeping. By definition, you change the rules of logic, you get different conclusions and a different consistency.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Drogue

Yes it does, but then it must hold for both.

(x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
x + 1 = 1

Does not hold when x is replaced with 1.

I can't explain it right, but the answer is consistancy. There are built in logic in maths that menas that 1 cannot equal 2, because it would involve inconsistency. It's too late for me to work it out, and I can't remember the lecture on it, but I do remember it was consistancy that means his proof does not hold water.

It does hold given the (false) premise that 1 + 1 = 1. He just left out a step. (x-1)(x+1) = (x-1)*1 = x-1

I know 1 != 2. That is a fundamental truth, a way of expressing the fundamental truth "What is, is". However, your arguments against his math are incorrect. His math is incorrect, just not where you are criticizing it (though your ultimate criticism is correct, 1 != 2).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
Only for this universe, or rather better put, this plane of perception. Dont get me into metaphysics. Thats the beauty of consistent world views . Its like philosophical postmodernism.. it really is everything!

THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSE where the statement "what is, is" is untrue. Thus, THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSE where the statement "1 = 2" is true.

The difference is that I'm deliberately wrong! We spend ages in GCSE maths trying to come up with flawed proofs for absurd conclusions!

The "you" in that was referring to Drogue.

[Drogue]

Originally posted by elijah
(x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
x + 1 = 1

Drogue: Put simply, you cant divide both sides by (x - 1).

You could if you hadn't written x=1 at the top, which was my (badly put) point.

Originally posted by skywalker
It does hold given the (false) premise that 1 + 1 = 1. He just left out a step. (x-1)(x+1) = (x-1)*1 = x-1

I know 1 != 2. That is a fundamental truth, a way of expressing the fundamental truth "What is, is". However, your arguments against his math are incorrect. His math is incorrect, just not where you are criticizing it (though your ultimate criticism is correct, 1 != 2).

I know you know that, and I know your position. WHat I said was true, which is why you cannot do the /0. I didn't explain it well though, sicne it's late, and I never explain maths, I just do it. However it is inconsistency, in that without the x=1 at the top, the math would hold.

[Whaleboy]

Yes, relativism in moderation makes sense. Where moderation lies is another discussion...

My point was that relativism in the absolute sense was untrue, because there ARE absolute truths.

Absolute implies absolutely n-dimensionally infinite. Infinite means beyond 4-dimensions, as our infinities are finite in 5+ dimensions. You are making the classic mistake of assuming that we are merely dealing with this universe.

That simply doesn't hold in cosmological terms. Already, our universe is insufficient. Put simply, there are no absolute truths, even that notion that there are none is false for other universes, but then they are subjective and the circle continues.

As such, all we are left with, instead of x (set number) dimensions, is n.

ITS FLAWED MATHS PEOPLE!!! You don't honestly think I'd seriously try to prove that 1+1=1??

[Whaleboy]

Originally posted by elijah
(x - 1)(x + 1) = x - 1
x + 1 = 1

Drogue: Put simply, you cant divide both sides by (x - 1).

We spent ages in GCSE maths trying to come up with flawed proofs for absurd conclusions!

'poly madness!!!

[Kuciwalker]

Absolute implies absolutely n-dimensionally infinite. Infinite means beyond 4-dimensions, as our infinities are finite in 5+ dimensions. You are making the classic mistake of assuming that we are merely dealing with this universe.

wtf?

Just dealing with "our universe"? By definition, there is only one universe, because the universe is defined as the set of all that exists.

Laws of logic are inherently true, because truth is defined through logic and therefore there is no conception of truth without logic.

[Whaleboy]

Just dealing with "our universe"?

Let me rephrase. You are dealing with the region for which 4-dimensional time applies, is 14 billion years old and directly affected by the big bang.

The "laws of logic" only hold for this universe, and not even all of it!! Ever been to a black hole? 5-d in 4-d.

[Whaleboy]

THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSE where the statement "what is, is" is untrue. Thus, THERE CAN BE NO UNIVERSE where the statement "1 = 2" is true.

Why not? Because the laws of this "universe" (see above definition) say so?

You wouldn't get very far in metaphysics or cosmology with that attitude .

[Kuciwalker]

Black holes are not five dimensional... where'd you get an idea like that? Unless the universe itself is five-dimensional...

If you are using "universe" to refer to our spacetime, it still doesn't work. The physical laws of the universe must be uniform. Communication between areas with different physical laws would be impossible, and thus we could not detect their existance, and therefore they do not exist.

Logic is inherently true, because truth is defined through logic.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah


Why not? Because the laws of this "universe" (see above definition) say so?

You wouldn't get very far in metaphysics or cosmology with that attitude .

"what is, is not" is internally inconsistant

[Whaleboy]

Why do threads involving me always turn into debates about metaphysics and or cosmology? *elijah ignores the perpetual fascination he has had with space -> astronomy -> astrophysics -> cosmology -> eurotrash for the past 16 years*

[Kuciwalker]

Because you always talk about relativism?

[Whaleboy]

Black holes are not five dimensional... where'd you get an idea like that? Unless the universe itself is five-dimensional...

General relativity and Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle. Where else? . The universe as you put it is n dimensional. Our "realm" is five, we can perceive four. Any point of infinity or even superlumliality in our universe is statically five dimensional. Anyone living on that plane would be in a 6 dimensional universe, perceiving 5.

If you are using "universe" to refer to our spacetime, it still doesn't work. The physical laws of the universe must be uniform. Communication between areas with different physical laws would be impossible, and thus we could not detect their existance, and therefore they do not exist.

No. Indeed it is theoretically possible to communicate using superlumial means!! . The horizon problem (and the failure of the botched up 4-d explanations) is proof of a five dimensional plane of existence. Our perception is four remember. Indeed, in a five-dimensional realm, logic is by definition different as it adopts other fourth dimensions. Its like we're all living on the side of one sheet of paper, but the tree can produce many.

Logic is inherently true, because truth is defined through logic

We're going to be here for a while. Logic is inherently true for a given context, in this case, our realm. It isn't the case for all, indeed, we can conceive of situations where it wont as I am, so its even possible for us!!!

[Whaleboy]

Because you always talk about relativism?

You are trying to show me why relativism isn't ultimately true, by trying to show me that there are ultimate objectives in this universe. I know otherwise. How does this affect liberalism vs conservatism, where I have said that in that particular context, both positions and their conceptual daddys have their limits, thus one cannot be liberal and absolutely relativist ( ), though of course, that is by definition impossible anyway in this realm. Hence circle!!! Broken by n-dimensions.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
General relativity and Heisenbergs Uncertainty principle. Where else? . The universe as you put it is n dimensional. Our "realm" is five, we can perceive four. Any point of infinity or even superlumliality in our universe is statically five dimensional. Anyone living on that plane would be in a 6 dimensional universe, perceiving 5.

You mean the wave function representing the universe is n-dimensional. The number of spacial dimensions is consistent at every point - it has to be.

No. Indeed it is theoretically possible to communicate using superlumial means!! . The horizon problem (and the failure of the botched up 4-d explanations) is proof of a five dimensional plane of existence. Our perception is four remember. Indeed, in a five-dimensional realm, logic is by definition different as it adopts other fourth dimensions. Its like we're all living on the side of one sheet of paper, but the tree can produce many.

That's not what I'm talking about. If you have two "regions of space" with different laws of physics, a particle from one cannot affect, or enter, another. Thus no communiction, thus no detection.

We're going to be here for a while. Logic is inherently true for a given context, in this case, our realm. It isn't the case for all, indeed, we can conceive of situations where it wont as I am, so its even possible for us!!!

Logic is ALWAYS true because truth is defined through logic. You cannot have truth independent of logic.

[Whaleboy]

Anyways, gotta go sleep (wont be hard).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by elijah
You are trying to show me why relativism isn't ultimately true, by trying to show me that there are ultimate objectives in this universe. I know otherwise. How does this affect liberalism vs conservatism, where I have said that in that particular context, both positions and their conceptual daddys have their limits, thus one cannot be liberal and absolutely relativist ( ), though of course, that is by definition impossible anyway in this realm. Hence circle!!! Broken by n-dimensions.

No. There ARE objective truths. Relativism relies on logic; for it to say logic is not always true means that relativism is not always true. Relativism claims that it is true, yet the consequences of it being true are that it isn't true all of the time.

[Whaleboy]

No. There ARE objective truths. Relativism relies on logic; for it to say logic is not always true means that relativism is not always true. Relativism claims that it is true, yet the consequences of it being true are that it isn't true all of the time

But thats what I've been saying all along!! Its impossible to have an absolute relativism, for two reasons. One is that it is a contradiction in terms, secondly is because the logic is not absolute and infinitely true that would facilitate an infinitely true relativism.

However, the fact that logic is not infinitely true actually enables some forms of relativism to exist at a lower level. Lower down we have "classic" relativism, where logic is canonical for all intents and purposes (this 4d realm), but interpretations, and what people do with it, is not, and all is equally valid.

Bare in mind on that level, logic and be used to justify and refute literally anything. I can back up the Borg as strongly as I do libertarianism. It just happens that I choose lib. thanks to my personal disposition.

You are describing the relativist paradox. It is ironic that if your argument were true, it would allow an absolute relativism! . That paradox is flawed though because at infinity, relativism is self defeating. I think I can live with that!

[Whaleboy]

Incidentally, your "get out of jail free" card is if you hold the belief, like a religion, that logic is independent to the universe.

Firstly while that implies extra dimensions, nothing can be truly independent. Where does it come from? You are looking at other realms with your own 4-d viewpoint and assuming the same rules to apply. A quick fiddle with the Planck length will sort that out for you. Still, if it is one of your inherent suppositions, like a belief in god, then I'm not going to be able to critique that out of your mind.

Anyways, really must sleep!

[GePap]

1=1 isn't an absolute truth, it is a definition.

Math does not give us absolute truths: it models things, yes, but it is not an absolute truth.

So lets ge rid of the Math, it's boooring.

[GePap]

Another things, a fact is not a truth. Given the right question, it is the correct answer, no more.

Last time I looked, no one is arguing that gravity sin;t saw and that the laws of physics are not real when they speak about moral relativism, or even philosophical relativsm.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap
Another things, a fact is not a truth. Given the right question, it is the correct answer, no more.

Last time I looked, no one is arguing that gravity sin;t saw and that the laws of physics are not real when they speak about moral relativism, or even philosophical relativsm.

Cannot use any plural word with the word 'another' in the context of your particular use.

eg: another thing -- not another things
Sincerely,


Grammar Nazi

[GePap]

Blah, blah, blah.

I say, a grammar Nuremburg!

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
1=1 isn't an absolute truth, it is a definition.

Math does not give us absolute truths: it models things, yes, but it is not an absolute truth.

So lets ge rid of the Math, it's boooring.

A definition is an absolute truth.

But 1=1 is just another way of saying "What is, is".

[GePap]

A definition is an absolute truth.

No it is not, anymore than a chair is. You could very well say: This chair is real, thus there is an absolute truth! Why, cause the chair is!

But the point is, the chair just exists. Turth implies judgement, and an opposite as well, not the truth, or a lie. Stating that there is a "real" world of facts and figures does not validate the notion of meanings having an absolute objective value. 1=1 just is, it implies no value judgement, no morality..in short, it implies nothing beyond itself.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by MrFun


Cannot use any plural word with the word 'another' in the context of your particular use.

eg: another thing -- not another things
Sincerely,


Grammar Nazi

Dear Sir,

Our client, Mr. Boris Godunov, is hereby filing an injunction to prohibit further use of the moniker "Grammar Nazi" as your own. Mr. Godunov has previously been identified as the Grammar Nazi, and your blatant disregard for his trademark must cease immediately. Mr. Godunov further stresses that random grammatical corrections such as the above are completely unfunny, as the Grammar Nazi would only strike when correcting someone's poor syntax would be amusing in the context (i.e., someone complaining about a misuse of language). Furthermore, the above "correction" is itself grammatically incorrect, as the first sentence is missing the appropriate subject (i.e., "You cannot..." or "One cannot...," the redundant utilization of the word "use," etc.).

Any further use of the Grammar Nazi trademark will result in litigation.

Sincerely,

Messrs. Squire, Squire, Hackem and Dudley, Esqs.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Dear Sir,

Our client, Mr. Boris Godunov, is hereby filing an injunction to prohibit further use of the moniker "Grammar Nazi" as your own. Mr. Godunov has previously been identified as the Grammar Nazi, and your blatant disregard for his trademark must cease immediately. Mr. Godunov further stresses that random grammatical corrections such as the above are completely unfunny, as the Grammar Nazi would only strike when correcting someone's poor syntax would be amusing in the context (i.e., someone complaining about a misuse of language). Furthermore, the above "correction" is itself grammatically incorrect, as the first sentence is missing the appropriate subject (i.e., "You cannot..." or "One cannot...," the redundant utilization of the word "use," etc.).

Any further use of the Grammar Nazi trademark will result in litigation.

Sincerely,

Messrs. Squire, Squire, Hackem and Dudley, Esqs.

Dear Asswipe:


I don't give an iota what you think of this.


Sincerely,

MrFun