Member Discussions

LMAO. I can't even imagine the amount of time it took for you to type up that post. I'm glad to see that I mean that much to you ;)





What it all comes down to is this:

You believe everything exists. An example would be:

Pink Unicorns, with purple horns, live on the dark side of the moon, and eat radioactive lava, to survive.

Because I can think it, it exists.


Myself, and the rest of the scientific community, believe that, until you can prove it through observation(directly, or indirectly, via the 5 senses), it doesn't necessarily exist.

you cannot observe, directly, or indirectly, via the 5 senses, reason, or integers. you can only imagine them. They exist as a concept only, but they, themselves, do not exist.


Or, to put it another way, think about God.

According to you, he exists because people can imagine him. The scientific community holds that he has never been proven to exist, ie, he has never been observed, directly, or indirectly, via the 5 senses.



And before I leave, I challenge you to find 'the senses' that isn't the 5 senses. The stipulations are that it must be well known, and accepted, ie, if I walked up to someone on the street, and mentioned 'the senses', they would know what I was talking about without any explanation.

Remember, not simply a plural form of sense, but 'the senses'. I put forth that it doesn't exist. Oh, but wait, if you imagined it, then it does, doesn't it? *evil grin*


Before I leave:
I found your play by play to be amusing, especially the commentary. Your interpretation of the argument is amusing.

Oh, but wait, there were obviously two different arguments between us. You see, my interpretation is different from yours, so they both exist.


:)

Genteel wrote:
What it all comes down to is this:

You believe everything exists.

This is false of course, but I'll humor your justifications.

Genteel continued:
An example would be:

Pink Unicorns, with purple horns, live on the dark side of the moon, and eat radioactive lava, to survive.

Because I can think it, it exists.

The concept of this creature exists, this is surely true. Instances of it, however, are unproven. It would take observations beyond our means to prove the above assertions, but proving that a form of reason or integers was manifested would not.

Can you prove that your statements are based on sound reason? If so, we would be aware that reason was manifest in your statements, and I would be correct. If not, why the hell is anyone listening to you? You've failed it.

The concept of this creature exists, this is surely true. Instances of it, however, are unproven.

And with one post, I have you arguing my PoV.



It would take observations beyond our means to prove the above assertions, but proving that a form of reason or integers was manifested would not.

Observation is the act of observing[to observe]. to observe means to 'become aware of', by your own arguments. Since I am aware of the creature, it exists.

Therefore, the creature exists.




Can you prove that your statements are based on sound reason?

Perhaps you've forgotten, but I'm the one that stated reason doesn't exist except as a concept :)

I suspect that what you *meant* to ask is, are your statements valid, logically.


Are yours?

Therefore, the creature exists.
For you.

Genteel wrote:
Observation is the act of observing[to observe]. to observe means to 'become aware of', by your own arguments. Since I am aware of the creature, it exists.

Therefore, the creature exists.

No. You are only aware of a concept at that point, not of particular instances of that concept in reality.

I wrote:
Can you prove that your statements are based on sound reason?

Genteel wrote:
I suspect that what you *meant* to ask is, are your statements valid, logically.

I meant to ask exactly what I did. Well, are they?

Well, I'm a bit bored, so I though I would throw my 2 cents in for the moment.

How do you observe(direct, and indirect) something without it being via the 5 senses?

Wouldn't indirect observation include observing something by its effects?

The fact that it's a representation, but not actually an integer itself, is what makes your argument invalid.
...
We are confined by the languages that we use, both in speaking, and in programming, but that does not mean that the language *is* what it represents.

Obviously. Words refer to a concept. What boggles me about your arguments is that you concede that words represent something and then refer to it, but then you argue that the concept doesn't exist. How can something refer to something that doesn't exist?

You can't prove that integer's exist. Now, who has the burden of proof? Since you can't prove a negative, that means that *you* have the burden of proof.

I was always taught that if you are to say something is false, you must prove it as well. Otherwise, all you are doing is this:

x is not proven true.
if it is not proven true, it must be false
therefore, x is false.

Which sums up to an argument from ignorance.

The precedence in the scientific community also supports that view.

Whoa! Hold your horses! Now, did you just say this?

The question of whether or not integers exist is independant [my emphasis] of the paradigm used.

Ever since Thomas Kuhn wrote "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," it is clear that science itself is a paradigm. Now, if the existance of integers is independant of what any paradigm says, how can you support your argument that integers exist by the scientific community when science is a paradigm itself?

(Comment added by Razzer_9 on Sun Aug 1 16:42:51 2004)

Errr... in that last paragraph. It should be:

Now, if the existance of inegers is independant of what any paradigm says, how can you support your argument that integers don't exist by scientific community when science is a paradigm itself?

Emphasis added to previously left-out words.

Wouldn't indirect observation include observing something by its effects?

indirect observation would be using a microscope to view stem cells, etc. We use a tool to do the actual observation, although it's still via the 5 senses.

You can view what you think are the effects, but that doesn't make it so. Do we *really* have 'reason', or are we just extremely complex creatures, that react, and learn, to stimuli different ways based upon different inputs?

do we *really* know what reason is?




Obviously. Words refer to a concept. What boggles me about your arguments is that you concede that words represent something and then refer to it, but then you argue that the concept doesn't exist. How can something refer to something that doesn't exist?

Actually, I'm the one that's been saying from the beginning that the concept exists, but that doesn't mean it exists itself. Much like the unicorn living on the dark side of the moon :)


I was always taught that if you are to say something is false, you must prove it as well. Otherwise, all you are doing is this:

Let me repeat. You can't prove a negative. I stated that unicorns lived on the dark side of the moon and eat lava. You can prove they exist, but you can never prove that they don't exist. It's the same with the concept of God. The best you can do is state that there is no evidence that he exists.

This is a common concept, and is well accepted.

Whoa! Hold your horses! Now, did you just say this?

Yes I did ;)



Ever since Thomas Kuhn wrote 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,' it is clear that science itself is a paradigm. Now, if the existance of integers is independant of what any paradigm says, how can you support your argument that integers exist by the scientific community when science is a paradigm itself?

Because Math is a philosophical system. When I stated paradigm, I meant paradigm in reference to CS.


No. You are only aware of a concept at that point, not of particular instances of that concept in reality.

What is reality?

I meant to ask exactly what I did. Well, are they?


Are your's?

Genteel wrote:
Let me repeat. You can't prove a negative.

Yes you can, by proving something that is contradictory to it. For example, by showing how the moon doesn't have any lava.

Genteel wrote:
What is reality?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reality.

I wrote, in reference to arguments based on reason:
I meant to ask exactly what I did. Well, are they?

Genteel replied:
Are your's?

Funny how you're so backed into a corner that you can't answer a simple question. My answer is yes, of course, unless you can show where they're not.

No liability is yours. This would be no different than if they were having an affair in your resteraunt. Even if the adult is commintting an illegal act, still, no liability is yours. Personally, I would strongly advise the adult to discontinue the relationship based on ethical conduct. I would even be abusive. Then I would ban both parties from entrance to the MUD and websight.

Yes you can, by proving something that is contradictory to it. For example, by showing how the moon doesn't have any lava.


I dunno. That's a lot like saying people don't exist in the desert because of a lack of water.

What if those unicorns are extremely intelligent?


The best you can do is state that, according to the evidence, chances are that lava eating unicorn's don't really live on the dark side of the moon. That does not mean that lava eating unicorn's living on the dark side of the moon do not exist, only that we haven't found them yet.

To prove a negative would require an infinite amount of time. We do not have an infinite amount of time, we live in a finite world.


This is where Atheists go wrong. They'll never prove that God doesn't exist. It's impossible. It is, however, possible to prove that he does exist(something that hasn't been done yet).

You cannot prove a negative. The most you can do is state that, according the the *current* evidence, the proposition is highly unlikely, but not impossible.




to finish this up:

1) which definition of reality are you referring to.

2) what do you mean by 'reasonable argument'?

You cannot prove a negative.

Do you ever listen to yourself? If you cannot prove a negative, how do you prove the above negative statement? If it cannot be proven by your claims, how can it be true?

(Comment added by Razzer_9 on Mon Aug 2 16:23:20 2004)

If it cannot be proven by your claims, how can it be true?

Of course, that could be worded better:

By your claims, your statement cannot be proven true. So, how can your statement be true?

razzer, allow me to quote myself.


To prove a negative would require an infinite amount of time. We do not have an infinite amount of time, we live in a finite world.


There are an infinite number of possibilities, which require's an infinite amount of time to explore all of them, and you must explore all of them in order to prove the negative. Therefore, it requires an infinite amount of time to prove a negative. Since we live in an finite universe, it cannot be done. The best we can do is explore a finite amount of possibilities, and conclude that the likelihood of it being true is low.

What you're asking is more of a philosophical question. Perhaps I should have qualified what I mean by saying, in term's of logic, ie, in the philosophical system we call mathematics, you cannot prove a negative.

Intelligent Human Beings ∈ A
¬Genteel ∈ A
∴
∃ ¬

Thank you.

Genteel questioned:
1) which definition of reality are you referring to.

Hey man, you asked me. Why don't you go with the definition you already brought forth to use?

Genteel wrote:
2. That which is real; an actual existence; that which is not imagination, fiction, or pretense; that which has objective existence, and is not merely an idea.

Genteel continued:
2) what do you mean by 'reasonable argument'?

An argument that fits the definition of reasonable, of course. If you're next going to reply "What is reasonable?", you should probably go look it up in the dictionary and use the definition that suits you. It doesn't matter which definition you use, as answering either way means you've lost the argument.

Intelligent Human Beings ∈ A
¬Genteel ∈ A
∴
∃ ¬

I'm not understanding your conclusion.




Hey man, you asked me. Why don't you go with the definition you already brought forth to use?

Yes, I did ask you. You didn't answer me, so let me ask again.


Which definition of reality are you referring to?




An argument that fits the definition of reasonable, of course. If you're next going to reply 'What is reasonable?', you should probably go look it up in the dictionary and use the definition that suits you. It doesn't matter which definition you use, as answering either way means you've lost the argument.


Which definition are you referring to?

(Comment added by Genteel on Tue Aug 3 9:43:36 2004)

It seems you somehow skipped over this in my previous post, so here it is again, for your viewing pleasure ;)



And before I leave, I challenge you to find 'the senses' that isn't the 5 senses. The stipulations are that it must be well known, and accepted, ie, if I walked up to someone on the street, and mentioned 'the senses', they would know what I was talking about without any explanation.

Genteel, also allow me to quote myself:

If you cannot prove a negative, how do you prove the above negative statement?

(Of course, this question was referring to your statement: "You cannot prove a negative.")

You still haven't answered this question. I don't want to know why you can't prove a negative (which is not true anyway). I want to know how you can prove your negative statement.

I wrote:
Hey man, you asked me. Why don't you go with the definition you already brought forth to use?

Genteel wrote:
Yes, I did ask you. You didn't answer me, so let me ask again.

Which definition of reality are you referring to?

I don't mind using the definition that you put forth. I'll use it, then.

I wrote:
An argument that fits the definition of reasonable, of course. If you're next going to reply 'What is reasonable?', you should probably go look it up in the dictionary and use the definition that suits you. It doesn't matter which definition you use, as answering either way means you've lost the argument.

Genteel replied:
Which definition are you referring to?

If you can adequately answer the question using any of the definitions, I will be satisfied. In other words, pick the definition that is most advantageous to you. If you're really unable to do so, I'll choose what I think is a logical definition: "Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem."

Genteel wrote:
It seems you somehow skipped over this in my previous post, so here it is again, for your viewing pleasure ;)

And before I leave, I challenge you to find 'the senses' that isn't the 5 senses. The stipulations are that it must be well known, and accepted, ie, if I walked up to someone on the street, and mentioned 'the senses', they would know what I was talking about without any explanation.

I didn't skip over it -- I already provided an answer in several other replies. I stated it was simply a plural of 'sense'.

I'm not understanding your conclusion.
Obviously that was a joke using math notations just to point out there is negation in math and that it's used often.

So, if I were to say:

Theorem a: ∀ F(x) ∃ x | x+x ≡ 3x

You would only need to find a single x that does not fit the theorem to negate it. What does that means? Well; ¬a and if ¬∧a, there is ¬

So you are saying that you have negated your own statement, Soulwynd?

.....Okay, that's all I've got, other then the prerequisite French Military Victories joke.

On the joke, yeah. That was the point of the joke... Kinda like saying "This phrase is false" but that's a commie philosophical flaw.

In that case Razzer, I'm simply going to ignore you from here on out :)


I'll get to you later Yui, I'm in a hurry.


Obviously that was a joke using math notations just to point out there is negation in math and that it's used often.

That is not what's meant when you say 'you can't prove a negative'.

I gave an example, and explained why, within the bounds of logic, it's impossible.


You cannot prove God doesn't exist. That would be 'proving a negative'. This is not the same as showing that a theorem is formally flawed, meaning, it doesn't agree with the rest of the system(math).

If I were claiming that negation didn't exist in math, the fact that there's a negation sign(I'm assuming that's what the ¬ was), is enough to show that's incorrect.

¬ = ~ = Negation, originaly ... They use ¬ for negation so you don't confuse it with 'roughtly/almost equal' which is the modern use for ~

But in math, you can prove negations of functions and fundamentaly, you can prove that something is not equal to something else, which is a negation anyway.

Speaking on the subject you're discussing right now, modern physics assumes something doesn't exist until there's evidence of the oposite. It's an okay stance IMO but creates the modern paradigm that nothing exists outside our knowledge and that our knowledge shows us what exists.
The problem is; People find things with the physics theorems and start to believe they exist like black holes, worm holes, light always move at 'c' from everything including itself, big bang and finaly santa claws. Astronomers ocasionaly stumble upon what 'may be' a black hole but it's often proved to be something else.

Oh well, I feel like eating pizza now.

¬ = ~ = Negation, originaly ... They use ¬ for negation so you don't confuse it with 'roughtly/almost equal' which is the modern use for ~

You're talking about an equivalence relation, which is signified with ~, as you stated. I've just never seen that notation for a negation, I've seen ~, ', and, of course, the world famous exclamation point :P



But in math, you can prove negations of functions and fundamentaly, you can prove that something is not equal to something else, which is a negation anyway.

Yes you can, but all you're basically doing is proving whether it's valid, or invalid, within the a system(whether it keeps the system consistent). That's why math is a philosophy, albeit, a very consistent one.

A good example of this would be three-point gemoetry. There are several theorems in three-point geometry that are valid within that system, but become invalid within euclidean geometry.




Speaking on the subject you're discussing right now, modern physics assumes something doesn't exist until there's evidence of the oposite. It's an okay stance IMO but creates the modern paradigm that nothing exists outside our knowledge and that our knowledge shows us what exists.
The problem is; People find things with the physics theorems and start to believe they exist like black holes, worm holes, light always move at 'c' from everything including itself, big bang and finaly santa claws. Astronomers ocasionaly stumble upon what 'may be' a black hole but it's often proved to be something else.

I'm not really that familiar with a lot of the higher level physics stuff, but I've often been told about a theory that involves putting an object in a box, and then asking if that object really exists. To me, I see the point, but I just can't get past my initial reaction of: 'Of course it does.'


Oh well, I feel like eating pizza now.

Pizza's a lot like sex. Even when it's bad, it's still pretty damn good ;)





2. That which is real; an actual existence; that which is not imagination, fiction, or pretense; that which has objective existence, and is not merely an idea.

What does it mean to have actual existence?


If you can adequately answer the question using any of the definitions, I will be satisfied. In other words, pick the definition that is most advantageous to you. If you're really unable to do so, I'll choose what I think is a logical definition: 'Governed by or being in accordance with reason or sound thinking: a reasonable solution to the problem.'


What does it mean to have 'sound thinking'?





I didn't skip over it -- I already provided an answer in several other replies. I stated it was simply a plural of 'sense'.

oh, ok. Since you agree with me that 'the sense' refers to the 5 senses, I guess I'll let it drop :)

Genteel questioned:
What does it mean to have actual existence?

What does it mean to have 'sound thinking'?

You must be confused. I'm not your personal dictionary. If you don't know what something means, you go look it up. If this is the best you can muster seven posts after I pointed out [one of] the fatal flaws in your argument, you've still failed it.

I wrote:
I didn't skip over it -- I already provided an answer in several other replies. I stated it was simply a plural of 'sense'.

Genteel wrote:
oh, ok. Since you agree with me that 'the sense' refers to the 5 senses, I guess I'll let it drop :)

No, I don't agree with you. You just can't read well enough to understand why.

You must be confused. I'm not your personal dictionary. If you don't know what something means, you go look it up. If this is the best you can muster seven posts after I pointed out [one of] the fatal flaws in your argument, you've still failed it.

So does that mean you're giving me permission to explain your argument?


No, I don't agree with you. You just can't read well enough to understand why.

The alternative is that you can't do it.

Wonder why you didn't choose that possibility...

;)

I officially declare that I've schooled you, so, uh, go back to school, fool...

God I'm witty.