Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2015, 01:39 PM
Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
"That which can Never be proven is false."

First, let's get the grammar out of the way.

Proved; not proven.

As for the thought itself, I believe philosophically and objectively this is a false statement.

For this statement to be correct, it should read, "That which can Never be proved is neither true nor false."

Thoughts?

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 02:07 PM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
This is a false statement.

The statement above is beyond proof - it is neither true nor false, even though the assertion of its semantics appear to give it that property.

Shadow's signature would say it is false because it cannot be proved, but it obviously isn't false. It isn't true, either, but it isn't false. So his signature is not taking certain possibilities into account and is therefore too broad a generalization.

It is a matter of high statistical likelihood that each breath of air we breathe contains molecules that were breathed by Ceasar (for all the good it does us), but there's no way to prove it beyond a statistical probability. Molecules don't have serial numbers stamped on them, and even if they did, Ceasar didn't keep staff keeping records of which molecules passed through his system.

So that's another thing beyond the reach of "proof" in the ironclad sense, but is regarded as true because of our experience with statistical outcomes.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Airportkid's post
23-02-2015, 02:29 PM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 01:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  "That which can Never be proven is false."

First, let's get the grammar out of the way.

Proved; not proven.

Actually, not so much. No hard rule on that one.

(23-02-2015 01:39 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  ...
As for the thought itself, I believe philosophically and objectively this is a false statement.

For this statement to be correct, it should read, "That which can Never be proved is neither true nor false."

Thoughts?

Or probably more accurate to say "That which will Never be proven true is false."

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
23-02-2015, 02:33 PM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
Define "proven". Angel
Something could be true but beyond "proof". Ie, something that happened only once could never be proven, yet is/was/could have been absolutely true.
Drinking Beverage

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
23-02-2015, 03:20 PM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 02:29 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Actually, not so much. No hard rule on that one.

"Proven" is usually used as an adjective.

Quote:Or probably more accurate to say "That which will Never be proven true is false."

While that is correct, it's not the whole sentiment. It's leaving out the other half of the subject matter which I believe is necessary for the actual thought.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 06:07 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2015 06:15 PM by Shadow Fox.)
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
It is a clear statement that debunks any and all negative claims as being false.

I am not a grammar nazi so whatever way works best for grammatical wise would be appreciated for me to rewrite it.


Let me give you an example of why it is true and how it points out how utterly pointless and false certain unprofitable claims are.

Let us say that we have a man whom believes in a deity. He claims that deity created the universe! So far, this is a pretty big positive claim. It does not reach into extraordinary by that in and of itself. Now he tells us that it not only exists outside of time and space, but even in a Google earth years, we could never possibly detect, discover or have any possibility to finding out-with science, whether or not it exists.

Then tells us that we do not have afterlives and the god has never once interacted with the universe in any way other than creating it.

This is that which can never be proven...or "proved" as I guess you put it? I am not quite 100% sure the exact difference. I will have to go and read the difference between the tense of both words. I am guessing proved is future tense?

Anyway, there is no such thing as something that can never be proved. Even if the Christian god does exist, we can still prove it "at least to ourselves" when we die and find out that dick wad is sending us to hell lol.

This is not quite like Hitchens Razor where it claims you can dismiss anything without evidence if it itself has no evidence. It cannot quite easily be fit into many religious claims. But, it is an excellent way to completely discredit any and all solipsist claims. Brain in a jar, Matrix, everything created last week.

How can we prove that is not the case? We cannot. That would be impossible, There is no possibility for evidence, We cannot settle it by experiment, therefor it is false. I was thinking of some kind of philosophical line of reasoning to be able to combat the brain in a jar concept. I have been watching a few videos and it came up couple of times and made me angry. So, that one came to mind and it seems to make perfect sense to me.

Also, there is no such thing as something that is neither true or false. That lies in the realm of what we do not already know. This is NOT an argument from ignorance dear people! There can only be three possible things in and outside of the universe. Things that are true/exist, things that are false/don't exist, and that which we do not know. It does not matter if we do not know it or not. If it exists, it can be proven given enough time.
For example, just because someone believes in creationism does not make it true. Things that are true and false are objective outside of what we know and believe regardless of what they are. You cannot have something that is Both true AND false, nor can you have something that is both because that would contradict each other and thus, a paradox is born. From what we know about the laws of physics, bad stuff happens when a paradox happens.
So! Since we are all talking! Let's get to work on refining it a bit ( if that is, you agree with this reasoning).

How should the grammar go to make it make the most sense?


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 06:13 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2015 06:30 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:07 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Anyway, there is no such thing as something that can never be proved. ... You cannot have something that is Both true AND false ... if that is, you agree with this reasoning.

There are lots of problems with this reasoning. An obvious one is it fails to account for paradoxes. Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?

(23-02-2015 06:07 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  From what we know about the laws of physics, bad stuff happens when a paradox happens.

In logic, great advances are made when a paradox is encountered. Tongue

(23-02-2015 06:07 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Anyway, there is no such thing as something that can never be proved. ... But, it is an excellent way to completely discredit any and all solipsist claims.

And the solipsist would counter "there is no such thing as something which can ever be proven." although it's not clear why they would even bother.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
23-02-2015, 06:27 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2015 06:31 PM by Shadow Fox.)
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-02-2015 06:07 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Anyway, there is no such thing as something that can never be proved. ... You cannot have something that is Both true AND false ... if that is, you agree with this reasoning.

There are lots of problems with this reasoning. An obvious one is it fails to account for paradoxes. Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves contain itself?

(23-02-2015 06:07 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  From what we know about the laws of physics, bad stuff happens when a paradox happens.

In logic, great advances are made when a paradox is encountered. Tongue

Everything breaks down in the face of a paradox. Including negative claims and razors alike. Whether they be logical ones, or a physics paradox.

(23-02-2015 06:07 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Anyway, there is no such thing as something that can never be proved. ... But, it is an excellent way to completely discredit any and all solipsist claims.

Quote:And the solipsist would counter "there is no such thing as something which can ever be proven." although it wouldn't make a lot of sense for them to even bother.

The moment you tell them to prove it, it redirects back at my razor, then the first one to throw out Occam's and hitchens razors wins!



@KC

I like your doggie Sig. It makes me happy with its flappy wet face!


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 06:34 PM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:27 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(23-02-2015 06:13 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  In logic, great advances are made when a paradox is encountered. Tongue

Everything breaks down in the face of a paradox. Including negative claims and razors alike. Whether they be logical ones, or a physics paradox.

Methinks you underestimate the power of paradox.

Finally, the development of axiomatic (as opposed to naïve) set theories which exhibit various ingenious and mathematically and philosophically significant ways of dealing with Russell's paradox paved the way for stunning results in the metamathematics of set theory. These results have included Gödel's and Cohen's theorems on the independence of the axiom of choice and Cantor's continuum hypothesis.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-02-2015, 06:41 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2015 06:53 PM by Shadow Fox.)
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-02-2015 06:27 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Everything breaks down in the face of a paradox. Including negative claims and razors alike. Whether they be logical ones, or a physics paradox.

Methinks you underestimate the power of paradox.

Finally, the development of axiomatic (as opposed to naïve) set theories which exhibit various ingenious and mathematically and philosophically significant ways of dealing with Russell's paradox paved the way for stunning results in the metamathematics of set theory. These results have included Gödel's and Cohen's theorems on the independence of the axiom of choice and Cantor's continuum hypothesis.

I will read that later. Gotta go to meh english comp II class in about a half an hour or so lol.

....might take a while to get through it all.


*Edit*
Methinks Paradox's underestimates the power of ME! lol.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: