Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
23-02-2015, 06:43 PM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:41 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  
(23-02-2015 06:34 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  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.

Took me several years and a lot of spoon feeding at uni as a PHIL major. But I ain't the sharpest tool in the shed.

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, 06:46 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:  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, ...

And the solipsist will just smile bemusedly thinking what I just said was not heard.

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, 06:56 PM (This post was last modified: 23-02-2015 07:01 PM by Shadow Fox.)
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:46 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(23-02-2015 06:27 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  The moment you tell them to prove it, ...

And the solipsist will just smile bemusedly thinking what I just said was not heard.

Except he heard it, because he is the only person in the universe to exist. lol

...or..wait...You never SAID a thing! you wrote it!


*Edit*

The funny thing is I was hoping someone would comment on my sig, that way I can refine it to be better.


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, 08:34 PM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:56 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  The funny thing is I was hoping someone would comment on my sig, that way I can refine it to be better.

Fair enough.

"That which cannot be demonstrably shown is suspect."

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
24-02-2015, 07:49 AM
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.

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?

Nope. There are true statements of mathematics for which there can be no proof.

You can thank Kurt Gödel. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-02-2015, 08:09 AM (This post was last modified: 24-02-2015 08:20 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
A softer form of this statement would be Hitchen's razor: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence[1].

However, I would lean towards Shadowfox on this one. I think there is a legitimate way to define "true" that matches his proposition. In a strictly mathematical sense we might say that a proposition is true if it follows from the axioms... but Gödel applies. We cannot know whether any arbitrary proposition follows from the axioms... and besides the real world doesn't have axioms we can so easily derive truth from.

In the real world it would seem that truth is inherently unknowable, and our best approximation is the provisional truth that follows from the scientific method. That is, provisional truth is the set of hypotheses with the least total burden of undemonstrated assumption that has consistently made predictions consistent with experimental result and have made significant surprising predictions in their own right that have been confirmed. I don't know how to justify anything as being "true" in the real world that doesn't meet that definition, and I don't know of any definition that brings us closer to "true" in the real world.

Can that which cannot advance provisional truth ever be considered true?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitchens%27s_razor

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Hafnof's post
24-02-2015, 08:25 AM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:07 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  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?

As for the grammar... while DLJ is technically correct... either word can be used, the more proper way to use the words is "proven" as an adjective and "proved" as a verb. It is much along the lines of the nauseated vs nauseous debate. The incorrect word has become "correct" simply out of popular use.

Anyway, I still disagree on the statement.

It's a paradox. Every possibility should be given credence no matter how absurd. We can never know everything, so we cannot definitely say that something is false if it cannot be proved. It has to remained unknowable. It is neither true nor false.

This goes back to the Dawkins' scale. No one can actually be a complete 1 or a complete 7. It's impossible to have that kind of knowledge. Even Dawkins says so.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(24-02-2015 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(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.

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?

Nope. There are true statements of mathematics for which there can be no proof.

You can thank Kurt Gödel. Drinking Beverage

Mathematics =/= philosophy

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 08:27 AM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:27 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  @KC

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

lol thanks.

I try and make people smile with my sigs.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 08:34 AM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(23-02-2015 06:07 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  Now he tells us that it not only exists outside of time and space, but even in a Google earth years,

Googol Smartass

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Googol.html

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: