Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-02-2015, 08:39 AM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(24-02-2015 08:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(24-02-2015 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Nope. There are true statements of mathematics for which there can be no proof.

You can thank Kurt Gödel. Drinking Beverage

Mathematics =/= philosophy

Mathematics is a formal system, meaning it is based on premises and logically derived truths.
If a philosophy is not a logical system, then it is worth squat - it's just random, disconnected feels. Good luck with those.

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
24-02-2015, 08:42 AM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(24-02-2015 08:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(24-02-2015 07:49 AM)Chas Wrote:  Nope. There are true statements of mathematics for which there can be no proof.

You can thank Kurt Gödel. Drinking Beverage

Mathematics =/= philosophy

Mathematics = philosophy 2.0 Tongue

living word
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
24-02-2015, 08:45 AM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(24-02-2015 08:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-02-2015 08:27 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Mathematics =/= philosophy

Mathematics is a formal system, meaning it is based on premises and logically derived truths.
If a philosophy is not a logical system, then it is worth squat - it's just random, disconnected feels. Good luck with those.

Mathematics deals with tangible, empirical evidences. Philosophy can explore concepts which cannot have an outcome aka paradoxes.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-02-2015, 09:07 AM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(24-02-2015 08:45 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(24-02-2015 08:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  Mathematics is a formal system, meaning it is based on premises and logically derived truths.
If a philosophy is not a logical system, then it is worth squat - it's just random, disconnected feels. Good luck with those.

Mathematics deals with tangible, empirical evidences. Philosophy can explore concepts which cannot have an outcome aka paradoxes.

Mathematics contains paradoxes. I'm afraid you don't know enough about formal mathematics.

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, 09:24 AM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(24-02-2015 09:07 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-02-2015 08:45 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  Mathematics deals with tangible, empirical evidences. Philosophy can explore concepts which cannot have an outcome aka paradoxes.

Mathematics contains paradoxes. I'm afraid you don't know enough about formal mathematics.

So I see.

I shall remedy my ignorance. Thanks.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like kingschosen's post
24-02-2015, 05:57 PM
RE: Shadowfox's Sig - I don't agree
(24-02-2015 08:25 AM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(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.

hmm.. But the question arises from "unknowable" in of itself. The only thing we could "imo" NOT actually know is an unknown unknown, at that point, many things are pointless to argue.

The thing is, every razor in philosophy, be it the famous ones, or the ones we try and make ourselves, all DO have a breaking point. I suppose mine breaks down when you get towards unknown unknowns and paradoxes. Newtons Flaming Laser sword has "nothing" in the face of intangible concepts like morality and ethics.

There is no such thing as one all encompassing logical philosophical razor that is complete and can never break. Mine, is a first initial thought as to answer the negative claims for claims "specifically" designed to be un-provable. Any thought exercise that is specifically designed, such as the matrix, is false due to their inherent ability to be completely un-provable. Other claims that are designed to be a "ha ha you can't disprove it therefor, I just proved you cannot possibly possess knowledge or know anything" are also false by their own default.

It simply does not matter if we cannot know, it still is false. If we accept that these kinds of claims can still be true, then we must accept that we cannot possibly possess knowledge and if THAT happens, which it will btw, our species comes to a halt. There must be a fine line between the unknowns;even if they are unknowable, and a designed un-provable.

That is what I aim to go for in the end.


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: