What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-07-2013, 08:20 AM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(26-07-2013 07:22 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(24-07-2013 07:30 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Dammit Hafnof, this is the philosophy section!

My response covers the basic philosophy of science :-)

I'd cover the mathematical approach but HOC beat me to it I think. Oh, what the heck:
1. Come up with some rules
2. Follow those roles to their natural conclusions ;-)
Mathematicians have defined specific useful rules that have far reaching implications. How do we chose the most useful rules? We put them to use and see what sticks.

As for Descartes, I follow him as far as concluding that I exist (if only as a function or a property of something else). I can't follow a line of reasoning that concludes from there that minds are necessarily body-independent. I think in general that when philosophers deal with materialism or dualism they are dealing with questions that they are not equipped to answer. Resolving these issues requires an understanding of the universe we actually found ourselves in.

I don't think you will find anyone here that would disagree with any of that. As a matter of fact, I'll bet that some people here confirmed their irreligion by following that same line of logic, following the disembowelment of the stories they once held as truth if for no other reason than they were told so from a very young age.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 08:32 AM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(25-07-2013 01:41 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(25-07-2013 01:06 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Whatever the case, I think it IS evidence, no matter how weak. Worthy of serious consideration? Maybe not. Evidence? Methinks yes.

Whatever your (not Stevil per se) verdict, it is, for the purposes of this thread unimportant to define what the minimum is when considering what is evidence. The real question is, when, if ever, does something go from being evidence to being absolute proof.
I've had a good think about this and I'm now ready to unleash my inner nihilist.

We can never be 100% confident that something is evidence.
So technically we don’t have evidence, but only potential evidence.

This is similar to us not being able to be 100% of truth. We can't be 100% sure of anything.
On the one hand we have evidence (potential), on the other we have a theory.
If the theory and evidence conflict then we must do at least one of two things.
Either discard/modify the theory or discard/modify the evidence.
For example,
We have the epistles of Paul, telling us about Jesus being the one and only god.
Someone might consider this to be evidence of god.
Then we have the Hindu theory of the many Indian gods. This theory conflicts with the evidence above, thus are we to discard the theory or discard the evidence?
In my opinion this is an easy one, because the epistles of Paul are not evidence but merely a collection of stories.
In the scientific world one could consider the theory that objects of mass attract each other.
You could point to the evidence that when you let an object go it falls towards the Earth.
But then one day you let go a helium filled balloon and it travels away from the Earth even though it has mass. So either the theory or the evidence is faulty. In this case the evidence must be altered. One must consider that the air also has mass and is more massive, more dense than Helium. So we now have consistent theory and evidence.
But then Einstein points out that photons which are massless also travel towards the Earth, that they accelerate at the same rate that mass objects accelerate towards the Earth. Thus the theory is finally proven wrong, massive objects are not attracted to each other but instead they warp SpaceTime. Einstein’s theory is consistent with the evidence and replaces the old theory.
Getting back to the Pauline Epistles, they conflict with Indian scripture. Thus both cannot be valid evidence. One could be evidence, the other could be evidence, maybe neither is evidence, but both cannot be true so both cannot be considered as evidence, only potential evidence.
But again, in my opinion, neither are evidence, they both are more akin to theory/hypothesis rather than evidence. There is nothing to suggest that they are more than imaginative stories.

Okay Stevil, now apply what you have said here to my earlier statement. To me, this discredits 'true' nihilism....err, I will apply it.

I think therefore I am. I may not be independent, but on some level I exist. I maybe only a small part of something much larger than myself, but I sexist. If I exist there is something, though I cannot say what for certain, that exists.

Okay, unless I find something which would discredit what is above it is irrational to adhere to belief that 'nothing can be proven', or 'nothing is certain', however you wish to phrase it.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 01:36 PM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(26-07-2013 08:32 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Okay Stevil, now apply what you have said here to my earlier statement. To me, this discredits 'true' nihilism....err, I will apply it.

I think therefore I am. I may not be independent, but on some level I exist. I maybe only a small part of something much larger than myself, but I sexist. If I exist there is something, though I cannot say what for certain, that exists.

Okay, unless I find something which would discredit what is above it is irrational to adhere to belief that 'nothing can be proven', or 'nothing is certain', however you wish to phrase it.
Huh, I'm not following your arguement here
You think therefore you am? - Assertion not fact
You may not be independent, but on some level you exist. - Assertion not fact
You maybe only a small part of something much larger than yourself, but your sexist - A philosophical pondering followed by an embarrassing personal revelation

If you exist there is something, though you cannot say what for certain, that exists. - A hypothetical premise strangely followed by a conclusion that forgets the subject of the premise.
If X exists then X exists right? So if you exist then you can say for certain that you exist., but of course this statement doesn't prove existence.

I think you need to join the dots more closely for me here, I'm not following...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 01:47 PM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(26-07-2013 01:36 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-07-2013 08:32 AM)Dark Light Wrote:  Okay Stevil, now apply what you have said here to my earlier statement. To me, this discredits 'true' nihilism....err, I will apply it.

I think therefore I am. I may not be independent, but on some level I exist. I maybe only a small part of something much larger than myself, but I sexist. If I exist there is something, though I cannot say what for certain, that exists.

Okay, unless I find something which would discredit what is above it is irrational to adhere to belief that 'nothing can be proven', or 'nothing is certain', however you wish to phrase it.
Huh, I'm not following your arguement here
You think therefore you am? - Assertion not fact
You may not be independent, but on some level you exist. - Assertion not fact
You maybe only a small part of something much larger than yourself, but your sexist - A philosophical pondering followed by an embarrassing personal revelation

If you exist there is something, though you cannot say what for certain, that exists. - A hypothetical premise strangely followed by a conclusion that forgets the subject of the premise.
If X exists then X exists right? So if you exist then you can say for certain that you exist., but of course this statement doesn't prove existence.

I think you need to join the dots more closely for me here, I'm not following...

Ha! I meant exist not "sexist". Funny typo though.

Alright, I don't know if I can explain it more clearly or not, but I'll give it a try.

I think, therefore I am. I could not ponder my own existence if I didn't. I cannot say for certain based upon my existence that I am not part of a larger consciousness which I am unaware of. Regardless of whether I am independent or part of a larger consciousness, I know that because I exist in some fashion that "something" exists. I am a something, and I have already established that I exist by pondering my existence, so I know that "something exists.

P=C and C=E ergo P=E. P or C or E=S.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 01:57 PM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
Proofs apply to analytical arguments. Evidence and statistics apply to empirical ones. The word "proof" is used too casually in my opinion. It has a very specific sense and use that gets muddled when used casually.

This is not my signature.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
26-07-2013, 01:57 PM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(26-07-2013 01:47 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Ha! I meant exist not "sexist". Funny typo though.

Alright, I don't know if I can explain it more clearly or not, but I'll give it a try.

I think, therefore I am. I could not ponder my own existence if I didn't. I cannot say for certain based upon my existence that I am not part of a larger consciousness which I am unaware of. Regardless of whether I am independent or part of a larger consciousness, I know that because I exist in some fashion that "something" exists. I am a something, and I have already established that I exist by pondering my existence, so I know that "something exists.

P=C and C=E ergo P=E. P or C or E=S.
I think I know what you are getting at, but I'm not sure how it ties into the Nihilist's position.
Nihilist's don't posit "I think therefore I am" and we don't agree that "you could not ponder your own existence if you don't exist"
So unfortunately it is a strawman argument.
The issues are around what it is that you define as "I".
Is I a person, a consciousness, a computer program, a biological program, maybe even a many worlds non collapsed wave function???
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-07-2013, 02:08 PM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(26-07-2013 01:57 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(26-07-2013 01:47 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  Ha! I meant exist not "sexist". Funny typo though.

Alright, I don't know if I can explain it more clearly or not, but I'll give it a try.

I think, therefore I am. I could not ponder my own existence if I didn't. I cannot say for certain based upon my existence that I am not part of a larger consciousness which I am unaware of. Regardless of whether I am independent or part of a larger consciousness, I know that because I exist in some fashion that "something" exists. I am a something, and I have already established that I exist by pondering my existence, so I know that "something exists.

P=C and C=E ergo P=E. P or C or E=S.
I think I know what you are getting at, but I'm not sure how it ties into the Nihilist's position.
Nihilist's don't posit "I think therefore I am" and we don't agree that "you could not ponder your own existence if you don't exist"
So unfortunately it is a strawman argument.
The issues are around what it is that you define as "I".
Is I a person, a consciousness, a computer program, a biological program, maybe even a many worlds non collapsed wave function???

I dunno what you mean. I know Nihilists don't posit "I think therefore I am". I am the one making that statement of belief. I wanted an explanation from a self-proclaimed Nihilist as to why they don't believe so. Even if they deny that "I think therefore I am" is the only proof (which they do) then how do they deny that at least "something" exists.

I is I. You could define I as a consciousness, or a network of neural circuits, or whatever. We don't really know for certain that I consists of, but I would claim that I know I exists because I have the ability to ponder I.

Explain how this is a strawman, cause I don't see your reckoning.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Light's post
26-07-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: What Is "Proof"? (Nihilists Welcome)
(24-07-2013 03:08 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(23-07-2013 03:30 AM)absols Wrote:  proof is a way to reject what others want for own wills

literally, p roof, is per the roof, so the truth that none can show

which is why proofs are created for powers and force life

prove that u can do it, prove that it is urs ....

so meaning the wrong end in taking advantage from lonely start

"literally, p roof, is per the roof, so the truth that none can show "

Is that humor? Huh

Surely you jest! p + roof equals a p and a roof. So if you p off a roof, you have proof of p roofing. If p = 2 and roof = 4 then you have a 6. That right there means 2 + 4 = 6 and that is p+ROOF, proof! PROOF that math works!

YEAH!

Wait...

Official ordained minister of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Please pm me with prayer requests to his noodly goodness. Remember, he boiled for your sins and loves you. Carbo Diem! RAmen.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: