What is a proof?



22082014, 05:57 AM




What is a proof?
(22082014 04:13 AM)Muslim Wrote:I am in no way saying saying this may be right. But thats the best that i could come up with. Thanks for your input(20082014 10:24 PM)alegzac54 Wrote: I think logic is acting accordingly to what one observes . Not only that but acting on what makes sense to avoid becoming insane.Yes, but this is very general 

22082014, 06:16 AM
(This post was last modified: 22082014 06:21 AM by Mathilda.)




RE: What is a proof?
(22082014 04:13 AM)Muslim Wrote:(20082014 10:24 PM)alegzac54 Wrote: Logic is what triggers our brain.Absolutely, need to formalize that Wrong. There is some suggestion that binary logic can be performed using dendritic trees, but if so then it is just one small aspect of how the brain works. For example, logic certainly does not adequately describe the function of neurochemicals in the brain, habituation, long term potentiation / depression, Hebbian learning or synaptic drift. These are gradual and continual processes better described using an alternative language to logic such as continuous equations. Nor is logic useful in describing the higher functions of the brain such as temporal sequence learning, arbitration between exploration / exploitation, pattern matching, competition, memory etc. 

22082014, 06:18 AM




RE: What is a proof?
And Mathilda has a new bitch...
Hate the belief, love the believer. 

1 user Likes Elder Cunningham's post 
22082014, 06:41 AM




RE: What is a proof?
(22082014 04:28 AM)Muslim Wrote:(21082014 06:27 AM)Hafnof Wrote: In mathematics we define logical systems in terms of a set of starting axioms. A proof within a logical system is based on the axioms of that system and shows using those axioms as a starting point that a particular proposition is true or is false within that logical system. A different set of axioms will result in a different set of true and false propositions. Propositions that are true or false in a given logical system may or may not correspond to true or false propositions in the real world depending on how consistent those axioms are with our reality. A logical system itself can be shown to be incoherent if a proof can be made that true is equal to false.Now we are into something, this is absolutely true No. I cover all forms of mathematical proof in the above section. You define a mathematical system and you work within that mathematical system to more fully describe it. I think there is no mathematical proof that falls outside this definition. Would you care to present one? (22082014 04:28 AM)Muslim Wrote:Quote:In order to apply mathematical thinking to the real world we need to use a scientific approach. That is,True, but this is only one type of scientific proofs (proof by induction) No, this is scientific verification of hypotheses. This is the scientific method. It is not proof by induction. Proof by induction is a mathematical proof: * You prove that a property holds for the first element of a sequence * You prove that if a property holds for a given element in the sequence it must necessarily hold the next element in the sequence * By induction, you can conclude that the property holds for all elements of the sequence The scientific method has some connection to inductive reasoning but it is not an inductive proof or any kind of mathematical proof. For every hypothesis there is an infinite number of alternative hypotheses that make the same set of verified predictions: Assume you have a hypothesis that perfectly predicts all available results of experiments capable of falsifying its predictions. Take that hypothesis and add two unknown opposing but perfectly balanced forces. Now you have a new hypothesis that makes the same inerrant predictions. That is why we choose the hypothesis with the least burden of unfounded assumption to include in our scientific knowledge. If we accepted any claim that makes inerrant predictions we would have to believe many contradictory claims. (22082014 04:28 AM)Muslim Wrote:Quote:... or do you intend to propose a more reliable path to truth and knowledge than mathematical proof and scientific knowledge? If so, please do describe it.there are other types (methods) of proofs: No. All of these are mathematical proofs that fall under my description above. You define a mathematical system and you prove that a certain property holds or does not hold for that system. Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk. 

4 users Like Hafnof's post 
22082014, 09:19 AM




RE: What is a proof?
(22082014 04:58 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:(22082014 04:28 AM)Muslim Wrote: True, but this is only one type of scientific proofs (proof by induction) One clarification for the audience. Muzzy Wuzzy may be confusing inductive reasoning with mathematical induction. Mathematical induction is one form of direct proof in mathematics, mostly used for proofs about natural numbers and infinite series. One proves a statement about a number i then proves that it must be true for i+1. It is therefore true for all natural numbers. Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims. Science is not a subject, but a method. 

22082014, 09:25 AM




RE: What is a proof?
I think the name Muzzy Wuzzy is going to stick now.


22082014, 10:49 AM




RE: What is a proof?
(22082014 09:25 AM)Mathilda Wrote: I think the name Muzzy Wuzzy is going to stick now. Muzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Muzzy Wuzzy had no hair. .... Wait .... Insufferable knowitall. God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers. 

22082014, 11:10 AM




RE: What is a proof?  
22082014, 11:16 AM




RE: What is a proof?
(22082014 11:10 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:(22082014 10:49 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote: Muzzy Wuzzy was a bear. Muzzy Wuzzy had no hair. .... ...and his logic had a flaw! 

1 user Likes Mathilda's post 
23082014, 07:36 AM




RE: What is a proof?
(22082014 04:38 AM)Mathilda Wrote: And that is precisely my point. If logic were 'absolute' and existed as part of the fabric of reality then you would not be able to have logical paradoxes.I'm not sure what do you mean, but a logical paradox doesn't exist You can prove the nonexistence of something if it is leading to a logical paradox It will be your method to refute my proof, to prove that my claim is paradoxing, if not I can claim anything contradicting, then you cannot refute it! Quote:Logic is a representation of reality. We can also use language for this. We can use logic to create paradoxes in much the same way that we can use words to create non sequiturs.(formal) Logic is how are brains work, they are just a few very simple rules Quote:Neither logic nor words underlie reality (despite people believing that God spoke the universe into existence).? Quote:The proof also only works if people accept that the proposed mapping between the real world and the logical representation of the real world is both complete and accurate.Yes, but just for the premises of the proof Quote:For example, Lord Kelvin published mathematical calculations that the age of the Earth was between 20 million and 400 million years. For some of his followers this was mathematical proof but not all scientists were convinced because it did not match all the evidence that had been collected.it is called a scientific theory using mathematics, but not a mathematical proof! Quote:What you are failing to recognize is that logic is just a single step within an iterative cycle rather than the final step. It cannot prove anything by itself because it is dependent upon how much evidence has been gathered. All logic can do is create hypotheses or to disprove hypotheses.Yes, Logic is a just a mean to use it on observations 

« Next Oldest  Next Newest »

User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)