45 replies to this topic

[Manoka]

Not really, HordeLorde. Like I said, extraordinary claims and all that. You don't have to prove that a thing does not exist, because if you did, where does it end? Do I have to prove unicorns don't exist? Or manticores? Or basilisks? Or fraggles? What about whatzits? And flobknockers? And flimspiddlers?

 

You see the problem. The list of things that do not exist is endless. If you had to prove that things do not exist, your task would never end.

 

Anyway, I'm not really interested in having another debate on religion. I was more curious about who would want to definitively know the answer yes or no, if it were possible (which of course it is not).

Yes. To assume anything, that something does or does not exist, without evidence, is a logical fallacy. There is no evidence on either side. Even evidence is only so compelling, as evidence has turned out wrong or incorrect before in the past. Many things that were previously scientifically accepted as if the norm has been challenged and changed, many things we thought we "knew" were proven false. 

 

To make an assumption without evidence, of any kind, is illogical, and even some evidence goes so far. You don't need to, and can't ever truly confirm anything 100%. This may be a dream. We may be a computer simulation. This may be an illusion. A virtual reality world etc. 

 

 

To assume it's not just because you want to have something to believe in is just bias. It's no more logical to assume that the world we live in is a concrete one than it is an illusion. You may have your own default in your mind of what you believe, but there is no such default written in to the code of the universe. It doesn't matter if it seems silly, weird or unlikely to you; what is, is, regardless of who knows it. 

 

Assuming god doesn't exist, is still an assertion. It's not the default. Assuming nothing, that you know nothing, that you don't know if God exists or not, is not the same as assuming one doesn't exist. "I don't know" is inherently different from a declarative yes or no. In quantum mechanics, the question of the unknown is, is the cat dead or alive, such as with Schrodinger's cat? The proper answer is, "I have no idea". Trying to make assumptions without evidence, whether you believe it is or is not dead, is just as dumb no matter which choice you pick. In your mind, dead may be the default you choose, but in reality there is no default. It's just another assumption.

 

 

"But disproving God exists would be hard!"- does not exempt you from logic or facts. Without proof, you cannot claim you are right, and are using logic any more than anyone else. By the same token, providing God does exist is hard. So, are both sides right, then? The reality is, we simply can't know. You can prove a negative, by focusing on exclusionary properties. Something cannot be both red and green at the same time, by the token that the wavelength and frequency of light is a very specific amount that can only be one thing at a time. So, with that in mind, if you scientifically determine the color of something, that proves that it can't be something else; claims that it is green are disproven if you can prove it is red. Similarly you could prove that, said Chupacabra is actually a mangey dog, thus meaning it's not a Chupacabra. Now, some may claim there's another Chupacabra, but you only have to disprove God once. Blam, it's done. If you can't do it, then you aren't right.

Edited by Manoka, 27 January 2016 - 06:09 PM.

[Redezra]

The principles of logic and deductive reasoning do not depend on how ordinary or extraordinary the assertions are. If you claim something, you are required to present the underlying evidence, end of story. Of course your assertion may still be true (or not), regardless of what you and I think, but due to lack of evidence its truthfulness (does this word even exist?) is not binding for me. In that sense, the rebel is right when saying that both the theist and the atheist stances are matters of belief, not reason. As a Christian, I can't prove that God exists but, more importantly, I don't even claim it. I just put my faith in a promise, and ask for help from the very instance whose existence I can't prove. That's how it works, and I admit it's totally paradoxical and not binding for anyone.

As for what Redezra is saying, the assertion that "nothing exists" is also a matter of belief. It's a philosophical stance, called nihilism (if I'm not mistaken). But just as Red (or anyone else) is entitled to her own beliefs, so am I. Well, my philosophical stance tells me that no button will ever tell us that God (or gods) does (do) not exist. The reason being that the spiritual quest is infinite (endless). If I didn't believe that, all my system of explicit/implicit assumptions and beliefs would simply collapse, liberty would make no sense, and humans would be reduced to a sort of (sophisticated) Turing machines. Not acceptable, by me.

 

But this isn't three value, you can't go "we don't know". True or False is all you got. That's logic. Trust me on this one, Computers are pure logic, and they do not have a "Well, could be either" state. To be safe, and to limit what is true, first principles dictate you must start with a default value of 0, or false. As such, when we begin, the world is false, fish are false, cars are false, gravity is false, space is false, you are false, my own existence is false, etc etc. This isn't nihilism, this is logic at the beginning. Nihilism is going "Well I think that the logical steps we have made that suggest some things are true are not tenable". Nihilism is doubting the process or the outcome. Logic just starts at the basics.

 

Seriously son, do some book learnin' before you start telling me how this shit works.

 

Also, how can you assume that a button that says "No, all gods are false, due to <reasons>" is unreliable?

 

The premise of the question is that the button is reliable. Whatever answer the button gives is the correct one. Obviously that is impossible, but this is a hypothetical situation. IF you had a button that would give you the truth — no matter what that truth happens to be — would you press it? I would, because I would want to know the truth. It doesn't matter what I believe the answer will be. Even if I turned out to be wrong I would still want to know.

 

Well, what I mean is, if you know it's reliable, how can you then say that if the reliable button says no that it is unreliable. That suggests willful ignorance and counterproductive thinking. You don't want to know the truth, you want to dictate the truth.

Edited by Redezra, 27 January 2016 - 08:16 PM.

[HordeLorde]

lets compare this button to the sorting hat at Hogwarts. A totally reliable object that was meant to place you where you belong in Hogwarts based on your personality and character. But Harry wasnt placed in Slytherin simply because he asked the Hat not to place him there, even though the hat "knew" he would be great in Slytherin. So, maybe this button is reliable but that doesnt mean its not telling you what you want to hear. if someone told me what i wanted to hear i would of course find that someone especially reliable.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

HordeLorde, you're overthinking this. The premise is the premise. Whatever answer it gives you, whether it's the answer you like or not, is correct. That's it. There's no trick. It's not a fiction story, it's a simple hypothetical question.

[Lord Draculea]

@ Jorost: am I free to accept or not, or to modify any premise proposed by someone, as I please? I think I am. I played your game, but in my own terms, and that's what free humans do all the time (whether they admit it or not). I accepted most of the conditions, but rejected one hypothetical case, that I found unacceptable. The alternative would have been to ignore your post altogether, but I don't think that would have made a better choice, because, you know, we are social beings who like to play games, and we hate to be ignored.

@ Redezra: I'm sorry to have to disagree (once more, but I trust you won't mind ). You can say that we start at the value 0 (meaning: not proven), but what you choose to put there is arbitrary. You can put there "God exists", or "God does not exist", or "fish exist", "fish do not exist", whatever. Then you adapt your line of reasoning accordingly, trying to prove or disprove your own statement. Objections? Also, for your information, ad personam arguments are logical fallacies. You weaken, not strengthen, your position by using them.

@ Manoka: as strange as it may sound, most of the most important decisions/choices/beliefs that people make/adopt are not founded on reason. Of course, whenever we have a compelling (well founded) argument, our intellectual honesty obliges us to treat it as binding. But those cases are relatively rare and unimportant. Our lives rather consist of a series of bets, whether we like it or not. We are all gamblers. There is something called "life experience", that (according to some) can make the difference between a wise gambler and a novice. However, there's no guarantee of the outcome, and some say that's exactly what makes it all so exciting.

[Manoka]

The principles of logic and deductive reasoning do not depend on how ordinary or extraordinary the assertions are. If you claim something, you are required to present the underlying evidence, end of story. Of course your assertion may still be true (or not), regardless of what you and I think, but due to lack of evidence its truthfulness (does this word even exist?) is not binding for me. In that sense, the rebel is right when saying that both the theist and the atheist stances are matters of belief, not reason. As a Christian, I can't prove that God exists but, more importantly, I don't even claim it. I just put my faith in a promise, and ask for help from the very instance whose existence I can't prove. That's how it works, and I admit it's totally paradoxical and not binding for anyone.

As for what Redezra is saying, the assertion that "nothing exists" is also a matter of belief. It's a philosophical stance, called nihilism (if I'm not mistaken). But just as Red (or anyone else) is entitled to her own beliefs, so am I. Well, my philosophical stance tells me that no button will ever tell us that God (or gods) does (do) not exist. The reason being that the spiritual quest is infinite (endless). If I didn't believe that, all my system of explicit/implicit assumptions and beliefs would simply collapse, liberty would make no sense, and humans would be reduced to a sort of (sophisticated) Turing machines. Not acceptable, by me.

 

But this isn't three value, you can't go "we don't know". True or False is all you got. That's logic. Trust me on this one, Computers are pure logic, and they do not have a "Well, could be either" state. To be safe, and to limit what is true, first principles dictate you must start with a default value of 0, or false. As such, when we begin, the world is false, fish are false, cars are false, gravity is false, space is false, you are false, my own existence is false, etc etc. This isn't nihilism, this is logic at the beginning. Nihilism is going "Well I think that the logical steps we have made that suggest some things are true are not tenable". Nihilism is doubting the process or the outcome. Logic just starts at the basics.

 

Seriously son, do some book learnin' before you start telling me how this shit works.

First, the universe doesn't work on an arbitrary code of mathematics invented by humans. That the default is zero in some random language, does not mean that we should assume that everything else in life is zero. The Mayans counted by 20's, so does that mean that the universe is founded on 20's?! What about our math, which works on 10's?! Zoe noes! Some forms of math didn't use zeroes at all. You're basically choosing one form of mathematic language and assuming that's the default for the universe, when it clearly is not. 

 

Secondly, zero is a place holder, not a real number. We are assuming nothing, not that it doesn't exist. Zero by definition is nothing. So to make zero assumptions is not the same as it not existing. Assuming a negative figure would be if God doesn't exist. For something not to exist it would need to be rendered logically incapable, such as 2 + 2 = 5, or for our probabilities to be improbable, say negative. It's difficult to explain a negative probability, so it must not exist is the general assumption. Instead, you're saying that a place holder which is meant to denote literally nothing, means that God doesn't exist. That's not the case. We don't assume that the answer of 2 + 2 is always zero, we put in a place holder until we actually do know the answer. The place holder that denies the absence of meaning. 

 

Thirdly, trying to use computers in your example is silly. Yes, computers are programmed a certain way. Guess what? The universe does not work solely like computers. "If I use a human invention, then..." then you can come to whatever conclusion you want. Just as much if I point to you the bible or the Quran, pointing to a human-made fabrication that always assume it isn't true makes no more sense than any other human-made fabrication. "This is my proof God doesn't exist!" by simply picking something that says God doesn't exist? It's just as much bias as anything else. The fact that computers are not programmed with knowledge of the existence of God, and always assume that the answer is false is, kind of irrelevant. 

 

Even more so, computers do not always assume true or false. Case in point, "undefined". If you enter in a figure it can't understand, say 5/0, or anything divided by zero ,you don't get an answer at all. That's because you can't divide by zero. So yes, in mathematics there is always the third option. "I don't know". 

 

 

However, It is a special case of a more general logical data type; logic does not always have to be Boolean. Not all logic in the universe operates in boolian principles, that you have arbitrarily invented a dichotomous assumption is no-one's fault but your own. This is what is known as a "false dichotomy", or false dilemma. 

Edited by Manoka, 28 January 2016 - 07:58 AM.

[Lord Draculea]

In completion, how about Godel's incompleteness theorems?

1. Any effectively generated theory capable of expressing elementary arithmetic cannot be both consistent and complete. In particular, for any consistent, effectively generated formal theory that proves certain basic arithmetic truths, there is an arithmetical statement that is true, but not provable in the theory.

2. For any formal effectively generated theory T including basic arithmetical truths and also certain truths about formal provability, if T includes a statement of its own consistency then T is inconsistent.

(Source: Wikipedia)

[HordeLorde]

if that button existed wed be dealing with a disaster of biblical proportions

[Redezra]

@ Jorost: am I free to accept or not, or to modify any premise proposed by someone, as I please? I think I am. I played your game, but in my own terms, and that's what free humans do all the time (whether they admit it or not). I accepted most of the conditions, but rejected one hypothetical case, that I found unacceptable. The alternative would have been to ignore your post altogether, but I don't think that would have made a better choice, because, you know, we are social beings who like to play games, and we hate to be ignored.

@ Redezra: I'm sorry to have to disagree (once more, but I trust you won't mind ). You can say that we start at the value 0 (meaning: not proven), but what you choose to put there is arbitrary. You can put there "God exists", or "God does not exist", or "fish exist", "fish do not exist", whatever. Then you adapt your line of reasoning accordingly, trying to prove or disprove your own statement. Objections? Also, for your information, ad personam arguments are logical fallacies. You weaken, not strengthen, your position by using them.

@ Manoka: as strange as it may sound, most of the most important decisions/choices/beliefs that people make/adopt are not founded on reason. Of course, whenever we have a compelling (well founded) argument, our intellectual honesty obliges us to treat it as binding. But those cases are relatively rare and unimportant. Our lives rather consist of a series of bets, whether we like it or not. We are all gamblers. There is something called "life experience", that (according to some) can make the difference between a wise gambler and a novice. However, there's no guarantee of the outcome, and some say that's exactly what makes it all so exciting.

 

You don't get to disagree here. This is like disagreeing on the colour of the sky. It is blue. Existential proofs start with an assumption of falsehood, because it's the only safe assumption to make.

 

Let's for the sake of argument assume your viewpoint is right, and I can assume a thing exists. I assume a teapot exists somewhere between the earth and mars, and is small enough that no telescope can see it. Can you prove me wrong? Well, no, I've made it impossible with my "no telescope" clause. But should this mean that you must take the teapot as truth in the interim?

 

Do you see how idiotic that would be?

 

Actually, fuck it, I 'll bring in the concept's orginator, and a person far more awesome than me, Bertrand Russell:

 

 

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time

 

What this means is that the burden of proof when making scientifically falsifiable claims, like saying that there is a god, like saying that there is a teapot between the earth and mars, like saying that reality exists, falls upon the claimant, or the person saying such a thing is true, and not on everyone else.

 

As for the ad hominem thing, when I play against a person in chess, and they beat me, I should not attack them, because they have squarely beaten me. And I don't, these forums do actually contain instances where I've said I'm wrong. If I thoroughly defeat a pigeon, and then it craps all over the board and struts around like the victor, I have every reason to swat it about the head. It is apparent you have no idea what you are arguing, that you have no respect for the logic or spirit of our discussion, and you are assuming smugly that you are correct. You are not. And I have no respect for the willfully ignorant, or the irredeemably stupid.

[Manoka]

But should this mean that you must take the teapot as truth in the interim?

 

Do you see how idiotic that would be?

 

The core flaw of your entire premise is that it rests solely on this argument. 

 

No-one is arguing that you have to accept God is real. The argument being made is that you can't prove God isn't real, either. The only logical assumption one can make is nothing, because they have no evidence either way. 

 

 

There is no default to reality. Maybe you have a personal default, but it's nowhere ingrained in the universe or logic that we must assume that this is the default. That is the problem, you're still making assumptions. 

 

Even if we are going to pretend that it is pro-God people who need to prove their argument, you don't disprove their argument by them not proving their argument. You still fall in the same boat of never having provided evidence for your point or having proved it. Someone else poorly arguing their point is not the same as you being right. You fail to understand that both sides of an argument can be wrong. Just because it's hard for you to argue your point or someone else failed to argue there's doesn't mean we defer to the defualt that you are right. We go back to not knowing which side is right. 

Edited by Manoka, 28 January 2016 - 09:06 PM.

[HordeLorde]

Moral of the story every human is a dumbass

[the rebel]

You don't get to disagree here. This is like disagreeing on the colour of the sky. It is blue.

The sky isn't blue, it just looks blue.

[HordeLorde]

You don't get to disagree here. This is like disagreeing on the colour of the sky. It is blue.

The sky isn't blue, it just looks blue.

[Lord Draculea]

To be safe, and to limit what is true, first principles dictate you must start with a default value of 0, or false. As such, when we begin, the world is false, fish are false, cars are false, gravity is false, space is false, you are false, my own existence is false, etc etc.

 

According to formal (binary) logic, a first principle is one that cannot be deduced from any other. Therefore, if you want to build a formal argument (or theory), you must start from a (set of) first principle(s), assumed as true, in order to be able to infer any other statements on the basis of the first.

 

Let's assume that "p" is a first principle (an axiom) and "q" is a consequence of p. The mechanics of deductive logic goes like: "if p, then q", or "assuming p is true, then it follows that q must be true too", or "unless p is false (in which case we can't assess if q is true or not), we are bound to accept that q is true".

 

Now, what exactly did you mean when you said that "you must start with a default value of 0 or false"? Whose default value must be 0, p's or q's? Because if you meant p's, then you're completely wrong (the first principles must be assumed as true). That's why, I assumed that you meant q's, and based my reply to you (the part where I said "0 means: not proven") on this assumption.

 

Now, if my assumption (about what you meant) was correct, then, according to you, we must start at q="the world exists"=0, or q="fish exist"=0 etc. And my point was: no, we don't have to do that. "q" is not false, just not proven, unless (or until) "p". So if you meant q, then what we can do is search for a "p", where "if p, then q". If we can find such a p=true, then q=true would be compelling (which would destroy your stance that "nothing exists"), while if we can't find such a "p", then "q" would continue to be unproven (but not false!).

 

To conclude, I can't imagine any situation in which "you must start with a default value of 0, or false". Please clarify your argument, Red! I'd like to understand how you think. 

[Redezra]

You don't get to disagree here. This is like disagreeing on the colour of the sky. It is blue.

The sky isn't blue, it just looks blue.

 

 

To be safe, and to limit what is true, first principles dictate you must start with a default value of 0, or false. As such, when we begin, the world is false, fish are false, cars are false, gravity is false, space is false, you are false, my own existence is false, etc etc.

 

According to formal (binary) logic, a first principle is one that cannot be deduced from any other. Therefore, if you want to build a formal argument (or theory), you must start from a (set of) first principle(s), assumed as true, in order to be able to infer any other statements on the basis of the first.

 

Let's assume that "p" is a first principle (an axiom) and "q" is a consequence of p. The mechanics of deductive logic goes like: "if p, then q", or "assuming p is true, then it follows that q must be true too", or "unless p is false (in which case we can't assess if q is true or not), we are bound to accept that q is true".

 

Now, what exactly did you mean when you said that "you must start with a default value of 0 or false"? Whose default value must be 0, p's or q's? Because if you meant p's, then you're completely wrong (the first principles must be assumed as true). That's why, I assumed that you meant q's, and based my reply to you (the part where I said "0 means: not proven") on this assumption.

 

Now, if my assumption (about what you meant) was correct, then, according to you, we must start at q="the world exists"=0, or q="fish exist"=0 etc. And my point was: no, we don't have to do that. "q" is not false, just not proven, unless (or until) "p". So if you meant q, then what we can do is search for a "p", where "if p, then q". If we can find such a p=true, then q=true would be compelling (which would destroy your stance that "nothing exists"), while if we can't find such a "p", then "q" would continue to be unproven (but not false!).

 

To conclude, I can't imagine any situation in which "you must start with a default value of 0, or false". Please clarify your argument, Red! I'd like to understand how you think. 

 

Ughhhhhhh

 

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

Fucks sake, can't deal. This guy thinks he's teaching me logic.

 

Me. Who has two degrees in the stuff.

 

Okay, okay, so. Let's think about choosing first principles. Basically our reasoning is to prove the existence or nonexistence of things by proof. Usually, a proof by contradiction, but not always.

Now what it usually comes down to is, if I can observe a thing, generally a thing is. This isn't always true, there are optical illusions, whatever that's beyond the scope of this. Sometimes we can't observe a thing, and can only infer it's existence by effects caused by it (like say, gravity, or evolution). The more effects we see caused by it, the more likely a thing exists, but until we see it, you can't say with certainty it is or is not.

 

Now where we start is something that is presumably irreducible from other things. Like for example, nothing exists. Now what we can do there is observe our own observations and deduce that, no, we must exist. So the next step is "we exist, but nothing else does". See this "Default False" I'm coming to?

Let's try starting from the logical negation of nothing exists. Everything exists. Now, as usual, we can prove things aren't. There's no unicorn standing in front of me, for example. But I can't prove some other things wrong. I can't prove everywhere I'm not looking right now isn't filled with atomic scale hitlers plotting the doom of atomic scale mankind. I can't prove there isn't an intangible unicorn standing in front of me. I can't prove that an entire china set fit for a king hasn't been scattered across the universe, waiting to be found. I can't prove that Star Wars isn't happening two galaxies over. These are things that are unfalsifyable, that is to say that it is extremely unlikely to impossible to determine with certainty if it does not exist. Consequentially, unfalsifyable things are usually extremely hard to impossible to prove exist, either. If we happened to discover Laplaces Demon and learn from him the exact momentum and location of all china objects in the universe, and discovered a set was scattered through space, we would be able to prove the china set exists, but we can't not prove they exist, you could always say we've not looked hard enough.

 

Due to the unfalsifyability problem, a lot of things that can't be proven (and let's be frank, are probably false) would be assumed to be true in an Everything Exists environment. The most powerful and least inaccurate way of going about this is to assume the first principle is "nothing exists" and to go from there.

 

Thus, Default False until it can be proven true.

[Manoka]

 

 

Ughhhhhhh

Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Fucks sake, can't deal. This guy thinks he's teaching me logic.

Me. Who has two degrees in the stuff.

Okay, okay, so. Let's think about choosing first principles. Basically our reasoning is to prove the existence or nonexistence of things by proof. Usually, a proof by contradiction, but not always.
Now what it usually comes down to is, if I can observe a thing, generally a thing is. This isn't always true, there are optical illusions, whatever that's beyond the scope of this. Sometimes we can't observe a thing, and can only infer it's existence by effects caused by it (like say, gravity, or evolution). The more effects we see caused by it, the more likely a thing exists, but until we see it, you can't say with certainty it is or is not.

Now where we start is something that is presumably irreducible from other things. Like for example, nothing exists. Now what we can do there is observe our own observations and deduce that, no, we must exist. So the next step is "we exist, but nothing else does". See this "Default False" I'm coming to?
Let's try starting from the logical negation of nothing exists. Everything exists. Now, as usual, we can prove things aren't. There's no unicorn standing in front of me, for example. But I can't prove some other things wrong. I can't prove everywhere I'm not looking right now isn't filled with atomic scale hitlers plotting the doom of atomic scale mankind. I can't prove there isn't an intangible unicorn standing in front of me. I can't prove that an entire china set fit for a king hasn't been scattered across the universe, waiting to be found. I can't prove that Star Wars isn't happening two galaxies over. These are things that are unfalsifyable, that is to say that it is extremely unlikely to impossible to determine with certainty if it does not exist. Consequentially, unfalsifyable things are usually extremely hard to impossible to prove exist, either. If we happened to discover Laplaces Demon and learn from him the exact momentum and location of all china objects in the universe, and discovered a set was scattered through space, we would be able to prove the china set exists, but we can't not prove they exist, you could always say we've not looked hard enough.

Due to the unfalsifyability problem, a lot of things that can't be proven (and let's be frank, are probably false) would be assumed to be true in an Everything Exists environment. The most powerful and least inaccurate way of going about this is to assume the first principle is "nothing exists" and to go from there.

Thus, Default False until it can be proven true.

You have yet to rectify the fact that your argument is based inherently on a binary system. But the universe does not work the way you're saying it does, logic does not work that way. Or else probabilistic conundrums like Schrodinger's cat wouldn't exist. Or else there wouldn't be problems determining issues in quantum mechanics.

The basic core problems of your argument rest on a few premise's.


1. The universe does not work like a computer
2. Not all forms of logic are https://en.wikipedia...algebra]Boolean[/url], or true or false
3. There is still always a third option "I don't know"


The fact of the matter is no-one is asserting that we must assume God is true in all circumstances, we're just saying you can't assume they're false. It's a false dichotomy, and equivocation.


This is further worsened by the fact that you make large sweeping assumptions that you assume to be true and back up with no evidence. Like the sky is blue for instance, which turned out to be wrong. But rather than accept that you can be wrong and that you can't just assume what you think is true is true, you instead just ignore it. Which puts us back in to the place of, you don't actually know the answer, but you assume you do; maybe some of the things you assume to be concrete about the world are false. 

 

Someone who has two college degrees should be better at the subject, but it's your own stubbornness and pigheadedness that keeps you from realizing it, or at least accepting it. There's a saying that Doctor's make the worst patients; someone who thinks they're right has an over confidence in the field and thus can't accept that they're wrong when it's proven to be the case. Even Einstein was wrong about the universe expanding, he thought it was shrinking, which is a pretty big thing to miss. The cosmological constant worked mathematically even before he had an understanding of why it worked. To assume you can never be wrong is now to assume that you are God, which is a far more ridiculous conclusion than not knowing if God exists.

Edited by Manoka, 31 January 2016 - 09:53 PM.

[Redezra]

Manoka, Schrodinger's Cat is considered an example of a paradox. Ergo something that can't exist because it's both true and false.

 

You are categorically wrong when you say there is an "i don't know". There is no I don't know. This is logic, not SQL databases.

 

 

And just FYI, they are not college degrees, they are university degrees, which far outclass college degrees, thank you very much.

Pff. Americans and your "education" system.

[Lord Draculea]

Although it's true that there are other systems of logic, besides the binary one, my proposal is to stick to the binary logic and see what comes out of there.

That being said, there is a critical flaw in what you said, Red. The logical negation of "Nothing exists" is not "Everything exists", but "Something exists". Someone with two university degrees in logic should know that.

Now, if we assume that observation (i.e. like in a scientifical experiment) is a first principle (and it's a bit hard not to assume that, since the whole science is based on that assumption), then it follows that "Nothing exists" is falsifyable if we can show that "Something exists". Well, I look into the water, or at a kitchen table, and observe that a fish exists. You can have a look at the fish too (or find another fish) and see for yourself. This little observation has all the data of a scientific experiment so, unless you want to deny a first principle of science, you are bound to accept that "fish exist". Therefore, "something exists", therefore your statement that "nothing exists" is false.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Manoka, Schrodinger's Cat is considered an example of a paradox. Ergo something that can't exist because it's both true and false.

 

You are categorically wrong when you say there is an "i don't know". There is no I don't know. This is logic, not SQL databases.

 

 

And just FYI, they are not college degrees, they are university degrees, which far outclass college degrees, thank you very much.

Pff. Americans and your "education" system.

 

To Americans "college" and "university" mean essentially the same thing. Universities are just bigger. The technical difference has to do with research; an institution has to conduct a certain amount of research to be considered a university. For example, a school near my home recently became Salem State University after decades of being Salem State College.

 

The hardest part for non-Americans to wrap their heads around is the fact that universities are not necessarily more prestigious than colleges. It depends on the situation. For example, Dartmouth College in New Hampshire is one of the most preeminent schools in the country, a member of the Ivy League, etc. — a degree from there would carry far more cachet than an equivalent degree from, say, the University of New Hampshire.

[Manoka]

Manoka, Schrodinger's Cat is considered an example of a paradox. Ergo something that can't exist because it's both true and false.

 

You are categorically wrong when you say there is an "i don't know". There is no I don't know. This is logic, not SQL databases.

 

 

And just FYI, they are not college degrees, they are university degrees, which far outclass college degrees, thank you very much.

Pff. Americans and your "education" system.

Only in Boolean logic is there a single, dichotomous yes or no answer. In other forms of logic, there are many other answers. You don't always assume something is false, you just assume you don't know the answer. 

 

The fact that your computer has false as default is not the same as all logic working this way. As the universe does not work like your computer. FYI, some forms of programming hold the value to be true as a default. Others don't even use true or false values. 

 

 

You don't seem to understand that we don't have to choose between everything is false and everything is true. Something we have no evidence for is simply left undetermined. The reason dividing by zero gets undefined or we have no answer to riddles in quantum mechanics such as with the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle is because there are circumstances where things are left uncertain. In fact, the more you know about some things, the less you can know about others. This is a quintessential problem in quantum mechanics, and to the uncertainty principle. The fact that the answer remains uncertain is fundamental to many fields of science, even to mathematics such as with dividing by zero. Thus the answer of "undefined", "uncertain" and "I don't know" are not only perfect valid, but used in every day programming. Else your computer would crash if it accidentally divided by zero. You probably don't notice it, but that's how you're able to keep things running, simply filling in for I don't know is used in virtually all forms of mathematics. Even calculus is about how close you approach a figure without ever reaching it. 

Edited by Manoka, 01 February 2016 - 12:48 PM.