Proof of Facts, Absolutes & Certainty (Nonsense:

Theorists claim it ultimately is not possible to prove anything. They cite the evidence of atoms being an electromagnetic illusion with no genuine substance. They cite an "endless continuum" where everything is associated with everything else in the universe and, ultimately, everything is indistinguishable from everything else. They claim there is no such thing as a genuine definition. Thus, the universe is an illusion without genuine distinction and therefore it is impossible to establish genuine proof. As if everything is certainly uncertain.

Theorists are effectively claiming: "It is not possible to prove anything and here is the evidence which proves it."

What have you got when you prove it is not possible to prove anything? You have got proof!. The "proof" effectively disproves itself. You have got a self-referentially incoherent concept which undermines itself and self-eliminates due to self-contradiction.

What does this prove? It proves, self-evidently, it is absolutely impossible to prove the claim: “It is not possible to prove anything.” It proves there has to be more than evidence in order to establish proof, it proves there must be coherence in order to establish proof. It proves the criteria of proof is not subordinate to theorists and their ‘certain uncertainties’.

Wherever there is an absolute there is also proof. Proof must be absolute, if it is not absolute then it remains questionable and debatable.

To say: “There are no absolutes”, is to effectively say: “There are absolutely no absolutes”, another absolute impossibility. This proves absolutes must exist, because, if there were no absolutes then this itself would be an absolute.

To say: “There are no facts”, is to effectively say: “It is a fact: there are no facts”, another absolute impossibility. This proves facts must exist, because, if there were no facts then this itself would be a fact.

Certainty is required in order to say: “There is no certainty”, another absolute impossibility. This proves certainty has to exist because it is impossible for certainty to not exist.

Do any of you still think there are no absolutes?!

The above absolutes exist without the need for physical space. The above absolutes are not subordinate to the physical universe. If the physical universe is not consistent with the above absolutes then the physical universe is deviant, not the absolutes.

When someone says: “It is not possible to prove anything”, it is absolutely incoherent and wrong.

Science is illegitimate if it is incoherent. Logic is illegitimate if it is incoherent..

Coherence establishes a distinction between sense and nonsense. If an electromagnetic illusion does not have any absolute characteristics then the illusion is not qualified to be used as a reference.

If you think there are no absolutes in this universe then why would you use any aspect of this universe as a reference? Only a fool would do this.

If you think this thread is wrong then you are required to do this: prove there is no such thing as proof.

(Dark age mentality does not stop easily. Will you still find ways to evade what is written above? Will you persist with your certain uncertainty and say: “Proof does not exist and this is the way things actually are, even if it does not make sense.” You think one has achieved “enlightened wisdom” when one thinks everything is both certain and uncertain at once. As if there is no distinction between sense and nonsense. As if people are supposed to accept your uncertainty as unquestionable “fact” just because you claim to be an “educated authority” or a “helpful facilitator”. You think your words are “facts” while any opposing words are “opinion”. If you cannot handle the existence of facts, absolutes, certainty and proof then it is your weakness. )

Part of the title was cut off.

The rest of the title is: (Nonsense: "It Is Not Possible To Prove Anything And I Can Prove It".)

Well, it all ends up coming down to knowledge.

The 'facts' that are released could be incorrect themselves, if they were based on earlier incorrect facts, and so on, all the way back to the beginning.

So something might suffice as 'proof' for a while until some new information (or disinformation) is released.

No matter how smart someone is, but from the day they learn what a car is, if I give them a car, and never mention anything about fuel and that it is required, the person will drive until the tank is empty and will have no idea what to do.

If someone comes by and tells him that these places exist where you hook up a hose to your car and pump liquid into it, and then it starts to run again, would he believe? probably not at first, until he passes by a gas station.

Up until that moment he was told about the function of fuel and saw what a gas station is, nobody could convince him other wise.

The only truth is what the majority believes at the moment, or else no 'proof' can be found, so it can't be true.

It's the same idea how change is the only concrete thing in the world. Everything has ever and will always keep changing, including our perceptions.

reply to post by MITCHEL


It could argued that the statement 'there are no absolute proofs' is a meta-statement (a statement *about* statements and therefore, at the same time immanent to and above other statements which are first order statements about 'things other than statements'). The distinction is then between knowledge about things (of which we cannot be certain) and knowledge about the limits of our knowledge.

Originally posted by MITCHEL
Theorists claim it ultimately is not possible to prove anything...

Whether you're aware of it or not, you've hit the worst nightmare of formal logic and mathematics in general - Gödel's incompleteness theorems.

It actually goes a little bit different than what you've stated here.

It's not that you cannot prove anything, it's that there will always be something that you cannot prove. The proof itself depends on the set of axioms (facts taken for granted), wihich can be consistent, or inconsistent. With inconsistent set you can prove anything, so that's not very useful. With consistent set you're stuck with unprovable theorems.

In simple words - what you choose to belive in in the first place, determines what you can prove and what you can't. But (and there's the kicker in the mathematical a**), even if you choose an infinite set of axioms, you will still end up with things that you just can't prove.

What Gödel showed is that in most cases, such as in number theory or real analysis, you can never create a complete and consistent finite list of axioms, or even an infinite list that can be produced by a computer program. Each time you add a statement as an axiom, there will always be other true statements that still cannot be proved as true, even with the new axiom. Furthermore if the system can prove that it is consistent, then it is inconsistent.

It is possible to have a complete and consistent list of axioms that cannot be produced by a computer program (that is, the list is not computably enumerable).

(/qdv7y)

While Wikipedia's reference is mostly for those interested in mathematics, the following site explains it in simpler terms.

In 1931, the Czech-born mathematician Kurt Gödel demonstrated that within any given branch of mathematics, there would always be some propositions that couldn't be proven either true or false using the rules and axioms ... of that mathematical branch itself. You might be able to prove every conceivable statement about numbers within a system by going outside the system in order to come up with new rules and axioms, but by doing so you'll only create a larger system with its own unprovable statements. The implication is that all logical system of any complexity are, by definition, incomplete; each of them contains, at any given time, more true statements than it can possibly prove according to its own defining set of rules.

(www.miskatonic.org...)

Anyway, those are really interesting theorems. Especially considering that science, which is 100% based on mathematics, is usually thought to (some day) explain (or describe) all of the Reality.

Science may actually be able to "explain" "something" some day, but it will never be able to prove those "explanations"... I believe that's what you were aiming at.

This actually makes science just a little bit better than religion which is 100% based on faith (or sets of axioms, mathematically speaking; simply facts taken for granted, remember?).

The only advantage of science over religion is - experiment. The rest is all the same, only in different packages.

Once again I come to the same conclusion - the only thing that matters is personal experience.

Everything else is based on axioms... which someone, somewhere, told us to just take as "Truths".

[edit on 26-3-2008 by elendal]

reply to post by elendal

I thought I could let this go but...

I did not say it was possible to prove everything!

It seems you feel you must distort this thread and change what I have said in order to evade the points I have proven.

I have heard several 'well educated' persons say: "It is not possible to prove ANYTHING". They are wrong. The individuals and institutions responsible for ‘educating’ people to think in this manner are wrong.

Whether it is possible to prove EVERYTHING or not is a separate matter.