Do you want "scientific proof"?

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
The only assumption here is yours, I'm afraid.

??? Did you not read the ones I just posted by you?

....And the rest of the Universe, actually.

This is very true! Each individual in the Universe would agree upon these numbers as the numbers would be the same definition for them, regardless of how the brain would uniquely interpret the actual color being defined mathematically.


Then you are not arguing about Reality, or Science.
You are arguing about how peoples perceptions can be different.
And that is not a discussion about knowledge, science, or proof... it is an argument about the differences of subjectivity, which has no bearing on a discussion about Science, Proof, or Reality.
Learn 2 Reality plox.

You are forgetting that Reality is subjective and is unique perceived by each individual's mind =) But that is for another day. As we, according to you, are arguing about "knowledge" (of course, you just listed knowledge and then science as if they are two different things). How one person can know something. Of course, because that person knows something, it has to be "true", true? Based on the examples you gave me earlier, I would have to submit that you believe perception is relevant to science as well. You claimed that you KNOW "you do not like green eggs and ham" and since you know this it is true, for you. Again, a subjective truth.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by spav5

 

I don't know what A is.

YOU DON'T KNOW


WHAT *WHAT* IS?

edit on 12-1-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

A = Q
Q=5
A=5

Now A is still A..but it is also Q and it is also 5.

Peace

Peace

A = A

From the perspective of a character on the page, A would indeed be equal to A.

From the perspective of the computer on which the letter A is typed, A does not equal A, but rather a series of ones and zeros which represent the letter A. The letter A is then translated to us. Depending on whether you are the computer user or the computer itself, one or the other may be the representation and one the 'truth'.

For us, as humans who use the English language, A is the truth. However, a computer does not compute in English language, it operates in binary.

Furthermore, A may represent one letter to an Englishman, but what of a German or any other language that uses the same alphabet? Does it not now, still equal A, but an A with a completely different context?



It isn't about saying absolutely everything we perceive and experience must be false and lies, so much as everything is defined by perspective.
If ANYTHING is observed from a singular perspective, it will not be completely understood.

We look at a rock and we see, yes, a rock. This is a rock.
But is it really just a rock? Of course not, it's a part of the Earth, it's solidified particles, possibly once magma, it's gone through a multitude of incredibly complex processes which yes, can be scientifically observed and recorded, but are we then to say that our understanding of this thing is complete?

The problem is that current science is accepted as absolute, not that nothing can be proven. Things can only be proven within a context, the rock may not move, nor multiply in a traditional sense, but have we measured it for every conceivable wavelength with devices that have yet to exist?
Have we proved beyond reasonable doubt that there is not any amount of energy flowing through it? How have we done this when we may not even know what we're looking for?

We know everything like a caveman knew everything. We look at the physical world and we go, "Well, right, that's what there is," but it isn't! The caveman doesn't see the photons bouncing off everything around him or the radiation emanating off of his current surroundings.

We do, because we've developed the ability to measure it, you cannot reasonably attach a binary system of understanding to reality, because reality is not singular, it is multi-layered.

Do physics operate the same on a microcosmic or macrocosmic level? Does gravity affect the cellular system to the same degree as the organism? Is not each level from atomic following similar, but ultimately different rules?

A Hydrogen atom does not eat, nor breathe. A cell does not 'eat' but certainly must diffuse nutrients in to itself and recycle broken cellular anatomy within itself, is this not living? What would a cell understand of it's surrounding environment.

"A cell hasn't got a brain!"

No, it doesn't, but have you performed any scientific experimentation to suggest that 'thought' can be channeled exclusively through the brain? Assuming that it's thinking operates in the same fashion ours does at all?

Isn't it conceivable that as long as wavelength vibrations are resonating through a cell, there is some kind of potential energy generated which may perhaps manifest as something that would resemble thought were it not produced by a single cell?


I believe that things can certainly be 'proven', but I do not accept the standard of all that has not be proven must be false, because most of what is 'proven' is not, in any way, satisfactorily proven. Rather it is proven based on a small collection of limited studies, performed by individuals who may or may not reveal or even understand the complete truth of the things they are discovering, because they still do not have the entire picture, nor could they ever, in their current incarnation, completely perceive and understand the entire picture.

Yes, I can assure you, my various English teachers DID take issue with my run-on sentences. Language is about expressing and communicating, I don't allow the rules to limit my ability to do either.

It isn't so much changing our understanding of what is 'proof' so much as our understanding of what is 'empirical scientific proof', of which little to none exists. We are, after all, merely one pale blue dot amongst a multitude of pale dots.

Tl;Dr: You're all wonderful people, chill out, stop arguing, each of us is a piece in the puzzle of understanding.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

??? Did you not read the ones I just posted by you?

You never posted one.

This is very true! Each individual in the Universe would agree upon these numbers as the numbers would be the same definition for them

I'm glad that you realize that I am right.

You are forgetting that Reality is subjective

Reality is not subjective, it is OBJECTIVE.

and is unique perceived by each individual's mind

So, you are under the assumption that if you perceive a Rock falling on someone, regardless of whether that rock is actually there, or a figment of your imagination, that person WILL be hit by a rock?

Is this what you really believe?

But that is for another day. As we, according to you, are arguing about "knowledge"

Hey, YOU picked the topic of discussion pal... not me.

(of course, you just listed knowledge and then science as if they are two different things).

Really?

Care to provide proof of this assumption?

How one person can know something. Of course, because that person knows something, it has to be "true", true?

This sentence (Well, 3 sentences) has no meaning... you are just throwing random words together now, instead of making an actual argument.

Based on the examples you gave me earlier, I would have to submit that you believe perception is relevant to science as well.

That is Observation of Reality, yes... it's important.

But here is the Difference between you and me.

I KNOW that we are OBSERVING reality.

While you BELIEVE that OBSERVATIONS *ARE* reality.

Based on the examples you gave me earlier, I would have to submit that you believe perception is relevant to science as well.

And you have provided no argument or reasoning to explain why you "Would have to submit that."

You claimed that you KNOW "you do not like green eggs and ham" and since you know this it is true, for you. Again, a subjective truth.

I explained that I KNOW that it's written in a book, and to PROVE this, I shall QUOTE exactly what I said:

If I were to say that "I do not like Green Eggs and Ham", I would not state that this is unequivocal truth, but I would state that in the Book, "Green eggs and Ham" this line is Provably Written in the text.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



So, there we can see, that it has been DEMONSTRATED that what I ACTUALLY SAID, is Unequivically TRUE, and thus it has been PROVEN.

Concurrently, your assertion that I said:

You claimed that you KNOW "you do not like green eggs and ham" and since you know this it is true, for you. Again, a subjective truth.

Has thus been proven *WRONG*

Thank you for playing, and have a nice day.

reply to post by Necrocharadon


Thank you, that was a very nice and profound post.

For me, I equate proof as absolute truth. As was stated in the OP, absolute truths and falses do not exist in science so I would conclude that nothing can be proven, even if it has some merit of truth to it.

Truthful? Sure
False? Sure.
Proven? No.

Thank you again for the very nice post!

reply to post by spav5

Now A is still A

Exactly... I'm glad that we had this little discussion, and that you now realize that what I am saying is the Truth.

It saddens me that it took so long to state the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

For me, I equate proof as absolute truth.

Then that explains why you are wrong.

Proof:
1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Truth
1. The quality or state of being true
2. That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality

Oh, and just what do you mean by "Absolute Truth" anyway?

All in all, Nice bit of "Moving the Goalpost" there...

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by spav5

 

Now A is still A

Exactly... I'm glad that we had this little discussion, and that you now realize that what I am saying is the Truth.

It saddens me that it took so long to state the BLINDINGLY OBVIOUS.

You have merely stated that you do not know what A is..and that it is what it is.

A=A
A+A =2A
2A=Q
Q=truth
truth= A+A
truth=2A
1/2truth=A

There I defined A for you : )

Peace

double post

reply to post by spav5

You have merely stated that you do not know what A is

Wrong, I know what A is...

A is A.

I find it hard to believe that you are having difficulties grasping this relatively simple concept.

There I defined A for you

A already has a definition.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by spav5

 

You have merely stated that you do not know what A is

Wrong, I know what A is...

A is A.

I find it hard to believe that you are having difficulties grasping this relatively simple concept.

There I defined A for you

A already has a definition.

circular logic is your science?

reply to post by spav5

circular logic is your science?

It's not circular.... It's straightforward.

A is A.

Stop playing stupid.

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by ErroneousDylan

 

For me, I equate proof as absolute truth.

Then that explains why you are wrong.

Proof:
1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Truth
1. The quality or state of being true
2. That which is true or in accordance with fact or reality

Oh, and just what do you mean by "Absolute Truth" anyway?

All in all, Nice bit of "Moving the Goalpost" there...

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 12-1-2012 by ErtaiNaGia because: (no reason given)

It's really cute how you keep using the same idioms over and over, although it does come off as a little cliché.

I'm going to quote other people as they write better than I do and I am growing bored.

In regards to your question of what absolute truth is:

In general, absolute truth is whatever is always valid, regardless of parameters or context. The absolute in the term connotes one or more of: a quality of truth that cannot be exceeded; complete truth; unvarying and permanent truth. It can be contrasted to relative truth or truth in a more ordinary sense in which a degree of relativity is implied.

1) In philosophy, absolute truth generally states what is essential rather than superficial - a description of the Ideal (to use Plato's concept) rather than the merely "real" (which Plato sees as a shadow of the Ideal). Among some religious groups this term is used to describe the source of or authority for a given faith or set of beliefs, such as the Bible.

2) In science, doubt has been cast on the notion of absolutes by theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics . Attempts to tie together all the known facts about the universe into a single unified theory (one example is string theory ) could be seen as efforts to discover absolute truth about this set of facts.

3) In pure mathematics , however, there is said to be a proof for the existence of absolute truth. A common tactic in mathematical proofs is the use of reductio ad absurdum , in which the statement to be proved is denied as a premise, and then that premise is shown to lead to a contradiction. When it can be demonstrated that the negation of a statement leads to a contradiction, then the original statement is proved true.

The logical proof of the statement, "There exists an absolute truth," is almost trivial in its simplicity. Suppose we assert the negation of the statement, that is, that there is no such thing as absolute truth. By making that assertion, we claim that the sentence "There exists no absolute truth" is absolutely true. The statement is self-contradictory, so its negation, "There exists an absolute truth," is true.

This proof applies only to logic. It does not tell us whether any particular statement other than itself is true. It does not prove the existence (or non-existence) of God, the devil, heaven, hell, or little green people from another galaxy. Neither does it assert that we can always ascertain the truth or falsity of any arbitrary statement. The Incompleteness Theorem , proved by Kurt Gödel and published in 1931, actually showed that there exist logical statements whose truth value is undecidable, that is, they cannot be proved either true or false.

whatis.techtarget.com...

Facts Vs. Truths:

In terms of permanence, a fact happens to be more permanent, and almost always seems to have no changes. It is more constant than truths. For example, when you say that the sun will always rise from the east and set in the west, you are telling a fact, but when you say that you are in Los Angeles, then that is a truth, at least for that exact moment. Several hours from that time you may have gone somewhere else, making your previous statement a fallacy. Thus, a truth is something that is not universal, it is more subjective, and depends on the current situation. That’s why the truth’s existence is said to be more temporary than that of facts.

1. Facts are more objective when compared to the more subjective truths.
2. Facts are more permanent when compared to the more temporary truths.
3. Facts exist in reality, whereas truths are usually the things that one believes to be true, or the things that are true in the current situation.
4. Facts can also answer the ‘where’ ‘when’ and ‘how’ questions, whereas truths answer the ‘why’ question.

Read more: Difference Between Fact and Truth | Difference Between | Fact vs Truth www.differencebetween.net...

In your dictionary definition of proof it states:

1. Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement

Evidence establishing a fact OR a truth. Not specifically one or the other.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan


Still haven't answered my question.

Have we proven arsenic can kill you?

Another question

Are rocks compounds of elements?

If the answer is yes, then science has PROVEN something. Rocks are not formed by magical marshmallow faeries. How do I know this, because we have seen the formation of rocks, and we have created them our selves in labs.

reply to post by ErroneousDylan

It's really cute how you keep using the same idioms over and over

It's not an idiom, it's an axiom.

although it does come off as a little cliché.

Really? Care to explain what you mean?

Or are you going to keep pretending that you don't need to explain your presumptions?

I'm going to quote other people as they write better than I do and I am growing bored.

You mean that you are losing horribly.

In regards to your question of what absolute truth is:

Nothing of importance to this thread or discussion.

Evidence establishing a fact OR a truth. Not specifically one or the other.

A fact is a truth.

I still don't see why you are having trouble understanding this.

You seem to be sticking to your original position that "Nothing in science is provable", while simultaneously changing what you mean by "Proof" to be that of "Absolute Truth" which has ABSOLUTELY no meaning in science.

You have LOST the argument (the moment you posted your OP, actually) and now you are attempting to weasel your way out of your loss, by going straight to "Quantum Crystal Energy and religion"

It's actually quite sad.

Again, this is what YOU wrote:

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?

There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to science

reply to post by ErtaiNaGia


your statement A=A is an attempt to use a pure symbolic logic in order to derive a truth.

I assure you that there is no purer symbolic logic than geometry.

thus, your failure to acknowledge the defeat of your supposed "checkmate" is either a lack of understanding of the logic you are attempting to emoluments, or you are kiddying the waters.


the fact remains, as I aerated before, that with a eucledian mapping in which right angles produce squares, it is true that A=A. however, in the hyperbolic "pretty picture" plane, right angles do NOT produce squares, and it is NOT true that A=A.

if you would take just a moment to look at this pretty picture, I am sure that you will see that the statement "a thing is a thing (itself)" is not true in aspects of reality where non-eucladian geometry applies.

the hyperbolic plane

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
Well, too bad. You'll never get it.

I have been seeing a lot of people during my time here, and specifically from this thread here lately, claim that they choose not to believe something because it lacks "scientific proof". It is really quite embarrassing too, because most of the people screaming for "proof!" are, what I would judge as, quite intelligent individuals.

You do realize that the term "scientific proof" is some what a form of oxymora, right?

There is no such thing as "proof" when it comes to science, because there are no final results in science. If you want finality you will have to partake in mathematics or logic as those are the only subjects where proof exists.

I'd love to go on and write my reasoning for this but this article sums it up much better than I ever could:
Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science: They are final, and they are binary. Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof). Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

In contrast, all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final. There is no such thing as final proven knowledge in science. The currently accepted theory of a phenomenon is simply the best explanation for it among all available alternatives. Its status as the accepted theory is contingent on what other theories are available and might suddenly change tomorrow if there appears a better theory or new evidence that might challenge the accepted theory. No knowledge or theory (which embodies scientific knowledge) is final. That, by the way, is why science is so much fun.

We can look at history and see this all the time. You know this to be true. I'm not going to give the cliché example of how people used to think the world was flat (oops I just did hehe), but there has obviously been a lot of this in the past and when someone says that "I don't believe something just because I choose to, I believe it because of facts" they are most certainly wrong.

In the end, it really does come down to your own personal belief. Unless, of course, you are a nihilist and don't believe in anything.

For example, a few scientists in today's world come to an agreement on something. This claim gets brought to the public and now it is generally accepted as a standard and is considered "right" by the public. However, did the mass public do these experiments themselves? Did they calculate everything? Do all the measurements? Most certainly not, but since it is generally agreed by everyone, they believe it. I've talked about this before in a thread of mine and in logic this is known as an argumentum ad populum, which basically means "people believe something to be true merely because everybody else believes it". This is a fallacy, mind you.

The article sited above then goes on to state this:

In contrast, there is no such binary evaluation of scientific theories. Scientific theories are neither absolutely false nor absolutely true. They are always somewhere in between. Some theories are better, more credible, and more accepted than others. There is always more, more credible, and better evidence for some theories than others. It is a matter of more or less, not either/or. For example, experimental evidence is better and more credible than correlational evidence, but even the former cannot prove a theory; it only provides very strong evidence for the theory and against its alternatives.

That being said, if we look at science from a logical standpoint, we would have to conclude that nothing is neither false nor true. However, we know that logic is contradictory to belief. A belief is something thought to be true by means of a opinion, where as logical truths come from facts. So, what that comes down to again is that, at some point, you are believing something based on your own opinion.

Also, with the above text linked, one could conclude that any piece of substantial evidence would be enough for someone to believe that something scientific is "true" or, at least, agreeable with them. If we simply can not prove anything scientific, that would mean the same regardless for the amount of "evidence" that was released. You could have 1000's of pages released saying "this is true" or you could have One page released saying "this is true" but neither one will prove that the theory is final. So, the amount of evidence should not matter either when deciding for yourself that something scientific is provable.

Remember the example I wrote above? Involving the argumentum ad populum? Well, let's say that this information was released to the public and they mass agreed on it. What then if another group of scientists had came out with completely equal amounts of information proving it to be "fasle"? Now you have 50% saying that "this is what is" and 50% saying "this is not what is". Who do you choose then? It merely comes down to your opinion, once again.


Consider this a rant if you wish, but the statement stands the same: "You can't prove anything scientific."

edit on 12-1-2012 by ErroneousDylan because: This text is green and italic.

You(and the article) are "spot on"!!! Great job and I applaud your thread.

Ignore anyone who disagrees with you. They (all) represent weakness and ignorance. Which includes people of faith(blind faith in anything).

reply to post by tgidkp

your statement A=A is an attempt to use a pure symbolic logic in order to derive a truth.

So, you are stating, that A is not A?

Really?

You sure you want to go there?

I assure you that there is no purer symbolic logic than geometry.

I don't take assurances.

thus, your failure to acknowledge the defeat of your supposed "checkmate" is either a lack of understanding of the logic you are attempting to emoluments, or you are kiddying the waters.

OR, you are speaking absolute, unvarnished Bull[snip]

You know.... one of the three...

the fact remains, as I aerated before, that with a eucledian mapping in which right angles produce squares

So, what you are meaning to say... is that if Reality wasn't Reality, then A wouldn't be A?

Honestly?

Wow... you are just grasping at straws now, aren't you?

if you would take just a moment to look at this pretty picture, I am sure that you will see that the statement "a thing is a thing (itself)" is not true in aspects of reality where non-eucladian geometry applies.

So, what you are


saying, is that the


statement "A is A"


only applies to REALITY,


Right?

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia

 

*sigh*

You can dissect your selected opponents replies, spin them to your advantage in text format... but it doesn't make you or your argument right.

Again, I suggest a more human approach. Leave the arrogance behind and you might learn something.

May I suggest this:

Submit what you might consider to be an undeniable scientific truth. Then, if you don't mind, allow that undeniable truth to be challenged. If I am am not overstepping, I would also suggest that you defend your truth based on that truth and not insults.

'Sup to you. I'll check back in on this.

Cheers

Perhaps I am not following you here : What do "you" call it when I can take a circuit schematic; a calculator, and a legal pad and predict the values of voltage and current present to several decimal places across components .
Then:
Go to the actual piece of equipment and verify my "predictions"(calculatons)by measurement ???
?
"faith"?
Or reproducible science and therefore "truth". I call it "truth" and verifiable/reproducible"proof" and anybody else can get the same results.People like to say we don't "know" the universe; we know quite abit at least at the "macro" level.

We have divined principles and rules that stand up to observation. For all effective purposes:" applicable; useful" truth(s).

Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by spav5

 

circular logic is your science?

It's not circular.... It's straightforward.

A is A.

Stop playing stupid.

I thought at onetime that there was absolute truth..I mean if there is no absolute truth then THAT is the absolute truth ..right? Either way you win...no absolute truth = absolute truth.

I loved that there was something that I could never be wrong about.

But then I asked myself..what is absolute truth again?

My answer: If no absolute truth = absolute truth...then absolute truth = no absolute truth.


So if want to believe that A = A is absolute truth..by definition it also not absolute truth.

Peace