It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
In the end, it really does come down to your own personal belief.
Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
The Axiom of Equality you keep posting is still mathematical logic. It is not a scientific theory. Even people posting math to dispute your axiom are derailing the thread.
As was stated in the OP, mathematics and logic (or mathematical logic) can, of course, have an absolute truthful result. I agree with that and the axiom A = A, but it has no place in this thread.
Mathematical logic does not equal science.
The problem with an axiom in relation to science is that you are dealing with numbers and symbols of a certain language that have set, absolute values. Science, on the other hand, is not dealing with set, absolute values.
If you are trying to compare the mathematical axiom of equality to science, then the only proof you can conclude would be that of semantic value.
You could say that "rock = rock" where you would be applying the reflexive axiom to science but we know that isn't true, unless you are comparing the chain of characters "rock" to itself.
The double-slit experiment in quantum physics shows that, upon observation, particles will change accordingly. This would say that reality really is subjective, as opposed to objective, since everything in the Universe is made up of these particles.
Therefore, A = A could be, in fact, truthful for your reality, but to claim that it is an absolute truth universally, is incorrect.
In any regard, it is still an equation of mathematical logic. Not science.
Originally posted by Harte
While it's true that you are a collection of atoms, the question then becomes "What is an atom?"
The only answer to this is definition-based, not mathematically based.
An atom is what we define it to be. What it actually is is completely unknown.
Harte
your continued refusal to accept that our understanding of the universe may change in the future is quite sad...
I at least accept that A in fact may not always be A
this confirms to logic, analytical proposition, and the nature of science
sorry, I can't recall ever going ad hominem on anyone in the time I have been on ATS, but this is single handedly the MOST ignorant statement I have ever heard anyone say in my 36 years of life...
this just goes to show the blind faith mindset that I spoke of earlier tonight is alive and well...
The Axiom of Equality you keep posting is still mathematical logic. It is not a scientific theory. Even people posting math to dispute your axiom are derailing the thread.
In logic, the law of identity is the first of the so-called three classic laws of thought. It states that an object is the same as itself: A → A (if you have A, then you have A); While this can also be listed as A ≡ A (A if-and-only-if A,) this is redundant. Any reflexive relation upholds the law of identity. When discussing equality, the fact that "A is A" is a tautology.
As was stated in the OP, mathematics and logic (or mathematical logic) can, of course, have an absolute truthful result. I agree with that and the axiom A = A, but it has no place in this thread.
Mathematical logic does not equal science.
The problem with an axiom in relation to science is that you are dealing with numbers and symbols of a certain language that have set, absolute values. Science, on the other hand, is not dealing with set, absolute values.
If you are trying to compare the mathematical axiom of equality to science, then the only proof you can conclude would be that of semantic value.
You could say that "rock = rock" where you would be applying the reflexive axiom to science but we know that isn't true
unless you are comparing the chain of characters "rock" to itself.
The double-slit experiment in quantum physics
Therefore, A = A could be, in fact, truthful for your reality, but to claim that it is an absolute truth universally, is incorrect.
In any regard, it is still an equation of mathematical logic. Not science.
you do know that in other languages an A is completely different. like greek
A = 6
now i have proven you wrong.
A=A is the root of the Law of Identity, which is one of the 3 classic Laws of Thought, the foundation of scholastic logic
all the while, he fails to acknowledge that this whole thread is about science not using logic to function. more so the fact that a large portion of theoretical physics uses non-classic logic to postulate their ideas.... they literally make things up.
Originally posted by deepankarm
here is my point-
Originally posted by petrus4
Proof does exist.
Person A performs an experiment, and documents it completely. Person B then performs said experiment, from the notes of Person A. If Person B is able to replicate it, then the proof is in the observable replication.
When people say they want proof, they generally mean one of two things.
a] They want instrumental proof; that is, something like an EEG or a Geiger counter to confirm that something is real. Both psychology and atheism have taught us to believe that our own senses do not provide a legitimate form of evidence for anything.
b] They want the opinion of someone they consider an authority, and will consider that individual's opinion as proof; whether or not said individual has actually conducted an experiment themselves or not. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy; and it is even moreso, when said experts make statements on a second-hand, or entirely theoretical basis. The latter in particular, is the main reason why most "skeptics," are a joke, from any genuinely rational point of view.
an experiment by A replicated by others dosent make it a proof.
reason is they have some common knowledge.
remove that common link, everything becomes unprovable.edit on 13-1-2012 by deepankarm because: just missed it
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
reply to post by kalisdad
sorry, I can't recall ever going ad hominem on anyone in the time I have been on ATS, but this is single handedly the MOST ignorant statement I have ever heard anyone say in my 36 years of life...
Would you like to explain how A will not be A?
No, go ahead... I dare you.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
You cannot disprove this, because it is Truth.
no scientist, however famous or highly placed, is empowered to decide for other scientists what is true, for none are believed by other scientists to have special access to the truth.
Originally posted by ErtaiNaGia
A will Always be A, you cannot debate this, or diminish the overwhelming significance of this fact.
There are also “non-classical” propositional logics in which such possibilities as (i) a proposition’s having a truth-value other than truth or falsity, (ii) a proposition’s having an indeterminate truth-value or lacking a truth-value altogether, and sometimes even (iii) a proposition’s being both true and false, are considered.
Thus the laws of logic, being paradigmatic cases of analytic propositions, are not immune to revision.
Originally posted by Dystopiaphiliac
Originally posted by Harte
While it's true that you are a collection of atoms, the question then becomes "What is an atom?"
The only answer to this is definition-based, not mathematically based.
An atom is what we define it to be. What it actually is is completely unknown.
Harte
An atom is a composition of sub-atomic particles. Those particles are themselves made of smaller particles, so on and so forth. Their movement and structure can potentially be fully understood.
It doesn't have to be mathematical logic, it can still just be logic. Either way, it does not mean it is science.
To state that something is itself is a logical statement, not a scientific one.
It's ok, You don't have to be mad that you are wrong.
Just accept it and move on.
kalisdad
you can quote all the laws and theories you want to prove your point. fact is, we don't know with 100% certainty if these we be held true in the future.
ErtaiNaGia
Yes, we Do.
kalisdad
sorry, I can't recall ever going ad hominem on anyone in the time I have been on ATS, but this is single handedly the MOST ignorant statement I have ever heard anyone say in my 36 years of life...
ErtaiNaGia
Would you like to explain how A will not be A?
No, go ahead... I dare you.
you and I both know that my statement had nothing to do with your A=A arguement...
you claim that we know with 100% certainty that the laws and theories we believe today will not be disproven in the future, and this defies the logic that you are defending...
logic and the history of science are against you on this one
your claim is invalidated
your claim is invalidated
your claim is invalidated
"Is logic empirical?" is the title of two articles that discuss the idea that the algebraic properties of logic may, or should, be empirically determined; in particular, they deal with the question of whether empirical facts about quantum phenomena may provide grounds for revising classical logic as a consistent logical rendering of reality.
Science Is Not Authoritarian
It is appropriate in science, as elsewhere, to turn to knowledgeable sources of information and opinion, usually people who specialize in relevant disciplines. But esteemed authorities have been wrong many times in the history of science. In the long run, no scientist, however famous or highly placed, is empowered to decide for other scientists what is true, for none are believed by other scientists to have special access to the truth. There are no preestablished conclusions that scientists must reach on the basis of their investigations.
Classical truth-functional propositional logic is by far the most widely studied branch of propositional logic, and for this reason, most of the remainder of this article focuses exclusively on this area of logic. In addition to classical truth-functional propositional logic, there are other branches of propositional logic that study logical operators, such as “necessarily”, that are not truth-functional. There are also “non-classical” propositional logics in which such possibilities as (i) a proposition’s having a truth-value other than truth or falsity, (ii) a proposition’s having an indeterminate truth-value or lacking a truth-value altogether, and sometimes even (iii) a proposition’s being both true and false, are considered. (For more information on these alternative forms of propositional logic
Water=Ice