Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Do you want "scientific proof"?

page: 11
60
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:30 PM
link   
People live their lives bound by what they accept as correct and true. That's how they define as being their "reality".
But then again what is right and true are vague ideas and only perspectives if you will ... thus the "reality" that we live in might just be an illusion for all we know...but how would we know this?....is this what you're trying to say, OP?...I am not sure if it was george bernard shaw or someone else but whoever it was postulated that "True knowledge is only when you realize the extent of your ignorance".....thus we are all relatively ignorant.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Leonardo01 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by ErroneousDylan
In the end, it really does come down to your own personal belief.


That's right. All that we are aware of is subjective. So why not give a try in Mystery.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by 1ness
 


This does not justify belief....while science strives to remain objective - religious belief does not. There is difference between having a mere opinion and having one that is tenable and validated,savvy?..coz when we say that we believe in something we are making a presumption that may or may not establish itself as being correct.
edit on 13-1-2012 by Leonardo01 because: prose



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 


I have never asked to see proof of any claim...

Some claims are just common sense as to weather or not they are real.

However, What about validity..??

A hypothisis or scientific claim can be validated with reasonable doubt...

MAny threads here claim something but lack valid, reputable, published findings and mere;y state that it is true because it is on U-tube..lol



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 12:57 AM
link   

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.


He is not derailing the thread, in the end mathematics can be used to describe the entire structure and course of the universe from its birth to it's supposed possible death (if it isn't infinite). Mathematical logic, is potentially absolute knowledge of everything. Nearly everything follows the same set of laws which can and have been described mathematically.

Whether the universe is real or not doesn't matter, the illusion is real enough and all we know. The letter A for example, as presented in the english language is unequivocally the english letter A, factually and truthfully. The english letter A exists principally and only for the purpose of being the letter A of the english language. A rock is not a rock, but a collection of made up letters with the specific purpose of applying a sequential vibration of gaseous matter in direct correlation to denser, compacted matter for communication between two or more sentient beings.

This entire thread seems to be based off the idea that we could all be stuck in the matrix, or that nothing is what it seems regardless how many times the apple falls to the Earth. Our thought processing is godly in comparison to what it once used to be. Our ancestors were not living things. They were clusters of space dust, preparing to collapse under the strain of gravity, giving way to the first stars and eventually galaxies and life. Inanimate matter is enslaved and has no free will. It's bound by gravity and the described forces of the universe. We however can overcome the forces of the universe and actively manipulate matter and energy (which are really one in the same). You can claim science holds no true sway, but all it seeks is to tell you we're the result of something.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:05 AM
link   
This is why my Atheism does not depend on science, so I don't have to get all hung up on "proof" or "evidence". I don't ask for these things from the religious, hopefully they'll stop asking me for some....



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:06 AM
link   

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. There is already a periodic table of the particles of the elements. How much knowledge would the human race have in 3,000 years of peaceful cooperation? A teenager has created a supposed cure for cancer: Cancer cured. When will someone cure age? When will we venture to the farthest known reaches of deep space? Will we over come all obstacles of time and space? I don't think very many living creatures are denying the supposed reality we inhabit, but I bet many of them wish they knew where it came from. With enough time and effort we might one day know.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 



your continued refusal to accept that our understanding of the universe may change in the future is quite sad...


And that has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.

As per usual, your responses are lacking in their relevancy.


I at least accept that A in fact may not always be A


And that is just Dumb.


this confirms to logic, analytical proposition, and the nature of science


No, it does not.

You merely BELIEVE that it does.

But rest assured, that A is A.


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.


this just goes to show the blind faith mindset that I spoke of earlier tonight is alive and well...


Your statements DO prove that, don't they?



reply to post 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 I KEEP telling you, this is the foundation of all logic.

It is known as the Law....


*THE LAW* of Identity.

You cannot argue against it. Period.



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.

en.wikipedia.org...

I don't care what you think.... The law of identity is True, and you need to USE it to even ARGUE THE POINT.


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.


Yes it does.

A thing is itself.

This is an example of Proof in Science, which is what this entire thread is about.


Mathematical logic does not equal science.


Yes, this is true.... but the law of Identity is not mathematical logic, it is JUST logic.

Concurrently, your premise that nothing can be "Proven" to be absolutely true in science is based on your inability to grasp the DISTINCTION between Scientific, and Mathematical Proof.... exchanging one for the other as you please, and making incorrect deductions from this erroneous presumption.


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.


What part of "A thing is itself" are you really having so much trouble grasping?


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.


It's not just semantics.

I am myself.

There, that's 3 so far that disprove your assertion.


You could say that "rock = rock" where you would be applying the reflexive axiom to science but we know that isn't true


No, YOU BELIEVE that it isn't true.

A Rock *IS* a Rock, by definition it MUST BE.


unless you are comparing the chain of characters "rock" to itself.


Now you are just arguing poor semantics.

And to top it off, you are still wrong.


The double-slit experiment in quantum physics


Yup.... Quantum crystal energy.... I knew you'd go there.


Therefore, A = A could be, in fact, truthful for your reality, but to claim that it is an absolute truth universally, is incorrect.


You don't understand Logic then.

It's ok, You don't have to be mad that you are wrong.

Just accept it and move on.


In any regard, it is still an equation of mathematical logic. Not science.


Your statement that Nothing in science can be "Proven" is an misconception of the differences between Mathematical "Formal" proof, and Evidence that establishes a statement as true.

reply to post by N3v3rmor3
 



you do know that in other languages an A is completely different. like greek

A = 6

now i have proven you wrong.


What is completely different now?

What equals 6?

No, go ahead.... answer the question if you think you have the correct answer...

I'll be here.... waiting....



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 



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


That is correct.


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.


Explain how this statement indicates that nothing in science can be proven?



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


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.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepankarm

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.
here is my point-
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


The only definition of proof that I care about, is as something's value, as a working prerequisite for something else. In other words, if by putting A and B together, I can consistently get C; and if I am also able to get other consistent results by using A and B in conjunction with other quantities...then I will accept that A and B are true in practical terms, to the extent of what I'm doing.

That is known mathematically as implicit proof. You can say that 1 + 1 = 2, but the only proof of that which exists, is that expression itself. If you try and write a longer and more formal, painstaking, or explicit proof for it, you will find yourself unable to do so, with the result that you will eventually become schizophrenic if you do not give up. That has actually happened to mathematicians who've tried.

So if 1 + 1 = 2, and I can consistently use that to also demonstrates that 2 + 1 = 3, and that works as the practical basis of implementations or experiments, then I am not concerned with proving it in more minute or hypothetical terms; primarily because, as mentioned, it simply is not possible.

The only scenario where this is not true, is where the units in question are not absolutes; and where further information can be obtained about the units in question, for the purposes of obtaining more consistent replication. In other words, 1 + 1 = 2 is not an expression which can be reduced down or explained further; but 1.2 + 1.2 = 3.4 can to an extent, because 1.2 is not a whole number. This probably isn't the most effective analogy for describing this concept, but I'm not entirely lucid mentally at the moment, so it will have to serve.
edit on 14-1-2012 by petrus4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   

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.


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



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


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.


your claim is invalidated


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.


your claim is invalidated


Thus the laws of logic, being paradigmatic cases of analytic propositions, are not immune to revision.


your claim is invalidated

I already posted my links to some peer reviewed scientific sites that you just completely ignore



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:26 PM
link   

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.


There might be some potential for complete understanding of the structure of subatomic particles.

However, there's never been any inkling that such a potential exists.

All we know about such things are the data we gather about them (properties, behaviors, etc.) The gathered data is (usually) used to construct as theory about such things.
Every such theory about subatomics (and anything else you care to name) has in every case been found to be incomplete if not completely incorrect - eventually.

At this current time, we have in our possession a set of theories that are admittedly incomplete. Our theories are nothing but models that we constantly refine toward greater usefullness. Or throw away, depending on newer findings.

Every, single, scientific theory in the past has either been shown to ultimately be either incorrect, or to be merely a tiny portion of a greater, previously unguessed-at theory that came later. There is no reason whatsoever to think anything different about the theories currently in use.

There's no "proof" at all in any of that.

Harte



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Orkojoker
 


"usefulness" as defined by any users of the system in question.

like any good work, if it is truly valuable (useful), it will propagate of its own accord. if i am not mistaken, this is known in modern terminology as a "meme" (not necessarily in the internet meme sense).



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by ErroneousDylan
 



It doesn't have to be mathematical logic, it can still just be logic. Either way, it does not mean it is science.


Science is Knowledge.

I *know* that a thing is itself.

IT's very existence is proof of this.

Therefore, your premise that nothing in science can be proven is, itself, Disproven.


To state that something is itself is a logical statement, not a scientific one.


IT is both, actually.... because we can actually observe the world to check the veracity of the statement.


It's ok, You don't have to be mad that you are wrong.

Just accept it and move on.


Listen, I know that you like me and all.... but this imitation smells like a lot more than flattery.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 







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...


And, as we can see, My statement was a continuation about the argument that was REVOLVING around the "A = A" argument.

So, nice try... but that's a fail.


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...


You are claiming that in the future, that the foundation of all logic will no longer hold, for some reason.

This is wrong, and arguing against it is illogical.


logic and the history of science are against you on this one


The sad part is that you don't see how wrong you are.

*NEXT POST*


your claim is invalidated


By what?

some random text that has nothing to do with my argument?

Nice try.


your claim is invalidated


A is still A.

You haven't even proposed an argument against it, you are just using jargon to distract FROM the argument.

Fail.


your claim is invalidated


Where are you getting this stuff from?

You didn't even source your text... you just put it in the "EX" tags to pretend that it has some authority.

Oh... Found it...


"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.

en.wikipedia.org...

Now, let's see what part you got your above text from....

The first one is quoted from this (which you didn't quote in context I see)

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.

www.project2061.org...

This of course speaks against the Appeal to authority logical fallacy, which YOU are guilty of, by merely quoting this article as an attack on my position, oddly enough.

You have still not argued against the Law of Identity.

Not even close.

Anyway, on to the next one....

This second one if from here:

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

www.iep.utm.edu...

Again, quoting out of context, so that this treatise on propositional logic seems to be a refutation of my position, when it is nothing of the sort.

Nice bit of fail there.

At least you don't Fail at Failing.

And that is something, at least...



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
A=A is not a fact and is not determinable through logical processes.

A=A is a postulate (or axiom.)

It is the reflexive property of equality and has never been "proven" and cannot be "proven," else it would be called a theorem.

It is postulated to be true, which is why I prefer the word "postulate" instead of "axiom," which means the same thing - a thing that has been agreed upon to be true due to the fact that it is self-evident.

Postulates are like definitions in that everyone agrees to them so that logical arguments can proceed from them.

Harte



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:11 PM
link   
reply to post by ErtaiNaGia
 


Water=Water

Water=Ice

A does not always = A

end of my participation in this conversation



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:18 PM
link   
reply to post by kalisdad
 



Water=Ice


No, Ice=Ice.

Water is a liquid, Ice is a solid.

Ice is not a liquid, and therefore Ice is not Water.

Q.E.D. A thing is itself.





new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join