DevilSolution

Anyone else ever read Recursion by Tony-Ballantyne??

WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT WAS A MOVIE? its the best documentary made. ever. You could scientifically become a centaur, whether thats the same as who or what you are now is irrelevant to the fact its possible you could become a centuar. The beef is with science not philosophy. You argument is the same as saying the me of 5 minutes time is not the same as me now....

Dont dismiss science, they built jurassic park right? Seriously though, gene splicing could probably make this possible. Scientifically not much isnt possible, not much at all.

Please do. Explain to me what symbols you use and what each represents

I said it was a representation "tied" to reality, or in other words its mapped to reality, it is as implied a representation. These terms explain things like gravity which are fundamentally intangible objects which we "represent" through the use of logic. The fact that your house exists and gravity exists only proves that the representation itself is true, the drawing and gravity are both only representations of the truth, tied to the logic that both do exist. Or else she wouldnt have drawn a house and newton wouldnt have created an equation for gravity. Let me explain the first point of that statement with a question; Can you create for me some logical system or abstract notion that has absolutely no relation to reality? Any number at all, any formula, any notion, anything at all, that isnt some representation of reality. If you can im trumped otherwise the point is that every form of logic that exists only exists because its mapped to some form of reality. Therefor through logical deduction you can say it exists. Even if you have the logic and not the relation to reality, that logic fits somewhere.

There's plenty of scientific theory's (not even hypotheses actual thoery's) that compete within physics, both are used for specific tasks are known to be accurate in the way that they are used but ultimately contradict each other in some for or another. Both theory's are true scientifically until proven otherwise as they both are proven by the field inwhich they are used. Firstly; There is some ultiamte truth behind Goldbach's Conjecture, one way or the other it is true or it is false, because its not false its equally as true. I imagine it could be true, i also imagine it could be false, if i couldnt imagine it to be true; it would be false. An example is that i cant imagine a number or form of logic that has no abstract application, i can imagine a form of logic that draws an abstract relationship between the speed of light and my friends cat. If i cant imagine it, it is false, if i can its true, "if i can imagine it" to be true but i weigh that its probably false then "it is possible" but it probably doesnt exist. As previously states "can" exist and "will" exist are very different. Referring back to the OP, i replied: Essentially anything that exists through logical deduction must necessarily exist, as a process of its own logic. If we cant conceive it, it doesnt exist, if we can then it exists as a representation of some model of reality, tied to it directly via the system that creates both. Remember how powerful science is before you say anything is impossible, to say something is impossible is less scientific than saying everything is possible. (and less imaginative )

You cant use a paradox to prove mathematics is the only truth. I've shown how using a false system proves that any outcome of that systen is false, so please show a logical example to disprove it otherwise. btw, russels paradox says ((1 == 1) && ( 1 == (1 / x))) which is false. But (1 == (( 1 / x) * x)), the set of all sets is an accumulation of itself. Its not pseudoscience until science proves it wrong. Logic allows for everything we can conceive, we are after all its product.

Can it still be used as proof then?? I would argue not. If you require the use of math for proof but use a flawed piece of math as the proof, then im left quite confused. Is there no other way to conclusively show that you can imagine something that is illogical?? I think you could create a very strong argument against "if you can imagine it, it exists", but it should not include the use of paradox, im also not sure whether it would be conclusive.

Woh, something doesnt add up here; To use russels paradox to prove that you can conceive of something that is logically impossible means that mathematics cant be used as an ultimate proof. All paradoxes show this, if mathematics cant be used to prove it one way or the other, the system doesnt work. Then in the very next statement declare you NEED to use this broken system of math as proof. If you can find another example that isnt a paradox i'd be content. Otherwise your saying "This proves the system is broken, you are required to use the broken system as your proof". I remember seeing the set of all sets on portal, a little easter egg i suppose.

Currently: Bill Hicks, love all the people Last: Charles Bukowski, ham on rye Before that i read PIHKAL :D I havent read a good novel for ages though.

You lost me on superluminal neutrinos lol (i have a basic concept of them but you use them in equations i have never seen) nad once you lose track its like reading another language. You obviously know your stuff but you dont simplify the concepts being discussed. Have you ever tried drawing up your own equations??

Scala, Java, Python or C#. Doesn't really matter if you learn them all