DevilSolution
-
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DevilSolution
-
-
Actually no, no one has built Jurassic Park, it was a movie, and since i am by definition not a centaur making a centaur by any method would not make me a centaur...
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....
-
I cannot be part horse and part human, this is not a possibility, no metaphor is involved. Me being a centaur is impossible not the least because if I was a centaur i would not be me...
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.
-
-
Edited by DevilSolution
It is not the case that anything which is proven through deduction (I'm not sure what you even are attempting to mean by 'exists through logical deduction') must necessarily exist. A proof is only as good as its premises. If it has false premises, then the conclusion need not be true. You've also made a very common very bad mistake for lay people in the second sentence. A representation is not the same as the thing it represents. When my niece takes out a crayon and construction paper then draws my house, the resultant drawing is not my house. I do not live in the drawing. Rather, I live in my house.
I said it was a representation "tied" to reality, or in other words its mapped to reality, it is as implied a representation.
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.
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.
-
He can't even get that far. It's just a blatant fact that a hypothesis is in fact not held true until falsified. Since there is more than one mutually exclusive competing hypothesis at any one time, that would entail that kristalris thinks that science is founded on believing contradictions until we conclusively falsify every possible (metaphysically possible, that is) option.
Knowingly believing contradictions isn't rational. With kristalris's absurd and unsupported claim that hypotheses are held to be true until shown to be otherwise, he claims that science is foundationally irrational.
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.
If you'd bother to read the OP, you'd know that I made the distinction between what is actually possible and your (actually rather common among lay people) confusion of what is possible with what you don't know to be impossible.
Not knowing something to be false does not mean that that is a way the world could actually be. Consider Goldbach's Conjecture: every even number greater than or equal to 4 is the sum of two primes. This is either true or false, but we don't yet know which. However, it would be erroneous to thus conclude that it is possible to be true or possible to be false. As a mathematical theorem (or the denial of a mathematical theorem) it is either necessarily true or necessarily false. If it is true, there is no way the world could be such that it would have been false. If it is false, there is no way that the world could be such that it is true.
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:
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.
Logic allows for everything we can conceive, we are after all its product.
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 )
-
-
Edited by DevilSolution
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.
-
Edited by DevilSolution
Not only is that false, but has conclusively been shown to be false. Your hypothesis has been falsified.
hint: we don't use naive set theory anymore
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.
-
Edited by DevilSolution
So, let's take a look at a specific set: the set of all sets which are not members of themselves. The set of all cats is not a member of the set of all cats-it's a set of cats, not of sets! So, it goes in! Likewise, any set consisting of no sets will go in this set of all sets which are not members of themselves.
So, we pose a question: Is this set of all sets which are not members of themselves (from here on out, we'll call it 'R') a member of itself? If R is a member of R, then it fails to meet the requirements to be in R, so it isn't a member of R. That's a contradiction, so that's no good. That means R must not be a member of itself. But what happens if R is a member of itself? If R is a member of itself, it meets the requirement to be in R. Since R is the set of ALL sets meeting this requirements, it goes in. Again we have R both being a member of itself and not being a member of itself. So, either way, we get a contradiction. This means something is logically impossible. But we got this result simply from the definitions of sets and members and from the very conceivable idea that you can group whatever you want together.
This is a situation in which something is conceivable, but logically impossible. This means it is not the case that whatever you can imagine is possible. Crackpots, take note: the fact that you can imagine something in no way implies that it is possible. It doesn't matter how clear your perpetual motion device/unified theory/God/electric universe is, imagining it doesn't cut the mustard. This is one of the reasons you NEED the math.
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.
-
-
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??
-
:D
What are you reading?
in Book Talk
Anyone else ever read Recursion by Tony-Ballantyne??