The List of Undisputable Givens and Laws

[DarkCloud]

(Okay, I hope that none of these are disputable; if they are not, then I have accomplished my purpose... If they are, please tell me how and I will attempt to crush any dispute.)

I.
The purpose of life is to breed and reproduce

II.
All things die.

III.
Genetic Variations in species do occur

IV.
The Scientific Method is flawed
-There are too many interfering factors prohibiting the method from working at full efficiency.
An incomplete listing:

1.) elements may interfere slightly and scatter others.
2.) Specific lighting
3.) Age of materials
4.) Position
5.) Vibrations
6.) Movement of air
7.) Air pressure
-Unless all these and more can be conquered, I maintain my stance, unmovingly

V.
The assumption that things exist is proven because things interact!

[David Floyd]

The purpose of life is to breed and reproduce

Why? Who gives anyone the moral authority to dictate the purpose of my life?

[Immortal Wombat]

I - Not to breed, just to reproduce

II - depends what you mean by things.

IV - Its not flawed, its just very difficult to do perfectly

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by David Floyd


Why? Who gives anyone the moral authority to dictate the purpose of my life?

David- it is fairly obvious that that fact is indisputable.
It is meant for all types of life.
If life did not reproduce, then how would life exist.

Also, if that is not at least one purpose of life- why does all life contain reproductive organs?
--
Immortal Wombat-

Has its perfectness ever been done?
I think a vaccum may be good- but then you would have to prove its validity in the real world with every possible factor weighed in on each experiment- it would take years to prove how things react or something of that sort.

A vaccum or perfect implementation of the method would merely prove that unaffected, a single particle has the properties which were discovered- when, however, its atoms react with other elements, the reactions change, and each must be plotted in its own instances.

[Immortal Wombat]

No, it has never been perfected. So?

Its implementation may be flawed, but it in itself is perfect.

[loinburger]

Seeing as how I and IV are under dispute, the list needs to be revised. I'm also going to dispute V just for the hell of it; your reasoning is flawed because you cannot prove beyond all doubt that interactions are not actually independent events that are completely unrelated to "things interacting." The fact that you might not exist also calls your judgment on the matter into question.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
David- it is fairly obvious that that fact is indisputable.
It is meant for all types of life.
If life did not reproduce, then how would life exist.

Saying that reproduction is necessary for life is not the same thing as saying that reproduction is the purpose of life.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
No, it has never been perfected. So?

Its implementation may be flawed, but it in itself is perfect.

yes, I do agree that it IS possible but only in theory for Observation to work (the scientific method)

However, I postulate that theory will and has never been carried through 100% correctly. And thus it is inherently flawed because humans frequently make mistakes.

Perhaps a case can be made for it.

However, I stand by empiricism and logic as the only paths to truth until Observation can be perfected, for empiricism and logic have been proven to work.

loinburger
I consider the argument that I do not exist to be superflous because I think I exist. Cogito ergo sum! Cogito ergo sum!

you cannot prove beyond all doubt that interactions are not actually independent events that are completely unrelated to "things interacting."

Then how can you say that if I hit a glass window with a hammer, the hammer's atoms are not interacting with the glass window?
The window broke, and therefore the glass particles moved.

The fact that the things can be touched and interact in that method also proves their existance...

----A note:
This thread is also part of the debate; it is however, disputable: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=46925

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


Saying that reproduction is necessary for life is not the same thing as saying that reproduction is the purpose of life.

Perhaps I worded it incorrectly.

Since:

Reproduction is necessary for life.
Life needs reproduction to happen for it to exist.
How does life exist?
Through Reproduction which creates life.
Life is created through reproduction.
The purpose of reproduction is to create life.
When life is created it instincitvely needs to reproduce.
Reproduction is necessary for life.
Therefore: The Purpose of Life is to reproduce to create more life.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
yes, I do agree that it IS possible but only in theory for Observation to work (the scientific method)

However, I postulate that theory will and has never been carried through 100% correctly. And thus it is inherently flawed because humans frequently make mistakes.

And you also postulate that 100% efficiency is necessary for it to be considered a valid method for determining truths sufficient for humans to accept it as truth?

[Immortal Wombat]

Darkcloud, there are many better arguments for why the purpose of life is reproduction.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

And you also postulate that 100% efficiency is necessary for it to be considered a valid method for determining truths sufficient for humans to accept it as truth?

True.

Until 100% efficiency is achieved, the system is flawed.
there must be no doubt in an orderly universe.

IF the universe cannot be ordered logically then there is no such thing as a universe for it cannot be comprehended and make any logical order or sense.

[kolpo]

Originally posted by DarkCloud


Perhaps I worded it incorrectly.

Since:

Reproduction is necessary for life.
Life needs reproduction to happen for it to exist.
How does life exist?
Through Reproduction which creates life.
Life is created through reproduction.
The purpose of reproduction is to create life.
When life is created it instincitvely needs to reproduce.
Reproduction is necessary for life.
Therefore: The Purpose of Life is to reproduce to create more life.

That is not necassary. In genetic programming does data reproduce itself, the reproducing is needed for the succes of the genetic programming. But the propose of the existance of that data is not to reproduce, the propose is to find a better solution for a given problem even while the enivorment has been changed so that the best solutions would survive is still reproducing not the main goal. Same can be applied to life, maybe is the propose of life not just creating other things that life but is there also another propose, you can't prove that my agrument againsts your argument is wrong and because of that can't you prove that your agrument is right.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Then how can you say that if I hit a glass window with a hammer, the hammer's atoms are not interacting with the glass window?
The window broke, and therefore the glass particles moved.

It is impossible to prove beyond any doubt that the window didn't simply break on its own, independently of the hammer.

[Ramo]

IV contradicts II and III.

V makes no sense, whatsoever.

I is flawed because it relies on "purpose," a subjective term. As techno pointed out, necessity doesn't imply a purpose.

However, I stand by empiricism and logic as the only paths to truth until Observation can be perfected, for empiricism and logic have been proven to work.

Empiricism relies on observation.

The fact that the things can be touched and interact in that method also proves their existance...

Again, that doesn't make sense. How can you make sure that the observer isn't flawed in some way?