The List of Undisputable Givens and Laws

[Immortal Wombat]

Atoms move- yes!
But how could they always syncronise without the movment of the hammer-

Million monkeys theory. It could have been chance.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I didn't say that thoery altered evidence. However evidence is created by theories.

Evidence is only created by experimentation. Theory is used to predict the results, but theory itself does not create evidence.

Before the world was created there were laws- man is merely discovering them.

Even assuming that your first statement is true, that still doesn't necessarily imply that man can ever find out what those laws are. Man's means of analyzing and interpreting the world are flawed.

I also want to apologize If I am being too vindicitave in this, but I want to find a basic system of laws so that we can build something on it- I am glad to receive ideas- but I would like it if someone would provide a basic undeniable law other than "nothing can be known"

No need to apologize; I'd say that you're being stubborn, but not vindictive. However, if you're looking for a basic undeniable law other than "nothing can be known," then you shouldn't be talking to a postmodernist.

Math is easy to disprove as well- because it could be said as not existing because it is not a tangible object.

That doesn't disprove math, that dismisses it as irrelevant.

Newton's laws were true 'for the time'

They were never "true," they were merely "good enough."

And the Theory of Gravity does mean that people don't float off the earth- if there was no such thing- people would float off the arth.

Gravity means that people don't float off the earth. Gravity works with or without a man-made theory to try to explain it.

Yes, I realize that there is no Unified Theory of Everything- but what if you consider that Newton's laws only apply to earth and General RElativity and Quantum Mechanics apply only to the molecular level and space.

General Relativity applies to both earth as well as space, it's just that Newton's laws are usually pretty accurate when applied to mundane problems. Quantum Mechanics applies to both earth as well as the molecular and sub-molecular level, but uncertainty becomes irrelevant on the macro scale and so there is little benefit to be had in using Quantum Mechanics on mundane problems.

General Relativity doesn't begin to fail until applied to the molecular or sub-molecular level, and Quantum Mechanics doesn't begin to fail until applied to an astronomical scale. However, they are still improvements over Newton's theories, seeing as how Newton's theories break down at both the molecular/sub-molecular level as well as on the astronomical scale.

[MORON]

1. all evolution threads will fail to convert anyone

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger

You need to make the assumption that people are not merely deluding themselves, and this is generally a fair assumption to make. Just don't believe for an instant that you've proven that your assumption is correct.

Look. I will now make the statement that Everyone cannot be deluded all the time. Now I understand that is not undisputable. But I will place it as a basis so that you know what demons I am working under. Now that you know the demon- please know that I cannot and will not listen to arguments about everyone being deluded. This cannot be proven. And it cannot be disproven. Thus it is useless to argue.
Perhaps I shall revise my statment to the list of "Nearly Undisputalbe" laws and state why they are nearly.
However, based upon that system, I think that they are truly undisputable. The system, itself is disputable, I shall no longer argue that- thank you.

Technically the thing would be true even if the things are discovered. The theory is merely enlarged if other things are discovered.

That is not generally true. General relativity has little to no theoretical relation to Newtonian mechanics, and neither does Quantum Mechanics. Evolution is not merely an "enlarged" theory of Creationism. Modern thermodynamics has no theoretical relation to old theories about phlogistan. Etc.

I would argue that Evolution is merely an enlarged theory of creationism if you take it a certain way. All you would have to say is that the "Days" were eons and that the creation of light and the sun were misalingned... (Personally I think it is an allegory, but I'm arguing for a reason) Thus, Evolution is merely corrected Creationism.

Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity- I think, are two different systems.

You probably have a point about thermodynamics.

It is impossible to even prove the existence of other things because people haven't seen them. It is impossible to prove it either way, so it does not matter at all until those things are discovered.

It is the duty of the mathematician to prove that his theorem is correct. If the theorem isn't proven, then it isn't proven; the mathematician cannot simply say "Fermat's last theorem is correct, because you haven't proven it false!" The claimant is the one who must offer proof.

No. In that case, perhaps. But existence cannot be proven either way because... You need tangible facts to prove that something does not exist. You need a concrete way to prove that it does not exist. PRoving the nonexistence of something must also be done.

You cannot prove nor disprove somethings existence.

I don't need to. You need to prove that it is complete knowledge, otherwise you've proven nothing. The claimant is the one who must offer the proof.

And the refuter needs something to base his refutes on or his argument falls apart into a logicall fallacy and is but bunk.

So you admit that you cannot prove whether or not there is an invisible massless monkey on your shoulder?

Yes, becuase you cannot prove that there is. Its existence does not matter if it cannot be proved. If it cannot be proved then it, for all practical purposes, does not exist. Or at the very least, its existence has no meaning or purpose. It does not matter.

The only logical states I've ever heard of are true, false, indeterminate, and undefined. By definition, something is only one of these states, not multiple states. Unless you're thinking about fuzzy logic, which is really just probability.

What I meant, I believe is indeterminate. It is equally impossible to either prove or disprove god.

Since it cannot be proven which (if any) assumption is correct, the assumptions cannot be used to logically prove anything. F ==> T = T, just as F ==> F = T.

Yes, but if we know what assumptions we are working under, then we can see the merits of each system.
Tis better to Know thy demons.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger

The logical proof is true when it has been proven that no discrepancies can possibly exist.

But if you have not discovered everything, you can never say that a discrepancy exists! If there is something else then you could say that there could be a discrepancy. The only time you can prove the logical proof is if nothing else exists.
And if you find no discrepancies, then for all practical purposes, the thing is true.

I take "a few basic principles" to mean "a few unprovable assumptions." If you use a false assumption to prove something, then you've really accomplished absolutely nothing. F ==> F = T, just as F ==> T = T.

Until your "few basic principles" can be proven to be correct (meaning that there is no possible way that they could ever be disproven!), then the term "invariably" in your last sentence must be replaced by the term "possibly."

There is no way you can prove that nothing exists either.
Thus we are stalemated.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
But if you have not discovered everything, you can never say that a discrepancy exists!

That is irrelevant. Without proof that there cannot possibly be a discrepancy there is no proof. Barring proof of an assertion, an assertion can be disputed merely by doubting its validity.

And if you find no discrepancies, then for all practical purposes, the thing is true.

For all practical purposes, Fermat's Last Theorem was true for centuries since no counterexample was ever discovered. However, the theorem was not proven until recently, when it was shown that there is no possible counterexample.

"For all practical purposes this is true" is not equivalent to "It has been proven this is true."

There is no way you can prove that nothing exists either.
Thus we are stalemated.

I never claimed to have a proof, rather I claimed that neither assertion could ever be proven. Thus victory is mine.

[Dr Strangelove]

You forgot Dr Strangelove's Unified Theory of Sociology and Psychology. "For any possible human behavior, regarding the causology of that behavior, the following is apparent: Some do, and some don't."

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
You forgot Dr Strangelove's Unified Theory of Sociology and Psychology. "For any possible human behavior, regarding the causology of that behavior, the following is apparent: Some do, and some don't."

[DarkCloud]

Undisputable Laws and Givens

Man's means of analyzing and interpreting the world are flawed.

that itself is flawed- there is no way you can disprove or prove that statement.

And the Theory of Gravity does mean that people don't float off the earth- if there was no such thing- people would float off the arth.

Gravity means that people don't float off the earth. Gravity works with or without a man-made theory to try to explain it.

That is why the theory of gravity is TRUE!
See- this is why some theories are correct
because in practice they work!

General Relativity applies to both earth as well as space, it's just that Newton's laws are usually pretty accurate when applied to mundane problems. Quantum Mechanics applies to both earth as well as the molecular and sub-molecular level, but uncertainty becomes irrelevant on the macro scale and so there is little benefit to be had in using Quantum Mechanics on mundane problems.

General Relativity doesn't begin to fail until applied to the molecular or sub-molecular level, and Quantum Mechanics doesn't begin to fail until applied to an astronomical scale. However, they are still improvements over Newton's theories, seeing as how Newton's theories break down at both the molecular/sub-molecular level as well as on the astronomical scale.

thank you for the explanations.
However, this still would prove that newtons laws are correct- but only to a point.
One could argue that there are several states of 'being' and 'truth' at each the molecular, sub-molecular, earth, and astronomical levels.
Then one could argue that the truth for each world is different.
And one would be correct.
-0-0-0--0

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
that itself is flawed- there is no way you can disprove or prove that statement.

In order to prove the statement true, all I need is a single empirical demonstration (which is trivial). This proves that there exists some flaw somewhere in man's perception, thereby disproving the counterassertion that man's perception is perfect. If the experiment is called into question ("Hey, you just said that empiricism is flawed, so you can't prove this emprically!") then my detractor is performatively contradicting himself; he cannot question my experiment without conceding the proof. QED.

That is why the theory of gravity is TRUE!
See- this is why some theories are correct
because in practice they work!

I theorize that the invisible massless monkey on your shoulder is not currently eating your brain because all invisible massless monkeys are vegetarians. My theory is correct in practice, because no invisible massless monkeys are eating your brain. That by no means proves that my Invisible Massless Monkey theory is true.

However, this still would prove that newtons laws are correct- but only to a point.

No, they're still incorrect. It's just that the error they introduce in most practical situations can safely be ignored; there is still an error, though.

One could argue that there are several states of 'being' and 'truth' at each the molecular, sub-molecular, earth, and astronomical levels.

True = True, no matter what planet I'm standing on. Maybe = Maybe, no matter what state of matter I'm talking about. True NEVER equals Maybe, Probably, or even Almost Certainly.

Then one could argue that the truth for each world is different.
And one would be correct.

How do you figure?

[Ramo]

SF:

Number theory isn't my forte (haven't taken any, and don't plan to). I haven't dealt with a prime number in years. Forgive my mental lapse; do prime numbers have to be greater than 1 or 2?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Number theory isn't my forte (haven't taken any, and don't plan to). I haven't dealt with a prime number in years. Forgive my mental lapse; do prime numbers have to be greater than 1 or 2?

I'm pretty sure 2 is a prime number. I think the problem with 1 is that it is only evenly divisible by one number, while all other prime numbers are evenly divisble by two numbers.

[Ramo]

Ah, thanks.

[November Adam]

Undisputable givens and laws.

1> If I make a sandwich, and drop one slice of bread, the wet side will hit the ground.

2> If I have to take a really big dump there will be no tp, and I will realize this when I'm on the crapper.

3> If something is acting wonky, call in a professional, and then it will not act wonky untill they leave.

I'm sure there's more.. guess these are part of Murphy's laws. If i could go back in time and find this Murphy guy, I would wack him before he invented these damn things.

[loinburger]

Re: Undisputable givens and laws.

Originally posted by November Adam
1> If I make a sandwich, and drop one slice of bread, the wet side will hit the ground.

Corollary: If I'm buttering bread and drop the bread, the buttered side will land face down.