The List of Undisputable Givens and Laws

[Guynemer]

VII: Ming is a bastard.



VIII: The Detroit Tigers stink worse than a festering, poorly-ventilated, never-emptied septic tank.

[Urban Ranger]

IX. A is A
X. A is not ~A
XI. Either A or ~A, but not anything in between

XXXXII. The answer is 42.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
IX. A is A
X. A is not ~A
XI. Either A or ~A, but not anything in between

XXXXII. The answer is 42.

That's more like it.

[Immortal Wombat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: The List of Undisputable Givens and Laws

Originally posted by MrFun
What do you think, Immortal?
Of course all three sexual orientations can be replaced with the word people.

So just out of curiosity, why didn't you replace the three sexual orientations with the word people?

[MrFun]

I wanted to remind everyone that homosexuals and bisexuals are people, just like heterosexuals.

But anyway, let's not stay on that topic --- move on.

[DarkCloud]

Kolpo

Originally posted by kolpo

No it is not! I as programmer created those data things not to reproduce but to create better solutions, that was my only motivation!

Wait? are you talking about a life generator on a computer- that's not life at all!

Because that was the only reason I created them is it not finding solution that is a by product of reproduction, but is it reproduction that is a by product of my desire to find a solution!
Those data parts on themself have no propose on themself! They have only a propose viewed in the bigger picture of giving me a solution for a given problem.

Can you prove that that is with life not the case? If you can't 100% prove that can't you prove that the propose of life is reproduction.

Okay, then is it agreed that the purpose of life is to reproduce to produce descendants that are superior?

Your argument seems to make sense!

Btw, Can you prove that logic is correct? If not, can't you prove anything.

I can only prove that logic is correct through logic.

Logic is correct because-

"Logic is correct because without logic, you have a conclusion that doesn't fit the premises, and thus the whole thing becomes inconsistent"
"And inconsistencies are, by their nature, incorrect"
Quote courtesy from the archives of Imran Siddiqui.

and:



Immortal Wombat

Atoms move all the time. There is no way to prove that all the atoms in the window did not simultaneously leap sideways

that had to be caused by something.
Their movement was caused by something [the hammer]
If a coincidence happens every time a hammer hits a window- it is not coincidence- it is cause and effect.

Ramo

Empiricism relies on observation.
How can you make sure that the observer isn't flawed in some way?

Then one must only take logic as the only way to prove things.
However, to prove that the observer isn't flawed- repeat the actions until they have been experienced by many people (and yes, I DO realize that all may be flawed)
however, if a poisonous cactus is touched by 100 people and 100 survive, then the fact that the cactus is poisonous does not matter to those people... The cactus' poison would not matter until someone who is susceptible to it touches it. Then the fact that it is poisonous is proven.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ramo


The scientific method is essentially the practice of using empiricsm.

True.

That doesn't prove that all things die.

Logic can prove that all things die because since things are created things naturally die. At least all things that we know, and we know that the universe came from somewhere before, so that somewhere before, something died and created our universe... and our universe has a finite amount of matter, thus it has a finite amount of rate of decay before it dies.

Experience is the same thing as observation.

Not quite, but Experience is what you touch- such as if you touch a cactus, but yes, they are VERY related and in that case you are correct- but not 100%...

You're just restating the same thing. You've yet to prove it.

What exactly do you want me to prove? That things interact? Or that the fact that they interact proves that they exist?

"Necessity is Purpose because purpose is an aim to oneself. Necessity is an aim to existence. "
That doesn't make sense.

Necessity is what man needs.
Purpose is what man wants.

Prupose is an aim to get what one wants for oneself.
Necessity is what a person wants to exist.
Thus, a person needs necessity and thus,
necessity is purpose.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Immortal Wombat

Actually, I think its pretty much the same as what you are saying. Life exists because something found a means to replicate itself, therefore life exists as a complicated extension of that replication. Its is very hard to express though, and you placed a therefore in an unfortunate position.

True. It is easier to attack a statement than to defend one.
Someone needs to compile an Apolyton book on argumentation and debate.

Kolpo

Can you define "Undisputable Givens and Laws" ?

For every idea is there at least 1 person who doesn't believe it. So nothing is undisputable.

I am attempting to state several laws which cannot logically be disputed for their truth rings forth.

That 1 person is not important if he does not make logical sense.
Something is undisputable when it has no logical holes, as I hope my revised I. will be:

Here is the revised list:

I. The purpose of life is to reproduce and produce superior descendants.

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!

VI. (Numbers 2 and 3 are apparently contradicted by IV.)

Many philosofers like Kant said that logic isn't correct. Why should we assume that logic is correct? There is no prove, no rail reason to assume that.

Because Logic makes sense. Logic "proves" things, Faith does not, neither does observation because people can interpret them differently, Logic is the only universal interpretation of subjects and ideas.

For there to be something to be viewn as proven must there be some things simply accepted, but by doing that is all proof that follows from that no longer real proof because it is based on things that are simply believed like some people belief in the holy cow. From that point of view is a scientist(who also accepts certain not proven basic ideas like the correctness of logic) nothing better then someone who looks in the stars to find the truth. Both base themself on unproven grounds.

Yes, I suppose, I "accept" logic, but I did defend it 2 posts above. and by saying that it is the only universal interpretaion of subjects and ideas.

Logic is truth.
Truth is attained through logic.

loinburger

I thought it was going to be a list of mathematical formulae or a bunch of truth tables. How wrong I was...

Sorry, I would have liked to do that, but I am not very good in math- if you'd like to supply some however
I am open to ideas.

Mr Fun

I don't have a problem with that one in the aspect that homosexual couples can contribute to the perpetuation of posterity in several different ways, with adoption being just one of the methods.

But maybe in one aspect I do disagree with this law being claimed as indisputable. Are all heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals who choose not to have children (however way possible), to be seen as deviants??

Not necessarily, they are merely not following their purpose. I wouldn't say that their deviation is horrid, but if everyone followed it, there would be no species left. It is only logical that if children are not born- the species is not perpetuated.

I think by Life, DarkCloud meant life as in all living things, the existance of a reproducing organism as defined in his other thread. Not any individual lives, or ways in which people choose to live their lives

Yes, I meant all iving things.

[Carver]

Like they say about the south of the U.S.:

XII. Palestine will rise again!

[Ramo]

Then one must only take logic as the only way to prove things.

Sounds like you're a fan of Aristotle.

What you're missing is that good logic also relies on observation, barring pure theory (i.e. mental jacking off). I suppose you can assert things not based on observation, but the problem is that people tend to make really bad assumptions when they're not grounded in rigorous science (which itself is grounded upon a set of assumptions).

Absolute proof is impossible, so I'm satisfied with the next best thing - the scientific method.

However, to prove that the observer isn't flawed- repeat the actions until they have been experienced by many people (and yes, I DO realize that all may be flawed)

Like you just pointed out, that is an adequate proof.

however, if a poisonous cactus is touched by 100 people and 100 survive, then the fact that the cactus is poisonous does not matter to those people... The cactus' poison would not matter until someone who is susceptible to it touches it. Then the fact that it is poisonous is proven.

That doesn't make any sense.

Logic can prove that all things die because since things are created things naturally die.

How?

At least all things that we know,

There, you're using observation and the scientific method.

and we know that the universe came from somewhere before,

Proof?

so that somewhere before, something died and created our universe...

Proof?

and our universe has a finite amount of matter, thus it has a finite amount of rate of decay before it dies.

Proof?

Not quite, but Experience is what you touch- such as if you touch a cactus, but yes, they are VERY related and in that case you are correct- but not 100%...

There are things that I consider "experience" that I haven't touched - I've experienced smells, sights, sounds, more generally observed.

What exactly do you want me to prove? That things interact? Or that the fact that they interact proves that they exist?

Both.

See, you've made a lot of assertions in this thread that you haven't backed up. Some I consider reasonable assumptions, but none I consider indisputably true.

Necessity is what man needs.
Purpose is what man wants.

Prupose is an aim to get what one wants for oneself.
Necessity is what a person wants to exist.
Thus, a person needs necessity and thus,
necessity is purpose.

That still doesn't make any sense. A simple dictionary definition can refute your assertion.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Ramo
Absolute proof is impossible, so I'm satisfied with the next best thing - the scientific method.

Possible with logic and mathematics.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by loinburger


I thought it was going to be a list of mathematical formulae or a bunch of truth tables. How wrong I was...

now THAT would be an interesting thread, a lot of the 'givens' for mathematics over the (sp)millenia were proven not be over the last 20 or 30 years. Some would really surprise you

[Immortal Wombat]

Immortal Wombat

Atoms move all the time. There is no way to prove that all the atoms in the window did not simultaneously leap sideways

that had to be caused by something.
Their movement was caused by something [the hammer]
If a coincidence happens every time a hammer hits a window- it is not coincidence- it is cause and effect.

Not so. Atoms move, they vibrate at different speeds depending on their natural energy level, their heat, the bonds in the compound or mixture or whatever. As they are vibrating back and forth, their movement could conveivably (though at almost infinite improbability) all synchronise, making them all move one way only - they would all leap forward just before the hammer reaches the window.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ramo


Sounds like you're a fan of Aristotle.

Sounds like some ancient philosophers are ripping me off again!
First Spinozo steal my theory of god in all things.
Then McTaggart and time
now this fiend- Aristotle.

I am however, planning on reading some original works by him= someone finally convinced me that it was more logical to read the OLDEST philisophical works before works by Bertrand Russel/ Sartre/Spinozo/etc.

What you're missing is that good logic also relies on observation, barring pure theory (i.e. mental jacking off). I suppose you can assert things not based on observation, but the problem is that people tend to make really bad assumptions when they're not grounded in rigorous science (which itself is grounded upon a set of assumptions).

Logic is yes, based upon some main proofs- but it is better than anything else- faith can contain lies... The worst logic can is contain misstatements and that is why it is constantly refined- However, I believe that logic has reached a point where all the base statements have been proved- or at least enough of them to be necessary to prove anything else which the world is based upon.

Absolute proof is impossible, so I'm satisfied with the next best thing - the scientific method.

I sort of disagree- Man can know everything and man will! Man must only discover HOW he can know everything- and that shall be done with logic.

And, as you already stated- the scientific method is but an aspect of logic- why not support logic when it incorporates parts of the scienticic method (but not the horrid parts; if the logic is correctly carried out it only uses the scientific method of retesting for the basest laws; and uses those laws to prove other things... If carried out correctly- this logic would be indisputable)

however, if a poisonous cactus is touched by 100 people and 100 survive, then the fact that the cactus is poisonous does not matter to those people... The cactus' poison would not matter until someone who is susceptible to it touches it. Then the fact that it is poisonous is proven.

That doesn't make any sense.

It wasn't really arguing with you- but it was saying that even if the people's obeservations of whether the cactus was true would not matter even if they were incorrect- for incorrect observations- if incorrect for 100 people... do not matter!

The observation's incorrectness does not matter because it does not affect anyone by its incorrectness. When, however, the observation's incorrectness is revealed, then logic may take advantage of it an revise and grow stronger.

I think that may be a bit clearer.

Logic can prove that all things die because since things are created things naturally die.

How?

1. Everything decays. This is proven. A basic fact. Science has found nothing which does not decay.
2. Thus, since everything decays- everything dies. For something to live, it must have a corporeal state which is attacked by the elements and cause it to decay and then eventually, die.

quote:

and we know that the universe came from somewhere before,

Proof?

Through basic scientific data about decay.

quote:

so that somewhere before, something died and created our universe...



Proof?

You have me there. There is no proof for this other than logic.

1. Our universe came out of something.
2. Everything in our universe dies.
3.
a. Whatever our universe came out of could possibly have been a previous universe.
OR
b. Therefore, our universe, being a part of itself, will eventually die.
4. If our universe dies, then it can possibly form into a new universe.
5. Which will die and create a new universe.

quote:

and our universe has a finite amount of matter, thus it has a finite amount of rate of decay before it dies.

Proof?

You possibly have me here- because this is proven through observations... But considering that everything "finite" on earth which we know. It follows that the unversers willl be finite.

There are things that I consider "experience" that I haven't touched - I've experienced smells, sights, sounds, more generally observed.

Experience, at least in how I define it, is touching for, when one touches something, one is generally experiening the creature correctly, because, when something is seen at a distance, perspective can cause its size to change. When something is smelled, perhaps this works in chemicals- but nothing else, for hearing, this does not work much in science other than possibly biology.

See, you've made a lot of assertions in this thread that you haven't backed up. Some I consider reasonable assumptions, but none I consider indisputably true.

The only assumption I have made that I really have not backed up is how logic can be better than empiricism if Logic uses some minimal empiricism.

I believe #1 is WELL backed up and #5 is FAIRLY WELL backed up #4 MAKES COMPLETE SENSE and was backed up, at least some people agreed. and yes it does contradict 2 and 3. Which probably should be removed.

That still doesn't make any sense. A simple dictionary definition can refute your assertion.

I got those definitions from the dictionary!

[DarkCloud]

quote:


Immortal Wombat
quote:


Atoms move all the time. There is no way to prove that all the atoms in the window did not simultaneously leap sideways



that had to be caused by something.
Their movement was caused by something [the hammer]
If a coincidence happens every time a hammer hits a window- it is not coincidence- it is cause and effect.



Not so. Atoms move, they vibrate at different speeds depending on their natural energy level, their heat, the bonds in the compound or mixture or whatever. As they are vibrating back and forth, their movement could conveivably (though at almost infinite improbability) all synchronise, making them all move one way only - they would all leap forward just before the hammer reaches the window.

Atoms move- yes!
But how could they always syncronise without the movment of the hammer- and if they synchronised EVERY time then that would merely prove my point- except in a different way- it would prove that point that the hammer moving towards the window causes the atoms of the window to become upset and leap forward to escape the forward-motion of the hammer.