The List of Undisputable Givens and Laws

[November Adam]

Re: Re: Undisputable givens and laws.

Originally posted by loinburger


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

Ah, dat's a what a sad.

[loinburger]

Re: Re: Re: Undisputable givens and laws.

Originally posted by November Adam
Ah, dat's a what a sad.

Curse me for a fool. I saw "wet side" and somewhere in the pit of my mind I was thinking "Oh yeah, I hate it when the bread lands in a puddle and gets wet."

I guess I got a bit too much sun today.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger
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. QED.

Well, you cannot do that because you have not. If you keep trying and do not then you have no evidence and therefore cannot call into question the logical truths.

If you have no evidence disproving a fact- then you have not disproved it well enough to make anyone believe it.

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.

But neither can you say that YOU denying that the experiment is tRUE is FAlse. in which case I would be right... at least as right as you. However, see my argument above this quote.
The fact that YOU cannot prove that empiricism and logic is wrong, makes them correct because nothing can make them wrong. When you do prove them wrong- then they will be wrong. But unitl they are proven as such, they do not exist as such for all practical purposes.

They are true for everything to which they relate!

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.

True, if one defines what it is true for IS true for everything which it is defined as true for.

The truth for a cow is different from the truth for a man because each fills a different role in society. And each can only see what they have evolved to do.

Your statement is incorrect because you avoided my statement.

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

How do you figure?

One would be correct, because on each level, the truth would be true. However, outside that level, the truth for that level... level a would be false and a new truth would be in effect at the lower level... level b.

I would assume that it would work the same as dimensions.
Each dimension works under different laws.
The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Well, you cannot do that because you have not.

Sure I have. I've pointed out the inherent flaws with our sense of sight, smell, and touch; they are far from perfect, therefore our perception of the world is far from perfect. You have presented no counterargument other than to question my assertion, but in order for your proof to hold you would need to be able to demonstrate that all assertions that run counter to your theory are false; you have thus far failed to do so, therefore you do not have a proof.

But neither can you say that YOU denying that the experiment is tRUE is FAlse.

I'm not sure what you've just said here.

The fact that YOU cannot prove that empiricism and logic is wrong, makes them correct because nothing can make them wrong.

I don't need to prove them wrong for all cases, I only need to show that they are doubtful for a single case in order to prove that they are not always valid.

If you want a single case, then Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle will suffice. There is inherent error in the system when attempting to measure the position and velocity of a particle. The statement "Empiricism is always valid" has been thus been debunked.

When you do prove them wrong- then they will be wrong. But unitl they are proven as such, they do not exist as such for all practical purposes.

I've never said that they're not practical. I've said that practicality does not constitute a proof.

True, if one defines what it is true for IS true for everything which it is defined as true for.

I'm not sure what you've just said here.

The truth for a cow is different from the truth for a man because each fills a different role in society. And each can only see what they have evolved to do.

If you mean that a cow and a man might come to different conclusions as to what was true or false regarding empirical claims ("The sky is blue" or "The ground is wet"), then you would be correct; I've argued all along that empiricism is not sufficient for deriving the truth, and so I agree that the difference in perception between a cow and a human will dramatically affect what each being thinks of as true or false.

If you mean that pure truth is subjective, then you would be incorrect. Something that is definitively true (A = A) cannot become an untruth without changing the system, without changing the definitions. Since human language does not substantively change on the subatomic or astronomical level, truth is spatially indepenedent.

Your statement is incorrect because you avoided my statement.

I addressed your statement. Truth is spatially independent. It is a function of language, therefore truth is not changed without a substantive change in language. However, a language that denies basic rules for consistency (a language that argues that A = ~A) fails to fulfill the purpose of language, and would therefore not come into existence.

One would be correct, because on each level, the truth would be true. However, outside that level, the truth for that level... level a would be false and a new truth would be in effect at the lower level... level b.

Truth is spatially independent. It is not the case that Newton's laws are correct on one level but incorrect on another level, it is instead the case that Newton's laws are incorrect on all levels. Their error typically only substantive on the astronomical or subatomic levels, which is why Newton's laws are still practical most of the time. They are not, however, true; they are erroneous on all levels.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger


Sure I have. I've pointed out the inherent flaws with our sense of sight, smell, and touch; they are far from perfect, therefore our perception of the world is far from perfect. You have presented no counterargument other than to question my assertion, but in order for your proof to hold you would need to be able to demonstrate that all assertions that run counter to your theory are false; you have thus far failed to do so, therefore you do not have a proof.

Ah, but you only pointed out flaws with some people. You neglect ot see how some people have 20x40 vision perfect smell and touch senses. You only listed those peole who had troubles.

Perhaps I do not have a fully concrete proof, but neither do you have a proof that nothing is true because the sense of sight smell and touch could all be correct.

I'm not sure what you've just said here.

I think I meant that you cannot say, by denying that the experiment is TRUE that your preception of reality is false.

I don't need to prove them wrong for all cases, I only need to show that they are doubtful for a single case in order to prove that they are not always valid.

True.

If you want a single case, then Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle will suffice. There is inherent error in the system when attempting to measure the position and velocity of a particle. The statement "Empiricism is always valid" has been thus been debunked.

True. But if the Principle can be mended, then that statement is untrue because through empiricism you found there was an error to an empirical system.

And that in itself is flawed.

One can possibly find an error to a system by using that system itself, but for the error to be incontroverable, one would have to go 'outside' the system.

Who are you to say that the empiricism disproving the Uncertainty Principle is correct? What if the disproval is incorrect, itself.

I'm not sure what you've just said here.

I meant taht what you said would be true. But only true if you could prove that the truth for a cow is the same as the truth of a man.

If you mean that a cow and a man might come to different conclusions as to what was true or false regarding empirical claims ("The sky is blue" or "The ground is wet"), then you would be correct; I've argued all along that empiricism is not sufficient for deriving the truth, and so I agree that the difference in perception between a cow and a human will dramatically affect what each being thinks of as true or false.

Okay, good ,then that argument supports both of our arguments

If you mean that pure truth is subjective, then you would be incorrect. Something that is definitively true (A = A) cannot become an untruth without changing the system, without changing the definitions. Since human language does not substantively change on the subatomic or astronomical level, truth is spatially indepenedent.

Possibly, but not incontrovertiably.
Truth is subjective but only in the way that A=A would not mean anything to a cow, whereas A=A means something to a man.
The basic principles, yes, are there. In that I agree with you.

I addressed your statement. Truth is spatially independent. It is a function of language, therefore truth is not changed without a substantive change in language. However, a language that denies basic rules for consistency (a language that argues that A = ~A) fails to fulfill the purpose of language, and would therefore not come into existence.

No. the reason I say that truth is not spatially independent is that with each movement and each level, there are things which affect other things differently and change the reality.

The laws change on each level because each level is subject to different forces which can be defined as different "truths"

[Ramo]

Ah, but you only pointed out flaws with some people.

That's all the proof called for. He was showing how empiricism is not always valid (this assertion is not equivalent to the assertion that empiricism is always not valid), and in doing so, he only needed to show how a single observation can flawed.

You neglect ot see how some people have 20x40 vision perfect smell and touch senses. You only listed those peole who had troubles.

Some person's senses may be better than another, but you won't find a single person who has "perfect" senses.

Perhaps I do not have a fully concrete proof, but neither do you have a proof that nothing is true because the sense of sight smell and touch could all be correct.

He wasn't trying to prove that "nothing is true," but that "some oberservations are flawed."

I think I meant that you cannot say, by denying that the experiment is TRUE that your preception of reality is false.

Nope, techno used a technique called "proof by contradiction," a perfectly valid logical tool.

He asserted the negation of his premise ("empiricism is perfect"), and found it inherently contradictory (HUP), indicating that the negation of the premise is false, and therefore his premise is true ("empiricism is imperfect"). QED.

One can possibly find an error to a system by using that system itself, but for the error to be incontroverable, one would have to go 'outside' the system.

Nope, it's much stronger logically to work within the system. Finding an internal contradiction makes the system logically false (that's essentially the foundation of logic), while finding an external contradiction only brings up questions of the validity of the external data.

But only true if you could prove that the truth for a cow is the same as the truth of a man.

Possibly, but not incontrovertiably.
Truth is subjective but only in the way that A=A would not mean anything to a cow, whereas A=A means something to a man.
The basic principles, yes, are there. In that I agree with you.

A = A if and only if you use standard logical symbol and definition for "=". If you say that "=" actually means ">", you change the meaning of the assertion, and change its validity. If the cow says that symobls that look like "=" are what I like to **** on, you again change the meaning of the assertion.

"Assuming the basis of logic, the basis of logic is true" is always correct.

No. the reason I say that truth is not spatially independent is that with each movement and each level, there are things which affect other things differently and change the reality.

The laws change on each level because each level is subject to different forces which can be defined as different "truths"

But what techno was saying, is that classical physics are never correct. They give good approximations in certain instances, but are never true (after making the apropriate assumptions).

[loinburger]

Ramo's post already covers most of my response.

Originally posted by DarkCloud
But if the Principle can be mended

What do you mean "if the Principle can be mended"?

then that statement is untrue because through empiricism you found there was an error to an empirical system.

Either the empirical system is flawed (thereby proving that empiricism does not constitute a proof), or else the empirical evidence that contradicts the empirical system is flawed (thereby proving that empiricism does not constitute a proof), or possibly both the system and the contradiction are flawed. Either way you've got flawed empiricism.

Who are you to say that the empiricism disproving the Uncertainty Principle is correct? What if the disproval is incorrect, itself.

Are you agreeing that we are incapable of knowing the absolute truth based on empirical evidence, then?

Truth is subjective but only in the way that A=A would not mean anything to a cow, whereas A=A means something to a man.

A cow knows that "grass" is "grass", and would not think that "grass" is "not-grass." A statement of the form "A = ~A" is logically contradictory no matter what A is defined as.

The laws change on each level because each level is subject to different forces which can be defined as different "truths"

Each level is subject to the same forces. It's simply that some forces are more apparent on different levels; they don't cease to exist just because they're difficult to detect.

[reds4ever]

the only truths are maths axioms

as in

ab = ba, where a and b are real numbers

[Dauphin]

We'd be screwed if it were ever proven that they are internally inconsistent.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Ramo


That's all the proof called for. He was showing how empiricism is not always valid (this assertion is not equivalent to the assertion that empiricism is always not valid), and in doing so, he only needed to show how a single observation can flawed.

A single observation can be flawed, but if a persons senses are verified as being perfect then how can that person's perception be flawed. Especially if thousands of people of equal perception percieve the event in the same way.

Some person's senses may be better than another, but you won't find a single person who has "perfect" senses.

I think you can. However, for the sake of argument. For a vision problem, one would find all the 20x20 vision people and have them look. For a feeling sensation, find all the people with perfect skin, etc.

Nope, techno used a technique called "proof by contradiction," a perfectly valid logical tool.

He asserted the negation of his premise ("empiricism is perfect"), and found it inherently contradictory (HUP), indicating that the negation of the premise is false, and therefore his premise is true ("empiricism is imperfect"). QED.

True, but when someone cannot prove a logical system to replace the system already in place, one must act under the logical system that exists.

One can possibly find an error to a system by using that system itself, but for the error to be incontroverable, one would have to go 'outside' the system.

Nope, it's much stronger logically to work within the system. Finding an internal contradiction makes the system logically false (that's essentially the foundation of logic), while finding an external contradiction only brings up questions of the validity of the external data.

I'm not sure I understand you completely. But I agree now that I was wrong about problems in the system not disproving the system. However, if there is an external contradicition to the system, it is even more incontrovertiably wrong for the system has been proven not to work with other systems. What is needed is a "sub-system" taht bridges the gap between the systems.

But what techno was saying, is that classical physics are never correct. They give good approximations in certain instances, but are never true (after making the apropriate assumptions).

But they are correct sometimes.

-
reds4ever- mathematics is only proved 'inside' its own system. By the logic of math, I could create a system that would not apply anywhere else but inside itself and would have no applications outside of itself.

(note: I do understand that matematics acts on other objects in its own way; but logically taken to the extreme end of the argument- an argument can be made to create a system of that such as I outlined above)

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by loinburger
Ramo's post already covers most of my response.



What do you mean "if the Principle can be mended"?

I meant that if the Uncertainty Principle can be revised so as to be correct...

Either the empirical system is flawed (thereby proving that empiricism does not constitute a proof), or else the empirical evidence that contradicts the empirical system is flawed (thereby proving that empiricism does not constitute a proof), or possibly both the system and the contradiction are flawed. Either way you've got flawed empiricism.

Ah, but the empirical evidence is not correct empirically. The evidence you proposed is only true if empiricism is incorrect. Your evidence supplied a "lack of empiricism" that is to say that IF empiricism was incorrect then it woudl be wrong.
Through reason you deduced that empiricism was incorrect, for, you cannot prove the statement that yo ucan fool "all of the people all the time" and that is the only way to prove that empiricism is incorrect or even flawed.

A cow knows that "grass" is "grass", and would not think that "grass" is "not-grass." A statement of the form "A = ~A" is logically contradictory no matter what A is defined as.

I cow may think that a cattle prod is evil whereas to a man, a cattle prod is good and useful.

Each level is subject to the same forces. It's simply that some forces are more apparent on different levels; they don't cease to exist just because they're difficult to detect.

True! All levels are subject to the same forces, abut only becuase those forces act on different levels, affect those levels which in turn affect the lower levels.

When and If a Unified Theory of Everything is discovered, my statmenet above will be proved wrong. But until then, empiricial evidence suggests that I am correct.

[DarkCloud]

technophile- you have faith that nothing exists- you have proven nothing because you have not proven that ALL humans have many defects.
Some humans are perfect in each region; sight, smell, feel, etc.
The only way you could prove your point that people cannot experience things would be to prove that ALL the humans are fooled ALL the time.
Which Is theoretically impossible to do.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
A single observation can be flawed, but if a persons senses are verified as being perfect then how can that person's perception be flawed.

How would you go about verifying this?

I think you can. However, for the sake of argument. For a vision problem, one would find all the 20x20 vision people and have them look.

Even people with 20x20 vision have far from perfect vision. There have been numerous tests in which the glaring inadequacies of the human vision system have been exposed, the most notable of which were performed by McConkie and Churchland. They showed that our eyes do not see an entire picture at once, but instead they focus on a single piece of an image; the brain puts together a picture from the pieces being fed it by the eyes. McConkie and Churchland found that they were able to trick the hell out of observers with "perfect" vision by having the test observers look at an image; the experimenters would drastically change pieces of the image (they would add a car, or remove a hat, or change a tree to a shub, etc.). The test observers failed to detect these changes almost all of the time (and no test observer was always able to detect the changse, for that matter no test observer was even able to detect the changes for a majority of the tests), despite the severity of the changes being made; the human vision system is incredibly easy to fool if you know what you're doing.

All human senses suffer from similar deficiencies; accuracy is often sacrificed for efficiency. Furthermore, senses come about as a result of incredibly complex bio-chemical processes that are notoriously prone to error. Nobody has perfect senses.

True, but when someone cannot prove a logical system to replace the system already in place, one must act under the logical system that exists.

I've proved my logical system: "Empiricism is imperfect." Therefore, it would be irrational for you to continue to adhere to the logical system that "Empiricism is perfect."

But they are correct sometimes.

NO NO NO NO NO! They are NEVER correct! They can be close, they can be extremely accurate, but they are NEVER perfect. The errors are still present regardless of whether or not they are of practical importance.

reds4ever- mathematics is only proved 'inside' its own system. By the logic of math, I could create a system that would not apply anywhere else but inside itself and would have no applications outside of itself.

A system that contradicts mathematics would also be self-contradictory, and self-contradictory systems cannot exist--they destroy themselves.

(note: I do understand that matematics acts on other objects in its own way; but logically taken to the extreme end of the argument- an argument can be made to create a system of that such as I outlined above)

A system such as the one you have outlined above would refute itself.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
I meant that if the Uncertainty Principle can be revised so as to be correct...

But the Uncertainty Principle is already correct. At least, nobody has found any evidence that refutes it.

Ah, but the empirical evidence is not correct empirically.

You are engaging in a performative contradiction. You cannot argue that empiricism is flawless while at the same time arguing that the empirical evidence is flawed. It is logically impossible to have it both ways.

The evidence you proposed is only true if empiricism is incorrect.

And if the evidence I proposed is incorrect, then empiricism is incorrect because my evidence was arrived at empirically. You continue to performatively contradict yourself; in order to argue that empiricism is flawless, you may not argue that empirical evidence is flawed.

Through reason you deduced that empiricism was incorrect, for, you cannot prove the statement that yo ucan fool "all of the people all the time" and that is the only way to prove that empiricism is incorrect or even flawed.

In order to prove that empiricism is flawed I only need to prove that you can fool some of the people some of the time (for if empiricism were flawless then I would not be able to fool anybody ever). I have already proven this. QED.

I cow may think that a cattle prod is evil whereas to a man, a cattle prod is good and useful.

So what? I might think that broccoli tastes terribly while somebody else thinks that broccoli is delicious. This in no ways proves that broccoli is not broccoli. Similarly, the cattle prod is still a cattle prod, regardless of what value judgments people make with regards to the cattle prod.

True! All levels are subject to the same forces,

Yup

abut only becuase those forces act on different levels, affect those levels which in turn affect the lower levels.

How are you defining "levels"? What empirical evidence can you provide to support your claim?

When and If a Unified Theory of Everything is discovered, my statmenet above will be proved wrong.

Your statement is already proven wrong, since quantum mechanics affect all levels of existence. You said it yourself, "all levels are subject to the same forces."

[nationalist]

I will piss somebody off every day that I post here