How Do You Prove Something Doesn't Exist?
- Thread starter interspark
- Start date
Recommended Videos
While I agree completely with the first part of this statement, and it's a very good answer to the OP question, I don't agree with the latter statement that you can't disprove something ever. You can't prove that something isn't there by not finding evidence that it is there, but you can prove it isn't there by finding evidence that it, in fact, isn't.blakfayt said:
Carl Sagan's quote can be used in two different ways.
Namely aliens.
We haven't seen and aliens therefore they don't exist. However the universe is so incredibly large that the possibility is there for them to exist. Therefore, the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
However, when someone claims to have seen aliens he needs proof to assert his claim. Because there absence of evidence DOES mean that he is lying.
In short. "Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence" only works in theoretical principles.
Namely aliens.
We haven't seen and aliens therefore they don't exist. However the universe is so incredibly large that the possibility is there for them to exist. Therefore, the absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.
However, when someone claims to have seen aliens he needs proof to assert his claim. Because there absence of evidence DOES mean that he is lying.
In short. "Absence of evidence does not imply evidence of absence" only works in theoretical principles.
You can prove something doesn't exist by going onto Google and searching for what you're asking about.
But in all seriousness, you can prove something does not exist, within reason. I could say that there is a firebreathing dragon in my backyard, but you can easily disprove that by observing my backyard.
But in all seriousness, you can prove something does not exist, within reason. I could say that there is a firebreathing dragon in my backyard, but you can easily disprove that by observing my backyard.
What I think he means is that if reality is infinite...ThePinkAcidSmurf said:
The problem is that infinite possibilities and infinite reality are mutually exclusive.
- Given that in an infinite reality, where anything that can happen will happen, everything that can happen must be limited to prevent paradox (because you cannot have a set of all sets- it cannot contain itself).
- A finite reality, anything could happen, but because it's finite, it's only some of them do (so in some ways, everything is conceivable, rather than possible).
I can disprove the existence of things inside a certain area, I mean I can prove that there are no australians in my living room.
You can't disprove anything completely though, except in maths. You can disprove that 2+2=7 by proving that 2+2=4
You can't disprove anything completely though, except in maths. You can disprove that 2+2=7 by proving that 2+2=4
Ah but you didnt read my statement correctly. Anything that CAN exist will exist somewhere. Meaning that if it cannot exist through the laws of science and math it will not exist. An odd number ending in two goes against the basic fundamentals of maths and thus cannot exist anywhere.flamingjimmy said:
I beg to differ
How I disprove something's existance?
Ask you to produce proof of the contrary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_burden_of_evidence
But if it was.... = PThePinkAcidSmurf said:
That was the point i was hoping people would pick up on. The IF bit of what i said.. But u did so cookie to u (extra cookies for bringing equations into it) xD Though it does ask an interesting question as too whats after the universe if it isnt infinite...brendonnelly said:Also the universe is not infinite, conservation of mass/energyflamingjimmy said:
Edit: To weigh in, the onus of proof should fall to those trying to prove existence, not those trying to prove a lack thereof.
i also agree with ur edit.
Well you can't if it doesn't exist then it's impossible to get evidence of it because you don't know what it does. Not to say that everything can exist,obviously the 50 billion people who tried to find the loch ness monster or bigfoot and failed have to be showing a sign.
Ok, fine then, it still doesn't follow.Kirkby said:
Why would the universe being infinite mean that everything that 'can exist' (whatever that means outside of maths) would?
Not necessarily. There's still an infinite amount of ways you could be wrong about that.Amphoteric said:
I think he was talking about Multiverse Theory, where what he said is potentially correct.Aurgelmir said:
Because the universe isn't even technically infinite. At any given point in time it exists in a finite amount of space. It's just expanding constantly, so it can be conceived of as 'infinite' as far as we're concerned.
Seconded; the burden of proof argument may be old and stale, but it's there for a reason...it's a matter of logic and convention if you like, as the sides of the world...Vohn_exel said: