Is it true?

[geldonyetich]

Spoiler

However, just because the television can recreate the light and sound that was recorded does not make such a real man on the TV screen that we're able to prove anything about him with it.

Do you read what you right afterwards?. That made no sense for the record but I'll try and push through that.

Tee hee - the irony.

If only you knew where the joke was.

I do get what your saying though. You're wrong. But I get it.

Well, you almost got it, anyway. It sort of fell apart around here:

How do we know this?. Our brains tell us so. Your very example, is an example of how the brain functions to intervene in the real world. If this was not so, would you find an educated man yelling at the TV screen trying to get rid of this man in the box?.

Goodness me. If what our brains tell us is true is true, and that should be good enough, then there's a great injustice going on in mental asylums right now.

How so?. It takes more than ones belief to get oneself into an assylum. I don't see how thinking you are unjustly punished should make it so, when evidence is stacked against you.

A brain is what it is. It does a pretty good job, it's an analog computer worth trillions of transistors while your desktop computer is a binary computer with billions. Yet, like any thinking machine, your brain limited by its own hardware and it'll run like crap if you install bad software in it. It's not inherently particular about the truths or falsehoods you choose to believe.

yes and?. Get to the point man. What is with your beating around the bush?!.

The human brain has its limitations but the truths and lies of life we weed out from experience and evidence. Thats how kids lie to their parents and thats how the parents are fooled for a while before catching the lie.

The path I'm following here is one of severe critical thinking. Whatever's in the brain is an abstraction, we can physically back this up with observation. Therefore, any idea we hold, no matter how certain you are of it, is only an abstraction as well. Ergo, our limited perception of reality does make the mental realm a very unreliable one for proving anything.

Critical thinking?. What a riot!. An idea is an abstraction until you act on it. then the idea becomes a physical event or a construct. Since this argument is about mathematical principles then it stands to reason, the theories which are penned down, are real.

It is with initially limited perceptions that many of the laws physics, evolution and maths were written. Are you saying, ergo, that it is all unreliable?.

I believe I've invented nuclear fusion. You need proof it? No need! I'm imagining it right now, it works perfectly in the mental realm, so I'll take that Nobel Prize for Physics now. What? It doesn't work that way? Damn!

If you invented nuclear fusion in your head then you are entitled to a Nobel prize in your head.

You want one in reality, you will have to pen it down. Thoughts and actions are the same thing with different sides to it, like two sides to a coin. Identical but with different characteristics. It is only our social acceptances and "protocol" that prevents someone from claiming a Nobel prize by just saying "I've discovered fusion". If our society allowed for such a thing without evidence then yes, hooray for you. But damn, society wants your intellect on paper. So thinking isnt enough, you need to act it.

This is why I don't get involved with internet forum arguments. Entire posts where I encounter an individual who is going out of his way not to understand me.

Rest assured, it's no coincidence that you managed to miss every single one of my points: you're disagreeing because that's your agenda. That does not impress me - any two people with half a brain could invent reasons to disagree with each other until the end of time. Change your agenda or go find somebody else to play with, because I don't play that game.

Yet you seem to be playing that game with me. "This is why I don't get involved with internet forum arguments." you said despite where you are now.

Rest assured I am not playing with you. I am only questioning the motives of a man who demands compromise but gives none.

It's not compromise I demand, but rather you don't bait me into exercises in futility.

Trying to explain myself to one who goes out of his way not to understand what is explained to him? That's one such exercise. If you don't believe you're doing so, you should have done a better job not appearing thus.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

From the whole, it seems the trouble is really a matter of what is "real" to you

Anywho, it seems that, by classical definition of the word, you don't seem to know what "real" is, so maybe you should stop being so damn insistent, hmm? As long as we're throwing around accusations of insanity, holding to your interpretations of reality as being as being more important than reality itself is precisely that. So, congratulations, you were siding with insanity from the very start.

The whole quest for defining "real" came from you or have you forgotten?:

think we were just balking over a word, in typical Internet forum snafu sense, in this case: "real."

What you say is in "another dimension" or even what is "not based on this plane of existence" is what I would call "not real." Now, just because it's not real doesn't mean we can't imagine or work with it, or even use it as a valuable tool, but it still isn't what I'd call real. Therein seems to be the main point of contention.

So don't make this my quest for hunting definitions. If you didn't want this point of contention resolved you could have mentioned that an age ago. And what is with your pathological desire to stick labels to me?.

As for the insanity, that's how people get insane. And thats how the term was coined. Did you know that?.

And just to be clear I'm not trolling: don't bother replying. As long as this is your attitude, you're not worth my time.

Bravo, and there we have it. A man who is under the impression that his opinions are worth of the time the others give him.

Now watch me walk away!.

 

[geldonyetich]

The whole quest for defining "real" came from you or have you forgotten?:

If it did forget something, it wouldn't have been deliberately selective as it was here.

And just to be clear I'm not trolling: don't bother replying. As long as this is your attitude, you're not worth my time.

Bravo, and there we have it. A man who is under the impression that his opinions are worth of the time the others give him.

I'm willing to humor another opinion as much as the next guy. However, like the next guy, there reaches a point in where enough is enough.

You attitude changed, you tried to solve an argument by brute intimidation, and I called you on that by providing more than enough evidence to the contrary, which you disagreed simply because you couldn't be bothered to interpret it. You shouldn't be surprised I can't be bothered in return.

 

[Dragonearl]

Spoiler

However, just because the television can recreate the light and sound that was recorded does not make such a real man on the TV screen that we're able to prove anything about him with it.

Do you read what you right afterwards?. That made no sense for the record but I'll try and push through that.

Tee hee - the irony.

If only you knew where the joke was.

I do get what your saying though. You're wrong. But I get it.

Well, you almost got it, anyway. It sort of fell apart around here:

How do we know this?. Our brains tell us so. Your very example, is an example of how the brain functions to intervene in the real world. If this was not so, would you find an educated man yelling at the TV screen trying to get rid of this man in the box?.

Goodness me. If what our brains tell us is true is true, and that should be good enough, then there's a great injustice going on in mental asylums right now.

How so?. It takes more than ones belief to get oneself into an assylum. I don't see how thinking you are unjustly punished should make it so, when evidence is stacked against you.

A brain is what it is. It does a pretty good job, it's an analog computer worth trillions of transistors while your desktop computer is a binary computer with billions. Yet, like any thinking machine, your brain limited by its own hardware and it'll run like crap if you install bad software in it. It's not inherently particular about the truths or falsehoods you choose to believe.

yes and?. Get to the point man. What is with your beating around the bush?!.

The human brain has its limitations but the truths and lies of life we weed out from experience and evidence. Thats how kids lie to their parents and thats how the parents are fooled for a while before catching the lie.

The path I'm following here is one of severe critical thinking. Whatever's in the brain is an abstraction, we can physically back this up with observation. Therefore, any idea we hold, no matter how certain you are of it, is only an abstraction as well. Ergo, our limited perception of reality does make the mental realm a very unreliable one for proving anything.

Critical thinking?. What a riot!. An idea is an abstraction until you act on it. then the idea becomes a physical event or a construct. Since this argument is about mathematical principles then it stands to reason, the theories which are penned down, are real.

It is with initially limited perceptions that many of the laws physics, evolution and maths were written. Are you saying, ergo, that it is all unreliable?.

I believe I've invented nuclear fusion. You need proof it? No need! I'm imagining it right now, it works perfectly in the mental realm, so I'll take that Nobel Prize for Physics now. What? It doesn't work that way? Damn!

If you invented nuclear fusion in your head then you are entitled to a Nobel prize in your head.

You want one in reality, you will have to pen it down. Thoughts and actions are the same thing with different sides to it, like two sides to a coin. Identical but with different characteristics. It is only our social acceptances and "protocol" that prevents someone from claiming a Nobel prize by just saying "I've discovered fusion". If our society allowed for such a thing without evidence then yes, hooray for you. But damn, society wants your intellect on paper. So thinking isnt enough, you need to act it.

This is why I don't get involved with internet forum arguments. Entire posts where I encounter an individual who is going out of his way not to understand me.

Rest assured, it's no coincidence that you managed to miss every single one of my points: you're disagreeing because that's your agenda. That does not impress me - any two people with half a brain could invent reasons to disagree with each other until the end of time. Change your agenda or go find somebody else to play with, because I don't play that game.

Yet you seem to be playing that game with me. "This is why I don't get involved with internet forum arguments." you said despite where you are now.

Rest assured I am not playing with you. I am only questioning the motives of a man who demands compromise but gives none.

It's not compromise I demand, but rather you don't bait me into exercises in futility.

Trying to explain myself to one who goes out of his way not to understand what is explained to him? That's one such exercise. If you don't believe you're doing so, you should have done a better job not appearing thus.

I am not going out of my way to not understand you!. Why would I do that?. I am trying to understand (as I said before and number of times) what it is your saying.

Genuinely forgive me, maybe English isn't your first language and if that is the case apologies because I am in now way baiting you. I understand what you are saying about the human mind but I am afraid you haven't provided any evidence to suggest why, or how the mind is independent from the sould in words that are other than your own.

No offense, but your sentences and your arrogant demeanor in texts make it very difficult to understand what it is your saying. Couple with the fact that hate internet forums and bang, I honestly cant understand you.

If you could, give me texts that support what ur saying (not aristotle or some author) actualy papers then maybe I an extrapolate what ur saying. If not I am gone from here. And by the looks of it, its just you and thread now.

If I have to put a finger on why you hate the internet and the forums it maybe because, it hates you or your enthusiasm to contribute overshadows basic netiquette. The first thing that tipped me off was the amount of times you edit your own posts. A cluttered and hastened mind is not easy to live with.

And just to be clear I'm not trolling: don't bother replying. As long as this is your attitude, you're not worth my time.

Bravo, and there we have it. A man who is under the impression that his opinions are worth of the time the others give him.

Now watch me walk away!.

Yeah I get that vibe too. I made a genuine effort to understand but I get accusations thrown at me, that makes participation less than desirable.
Anyway I am out.

OP: Could prove it by adding a negative. "Negatives don't exist, so you can't add them", you say?

What about the measurement of the net weight of balloon filled with helium gas? This is effectively a negative.

Attach some of those balloons to an object with positive weight, and the total weight has decreased.

 

[Berethond]

This is a false synecdoche. "Proving something doesn't exist" is only part of the concept of "proving a negative."

Sure, you can't prove Santa Clause doesn't exist because "Santa" has never been clearly defined. For all we know he could be an alien being using alien technology that we've never encountered.

But you can prove that no fraction exists that's equal to the square root of two.

Am I proving a universal negative by proving that 'No Escapist member has green colored nickname?'

The only absolutes that exist in the universe exist within mathematics.

What if the basis of mathematics came into question, what if the core of maths was wrong?. What if mathematics can be altered to not included absolutes?. Does that mean the universe is has no absolutes?.

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but I will attempt to sound like I do

The earth is not the center of the universe.

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Is that what you ment?

You haven't grasped the question. I am talking about proving a negative. Not proving a postive which is your 1 + 1 = 2 statement.

Draw a circle on the ground. Say aloud, "A cat is not inside this circle."
Have you just proven a negative?.

It would be the truth, unless you drew a circle around a cat or if one were to step into the circle in which case it would be false.

you could prove that there is no cat in the circle by one of any dozen scientific or mathematical means, or you could just get some witnesses to verify that there is indeed no cat in the circle.

Quantum physics dictates that every particle in the universe is everywhere else in the universe at once, therefore, everything, including the circle, is in the circle.

As far as we're concerned, there are no universal negatives. The probabalistic factor in quantum mechanics means that everything will or has happened.

 

[Doug]

I am really interested in philosophy and have been reading about it for a while now. Recently the question cropped about proving universal negatives and if it can be done?. So I was wondering, is it true that you can't prove a negative?. How much truth does this claim carry?
Can one prove a universal negative?

Along with that what is considered proof?. Is inductive reasoning consider sufficient proof? why?.

Is proof by contradiction considered sufficient proof?. why?

If you have another method please provide it.

Discuss and provide examples.

Are we talking science, mathematics, or computer science?

For mathematics and computer science, yes, a univerisal truth can be proven, because both are based on a limited set of axiom constructs - i.e. 1 + 1 = 2 because we say it does, and one can use that prove more complex formula's. Whilst computers are a physical construct, computer science is, really, a branch of information theory, which itself is a field of mathematics.

In other sciences, we can only 'prove' negatives. We can prove the Greek theory of light and vision is wrong because it makes incorrect predictions. We can prove Newton was wrong because Einstein's theories of general relativity better explain Mercury's orbit.

Basically, all theories in science are 'this is the most accurate version of our understanding to date' until a new hypothesis makes better predictions and explains why; then thats the new theory.

 

[geldonyetich]

I am not going out of my way to not understand you!. Why would I do that?. I am trying to understand (as I said before and number of times) what it is your saying.

Genuinely forgive me, maybe English isn't your first language and if that is the case apologies because I am in now way baiting you. I understand what you are saying about the human mind but I am afraid you haven't provided any evidence to suggest why, or how the mind is independent from the sould in words that are other than your own.

No offense, but your sentences and your arrogant demeanor in texts make it very difficult to understand what it is your saying. Couple with the fact that hate internet forums and bang, I honestly cant understand you.

If you could, give me texts that support what ur saying (not aristotle or some author) actualy papers then maybe I an extrapolate what ur saying. If not I am gone from here. And by the looks of it, its just you and thread now.

I'd like to believe that a limitation of English was at fault, but look at what you have given me?

• [li]If only you knew where the joke was.[/li]
  [li]Critical thinking?. What a riot![/li]
  [li]How so?. It takes more than ones belief to get oneself into an assylum. I don't see how thinking you are unjustly punished should make it so, when evidence is stacked against you.[/li]

As far as opening counterpoints go, these were poison. Would you tolerate this? A post where the counterpoints you get is basically saying, "goodness, how stupid you must be to write this?" I wouldn't. I'm not.

Whether or not you were aware of it, you had an agenda that was far from trying to understand me. You believe I'm stupid? Fine, then we're done, because everything I write is coming from Mr. Stupid to you.

Try again, and maybe we'll talk. If you don't want to, that's fine - I've got better things to do, too.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

OP: Could prove it by adding a negative. "Negatives don't exist, so you can't add them", you say?

What about the measurement of the net weight of balloon filled with helium gas? This is effectively a negative.

Attach some of those balloons to an object with positive weight, and the total weight has decreased.

Weight is measured in a single direction - towards the center of (in our case) the Earth. The amount of force the balloon exerts in any direction is always a positive, but this measurement has a specific direction.

Hence, since the amount is positive in the opposite direction of measurement, it is a negative value.

 

[achilleas.k]

Wow! I did not see this coming. Why does it always have to end up in a fight?

OP: Could prove it by adding a negative. "Negatives don't exist, so you can't add them", you say?

What about the measurement of the net weight of balloon filled with helium gas? This is effectively a negative.

Attach some of those balloons to an object with positive weight, and the total weight has decreased.

I don't think this relates to the OP in any way. I did ask on the previous page [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.161652.4127274] if my understanding of "universal negative" is what the OP meant. She did mention set theory which lead me to believe that by universal negative she means a claim that elements of one class cannot belong to another; simply put, a sentence of the form "no man can bare child".
Going over one of her previous posts that explains it, she basically said what I tried to say here.

I don't know how to simplify the text book definition of a universal negative. It basically is statement of exclusion, where no member of a class is a member of another specified class. In set theory, this corresponds to saying that two sets are "disjoint", or saying that the intersection of the two sets is the null set.

A universal negative statement does imply its converse. For example the statement, "no politician is intelligent". It implies that no intelligent people are politicians.

In my example, given the two sets P={people who can bare child} and Q={people who are men}, the universal negative is the intersection (or more precisely, the lack of an intersection) of P and Q, i.e., no element/person from the set P can also belong to set Q, and vice versa.

This is me trying to get out of the drama and back to the original topic if possible.

 

[JRShield]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but I will attempt to sound like I do

The earth is not the center of the universe.

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Is that what you ment?

No it doesn't:

1 + 1 = 3

a = 1 ; b = 1
a = b
a - (3/2) = b - (3/2)
(a - 3/2)^2 = (b - 3/2)^2
a^2 - 3a + 9/4 = b^2 - 3b + 9/4
a^2 - 3a = b^2 - 3b
a^2 - b^2 = 3a - 3b
(a + b)(a - b) = 3(a - b)
a + b = 3
1 + 1 = 3

Dûh, anyone knows this

 

[Stevanchez]

Draw a circle on the ground. Say aloud, "A cat is not inside this circle."
Have you just proven a negative?.

For this scenario. Yes. It's because it already has proven truths in it. The truths are that cats exist and the circle exists. Since the cat does not exist within the circle then the statement, "A cat is not inside this circle" is proven.

Now you could say,"Well how do I know that cats and the circle are truths?"
Well:
1) By making the statement, you've already agreed to their existence.
2) Now your arguing the concept of reality(totally different subject) and if nothing can be proven real then nothing can be proven at all.

Now if you were to say,"God is not inside this circle."
This statement cannot be proven because the concept of God cannot be proven or disproven.

 

[geldonyetich]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but I will attempt to sound like I do

The earth is not the center of the universe.

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Is that what you ment?

No it doesn't:

1 + 1 = 3

a = 1 ; b = 1
a = b
a - (3/2) = b - (3/2)
(a - 3/2)^2 = (b - 3/2)^2
a^2 - 3a + 9/4 = b^2 - 3b + 9/4
a^2 - 3a = b^2 - 3b
a^2 - b^2 = 3a - 3b
(a + b)(a - b) = 3(a - b)
a + b = 3
1 + 1 = 3

Dûh, anyone knows this

Hehe, I was looking for that formula earlier, thanks for posting.

I'm not sure if it's true -- it probably gets messed up somewhere in the middle -- but it's certainly funny to see that application of popular mathematical laws can apparently disprove themselves.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

You attitude changed, you tried to solve an argument by brute intimidation, and I called you on that by providing more than enough evidence to the contrary, which you disagreed simply because you couldn't be bothered to interpret it. You shouldn't be surprised I can't be bothered in return.

a) I used intimidation?. I don't know how you were intimidated as a child but unless calling you out on your "labeling" tactics is intimidation then ok!. I apologies for any scarring I may have caused along with my name calling as well. I didn't mean any of it!.

b)Evidence to the contrary?. If by evidence you mean an article about human memory (a completely unrelated topic) then you need to rethink what you call "evidence". Nothing in that article lead me to believe that the mind is independent of the body.

Oh no wait, you must mean the web definitions, of course how silly of me!. You're right, I am completely wrong!. I have seen the error of my ways thanks to a couple of definitions from the Webster's Dictionary. Oh yeah, I feel real bad and ashamed now. I got called out by a dictionary.

Gimme a break will you?.

How many of my arguments have you responded to from post one?. We have been arguing from morning not getting anywhere on this topic. I finally say enough is enough, not because your definitions are intimidating (lets fact it I can create an arbitrary definition right now and claim it as proof, like- Real: A physical interaction, event, emotion or observation experienced by a person. OOh look, did I just make a definition that supports my theory?. Bugger me, I think I did!!) it is because I am genuinely tried of this back and forth nonsense.

You clearly are in a zealous quest to make a point, you steamroller over all that I have said and then quote aggression at me.

Now I don't know what kind of, for the lack of a better word, OCD..you are suffering from, but I know you will quote this bearing more facepalm and grief.

I implore you to understand. I do now want to have a discussion with you any further. Not because of some random crappy evidence you strung together or because you think you called me out/proved me wrong, but because I genuinely don't want to.

See as a social person, I know the profile of people who can maintaint "intellectual conversations and debates". There is give and take with these things, you listen to the opposition and you counter. You have done neither with me. From the very start what you have written has been a veil of words contrived to look as counter points. Counter points that I cant even understand. I don't know if you like to hide your knowledge behind complexity or if you genuinely like to talk endlessly on the forums about topics that lead from one another.

I for one want to get off this ride. Which is why I am telling you now, if you have anything to say against what I have written, please, feel free to keep it to yourself or better yet don't quote me. Still, I gather that someone of your mentality can't leave well enough alone, so if it is closure you need then fine, for the sake of ending this conversation with you, I submit my defeat. Congratulations, you are right. I now believe that the mind and the body is as disconnected as the strands of a frayed cord and I was wrong all along.

Happy?. That was rhetorical, don't answer that for the love of Neptune!.

 

[Nick Bounty]

Why not just modify the cat argument?

"There is no cat in the circle that is easily discernible with the naked eye or detectable through other senses without the aid of special equipment."

Happy?. That was rhetorical, don't answer that for the love of Neptune!.

Dunno why but I laughed so hard at that. Oh Skarin, so brutal but so just.

 

[JRShield]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but I will attempt to sound like I do

The earth is not the center of the universe.

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Is that what you ment?

No it doesn't:

1 + 1 = 3

a = 1 ; b = 1
a = b
a - (3/2) = b - (3/2)
(a - 3/2)^2 = (b - 3/2)^2
a^2 - 3a + 9/4 = b^2 - 3b + 9/4
a^2 - 3a = b^2 - 3b
a^2 - b^2 = 3a - 3b
(a + b)(a - b) = 3(a - b)
a + b = 3
1 + 1 = 3

Dûh, anyone knows this

Hehe, I was looking for that formula earlier, thanks for posting.

I'm not sure if it's true -- it probably gets messed up somewhere in the middle -- but it's certainly funny to see that application of popular mathematical laws can apparently disprove themselves.

Yeah, it goes wrong over here I believe:
(a + b)(a - b) = 3(a - b)
a + b = 3
You are dividing by (a - b) and (a - b) = 0
As you can't divide by zero, the formula is false.

But if someone is a little weak in maths, you can make them believe almost anything with these tricks.

And for the interested: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_fallacy

 

[geldonyetich]

No, of course Skarin wouldn't be using brute force to establish he's right... right?

Lets count the personal slams, boys and girls!

"I apologies for any scarring I may have caused along with my name calling as well. I didn't mean any of it!."

Because, after all, I'm an oversensitive tool.

Oh no wait, you must mean the web definitions, of course how silly of me!. You're right, I am completely wrong!. I have seen the error of my ways thanks to a couple of definitions from the Webster's Dictionary. Oh yeah, I feel real bad and ashamed now. I got called out by a dictionary.

Because, after all, I'm so wrong and stupid that using such sarcastic prose is completely deserved.

Gimme a break will you?.

Because, after all, I've got a stick so far up my ass that I've been riding you this entire thread.

OOh look, did I just make a definition that supports my theory?. Bugger me, I think I did!! it is because I am genuinely tried of this back and forth nonsense.

Because, after all, I'm the sole originator of this back and forth "nonsense" and should be held fully accountable for it.

You clearly are in a zealous quest to make a point, you steamroller over all that I have said and then quote aggression at me.

Because, after all -- oh, you did this one for me.

Now I don't know what kind of, for the lack of a better word, OCD..you are suffering from, but I know you will quote this bearing more facepalm and grief.

Because, after all, disagreeing with his beliefs means there's mentally something wrong with me. Ergo, I am the sole recipient who deserves much facepalming, and the sole distributor of grief on this sad planet.

I implore you to understand.

Because, after all, I'm incredibly thick.

I do not want to have a discussion with you any further. Not because of some random crappy evidence you strung together or because you think you called me out/proved me wrong, but because I genuinely don't want to.

Because, after all, it's important that I don't get the final word, and you would never fall prey to such base desires.

See as a social person, I know the profile of people who can maintaint "intellectual conversations and debates".

Because, after all, questioning you means I must be insane.

There is give and take with these things, you listen to the opposition and you counter. You have done neither with me. From the very start what you have written has been a veil of words contrived to look as counter points. Counter points that I cant even understand. I don't know if you like to hide your knowledge behind complexity or if you genuinely like to talk endlessly on the forums about topics that lead from one another.

Because, after all, if you cannot understand a point, that is 100% my fault, and thus it is not a valid counterpoint. (Man, I wish my university instructors would believe that one.)

I for one want to get off this ride. Which is why I am telling you now, if you have anything to say against what I have written, please, feel free to keep it to yourself or better yet don't quote me.

Because, after all, it's wrong me of me to defend myself from any accusations you're making, because you are fully able to resist the temptation to try to get the final word yourself.

Still, I gather that someone of your mentality can't leave well enough alone, so if it is closure you need then fine, for the sake of ending this conversation with you, I submit my defeat. Congratulations, you are right. I now believe that the mind and the body is as disconnected as the strands of a frayed cord and I was wrong all along.

Because, after all, I require this validation or I'll go into a wild retard rage. Better to hedge your bets.

Happy?. That was rhetorical, don't answer that for the love of Neptune!.

For the love of Uranus, for some reason I'm not. Can't imagine why.

 

[achilleas.k]

I'm not sure I understand what you are asking but I will attempt to sound like I do

The earth is not the center of the universe.

1 + 1 = 2 and no matter what 1 and 1 will always make 2.

Is that what you ment?

No it doesn't:

1 + 1 = 3

a = 1 ; b = 1
a = b
a - (3/2) = b - (3/2)
(a - 3/2)^2 = (b - 3/2)^2
a^2 - 3a + 9/4 = b^2 - 3b + 9/4
a^2 - 3a = b^2 - 3b
a^2 - b^2 = 3a - 3b
(a + b)(a - b) = 3(a - b)
a + b = 3
1 + 1 = 3

Dûh, anyone knows this

Hehe, I was looking for that formula earlier, thanks for posting.

I'm not sure if it's true -- it probably gets messed up somewhere in the middle -- but it's certainly funny to see that application of popular mathematical laws can apparently disprove themselves.

The problem here is in the bolded lines. You are dividing by (a-b) which is zero and we all know where that leads...

Spoiler

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

-snip-

Cry some more why don't you, you big baby!.

Why not just modify the cat argument?

"There is no cat in the circle that is easily discernible with the naked eye or detectable through other senses without the aid of special equipment."

Because you'd have to endlessly modify the argument to take into account the (again, impossibly high) number of possible explanations that could be used to fit the cat in, no matter how implausible.

suppose the cat IS discernible to the naked eye, but there's a flaw in your eye/brain specifically, so you can't see it.

suppose the cat is only visible to those with sufficient faith, and yours simply isn't high enough.

suppose the cat is only visible/touchable to the naked eye when it's awake, and it happens to be sleeping. How long does it sleep? oh, it takes naps in 10,000 year intervals. you may never be around for it to wake up.

suppose the cat is there, but you're only a figment of its imagination, and you can only perceive what it chooses that you can see? so IT is real and YOU are fictional?

it can go on and on like that. There's no real feasible way to exclude all of the possible untestable scenarios (as those above) so the burden has to lie on the one making the positive claim.

 

[geldonyetich]

The problem here is in the bolded lines. You are dividing by (a-b) which is zero and we all know where that leads...

Spoiler

Division by zero is sort of the key reason why math wouldn't help you with this particular question. If you take negative as the non-existence of something, zero being that non-existence, we know how to multiply it but we can't divide it - 0 and infinity has mysteries that Mathematics have yet to comprehend (though workarounds exist).

Of course, I would argue this is because mathematics is a purely mental concept that exists purely as a means of measuring reality... and there we go again, been there, done that.

 

[geldonyetich]

-snip-

Cry some more why don't you, you big baby!.

Because, after all, everything I said just now had no validity whatsoever, and your hands are clean. Ignoring other people's points is definitely not how you win arguments.

What? You did ask.

Rhetorically.