Is it true?

[achilleas.k]

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 seeks as a means of measuring reality... and there we go again, been there, done that.

Well we could apply one common workaround to the 1+1=3 "proof" in that, when both sides are divided by zero they equal infinity, so all you end up with is inf. = inf.

Calling it a workaround implies it's a hack that sort of works but has no meaning, but the truth is (oh crap, I just used the T word) these "workarounds" are much more solid than that.

 

[Nick Bounty]

-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.

Ok, then can you prove that the Earth is not flat?.

 

[geldonyetich]

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 seeks as a means of measuring reality... and there we go again, been there, done that.

Well we could apply one common workaround to the 1+1=3 "proof" in that, when both sides are divided by zero they equal infinity, so all you end up with is inf. = inf.

Calling it a workaround implies it's a hack that sort of works but has no meaning, but the truth is (oh crap, I just used the T word) these "workarounds" are much more solid than that.

True enough [http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/answers/imaghard.html] - but it's complicated by the knowledge that math exists as an abstraction: it's a language, not the thing. 1 subatomic particle isn't 1, the number, but we can certainly observe relationships... and when those relationships don't seem to make any sense, we reject them, for now.

 

[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.

Ok, then can you prove that the Earth is not flat?.

If by Earth you mean the planet that we live on and flat as in a surface then, yes. Earth is a 3 dimensional object whereas a plane is 2 dimensional. While a 2i dimensional plane can exist in 2 dimensional space, an object cannot be simultaneously 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional unless you're majoring in Topography. I mean come on who know what crazy things they get up to. Therefore, Earth is not flat.

Also, the rounded shadow of Earth on the moon during lunar eclipses, constellation changes at different locations/hemispheres, and photos taken from space ( the Earth always appears round from any angle, which can only happen with a sphere).

Google for in depth explanations.

If you meant flat as in a plane, then that is even more obvious.

-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.

Who's ignoring?. I am answering you, you're not left out. I am not giving up on you that easily!. What was rhetorical about your statement though?. I forget. It's the age you see!.

As for the hands, they are mighty clean. Thanks for asking buttercup!.

 

[geldonyetich]

Who's ignoring?. I am answering you, you're not left out. I am not giving up on you that easily!. What was rhetorical about your statement though?. I forget. It's the age you see!.

As for the hands, they are mighty clean. Thanks for asking buttercup!.

And, might I say, your lip service has been fabulous, tulip.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

Who's ignoring?. I am answering you, you're not left out. I am not giving up on you that easily!. What was rhetorical about your statement though?. I forget. It's the age you see!.

As for the hands, they are mighty clean. Thanks for asking buttercup!.

And, might I say, your lip service has been fabulous, tulip.

Think nothing of it!. It comes with the territory.

 

[achilleas.k]

Ok, then can you prove that the Earth is not flat?.

There's a couple of ways you can go about this. If you can accept the statement "if the earth is flat, I am not be able to travel around it and arrive where I started", then you can disprove the second statement by travelling around it and arriving at your starting point. That would prove that the first part, i.e., "the earth is flat", is false.

Of course that all depends on the validity of the conditional statement put forward.

 

[Danpascooch]

No you can't prove a negative.

Because for all you know everyone else sees red as blue, up as down, and you're in a coma and everything around you is a dream.

 

[achilleas.k]

No you can't prove a negative.

Because for all you know everyone else sees red as blue, up as down, and you're in a coma and everything around you is a dream.

Do we really want to go into these areas now? You're gonna get another Skarin Vs. geldonyetich.

 

[Danpascooch]

No you can't prove a negative.

Because for all you know everyone else sees red as blue, up as down, and you're in a coma and everything around you is a dream.

Do we really want to go into these areas now? You're gonna get another Skarin Vs. geldonyetich.

I have no idea what that means, are those names? Because if I had the name "geldonyetich" I would literally kill myself while still in the womb.

Personally I think philosophy is all a bunch of garbage.

But that's the reason you can't prove something negative, take it for what it is.

 

[Kaboose the Moose]

No you can't prove a negative.

Because for all you know everyone else sees red as blue, up as down, and you're in a coma and everything around you is a dream.

Do we really want to go into these areas now? You're gonna get another Skarin Vs. geldonyetich.

Well it all comes down to perception but I think the crux of the topic has been dissected well enough.

"You can't prove a negative"

- It's a contradiction of itself.

"Mathematically you can prove a negative"

- It's a logic proof in itself.

"Prove that Aristotle's Law isn't true"

- It's a self-evident axiom that requires no proof.

 

[geldonyetich]

A negative is probably provable enough if you frame the question in realistic enough terms. I think the main thing that makes it so hard to pin down is just the sheer ambiguity of it.

It's like the whole "meaning of life" question. It's easy enough to solve once you define what you mean by "meaning" and "life." Given that you can find radically different definitions of these words alone, you'll find radically different solutions, but you will nonetheless have solutions.

The ambiguity of existence itself is just the other half of the problem on the grounds that what's being asked for is proof.

 

[McHanhan]

Gee, I sure am sorry that I failed to accept a theoretical principle you have decided we all must believe in order to be right.

Oh did you miss the part where I said this was my topic?. If you didn't get it through your head the first time: it's my topic and my conditions!. If you don't like it you can haul ass to another thread or better yet make your own.

Have a nice day.

 

[geldonyetich]

Gee, I sure am sorry that I failed to accept a theoretical principle you have decided we all must believe in order to be right.

Oh did you miss the part where I said this was my topic?. If you didn't get it through your head the first time: it's my topic and my conditions!. If you don't like it you can haul ass to another thread or better yet make your own.

Have a nice day.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, though you have made it clear this was your belief since post 1. Just because you start a thread does not give you moderator power over how it will be conducted. You can check the rules thread if you don't believe me.

In any case, you should be thanking me. I guarantee you that this thread would be dead and buried if it weren't for how often I kept it near the top.

 

[McHanhan]

Gee, I sure am sorry that I failed to accept a theoretical principle you have decided we all must believe in order to be right.

Oh did you miss the part where I said this was my topic?. If you didn't get it through your head the first time: it's my topic and my conditions!. If you don't like it you can haul ass to another thread or better yet make your own.

Have a nice day.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, though you have made it clear this was your belief since post 1. Just because you start a thread does not give you moderator power over how it will be conducted. You can check the rules thread if you don't believe me.

In any case, you should be thanking me. I guarantee you that this thread would be dead and buried if it weren't for how often I kept it near the top.

I am not moderating, I am setting my topic parameter. It's like in threads with 'list your hated movie' and the OP stated "except for twilight". Thats not moderating.

Also thanking you?. I never intended this thread to be a 10 page thread. I only wanted an opinion confined to the parameters give. Further deviations are welcome, but as you can see, it generates a lot of friction when people with thick egos approach. Which is why I always have a restriction to my topic grounds. The one time I decide to leave something open ended.

Well now since this topic is closed and you still seem to be trigger happy with the replies, I will say, adieu.

 

[geldonyetich]

Gee, I sure am sorry that I failed to accept a theoretical principle you have decided we all must believe in order to be right.

Oh did you miss the part where I said this was my topic?. If you didn't get it through your head the first time: it's my topic and my conditions!. If you don't like it you can haul ass to another thread or better yet make your own.

Have a nice day.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, though you have made it clear this was your belief since post 1. Just because you start a thread does not give you moderator power over how it will be conducted. You can check the rules thread if you don't believe me.

In any case, you should be thanking me. I guarantee you that this thread would be dead and buried if it weren't for how often I kept it near the top.

I am not moderating, I am setting my topic parameter.

Setting a topic you can do. Forcing people to think a specific way when answering a topic, you cannot.

Also thanking you?. I never intended this thread to be a 10 page thread. I only wanted an opinion confined to the parameters give. Further deviations are welcome, but as you can see, it generates a lot of friction when people with thick egos approach. Which is why I always have a restriction to my topic grounds. The one time I decide to leave something open ended.

Well now since this topic is closed and you still seem to be trigger happy with the replies, I will say, adieu.

To throw another "for future reference" into the mix, mademoiselle, you really can't start a deep philosophical question thread without attracting the likes of big egos.

But, to spare you the indignity of my presence again, I've added you to ignore.

 

[McHanhan]

Gee, I sure am sorry that I failed to accept a theoretical principle you have decided we all must believe in order to be right.

Oh did you miss the part where I said this was my topic?. If you didn't get it through your head the first time: it's my topic and my conditions!. If you don't like it you can haul ass to another thread or better yet make your own.

Have a nice day.

No, I'm afraid it doesn't work that way, though you have made it clear this was your belief since post 1. Just because you start a thread does not give you moderator power over how it will be conducted. You can check the rules thread if you don't believe me.

In any case, you should be thanking me. I guarantee you that this thread would be dead and buried if it weren't for how often I kept it near the top.

I am not moderating, I am setting my topic parameter.

Setting a topic you can do. Forcing people to think a specific way when answering a topic, you cannot.

Also thanking you?. I never intended this thread to be a 10 page thread. I only wanted an opinion confined to the parameters give. Further deviations are welcome, but as you can see, it generates a lot of friction when people with thick egos approach. Which is why I always have a restriction to my topic grounds. The one time I decide to leave something open ended.

Well now since this topic is closed and you still seem to be trigger happy with the replies, I will say, adieu.

To throw another "for future reference" into the mix, mademoiselle, you really can't start a deep philosophical question thread without attracting the likes of big egos.

But, to spare you the indignity of my presence again, I've added you to ignore.

Well now that I know of your existence I will avoid it like the plague. Thanks for the ignore as well, it's a huge favor for me.