We Know Just About Nothing Again!

[threewood14]

Was i right about you or what! So you will not believe me unless I prove it.

It tries to prove itself based on the assumption that what it is claiming is true.

Now try this. Would you believe that we cannot know with absolute certainty anything except for our interpretations of the universe and this sentence? This sentence, if I'm not mistaken, does not have that logical fallacy. IT can be built upon the beliefs that I tried proving to you earlier. How can you rpove something? I think hat if you believe that, you would probably believe the claim im trying to prove. There really is no evidence against it except it self. You don't have anything against me.

Like Raya said, if you try to prove something, you will find you cannot.

I was looking for a reason besides a disease that affects the senses.

Does it matter what the reason is or not? The disease is a reason. I'm curious to know why it isn't good enough.

Since they cannot be proven they are not true.

Incorrect. Just because I may not prove something to be true does not mean that it is not true. For example, God. We can never prove God. It is just way too hard. Let's say for now that He does exist somewhere... I did not prove that God existed, but He does nonetheless.

[Apotheosis]

So you will not believe me unless I prove it.

Correct. If you cannot prove something I don't believe it.

Now try this. Would you believe that we cannot know with absolute certainty anything except for our interpretations of the universe and this sentence?

No, because you have provided no proof and/or convincing evidence to support that claim whatsoever.

This sentence, if I'm not mistaken, does not have that logical fallacy.

No, it does not. However, that is beside the point. The logical fallacy only occurred in your attempt to prove your claim. There may be some way to prove what you have said; however, as of now, your attempt and reasoning has been fallacious.

There really is no evidence against it except it self. You don't have anything against me.

Those two sentences are contradictory. First you said that the only evidence against your claim was itself (which is a hell of a lot in my opinion). Then, you say that there is nothing against your claim! So which is it? Personally, I think that the first sentence was true...

Like Raya said, if you try to prove something, you will find you cannot.

And that is Raya's opinion, to which he is entitled. It is my belief that one CAN prove things.

I was looking for a reason besides a disease that affects the senses.

Does it matter what the reason is or not? The disease is a reason. I'm curious to know why it isn't good enough.

I never said it wasn't good enough, it's just that we had already established the fact that diseases can affect one's ability to detect things. Apart from that, why wouldn't one be able to detect matter?

Since they cannot be proven they are not true.

Incorrect. Just because I may not prove something to be true does not mean that it is not true. For example, God. We can never prove God. It is just way too hard. Let's say for now that He does exist somewhere... I did not prove that God existed, but He does nonetheless.

Now this is an entirely different story. God does exist; however, his existence, in my opinion, is only in the minds of men. There is no actual proof that God is an entity somewhere (if there is, kindly share!). We cannot prove his physical existence, but what we can do is believe that he exists. These are two completely different concepts; that is to say, truth to an individual (his or her beliefs) and reality (positions of matter) are. However, that's not to say that reality cannot be individualized, for it can. One can "customize" his or her own reality via his or her beliefs and concepts or ideas that he or she holds to be true. It all depends on how you look at it and what you choose to believe.

[threewood14]

Correct. If you cannot prove something I don't believe it.

I now assume that you are aetheist. And I also now assume that you have no trust in anyone. For if somebody cannot prove to you that he/she will do something, you will not believe them. And under certain circumstances, this is not good.

No, because you have provided no proof and/or convincing evidence to support that claim whatsoever.

Neither do you...

This is my first post ever for this topic. I suggest you read it...

How do you prove something? Well that's the thing; you cannot prove something. First off lets start with something we all think is true. For example, we are all under the effects of gravity from the earth. Okay, this theory seems very wild at first, but take a while to think this over...Some people might get it and others may not. Back to example...tell me how you know that there really isn't a monkey sitting at the center of the earth actually controling gravity. He is using invisible strings and advanced technology to keep every grain of dust on the ground. Have you ever been to the center of the earth? How do you know that that is not true. How do you know the center of the earth is molten rock? Have you been there? You cannot prove me wrong. Now remember I am not crazy. I'm pretty sure that gravity has nothing to do with giant primeapes. In other words, there is a high probability that that is indeed false. But that is just the thing. If there is a probability that it is false, then there is a probability that it is true. Okay, so now we say, if we had some special instrument to detect living life forms and we observed the earth, there would be nothing in the center. But how do you know that the machine is inaccurate or the monkey has ways of disguise.

Also...

Indeed you cannot prove anything

From Kalailan

Seriously though, we think we know but we don't know. Simple analogy, people thought the earth was flat a few hundred years ago. Now imagine how much we actually know right now, or we think we know.
Our thoughts are based upon the known past but out imagination is based upon the unknown future.

From Reemas

The only thing I know is that I know nothing."

Socrates. Einstein said something similar.

Why do all these guys agree? Think about it realistically for a moment. If the only definition of the universe we have is our own, then that is the only thing we can go by. If someone sees an object that isn't really there because he/she has that strange chemical imbalance, they would still believe that those people were their unless someone told him/her it was not real. And of course, we are assuming that these people are seeing reality correctly; nothing there.

The fact of the matter is that you don't even know that you are insane or not. People who are insane sometimes are unware of this. By saying this, you cannot tell if you are insane or not! You can only back up your opinion by saying that I can't prove mine. Just because I can't prove it does not make it false. It boils down to if you can prove something is reality or not. In order to do this, we must interpret reality in a pure form. Meaning, what we are seeing IS reality and there is no way of telling whether we do have this pure interpretation or not. It is all possible.

[primitive]

One of life's little mysteries is the idea that what we experience may not be real. Your sense can deceive you. There is no real way to prove anything 100% correct. ever. We can have damn good ideas that things are true, or correct, but we can never truley know, because everything could be flawed, perceptions skewed. "Am I man dreaming to be a butterfly, or am I a butterfly dreaming I'm a man?" (I forgot who said that). Its a good thing humans have a little thing called faith. We put trust in what we don't know to be true. However, we can never tell if it is true or not.

[Apotheosis]

I now assume that you are aetheist.

I am not an atheist. However, I do not believe in God in the traditional sense. The Bible to me is simply a story book. It is filled with little stories that have lessons to them. These lessons and morals that the Bible teaches are important. As to whether or not anything in the Bible actually happened, I don't care. To me, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that these stories have good lessons in them and people ought to learn from them in order to live better lives. As for God and Jesus, to me, it doesn't make a difference whether they are real or not; to me, it simply does not matter. What matters is what they teach you. Now that is just me. You can believe whatever you want; whatever floats your boat.

And I also now assume that you have no trust in anyone.

That's probably the funniest thing I've heard in a long, long time! You couldn't be more wrong! lol I trust EVERYONE! Seriously, I always believe people when they tell me something. The way I see it, I have no reason to doubt them so why wouldn't I believe them? I place lots of trust in other people and other people place lots of trust in me. Trust is a very, very important thing to me, and, im my opinion, should be to everyone else.

For if somebody cannot prove to you that he/she will do something, you will not believe them. And under certain circumstances, this is not good.

That is not true at all. We are debating with one another about theoretical concepts and ideas!!!! Of course I'm not going to believe a word you say without proof!!!!! When it comes to me placing trust in another, I do it quite frequently. As a matter of fact, sometimes I place a bit too much trust in others. I naturally expect someone to do something if I am counting on them, and quite frankly, most of the time people don't do what they say they are going to do. Now that's not to say nobody does what they say, but a few don't.

No, because you have provided no proof and/or convincing evidence to support that claim whatsoever.

Neither do you...

Ok, now there are two problems with this. One, I have no idea what in the world you mean by that. And two, you're the one trying to prove something here, so naturally you're the one who needs proof or evidence.

Finally, I know I have said this time and time again, but I will say it once more. Your entire argument is hypothetical. It has no basis. There is no proof for your claims and there is no evidence to convince me that what you have said is true. Thus, it all boils down to whether or not you believe it to be true to you. It cannot be applied or tied into reality. It is all a matter of opinion. As for me, I don't believe it. I know things and that is that.

P.S. -

8)

[threewood14]

I am not an atheist. However, I do not believe in God in the traditional sense. The Bible to me is simply a story book. It is filled with little stories that have lessons to them. These lessons and morals that the Bible teaches are important. As to whether or not anything in the Bible actually happened, I don't care. To me, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the fact that these stories have good lessons in them and people ought to learn from them in order to live better lives. As for God and Jesus, to me, it doesn't make a difference whether they are real or not; to me, it simply does not matter. What matters is what they teach you. Now that is just me. You can believe whatever you want; whatever floats your boat.

Hahahah I was just teasing you!

Ok, now there are two problems with this. One, I have no idea what in the world you mean by that. And two, you're the one trying to prove something here, so naturally you're the one who needs proof or evidence.

What I mean is that you have no evidence either to prove that you can know things. If this is the case, then you have a decision to make. Do we know things or not? When I mean know, it means with absolute certainty. Now I believe that we cannot know anything. I believe it is the most probable answer between knowing something and not knowing something. You cannot prove your claim, and neither can I. I am still wondering why you think there is a greater chance that you can know things. If you can know things, prove it to me. Prove something.

Your male desciption was not good enough. Just becauswe you fit the description of something does not mean you are one. What if I had all insanely crazy people judge your gender? There may be some who say female. (No offense serious but it was your chosen example ). What you would call a normal person is no different than these crazy people. Unless there is an absolute normal and absolute crazy, crazy would be a matter of interpretation. And like I said, you can't even know if you are crazy or not.

It is all a matter of opinion. As for me, I don't believe it. I know things and that is that.

Like what? How bout this. Prove to me that earth exists. I am telling you that you won't be able to.

And two, you're the one trying to prove something here, so naturally you're the one who needs proof or evidence.

You are up to the test actually. It is you who is trying to prove something and you will find that you cannot. Plus, I am not the only one who thinks this. My good neighbor Jim, Raya, Kalailan, Reemus, Socrates, and Einstein all believe what I believe. Not to sound rude, but Einstein and Socrates were some of the most brilliant minds ever. I would actually consider Einstein the brightest. Stephen Hawking is smart, but hasn't really made a major outbreak like Einstein. He reads a lot and possess much information, but he was not the one to figure all this information out. That is really off track, but the point is, I have many supporters for my claim and some of them happen to be people with IQs over 200.

P.S.

P.S. -

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:

What was that all about?

[Apotheosis]

Alright, I'm up for it. Let's see now...How do we prove that the earth exists? Ok, here we go. I will use a series of questions to prove to you that the earth exists:

Quetion 1: Do you have any kind of disease that affects your senses?

Question 2: Can you see the earth?

Question 3: Can you feel the earth?

Question 4: Can you smell the earth?

Question 5: Can you taste the earth?

Question 6: Can you hear the earth?

Question 7: Do you think the earth exists?

Answer those questions and we can proceed from there.

P.S. - I was justing playing around with the quote function!

P.P.S. - Can you see the formations it makes? It's cool! It's like a bunch of concentric rectangles.

[threewood14]

Quetion 1: Do you have any kind of disease that affects your senses?

I do not think I do because no symptoms have shown. Therefore I probably do not, but possibily have one that has not shown symptoms yet.

Question 2: Can you see the earth?

I see what I call the earth, but I'm not sure if it exists.

Question 3: Can you feel the earth?

My senses feel something, but I'm not sure if what I am feeling is really the earth because I'm not sure if I have a disease that interferes with my senses.

Question 4: Can you smell the earth?

My senses smell something, but I'm not sure if what I am smelling is really the earth because I'm not sure if I have a disease that interferes with my senses.

Question 5: Can you taste the earth?

My senses taste something, but I'm not sure if what I am tasting is really the earth because I'm not sure if I have a disease that interferes with my senses.

Question 6: Can you hear the earth?

No, but I hear reactoins going on on the surface of the earth.My senses hear something, but I'm not sure if what I am hearing is really the earth because I'm not sure if I have a disease that interferes with my senses.

Question 7: Do you think the earth exists?

Yes, but I can not prove it.

[Apotheosis]

Quetion 1: Do you have any kind of disease that affects your senses?

I do not think I do because no symptoms have shown. Therefore I probably do not, but possibily have one that has not shown symptoms yet.

So basically, your senses are functioning perfectly normally. You currently don't have any symptoms characteristic of a disease that inhibits your senses.

Question 2: Can you see the earth?

I see what I call the earth

Good. I too see what I call the earth.

Question 3: Can you feel the earth?

My senses feel something

Can you feel the ground with any part of your body?

Question 4: Can you smell the earth?

My senses smell something

Can you smell dirt on the ground or grass that is growing out of the ground?

Question 5: Can you taste the earth?

My senses taste something

Can you taste the dirt on the ground?

Question 6: Can you hear the earth?

No, but I hear reactoins going on on the surface of the earth.

Ok, good. You hear vibrations in the atmosphere, which is part of the earth. Even though the earth wasn't directly causing the sound which you hear, you hear these sounds on thanks to a property of the earth: the fact that it has an atmosphere.

Question 7: Do you think the earth exists?

Yes

Ok, so you do believe the earth exists. It doesn't matter whether or not you can prove it, that's my job.

Please answer the questions that I have posed above.

[threewood14]

So basically, your senses are functioning perfectly normally. You currently don't have any symptoms characteristic of a disease that inhibits your senses.

It does not mean that my senses are functioning perfectly. It means that I am sensing something. It does not nessecarily mean that I am sensing reality.I did not say that I didn't have a disease, I said I think I don't. I also said there that it is possible that I DO have a disease, but am unaware of it.

Can you feel the ground with any part of your body?

I feel something, but I cannot be sure that it is the earth. This is because there is a possibility that my senses are detecting things that are not there. Therefore, I cannot be sure, however, I believe that I feel the earth.

Can you smell dirt on the ground or grass that is growing out of the ground?

I smell what I call dirt and grass, but I do not know that it is real because there is a possibility that my senses are detecting things that are not there. However, I believe that it is grass and dirt.

Can you taste the dirt on the ground?

If I did taste the ground, I think I would taste dirt. However, I cannot be sure that the dirt is real because there is a possibility that I am tasting something that is not there. This possibility makes me so I am uncertain.

Ok, good. You hear vibrations in the atmosphere, which is part of the earth. Even though the earth wasn't directly causing the sound which you hear, you hear these sounds on thanks to a property of the earth: the fact that it has an atmosphere.

I har things, but I cannot be absolutely certain that they are real. This is because there is a possibility that my senses are sensing something that is not real. However, I do believe that I hear real sounds.

Ok, so you do believe the earth exists. It doesn't matter whether or not you can prove it, that's my job.

I do believe the earth exists, however, I can not be absolutely certain that it does because my senses may be sensing something that isn't real.

Sorry, but you are doing a job that no one has done before. You're looking for Bananas on Mars. There is a good chance you won't find them. However, I won't say that I know with absolute certainty that you won't prove this. This is because I do not know anything and therefore do not know if you can or cannot prove something. But I believe that you cannot.

[Apotheosis]

It does not mean that my senses are functioning perfectly.

I never said that. I said they are functioning perfectly NORMALLY. You said before that you don't think you have one because no symptoms have shown. Even if they may show in the future, the fact is they are not showing now. Thus, your senses are fine.

This is because there is a possibility that my senses are detecting things that are not there.

You used this phrase in pretty much every answer to my questions. Let me ask you this: Where did you get the idea that your senses might be detecting things that are not there when your senses are working fine? The fact of the matter is they ARE functioning normally. It doesn't matter what they MAY be doing, what matters is what they ARE doing. What say you?

[threewood14]

I never said that. I said they are functioning perfectly NORMALLY. You said before that you don't think you have one because no symptoms have shown. Even if they may show in the future, the fact is they are not showing now. Thus, your senses are fine.

My intent was to say that not enough symptoms has shown to convince me that I have the disease. But look at it this way, I also may be showing symptoms. They are just not severe enough to convince me. Or maybe they are severe, but by some chance, they make sense in this conversation.

You used this phrase in pretty much every answer to my questions. Let me ask you this: Where did you get the idea that your senses might be detecting things that are not there when your senses are working fine? The fact of the matter is they ARE functioning normally. It doesn't matter what they MAY be doing, what matters is what they ARE doing. What say you?

The fact of the matter is not that they ARE functioning normally. The fact of the matter is that they MAY be functoining normally. This is important. I can say this because I am not sure that my senses are working perfectly normally. I am going on about that my senses are working normally. Therefore I must assume that what I AM sensing Is reality in order to prove that the erath exists. You see, this can not be done in what we are trying to accomplish.

I don't think you have realized how great possibilities are. They are the things creating uncertainty. It does matter what my senses may be doing. By that phrase there, it suggests that they MAY be doing other things. Even though this chance is not great, it still exists as a chance. In this kind of proof, it cannot be ignored. Once this happens, we have already crossed the line.

Let me ask you this: Where did you get the idea that your senses might be detecting things that are not there when your senses are working fine?

I got the idea because I am not absolutely certain whether I have a sense impairing disease or not. If I do not, then I believe that the earth exists. If I knew that I did not have a disease like that, we would be able to prove the earth's existence. In this case, however, I do not know whether I have this disease or not.

The challenge has been moved back in a sense. Prove to me that I do not have this disease. If you do, then you can prove the earth exists.

[Apotheosis]

Why don't you know whether or not you have this disease? What is creating the uncertainty? Surely if you can detect things the way a majority of the other human beings do, then your senses are fine. Why are you doubting the functionality of your senses?

P.S. - It seems to me that you just keep spitting back the same old thing about this uncertainty existing. Why would there be some random uncertainty? Can you even prove that this uncertainty is there? If you can't even prove that there is some uncertainty in the first place using nothing but factual information, then none of your reasoning is applicable.

[threewood14]

Why don't you know whether or not you have this disease? What is creating the uncertainty?

You must have been missing the entire point of my stand then. The uncertainty is created by other possibilities. It is possible that this could have happened or this could have happened. There is no reason to doubt that. For example, we could say that it is possible that aliens took people from the Bermuda Triangle, or it is possible that a giant sea creature swallowed them, or that it is possible that the ships went through a worm hole. There is no reason to deny it. They are just unlikely things to happen. There Is no reason to deny that the possibilities are boundless. "It could ahve been anything." "Anything is possible." Even thogh what the person meant by these things may have been for effort purposes, the literal take on these sentences is true. Why would anything not be possible?

Now since there are many many possibilities in our world, it creates this uncertainty I'm talking about. If there was another course of action that COULD HAVE taken place, then we cannot be absolutly certain about our beliefs. For example, it is possible that I have that disease that impairs my senses to sense things that are not there. It may not be probable, but it is definitly possible. Why is it possible? This is not a good answer, but my thinking is because it can be thought of. If I can think of a logical flow of events, each event not having to make sense in the first place, then I can create uncertainty in anything. The reason that each event does not have to make sense is because some of the things involved in it may not be understandable or we do not understand yet. In our disease example, I could say that it only affects me when there is a half moon and an eclipse. Why not? It is possible. Now I am haven't really seen an eclipse so I wouldn't have shown signs yet. I do not need to explain why this may be because it could be about something that humans are completely unfamiliar with. Now let us say that at 12:15 tomorrow, there will be an eclipse and the moon is a half moon. Well, at the time, which happens to be our break, I would start sensing things that are not there and tasting things that are not there. It would be strange. In this example, I have this disease and I was affected by it. But now, you would say, it does not affect me now. But the other thing is that it is possible that this 'trigger' could be anything. So the trigger could be oxygen! It is also possible that every time I was affected, which would be forever, all the things I sensed and stuff would make sense to people watching me and would not suspect a problem.

I hope you understand this because you are right. I have said this many many times and I'm not sure if you have acknowleded it or not. Here is some proof if you will...

How do you know that your brain is misinterpreting your senses and making you believe that you are a male? How do you know that everyone knows this but just won't tell you so you can have a good life? How do you know that you understand the meaning of english? You cannot!

Every time I say how do you know, it could be substited for it is possible that...

Yes it is possible for this to happen, but the fact of the matter is that it can nver be proven that that is reality because our senses may cause us to believe the wrong things.

I say our senses may be. That means it is possible that...

However, this infinite amount of knoledge could also be equal to an infinite amount of possibilities. If there are an ifinite amount of possibilities, then that must create some uncertainty in our thoughts. The fact of the matter is that it IS possible to know things, but we can NEVER know them WITH absolute certainty. This is because there is uncertainty in our thoughts. Even though we believe what these things are to be true, we still have uncertainty.

I am not saying that you misunderstand english, but merely saying that there is a chance.

A chance...Possibility

I do not think I do because no symptoms have shown. Therefore I probably do not, but possibily have one that has not shown symptoms yet.

I also said there that it is possible that I DO have a disease, but am unaware of it.

smell what I call dirt and grass, but I do not know that it is real because there is a possibility that my senses are detecting things that are not there. However, I believe that it is grass and dirt.

If I did taste the ground, I think I would taste dirt. However, I cannot be sure that the dirt is real because there is a possibility that I am tasting something that is not there. This possibility makes me so I am uncertain.

I har things, but I cannot be absolutely certain that they are real. This is because there is a possibility that my senses are sensing something that is not real. However, I do believe that I hear real sounds.

I don't think you have realized how great possibilities are.

That's me.

[Apotheosis]

I see what you are saying. These possiblities still exist; however, the question now is WHY do these possiblities exist? Also, consider this: Even if these possibilities are possible, are they really happening? I for one, think that they are POSSIBLE but I do not think that they are actually happening. Therefore, man can detect what has already been given (aka reality, the universe, positions of matter), thus, he can draw conclusions, create definitions, and know things.

[threewood14]

the question now is WHY do these possiblities exist? Also, consider this: Even if these possibilities are possible, are they really happening? I for one, think that they are POSSIBLE but I do not think that they are actually happening. Therefore, man can detect what has already been given (aka reality, the universe, positions of matter), thus, he can draw conclusions, create definitions, and know things.

I know what you mean when you say why these possibilities exist. The truth is, I haven't really cared but I nkow they exist. Its kind of like ecology. I am not very informed in it, but I know it exists. But we could talk about it in the club if we wanted to.

, man can detect what has already been given (aka reality, the universe, positions of matter), thus, he can draw conclusions, create definitions, and know things.

This is where I think you went off topic. I agree entirely with you on this part. As well as the possibilities that are extreme, it is also possible that man can detect things with his senses and nothing interferes with it. I think, for one and you probably do too, that this is reality. We do know things. Man draws conclusions and therefore knows things.

The entire point of this thread was to say that we can never know these things WITH absolute certainty. That is the key part. It IS possible for man to know knowledge and he probably does know some. The thing is, he cannot prove it unless he assumes that what he interprets as the universe IS reality.

Therefore, it IS possible for man to know knowledge.

but

It IS NOT possible for man to know things with absolute certainty. Now you could say that you are absolutely certain about something, but that is a blunder people make. They are assuming that what they tink is reality. They can never know with absolute certainty that what they think is reality.

I for one, think that they are POSSIBLE but I do not think that they are actually happening.

Neither do I, but we cannot deny the fact that they MAY BE.

[Apotheosis]

I still think that there are some things we can know with absolute certainty. Example: 1 + 1 = 2

[threewood14]

I would have to debate this. I am very uncertain (haha) about this, but would you say that math is human interpretations of value? If so, then adding, subtracting, multiplying, and dividing are defined by man. I think that math is not reality, but an interpretation of value. I don't have much more to say I guess. I am still trying to draw a conclusion and am not solid about this, however, this is what I have so far.

If I am wrong aobut this math, then would you agree that man cannot know anything with absolute certainty except for his interpretation of the universe and math? Curious as if you agree to me or not by now, excluding all the math. We'll figure it out later.

[Apotheosis]

We'll talk about it later, but for now, math seems to be the only thing that we can be certain of. Furthermore, math is derived from the world we live in and applies directly to it, which makes me believe that if there is math behind a concept, we can be absolutely certain about it. So, I think it would be safe to say that we can be absolutely certain about a great many things!

[threewood14]

I think we are doing something extremely out of proportion. Think about it. What I am talking about is uncertainty in reality. We cannot prove anything is reality because of all the posibilities. This is were it gets weird and why I am unsure. I think the only thing we can define is value. Not the value of something, but plain old value. Like if there is one apple. I do not think we can say with absolute certainty that there is one apple. But if there was just one apple, then we could decsribe the apple. One apple. I do not think that we can define that there is one apple, but what one is. We can only descirbe the adjective one.

However, what do you have in mind? Give an example. But first, consider this. If we cannot even know with absolute certainty anything about reality except our interpretation of reality, then how can we apply math to anything except our own interpretation of it! We would only be able to prove to ourselves that math works with our interpretation of the universe and that we understand what we think math is.

[Apotheosis]

Here is an example of what I am trying to say: Man made the concept of numbers. Using numbers we can derive all sorts of interesting relationships. Oddly enough, these relationships were not man made...They existed in nature already... To be specific, coordinate geometry. All of the relationships existed in nature before man discovered them via math. Also, the ratio pi. We didn't make pi, it existed already. It was given from day one. So what? What does this mean? It means, that numbers, which man created, were used to discover relationships and concepts about reality without having to rely on the senses. We can use these relationships (math) to describe and define our world. This is probably the only thing that we can know for sure; math! So, my conclusion earlier was that since we can understand math with absolute certainty, we can understand many, many things in reality and in nature with absolute certainty. I don't mean that we can know EVERYTHING about these things, but we can know SOME things with absolute certainty.

[threewood14]

Okay, but you still have some flaws.

I will go with you on this one. (We can be absolutely certain about math.)

Now let us try and put it to use in the real world. Because so far, you have only told me math, not how math is used.

Let us say that we have 5 apples. We get 5 more apples. Therefore we have 10 apples. Would you agree that this is a good example of putting math to the test?

[primitive]

Let us say that we have 5 apples. We get 5 more apples. Therefore we have 10 apples. Would you agree that this is a good example of putting math to the test?

I would say that this is not a good example because we cannot tell how many apples are there in the first place. You say it is all possible. Why would it not be possible for our eyes to be missing some of the objects. For instance, there would be 14 apples in all, and we miss 4 of them. I think math can be understood, but it is much more difficult when used in reality.

[threewood14]

I still think that math is only our interpretation of value int he universe. I do not think that we can know anything with absolute certainty still. For example, I think the apples is not a good idea. Neither would any scenario. Look at it this way. We say that we have 5 apples and 5 apples. Then we say we have 10 apples. According to math, 5 + 5 = 10. But this would only be true in reality if there were 5 apples and we cannot know this with absoltue certainty. Again, this really shouldn't have to do with what I am trying to say. Math has its own rules that were defined by man. Therefore, our interpretation of the universe when applied to math is still man made. For if you do not use reality with math, what good is it in this discussion? The thing is, we cannot use reality with math simply because we cannot know anything in reality with absolute certainty already! We would have to know something with absolute certainty in order to apply math to it and come up with more conclusions according to math. I think, Apotheosis, that math cannot prove anything with absolute certainty In reality.

[Apotheosis]

I disagree. We can apply math to situations without ever having to witness the things being discussed. Forget apples. That is a terrible example. I'm talking about figuring out the circumference of a circle using pi. Pi was not man made. It existed long before man did. We don't need to even see a circle to figure things like that out. We can simply do the calculations in our head. Then, these calculations can be applied to things that we can detect. So what I'm saying is, we can know numbers and values with absolute certainty, so wouldn't it seem logical that if numbers and values describe objects that those descriptions allow us to comprehend these objects with certainty?

[threewood14]

Then, these calculations can be applied to things that we can detect.

Then do it. Demonstrate. I still don't agree.

[Apotheosis]

Very well.

Given: F=ma

If I were to apply 40N of force to a stationary object that had a mass of 20kg, the object's acceleration would increase to 2 m/s/s. I can then apply this to reality. I see what I believe to be a soccer ball. Given that this soccer ball is stationary and that its mass is 20kg, if I were to kick it with a force of 20N, it's acceleration would increase to 2 m/s/s. See, I know with absolute certainty that this will happen! There is no denying it! Furthermore, you might ask: How do you know the soccer ball is even there? The answer to that is simple. It doesn't matter! If the ball does exist, then it's acceleration will increase. If it doesn't exist then it's acceleration won't increase! However, I know with absolute certainty that if the ball does exist, then it's acceleration will increase, thus proving that I know something! End of story.

[threewood14]

Very well then, but I wouldn't consider it the end of anything.

If I were to apply 40N of force to a stationary object that had a mass of 20kg, the object's acceleration would increase to 2 m/s/s. I can then apply this to reality.

You are assuming that f = ma is correct and true.

My proof...

Given: F=ma

You will find that you cannot assume this. There is a possibility that f = 2ma. For now, however, it is f = ma. Let's say that for some reason, when you go to kick that soccor ball, something happens. What ever this may, be, I am focused on one thing, the result of it. The result could be that force now equals 2ma instead of 1ma or just ma. It is very possible. You cannot deny the fact that it may happen. Since you went to go kick the soccor ball and you said you thought it would have an acceleration of 2m/s/s, you would be wrong. It would actually be 4m/s/s! The formula would change. If you want a cause for it, ill give you one. How about this. It is possible that God exists. It is possible that God wants all the mass and A to be increased when you kick that soccor ball. You kick it and right before your foot hits the ball, it changes. Now, the things you thought you were absolutely certain about are different. I am not saying this would happen, I am saying that it is possible that this could happen. There is no denying fact. The fact was you assumed that f = ma. However, when you kick the ball, it is f = 2ma. To clarify it all up, since there is possibility that this can happen, it creates an uncertainty in your thinking. Although this uncertainty is small and usually unnoticed, it still exists and for that reason, you cannot be absolutely certain that the balls acceleratoin will be 2ms/s.

[primitive]

f=ma

All these laws do exist and cannot change unless reality itself changes. Physics is based on observations, and nothing can be completey true because all laws and models use past observations to make PREDICTIONS about the future. Gravity could suddenly become as strong as it really should be and then our realtiy would be very different (we'd all be dead). All laws are produce from experiment and observation and only ever explain what has a lready been seen. we say a law works when it accurately and correctly predicts future events

We can never know anything complelety and perfectly accurately, we can however make very accurate and precise predictions that have yet to be proved wrong.

[Apotheosis]

Man did not create the relationship F = ma. That relationship has existed since the beginning of time. All we did is discover it.

[threewood14]

Man did not create the relationship F = ma. That relationship has existed since the beginning of time. All we did is discover it.

Since this is all about proving things, prove that the formula f=ma is correct in every situation. I must say, there is a nasty surprise for you...

[Apotheosis]

Since this is all about proving things, prove that the formula f=ma is correct in every situation. I must say, there is a nasty surprise for you...

That would take too long. Instead, I suggest that we try to find an instance where it DOESN'T work.

[threewood14]

First we must prove that f=ma. It is the point of the thread. Can we attain knowledge with absolute certainty. (wac)

We could say that in the past, we have measured things in this formula. The point is, since there are many possibilities, how can we know with absoltue certainty that we measured correctly? How do you know that Newton and every single human being to put this formula in reality have misscalculated their results? You do not! This is highly unlikely, but quite possible. Thereore, we cannot say with absolute certainty that f=ma. it may equal 3ma or 4ma. Our measurements may be off and this creates uncertainty in our thoughts. We cannot use the formula w.a.c.

All these laws do exist and cannot change unless reality itself changes. Physics is based on observations, and nothing can be completey true because all laws and models use past observations to make PREDICTIONS about the future. Gravity could suddenly become as strong as it really should be and then our realtiy would be very different (we'd all be dead). All laws are produce from experiment and observation and only ever explain what has a lready been seen. we say a law works when it accurately and correctly predicts future events

We can never know anything complelety and perfectly accurately, we can however make very accurate and precise predictions that have yet to be proved wrong.

nice

[Apotheosis]

None of what you said applies to what I'm talking about. What I was trying to say is that that formula and other relationships similar to it have always existed. We didn't make them. They were there since the beginning of time. Anyways, that's almost beside the point. What I was initially trying to argue a while back is that there are SOME things that we can know with absolute certainty. Here is an example: I know with absolute certainty that a fujhick is a chocksmack. Since I created those two ideas, I know everything about them with absolute certainty, thus the statement "I can know SOMETHING with absolute certainty" holds true.

[threewood14]

Is that not your definition of the universe? I did say that we can know our definitions of the universe wac.

What I was trying to say is that that formula and other relationships similar to it have always existed. We didn't make them.

But we can nver know these formulas with absolute certainty. That was my point. This is because we could have calculated every wrong and got the formula wrong. It is a small chance, but an existing one nonetheless.

the statement "I can know SOMETHING with absolute certainty" holds true.

Yes you are correct, but you missed the last half of the train. We cannot know anything with absolute certainty except our own definitions/interpretations of the universe.

I think you are trying to argue with me about something we already agree upon. I thinkk that we can know things with absolute certainty, but it can only be our definitions/interpretations of the universe.

Don't I repeat things too much?

[Apotheosis]

We cannot know anything with absolute certainty except our own definitions/interpretations of the universe.

That statement is kind of weird... It just occurred to me that all of the arguing we had been doing in the last 6 pages of this thread was in vein. We BOTH misunderstood what that statement was saying. Let me explain. Basically, all of the points that you and I tried to make earlier were just loads of BS. This statement says that we can know almost everything with absolute certainty. I'm not going to explain why yet, however, I would like you to respond to this next request: Please name one thing that we cannot know with absolute certainty. No need to make any elaborate situations, just give a simple example. (But by all means, if an intricate set-up is necessary, then let it be so.) Thanks.

[threewood14]

We cannot know with absolute certainty that the earth exists. We can only know with absolute certainty that we can sense something called the earth, but will never be able to prove its existance because we are limited to our interpretation. For example, it is possible that we are sensing something that is not there.

This statement says that we can know many things with asolute certainty, but it does not say that what we do see with absolute certainty is reality. It does not say we can know everything with absolute certainty either. The entire point is reality. I thought we had covered that already and it was implied in my statement.

"Man cannot know anything about reality except for his interpretation of reality."

Reality is referred to physical reality.

[threewood14]

Consider this. I was thinking. If nothing can be proven to be physical reality, then how can we know anything about physical reality? i think that if we cannot prove anything to be physical reality, then we must know nothing about it. I was also thinking that since my statement is about reality, why would it apply to my statement. is my statement matter, or patterns of energy? it does not have anything to do with matter. if you want to talk about electrons in the brain, that is a different story. my statment does not even apply to itself. in toher words, it does not say that it cannot be proven. for if this is true, then we can know that we cannot know anything in reality with absolute certainty.

[mingshey]

As for proof, our survival is the best one so far. Our ability to interprete the sensual data has survived the evolutionary pressure. Let's see if that works for another generation.

[threewood14]

I agree, but I also like to be aware that I always may be wrong and never to be certain about anything completely. But this does not imply that I cannot make dscisions.