Textkit Logo

Proof That We Know Almost Nothing...

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!

Proof That We Know Almost Nothing...

Postby threewood14 » Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:44 pm

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. Again, this can get really strange, but works under everything. Feel free to argue me back because I love that kind of stuff.

Okay, now lets go to Einstein. How do you know that he wasn't just a lunitic and somehow came up with the theory of relativity. How do you know that? His theories may seem true, but they just may not be. You could argue it with the math. Back to Euclid. But how do you know that he wasnt indeed crazy also. In fact, how do you know that you are not crazy yourself??? You can't really know anything and it boils down to one thing...

For the topic of this website, how do you know how to really speak Lain or Greek. You cannot. How do you know that there wasn't a conspiracy to convinve future civilizations like ours a completetly different history because their history was very embarrassing and they dd not want it to be discovered. How do you know that? I do not think anyone today lived at the time of the Roman Empire to tell us. How do you know that all the writing ever found was just pieces of this conspiracy and we never have found real Latin or Greek material. You don't!

The only thing we can possible know 100 percent is the fact that there is probability of inaccuracy.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you that monkeys rule the center of the earth. I'm not telling you that Einstein and Euclid were crazy. I am not telling you that Lain and Greek are false. I am telling you that there is a chance that those things are not true. Of course to us, they probably are true. Look at the past. People knew that the earth was the center of the universe. We have almost proved them wrong according to my statement.

What do you think of that?
__________
threewood14[face=SPIonic][/face][face=Verdana][/face]
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Re: Proof That We Know Almost Nothing...

Postby benissimus » Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:13 am

threewood14 wrote: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. Again, this can get really strange, but works under everything. Feel free to argue me back because I love that kind of stuff.

Okay, now lets go to Einstein. How do you know that he wasn't just a lunitic and somehow came up with the theory of relativity. How do you know that? His theories may seem true, but they just may not be. You could argue it with the math. Back to Euclid. But how do you know that he wasnt indeed crazy also. In fact, how do you know that you are not crazy yourself??? You can't really know anything and it boils down to one thing...

For the topic of this website, how do you know how to really speak Lain or Greek. You cannot. How do you know that there wasn't a conspiracy to convinve future civilizations like ours a completetly different history because their history was very embarrassing and they dd not want it to be discovered. How do you know that? I do not think anyone today lived at the time of the Roman Empire to tell us. How do you know that all the writing ever found was just pieces of this conspiracy and we never have found real Latin or Greek material. You don't!

The only thing we can possible know 100 percent is the fact that there is probability of inaccuracy.

Again, I'm not trying to convince you that monkeys rule the center of the earth. I'm not telling you that Einstein and Euclid were crazy. I am not telling you that Lain and Greek are false. I am telling you that there is a chance that those things are not true. Of course to us, they probably are true. Look at the past. People knew that the earth was the center of the universe. We have almost proved them wrong according to my statement.

What do you think of that?
__________
threewood14[face=SPIonic][/face][face=Verdana][/face]

This reminds me of a discussion I had with Raya a long time ago. Since part of my whole philosophy for life is that I believe whatever is most likely, this doesn't really challenge my fundamentals, but I have a challenge for you:

Prove that we do not know there is probability! :P
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby klewlis » Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:06 am

epistemology is a mix of probability, empirical evidence, rationality, and coherence. The theory of gravity is accepted because it explains far more than why we stick to the earth... it explains a great many other things in the universe which would not make sense otherwise. Is it possible that our ideas of gravity are wrong? Yes, but it is not reasonable to disbelieve it because all of the other cards are stacked in its favour--until someone comes up with an idea that works better and covers more bases.

The same applies to all that we "know". It is possible, when assembling a jigsaw puzzle, to put some of the pieces together wrongly. But it is not possible to put large chunks of the puzzle together wrongly, because the coherence of the whole is lost. So which way makes the most sense overall? That's the one to go with. Science hopes to eventually finish the puzzle.

I highly recommend Alvin Plantinga's "Warrant" series... heavy stuff and I have only read the first book, but fascinating and reliable. I should warn, though, that I had to read the first chapter three times before I got it... and after that the rest of the book wasn't so tough. :)
User avatar
klewlis
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 1536
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 1:48 pm
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Postby Kalailan » Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:59 pm

Indeed you cannot prove anything, but i don't see how it is relevant to anything, seeing that we are not objective beings.
it's true that the objective world is not always very involved in our minds...
happiness is a good example: people can be happey without relation to the objective world.

i think that the main concern should be on discovering your subjective (and other people's) truth; how do i interpret this and why; how does this influence me or how do i influence it.
phpbb
Kalailan
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:44 am

Postby Raya » Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:22 pm

If you begin with the idea I know something and set out to prove it,
you will realise that you cannot.
If you then begin with the idea I know nothing and set out to prove it,
you will realise that you cannot.
phpbb
User avatar
Raya
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:27 am

Postby Dillman » Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:12 pm

Im alright with knowing that i cant prove anything, i suck at trying to anyways. I always end up proving the other person right :P
phpbb
Dillman
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:51 am

Postby chad » Mon Feb 23, 2004 3:52 am

statements like "we cannot prove anything" always dissolve away into boring commonplaces "if A, then A" when you look at them a little. of course we can prove something, if the standard of proof is simple. if you say something like, "it's proved if it's obvious at first sight", then proving is easy; if you say, "it's proved if no-one could possibly bring an objection against it", then it's really hard or impossible.

when someone says "we cannot prove anything", they're only saying that it's impossible to satisfy the standard of proof they're adopting. so if you expand their statement with the implications revealed, they're saying

"if you adopt a standard of proof which is impossible to satisfy, then it is impossible to satisfy that standard of proof".

a very boring statement, when you look at it... cheers, chad. :)
chad
Textkit Zealot
 
Posts: 757
Joined: Tue Jul 22, 2003 2:55 am

Postby threewood14 » Sat Feb 28, 2004 9:45 pm

If you begin with the idea I know something and set out to prove it, you will realise that you cannot. If you then begin with the idea I know nothing and set out to prove it, you will realise that you cannot.


if you find out that you cannot prove anything, then you must know nothing.

___________
threewood14
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Raya » Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:13 am

threewood14 wrote:if you find out that you cannot prove anything, then you must know nothing.
Or maybe you just don't know how to prove anything.
phpbb
User avatar
Raya
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:27 am

Postby threewood14 » Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:52 pm

Or maybe you just don't know how to prove anything.




you cannot know anything therefore you cannot know how to prove something
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Reemas » Sun Feb 29, 2004 11:40 pm

I thought that everything that we know up to now have been educated guesses. : D

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.
Reemas
Textkit Neophyte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 9:51 pm

Postby Raya » Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:31 am

threewood14 wrote:you cannot know anything therefore you cannot know how to prove something
If that's the case, then how did you know how to prove that you know nothing?

Even if you manage to prove that you don't know anything, you contradict yourself right there, because you've shown that you do know one thing: the fact that you know nothing.
That fact is still something.
phpbb
User avatar
Raya
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 302
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:27 am

Postby threewood14 » Mon Mar 01, 2004 8:40 pm

Let me rephrase what I'm trying to say. It is not always pretty and precise. The only thing we truly know for certain is the fact that we cannot know anything else. In other words, the only thing that we can prove is that we know nothing simply because we cannot prove anything else! Plus since anything is possible, or there are an infinite possibilities according to quantam mechanics, then we as humans cannot know the outcome of an event. But remember, this does not mean that the outcome is random according to time.

__________
threewood14
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Ulpianus » Mon Mar 01, 2004 9:48 pm

threewood14 wrote:The only thing that we can prove is that we know nothing simply because we cannot prove anything else!


Non sequitur. The fact that we cannot prove we know anything does not prove that we do not know anything. It may or may not be the case that we know something: we simply cannot tell. All, some, or none of our beliefs might happen to be true. Skepticism about knowledge cannot logically entail certain confidence in its absence.
Ulpianus
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 3:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Kalailan » Tue Mar 02, 2004 4:08 pm

It may or may not be the case that we know something: we simply cannot tell. All, some, or none of our beliefs might happen to be true


what is a "true" belief?


all of this shows but one thing. that the objective truth is hardly relevant to anyone. it might be the base of each of the subjective truths, but not more then that.
phpbb
Kalailan
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:44 am

Postby threewood14 » Tue Mar 02, 2004 7:55 pm

Okay. Of course some of the things we take for granted actually might be true and correct. But we cannot prove them because of the infinite amount of possibilities. And if you cannot prove something, you cannot know it for certain 100 percent
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby benissimus » Tue Mar 02, 2004 11:05 pm

But no one requires 100% proof to "know" something. Religious people cannot prove their beliefs and most still know that their faith is correct. I know that I am typing this post right now even if there is some incredibly complex hoax to deceive me into thinking something so mundanely silly. Thus, I think that to know something, you do not have to be absolutely sure of it, but only fairly certain... and hopefully with the ability to adapt should you discover it does not coincide with the truth.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby threewood14 » Wed Mar 03, 2004 1:29 am

If you are only fairly certain, then something must be doubting you. If you are only fairly certain, then you do not know something 100 percent. If you know something 80 percent, then there is a 20 oercent chance that it may not be true. Most things we believe to be true are about 99 percent. We believe they are true, but that doesnt make it true. Plus, about religions, there are many different ones. To say that they are all correct, is absurb. It would like be saying 1 = 2 = 3 = 4. That is not true. I think what you are trying to say that we can believe things to be true, but unfortunatly they just might not be. We think they are true and we accept them as true because there is enough significant evidence to prove it without one of my wild points. Sure, I believe that I am typing at this point in time, but that doesnt make it true. Believe does not equal fact. And since I know many people are saying, what is a fact, what is prove, what is true...Okay, let me clarify these. To prove something is to make it a fact. A fact is something that can be proven true. Something true or the truth is fact. Truth is reality.
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby benissimus » Wed Mar 03, 2004 2:48 am

I am saying that "knowing" something does not necessarily mean it is universally true, only that you have accepted it as truth.
flebile nescio quid queritur lyra, flebile lingua murmurat exanimis, respondent flebile ripae
User avatar
benissimus
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2733
Joined: Mon May 12, 2003 4:32 am
Location: Berkeley, California

Postby threewood14 » Wed Mar 03, 2004 7:44 pm

I am saying that "knowing" something does not necessarily mean it is universally true, only that you have accepted it as truth.


That equals what is called a belief. It is what someone accept to be true. The things is that they cannot prove it. That means that it may not actaully be the true truth.
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Kalailan » Thu Mar 04, 2004 7:11 am

You say that we can't make anything a fact, and you also say we can't know what is a fact.
how are facts significant to anything then? if we can not know what are facts, we can't use them for anything. we can't prove the facts, can we? so what, according to your sayings, do facts matter at all?
phpbb
Kalailan
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:44 am

Postby threewood14 » Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:06 pm

Of course you cannot prove what a fact is. One reason is the general theory of relativity. Everything is relative...But, if you say this, than we cannot prove that what we are typing (which are english words and such) is what we mean. You are correct that we cannot know what a fact is, but then again, we cannot know what we mean when we type or when we read the posts of other people. So technically, this entire discussion could be considered meaningless!!!!! This also aplies to every conversation you have ever held.

But to answer your question, I must say that most things people think are facts are not. The only fact is that we know taht we can only know that we know nothing else :shock: try to break it down to understand. It is not easy to word. You see, I might not know what a fact is, but when I say fact, there is a high probability that you believe what I am saying is what I mean.
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Apotheosis » Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:07 am

Before this discussion can proceed any further, we must all first back up and start at the beginning. What exactly is the definition of the word "know" or the word "truth" or the word "fact"? According to the dictionary, to know is to comprehend or understand, or to regard as true beyond doubt. Truth is something believed to be true or real, or knowledge or information based on real occurrences. And a fact is a statement that has been proven to be or is accepted as true. Now some people may ask: "How do we know that these definitions are true? The answer to this is simple. Man created these definitions to describe the ideas in his mind. The fact that we defined these "words" is proof that they are real. We created them so the exist. That is how we can justify that our laguage means something. Now that that has been said, we can then move on to the discussion at hand, questioning our knowledge of anything.

According to threewood, we cannot "know" anything. I both disagree and agree with him at the same time. Provided that threewood is using true, English definitions of words, his claim is both true and false. As I stated before to know is to regard as true or real beyond doubt. To know also means to comprehend or understand. (There are more defintions besides these, but they are irrelevant as of now.) Now, if we use the first definition of "to know", then threewood's statement holds true. No one can be 100% positive of anything. Since everything is possible, monkeys could be living in the center of the earth, however, there is a 99.9% chance that they are not. However, for practical means, mankind simply regards something like this is false, or not true since it is so unlikely. Nevertheless, there is still that .1% probability that monkeys are living in the center of the earth. Now I will prove threewood false.

As stated many times before, to know also means to comprehend or understand. Threewood said that we cannot know anything. I can and do understand and/or comprehend the fact or idea that all matter is energy. The fact that I understand that is proof that we can know something and proof that threewood's statement is false.

This concludes my unnecessarily long spiel on threewood's statement. Feel free to comment on anything I have said. I am completely open to discussion.

P.S. - For those of you interested, the method I used to prove threewood wrong is known as the dialectical method. This method involves proving a statement wrong by proving the statement's antithesis (an-TITH-eh-sis), or opposite. By proving a statement's opposite, you have just proved that statement to be false. Pretty nifty huh? :D
User avatar
Apotheosis
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:25 pm

Postby threewood14 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 12:34 am

You have made a point, but still even, the dictionary itself was made and created by humans. According to what I believe, these humans cannot know anything except this fact. So actually, their definition of know or true may be false. But again there is a 99.9 percent chance that it isn't. The dictoinary is like the first row in a math proof; you must assume it before you continue. The dictionary describes words to what man believes they mean. Infact, all of man may miscomprehend their own language without knowing it!

I can and do understand and/or comprehend the fact or idea that all matter is energy. The fact that I understand that is proof that we can know something and proof that threewood's statement is false.


He said the fact that I understand proves ya da ya da ya da...The fact? You see as humans, we cannot know anything but that. So Apotheosis would first have to assume that he understands his concept of matter and energy. Since he assumed this he cannot know it 100 percent. But one could say that he understands its concept although it may not actually be true right? Well that is the flaw. You see, he cannot be certain to if he really does fully understand it. There could be a hidden meaning or something embedded randomly inthe words. This is possible because the person who claimed this was not 100 percent sure about what he was writing in accordance to the dictoinary!!!!!!
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Apotheosis » Fri Mar 05, 2004 1:49 am

Since mankind has defined his world, the world is whatever man says it is. Humans accept what man has said to be true. However, certain flaws and/or anomalies have arisen due to our definitions and things we hold to be true. Like threewood said, you cannot be 100% certain of anything because anything is possible. If anything is possible, then the opposite of something that humans accept to be true can also be true at the same time. Therefore one can only be 99.9% certain of something (or in some cases, even less certain). So perhaps we should add another definition of the word "know" to the dictionary. This particular definition of know would not be used in every day life simply because it would make things rediculously silly and complex. This definition of know would only be used for this particular instance (i.e. - these sorts of discussions).

That having been said, I shall repeat what I have said before: Threewood14 has created a statement that is both true and false, all at the same time. It all depends on what definition of know you decide to use.

On a side note, the truth for a human can be changed simply by the way it is viewed. The truth is simply a revised perception that one creates for him or herself, it is all literally a matter of perspective.

Again, feel free to comment on anything I have said. I am open for discussion.
User avatar
Apotheosis
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:25 pm

Postby threewood14 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 2:41 am

On a side note, the truth for a human can be changed simply by the way it is viewed. The truth is simply a revised perception that one creates for him or herself, it is all literally a matter of perspective.


Yes. You are correct that it is all a matter of perspective because of relativity. But, your definitoin of the truth is incorrect. I have said this before a thousand times and I shall say it again. A belief is not a fact. The truth is not a belief. You have described a belief. Truth is reality, not belief. In other words, one would have to describe the truth with facts. But since one cannot know more than the fact of uncertainty, they would not be able to describe reality. BUT, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO BELIEVE SOMETHING IN A PARTICULAR SCENARIO!!!!!!

Back to how you said it is a matter of perspective, one could experience every perspective and still not be able to prove its reality relating to it. So it doesnt matter about perspective, although it was a good try.
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Apotheosis » Fri Mar 05, 2004 3:24 am

To begin, relativity has nothing to do with the matter at hand. Relativity is a principle/concept pertaining to the realm of physics. That having been said, I will proceed with my reply. I do not recall saying that a belief is a fact, nor do I recall saying that the truth is a belief. However, I will say this: The truth is something that has been proven to be or something that is accepted as true. A belief is something that is believed or accepted as true, especially by a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of people. A fact is something believed to be true or real, or knowledge or information based on real occurrences. Now, what conclusions can we draw from all of this? One conclusion is this: from a certain point of view, a belief is a truth. If someone beleives something to be so then that is what is so. However, from this perspective, a belief may be a truth, but a truth or belief might not be a fact. However, in some instances, one's beliefs and truths are facts! For instance, a large group of people believe that our sun is a star. For that group of people, the statement: "Our sun is a star." would be true. Furthermore, it just so happens that the beliefs and truths of that group of people are factual. The belief/truth: "Our sun is a star." is a fact by definition! A star is a large body of combusting gasses. The sun is a large body of combusting gasses. The sun is a star. In this particular instance, the beliefs and truths to those people were factual. However, this is not always the case. A group of people may accept the belief that the moon is comprised solely of dolphin meat. To this group of people, the previous statement regarding the moon is true. However, in reality, the moon is not made solely of dolphin meat. Therefore, their beliefs and truths are not factual. This is of course provided that the definition of dolphin meat to this group of people is identical to our definition. To sum it all up, reality is forever real, it cannot be changed. Beliefs and truths can be changed via one's perspective and acceptance. Facts are just mere glimpses of reality. However, a fact can change with perspective as well. Many years ago, the common belief, truth, and fact accepted by people about our planet was that it was completely flat. Nowadays, our perspective has changed thanks to our growing knowledge. Our beliefs have changed, our truths have changed, and even our facts have changed. In conclusion, it is all literally a matter of perspective. One can choose to view the world in any way he or she chooses. It is all up to you!

Once again, feel free to comment on my response. I am completely open to…what's that you say? Absolutely correct! I am completely open to discussion. Thanks.
User avatar
Apotheosis
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:25 pm

Postby threewood14 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:26 pm

Firstof all, how do you know that what u are saying is what you mean? You could use the dictionary, but in order to read the dictionary,u need to already know english or watever language it is translated from. One cannot fully understand his language and therefore cannot be certain to what one is saying. You could argue that the Anglo Saxons said that these words mean wat they intended, but how do you know that a conspiracy was conducted to change the definitions of their meaning? One could argue that it is the idea that counts. But this is not the point. The point that i am trying to make is that one cannot fully understand reality. In order to prove something, you must do trial and error an infinite amount of times. One cannot live forever, so it cannot be done.

The truth is something that has been proven to be or something that is accepted as true.


The truth is simply reality. The truth is not something accepted to be true. If I am wrong, then that is not the word we should be using since my idea doesn't apply to it.
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby threewood14 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:28 pm

I'm not trying to disprove someones beliefs,imtrying to disprove reality
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby threewood14 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 8:31 pm

And believe me when I say I understand General Relativity. It states that as ones velocity increases,so does their mass. And it says that the father we are from large bodies,time will affect us moreslowly. You cannot travel the speed of light. I was just using Einstein's famous quote, "It is all realtive." My friend in school thought that how could we know that if one viewed someone elses perspective, all of the blues would appear orange to them. So different people see different wavelenghts of light. They could compare colors to something else, but that same color would be used so one cannot know the perspective of anoter. Pretty interesting i think...
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby threewood14 » Fri Mar 05, 2004 10:07 pm

My fourth post but wa teever. You said that since they believe that the sun is a star, it is true for them. But this may not be the actual truth. Therefore it is another way of saying belief. In other words, a belief is something someone accepts is true. So of course somethings are true to some people.
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Apotheosis » Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:24 pm

Before making my reply, I would just like to clear up a couple of things:

1) Reality cannot be disproven. That which is is. Reality shall forever remain real and true. However, reality can be changed and molded by man via his actions.

2) The definitions of the word truth are as follows:

A) Conformity to fact or actuality.

B) A statement proven to be or accepted as true.

C) Sincerity; integrity.

D) Fidelity to an original or standard.

E) Reality; actuality.

F) That which is considered to be the supreme reality and to have the ultimate meaning and value of existence.

3) Finally, I would just like to say this: I believe in some of my previous posts I have agreed with you on the fact that we cannot know anything. However, I have also disagreed with your statement as well. It all depended on my perspective; it all depended on what definitions I decided to use.

Okay, now on to the mainstream of my reply.

Firstof all, how do you know that what u are saying is what you mean?


I know that what I am saying is what I mean because I was the one who formulated the ideas in my head. I then chose the appropriate English words to convey these thoughts/ideas. I know that these English words mean what they do because it was man who created English. Man was the one who defined what English is. The definitions of words cannot be denied. Therefore, provided that one chooses the right words to depict his or her thoughts, then what one says is what one means.

One cannot fully understand his language and therefore cannot be certain to what one is saying.


It is true that one cannot fully understand his language, nor fully understand anything at all for that matter. However, just because one does not fully understand something does not mean that he cannot be certain of something. For instance, I do not and cannot fully understand every mathematical concept that exists. However, I can be and I am certain that any number divided by 0 is undefined. Conclusion - absolute comprehension is not necessary for one to be certain of something.

You could argue that the Anglo Saxons said that these words mean wat they intended, but how do you know that a conspiracy was conducted to change the definitions of their meaning?


We do not know for sure whether or not there was a conspiracy, however, it does not matter. What matters is that the current definitions of English words are true and meaningful. These current definitions are accepted by the English speaking population, rendering them true.

The point that i am trying to make is that one cannot fully understand reality.


Yes, and I agree with you. It is not possible to comprehend reality 100%. Absolute understanding of anything is impossible.

In order to prove something, you must do trial and error an infinite amount of times. One cannot live forever, so it cannot be done.


The statment above is not true. Something can be proven without using trial and error. For instance, I can prove that a cookie is not the same thing as a star. By definition, a star is a self-luminous celestial body consisting of a mass of gas held together by its own gravity in which the energy generated by nuclear reactions in the interior is balanced by the outflow of energy to the surface, and the inward-directed gravitational forces are balanced by the outward-directed gas and radiation pressures. On the other hand, a cookie is defined as a small, usually flat and crisp cake made from sweetened dough. When one analyzes these two definitions, he or she comes to the conclusion that a star and a cookie are two different things. I did not use trial and error, I simply used the definitions of these two ideas to prove that they are not the identical.

And believe me when I say I understand General Relativity.


To know is to understand or perceive. According to you we cannot know anything. How then can you understand General Relativity?

It states that as ones velocity increases,so does their mass. And it says that the father we are from large bodies,time will affect us moreslowly. You cannot travel the speed of light.


Yes, this is correct.

I was just using Einstein's famous quote, "It is all realtive."


I think Einstein's quote was meant only to apply to physics. However, it does seem to be true that a lot of things in this world are relative. Things are different depending on how one chooses to view these things. Like I have said in the past, it is all literally a matter of perspective.

My friend in school thought that how could we know that if one viewed someone elses perspective, all of the blues would appear orange to them. So different people see different wavelenghts of light. They could compare colors to something else, but that same color would be used so one cannot know the perspective of anoter.


I agree that we cannot really understand the perspective of another. We can however, get a pretty good idea of it. When it comes to people seeing different wavelengths of light, I disagree. Everyone detecs the same wavelengths with their eyes, however, it is possible that someones mind misinterprets the colors. I suppose it is possible for someone's eye to detect the color blue but for his or her brain to mistake that blue for orange. This way it would be possible for someone to go their entire life thinking blue is orange and never knowing that no one else saw it as that.

Pretty interesting i think...


Indeed.

Anyways, this concludes my reply. Feel free to comment on what I have said. I am open for discussion. Thanks.
User avatar
Apotheosis
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:25 pm

Postby Apotheosis » Fri Mar 05, 2004 11:26 pm

threewood14 wrote:My fourth post but wa teever. You said that since they believe that the sun is a star, it is true for them. But this may not be the actual truth. Therefore it is another way of saying belief. In other words, a belief is something someone accepts is true. So of course somethings are true to some people.


Precisely! There are infinite truths! It all depends on your point of view!
User avatar
Apotheosis
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:25 pm

Postby threewood14 » Sat Mar 06, 2004 2:25 am

No no no my friend. There are an infinite amount of beliefs. In order for there to be an infinite amount of truths or realities, there would have to be an infinite amount of time dimensions which is almost certainly not the case. There is one dimension of time going back to GR. So there can really only be one course of action or one scenario for every point in time. It can be predicted to what these actions or scenarios may be, but there will only be one to look at after its point in time has passed us.

What matters is that the current definitions of English words are true and meaningful. These current definitions are accepted by the English speaking population, rendering them true.


Not only can one understand his language, but he/she can also not understand ideas completely. In oreder for one to say that a star is not a cookie is pretty reasonable. But he would have to know 100% what a star and a cookie were. We could say that a star is a bunch or nuclear reactions going on in a dense area. But one would have to prove this which cannot be done. If we compared it to a cookie, we would have to know what a cookie is. If we are uncertain to what we are comparing, then how can we be certain that there is a difference??? In other words, one cannot prove what something is by comparing it to something else because they would have to certainly know what they were comparing in thte first place.

One could argue that since a star are nuclear reactions is the truth for one and that a cookie is a small treat for the same one, its the idea that counts. But this also renders that they are using beliefs. Of course to them a star is not a cookie, but in reality, they cannot be sure.

And a side note, before we continue this thread any further, I think we have to take this one step at a time instead of 6 different arguments at once. That would be helpful if that could be done Apothesis. Thanks
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Kalailan » Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:39 pm

No no no my friend. There are an infinite amount of beliefs. In order for there to be an infinite amount of truths or realities, there would have to be an infinite amount of time dimensions which is almost certainly not the case


You may not have noticed, but you have just fallen into your own pit.

let me say this: you, as in threewood, say we can't prove anything. how can you prove that?
there is a 99.9% that you are wrong here. there is a 99.9% that every belief is true. it could be that once you believe something, a new universe is instantly created to match your belief. you can't disprove that, can you? your argument is self-destructing. but then again, i do not object to it - i think you are probably right, but i think it not relevant to our lives.
phpbb
Kalailan
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 157
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:44 am

Postby threewood14 » Sat Mar 06, 2004 9:56 pm

If you have read some of my replies, i have fixed my claim. The ony thing humans can prove is that they know nothing else. I was aware of that at on time, but I have changed my claim. Ths is the only thing we can be 100% sure about.

it could be that once you believe something, a new universe is instantly created to match your belief. you can't disprove that, can you?


No, I cannot disprove that. But what you have said directly reflects my opinion about life.

but i think it not relevant to our lives


This is relevent to our lives. If you are a tennis player you would probably know taht if the ball hits the line, the ball is playable. When the ball is still in the air, you cannot know if it will be in bounds or not. If you are aware of my claim, it would be logical to run over to the ball just incase it stays in bounds. In other words, it is relevent to our lives as to a just in case sense. You may want to understand that, just in case.
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby Apotheosis » Sun Mar 07, 2004 2:40 am

I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Kalailan on this one threewood. Your very statement is faulty. It contradicts itself. Not only that, but if one tries to use reason and delve deeper into this topic, he or she only finds that nothing can be proven. Logic and reasoning fails to function, and the statement deteriorates. It's almost like a singularity. Everything just breaks down and no conclusions can be drawn. I think this topic is just one of those things that we shouldn't bicker about. It's best to leave it be and not go near it. I suggest that we all head on over to a thread that I've created. It's called I think therefore I am. I'll see you guys there!
User avatar
Apotheosis
Textkit Member
 
Posts: 102
Joined: Thu Mar 04, 2004 10:25 pm

Postby threewood14 » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:51 pm

How could my statement contrradict itself? "Man cannot know anything except his knowledge of uncertainty."

I can prove this claim an infinite amount of times. For example, the monkey idea. I could prove that we cannot know that the monkey was an inch to the left, 2 inches, 3 inches, 4 inches, 4 mm, 5mm, and so on. I could do this forever hence proving that we cannot know nothing!

However Apothesis, you have made a point. (And I might add the only valid point to the discussion). You have made me realize that man can know that he understands something even though what he understands may not be reality. For example, I cannot prove that you do not understand idea in your own head. Therefore, I must change my claim which should noy promote any further postings.

"Man cannot know anything about reality accept his knowledge of uncertainty."

Lets head over to I think therefore I am!
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie

Postby threewood14 » Sun Mar 07, 2004 4:51 pm

I could do this forever hence proving that we cannot know nothing!


I meant the nothing to be anything...
phpbb
threewood14
Textkit Fan
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:11 pm
Location: Southie


Return to The Academy

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests