Prove to me that 2+2 does not = 4

But I HAVE answered your points, as a relatavist would. Your requests for such proof are hardly relevant in light of what I said. Go back and read it again. Again, your declarations that the arguments are invalid, to a relatavist, are just elements of your own perception that might be flawed.

Scepticism has nothing to do with proof; the term is meaningless within it. Proof would be absolute, after all.

Though feel free to check out about parallel universes- that's nothing to do with relatavism, that's hard physics. You might want to start by looking up the wave/particle behaviour of light.

He only talks about the possibility that it might once be true. Can you provide evidence that it will never ever be possible?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Though feel free to check out about parallel universes- that's nothing to do with relatavism, that's hard physics. You might want to start by looking up the wave/particle behaviour of light.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But I HAVE answered your points, as a relatavist would. Your requests for such proof are hardly relevant in light of what I said.

Proof isn't relevant to proving an argument?..lol..riiiight...🙄

Go back and read it again. Again, your declarations that the arguments are invalid, to a relatavist, are just elements of your own perception that might be flawed.

You saying that they are invalid, doesn't make them invalid. That is my point all along. I have evidence to substantiate my claims. You do not. Simple as that.

Scepticism has nothing to do with proof; the term is meaningless within it. Proof would be absolute, after all.

Which invalidates the whole concept of sceptism. It has no effect on anything that takes place in the natural world. It doesn't change the laws of gravity. It doesn't change the reality around us. Simple as that.

Though feel free to check out about parallel universes- that's nothing to do with relatavism, that's hard physics. You might want to start by looking up the wave/particle behaviour of light.

Doesn't change reality..regardless of a theory existing ..it doesn't do any good if their is no substantive evidence to support it.

Originally posted by Fire
He only talks about the possibility that it might once be true. Can you provide evidence that it will never ever be possible?

Don't have to prove a negative. As a relativist would say..you are the one with the burden of proof. Prove to me that it IS possible..then we will have something to work with. Until that has been done, then the argument stands.

We are subjected to the laws of gravity, subjected to eating and drinking to live, subjected to getting hit by a train if we stand in front of it. These are absolutes.

Why would a relatavist, in particular, talk about the burden of proof like that? Why is that in any way related to whether you are a relatavist or not?

Burden of proof is a function of the scientific method, nothing to do with relatavism.

Amusing that you say gravity- seeing as gravity is 'just' a theory and is very far indeed from being absolute. 'Gravity' is a name we have given to explain certain sorts of behaviour, but we cannot outright prove any of our theories about it.

Meanwhile...

"Proof isn't relevant to proving an argument?.."

Well, you say to a relatavist that it is... the relatavist just says- how do YOU know? You are just a being of flawed perceptions, if you even exist at all; you cannot state such things with truth.

"You saying that they are invalid, doesn't make them invalid. That is my point all along. I have evidence to substantiate my claims. You do not. Simple as that."

Your evidence is based on your perceptions, your perceptions might be flawed- simple as THAT. Hence, you have no greater reason to say you are definitely right. There is room for doubt.

"Which invalidates the who concept of sceptism. It has no effect on anything that takes place in the natural world. It doesn't change the laws of gravity. It doesn't change the reality around us. Simple as that."

Just because something has no apparent application, that in no way invalidates it. I would have thought that was obvious.

"Doesn't change reality..regardless of a theory existing ..it doesn't do any good if their is no substantive evidence to support it."

Who the hell cares what 'good' it does? If it is so, it is so; you were saying it was some sort of nonsense idea, when in fact it is a whole area of science that physics is looking into.

As it is, in explaining some of the stranger behaviours of light, it could end up being very useful and relevant indeed.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why would a relatavist, in particular, talk about the burden of proof like that? Why is that in any way related to whether you are a relatavist or not?

I was referring to the term RELATIVIST as it is applied to science. Perhaps we should just use the categories to denote which type we are talking about..even though it is a bit oxymoronic..clear?

Burden of proof is a function of the scientific method, nothing to do with relatavism.

The concept of relativism is applied to sceintific theory..yes? ✅

Understood where I am coming from? Good.

Amusing that you say gravity- seeing as gravity is 'just' a theory and is very far indeed from being absolute. 'Gravity' is a name we have given to explain certain sorts of behaviour, but we cannot outright prove any of our theories about it.

We can call the force gravity. We can call it something else. Doesn't change the fact that a force exists that will pull us to the ground if we jump out a window. Simple stuff to understand.

Well, you say to a relatavist that it is... the relatavist just says- how do YOU know? You are just a being of flawed perceptions, if you even exist at all; you cannot state such things with truth.

Exactly which completely invalidates the concept of "COMPLETE RELATIVISM"

As I've stated multiple times..it doesn't matter how many times a relativist poses a question or doubts a concept. It changes nothing that we know to be true.

How about you explain to me..how yours/others opinions..is going to change a man from falling to the ground after jumping from a window. If you can give me an example of how this would indeed happen. Something that can be observed. Then you would have something to your position. Again..you do not.

Case in point. Entertaining the possibility of something happening..does not mean it will happen. Silly logic.

Your evidence is based on your perceptions, your perceptions might be flawed- simple as THAT. Hence, you have no greater reason to say you are definitely right. There is room for doubt.

Because you say it is based on my perceptions..it does not make it so..I don't doubt. It has been proven time and time again that if an individual jumps out a window...they will fall to the ground. You may perceive this not to be true..still doesn't change anything.

Just because something has no apparent application, that in no way invalidates it. I would have thought that was obvious.

Repeated..

Because you say it is based on my perceptions..it does not make it so..I don't doubt. It has been proven time and time again that if an individual jumps out a window...they will fall to the ground. You may perceive this not to be true..still doesn't change anything.

Who the hell cares what 'good' it does? If it is so, it is so; you were saying it was some sort of nonsense idea, when in fact it is a whole area of science that physics is looking into.

So looking into it..doesn't make it nonsense? How does one being a scientist..some how justify an idea as being legit? Phrenologists are scientests..so are Astrologers and Graphologists..are those considered credible Sciences? come on now...Parallel realities is clearly delving into the the area of science ficition..not science fact..it's real silly stuff.

As it is, in explaining some of the stranger behaviours of light, it could end up being very useful and relevant indeed.

And based on this objective evidence..we can conclude that parallel realities exist..😆

That doesn't sound like a leap of faith to you? 😕

Parallel universes came from the particle-wave duality, when "particles" behave as waves they are said to be in a superposition of every possible state for that particle. For example, a particle must have a determined position, but it can also behave as a wave, and waves do not have determined positions, they are spread in space.

So where the particle associated to that wave is in space ?

Quantum mechanics only tells that it can be anywhere within the wave extension with different probabilities, but it must be somewhere since it is a particle... Where ?

Note that you can´t deny the many possible positions that the particle could have, so you can´t just say that it is at a given point ignoring the other regions where the wave exist.

So how can we solve this problem ? Thats what parallel universes theory try to do...

Parallel universes theory is a interpretation made by a nobel prize physicist Richard Feymann, where each one of those possible positions for the particle exist in a parallel universe.... so the particle indeed has a position in one certain universe.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Parallel universes came from the particle-wave duality, when "particles" behave as waves they are said to be in a superposition of every possible state for that particle. For example, a particle must have a determined position, but it can also behave as a wave, and waves do not have determined positions, they are spread in space.

So where the particle associated to that wave is in space ?

Quantum mechanics only tells that it can be anywhere within the wave extension with different probabilities, but it must be somewhere since it is a particle... Where ?

Note that you can´t deny the many possible positions that the particle could have, so you can´t just say that it is at a given point ignoring the other regions where the wave exist.

So how can we solve this problem ? Thats what parallel universes theory try to do...

Parallel universes theory is a interpretation made by a nobel prize physicist Richard Feymann, where each one of those possible positions for the particle exist in a parallel universe.... so the particle indeed has a position in one certain universe.

Let's simplify things a bit...this is the essentially the rationale behind Parallel Universes theory...

I can't find something..that means its in another Universe..

Again that's a HUUUUUGE leap of faith.

If I loose my keys/kid/dog/car/etc..do I then assume that they are in another universe?...😆 😆

Does that make sense to you guys? It doesn't make sense to me...again its science ficition, not science fact. The theory is right up there with "Flat earth".."Spontaneous Generation" and "Neo Darwinism" Silly stuff..

Moving on..can any Buddhist answer my 3 dimensional object question?

Tell me of another way to get to the center of a 3 dimensional object without actually going through the object..

ok I always studied this under philosophy and there it's only theory, there's no science involved so no need to proof anything

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let's simplify things a bit...this is the essentially the rationale behind Parallel Universes theory...

I can't find something..that means its in another Universe..

Again that's a HUUUUUGE leap of faith.

If I loose my keys/kid/dog/car/etc..do I then assume that they are in another universe?...😆 😆

Does that make sense to you guys? It doesn't make sense to me...again its science ficition, not science fact. The theory is right up there with "Flat earth".."Spontaneous Generation" and "Neo Darwinism" Silly stuff..

Moving on..can any Buddhist answer my 3 dimensional object question?

It is the only way they found to explain a OBSERVED fact, which eliminates some conceptual problems of quantum mechanics, but it is not proved yet. Why should scientists throw away this theory if it eliminate inconsistencies ? Because they don´t like it or it sounds silly according to their opinion ? Well, science is not based on individual feelings about a particular theory.

Please, answer me how you can prove absolutism, without assuming a premise ?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let's simplify things a bit...this is the essentially the rationale behind Parallel Universes theory...

I can't find something..that means its in another Universe..

Again that's a HUUUUUGE leap of faith.

I already have answered your question mutliple times. Nothing is assumed..we are subjected to various laws within this universe. That is a fact. You can't change these natural laws by perceiving things differently. You are not God. I am not God. You are just a man..who is subjected to the rules that govern this Universe that we exist in!!!

Perhaps the only thing we can come to an agreement on, however, is that none of us will have a complete understanding of what makes up the ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

Because we don't know everything about what makes up the Universe. We already know that truth exists..the only problem is with our finite little minds being able to comprehend it all.

This leads to the fatal flaw in all forms RELATIVISM..be it scientific/philosophical/limited..etc..

They all make the assumption that our finite minds can have the ability to understand EVERYTHING..which is a flawed assumption unto itself. We know already that TRUTHS exist..but we don't know..nor will we ever know in this lifetime everything that makes up TRUTH.

When one states that the truth is "RELATIVE" they are already making the assumption that they know everything that makes up TRUTH. That's a foolish/childlike assumption.

The true question that one should be asking themselves..when conducting studies..is not about the relativity of the information they're gathering..but rather...how much more of the truth will my finite mind/abilities/body be able to withstand?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Let's simplify things a bit...this is the essentially the rationale behind Parallel Universes theory...

I can't find something..that means its in another Universe..

Again that's a HUUUUUGE leap of faith.

If I loose my keys/kid/dog/car/etc..do I then assume that they are in another universe?...😆 😆

Does that make sense to you guys? It doesn't make sense to me...again its science ficition, not science fact. The theory is right up there with "Flat earth".."Spontaneous Generation" and "Neo Darwinism" Silly stuff..

Moving on..can any Buddhist answer my 3 dimensional object question?

The question has already been answered, back read. Here are some solutions. 1. Leave the balloon alone. 2. Pop the balloon. 3. Open the balloon and let the penny fall out. 4. Freeze the balloon in nitrogen and cut the balloon in half. 5. Paint the balloon red. 6. Ask the balloon stupid questions until the cows come home. 7. Refuse to listen to the balloon’s answers and act like an idiot. 8. Talk to the balloon about things you know nothing about. 9. Be a jerk to the balloon. & 10. Stick the balloon up your ******* ***.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The question has already been answered, back read. Here are some solutions. 1. Leave the balloon alone. 2. Pop the balloon. 3. Open the balloon and let the penny fall out. 4. Freeze the balloon in nitrogen and cut the balloon in half. 5. Paint the balloon red. 6. Ask the balloon stupid questions until the cows come home. 7. Refuse to listen to the balloon’s answers and act like an idiot. 8. Talk to the balloon about things you know nothing about. 9. Be a jerk to the balloon. & 10. Stick the balloon up your ******* ***.

Originally posted by debbiejo
😂 Don't forget have the other balloons help the poor balloon out...

Out of #10? 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The question has already been answered, back read. Here are some solutions. 1. Leave the balloon alone. 2. Pop the balloon. 3. Open the balloon and let the penny fall out. 4. Freeze the balloon in nitrogen and cut the balloon in half. 5. Paint the balloon red.

The bottom portion of your post has been reported...

Now back to the topic of the thread..

It was actually already clarified that the the penny could not be reached..if no action was taken against the balloon..simple stuff to understand.

Anyway..seeing as how everyone continues to be avoiding the initial question being asked. Let's go ahead and post it again...

Tell me of another way to get to the center of a 3 dimensional object without actually going through the object..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The bottom portion of your post has been reported...

Now back to the topic of the thread..

It was actually already clarified that the the penny could not be reached..if no action was taken against the balloon..simple stuff to understand.

Anyway..seeing as how everyone continues to be avoiding the initial question being asked. Let's go ahead and post it again...

They will just laugh; you have no humor.

Boy, you're in the reporting mood today..... 🧑‍⚕️

So what's the answer boys and girls? Come on now?