Originally posted by Wonderer
"State/capitol" is just a linguistic designation, just a name, not an ultimate reality extending into the universe and cannot proof or disproof existential theories. Therefor, for as long as you do not open up your mind to greater possibilities than mere worldly and conventional reasoning, you will not see the relative, nor the absolute truth.Go well, my fellow suffering human being. [/B]
Just wanted to follow up on Wonderer's point a bit more. It depends on what one defines "existential" to be.
We can indeed prove 2 + 2 = 4..as being "true" By using the visuals...
** + ** = ****
However..our understanding of why 2 absolutely = 2 may be another story. We can't even begin to question the logic of why 2 absolutely = 2, without first making the assumption that we have the ability to understanding all the logic behind why 2 absolutely = 2.
*note I know 2 can be broken down into 1 + 1..but for the sake of argument..let's say that it can't be broken down.
As I stated before..this is a HUUUGE assumption. And there is nothing that I have ever seen in any textbook..that has given the slightest explanation as to the "why's"
Anyway..this all boils down to the argument that I brought up before hand..which centered around the "Relativistic" position of approaching such truths.
Case in point..
One has to first assume that they have the ability to acquire ALL of the knowledge the makes up truth..before they can question the logic behind it.
This ALL kind of nullifies yours/Ush's points Wonderer.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
A + B = C is an established rule not an absolute rule. If I brake the established rule then A + B = C is not true.A = 3
B = 5
C = 9If this was an absolute rule, then no matter how I brake the rule it will always be true.
You misunderstood what I posted..
C is the SUM of A and B. Perhaps I should of made this clear in my previous post.
When you add 2 things together..you get the SUM of those 2 things. You do not assign a value to the SUM. I assumed that everyone knew that Hydrogen and Oxygen = Water..that's why I put C = Water
Understood?
So I guess a better a equation would be.
A = 2 hydrogen Atoms
B = 2 Oxygen Atoms
C= (A + B)
You can not change the value of C. It will always equal the sum of A + B.
You follow?
So regardless of what values are assigned to A and B..the sum of those 2 values will always = C
Understood?
So in Lamans terms..
C will always =(A +B)
Originally posted by whobdamandog
You misunderstood what I posted..C is the SUM of A and B. Perhaps I should of made this clear in my previous post.
When you add 2 things together..you get the SUM of those 2 things. You do not assign a value to the SUM. I assumed that everyone knew that Hydrogen and Oxygen = Water..that's why I put C = Water
Understood?
So I guess a better a equation would be.
A = 2 hydrogen Atoms
B = 2 Oxygen Atoms
C= (A + B)You can not change the value of C. It will always equal the sum of A + B.
You follow?
So regardless of what values are assigned to A and B..the sum of those 2 values will always = C
Understood?
So in Lamans terms..
C will always =(A +B)
I know! I understand what you wrote...
I said I broke the rule. If you break the rule then it is not true. This rule is established not absolute. If it were absolute, then when I break the rule it would still be true. 😄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know! I understand what you wrote...I said I broke the rule. If you break the rule then it is not true. This rule is established not absolute. If it were absolute, then when I break the rule it would still be true. 😄
The problem being..is that what you did, established no type of "TRUTH".
Your equation of..
3 + 5 = 9 is NOT true...
if a + b does not = c when you break the rules...then there is not more than one way to the TRUTH..
There is only ONE way to get to the truth..that is my point Shaky..you can't start breaking the rules..and then call your statement TRUE..based on your perceptions. Regardless of how perceive the statement of
3 + 5 = 9
Your "Perception" will never prove it to be TRUE..nor will it ever be TRUE in the REALITY that we exist in.
Understood? 😄
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I know! I understand what you wrote...I said I broke the rule. If you break the rule then it is not true. This rule is established not absolute. If it were absolute, then when I break the rule it would still be true. 😄
Let me make it easier for you. Run the calculation, but only use prime numbers. A + B will never = C because C will never be a prime number. Or run this calculation A = A+1.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Well in this particular debate..we would define proof to be the "following"Determination of the quality of something by testing; trial: put one's beliefs to the proof.
Then, everything you prove accordingly to that definition of proof is relative to that definition.
Doesn't matter if you believe in the possibility of one defying the laws of gravity. Your belief/perception/speculation...has no effect on these laws of gravity. That's the point.That's why Philisophical Relativity/Sceptism, are practically useless concepts when attempting to evaluate the laws that make up the Universe. They have no ability to change these laws.
Understand?
Now if you can give me an example of how your perception/sceptism/doubts can change the laws of gravity....
In the way I perceive gravity I cannot defy it, but gravity is only our perception.
Now... plz, can you answer me the question I asked before :
Do you perceive these absolute truths ?
Originally posted by Atlantis001
Then, everything you prove accordingly to that definition of proof is relative to that definition.
That's assuming of course..that I have the knowledge of the COMPLETE definition that makes up PROOF. And the ability to UNDERSTAND the COMPLETE definition that makes up PROOF.
The only way I can ASSUME that something is RELATIVE...is if I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND everything that makes that "something" up. That has been my point all along.
How do you know that the definition I have given..is not the just one "part" of the COMPLETE definition of proof.
How do you know that you have the ABILITY to attain the COMPLETE defintion of TRUTH. This is all just an ASSUMPTION on your part. Backed by FAITH. YOU have no way of proving..that you have the COMPLETE definition of what makes up PROOF.
Moving on...your PERCEPTION of any definition..does not have the ability to CHANGE that definition. Again..PROVE to me that it does..
In the way I perceive gravity I cannot defy it, but gravity is only our perception.
Gravity is a perception according to who? You? 😆 😆
How do you know this? Do you have a COMPLETE understanding of the EVERYTHING that makes up Gravity?
Wouldn't one have to know EVERYTHING behind what makes up the concept of gravity...before they could make the ASSUMPTION..that gravity is a perception?
That's a rhetorical question...my point is that you are just ASSUMING gravity is a perception. You have no evidence to support this..in fact..you don't even know if you have the ability to acquire all of the evidence that makes up gravity...
Understood?
Your question has been answered multiple times..you are making broad ASSUMPTIONS..based on 'FAITH in your abilities..and the LIMITED knowledge you have acquired.
Moving on...So is it safe to say..that your PERCEPTIONS..have no ability to change anything the laws of Gravity..as we know them?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Let me make it easier for you. Run the calculation, but only use prime numbers. A + B will never = C because C will never be a prime number. Or run this calculation A = A+1.
Shaky..you have no idea what you are talking about..you are just speaking
"gibberish" now..as Ush would call it.
I guess this is a desperate effort to save face, and confuse people into thinking that you have some validity to your argument.
You're argument has been completely nullified. Your perception does not make the equation..
3 + 5 = 9
TRUE
and it will never make the statement TRUE.
Fin.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Actually it wasn't overlooked I've just been overworked in responding to so many different posts. The question was really kind of answered in another post..but let me repeat it for you.Essentially what the equation 2 + 2 = 4 boils down to is this simple mathematical equation.
a + b = c
Regardless of what values a or b denote..they will always equal c.
For example..
Let's say
a = 2 Hydrogen Atoms
b = 2 Oxygen Atoms
c = H 2 O (Water)So for instance..if we take 2 hydrogen atoms and combine them with 2 Oxygen atoms..then we will always get water.
That's the logic behind my question in a nutshell.
I don't believe you balanced out the chemical equation that you gave earlier..but perhaps you did and I overlooked it.
Anyway..as the law of conservation of matter states...
"Matter can neither be created or destroyed"
Therefore...even if we couldn't find everything that make's up "C" after adding A + B together. The remainder of C..is out there somewhere..based on this scientific law mentioned above.
So in summary A + B will always = C. This is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
A + B will never = C + D + E + F..etc...
No getting around this basic concept.
Understand?
(Note..excuse me if I didn't include a balanced chemical equation..its been a while since I have actually done one.)
The law of conservation of matter is only aproximated, since variations in mass are not easily detected in chemical reactions, but it completely breaks down in nuclear reactions.
In nuclear physics these variations make great difference, example :
A = mass of the proton
B = mass of the neutron
C = mass of the helium
Helium has 2 protons and 2 neutrons and the equation : "2A + 2B = C" is false. The right would be "2A + 2B < C" in this case. That is valid for the water molecule too.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Shaky..you have no idea what you are talking about..you are just speaking
"gibberish" now..as Ush would call it.I guess this is a desperate effort to save face, and confuse people into thinking that you have some validity to your argument.
You're argument has been completely nullified. Your perception does not make the equation..
3 + 5 = 9
TRUE
and it will never make the statement TRUE.
Fin.
You don't understand. Humans invented math and it can be anything we want it to be. So to say that math is an absolute truth is laughable. I showed this thread to three licensed engineers, and they all agree that you don’t know what you are talking about. 😆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You don't understand. Humans invented math and it can be anything we want it to be. So to say that math is an absolute truth is laughable. I showed this thread to three licensed engineers, and they all agree that you don’t know what you are talking about. 😆
It is true... I am nearly a physicist, and every teacher I asked agrees with that.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
The law of conservation of matter is only aproximated, since variations in mass are not easily detected in chemical reactions, but it completely breaks down in nuclear reactions.In nuclear physics these variations make great difference, example :
A = mass of the proton
B = mass of the neutron
C = mass of the heliumHelium has 2 protons and 2 neutrons and the equation : "2A + 2B = C" is false. The right would be "2A + 2B < C" in this case. That is valid for the water molecule too.
Seeing as how my knowledge of Chemistry/Physics is limited..I will go ahead and respond to your statement from a limited perspective.
It seems as if you are playing a game of semantics..
Does the initial amount of matter..from the proton and the neutron..get completely lost after the we create Helium or Water?
The answer is NO!!
For example lets assume that..
a = NaCL
b = H2O
c = (a + b)
The result of this equation is H2O + NA + CL.
C = (H2O + NA + CL)
Do each of the NA and CL ions have the exact same mass as the NACL compound..of course not.
But the combined amount of matter on the right side of the equation..equals the combined amount of matter on the left side of the equation.
Thus..no matter was created or destroyed during the chemical reaction..
Thus..C will ALWAYS = A + B
So in lamans terms
The same amount we put in..will always be the same amount that we get out.
Thus the equation A + B = C. Will always remain true. This is basic algebra man!!! There is no way that you can counter this.
If you can prove that by adding two elements/chemicals together..you get more matter from the result..then you had from the point in which you started out. Then you deserve a Nobel Prize my friend. You'd be on your way to proving "MACRO EVOLUTION"..and a whole HELL of a lot of other sciences.
But I don't think you'll be able to do this. At least in the context of this debate.
So I believe its safe to assume that C will always be the sum of A + B.
This is an Absolute Truth.
Please don't play anymore semantical games. I do know a bit past the freshman Chemistry level. Even though my area of expertise is Computer Programming/Info Systems
Fin.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You don't understand. Humans invented math and it can be anything we want it to be. So to say that math is an absolute truth is laughable. I showed this thread to three licensed engineers, and they all agree that you don’t know what you are talking about. 😆
If those Engineers told you that Humans created MATH. And that
3 + 5 = 9 is TRUE. Then I sure as hell don't want them building or creating anything for me. Perhaps you should suggest to them to go back to the "collage"..
😆
"def relativism
n : (physics) the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts
Never did I state that the scientific method was deemed to be "relative" ..however what I did assert was that much of Science today..is currently viewed from a RELATIVISTIC perspective, Rather than an ABSOLUTIST perspective. That has been my point in a nutshell. You know this..I've stated this in about every Evolution thread."
Again, irrelevant babble from you. A scientists view on the theory of relativity has no bearing on how he views the scientific method.
"But Ush..I thought that the term "scientific fact" was an oxymoron?
Wasn't your opinion at one time.."There are no facts in science""
ding din!
That was the sound of the idiot bell.
Read what I say properly, whob
You have serious trouble with this, whob, which really speaks very poorly of you.
I said very clearly:
Science is an attempt to discover facts, but scientific theory can never be certain. Scientists don't deny absolutes exist, they just deny our capacity to be sure we have gotten them right, so instead we aim for a 'best-we-can-do' approach
Read that properly, Science WANTS to discover facts, but effectively admits that it cannot, so it oes for that approach I mentioned.
Not being able to spot that simple point I made and to try and point this out as a contradiction is a tactic that would only be employed by a moron. Well, if the shoe fits...
"Deosn't matter if we don't understand it. Doesn't mean that the force is still not there. "
Yes it does mater, duh! You are claiming it is an absolute; we can't even begin to claim that if we do not understand it. Everything you say about it definitely working some way... is something we cn only assume, not prove.
"Give me an example of how your opinion/perception/doubts/etc can effect reality we exist in"
Another moronic statement- as if such a thing was in any way relevant. As I have already said- and again, you simply must pay attention- scepticism isn't TRYING to change anything or effect anything. Why do you persist in thinking that this is at all relevant? It is a view on things, not a attempt to change reality. It makes statements on the way thinbgs might possibly be, and that is all.
"lol..and my belief is supported by DUH..DUH..DUH..DUH..objective evidence!!!
Your belief is supported by..OPINION."
Again.. because you still are having trouble grapsing this simple concept. which before long I will only be able to ascribe to some form of mental defect... your 'evidnece' has been gathered by perceptions. Perceptions can be flawed. Therefore, that evidence has no more base value than a relatavist's opinion. It only has value if you ASSUME the tents on which that evidence is based on is correc.t
Get that through yuor head, whob, because right now you are still showing a total lack of ability to understand a simple thihg.
"It has been absolutely proven..that if someone jumps out a window..they will fall to the ground. "
Again, the 'asbolute' part of that relies on assumptions0 at a basic level, that all you have seen is true, whereas all you have seen is perception and therefore might be false.
And you have no absolute way to say it will happen again; you can say, based on past obvservations (which a sceptic would doubt anyway) that is is PROBABLE, but science has no way to say it is certain.
"Exactly..but you are alluding to the the ability to doubt/perceive/be sceptical can change something."
That is a lie. I am alluding no such thing.
"In order to even determine that one's perceptions might be flawed..you would have to have COMPLETE knowledge of everything that made up ABSOLUTE truth. You do not. So its silly to even continue with this argument. "
That statement is within itself an assumption and hence is worthless in trying to prove an absolute or disprove sceptic theory.
"What power does a sceptic's doubt have over REALITY. You have not given me an example of this."
Moronic statement repeated again.
"You still have yet to prove this assumption of having any validity to it..come on now my friend, which one of us is sound more irrelevant?"
I don;t have to. All I have to do is doubt you and then you are stuck. Any attempt you make to say that that in itself can be doubted only feeds into the theory, and again you will not win. Eithet you take a rlatavist view and so lose by default, or you attempt to take an absolutist one and are forced by common sense to concede that indeed you cannot prove anything you say absolutely absolutely because the potential for doubt exists- you have no way to claim all knowledge of all things.
"Never stated that scepticism was scientific..however I did allude to the path of "relativism" being a foolish way for modern science to travel down. Truths do exist. After much arguing in many threads..you've finally acknowledged this"
More mornic statements.
First of all, you are simply stating stuff about scepticism being no good for science that I have not only already talked about in this thread, but also in many threads before, including before you were here, so if you think you have persuaded me of anything, that just makes you a fool. You will see nearby in this section a thread about whteher truth is absolute or not.
But from the relatavist viewpoint... all you say above is still just assumption.
"LOL...I'm close minded now..I believe in "God" and the "Bible" but not believing in Aliens/Parallel worlds/ or travelling through time makes me close minded. Which one of us do you truly believe seems to be delving into the realm of fantasy? Really...ask yourself that question? I'm open minded to many things..but I know a cockoo science when I see one.."
That is clearly a lie, as proven by your outright rejection of parallel universes and trying to lump them with alien conspiracy, despite the fact that you are not qualified and plenty of very qualified people are studying this subject very seriously.
Your closed-mindedness- probably based upon your religious dogma- is clear to all.
"Well I know that they are ABSOLUTES for now"
Incorrect. You are just assuming that. Your perceptions of them might be flawed.
"You repeating this statement..doesn't make your point any less moot. My point has been proven. You have given no proof of an individuals ability to defy gravity..to rise from the dead..etc."
Another re-hash of your earlier moronic statement.
"Almost as laughable for someone issuing a warning..for labeling their thought process "relativistic" and then claiming that they can not argue with a mod in a thread about a topic.."
This is your final warning, whob- do not argue with a moderator's decision within a thread. You have even twisted what the warning was issued for, which was for not obeying clear and repeated instructions to have the courtesy to read posts properly, and your made-up example above has no relevance on that.
I will say it again, whob- you are riding a very thin wedge. You have made two spurious reports already which do little other than raise contempt for you and flag you as a troublesome poster. You know where this will eventually take you- play smart, and cut out your foolish behaviour.
"We can not apply this concept to the ourselves. The power of our perceptions does not allow us to change Reality. "
a. yes we can
b. still repating that basic moronic statement, I see.
"All of our attempts to even question the logic of such abstract concepts as Perception/Time/Space/etc will always be self defeating...since we don't have COMPLETE knowledge of what makes up these things...and there is no certainty that our "limited" minds could even handle such complex processes. "
Continuing to feed into the relatavist idea; thanks for that. You trying to say we cannot be sure simply reinforces the concept.
"The faith based assumption that man has the capacity to understand everything..is what completely destroys any relativistic arguement. You can't point out a flaw in the process of something..if you don't completely understand how the process works."
Assumption, and assumption. Worthless.
"Our perceptions have no effect on anything"
Moronic point repeated.
"So what is "Absolute Truth"?
Answer: "Absolute Truth" is "God."
Therefore the true definition of science..really just boils down to this..
The search for "God."
I hope you all have learned something from this debate."
Simple dogmatic belief. All we have learned is more evidence of your follishness.
"I meant travel to the future/past or change the past"
Simple time dialation allows us to travel into the future already. We're halfway there, so we shall see how it goes.
"Doesn't matter if you believe in the possibility of one defying the laws of gravity. Your belief/perception/speculation...has no effect on these laws of gravity. "
Another re-hash of your moronic statement!
When will you realise this? The sceptical belief isn't trying to CHANGE anything. It is simply saying you might be wrong. There is no need for it to change anything. You have had to make assumptions to come to all those conclusions- including a basic assumption about sensory evidence, that what you see and hear is actually so. That destroys any chance of you making these things absolute.
"So in summary A + B will always = C. This is an ABSOLUTE TRUTH.
A + B will never = C + D + E + F..etc...
"
Wrong. It is not absolute, it is based on a system of logic that only works after assumptions and so might be wrong. A + B might indeed equal F in that case, you are just incapabale of understanding why and have been conditioned to think otherwise.
"We can indeed prove 2 + 2 = 4..as being "true" By using the visuals...
** + ** = ****"
No you can't; those visuals are just as likely to be flawed as the logic of the symbolic numbers.
"You can not change the value of C. It will always equal the sum of A + B."
That is a rule you have assumed; you might be wrong.
"Now can anyone give me an example of how your perception/sceptism/doubts can change the laws of gravity?"
And now finally, that moronic statement, you are now trying to make the centre of the thread!
Contemptible.
"Your equation of..
3 + 5 = 9 is NOT true..."
Only according to a system you ar eusing that might be flawed.
"That's assuming of course..that I have the knowledge of the COMPLETE definition that makes up PROOF. And the ability to UNDERSTAND the COMPLETE definition that makes up PROOF."
Again, that statement is in itself an assumption so of no value in countering the argument.
The fact that all is assumption is part and parcel of the whole deal. We can bring you down by saying you are making assumptions; by saying it back to us, you feed into the relatavist argument.
"Wouldn't one have to know EVERYTHING behind what makes up the concept of gravity...before they could make the ASSUMPTION..that gravity is a perception?"
You may believe that. So what?
Whob simply cannot grasp these basic principles; he is desperately trying to cling onto his dogmatic beliefs, because he created this thread because he thought he could logically point out flaws in an idea he simply didn't like very much.
Instead, whob is continually making himself a figure of fun, being continuously ridiculed for his silly ideas, and indeed he is pushing the limits on the forum rules. And what of his original objective has he achieved at all? Nothing. Not a sausage. Nothing at all. The only person he has satisfied is himself, an irrelevant achievement as he hardly needed to persuade himself.
whob has failed, and in fact will never succeed. This thread will forever remain as testament to that.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
"def relativismn : (physics) the theory that space and time are relative concepts rather than absolute concepts
...
Whob simply cannot grasp these basic principles; he is desperately trying to cling onto his dogmatic beliefs, because he created this thread because he thought he could logically point out flaws in an idea he simply didn't like very much.
Instead, whob is continually making himself a figure of fun, being continuously ridiculed for his silly ideas, and indeed he is pushing the limits on the forum rules. And what of his original objective has he achieved at all? Nothing. Not a sausage. Nothing at all. The only person he has satisfied is himself, an irrelevant achievement as he hardly needed to persuade himself.
whob has failed, and in fact will never succeed. This thread will forever remain as testament to that.
Fin.
Originally posted by whobdamandog
Seeing as how my knowledge of Chemistry/Physics is limited..I will go ahead and respond to your statement from a limited perspective.It seems as if you are playing a game of semantics..
Does the initial amount of matter..from the proton and the neutron..get completely lost after the we create Helium or Water?
The answer is NO!!
For example lets assume that..
a = NaCL
b = H2O
c = (a + b)The result of this equation is H2O + NA + CL.
C = (H2O + NA + CL)
Do each of the NA and CL ions have the exact same mass as the NACL compound..of course not.
But the combined amount of matter on the right side of the equation..equals the combined amount of matter on the left side of the equation.
Thus..no matter was created or destroyed during the chemical reaction..
Thus..C will ALWAYS = A + B
So in lamans terms
[b]
The same amount we put in..will always be the same amount that we get out.Thus the equation A + B = C. Will always remain true. This is basic algebra man!!! There is no way that you can counter this.
If you can prove that by adding two elements/chemicals together..you get more matter from the result..then you had from the point in which you started out. Then you deserve a Nobel Prize my friend. You'd be on your way to proving "MACRO EVOLUTION"..and a whole HELL of a lot of other sciences.
But I don't think you'll be able to do this. At least in the context of this debate.
So I believe its safe to assume that C will always be the sum of A + B.
This is an Absolute Truth.
Please don't play anymore semantical games. I do know a bit past the freshman Chemistry level. Even though my area of expertise is Computer Programming/Info Systems
Fin. [/B]
No, it is no semantic game. I did not give the details, but the mass is not conserved.
"The same amount we put in..will always be the same amount that we get out." is just an aproximation to make calculations easier.
In chemics they sometimes consider matter, as the number of particles, in this case you can say that matter is conserved, but if by matter you mean mass then it is not conserved.
That mass is not hidden somewhere or were lost in the reaction, it became energy, it is the energy that comes from the atomic bound.
Two separated protons do not have the same mass as two bounded protons, a part of their mass become the bounding energy.
Another example... consider a reaction where an atom of hydrogen emitts one photon, after the reaction, the atom will have less mass than before, thus mass is not conserved, and since photons are massless, mass is not lost. What happened is that the mass became the energy of the photon.