Proof

[Kilgamayan]

All right, granted.

[Reach]

You can only truely 'prove' something by making an assumption at some point. Or, proof can only been taken within the context it was proven in.

Most of you have seen this 'contextual proof' before if you've looked at the 'proof of god' thread that was posted here awhile ago, by mal I think.

So it becomes impossible to universally prove anything.


However, naturally this definition of proof gets us nowhere. The Scientific Method led to the rapid advance of mankind. Such a method is a 'practical proof', meaning it isn't necessarily right but it's as right as it needs to be for our sake.

So I'd agree with most of the things squeek said. If you can prove something within a scientific context, then I take that construction of proof as being something that is true simply because it is a very practical proof.

[Laharl]

Proof

Existence

[studmuffin51306]

Originally Posted by Laharl

Proof

Existence

This still doesn't say what is required to exist or what is required for something to be believed to be true.

[spyke252]

<I>You're mixing Math with Science. In Math, we create the rules. 1+1 will always be 2, unless we alter the rules.</I>

So, I believe Newton "altered the rules" when he proved that .9 repeating = 1?

And I still need a more solid definition of "proof"... The one that states "produce belief in its truth" means that I "proved" that 1 = 2 to my school. For those interested:

//Newtons Proof:
X=.9 repeating
10X = 9.9repeating
9X = 9
X=1

"Layman's" terms (For those who do not understand the concept of defining variables):
1/3 = .3 repeating, correct? Then 2/3 = .6repeating.
3/3 = 1= .9repeating.

//1=2 proof (has flaws, duh, so DONT POST SAYING DUR, ITS WRONG. I KNOW.)
A=B
A^2 = AB
A^2 - B^2 = AB - B^2
(A-B)(A+B) = B(A-B)
A+B = B
2B=B
2=1

Also, what happens when the variables change? If I stand on my head and see an apple drop off a table, then it will appear to go upward. Of course, I (having common sense) know that I am upside-down, but that does not change the results of the experiment. If an apple drops off a table in space, what will happen? If a nuclear missile explodes under the apple as it falls, what will happen? If the apple falls, and no one is around to see it, what will happen?

Case in point- Unless I have some misunderstanding, you cannot have an experiment that always happens the same way, with changing variables. SOME manipulation of variables MUST create a change in the way the results are viewed.

Now, back to the topic-
Speaking of seeing things upside-down, our retina obtains images upside-down (concavity of the eye, as far as I know) and our brain reinterprets images based on what they are supposed to look like. So the definition of proof cannot include seeing without including the brain as well.

Thats all for now, I have to go to a dance soon.

[Laharl]

Originally Posted by studmuffin51306

This still doesn't say what is required to exist or what is required for something to be believed to be true.

Sure it does.

Existance is the state of being. Basically, if something is, then it exists.

Saying that life doesn't exist is inherently false. Life simply IS. Existance cannot be false.

[studmuffin51306]

Spyke..... Marry Me.....
Actually, I take that back.

Originally Posted by Laharl

Sure it does.

Existance is the state of being. Basically, if something is, then it exists.

Saying that life doesn't exist is inherently false. Life simply IS. Existance cannot be false.

Who's to say we aren't imagined, just living out what some being's big brain is dreaming up?
THen we only exist like numbers do.

[Squeek]

//1=2 proof (has flaws, duh, so DONT POST SAYING DUR, ITS WRONG. I KNOW.)

If you know it's wrong (like we all do by now), why post it as proof? It's NOT proof. It's a packet of LIES.

Ok, yes, variables change the outcome. Congratulations, you've stated the obvious!

If an apple falls to the ground off a table and a nuclear explosion happens, you're NOT DUPLICATING THE EXPERIMENT. Thus, it's quite obvious you're going to get different results!

If you duplicate the experiment with little to no variance in the way it was conducted, you will get the same results. This is Science, and this is Proof.

[Doug31]

My definition of a proof (I don't know an official one, i just made this up) is basically when someone determines something is guaranteed to be true, and that no one can ever change this truth, since it must be completely true, or it hasn't been proven.

[spyke252]

Originally Posted by Squeek

If you know it's wrong (like we all do by now), why post it as proof? It's NOT proof. It's a packet of LIES.

I said it was a proof because no one I know could figure out the flaw. As such, they figure it is true, though it is not. And according to the definition given earlier, proof is something that people take to be true. (Whether it is true or not.)

Originally Posted by Squeek

Ok, yes, variables change the outcome. Congratulations, you've stated the obvious!

OK, now that we have the "obvious" stated, we can work on the details. What variables change an experiment? What variables do not? What variables can be changed by the experimenter? How do these variables change the experiment?

Originally Posted by Squeek

If an apple falls to the ground off a table and a nuclear explosion happens, you're NOT DUPLICATING THE EXPERIMENT. Thus, it's quite obvious you're going to get different results!

So if you do the experiment at a different time, you technically are not duplicating the experiment? If you use a different member of the same animal species you aren't duplicating the experiment? My example may have been exaggerated, but it still shows a point. Another force acting on the system changes the results. By your logic, it is impossible to ever reproduce an experiment, as there are always too many variables that change.

Originally Posted by Squeek

If you duplicate the experiment with little to no variance in the way it was conducted, you will get the same results. This is Science, and this is Proof.

Though this may be true for more simplistic experiments, complex experiments rely on too many factors, as stated previously. These factors: time, upbringing, genetics, age, weather, experiences, etc. can all contribute to the results of the experiment. And thus, in a complex experiment, relying on these factors, you would never have a solution that is always true, no matter what.

Sure, you can go on about statistics and things like "85% of those horses bred with both parents having blue eyes, have blue eyes" but that isnt proof, its just a statistic. You can't say that you would get a horse which had blue eyes if you did the experiment. In fact, you really cant say anything, other than it has a greater chance of having blue eyes than another color. So unless you define proof as not being absolute, Proof cannot actually refer to anything more complex than "An apple rolls off the table and it goes down, when no other forces act on the system other than gravity."

[Squeek]

Time is a primarily irrelevant variable. If you utilize the technology of the time in keeping with the reconstruction of the experiment, you will get the same results.

An apple falls. Even if the gravitational pull has decreased / increased over the thousands of years it's been since we've known stuff falls, the fact that it still does remains the same. There goes time. The variables have changed, but it's so slight that it doesn't matter. There you go.

When I mean proving or disproving something, I'm thinking mythbusters-esque here. They prove or disprove something right before your eyes!

Statistics aren't proof. They're odds of proof. What you've done is told me that I have odds of being accurate based on the experiment.

I can flip a coin and it'll end up heads. I can't say that every time I flip a coin it'll end up heads because someone out there can duplicate my experiment and get tails. That's the statistics factor ruled out.

ps I have a tendancy to not read quote posts like yours in their entirety. I probably missed something, and I also probably don't care. It's not like anyone on the Internet actually cares about anything.

[Laharl]

Originally Posted by studmuffin51306

Who's to say we aren't imagined, just living out what some being's big brain is dreaming up?
THen we only exist like numbers do.

Because we're not imagined. It's a simple as that. How is it provable? PINCH YOURSELF, JACKASS. Pardon me being harsh, but don't be a freakin' idiot.

All 5 senses can be satisfied. Therefore, it is. If it is, it exists.

Anyone that honestly believes that we're all some giant dream is foolish. I know I'm a big advocate for letting people think what they want, but really, on this thing, it is black and white.

Even if we are some giant, long drawn-out dream, we're still cognisant. We're still able to make decisions based off our own perceptions, or so we believe, to the point that it becomes our reality and therefore IS our reality. We still exist, then, because we are something, up to the day we die.

[studmuffin51306]

Originally Posted by Laharl

Because we're not imagined. It's a simple as that. How is it provable? PINCH YOURSELF, JACKASS. Pardon me being harsh, but don't be a freakin' idiot.

All 5 senses can be satisfied. Therefore, it is. If it is, it exists.

Anyone that honestly believes that we're all some giant dream is foolish. I know I'm a big advocate for letting people think what they want, but really, on this thing, it is black and white.

Even if we are some giant, long drawn-out dream, we're still cognisant. We're still able to make decisions based off our own perceptions, or so we believe, to the point that it becomes our reality and therefore IS our reality. We still exist, then, because we are something, up to the day we die.

What if there are more than 5 senses? In a dream, I can see. I can also make decisions in a dream. Therefore the dream is real, right? It satisfies all the senses available in the dream. But honestly, I'm not a believer in the big dream deal. It was a hypothetical question. Just another variable that must be considered.

[Laharl]

Well, no, not really. There is too much evidence to the contrary. I'm not even going to bother considering total tripe.

We have history. We have HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS of history. We have history on very specific details which are completely insignificant.

That kind of stuff doesn't happen in dreams.

Heck, the fact WE ARE ABLE TO DREAM is proof enough for me.

[Afrobean]

oh hey

how did I not know about this thread?

Anyway, the final answer is that nothing can be objectively proven, and to attempt to do so would be retarded. The best we can do is prove things subjectively using assigned definitions which everyone can agree on. This is why 2 + 2 = 4. It's because we have a universal definition of 2 and 4 that we all agree on.

[studmuffin51306]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

oh hey

how did I not know about this thread?

Anyway, the final answer is that nothing can be objectively proven, and to attempt to do so would be retarded. The best we can do is prove things subjectively using assigned definitions which everyone can agree on. This is why 2 + 2 = 4. It's because we have a universal definition of 2 and 4 that we all agree on.

It's nice to agree on something.

[spyke252]

Originally Posted by Afrobean

oh hey

how did I not know about this thread?

Anyway, the final answer is that nothing can be objectively proven, and to attempt to do so would be retarded. The best we can do is prove things subjectively using assigned definitions which everyone can agree on. This is why 2 + 2 = 4. It's because we have a universal definition of 2 and 4 that we all agree on.

I agree with that, but what happens when two people's opinions on a certain definition collide, and an argument forms?
How do we figure out which definition is true?

[Laharl]

That's why nothing can be objectively proven, and hence why neither opinion is inherently correct.

Basically, you can't figure out which definition is true.

[Kilgamayan]

This thread is a good example of why extreme relativism is a great big steaming pile.

All that's being debated at this point is semantics.

[Kit-]

Originally Posted by spyke252

<I>You're mixing Math with Science. In Math, we create the rules. 1+1 will always be 2, unless we alter the rules.</I>

So, I believe Newton "altered the rules" when he proved that .9 repeating = 1?

.9 repeating IS one. .99999... = 9/10 + 9/100 + 9/1000 + .... + 9/10^n + .... = 9/10/(1-1/10)=(9/10)/(9/10)=1.