Proving things. - Page 3

Herra1 · 02-08-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

Sure, of course.
But then again we are talking about money=value, not about 1
What is the idea then ? The idea of one.
Can You prove 1 exisist ?

Lord1
Can you tell us what you'll accept as proof?

Wrong, nice thou, but wrong.

What is proof ?

romansh · 02-08-2008, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

Quote:

Can you tell us what you'll accept as proof?

What is proof ?

Apologies Herra ....so what is the correct translation.....(I'll never trust Wikipedia again

)
What is proof? .... you are asking the questions so it should be you who defines what would be acceptable as proof?

Quote:

How can You prove anything.
Or to put the question other way. What, or which things are PROVEN ?

Herra1 · 02-09-2008, 12:49 AM

Mister.
It can also be, the lord, but not me.

Anyway, like i said, i was being agnostic `bout 1.
It seems that people know what is one. it is a simple concept.
Easily proven.

Well, not really.
If a child ask a question about, lets say, heaven.
Do you answer that the child should know the answer ?

romansh · 02-09-2008, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

Mister.
It can also be, the lord, but not me.

Anyway, like i said, i was being agnostic `bout 1. It seems that people know what is one. it is a simple concept. ...Easily proven.

Well, not really.If a child ask a question about, lets say, heaven.
Do you answer that the child should know the answer ?

According to Wiki: Herra = Lord and herra = mister?

regarding A = A type discussions ....there are a few recent threads on truth and absolute truth etc. The conclusions that I have come to are 1) there's no such thing as absolute truth at keat for practical purposes. 2) to prove something for practical purposes you and I have to agree on a framework before we can move forward.

If a child asked about heaven etc.... the exact answer would depend on the child.....but in general I would avoid answering the question unless the child directly asked me what I believe. But would counter with other questions...
what do you think?
why do you think that?
and
what is the evidence?

Herra1 · 02-09-2008, 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

Mister.
It can also be, the lord, but not me.

Anyway, like i said, i was being agnostic `bout 1. It seems that people know what is one. it is a simple concept. ...Easily proven.

Well, not really.If a child ask a question about, lets say, heaven.
Do you answer that the child should know the answer ?

According to Wiki: Herra = Lord and herra = mister?

Yup.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr.

regarding A = A type discussions ....there are a few recent threads on truth and absolute truth etc. The conclusions that I have come to are 1) there's no such thing as absolute truth at keat for practical purposes. 2) to prove something for practical purposes you and I have to agree on a framework before we can move forward.

1) There is a whole bunch of people who belive that, the so called scientific rigour, is the answer.
And also lots of them that dont.
Me, personally,
belive,
put my faith,
my few cents, rather in evolution, than in divine fiat, but it dont mean, that i am not willing to question my belives, awwright ?
2) I just hope, that You give the same amount of quality from your awernesness as i do.

But if one is so difficult to, whatever, we are in deep ....
It is so fundamental.
Our whole civilation rests on manipulation of numbers, and we cant, it seems, to understand even the simplest, one.
I dont want to go on a rant here.

I just wanted to know, do we have the so called proven things.
Some feel/say that god is one of them. And atheist says otherwise.

If a child asked about heaven etc.... the exact answer would depend on the child.....but in general I would avoid answering the question unless the child directly asked me what I believe. But would counter with other questions...
what do you think?
why do you think that?
and
what is the evidence?

You are not apparently/exactly a guru material, are You

?
Next time i know how this thing works.

romansh · 02-10-2008, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

You are not apparently/exactly a guru material, are you

?

not being guru material ... that's OK....

Quote:

whole bunch of people who belive that, the so called scientific rigour, is the answer.

.. science and logic are like a map or a photograph. a representation of the way we see/approach things. The photos/maps by their very nature cannot be perfect; just an indication of how we might proceed.
It's tough to question one's own beliefs.... but in the end that's how we change our minds and take a different direction.
It's important to update our photos and maps: 1) they were not totally accurate in the first place and 2) they should change as we gain new information.

Quote:

Our whole civilation rests on manipulation of numbers, and we cant, it seems, to understand even the simplest, one.

Does it? So whether you get out of bed tomorrow depends on manipulating numbers? Who says we can't/don't understand the simplest "one"? We can and do if we agree on the framework: eg Euros versus dollars (US, Canadian etc.)

We are smarter (and dumber) than we give ourselves credit for.

Telimaktar · 02-10-2008, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

Quote:

Originally Posted by neverforever

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

Well, We are, being agnostic about "proven"(???) things.

We are being agnostic for things that cant be proven. I want u to tell me what u think we are agnostic towards that is proven. No bible verses now read my signature.

If i were to belive fellow traveler atheist, they would say that they can prove that god dosent exist.
I am agnostic about 1.
Prove to me 1= one.
What it is ?

You yourself just expressed 1 as being one. And through such an expression set the context for others to evaluate the expression in the terms you defined.

Herra1 · 02-10-2008, 07:08 AM

In the end how i see it, is that you never really cant change someones mind/opinions in a conversation. If, i must add, we are not talking about something concrete,i.e.
is sun shining,
look THIS calculation your calculation is wrong, if we build the bridge your way it would collapse,
who win/won yesterday.
Those are simple truths (??)

Right, now 1.
If we stay in the field of pure mathematics You can make a definition of one, wich sort of makes sense.
1 (or 5), is a member of a class wich contains only 1 (or 5), member/object/whatever, or something (i stand corrected).
But if You have 5 dollars(lets say), Your 5, is more, than mere mathematical symbol in the series begining from 1.
See my point here ?

Yes , if we settle our differences about the values (1 dollar-1 euro, 1 gallon-1 litre) what we are doing there then is defining the contents or, heh, if You will, the inner life, of one.
We are talking about dollars and euros.
Nothing else.
Not about one.

1, it seems to me, is like a car,
you can drive it,
you can clean it,
hell,
you can even repair it.
But to build one ?

Herra1 · 02-10-2008, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Telimaktar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

Quote:

Originally Posted by neverforever

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

Well, We are, being agnostic about "proven"(???) things.

We are being agnostic for things that cant be proven. I want u to tell me what u think we are agnostic towards that is proven. No bible verses now read my signature.

If i were to belive fellow traveler atheist, they would say that they can prove that god dosent exist.
I am agnostic about 1.
Prove to me 1= one.
What it is ?

You yourself just expressed 1 as being one. And through such an expression set the context for others to evaluate the expression in the terms you defined.

Yes i did.
1 is one.
What it/that means, then ?
There is a whole plethora of things, wich they say are proven.
Like gravity, a phenomena, wich you can understand through manipulation of numbers.
1 is number.
So we should then understand 1.
Because things that we cant understand, are things that we cant control.

Og · 02-10-2008, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herra1

Yes i did.
1 is one.
What it/that means, then ?
There is a whole plethora of things, wich they say are proven.
Like gravity, a phenomena, wich you can understand through manipulation of numbers.
1 is number.
So we should then understand 1.
Because things that we cant understand, are things that we cant control.

"They" do not say that anything is proven. In fact, science/engineering does not deal in absolute proof. They only deal in evidence and observation relative to control (an arbitrary point). It's why power outlets (no matter where you are on the planet) require at least two plug holes. One is a voltage (a statement, for example) and the other is a reference point (control/axiom). This is the way of all things in science and engineering.

The universe is demonstrably relative in all things. Measure the speed of light. Then step on a train and measure it again. You get the same velocity measure regardless of your speed relative between two reference frames.

Proof is a term reserved for mathematics where there are axioms and a internally consistent framework that is otherwise arbitrary. The number one is just a defined concept. Want to know what it means? Look inside someone's brain and see what neurons are firing when they think of the number one. Then you'll have their definition of one. Look in a math book and you'll have the "what is" for the number one that is generally agreed upon.

Absolute proof is not attainable nor is it sought after by scientists or engineers.