Exactly, it's technically impossible to prove that wood floats scientifically.
Originally Posted by Aikido
If you dropped wood in water 1000 times and it floated all 1000 times, the only thing you proved was that during your experiments, 1000/1000 times, wood floated. There is no guarantee that wood will float next time
I'm gonna guess, burningman (if that IS your real name), that you're one of those kids who believe that there's no absolute truth, that nothing is truly "real", and reality if relevant. And i bet you like the Matrix...
well, I hate to burst your bubble, but that kinda logic sinks like wood floats in water (that sounded wierd..)
but hey, lets start a debate about it right here
so to start, if nothing can be proven, nothing can be disproven also.
and if nothing can be proven, why bother making those statements you can't prove?
First of all, there's no debate. EVen scientists acknowledge that science can't prove a goddamn thing
The only thing science does is eliminate the wrong possibilities of what the truth is.
And what the hell does the matrix have to do with any of this?
Here's a breakdown of what science is about:
Induction: Experimental and observatory data, THIS CANNOT BE USED to prove anything
Deduction: From induction, a general principle is formed and scientists use that to find "truth" eg. If this is true, that must true, stuff like that
But since deduction is based on induction and induction cannot be used to prove anything, TECHNICALLY, nothing can be proven, (only disproven)
hmmm? well then all thiose beautiful, complex equations of induction and deduction and barney and love, can't really be proven either, right?
and to DISPROVE anything, you are PROVING that it is false...whoa, wait, we can't prove stuff, right?....what?
Yeah uh... I like Carl Jung's theories a lot more than Freud's. However, it was only because Jung worked under Freud that we (or maybe its just me) know his name.
But yeah. Not a lot of people seem to notice that the three principles of science are all "assumptions". And when assume you make an "ass" out of "u" and "me" (damn that was intellectual).
Those principles again are: Natural causality (the assumption that all events have a natural cause governed by some natural "laws"), Time space Constancy (that all said laws function the same everywhere and everywhen fornever ever never), and Objectivity (that I spy with my little eye something that is red which is red to you as it is to Einstein traveling near the speed of light upside down backwards). None of these are proven nor can they ever be. So there's allready a great deal of faith involved when you go into science. Just you get to sit in better chairs as the guy up in front is talking... and he gets a microphone.
You also can't prove causality (cause and effect, that thing the merovingian was talking about (see the matrix is related)). The connection between what is dubbed cause and effect is "assumed". And because reason relies on causality you also can't prove its effectiveness.
Sir Arthur Eddington said "If there is no causality then there is no distinction between the natural and the supernatural". (Doo doo doo doo!)
Why scientists thought there had to be "laws" of nature when laws only appear in human society and can still be broken, I am not aware. Its also not clear how these laws communicate their edicts onto reality. Perhaps they were afraid of scientific criminals or should I say scientific heretics.
But lets go one tiny step further (some people reading the long post are saying, "let's not"). Can we even say that things exist all quantum mechanics put aside?
If I could look at a proton under a microscope I wouldn't actually be seeing the proton. I'd really be seeing the light bouncing off the proton, hitting my retina, setting off electro chemical impulses, the reactions between which somehow conveying their having occured to the mysterious thing called my awareness, or consciousness. But throughout the entire process nothing is actually being directly experienced other than the interactions between the elements involved. The only things that really have any chance of existing are interactions which somehow relay themselves to an aware observer.
Though they say that the fundamental stuff of reality is space and time its actually awareness or consciousness that comes first, whether or not consciousness and interactions are one in the same themselves.
The belief that anything exists without any type of awareness of or interaction with it, is just an assumption.
So... um... yeah. Carl Jung > Sigmund Freud.
Last edited by Masterful_Norg; 02-12-2006 at 01:42 PM.
jung just sounds like a weird name so I already don't like him.
however, you are right, in that faith is very much needed.
I was, however, trying to swing this towards the matter of truth. the way people talk about it now days makes it sound like there is no such thing as reality, that everything is just our experience through our senses.
You say that awareness and consciousness comes first, but is that the things that dictate what reality is?
If i drank a bottle of poison, but thought it was to be juice, would I still not die from the reality, which is the poison? Despite what I was aware of, what I thought, what I assumed, there is a reality outside of my senses that acts independently from them.
And of course, whatever you've said, according to what you apparently believe, can only too be assumptions, no? Assumptions based upon assumptions based upon assumptions don't cut it for me. I believe that there are such things as absolute truth and an absolute reality.
I think the truth in the case of abstract concepts is manufactored by each individual based on what they believe.
Now as long as I'm making my own truth about the world here I might as well choose to believe things that cast the world in the most positive light. "Be happy, no worries, don't drink poison".
Hey, maybe its because the poison believes that it's poison, at least in a very rudimentary sense, that it doesn't become juice when you think it is. And if it does turn into juice, you might be jesus.
Oh, and "Jung" is pronounced "Young" as in "Jailbait".
Last edited by Masterful_Norg; 02-12-2006 at 04:45 PM.
I know how his name is pronounced, I took Ap psych i high school :P
Now I think Jesus could turn tha poison into juice if he wanted, but to be honest, I'm not Jesus
Now I'm all for looking on the bright side of things, in fact I applaud you since many people fail to be able to do that. But I can't say I agree with the belief that you can make your own truths. What you can do, and I'm sure everyone has done this, is make interpretations and assumptions, as we were saying.
However, take this into consideration: the statements "there is no absolute truth", "all truth is relative", and "my truths apply to me, your truths apply to you" all sounds great, even convienient. But then, I'd have to ask you: Are those statements absolute? Do they apply to everyone? Because if they don't, then my statement about a truth applying to everyone is just as valid, and then it would collide and maybe defeat what you said. however, if those statements DO apply to everyone, they would have to be absolute, and then self-defeating.
I'm looking at this from a purely logical viewpoint, not religious or any other kind of discrimination. At least not yet. If we kind of look at it from that view, it might be a little easier to understand why the thought of reality and truth being relative kind of falls a part.
Well, thanks for putting up with me so far :P
Originally Posted by nataku_0
Hmm, absolute truths? Mayebe, but unlikely
Ever hear about Shroedinger's cat?
If you put a cat in a box and obstructed from view and poison gas is released into the box, then obviously the cat dies. But the last time you perceived the cat was when it was alive, so technically you did not perceive it die, so it didn't die (technically it did, but try to understand what I'm saying).
What I'm trying to say is that if there is an absolute truth, it has to be able to be perceived, because that's the only way humans can understand something. If we cannot perceive it, it counts as not being there. But you could argue the other way around
basically : If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does the sound exist?
"If we cannot perceive it, it counts as not being there."
I have never been to france, guess it doesn't exist, despite people telling me it does, I can't believe them because I have never seen it, felt it, smelt it, tasted it (ew)..
No, doesn't hold water..
Let me go back to the poison.
If Billy heard his mom say "Take the medicine in the blue ontainer", but actually he misheard it and thought she said "black" and went to the drawer and saw the blue and black containers. Thinking he heard black, and then maybe even remembering incorrectly that it was the black bottle he took last time he was sick, he went ahead and drank from the black container.
Now, despite what he heard, despite what his brain had convinced him what was medicine, the reality, that is independent of what Billy thinks, is that the bottle is full of poison. And poor ol' Billy dies.
You are mixing up percieving something to stuff that happens, despite what you see or percieve.
That Shroedinger's cat is a waste of a good cat.
For babies, when they see something, then that something is hidden behind a cloth, to them, it no longer exists. now I am hoping you would know better than a baby.
"technically it did, but try to understand what I'm saying"
sorry, I can't, because your arguement is filled with holes.