RE: Answer to SpanishHatMaster (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Kirata -> RE: Answer to SpanishHatMaster (12/15/2011 2:38:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

I have had fanatic disciples already and I do not like that. If you tell me who said that I would try to speak with her.

I'm pretty sure it's a "him." [:D]

K.






GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/15/2011 6:58:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
Personally I don't think anything on this thread has been worth the effort. Afterall we have already been told that  we are all wrong and only the OP is right.


Actually Zonie was the OP, he was bitching about Spanish's game. But was also talking about how something Spanish said about atheism made it sound very similar to agnosticism and I think that would be an interesting conversation to have. Sadly it seemed like Zonie and I never completely got on the same page about what we were discussing and kept having different conversations at each other.





SpanishMatMaster -> Fanatic padawan (12/15/2011 7:06:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
quote:

ORIGINAL: susie
Personally I don't think anything on this thread has been worth the effort. Afterall we have already been told that  we are all wrong and only the OP is right.

Actually Zonie was the OP,
True. Ok then, the fanatic disciple is not my problem, then.



GotSteel -> RE: Trying (12/15/2011 8:10:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks
I can refute that. I put two pebbles on the table. Then I put two plums on the table. Then I count all the pebbles and plums on the table.


He was talking about conspiracy theory sort of scenarios, for instance say you're in the matrix and for no good reason every time you try and add up 2 + 2 which in that hypothetical reality actually equals 3 the robots screw with your brain so that you incorrectly get to the answer 4.

Pointing out that said conspiracy theory isn't actually falsifiable but that we also don't for a second take it seriously and talking about why we don't, and how that relates to God conspiracy theories can be a worthwhile conversation to have.

However, Spanish didn't stop there he came up with an extreme faulty argument about how we can prove unfalsifiable things false by desiring to be able to prove them false. That was the long and pointless trip down the rabbit hole.



mnottertail -> RE: Trying (12/15/2011 8:11:30 AM)

Whats all this pebbles and plums when we are talking apples and oranges here?



Kirata -> RE: Trying (12/15/2011 11:17:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Whats all this pebbles and plums when we are talking apples and oranges here?

It's all good... the category is fruit.

[image]http://ratingworld.com/images/entity_picture/11159/picture.jpg[/image]

K.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Trying (12/15/2011 11:56:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
He was talking about conspiracy theory sort of scenarios, for instance say you're in the matrix and for no good reason every time you try and add up 2 + 2 which in that hypothetical reality actually equals 3 the robots screw with your brain so that you incorrectly get to the answer 4.
Pointing out that said conspiracy theory isn't actually falsifiable but that we also don't for a second take it seriously and talking about why we don't, and how that relates to God conspiracy theories can be a worthwhile conversation to have.
I hope so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
However, Spanish didn't stop there he came up with an extreme faulty argument about how we can prove unfalsifiable things false by desiring to be able to prove them false. That was the long and pointless trip down the rabbit hole.
That maybe was simply the point where you stop understanding me and started trolling.

My "If you want A, then you have to do B" was not about wishes, it was about preconditions. And the basic precondition was: If you want to be rational. If you don't want to be rational, then you can actually and truly believe what you frigging' want. No proof of the contrary can convince you if you decide to ignore proofs, rationality. But this does not make "If you want to be rational" an expression of a wish which proves anything - it is the expression of a precondition needed for a proof to be applicable. It is not the same, and I think you confused them dramatically.

Recheck the summary. Find the first thing you disagree with, and then object it. I have all the time of the world, and after I returned insult by insult, I am ready to be respectful again. As long as you are.



EmilyRocks -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/15/2011 3:07:42 PM)

quote:

How can you be absolutely sure that your example with pebbles applies to anything else?
replace the pebbles with anything you want, the results remain the same.
quote:

How can you be absolutely sure that you do not live in a Matrix-like universe, where the extraterrestrials even control your thoughts (and everyone else's) and they manipulate them anytime you think about it, to convince you that you are doing it right, when actually you are doin it wrong and 2+2=5 ?
Because 5 and 4 do not mean the same thing, by the definitions of the words 2 plus 2 MUST equal 4. They cannot equal 5 no matter who or what is messing with my mind. That's what the words mean. 4 is a symbol for the number four, and that number can be achieved by adding two and two. It doesn't matter how matrixy the universe is, those are the meanings of those concepts, words and symbols.

quote:

How can you be absolutely sure that there is not even an unimaginable scenario, which renders your proof wrong?
quote:

You would have to demonstrate the same for all unimaginable scenarios. Think about the difficulty of proving that something you can't imagine, does not exist.

In this context a "scenario" is a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical is something imagined. So if the scenario where 2+2=4 is wrong is unimaginable, that means it does not and cannot exist, since, again by definition, it must be imaginable in order to exist.

quote:

That's the reason why absolute certainties are not in the range of reason, but of fanatism, dogmatism, etc. Rational thinking proves things "until proven otherwise", "for the time being", "as long as we are not taught better by new facts", "provisionally".
The mistake you made is that simple math is not in the realm of reason, it is just fact. 4 is the whole number between 3 and 5. Not reason, just fact, that is what 4 represents, that is its definition. If I take an apple and an orange (there you go mnottertail) and a plum and a grapefruit, I have 4 fruit, I also have 2 citrus fruit, and 2 non-citrus fruit. 2 citrus fruit + 2 non-citrus fruit = 4 fruit.

Choose another example other than "2+2=4" and your argument might stand up, but since you insist on using a verifiable fact as an example of something that we cannot be sure of, your whole argument falls apart.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/15/2011 8:23:14 PM)

Hello, Emily,
quote:

In this context a "scenario" is a hypothetical situation. A hypothetical is something imagined. So if the scenario where 2+2=4 is wrong is unimaginable, that means it does not and cannot exist
1. False, a scenario is a situation which can be completly real and proved, and therefore not an hypothesis. You are just playing with words, and playing wrong. But if the words disturbs you, you can use "situation" instead.
2. And even if you were wrong, there are imaginable scenarios where 2+2=4 is wrong.
BTW: In ancient Greek, the scenario "the structure of light is unimaginable" would have been correct and real. Just as a sample that the universe is sometimes weird enough to surpass our ability to imagine. I do not know how can you hold the chauvinist idea that the universe must be always imaginable by us, humble evolved animals. The universe does not give a s**t about the limits of our ability to imagine.
quote:

The mistake you made is that simple math is not in the realm of reason, it is just fact
1. Math is in the realm of reason. And BTW, we can and do commit errors doing math, constantly.
2. 2+2=4 is in the realm of things we think. And we can commit errors when thinking.
3. "that is its definition" => Definitions are thoughts, precisely. Definitions are not out there, in the universe, but only in our minds. Fallible minds.
4. "a verifiable fact" => "I have a nose" is also a verifiable fact, that does not make the verification absolute certain.

The base line being:
  • Prove with absolute certainty that all scenarios (situations, if you want, or "fact constellations", "preconditions"...) where 2+2=4 is false, are do no occur. Of course, without using 2+2=4, that would be circular and therefore not a valid proof.
  • Or admit that you cannot and therefore #387A.2 holds.

Best regards.



EmilyRocks -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/15/2011 9:01:10 PM)

quote:

Prove with absolute certainty that all scenarios (situations, if you want, or "fact constellations", "preconditions"...) where 2+2=4 is false, are do no occur.
Any scenario or situation or thought constellation where 2+2=4 is wrong are impossible, because 2+2=4 is correct. It is correct because of the meaning of the symbols and concepts they represent.

Now, it is possible that a world could exist where the symbol "2" represents the quantity we represent by the symbol "3", yet the symbol "4" represents the quantity we represent by "4". In such a world, 2+2=4 would be wrong, as 2+2 would equal 6. Is that what you are getting at?



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 12:43:54 AM)

Hello, Emily:
quote:

Any scenario or situation or thought constellation where 2+2=4 is wrong are impossible, because 2+2=4 is correct.

Emily, I am sorry but this circular. You take as premise that 2+2=4 (and that this is absolutely certain, I hope) and then you conclude that any other scenario is impossible and therefore 2+2=4 is absolutely certain. This is circular, in the same way theists say that God exists because the Bible says the truth and the Bible says the truth because it was written by God.
If you take as premise that 2+2=4 without absolute certainty, then you cannot conclude from there the any other situation is impossible. So, in that case your reasoning would not be circular... but still wrong.

quote:

It is correct because of the meaning of the symbols and concepts they represent.
Because the meaning you think the symbols are, and the concepts you think they represents, apparently allow you to make a reasoning, which you consider correct...

You think... you think... apparently... you consider...

Of course what you say is common sense. Of course 2+2=4 is common sense. It is also a rational fact, a mathematically proven fact, and I am not trying to make your doubt on anything. I am just showing you that "rational truths" are not "absolute". They are temporary, as long as no-one proves otherwise. As long as we do not have facts which contradict it.
quote:

Is that what you are getting at?
No. Please read more carefully what I wrote, I am really trying to be patient, detailed, to express myself correctly in English, etc. I am doing my best, so please try to read more carefully.

You can also read what GotSteel is writing you. Maybe he explains it better than me, and #388A.2 is one of the things he actually admitted (even if he later "made an ass of himself" asking the people if there was any of my premises which hasn't been disproved).

Again: Prove with absolute certainty that any situation where 2+2 is not 4 is impossible, or admit #388A.2 . Thank you.



Kirata -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 10:30:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

You take as premise that 2+2=4... in the same way theists say that God exists because the Bible says the truth and the Bible says the truth because it was written by God.

There's gotta be a prize for this.

K.



EmilyRocks -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 12:57:10 PM)

quote:

Emily, I am sorry but this circular. You take as premise that 2+2=4 (and that this is absolutely certain, I hope) and then you conclude that any other scenario is impossible and therefore 2+2=4 is absolutely certain.
No, I conclude that any scenario in which 2+2 does not equal 4 is impossible. See the difference? The impossibility of the scenarios stems from the certainty of 2+2=4, it does not confirm it.

quote:

Because the meaning you think the symbols are, and the concepts you think they represents, apparently allow you to make a reasoning, which you consider correct...
Again incorrect. Allow me to restate this correctly: Because the meaning you KNOW the symbols are, and the concepts you KNOW they represents, OBVIOUSLY FORCE you to make a reasoning, which you KNOW IS correct...

quote:

Again: Prove with absolute certainty that any situation where 2+2 is not 4 is impossible, or admit #388A.2 . Thank you.
I have proved it several times beyond all doubt, I will state it one last time. Any situation where 2+2 is not 4 is impossible because 2+2 IS 4.
Clear and simple enough for you?
Here, maybe this will help.

Usted está equivocado, porque 2 más 2 es 4 iguales, la única manera de que no podía es si el símbolo "2" no representa la cantidad descrita por la palabra de dos o si el símbolo de "4" no representa la cantidad descrita por la palabra cuatro. (O si los símbolos matemáticos "+" y "=" significa algo más que sus acepciones.) Pero ya que los símbolos se representan las cantidades, todos los escenarios en los que 2 +2 = 4 está mal es imposible. Por lo tanto # 388A.2 ha sido desmentida. como resultado, su premisa fundamental ha sido encontrado en estado defectuoso. Como dije antes, usar un ejemplo diferente que no sea el 2 +2 = 4 y que puede ser capaz de sostener su argumento, pero siempre y cuando conserve ese ejemplo particular, así que nos acaba de decir que voy a defender hasta la muerte de su derecho a hacerlo.



GotSteel -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 6:25:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks
Because 5 and 4 do not mean the same thing, by the definitions of the words 2 plus 2 MUST equal 4. They cannot equal 5 no matter who or what is messing with my mind. That's what the words mean. 4 is a symbol for the number four, and that number can be achieved by adding two and two. It doesn't matter how matrixy the universe is, those are the meanings of those concepts, words and symbols.


You can say that 5 and 4 do not mean the same thing because your brain is functioning properly. There are real world examples such as people who suffer from dyscalculia and acalculia, people who might be otherwise intelligent who could have difficulty making that statement.

In order to determine what 2 + 2 equals we have to translate the symbols into concepts and then either pull the answer out of a table which we've memorized or manipulate two of the concepts according to the third. It would seem to me that robots monkeying with our neurons during any step of either of those processes could lead to a faulty answer.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 7:03:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks
Because 5 and 4 do not mean the same thing, by the definitions of the words 2 plus 2 MUST equal 4. They cannot equal 5 no matter who or what is messing with my mind. That's what the words mean. 4 is a symbol for the number four, and that number can be achieved by adding two and two. It doesn't matter how matrixy the universe is, those are the meanings of those concepts, words and symbols.


You can say that 5 and 4 do not mean the same thing because your brain is functioning properly. There are real world examples such as people who suffer from dyscalculia and acalculia, people who might be otherwise intelligent who could have difficulty making that statement.

In order to determine what 2 + 2 equals we have to translate the symbols into concepts and then either pull the answer out of a table which we've memorized or manipulate two of the concepts according to the third. It would seem to me that robots monkeying with our neurons during any step of either of those processes could lead to a faulty answer.


But the point isnt whether someone can arrive at a faulty answer, it is the incontrovertible FACT that if you add 2+2 and dont get 4 you are wrong. And of course its "circular"....its the definition of the symbols. Once you define what those symbols mean and accept those definitions, however, you absolutely CAN prove that that 2 +2 = 4 and nothing else.



SixMore2Go -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 8:32:47 PM)

Oh dear Lord, the lengths to which some will go just to argue, the mind fairly reels it does.



GotSteel -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 8:54:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
But the point isnt whether someone can arrive at a faulty answer, it is the incontrovertible FACT that if you add 2+2 and dont get 4 you are wrong.

Of course it's wrong, but without accurate external reality and cognitive ability how would you determine that it's wrong?


P.S. I think he picked one of the worst possible examples.



InvisibleBlack -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 9:57:19 PM)

- FR -

This can all be summed up in less than 4 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjGRySVyTDk


...and it all leads to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=I9-Niv2Xh7w&feature=endscreen



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 10:04:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
But the point isnt whether someone can arrive at a faulty answer, it is the incontrovertible FACT that if you add 2+2 and dont get 4 you are wrong.

Of course it's wrong, but without accurate external reality and cognitive ability how would you determine that it's wrong?


P.S. I think he picked one of the worst possible examples.


Yeah, if you are a vegetable or are delusional you can't. I only know one person on this board who is that far gone.



SpanishMatMaster -> RE: Answer to EmilyRocks (12/16/2011 10:55:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks
quote:

Emily, I am sorry but this circular. You take as premise that 2+2=4 (and that this is absolutely certain, I hope) and then you conclude that any other scenario is impossible and therefore 2+2=4 is absolutely certain.
No, I conclude that any scenario in which 2+2 does not equal 4 is impossible. See the difference? The impossibility of the scenarios stems from the certainty of 2+2=4, it does not confirm it.
But you use this impossibility to try to prove that 2+2=4 is certain, so it is circular.

Anyway, nevermind. If it is a premise of you, then ok, but then you still have to demonstrate that 2+2=4 is certain, as you are using it as premise for the impossibility of all other scenarios.

And that was, like, the original task. So, please do. Or recognize that you can't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks
quote:

Because the meaning you think the symbols are, and the concepts you think they represents, apparently allow you to make a reasoning, which you consider correct...
Again incorrect. Allow me to restate this correctly: Because the meaning you KNOW the symbols are, and the concepts you KNOW they represents, OBVIOUSLY FORCE you to make a reasoning, which you KNOW IS correct...
You should have to demonstrate all this too. With absolute certainty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: EmilyRocks
quote:

Again: Prove with absolute certainty that any situation where 2+2 is not 4 is impossible, or admit #388A.2 . Thank you.
I have proved it several times beyond all doubt, I will state it one last time. Any situation where 2+2 is not 4 is impossible because 2+2 IS 4.

Again - how can you say that 2+2=4 with absolute certainty?

We started with that question: How can you say 2+2=4 with absolute certainty? Only if you can refute the other scenarios. But if you refute them with "2+2=4 is absolute certain", this proof is circular.

1. 2+2=4 is absolute certain.
2(1). Therefore, all other scenarios are false.
3(2). Therefore, 2+2=4 is absolute certain.

This is a circular proof, and therefore, invalid. And it is what you are doing. Make a valid proof that 2+2=4 is absolutely certain or admit that #388A.2 holds.



Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875