Proof

[Squeek]

Re: Proof

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]

Re: Proof

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]

Re: Proof

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]

Re: Proof

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]

Re: Proof

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]

Re: Proof

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]

Re: Proof

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]

Re: Proof

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]

Re: Proof

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-]

Re: Proof

<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.

[TD_GenoCid3]

Re: Proof

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

wtfbbq...im bored,were is carlo?? why duz reach have anime children grasping his boobs :O

[Squeek]

Re: Proof

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

.9 repeating is not one.

It's the closest number to one, but you cannot define it as one.

You know the old problem about half-lives, right? An object continually decays half of its material, then in the same time that happened, half of what's left.

Think of it as a bird that has to fly 100 miles. Goes 50. Goes 25. Goes 12.5

It never gets there. The distance might be so slight that no device in the known world can measure it, but it'll never completely finish.

You cannot say .9 repeating is one.

[Reach]

Re: Proof

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

Truth. And that is all there really is to debate because the entire problem with the word proof is that it is not properly defined. It's like intelligence.

Oh and

Simplying saying .9 REPEATING = 1 is false.


a decimal place with an INFINITE number of 9's behind it IS ONE (by definition). There is a very crutial difference between the 2. The fact of the matter is, if something is repeating, that means that it is happening and its rate of happening can be measured. Something like this can never extend infinitely, it will only approach 1 forever and never equal one.

It's sort of a matter of bounding something. Infinity exists without any bound, so you can truthfully say a decimal with an infinite number of 9's behind it equals one, because without a bound it exists everywhere all at once, which means it has no rate. If something has a rate it is bounded and isn't infinite.

Hence, for example, we refer to the universe as being completely and udderly finite, though it is a popular misunderstanding of the world infinity that propagates the idea of an infinite visible universe.

[spyke252]

Re: Proof

Simplying saying .9 REPEATING = 1 is false.

I thought saying .9 repeating was understood to mean
_
.9, which is a decimal with an infinite number of nines behind it. It seems like common sense to me, as you can't measure how fast a nine is behind a decimal.

[Afrobean]

Re: Proof

sup guys

You do realize that you guys are arguing whether or not 3/3 is 1, right? Did you all miss that day in math class where they explain that anything divided by itself is equal to one (except 0, I guess, but that doesn't count).