The meaning of proof

What did you say? And what did you mean by it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Phil8659 »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:45 pm
The meaning of proof is meaningless.

To prove implies there is something to prove.

To prove something would mean to physically see it.

But, the seer can never be seen, it is only known as a concept, and a concept knows nothing.
[/quote]

Have you ever studied anything? The only thing you seem to get right is your screen name.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by bahman »

Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:20 pm That is a complete sentence. Things are true in two ways: a posteriori and a priori.
Being a sycophant is not a recourse to authority. No man, or doctrine is an authority on grammar. As Language is Universal and Intelligible, while Grammar is Particular and Perceptible, the authority for grammar is language and language is a physical fact which is grasped by the intelligent, not invented by them.
I have to say that I agree with Kant. Is there another way that a thing could be true?
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm So, how does truth differ from itself by being before and after, and before and after what? Before lunch and after dinner?
What do you mean?
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm Have you ever heard that: "The relative difference between terms is not predicable of either term."?
It is the first time that I hear that. I don't understand what it means.
Phil8659
Posts: 396
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2022 11:50 am
Contact:

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Phil8659 »

bahman wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:14 pm
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:20 pm That is a complete sentence. Things are true in two ways: a posteriori and a priori.
Being a sycophant is not a recourse to authority. No man, or doctrine is an authority on grammar. As Language is Universal and Intelligible, while Grammar is Particular and Perceptible, the authority for grammar is language and language is a physical fact which is grasped by the intelligent, not invented by them.
I have to say that I agree with Kant. Is there another way that a thing could be true?
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm So, how does truth differ from itself by being before and after, and before and after what? Before lunch and after dinner?
What do you mean?
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm Have you ever heard that: "The relative difference between terms is not predicable of either term."?
It is the first time that I hear that. I don't understand what it means.
I see your comprehension of the written word is not sufficient for what even you desire it to be. All I can suggest is To study Plato, for several years, and to study Geometry for even longer.

The gist of it is, Language is Universal, as Plato noted, it is independent of any particular thing, living or dead. Grammar systems are constructed commensurate with a person's intelligence. Things are either perceptible or intelligible, i.e., neither provable, provable is a synonym for proof able, i.e., can be demonstrated to have a determined correspondence with a particular system of grammar, of which there are four categories.
etc. Proving has nothing to do with existence, as the parts of a thing can be proven to correspond via equality between the perceptible and the intelligible, but the parts of things cannot be said to exist. A thing exist, but a thing has two parts, shape and material in that shape, neither, in of itself, as even Aristotle recognize, can exist in of itself. This led to the statement that we cannot know the Ding un sich, or Thing in itself. Biologically one can only abstract either a thing's form or a thing's material difference. If we abstract the material of a thing, we discard its form. If we abstract the form of a thing, we disregard its material difference.

We establish, by a convention of names, an arithmetic identity, or an algebraic identity between perception and conception in regard to the two elements of a thing. This is called in common grammar, literal and metaphorical meaning, i.e., we can proof a statement as literal, or as metaphorical, and sometimes even both.
However, proofing is always in relation to a well-defined system of grammar which starts with an agreement of names, logical, such as Common Grammar, Arithmetic or Algebra, or analogical such as geometry.

Now, if you want to study our grammar matrix, I have a project on the Internet Archive called Universal Language which consists of a number of PDF portfolios. The work is very extensive.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by Dontaskme »

Dontaskme wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:45 pm


The meaning of proof is meaningless.

To prove implies there is something to prove.

To prove something would mean to physically see it.

But, the seer can never be seen, it is only known as a concept, and a concept knows nothing.
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:09 pmHave you ever studied anything? The only thing you seem to get right is your screen name.
Yes, I have studied the concept of no thing.

The word 'Proof' is a concept known, that's all.

That which is 'known' cannot prove it is known...the proof is already present in the immediate knowing that cannot be known, except in the artificial conception of knowing.

Therefore, the known concept (proof) is a meaningless meaning.

This knowledge, is just too ordinary and simple for some minds.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by bahman »

Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:58 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:14 pm
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm

Being a sycophant is not a recourse to authority. No man, or doctrine is an authority on grammar. As Language is Universal and Intelligible, while Grammar is Particular and Perceptible, the authority for grammar is language and language is a physical fact which is grasped by the intelligent, not invented by them.
I have to say that I agree with Kant. Is there another way that a thing could be true?
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm So, how does truth differ from itself by being before and after, and before and after what? Before lunch and after dinner?
What do you mean?
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 7:36 pm Have you ever heard that: "The relative difference between terms is not predicable of either term."?
It is the first time that I hear that. I don't understand what it means.
I see your comprehension of the written word is not sufficient for what even you desire it to be. All I can suggest is To study Plato, for several years, and to study Geometry for even longer.
I would be happy to study Plato but I am not a patient guy to study his work for several years. By the way, why do you give an answer to my question: Is there another way that a thing could be true?
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:58 pm The gist of it is, Language is Universal, as Plato noted, it is independent of any particular thing, living or dead. Grammar systems are constructed commensurate with a person's intelligence. Things are either perceptible or intelligible, i.e., neither provable, provable is a synonym for proof able, i.e., can be demonstrated to have a determined correspondence with a particular system of grammar, of which there are four categories.
etc. Proving has nothing to do with existence, as the parts of a thing can be proven to correspond via equality between the perceptible and the intelligible, but the parts of things cannot be said to exist. A thing exist, but a thing has two parts, shape and material in that shape, neither, in of itself, as even Aristotle recognize, can exist in of itself. This led to the statement that we cannot know the Ding un sich, or Thing in itself. Biologically one can only abstract either a thing's form or a thing's material difference. If we abstract the material of a thing, we discard its form. If we abstract the form of a thing, we disregard its material difference.
No, the language is circular and it ultimately depends on our experience of objective reality.
Phil8659 wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 8:58 pm We establish, by a convention of names, an arithmetic identity, or an algebraic identity between perception and conception in regard to the two elements of a thing. This is called in common grammar, literal and metaphorical meaning, i.e., we can proof a statement as literal, or as metaphorical, and sometimes even both.
However, proofing is always in relation to a well-defined system of grammar which starts with an agreement of names, logical, such as Common Grammar, Arithmetic or Algebra, or analogical such as geometry.

Now, if you want to study our grammar matrix, I have a project on the Internet Archive called Universal Language which consists of a number of PDF portfolios. The work is very extensive.
What is this and why should I study it?
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by commonsense »

bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:23 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:58 pm
bahman wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:58 pm The proof is a statement that is true and fills the gaps between two states of knowledge, the first one is known to be true and the second one is true as a matter of the existence of proof.
Proof is not a statement.
It is. Can you prove anything without words?
First of all, yes.

Secondly, statements use words but not all uses of words form a statement.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by bahman »

commonsense wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:23 pm
commonsense wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:58 pm

Proof is not a statement.
It is. Can you prove anything without words?
First of all, yes.
Give me an example.
commonsense wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:58 pm Secondly, statements use words but not all uses of words form a statement.
That I am aware of.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by commonsense »

bahman wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:19 pm
commonsense wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:24 pm
bahman wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 8:23 pm
It is. Can you prove anything without words?
First of all, yes.
Give me an example.
commonsense wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:58 pm Secondly, statements use words but not all uses of words form a statement.
That I am aware of.
Try any mathematical proof for an example without words.
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 8791
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by bahman »

commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:53 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:19 pm
commonsense wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 6:24 pm

First of all, yes.
Give me an example.
commonsense wrote: Sat Jan 16, 2021 4:58 pm Secondly, statements use words but not all uses of words form a statement.
That I am aware of.
Try any mathematical proof for an example without words.
Yes, but one uses symbols in a mathematical proof. A symbol is not a word but it has a meaning.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by commonsense »

bahman wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 11:43 pm
commonsense wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:53 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jul 20, 2022 10:19 pm
Give me an example.


That I am aware of.
Try any mathematical proof for an example without words.
Yes, but one uses symbols in a mathematical proof. A symbol is not a word but it has a meaning.
Not a word. QED
popeye1945
Posts: 2119
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2021 2:12 am

Re: The meaning of proof

Post by popeye1945 »

bahman wrote: Fri Jan 15, 2021 7:58 pm The proof is a statement that is true and fills the gaps between two states of knowledge, the first one is known to be true and the second one is true as a matter of the existence of proof.
Experience is knowledge and when that experienced knowledge is double check with its relation to physical reality, this is proof. Often error involves illusions and/or delusions so the fault likely would be with the biology that had the experience, so the same biology is not likely to correct itself. The old statement comes to mind, truth to the individual is experience while truth to the group is agreement. Statements are once removed from direct experience rather second hand information about the experience of others. If the statement is making a truth claim from direct experience then again it needs the statement checked against physical reality. All words are but qualifications and/or limitations.
Post Reply