I never said that human knowledge is infallible and complete, but our universe does contain laws that do not change. Man's will is not free is one of them.
All the laws of the universe (scientific theories) are falsifiable.
Yes, until there is an anomaly in the theory.
No.
If you come up with a theory and you don’t know how to falsify it you don’t know what assumptions you have made.
I know how to falsify every one of my theories.
Because I know what my axioms are.
You have to know how to falsify it at least in principle.
You have to know what observations would surprise you!
If I give an apple to one child and an apple to another child, that makes two apples. You can't build a bridge on partial mathematics. I guess you could, but I wouldn't cross that bridge. lol Language, as a communication vehicle, can be problematic but that doesn't change reality.
I'd also imagine that for most it's not an acceptable falsification.
Either this kind of falsification is necessary for proof, or the proof through falsification is unnecessary. I believe it's the latter when it comes to immutable laws. How can an immutable law be falsified if in doing so, it's not a law?
Well, it depends on whether or not the purpose of the integers* is to falsify the falsification of the falsification within narrowly defined strictures such as a language that is often mistaken for reality.
If so then realistically, 2 + 2 = 1.
The rational proof:
2 entities + 2 entities = 1 e pluribus unum, regardless of the system of governance, and those who seek benefits without cost only shape the quality of the unum, uh huh.
Or, is an effect of applying the "revolutionary thought" only the mundane use of integers?
Probably.
Walker wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:24 pm
I'd also imagine that for most it's not an acceptable falsification.
Either this kind of falsification is necessary for proof, or the proof through falsification is unnecessary. I believe it's the latter when it comes to immutable laws. How can an immutable law be falsified if in doing so, it's not a law?
Well, it depends on whether or not the purpose of the integers* is to falsify the falsification of the falsification within narrowly defined strictures such as a language that is often mistaken for reality.
If so then realistically, 2 + 2 = 1.
The rational proof:
2 entities + 2 entities = 1 e pluribus unum, regardless of the system of governance, and those who seek benefits without cost only shape the quality of the unum, uh huh.
Or, is an effect of applying the "revolutionary thought" only the mundane use of integers?
Probably.
* integer defined as a complete entity
You can falsify anything using logic. I still wouldn't go on your bridge if you constructed it using 2+2=1.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:14 pm
"you couldn't stay away because the compulsion to stay is greater than the compulsion to leave."
The only compulsion I have is to sit on the can and take a dump (and even then I still get to decide when and where I'm gonna take a crap).
No, I'm here for reasons, not compulsions.
And reasons create a desire, and a desire creates a preference, and a preference creates a movement, and a movement creates an action that can only go in one direction. It isn't a compulsion that you necessarily feel, but it is a preference which makes any other choice you considered impossible because you can't choose what gives you less preference when a better alternative (in your eyes) is available. If you could do this, it would falsify this universal law, but you can't.
Last edited by peacegirl on Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:14 pm
"you couldn't stay away because the compulsion to stay is greater than the compulsion to leave."
The only compulsion I have is to sit on the can and take a dump (and even then I still get to decide when and where I'm gonna take a crap).
No, I'm here for reasons, not compulsions.
And your reasons create a desire, and a desire creates a preference, and a preference creates a movement, and a movement creates an action that can only go in one direction. It isn't a compulsion that you necessarily feel, but it is a preference which makes any other choice you considered impossible because you can't go in the direction of dissatisfaction. This would falsify this universal law, but it can't be done.
The direction you are observing is the arrow of time.
Whether you and I decide anything the world moves on.
Logik wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:21 pm
All the laws of the universe (scientific theories) are falsifiable.
Yes, until there is an anomaly in the theory.
No.
If you come up with a theory and you don’t know how to falsify it you don’t know what assumptions you have made.
I know how to falsify every one of my theories.
Because I know what my axioms are.
You have to know how to falsify it at least in principle.
You have to know what observations would surprise you!
Normally people build a theory based on observations. The job is done if there is no anomaly left in observation. What do you want to falsify? You explain reality by an anomaly free theory.
henry quirk wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 7:14 pm
"you couldn't stay away because the compulsion to stay is greater than the compulsion to leave."
The only compulsion I have is to sit on the can and take a dump (and even then I still get to decide when and where I'm gonna take a crap).
No, I'm here for reasons, not compulsions.
And your reasons create a desire, and a desire creates a preference, and a preference creates a movement, and a movement creates an action that can only go in one direction. It isn't a compulsion that you necessarily feel, but it is a preference which makes any other choice you considered impossible because you can't go in the direction of dissatisfaction. This would falsify this universal law, but it can't be done.
Logik wrote:The direction you are observing is the arrow of time.
But there is no real arrow of time because time is not a dimension like space. We live in the present. The perception of time is in relation to our memory of yesterday and our ability to think about tomorrow. I don't want to get off track though.
As we have learned in Chapter Four, our brain is divided into
compartments, and in the memory section are innumerable word
slides on which are recorded our experiences. A second ago, yesterday,
last week, last month, two years ago, two thousand years ago, are
slides in our brain projector through which we see the number of
times, or what portion of one time, the earth revolves on its axis; but
if we were not able to remember (store away these slides), the word
past would never have come into existence because we are born, grow
old, and die all in the present. In reality, everything that we can
possibly do from the time we get up to the time we go to bed, and even
our sleep, is done in the present, as is the shining of the sun.
Logik wrote:Whether you and I decide anything the world moves on.
We could sit on our asses and it still moves.
Whether or not we decide anything, the world moves on. But our knowledge and decisions help the world progress. So why would we sit on our asses if we could make the world a better place?
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:22 pm
Yes, until there is an anomaly in the theory.
No.
If you come up with a theory and you don’t know how to falsify it you don’t know what assumptions you have made.
I know how to falsify every one of my theories.
Because I know what my axioms are.
You have to know how to falsify it at least in principle.
You have to know what observations would surprise you!
Normally people build a theory based on observations. The job is done if there is no anomaly left in observation. What do you want to falsify? You explain reality by an anomaly free theory.
I can't help if it's anomaly free. The only way it could be disproved is if we could choose something that is worse for ourselves when something better (in our eyes) is offered as an alternative. There is another proof that will show, once and for all, that will is not free. There is no way a person could find greater satisfaction hurting someone with a first blow once the basic principle becomes a permanent condition of the environment and all justification has been removed.
Let me say
again that if man’s will was free we could not accomplish this because
we would be able to choose what is less satisfying when something
more satisfying is available.
And your reasons create a desire, and a desire creates a preference, and a preference creates a movement, and a movement creates an action that can only go in one direction. It isn't a compulsion that you necessarily feel, but it is a preference which makes any other choice you considered impossible because you can't go in the direction of dissatisfaction. This would falsify this universal law, but it can't be done.
The direction you are observing is the arrow of time.
Whether you and I decide anything the world moves on.
We could sit on our asses and it still moves.
Actually the line is the foundation for the degree, as a degree in itself, with all "time" as an observation of "finiteness" necessitating time as not just having linear nature but one of "degrees" which we can observe by its progressive entropic/negentropic nature of "parts through parts"...which is fundamentally what the "degree" is: atomism.
This "line" as the foundation of measurement within the human consciousness, by the seperation and connection of phenomenon, observes that human consciousness exists through a course of determinism where it is determined by the same laws it observes, with these laws existing through all facets of reality.
bahman wrote: ↑Fri Feb 08, 2019 6:22 pm
Yes, until there is an anomaly in the theory.
No.
If you come up with a theory and you don’t know how to falsify it you don’t know what assumptions you have made.
I know how to falsify every one of my theories.
Because I know what my axioms are.
You have to know how to falsify it at least in principle.
You have to know what observations would surprise you!
Normally people build a theory based on observations. The job is done if there is no anomaly left in observation. What do you want to falsify? You explain reality by an anomaly free theory.
Science doesn’t “explain” fuckall.
Science tests hypotheses. Observations are evidence for one hypothesis and evidence against another.
What you are left with is “most plausible” hypothesis GIVEN the set of hypotheses you were testing!
If you aren’t testing more than 1 hypothesis you have already made up your mind!
And if you are testing more than 1 hypothesis and hypothesis A is more likely than hypothesis B you know exactly what evidence you need to
