...and you don't need evidence for something's non-existence. If you think that something exists, demonstrate it. If not, it doesn't.
A world in which things exist unless they can be proven not to would be a very cluttered world indeed.
(A world in which things exist unless they can be proven not to would be a very cluttered world indeed.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:24,
archived)
Er...You can't prove the existence of anything. You can only state firm belief.
(
Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:25,
archived)
ButI have no problem with an inability to prove the existence of anything. Adherence to the prinicple of falsifiability makes for good science, good argument, and intellectual good taste.
All my beliefs are provisional. I'll update them as necessary. It's for that reason that god doesn't feature therein.
But you can do more than state firm belief. You can cite reasons. I wouldn't be happy with a statment like "I believe x" - I'd want "I believe x because... and here's why not-x is implausible."
(All my beliefs are provisional. I'll update them as necessary. It's for that reason that god doesn't feature therein.
But you can do more than state firm belief. You can cite reasons. I wouldn't be happy with a statment like "I believe x" - I'd want "I believe x because... and here's why not-x is implausible."
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:29,
archived)
depends.if you're a twunt,things exist by proxy of your empirical knowledge of them.if you're a scientist,things cannot be ruled out in every case.
i'm hungry.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:30,
archived)
i'm hungry.
As am II feel I may have to abandon this contretemps in favour of buying some lunch.
Toodle-oo!
(Toodle-oo!
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:32,
archived)
Doesn't logic dictate that everything is possible? Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:33,
archived)
not unlessthey changed the rules of logic while i was in the bathroom.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:34,
archived)
So some things are absolutely impossible?Where does this put the parallel universes and realities ideas then?
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:36,
archived)
logic,n.a system of evaluation of proposed theories which are tested based on empirical knowledge and subject to cross-references with systematic inference.
parallel universes?Star Trek.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:37,
archived)
parallel universes?Star Trek.
All universes...All universes must be possible universes, and some things are just impossible. For example, a gold mountain may exist in some possible universes, and not in others. But in all possible universes, it must either exist or not exist. There are some statements - "A golden mountain both exists and doesn't exist" - that can never be true.
(Admittedly, this is taking me back to fresher metaphysics, and that was a long time ago. But I think the prinicple is right.)
((Admittedly, this is taking me back to fresher metaphysics, and that was a long time ago. But I think the prinicple is right.)
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:47,
archived)
Yes you canThe can of Strongbow in my hand exists you Cunt!
(
Redsushi! Whoop! Whoop! Yes, that one!,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:32,
archived)
Yeah, if you consider everything except possibly math a belief, then atheism is a belief.In a more useful definition of "prove" you can prove that many things exist in the world with as much certainty as you can prove that the world itself exists.
A positive claim of existence requires evidence, otherwise you're just making things up. Atheists don't think there is enough evidence to prove that god exists or even to make it relatively likely that (s)he exists.
If there is no evidence to think something exists, the default position should be that it doesn't. This is not a belief system, it's one of the basic mechanisms for rational thought.
The agnostics are the ones that either think there is inconclusive evidence, or they refuse to apply to god the same mechanisms of thought the apply to everything else. The atheists just say god does not exists.
(A positive claim of existence requires evidence, otherwise you're just making things up. Atheists don't think there is enough evidence to prove that god exists or even to make it relatively likely that (s)he exists.
If there is no evidence to think something exists, the default position should be that it doesn't. This is not a belief system, it's one of the basic mechanisms for rational thought.
The agnostics are the ones that either think there is inconclusive evidence, or they refuse to apply to god the same mechanisms of thought the apply to everything else. The atheists just say god does not exists.
but the hedgehog can never be buggered at all foreskin of the apocalypse,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:37,
archived)
^ ThisIt is impossible to PROVE that something does not exist
But until you prove that it DOES exist, it doesn't.
And even then, God doesn't...
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:31,
archived)
But until you prove that it DOES exist, it doesn't.
And even then, God doesn't...
So, until we built the hubble, much of the universe didn't exist?I see.
( Je suis un vagabond is an unfunny, up your own arse middle class knob,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:34,
archived)
correct.It's down to quantum theory and schroedinger and other philosophical examples.
Nothing exists until it is observed. And you change its state merely by observing it.
If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The answer can be 'yes' or 'it is impossible to know' depending on your viewpoint. Or even 'the tree does not exist as it is not being observed'...
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:36,
archived)
Nothing exists until it is observed. And you change its state merely by observing it.
If a tree falls and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?
The answer can be 'yes' or 'it is impossible to know' depending on your viewpoint. Or even 'the tree does not exist as it is not being observed'...
quantum theoryis only relevant to small real-time particles,and is a theory.
in Newtonian physics,the tree makes a sound,based on kinetics,potential,and sound energy theorems.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:39,
archived)
in Newtonian physics,the tree makes a sound,based on kinetics,potential,and sound energy theorems.
quantum theoryapplies to everything.
all large things are made of smaller things. so the rules that apply to the small things will affect the larger things they make up, even if not in the same way.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:41,
archived)
all large things are made of smaller things. so the rules that apply to the small things will affect the larger things they make up, even if not in the same way.
...No it doesn't.
A grand unified theory would apply to everything, but medium-sized solid objects are relentlessly classical.
Were that it were different. I'd get a lot more done in a day.
(A grand unified theory would apply to everything, but medium-sized solid objects are relentlessly classical.
Were that it were different. I'd get a lot more done in a day.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:48,
archived)
ah,now, thats chaos theory at its finest hour.
unfortunately,i hate chaos theory.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:48,
archived)
unfortunately,i hate chaos theory.
...Sounds like someone has a dose of the Berkeleys...
For myself, I'm a bit of a Kant...
(For myself, I'm a bit of a Kant...
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:50,
archived)
...We had plenty of evidence for all kinds of stuff before Hubble. We now have more evidence. We are edging towards certainty on many things. But we can never say that we've got there.
There's a difference between what exists, and what we can say to exist. It's the latter clause that's important here. "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must pass over in silence" captures it, I think.
(There's a difference between what exists, and what we can say to exist. It's the latter clause that's important here. "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must pass over in silence" captures it, I think.
Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:44,
archived)
now thatis a glorious seam of sense in a gravel mine of inaccurate theory.
(,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:50,
archived)
...If only I could claim it as mine. Sadly, 'tis Wittgenstein (Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, para 7).
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight,
Fri 22 Feb 2008, 13:53,
archived)