TED Conversations

Casey Christofaris

Owner, CS3 Inc

TEDCRED 10+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

How do we prove an answer

that it How do we prove an answer


I just want to clarify that I do love science and the understanding of the universe that it has brought us. As well as the tech

+1
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2013: proof is not a word that implies singularity...it is a word that includes a body of observation,done in a way it can be repeated by another to have them experience the same"answer" it is not just a word,it is not a concept,but also a verb...when each man picks up the bread crumb trail of :PROOF:he should have a experience a re simulation......of thought,feeling,event,opinion ..ect to infinity..this mirror experience..we name "truth'
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: Do you see how a mirror as well as a shadow can be equal but opposite?
  • thumb
    Feb 6 2013: Well let me think. As far as I know, there are:

    Tangible (concrete) proof
    Substantive proof
    Rhetorical (formal) proof
    Logical proof
    Inductive proof
    Deductive proof
    Mathematical proof
    Statistical proof (hypothesis testing)

    Some of these are actually sub categories. So I would say you can prove an answer with

    Substance
    Logic
    Math

    But it's not about the answer. In science it is about the question. The question sets up how you prove the answer.
    • thumb
      Feb 6 2013: But we start with the answer
      • thumb
        Feb 6 2013: I don't think so. We start with identifying the problem/issue and what we know and what we don't know. Then prioritize what we don't know into what we need to know first. Then we work on the correct question that will address what we don't know so we can get the answer we need.

        But that's just how I do it. I have to answer to my profession and I have to follow all the steps.

        The answer is easy once you have the question. The hard work happens before you have the question. The question sets up the proof.
        • thumb
          Feb 6 2013: Really that makes no sense are you sure that's how you work? because it still sound like you start with the answer and or evidence first and then come up with the question. After that fits your evidence.

          We start with A to be true as the answer

          Then we ask the question B

          If B is the question to the answer A

          We prove it if C happens

          Is the correct from your statement above?

          Also there is a fallacy of concreteness. And the best part is that Quantum Physics say the tangibleness item has more holes in it than most logic does. And yet we still call it real? Why is that? I am not say this material world is not real but what I am say is when we know its fake why still hurt other? Because we know their pain is "real", which again pain is just neurotransmitters sending a signal to your brain.
      • thumb
        Feb 6 2013: I am sure. Let me apply it. Lets tackle homicides in Chicago.

        We know there is a high homicide rate in Chicago. Guns are regulated more in Chicago than in the rest of the US, gun violence is higher among males, higher in poverty stricken neighborhoods, associated with gangs.

        What we do not know is how do we stop or reduce gun violence in Chicago. What is it about poverty among young males that precipitates gun violence and can we address that. What is it about poverty that precipitates the formation or infiltration of gangs? Why do young men in gangs resort to gun violence. What social structures perpetuate gun violence. What greater social attitudes reinforce the social dynamic that leads young men to seek out gun violence. What is the geographical typography of the city that perpetuates gun violence but only in certain areas of the city?

        What needs to happen is to find the root cause of gun violence as it manifests in Chicago. So I have identified the problem, identified what I know and do not know and now I need to prioritize.

        Prioritization also includes what resources do I have to effect change. Just little ol' me has limited influence on gangs or young men or poverty. (I am completely making this up so there is no correlation to real world here except for the fact that Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the country).

        But let's say, in my preliminary research, I find that law enforcement does not address gun violence because of a prevailing attitude that these poor young men will just grow up to be criminals anyway so they are not motivated to put their lives on the line to confiscate illegal weapons. They are happy to let them kill each other. I find out this may be a contributing cause.

        So I design a research study to look into this possibility and I come up with a research question. Here are some examples:

        How do law enforcement officials justify the lack of enforcing illegal weapon legislation?

        Continued...
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2013: Isn't your answer there is high homicide rate in Chicago?

          And then you stem a bunch of questions on how to address your answer?
          If question address answer then C will happen, which will lower the rate of homicide?
      • thumb
        Feb 6 2013: ... from previous
        Do law enforcement officials inequitably apply illegal weapon legislation?
        What is the effect of an educational intervention on the practice of illegal weapon legislation among law enforcement officials?

        Each of those questions will drive a specific methodology that will arrive at a specific answer. The first will require narrative research, the second could be answered with a survey and the fourth would need some measurement with statistical application. Each of those methods also have a method of proof. So the answer will be proven by the method which is driven by the question.

        There. Social science research in 3000 words or less.

        I could also do this with hard science hypothesis testing. You make an observation (have a theory) and wonder if circumstances are the same, will it be repeated... Yada yada. But that is snooze ville sixth grade science.
  • Feb 4 2013: Knowledge is obtained primarily from outside sources (print, instruction, conversation, multi-media, etc.) Most knowledge is accepted based on "trust" "belief" or "confidence" in the source. Knowledge is stuff you want to know, but it is typically not emotionally connected to your life and life choices.

    Wisdom represents those things that are emotionally relevant to your life and life choices. Wisdom is what you "know" to be true for you. Wisdom can only be achieved through experience. If I experience something directly, then I know it to be true.

    In both cases the answer is "my answer". If you trust me than my answer may also become your answer. If we share an experience and have the same emotional connection, than we share that wisdom. The path to knowledge and the path to wisdom are very different paths.

    What we know about quantum mechanics is based on the context of our physical reality. Yet, the "big bang" did not just produce our reality, did it? There are many universes with perhaps different physics that were produced by the same source. One cannot completely understand the whole by studying a part of the whole. Since it is difficult from our perspective to know the whole in order to subsequently understand our specific part, we are limited to what we can observe and experience, which will never tell the whole story of which everything is a part....unless somehow we learn to connect with and experience the whole... because experience is true wisdom.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: Whats your thoughts on intuition? Where does that lay in your knowledge wisdom paradigm?
  • Feb 25 2013: I'd say we can't. We can't prove anything, and we can only disprove with a certain probulity that allows us to make theories about the world around us. Our world is one of theories, just some theories are more likely than others, and one day a new theory might come along that is even more likely that the one we hold true now.
    • thumb
      Feb 28 2013: So the only way I have been able to say "prove" an answers is that it has to be common sense to other. It doesn't matter if their common sense even makes sense it can be backwards from your personal logic or reasoning. But if you can make your "truth" common sense to them then they will know it as truth
  • Feb 23 2013: ask my mum she knows everything
  • Feb 5 2013: We don't!
    We assume all things to be true which we are unable to disprove.

    The foundation of science... Karl Popper's falsifiability.
    • Feb 5 2013: No we don't.
      • Feb 5 2013: ye we do.
        • Feb 7 2013: We cannot disprove the existence of God. Must we therefore assume there is a God?

          We do not assume all things to be true which we are unable to disprove. Instead we accept the possibilty that they may be true. We determine the likelyhood that something is true and following Occum's Razor, we tend to accept the theory that requires the fewest steps in order to be true.
          For example, The universe coming into existence requires fewer steps than the universe coming into existence with the help of a God. We therefore accept that it is more likely that the universe does not require a God in order to exist. We cannot disprove God but we certainly do not assume one exists.
      • Feb 7 2013: Occam is a nice 'tool' to dissolve (personal) cognitive dissonance just by chosing theories. Ofcourse you are free to chose whatever thing you (personally) want to believe.

        But to defend my earlier post: The difference between "assume" and "accept the possibilty that they may be true" is really small. So I take it that your only problem is with the word "all", as you use Occam's razor to limit the "all" as you don't want to have conflicting ideas (god / no god) simultaneuously.
        It kind of reminds me of schrodingers cat in a way (alive / dead) ;).
        However you cannot simply say that because you chose to discard some theory because of it's unlikelyhood that you suddenly stop holding it to be true.

        So in a way you still assume the discarded theories as being true... untill they are proven to be false.

        Now as to religion... I am forced to assume that it's true. However I am also forced to assume that it is not true (as I cannot disprove the non-existence of God either). And that is where "faith" comes in for normal people. However I have no problem in not believing in God while assuming that he may exist.
        Although the question rises if religion hasn't disproven itself already....
        • Feb 7 2013: I do not choose which theories to believe, i am forced to accept them, like them or not, based on the evidence.

          The difference between assuming something is true and accepting that it may (or may not) be true is very big! I can't even imagine how you came to that conclusion.

          But yes, one of the most basic laws of propsitional logic is that something cannot be both true and false. There either is a God or there is not.

          Occums razor is a tested system and the data suggest that it works.

          And no, that is what YOU are saying not me, that discarded theories should be assumed true because they haven't be disproven. If another theory seems to explain the facts more accurately, the first theory can generally be discarded and forgotten. However it is often unreasonable to say that it is definitely not true. But that is not the same as saying, "well it must be true because nobody has disproven it yet". If you make a claim, the burden of evidence is on you. If you can produce the evidence you may convince some people, if you cannot, your claim should be assumed false untill evidence does emerge.

          I knew that it was likely that you were a believer (hence i picked God as an example) because it is generally believers who think that they can make a claim and that it is up to everybody else to disprove it. This is simply not the case, sorry.
          And you say, "normal people" like the fact that i don't accept your God makes me abnormal. I don't accept that. And as i said, you are forced to assume God does not exist until you can provide evidence. However, you not forced to assume he does exist just because there is a lack of evidnece that he does not, because providing evidence that something supernatural does not exist is not possible. You are taking it out of the field of science. In that case the laws of logic no longer apply and you are forced to rely entirely on faith. i.e. belief without reason for believe.
          You've slaughtered your own argument.
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: If something is both true and false could that be seen as balance


          Quantum Physic says that this reality the material world is both true and not true
      • Feb 7 2013: I'm saying that you can't discard any theory while it's not proven to be false... You say that Occam's Razor is a valid tool in chosing theories... but it's not. It's the easy way out of science and into religion.
        You say that the universe is easier understood through science than "Hey someone put it there". I disagree and I'm sure you will too if you know how few things physics can truelly explain... Therefor if Occam's razor would work you would be religious by now. To think about how quantumphysics work and how that can lead to a universe... is seriously complex. While going: "Someone made this" is much shorter and easier to understand.

        Perhaps you should reread my post with the added knowledge that I don't believe in any God?

        Also... religion is a 'theory' which is, in general, not testable and therefor is not science.

        The existence of God is however (through most definitions of God, for instance you could 'test' if something can become almighty... if we can prove that one cannot then there is no god) testable and therefor could be included. So if you ask does God exist I would have to say that I don't know.
        But I can't make any claim other than that I can assume it to be true. The fact that I don't believe any of it doesn't mean I'm right in doing so.
        • Feb 7 2013: And i'm saying you can discard a theory without proving it false, if you show that another theory explains the facts more accurately. You haven't disproven the first theory, just shown that it is less likely to be true.
          Now, you are getting mixed up because of the expression "someone made this". Ofcourse it's easier to actually say out loud, but it explains nothing. It doesn't give you the mechanism by which he/she made it. If we were to explain it, we'd then have to explain how the most complex thing one can possibly imagine either came into existence or just exists. You are stuck with the same problem that we have with explaining the universe's existence, the only difference is you have added an extra step (and it just happens to be the biggest step we could possibly add). Occam's razon DOES NOT allow for that.

          Forgive me for thinking you were a believer, but with the "this is where faith comes in for normal people" line, you have only yourself to blame.

          Religion is not a theory, it is a hypothesis, and a failed one. A theory requires evidence. Whether it enters into the field of science depends on the individual claims made in the texts. Some do, some don't.

          The existence of God is not testable by any scientific standard. Because no matter what data comes back, you could simply state that God is not subject the the laws of physics. So even if we "prove" that something can become almighty (how on earth would we go about doing that?) It wouldn't apply to God.
          And the only assumption that you should be making is that you MAY be wrong in not believing. You should not assume that just because you can't be sure, there must be a God.
          Imagine you have never heard of a God. The claim had never been made that there is one. You just knew the physics (to a degree) involved in the universe's birth. If i then came to you with the emply claim of an almighty being that made it all happen, would you be forced to assume i was right? Of course not. Not without evidence...
        • Feb 7 2013: I will add that i will not be responding any further. I forgot how unrewarding internet debates were. Alot of effort for very little gain.
          That's no reflection on you ofcourse, if it was in person i'd be happy to continue.
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: Science is theory, therefor it can not be "science"

          Also... religion is a 'theory' which is, in general, not testable and therefor is not science.

          Science fyi is Philosophy
      • Feb 7 2013: Religion doesn't call for any explaining... just for faith.
        Which is why it's so simple to believe. Which is why occam's razor would be in favor of it. Because rather than discovering anything religion tells you "it was made by design". So you don't have to question the creation at all....
        It is why when people stopped believing and started doing science that the world suddenly changed and came out of 'the dark ages'. Before then people just didn't question the world enough to make any progress.

        I don't find "being a believer" any insult / disqualification though... I just write posts in ways such that people are often confused about my own beliefs :).

        Also I just hold the 'theory' of a God being possible as true. But like I said religion is doing one heck of a job at showing that there can't be a God.
        On the whole last alinea though I would point you towards a really nice movie from Ricky Gervais called "The invention of lying".... I think that there is quite a lot of truth in that comedy.
  • Feb 5 2013: Statements "a is b" and "a is not b" do not balance each other, Casey.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: That would be correct. But a is b and not a is not b does. Thats formal logic
  • thumb
    Mar 1 2013: oh, yes. got it. watchmen. great film (I didn't know the novel until after the movie). who will watch the watchers?
  • thumb
    Mar 1 2013: can not reply any further so new thread.

    this question is good hence my response in question form. The answer is a lot harder. I have a sneaky feeling we are entering all sorts of new phases and our brains are playing catch-up. not with technology, you understand, but with the evolution of reason and the rational.

    the classic view of the universe has been questioned by science for some time and there is a slow trickle-down effect in effect.

    it seems to me that we now live in an age of "which version" as opposed to "the truth" - something that, I realise, is not really new but has become more obvious with the improving of communication technologies.

    i think that as long as people ask this question of themselves, the answer will (eventually) be forth-coming. for them, not all of people-kind, which is the same thing, when you really boil it down.

    peace.
    • thumb
      Mar 1 2013: It also seems to me that today's age is quite interesting. Recently, I tried to answer a similar question, how do we "know" things and why do we "believe" things, what's the difference, etc. This little manual about logic http://logictutorial.com/ and the idea that "meaning is exclusion" made me realize that we make sense of things by drawing boundaries between "A" and "not A" - existence and non-existence, "self" and "not self".

      Many people try to understand their "self", their identity, what makes us human, etc. Keeping in mind that "meaning is exclusion", by doing so, we draw more and more boundaries dividing what "I am" from what "I am not" which leaves less and less space for what "I am" and separates us from the world, all connected together. This contradicts the globalization process which seems to tell us that we are one with the world. The process goes on and on forever, just like everything else keeps spinning in the universe. Fascinating to watch.
      • thumb
        Mar 3 2013: I remember a similar concept we went through while training to become a teacher - it was to do with the decline of the masculine for the simple reason that masculinity has often been defined (in the past) by what femininity is not.

        Considering the changing roles of women in modern society (well, some of the more enlightened societies) and the changing definition of what femininity is, it leaves the man alone in a bit of a quandary as to how to "be a man".

        Clunking a mastodon over the head and providing meat doesn't seem to cut it as much these days.
  • thumb
    Feb 25 2013: I guess that depends on the question being answered...but since you said "prove"...

    A reductionist and scientific perspective on this:

    Statistically speaking, you come up with a hypothesis (what you guess the answer is), and then you forget that, and try and prove the opposite: you try and prove the null hypothesis (that nothing happens, or that there is no effect). If you fail to prove the null hypothesis, only then do you conclude that the alternate hypothesis (what you guessed) was right Keeping in mind that some uncertainty is inevitable: 95% certainty is usually considered good enough.

    The nice thing about science as a method for generating answers is that the field is so concerned with being unbiased, that statistical tests are designed so that you can prove yourself wrong if it all possible - before considering that you are right. Then add into this the need for replication of results and peer review and you have a pretty elegant system for answering questions (at least ones that are testable - and "provable").
    • thumb
      Feb 26 2013: In short, we prove something to be true by doing everything we can to prove that it's false. What survives these attempts is considered to be true (with a confidence level proportional to our effort). "Survival of the fittest" - evolution applied to ideas.

      Another paradox of life. To prove ourselves right, we need to do our best to prove ourselves wrong.
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2013: But even is you have created that confidence level up on proof of an answer given time it will always be proven wrong?
        • thumb
          Mar 1 2013: Not always. It *may* be proven wrong with probability equal to one minus confidence level.
        • thumb
          Mar 1 2013: all things must pass - a wise Beatle said that..

          it's like you can't gauge happiness without sorrow, light without darkness, male without female. the duality behind the singularity. full circle back to where we started. life is very neat and tidy in that way.
    • thumb
      Feb 28 2013: Why would you start with answer to prove an answer? Seems self-fulfilling to me

      see ted convo
      http://www.ted.com/conversations/14605/is_evolution_religion_everythi.html
      • thumb
        Mar 1 2013: What Letitia said is correct. You don't start with an answer to prove an answer. Just the opposite, you start by trying to contradict the answer - thinking of any possible alternative explanations.

        "Meaning is exclusion." http://logictutorial.com/

        When you say something, the more your statement excludes, the more you say. E.g. saying that "the sky is blue" excludes all other colors from consideration. To say this is more meaningful than to say that "the sky is not green". To prove that "the sky is blue", essentially, you need to prove that it does not have any other color. The more colors you exclude, the more confident you are in your answer.

        If you deal with known and limited amount of possibilities, you can get your confidence level up to 100%. But this is rarely the case. Confidence level is 1 - estimated probability of being wrong. This is uncertain world. Probability is all we've got.

        So, it's not "self-fulfilling", but self-refuting.
        • thumb
          Mar 1 2013: "So, it's not "self-fulfilling", but self-refuting."

          So could that be seen as equals but opposite?
      • thumb
        Mar 1 2013: Re: "So could that be seen as equals but opposite?"
        Yes. Coincidentia oppositorum. The concept is not new.
        • thumb
          Mar 1 2013: Right so why does it matter how you come up with the answer if the answer is always the same
      • thumb
        Mar 1 2013: Which answer are you talking about?
    • thumb
      Mar 1 2013: Selecting the null-hypothesis is somewhat tricky. The scientist must make sure that the null-hypothesis and the hypothesis are mutually-exclusive and, in combination encompass all possibilities. Typically, if hypothesis is "A", the null-hypothesis should be "not A".
  • Feb 22 2013: "I think therefore I am." Anything else can always be assumed an illusion.

    If your want to take that out of the equation, probably by showing that any change will disprove it, and showing that it holds its own without relying on assuming anything else to be true other than the fact that it is as it appears for all intents and purposes. Like, you can prove 1+2=3 by saying that 1+3≠3 as long as 1 is actually 1, 2 is actually 2, 3 is actually 3, + is actually +, = is actually =, and ≠ is actually ≠.
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2013: Check out this conversation I think you will like it

      http://www.ted.com/conversations/16464/after_learning_a_language_why.html
    • Feb 24 2013: Illusions fool the brain in to believing that, what is not there, is there.
      • Feb 24 2013: Ummm... Yeah. That's assumed common knowledge... So... Thanks? I don't really see what u mean to accomplish by posting that. I mean, I could find that out on Dictionary.com...
        • Feb 24 2013: I was just questioning your inference that "I think therefore I am" is not an illusion as well.
          I agree with you that our perceptions (beliefs) are at risk of being illusions (erroneous beliefs) even though our brain believes them to be real. Skepticism is healthy.
          Random thoughts: There is hope.Technology has increased our sensory capacity to "see" the world/universe, with microscopes, spectroscopes, telescopes, microwave discs and arrays, so that some illusions have been dispelled, but I'm sure many remain. Similarly Neuroscience is better understanding our brains and dispelling our erroneous beliefs in how it works.
          Proof exists in mathematics, I'm not sure it exists elsewhere with same rigor. Scientific method & Mathematics perhaps remain our best tools to provide answers to questions with a "proof" that many only be "good enough" for now.

          No offense meant.
          Allan
        • thumb
          Feb 28 2013: Allan sorry proof is not in numbers because I can show proof that numbers are theory/assumptions/and more like philosophy. Now binary that's a different animal

          Check out this ted convo
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html
      • Feb 24 2013: "I think therefore I am" is the only thing that remains when you strip all possibly illusions.

        Because the fact that you "think" means that somewhere a 'you' must "exist"... notice that it doesn't tell you anything about how you think or where you are or in what form 'you' are. Just that somewhere there must be a 'you' because how else could you think?
        • Feb 24 2013: Thank you for saving me time.
        • Feb 26 2013: The producer of the Illusion, this one who is experiencing the Illusion and and the Illusion itself ARE ONE.
          Famous "I think therefore I am" tells you , that the virtual reality created in a code is enduring as long as the code maker endures.
      • Feb 26 2013: Hi, Allan !
        Is there ANY possibility to get out of the illusion ?
        • Feb 26 2013: Possibly not ... but if the "illusions" lead to to "fitness" enhancing behaviors, it may not matter????

          Illusions might well "accurately" represent a brains (mechanistic) response to sensory inputs and perceptions and become memories represented by neurons/neural circuits/proteins, but do they accurately represent the world out side the body? If these illusions/beliefs lead to fitness enhancing behaviors, perhaps that is all we need.


          "Self" is an illusion ... cognitive neuroscientist Bruce Hood explore(s) the building blocks of what we experience as the “self” in The Self Illusion: How the Social Brain Creates Identity.

          "I think therefore I believe I am" This has proved useful.
      • Feb 26 2013: Re:" If these illusions/beliefs lead to fitness enhancing behaviors, perhaps that is all we need."
        Agreed ! :)
        Meaning is in the confrontation of contradiction - the coincidencia apositorum.
        Two opposites should not contradict to each other but resonate.
        Illusion- yes; but your illusion is real and matters.
        Something like this :)
        But i would distinguish 'self' from ' ego-self'. We can't avoid language ambiguity here, but how ego-self-illusion is possible without Self ? Self is something not existing but real, it embraces ego-self, not the other way round.
        Maybe there are ways to be aware of Self, but it's impossible to language it for language is a code and is the property of 'ego-self'.
        Thanks for the name (Bruce Hood ) i'll google it .
        Thank you !
    • thumb
      Feb 26 2013: Why do you think that thinking is not an illusion?

      It seems to me that "I think" needs to be stripped also. What remains is "I AM".
      • thumb
        Feb 28 2013: Which correlates to one
      • Mar 1 2013: Ow boy,

        Then what are you if not a collection of your thoughts?
        The logic is... that whatever you think is being thought by you, and because of that "you" must somehow "exist".

        Everything can be an illusion... but your thoughts put them to "your reality".
        We could be all controled by some computer which presents our "thoughts" with an image of a natural world where you have a body and can break bones etc.
        But the one thing that makes sure that a "you" exists is that what you think is somehow related to a "you".

        In yet another form... There MUST be someTHING (which is strongly related to 'someone' which is strongly related to 'you') to trick even if we are being tricked.

        Haven't you guys ever read up on "I think therefor I am"?
        It is a really fascanating idea...
        • thumb
          Mar 1 2013: Yes, I've read what Descartes said and I've read what Hume wrote about what Descartes said.
      • Mar 1 2013: You mean the Hume that sais: "You can't really say that one leads to the other as cause and effect are not clear"?
        Aka you cannot say that "I think 'therefor' I am" you can only say "I think and I am" in which case "I am" would be already the conclusion that Descartes was after?

        Descartes sais that "because you think. You can infer that you are" rather than "whatever thinks has to exist".
        There is no cause and effect needed there... Hume just imagined there to be because he was too busy with taking mathematical logic too literal.
        • thumb
          Mar 1 2013: Read "Criticisms" section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum

          Hume wasn't the only one to point out issues with this phrase. My point is that reason is quite useless when it comes to "self". All reasoning regarding "self" is circular. It's easier just to accept "I am" (our existence) as an unconditional self-evident truth, without reasoning, evidence, or proof.
      • thumb
        Mar 2 2013: According to Christian doctrine only God can rightfully be called "I Am." It is one of his names. (Exodus 3:14 KJV).
  • Feb 18 2013: As long as, when One ( start / original position ) becomes Two remains aware of the One - as one that made into / connection with One doesn't break / became the Two- there is no problem - Two , can do anything it likes , since being aware, it can easily converge into One- there is no problem. Problem may likely arise when forgetfulness factor gets introduced in One becoming Two equation. Humbly submitted.
  • Feb 18 2013: @Natashanikulina- These are not numbers but relative positions only with respect to each other - question with respect to answer or answer with respect to question may interchange positions from 1 to 2 or 2 to 1 . So it seems from Positional -relative perspective , non of these - 1, 2, 3 , 4 , anything or zero has a stability or no duration. On the other hand , these are dynamically interchangeable , equally powerful positional entities. When one repositions into another as 2 or 0 or 3 until complete convergence occurs into Oneness - repositioning may continue.;)
    • Feb 18 2013: Re : anything or zero has a stability or no duration.
      I am slightly synesthetic, numbers for me are not only " relative positions with respect to each other ". They have colour, texture, transparency. So 'stability' and 'no duration' for me is quite real illusion :)
      Thanks for your time !
      • Feb 19 2013: Understanding these as likely Illusion fades away when the connecting cord/ thread/path is known between these dynamically changing positional entities. Urright these could be colors, texture, sounds, shapes, any thing. Stability - longevity in duration / real knowledge is in knowing the path of connections/joining cords/threads.
        • Feb 19 2013: Charan ,
          I can't say , i understand you, but i agree with you :)
          Knowledge is a tricky thing.
          How true image( colour, texture...sound ) is ? I don't know, but i think, it's more true, if not explained.
          One more question, if i may.
          May i ? :)

          Maybe i have a kind of 'standing under' of how 1 is becoming many.
          But Why ? And How can the perfect equilibrium be broken without a push from outside? If there is any 'outside', 1 is not 1, but less/more.
          And how/why 1 comes into existence ?
          For me it's a Mystery and it's OK, but if you have something to tell , please, tell :)
          Thank you !

          edited

          Actually, i have a vague image :
          1 doesn't appear from 0, but goes through it when 1 becomes soooo many that it is condensed into 1 again and slips into 0 ...turning into 1...
          So the Whole is always in the state of departure while always arriving.
        • thumb
          Feb 20 2013: That sounds like a torus?
  • Feb 18 2013: By converging two into one ;)
    • thumb
      Feb 18 2013: But then you have to realize that those first 2 existed as truth which created the one that exist as truth which will create an equal but opposite truth bring it back out as 2 then it will converge into one again ad infinitum. See it reciprocal and as far as truth goes that's a lot to keep track of and try to predict its equal but opposite reaction to self/whole/one. This can be seen as your shadow, which is your equal but opposite of self. Light needs something to reflect off of. You would need an all seeing eye to keep track of all those truth and false to realize that they created each other this can be seen as magnetism in nature or +/- . Also when any axiom can be your begin and end how would you know the first one because it would be arbitrarily labeled as one. So it shouldn't matter were home or source or origin is because we are all one. Every home is home every source is source. Just like the reason why people feel so alone when they are surrounded by billions of people is because we are alone, for we are one. If humans ever got off this rock or found an alien race it would just be another infinite chance for potential or a manifestation of energy or simply us, we, it, I. For God alone works miracles. Because he/we/us/them/I/it whatever arbitrary label you would like to use is alone , for we are one. For every end there is a beginning. Its a circle but we can end the circle we have been discovering circles for far way to long. Just because we can end the circle doesn't mean this reality is going to stop existing because it is the equal but opposite of what it is to be "god". We have to create heaven on earth, for we create our reality. Because we are co-creator
  • Feb 17 2013: @ Danielle Swain

    Re your " I would have been bounced out of the class and sent to the dean of students for being a wiseacre."

    Well I would trust that the Dean is educated enough to understand Einstein's point that any ray of light ( a straight line ) send out will eventually return to its origin and therefore he would understand that there are no "straight lines"

    (Kind of like Casey's attempt at arguing right/wrong, come to think of it :-0 )
    • thumb
      Feb 17 2013: Question for you Ed,

      If we sent out that light as we are observing space like we study the stars, and the light comes back to origin to the back of our own head, how would you know it was your head?
      • Feb 17 2013: Casey

        since that principle is a 6th dimension principle .....were consciousness and light are one and the same ....how could it not know what it was??? ( ..or ...as you put it in your question... "comes back to origin"..)
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: Never heard of 6th dimension principle, had to look it up. The funny thing is you want to talk about separate dimensions , and then I can only assume that you want to talk about how we are one. And that we need to find source or origin. These labels as arbitrary just like the term "one" is if every axiom can be both beginning and end.

          Did you get a chance to join in on the ted conversation about zero or nothing or no thing.
          http://www.ted.com/conversations/13925/is_our_math_wrong_is_it_our_a.html

          It's binary code for nature. We got rid of the concept of zero or nothing or no thing as the starting axiom for nature (its more of a place holder (which can also be arbitrary)), because it can not be reached we can get infinity close but never reach it. Oddly enough if we ever did that reach zero it would make our physics equation for work be invalid. W=fd, if no distance traveled no work would be done. But all light can do is travel or move or do work. We also got rid of 2 since no 2 things can occupy the same space and the same time. And then ultimately we got rid of one, because it could be any axioms

          see also Charan Singh conversation above
  • thumb
    Feb 17 2013: in my experience answers are usually proven through the use of basic logic. Specifically axioms (which are things we assume to be true), we bring forward a number of axioms and these provide a person the basis from which to prove something in accordance to the fore mentioned axioms. If this is true then everything is based on basic assumptions and so knowledge can only be proven in relation to other knowledge or in most cases assumptions.

    In other words we can only prove something on assumptions that we can all agree are correct.
    • thumb
      Feb 17 2013: What if I use your personal logic to prove my answer

      (Joshua Kloppers personal logic)
      Or Joshua Kloppers basic logic or common sense

      Would you recognize it as truth
  • thumb
    Feb 17 2013: What is the question? Is the answer empirical or theoretical? A empirical answer is easier to prove than a theoretical answer, and theoretical answers can be impossible to prove.
    In the area of theoretical questions one can use Platonic logic or Aristotelian logic and come up with proof for completely different and opposing answers. It can get very confusing.
    This may help in the discussion:
    In complicated geometric or mathematical questions "proof involves reasoned, logical explanations that use definitions, axioms, postulates, and previously proved theorems to arrive at a conclusion about a geometric statement. A good proof has an argument that is clearly developed with each step supported by:
    Theorems: statements that can be proved to be true
    Postulates: statements that are assumed to be true without proof (for example, an angle has only one bisector)
    Axioms: self-evident truths or the basic facts that are accepted without any proof (for example, a straight line can be drawn between any two points)" from chegg.com a very interesting academic website.
    My background is the Arts most of the answers I seek have little or no proof and are fluid in nature, changing shape with a blink of the eye
    • thumb
      Feb 17 2013: What if I use your personal logic to prove my answer

      (Danielle Swain's personal logic)

      Would you recognize it as truth
      • thumb
        Feb 17 2013: Hi ya Casey ... not sure what you mean by "my personal logic" I mentioned Geometrical and mathematical logic; Platonic logic and Aristotelian logic. There are many systems of logic. Any claims I may make to have a "personal logic" most likely was derived from some system of logic long thought of before my birth. Some may conclude I cannot recognize a truth because I disagree with them or there logic. Others may conclude I cannot recognize a truth because they do not like me or what I say. I will go back to my first question: What is the question?
        • thumb
          Feb 17 2013: " I cannot recognize a truth because I disagree with them or there logic"
          I would be using your logic or your common sense to prove truth to you.

          So let me see if I can use logic and reason to show you how you need to use their logic and reason. To not prove them wrong but to show them that there is other truth. So you can pick any topic you want and any side of the said topic and I will debate the other side. See to get someone to believe what you say is truth you first have to understand their side as truth as well. Not that it wrong and it clearly might be(like anyone who would say oil is not toxic).

          It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle. ~ Sun Tzu Art of War

          Now it doesn't matter how the argument is going once I figure out how you came to your knowledge of truth I can figure out your thought "pattern" or common sense. Once I understand that I can use your common sense thats right your common sense to prove my information as truth. Not as I am right your wrong but just that there is other truth. Edited: I dont even need to believe that what I am trying to debate is truth or not, I just need to except that it can be

          And as far as Sub, object question go. I like to say that it's not that I think inside the box or outside of the box. I realize that its all box's and I try to think in all of them.
      • thumb
        Feb 17 2013: I am being miss quoted... the quote should read " Some may conclude I cannot recognize a truth because I disagree with them or there logic." George Carlin once said "The difference between the almost right word and the right word is the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning." Same holds true for quotations.

        But I am starting to get your gist.

        Okay here is a question: Will my conciseness survive the death of my body?
        I say no. Now prove me wrong.
        • thumb
          Feb 17 2013: Why do you say no if I dont know your reasoning I simply can not use your logic
      • thumb
        Feb 18 2013: My reasoning: ‘Inference to the best explanation’ since there is no empirical evidence direct observation or experiments that can prove the survival of consciousness or a “soul” after the death of the body ‘inference to the best explanation’ is the logical way to come to a reasoned answer. What are some the explanations?

        Consciousness is nonphysical it can transcend the body

        There are eternal ides and forms that are not physical like a perfect circle or justice thy can only be grasp by consciousness. Only something eternal and nonphysical can grasp something eternal and nonphysical. Consciousness is nonphysical it can grasp ideas and forms that are eternal therefore consciousness is eternal.

        After our death our parts still exist. Our consciousness is part of us so it to still exists.

        Our consciousness recognizes eternal ideas and forms even without every experiencing them. Our consciousness acquired this experience before our life in an eternal realm.

        Our physical brain manifests consciousness though it may take on properties of the nonphysical a blow to the head a lobotomy drugs or bran damage can severely affect consciousness.

        I will quickly run through them to explain why I picked the last one as the best explanation. I do not think I have to be eternal to grasp an eternal idea. I do not have to be a cat to know a cat. It is true that before my birth and after my death my atoms exist, but as for my parts my heart, my liver will stop working unless they are transplanted and still they only get one chance at that. My mind can extrapolate on ideas and forms I have never experienced in this life. This leaves me with the last explanation
        I brought up this question because it is very compelling. The question has been around for a long time in one form or another. Many great thinkers have pondered this question all their lives without coming to a solid or sound answer. I have no solid answer. Something of faith my be needed to gain peace with the question.
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: Is light physical?

          Also whats the question not one cannot figure out? How one can not be eternal can grasp something that is eternal?
      • thumb
        Feb 18 2013: Light is electromagnetic radiation the photon is the basic unit of any EMR. Photons are particles. Particles are physical. Therefore light is physical... I am off for sabbatical and will be away for a time. I enjoyed our discussion and I wish you well.
        Kind regards
        • thumb
          Feb 19 2013: Does your consciousnesses reside in a place external of your actual mind or do you think is the brain?

          Have a great time on your sabbatical
  • Feb 13 2013: To prove means :"to show that something is correct and never to be falsified." In math, depending on what you are talking about, there are several kinds of proof, of which I have insufficient knowledge. In scientific point of view, we can "almost" never prove anything and that is actually the rule. What we can do, however, is to say: "we find that this model holds for more than 99.99 % of the cases." Now this is a good starting point and others can build on this, and make other observations and relate their own findings to this and expand the field of human knowledge. But the small amount of error that we might have had in our model could also expand when assumptions are build upon other assumptions and create big errors in the end. So everybody is supposed to be very careful about what they add to science, so others could also use the assumptions in their models. Also very elemental to scientific view is the open-minded-ness towards other models that could predict the same phenomenon. Scientists try to find what model works, knowing that every model is probably not 100% correct.
    • thumb
      Feb 14 2013: Do you know what happens when you assume?
      • Feb 15 2013: Hi,
        When we think, a series of activities have to build up in our brain, so that the combination of newly emerged patterns could lead to something new, which is our conclusion, or next step of thought. When we assume, we put too much certainty in one of the pieces of the series, which could be false. It means that our final results could always be wrong. They could be right, and by right, I mean useful, because our perception of the world is not complete. Now, if someone claims that their result is absolutely and undoubtedly true, and will never be disproved till eternity (well, the extinction of humans) then they are claiming that they have not only a perfect perception, but a perfect machinery to deduce, and a perfect framework of thought in that machinery. One thing that evolution has shown us is that almost everything could get better. So I ASSUME that it means that assuming will get better in time, and so will deduction.
        • thumb
          Feb 15 2013: It's just I have been told my whole life that assuming makes an ass-u-me. And that my actions should be based on logic reasoning and knowledge. Then I grow up more and learn knowledge and I am told that anything I will ever be told will eventually be wrong and that this is called Science (which I love) but then science tells me that all knowledge is based on assumptions and that if we both don't assume the same assumptions the model wouldn't work. How does this make sense to you. Because it doesn't to me

          as·sume [uh-soom] Show IPA verb, as·sumed, as·sum·ing.
          verb (used with object)
          1.
          to take for granted or without proof: to assume that everyone wants peace. Synonyms: suppose, presuppose; postulate, posit.
          2.
          to take upon oneself; undertake: to assume an obligation.
          3.
          to take over the duties or responsibilities of: to assume the office of treasurer.
          4.
          to take on (a particular character, quality, mode of life, etc.); adopt: He assumed the style of an aggressive go-getter.
          5.
          to take on; be invested or endowed with: The situation assumed a threatening character.
        • thumb
          Feb 15 2013: Does this make common sense to you?

          The interesting things is, is if I had to answer my own question. This is how I would answer it:

          What would Jesus do?
          He would try to relate to the person, whether from his personal experiences or from someone else’s experiences/knowledge (parable). And respond with knowledge/wisdom that he would want to hear if it was he who came to them for help.
          That’s what Jesus would do.
          Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.
          If you imply this concept to the most fundamental parts of life you would have intuition.

          The hardest part about this is how do you relate to a person so it comes off as if the knowledge is from them selves. This is why is hard to do the "do unto others as you would have then do unto you" The answer has to be common sense. Not to the person (in this case Jesus) but to the other. It has to be their common sense not his.

          "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, who said it, no matter if I said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." ~ Siddhartha Gautama, founder of Buddhism

          But the best thing is, is that I had to start this conversation to know that. That it has to be common sense to other, to be seen as truth from their perspective
  • Feb 7 2013: You prove something by showing its contradiction is not possible. Watch some Sherlock Holmes.

    “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”
    • thumb
      Feb 10 2013: I whole heartily agree
      • Feb 14 2013: "contradiction is not possible."

        And yet water, can be liquid, gas (steam) and solid (ice).
        • Feb 16 2013: The law of non contradiction is: "a cannot be both a and non-a at the same time and same respect".

          A water molecule is always in the form of a solid, liquid or gas at any one time, but never a conjunction of any two or three at the same time.

          Does that make sense?
    • Feb 13 2013: but you cannot do it all the time. of course if you have a box and a ball, and your question is :"Is the ball inside the box?", you can look and if it is not inside the box your answer is "no". But you cannot look everywhere outside the box first, and if you didn't find it conclude :"well, the ball must be in the box then".
      • thumb
        Feb 14 2013: Ok so then what is plasma?
      • Feb 17 2013: Bahram,

        If the universe was easily searchable, then I think you could conclude that it must be in the box. The problem is that the universe is vast. But even still, if you looked in the box for the ball and saw that it wasn't there, it would be a contradiction to affirm that the ball is in the box at the same time as you saw that it wasn't. Contradictions affirm that a is a and non-a at the same time and same respect. So it would be a contradiction to affirm that some ball has the quality of being in some box, while at the same time not having the quality of being in that same box.
        • Feb 17 2013: Ever heard of a cat that was alive and not alive at the same time, quantum mechanics shows that some of our "assumptions" an
          Bout the physical world are not always as simple as we think
        • Feb 17 2013: I would have to say human knowledge is now still too little for us to be able to talk about quantum mechanics in terms of big things as balls, tangible to human perception. I do agree that some materials might have characteristics that we are not yet familiar with, but you should always look at how science progresses, and although you are welcome to make smart extrapolations and hope to find something by designing smart experiments, you are not at all welcome to throw ideas (and insist on them without any proof) into the idea-space (literature, internet, whatever media) and expect to be regarded as legit. Andrew: True, but indeed human logic takes its raw data from human perception, or extended perception (high-tech). and the sentence about A being A and non-A at the same time is a semantically wrong. You could however say A is a system which could be in two states (s and s') at the same time. Semantics are very important because they determine how you think about stuff. The problem is that people think they understand the exact meaning of theories like Shrodinger's cat and then come to strange conclusions, which leads us to Michael : I have heard of it, but never observed it. Whenever I looked it was either dead or alive. The subatomic particles however were and were not there (and by "were" we mean "observable"). Assumptions are dangerous. Testable hypotheses are absolutely welcome.
  • Feb 7 2013: No, B is not the question to the answer A, B is the question (experiment) you ask A to get the answer C. If you do not get C, A is the wrong person (hypothesis) to ask the question B. We then go back to the drawing board and find out what A should be in order for us to get C when we ask the question B.

    (This is getting confusing, haha)
    • thumb
      Feb 7 2013: A and B are both questions?

      A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

      Is an explanation an answer?

      ex·plain verb ik-ˈsplān
      transitive verb
      1
      a : to make known
      b : to make plain or understandable
      2
      : to give the reason for or cause of
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2013: . Personally I see mirrors and shadows as continuations of the original,in another form.
    • thumb
      Feb 6 2013: What do you know about light?

      If I shine a light in a mirror does it also reverse its signal? Or output like my image does?
  • thumb
    Feb 5 2013: My ole granny was wise beyond her years. She said .... the truth is in the pudding".

    According to engineers a bumble bee cannot ... or should not ... be able to fly ... yet it does.

    There is one fact that you cannot "disapprove" to me. My grand children are perfect. In this case thinking it so makes it so. Ah .. Ah .. not arguable. LOL

    Bob.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: So its belief and faith that make it real? Whether that be this "material" world or "spiritual" world?


      Yeah thing like that exist every where, thats why I love mythbusters so much.

      Like the bull in a china shop. Actually a bull is quite graceful in a china shop

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xzw2iBmRsjs
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2013: In the final analysis ... yes. We make a decision to buy .. believe ... or invest our faith .. in a product .. theory ... or person. The final decision is ours ... and we own it.

        I live in an area where there are tons of elk .. I am always amazed at how they can traverse through the thick forest so quietly with giant racks.

        Mythbusters are a hoot.

        Thanks for the reply.

        I wish you well. Bob.
        • thumb
          Feb 6 2013: "In the final analysis ... yes. We make a decision to buy .. believe ... or invest our faith .. in a product .. theory ... or person. The final decision is ours ... and we own it."

          It this why we have to choose a god to worship?
      • thumb
        Feb 6 2013: Casey, I do not think we "have" to chose a "God" to worship. We are a social animal .. we travel in packs / tribes / and are part of a culture. We join with those who we are most comfortable with or those who share our wants and desires.

        If you had no religion and Joe was your best buddy and you trusted him you would probally attend his church if asked or because you want to "share" in his environment the same as going out to games, dances, etc ... Hunters get along with hunters ... fishermen ... car enthusiasts ... etc...

        No one can make you chose or join ... we do it because we are social animals.

        That may not all be true ... but it is how I see it.

        Bob.
  • Feb 5 2013: "Proof", in the science community is word usually reserved for mathematics. When it comes to a scientific hypothesis, the only question that should be asked is, "Is this testable?" If it's not testable, it does not qualify as science, but mere speculation. Once it is established that the hypothesis is testable, the test is performed and the data collected. If the data corresponds to the original hypothesis, it then qualifies as a theory (that is, of course, slightly oversimplified). If it does not, the hypothesis is either disregarded or reworked and retested.
    That is to say, if i believe 'A' to be true, and then theorise that if i perform 'B' to 'A' then 'C' should occur (as with all science, this should be entirely blind) i can then test the action of performing 'B' to 'A'. If 'C' does infact occur then, to any reasonble person, i have, "proven" my hypothesis (again, oversimplified). If 'C' does not occur, then my hypothesis needs work.

    The point i'm trying to make is that in science, with the exception of mathematics, a theory is the highest form of evidence. No reasonable biologist would say that evolution by natural selection has been 100% proven. But it has been proven to the satisfaction of any reasonable person.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: Right but by definition isn't a theory something that can never be proven and that we are just agreeing to conventions or implied assumptions?
      • Feb 7 2013: Yes, thats's exactly what i'm saying. You're asking how we prove an answer. I'm saying we don't really "Prove" anything (unless we use maths). We just establish the likelyhood of something being true. We often use the word "proof" to mean substantial and overwhelming evidence.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: We start with A to be true as the answer

      Then we ask the question B

      If B is the question to the answer A

      We prove it if C happens

      Is the correct from your statement above
      • Feb 7 2013: No thats Wrong.
        B is not the question with the answer A. B is instead the question we ask A in order to get the answer C. If we do not get the answer C, it is clear that A is the wrong "person" (hypothesis) to ask. We then go back to the drawing board and try to adjust A so the when we ask it B, we get the answer C. When we do get C we know that A holds merit and can be called a theory.
        A theory simply explains certain facts. For example, we know that groups of a given species will evolve over generations, it's be recorded in data collection. Natural selection is the theory that explains the facts of evolution.
        Theories do not grow up and become facts.
    • Feb 8 2013: Man,
      "it has been proven [up] to the satisfaction of "

      I like this statement, really.
  • Feb 4 2013: "True" and "False" are simple and easy. Unfortunately, reality is not simple, not easy, and not "true and false".

    Everything you know is accompanied by a level of doubt/certainty. That level is sometimes conscious but most often it is unconscious. When you read a news article, watch a documentary, or read something here on TED, you consider the content and consider the source, and then decide how much to believe and how certain you consider it. You might rely on my opinions to influence some of your behavior, but you certainly would not rely on my opinions to decide on your own health issues, or health issues related to your family. That kind of behavior illustrates that certainty is not yes/no, not true/false, but relative. When considering very important decisions, we want the information that informs those decisions to be of the highest quality.

    So, what does "prove" mean to you? If "prove" means that a statement must be supported by evidence, to be completely certain, that is one kind of proof. If "prove" means that a statement must be shown to be probably true, that is a different level proof. In the USA, a criminal must be considered guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It is up to the 12 members of the jury to decide what is reasonable. That is one of the most important issues our society must decide.

    The "how" is usually the scientific method. Debate can also be a good method; our court system uses a form of debate.
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2013: To yourself, by accepting it as the truth. To others, by presenting it as their truth.
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: I accept as truth that you are wrong. Does that make you wrong?
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: Truth is a matter of perception. Not right and wrong
      • Feb 5 2013: Something is either true or false, even if we cannot prove it either way. How you view things, and how you feel about things has absolutely no bearing on the truth of the matter. Unless, of course, the matter in question is how you are feeling at a given moment.
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: but could words ever truly represent a feeling no matter how much poetic verbiage you use.

          No one could ever write or take a picture or paint a picture the would ever do justice to actually going and seeing the grand canyon for your self.
      • Mar 2 2013: "Truth is a matter of perception. Not right and wrong"

        Ouch! Look, if that's what you really believe, then for you no "answer" can ever be proven. Clearly, my dear, you do not love truth, just BSing.
  • thumb

    Gail . 50+

    • +1
    Feb 3 2013: I think that ultimately, all proofs are relative. I can say 1+1=2, and most people would readily agree with me. But a quantum physicist can show you that 1+1=3 or more. Proof is beginning to look rather contextual.
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: Can a quantum physicist SHOW me, or TELL me? Big difference.
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2013: I "THINK" that the proof offered for Bell's Inequality demonstrates this. Each entangled photon exists in its own time while they simultaneously exist in/of an unseen 3rd time that is in superposition. Thus 1 (entangled photon) plus 1 (engangled photon) = 3 or more. I've I'm wrong, please direct me to better answers.
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2013: There are lots of misconceptions non-scientists have about what quantum physics does and does not say. If you can get explanations from one, it's probably the best way of finding out what the science supports. No need to take it on faith.
        • thumb
          Feb 4 2013: There are lots of misconceptions scientists (not just non-scientists) have about what QP does and does not say. If I believed what every QP scientist said I would absolutely be taking it on faith because they can only TELL me, they cannot SHOW me anything. Mr. Lover said a QP scientist could SHOW me. I disagree with him, and apparently with you.
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2013: You are right that scientists in other fields will tend not to have expertise in quantum mechanics and yet sometimes believe they do. What I am saying is that actual scientists would not expect you to believe them just because they said so and you don't know their field.

        A specialist in this field knows what can be demonstrated and what can't and would be frank about that, in my experience.
        • thumb
          Feb 4 2013: I think I see your point that an ethical scientist (not redundant) would say "No. I cannot show you that because it is but part of an incomplete theory about how the Universe works. There is nothing to show you, even if you were able to understand what I was showing you (which I would not)." Boy, would that be refreshing to hear instead of false marketing of unproven theory as if it were scientific truth. Great question, Mr. Christofaris has asked.
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2013: Ed, I have now checked with an actual specialist in quantum physicist at a major university. Result: A quantum physicist would never make this claim to you by show or tell, because it simply is not true, unless you mean something like twelve eggs combine to make one dozen, or that two things sometimes reenforce each other (like the effect of two doses of something may be more, or less, than the sum of the effects of the two things individually because the combined effect is not linear). This latter is not related to quantum mechanics but rather to the fact that not everything is linear..
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2013: In this day and age of data soak there are more answers than questions.
    • thumb
      Feb 3 2013: There always have and always will be more questions than answers.
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: i am not sure i entirely agree. My gut wants to go with newton and say every action has and equal but opposite reaction. Thus creating a continuum of question and answers. However I know that one can answer a question a multiple of answers as well as ask a multiple of questions that result in the same answer
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2013: Google a Q then see what comes up, if it's one link then it would qualify for the Guinness book of records but it's usually a crap load of crap answers. There is only ever one Q asked of someone, the rest is just exploration on the fly.
      • thumb
        Feb 6 2013: The Q is the first serious question you ask someone you don't know very well pending on the rituals you've used to get to the Q and then the exploration begins.
  • Feb 3 2013: After Godel I am not sure.
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2013: To what kind of question?
    • thumb
      Feb 3 2013: That's the question isn't it
    • thumb
      Feb 3 2013: To all of them to none of them. Every truth can be proven false
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2013: Please prove the following statement is false:
        "Every truth can be proven false."
        • thumb
          Feb 4 2013: Because it validates and negates itself all at the same time giving it balance
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2013: I asked you to prove the statement is false. I did not ask about validating, negating or balancing. What is your answer?
  • Mar 1 2013: And that is why I am a Biology Major. :D