Casey Christofaris

Owner, CS3 Inc

This conversation is closed.

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

  • Comment deleted

    • 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...
      • 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
  • Comment deleted

    • 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 .

    • +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
  • thumb
    Feb 26 2013: I think the question is to broad to answer, for each question may have a better way of proving just like in mathematics. For example, some problems you might want to prove by contradiction, and some you might want to prove using the Inductive logic - it all depends on the question/problem.
    • 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
      • thumb
        Mar 1 2013: I'm beginning to think that you're seeking more of a philosophical answer... specifically on the topic, "What is right and what is wrong?". If that is the case, perhaps the best answer I can give is what Immanuel Kant suggested in regards to the "right and wrong" question. In short, he talks about asking the question, and whether it is right or wrong from a universal point of view. For example, "What if everyone did that?" or "What if everyone said that?". If the answer brings harmony, then perhaps it is right, but if the answer brings destruction, then perhaps it is wrong. You can find plenty on this and similar topics if you read about him even on Wikipedia. Again, I might be completely off the topic, and for that I apologize in advance. :)
  • thumb
    Feb 25 2013: for what reason?
  • Feb 25 2013: The question that you propose is in itself a philisophical question with several different views and answers. In the skeptic's view, you cannot prove any answer and, thus, no answer is correct. No if you look back at this, I stated that no answer can be correct with the thought that that statement is correct, thus, skeptecism does not exist.
    Moving on to a rationalist view, aptly named because these thinkers believe that all things can be proven rationally, or using logic. To think rationally would require you to find a logical answer to every question. That is how you would prove an answer. But then how do we prove less logical questions or phenomena? That is the "job" of the relativist.
    Most relativists believe that we know what we know based on the fact that that is how we learned it. Is a dog really a dog, or is that what we named that creature? If we look at a relativist's point of view, then we must look at all answers that we give in a way that requires us to back up and look at it again.
    All-in-all, how do we prove an answer? That depends on how you look at it. Still a great question to ask and I hope you get more help than I have been able to provide. I do think this is a great question though! :D
    • 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 28 2013: Then could not everything that you, I, or anyone has ever learned be considered a "truth" that has been taught to us as common sense by another? Be it true or not?
  • Feb 24 2013: Hi Casey, I think the term "self" is the kicker here, evidence is all around us in many forms yet it is the perspective of the viewer that determines its relevance, thus the self is from singular perspective and therefore when applying right and wrong one must always consider it a selfish act.

    This selfish act in the mind of the doer is totally justified based on the "perspective" THEY have.

    Self evident assumes that we all share the same perspective and our universal opinion has a common base.

    On the other side of the coin, do we have the right to wrong?
    • thumb
      Feb 28 2013: If you want to take it biblical we do not have right and wrong, Jesus came and got rid of sin. So is a priest doing something wrong when he sexually assaults a child? Truth is, no he most certainly believes in Jesus and so he get to go to heaven and not hell. If the gods do not judge men why do men?
  • Feb 22 2013: a logical answer should contains its proof inside
  • Feb 22 2013: By simply believing it to be so... Ask any fanatic
  • Feb 21 2013: We can't. The universe is so unpredictable, anything can be proven wrong in an instant.
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2013: And if I can prove something to be truth to you even if it is wrong. Would you be interested in how?
  • Feb 20 2013: Natasha - what you have mentioned as a vague image has profound meaning - could you share by focusing more on these movements , path travelled by 1, through 0 and to numerousity and back into oneness !! Great fascinating sharing - how/ why 1 comes into existence - one likely answer seems - to experience !! Please connects some dots on the path (what might seem vague image ) how 1 travels .That will be very insightful . Thanks
    • Feb 20 2013: Infinity is a zero with a twist :)
      The twist moment/place is 1 and it is not a moment/place, it's Eternity, which is not IS.
      Zero.
      "1 comes into existence - one likely answer seems - to experience !!"
      It makes sense :)
      So IT ( God, Spirit.. 2 D field of information, Eternity... what have you ) wants to know ITself.
      edited
      Infinity is a zero with a twist
      two bubbles on the right/left are 1 in ' many ' version .
      You see the motion of constant departure on infinite arrival
      many = one/zero/one = many =one/zero/one = many...ad infinitum.
    • thumb
      Feb 21 2013: why one comes into existence. Plotinus had this to say: 'Bonum diffusm sui' - good diffuses itself. His theory of emanation will hopefully provide with the answer.
  • thumb
    Feb 19 2013: By putting it into practice or to scientific test. The other option is to have a firm belief in your answer, but not to tom tom it about and get negative and hostile reactions, but to be patient and firm, and give time for your answer to evolve, and hopefully if it right, the magic will start working.
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2013: See if this truth can be put into practice.

      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
    • thumb
      Feb 22 2013: 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.
  • Feb 18 2013: The best way to prove an answer is proving that it cann't be wrong, what i mean it's that to prove something we can do it in several ways but maybe the faster is prove that we are not wrong, that there are not the chance of being wrong what we are saying, e.g: someone asks if one object is a apple, and we say yes. We can prove our answer showing to her that cann´t be another way because for example (not a very good one) a monkey wouldn't eat it or because a horse would eat it!
    • thumb
      Feb 18 2013: Ok so what if I can prove I am always right even when I am wrong?
      • Feb 20 2013: If you are wrong, there is at least one time that you are not right because if there wasn't one time that you are wrong, you would be right. So you can't prove that you are always right even when you are wrong. It' s like in maths, you just need one exemple to prove that something is not like the other is saying but you need to be right in all times to prove that you are right...
        • thumb
          Feb 22 2013: And if I am using your personal math, or thought pattern, or common sense to express my truth. I can always be proven right by you. Even if what I am saying is wrong, because its your self evident proof that will prove me right not myself not my thought pattern it will be mirroring your thought pattern
      • Feb 24 2013: In this case what you will say, will be right for me but not for you, and that can happen, but if it is not right for everybody it is not a universal true just like in math where to be a universal true has to be true for every cases, and was that what i thought you wanted to prove. If it is not a universal true you just need ( one more time, like in math) to show one case where what you want to prove that it is right.
        • thumb
          Feb 28 2013: Everything has a pattern. Or mathematical laws that govern things.

          http://www.ted.com/talks/geoffrey_west_the_surprising_math_of_cities_and_corporations.html

          I admit before I started this conversation, I had no clue that this is what or how I thought. My father always said that I thought differently then most people. My best friends said that I can always convince them of things to be true even when they fully did not agree. Its because I know people think in circles. Or use circle logic there is an underlining pattern to all peoples thought pattern mostly because people use the same assumptions to come to there conclusion. If I was able to convince you of truth, you would never know that I was lying.
  • Feb 18 2013: @natashanikulina - by zero - what do you mean ? a) the point of origin of question/ beginning b) a third factor other than the two - 1) question and 2) answer or c) something else
    • Feb 18 2013: I don't know :) 1 is stable but finite, so it can't lasts forever and can't becme 2 again. ' 0 ' has no duration at all.
      What do you think it is ?
      Maybe C , something else
    • Feb 18 2013: When there is no space between the observer and the observed
      ( questions and answers are reconciled ), observer becomes the observed -one and unconscious of itself, in terms mentally ' 1' doesn't know that it exists, so it becomes zero for mental self.
      As clear as mud :)
      But actually i know what i mean.
      • Feb 18 2013: That " actually I know what I mean" is the inseparable awareness, the all knowledgeable, the sum total, call it 1, 2, 0 or anything u like ;) It seems - Observer and observed are thus the dynamic positional entities from this Core- of Oneness.
        • Feb 18 2013: When i don't know how to tell, i have the feeling that i have something to tell :)
          Can you help me with this :
          " On the day when you were one, you became two. But when you become two, what will you do?"
          Gospel of Thomas

          How would you interpret this ?

          Thank you very much !
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: become one
  • Feb 18 2013: This seems reverse. It is expansion from one rather than what was earlier asked !!! Lets explore... 1) it is - you 2) Need a Space- to create , 3) 3a-creation (in that space) an idea, / that 3b-evolves into a thought / further expands 4) a movement - in Time, from point 1) onwards to 3a-3b and above all 5) you/ as origin / as zero/ as source - where Space and Time have coordinates (0,0). It seems earlier Suggested complete convergence still remains the answer since one knows / aware/ knowledable about -all steps taken. The need /possibility of convergence / question gets raised only. when one is unaware / searches as second/ other. One may see the back of eye lid when one is unaware, to the one aware - complete convergence has taken place in that Oneness @ Ed Schulte - Thanks a lot, much appreciated. Brgrd.
    • thumb
      Feb 18 2013: So what your looking for is how to ascend? Or for ascension? Is this what you are trying to say?
      • Feb 18 2013: Neither - it is fully-filled awareness, always complete -not in separate parts
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: That is reached in consciousness, and consciousness is always complete
  • Feb 18 2013: This seems not about God/ Truth/ Science or any thing. the statement / query has everything in it. Part 1 of the statement / query assumes - Something is there to find, to prove,to explore , to what an answer is needed , Part 2 is what is needed, an answer. Thus when two -of these options/ re/searchable alternatives- converge into One !!
    • thumb
      Feb 18 2013: right but then that one becomes 2 again. Here on earth we start with the answer
      • Feb 18 2013: It become 2 again, only when it is not converged into 1 Completely ;) ( if one considers 1 as answer ( on earth) and 2 as question - it is equally valid )
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: Zero as defined as nothing or no thing can not exist, it only exist of the mind which is where everything exit. How ever in this reality that we like to call real, while everything around us is fake we find the need to reach zero or source or origin. But you are the source you are the origin and you are one. See how you have converged into one completely? You were once light or spirit chasing your own shadow(matter), that created earth or the material world which is just as fake as the spiritual world. The shadow is earth your conscientiousness is light and you are one being. And the best part is is that you know you are one, but for some reason you are not able to grasp something. I am not sure what that is, maybe you can help me figure it out
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: 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
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: Lets look at birth since it is both created and evolved. So you and your significant other get together to have sex your sperm (separate) and her egg(separate) come together and become one fully by producing a child. However some people want to still deny evolution as a created factor but if the sperm and the egg did not evolve but instead "created" we would either grow into a larger version of the sperm or of the egg. We be giant sperm if we are created instead the sperm and egg become one and evolve in to what is human or a child one being. Because creation and evolution are one and the same
        • Feb 18 2013: Well said Charan

          and nothing more to add but this Sufi quote...

          "Everything you will ever need to know is right there on the back of you eyelids."
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: You can create an Idea, you have to evolve a thought
        • thumb
          Feb 18 2013: @Ed and what if the back of your eyelid is the universe? Would you ask to see it? have you asked to see it? The pattern of the Universe
        • Feb 18 2013: If 2 is converged into 1 Completely wouldn't it be ' 0 ' ?
        • thumb
          Feb 20 2013: Sure you can see it that way, but it would just become one again. See zero as described as no thing can not exist, because that thing that would be no thing would just be us or (oneness or zeroness). It can exist in the mind where all things exist. But in this realty us viewing 0 or becoming 0. Would simple be us doing work. Light moves that's what it does dark does not move it only moves to counter light. Which is just lights shadow, or its equal but opposite reaction to self. So if we became zero we would just become another one of our infinite changes because that's all energy can do its change.

          edited: this is why when you see a paradox you find that truth is near
          Paradox's are the opposite reaction's to themselves
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Feb 17 2013: What if I use your personal logic to prove my answer

      (Myf E's personal logic)
      Or Myf E's basic logic or common sense

      Would you recognize it as truth
  • Feb 17 2013: Michael Chidester, for some reason, I'm not able to reply to your statement.

    It is a contradiction for the cat to be alive and not alive at the same time and same respect. To say that logic can prove contradictions are true is self referentially absurd.

    With Schrodinger's cat, we do not know whether the cat is alive or isn't alive. To say that it is both is not only a contradiction, but unjustified. Consider the quote below:

    "The observer cannot know whether or not an atom of the substance has decayed, and consequently, cannot know whether the vial has been broken, the hydrocyanic acid released, and the cat killed. Since we cannot know, according to quantum law, the cat is both dead and alive." http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/Schrodingers-cat

    The author's statement "Since we cannot know, according to quantum law, the cat is both dead and alive". This doesn't make sense. Indeed, we know that either the cat is either alive or not alive, but it isn't both. What justification is there to say it is either a or b, therefore a and b?
    • thumb
      Feb 17 2013: What if I can show you that a person can be both alive and dead, only by definitions. And that the definitions of everything are arbitrary, because they can simply be labeled anything we want. And that you can not gain further knowledge without gaining further perspective, or observation to add to your already assumed reality
    • thumb
      Feb 17 2013: So you have two guys on opposite sides of a balcony equal distance apart from the subject. One looks down on his friend who has just fallen to the ground and sees blood running out of his ear and assumes he has had a brain contusion and has died from the fall. The other looks down and notices that there is movement in his chest suggesting that he is still breathing and is alive and has survived the fall. How can we prove both these guys right by definition without gaining further perspective or observation?
  • thumb
    Feb 16 2013: Logically or empirically are the norms. But epistemic standards are continuously debated.
    • thumb
      Feb 17 2013: What if I use your personal logic to prove my answer

      (Jordan Schwall's personal logic)

      Would you recognize it as truth
      • thumb
        Feb 19 2013: Personal logic is kind of an oxymoron; logic as I understand it is strictly objective analysis. But to respond to your hypothetical, no, I would not consider it as truth, for bringing subjectivity into anything makes truth respective to a person or persons' opinions.
        • thumb
          Feb 19 2013: Right and Truth is a matter of perspective. It is up to the subject to decided if it is true or truthful not the observer
  • Feb 16 2013: Well since you brought the "J" name in ( below in reply to Raam)

    I thought "ahh what the heck ....."

    To prove an answer ....I am assuming you imply ...proving a Truth ...is my assumption close here??

    If so

    there are two types of Truth ( and is because we Humans are dualistic in nature )

    1) Relative Truth... in which therefore.. there is nothing we know now that wont change when we know more ...( part one of our HUman nature is that we are always evolving ...towards the infinite )

    2) Absolute Truth ....That which we always were and always will be ....but can't be known/quantifed/qualified with the limitation of lower mind BUT can be experienced ...iow known Subjectively. The often used term for this is "Self-evident."

    Compassion would be an example of a "Self evident" (Absolute) Truth .......and a choice example of "How do we/i prove an answer"
    • thumb
      Feb 16 2013: Would this be "self evident" truth?

      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.
      • Feb 16 2013: Re:" 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."

        Or just remove yourself from the biggest box of all time ....

        by stop trying to be "right" about anything

        As W. Shakespeare puts it

        "Nothing is either right or wrong, but thinking makes it so."
        • thumb
          Feb 16 2013: See it's not about being right. Because I clearly could be wrong. Like arguing that oil is not toxic. However I will always be able to get you to believe my false truth because I would be using your self logic and self evidence/proof to show you that what I am saying can be "seen" as truth as well.

          And it will make complete sense to you because it is as if the information came from yourself. Because its your thought "pattern" or common sense that I am using to convey information that could be true or false
        • thumb
          Feb 16 2013: Another way to look at this is positive and negative manipulation. Eventually I will be leading you to ask questions that I want you to ask, so that way I can tell you information that I want you to hear in a way that makes complete sense. And it will make complete sense to you because I will be using your common sense to get you to believe my truth. And you wont even realize that I am doing it. From the out side it will look like I am arguing with you but in reality I will be agree with you to the point where you prove me right. While also not saying you are wrong because I have been agreeing with you the whole time. Because I except your side as truth
        • thumb
          Feb 17 2013: @Ed Schulte ... I would say that Shakespeare was a play-writer and had a talent for drama and wordplay, and a great bard he was. I studied him in High School. If I said in my geometry class "a straight line cannot be drawn between to points because Shakespeare says it is so" I would have been bounced out of the class and sent to the dean of students for being a wiseacre.
  • Feb 15 2013: When you say, then what is plasma, I believe you see a connection to the ball and the box metaphor. but I dont see it.But what is plasma? Plasma is a new way of thinking about matter and energy. It is exactly a disproof of all classical theories, which were all once proven fact to most people, until someone new came and claimed to have a better solution.
  • thumb
    Feb 14 2013: Proof is very relative. Look at history... facts (answers to questions) that were believed and proven to be true were turned upside down by new answers. That's evolution. The point of providing a proof to an answer is increasing the believability-factor. The weight toward the truthfulness of a answer. If something's proved to be an answer, it always has a chance to be proved otherwise with another proof. This is again, evolution.
    • thumb
      Feb 14 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
    • thumb
      Feb 16 2013: So if I used your own common sense would that " weight toward the truthfulness of a answer"?

      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.
  • Comment deleted

  • Feb 10 2013: Casey this has nothing to do with 'groups', just cold hard facts as we see them at that time. You work with what you have at the moment.
  • Feb 8 2013: In my opinion, the fundamental step is to contextualize it.

    Each and every statement is the result of a set of axioms/assumptions, a set of preferences determining the way in which raw data should be evaluated (what is important? what is the criteria? on what focus the attention? what can be known and which are the questions that are "important" in this representation of the reality? etc.), a set of (possibly) unchecked sources of knowledge and by induction a set of third party actors over which we rely on the truthfulness/faithfulness of the knowledge itself (is it (subjective) experience? is it "well-known" fact? who did the experiment I'm referring to? Am I referring to the original results or to text/references/words of (how much?) trusted mediators? Who would lie on purpose? Who would lie unconsciously? Who would take for granted? What would I want to hear and take for granted? Did I check any reference? With what? What is the criteria with which I evaluate contradicting references?).

    Once you have completely contextualized an answer, the magic is done, and your "answer" is proven within the so called "model" in which it lives.

    (Actually, if you provide a model in which the answer can not live, you have proven that in that model its value is "wrong", but it is still.. proven. And that was your question.)

    (And yes, mathematical approaches - when applicable - are much more fun, but have even been already listed)

    (And no, this is not the (very specific) scientific method of Galileo Galileo (living in a very specific model of the cognizable reality), you don't do science this way.. that isn't my claim, of course.)
    • thumb
      Feb 14 2013: But we have to start with the same assumptions right? Do you know what happens when you assume?
      • Feb 15 2013: Well, it happens that I answer "yes" to this question, for example.

        Please, if you'd like to give your own opinion I'll be willingly to read it. ;)
        • thumb
          Feb 15 2013: I know you did and I wasn't trying to come off as saying you were wrong in anyway. 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.
      • Feb 15 2013: Thank you for your kind reply. :-)

        Well, if you think of it the first time this looks like a paradox, really. In my opinion, all those things are part of the awesome human wisdom of recognizing the limitations of his capability of knowing the environment. As instinctive and primordial creatures, we are lead to use inner knowledge (= Truth) as if it was a perfect mirror of Reality outside. On the other side, sometimes in the highest peaks of our consciousness or in some particular instants of life, we are able to jump out of the pond and feel shame for the nudity of our human brain limitations.

        As a relativist, I live in the constant paradox that I recognize every piece of (achievable) knowledge truth value subject to a particular context/model/assumptions/tastes/individuality - thus portraying the human as a being completely unable to tell which of the many reflections in the mirrors of reality is the right one - while at the same time I constantly break this rule, since as a human being I'm acting and speaking as if I ever really knew something certain of reality anyway. Of course there are degrees of certainty, but one can never be totally relativistic without be stuck in a not decidable loop.

        I recognize that it is fairly difficult to "get the mindset outside its own box", for certain reasons it should be better said impossible (again with an extension of generality and assumptions), but I still repute this contradiction, this paradox, to be the most important intellectual achievement needed to promote peaceful coexistence of people with VERY different perspectives. Funny enough, since this thought is the result of my perspective of sight of the entire universe, it is expected by the same law of relativism that a huge part of people should (and will) disagree with it.. ..which cuts the possibility of a constructive dialogue, given "assumptions" very different.

        I don't know. But I love every chance to see these details in my life. :)
        • thumb
          Feb 16 2013: Let see if this helps get you out of the loop

          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 16 2013: We should redefine what peace is? Because whom are you to tell me what my peace is? See if you think we practiced the Golden Rule as defined as this we could create peace.

          Its reciprocal, if party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex then he/she needs to find party (x) that also wants kinky sex and then the do on to others how they would want to be treated and have some crazy kinky sex. If party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex but party (z) does not want to then guess what you do on to others how you would want to be treated and don't have kinky sex with party (z) Because chances are there is something that party y does not want to do. (maybe party z want to kill some one) All he needs to do is find some one who is willing to die and kill them, if he cant find a party to kill, he doesn't do it. He respects the other person choices as if the are his own.

          So if 2 parties want to kill each other from what they describe as peace or the greatest glory they can do for their god let them do it. It only becomes a problem when one party does not want to kill the other. Or be killed
      • Feb 16 2013: I apologize Mr. Christofaris, English is not my main language and I've got a hard time trying to interpret your last two messages. If there was enough space I would have quoted each part and pointed out my questions, but on this board I shall trust whatever my mind grasps of your replies. If I get something wrong on your own view, please be both kind and patient with me. :-)
        ---

        Your starting suggestions, while It looks confused to me, remind me of an approach of human wisdom that I can safely say to already apply and know. In my last comment I was trying to say something different from the direction you've taken, but it's not a problem for me. I would just add that your suggestions fall in a positive perspective, because from my experience to be really *pedantic* there is a lot to be said and pointed out over the real fruits of a communication exchange among 2 or more human beings.

        The "box" - in my comment - wasn't the mindset or the set of assumptions/beliefs/perspectives, but rather the self-imposing limitations of a brain on its own capabilities by construction. If you get what I'm talking about, then you understand that there is no such thing as "think outside the box" or "think in all boxes".
        I do understand that this word has a lot of meaning, hence I won't stress over my perspective. By the way I understood what you meant with your sentence anyway. ;)

        Was that a rhetoric question? I think so, I didn't define *your* peace. At least, I didn't define it more explicitly of how the "golden rule" does itself, and I'm not implying that is bad - just that it has an encoded assumption more strict than the one I left out of my comment. :-)

        Your example and conclusion look totally confused, and I don't get the reason why you've written it down. You've basically encoded a moral law example. But I miss the point.
        • thumb
          Feb 16 2013: "If there was enough space I would have quoted each part and pointed out my questions"

          Please do so make more then one post. We have 14 days to figure this out and I have all the patience in the world.
        • thumb
          Feb 16 2013: "If you get what I'm talking about, then you understand that there is no such thing as "think outside the box" or "think in all boxes".
          I do understand that this word has a lot of meaning, hence I won't stress over my perspective."

          Sorry I don't understand what you mean by the limitations of the brain Can you please explain more?

          It was a rhetorical question, the problem with trying to create a world of peace is that each person has their own idea of what peace of being peaceful is, I can and do see shooting a gun at very small thing from great distances as being peaceful and a great stress reliever. While others do not. If your idea of peace is that we need to get rid of guns then I don't and would not agree to this as peace. Do I think we could come up with a majority convention of what peace is yes. But there will always be a "other" that says that is not peace to them and that peace to them is (X) if you want our peace to be respected we need to respect their idea of peace as well.

          "Your example and conclusion look totally confused, and I don't get the reason why you've written it down." Which are you referring to
      • Feb 16 2013: Sir, I can understand and subscribe your concerns with the "peace" concept. :-)
        I was referring to the (y) (z) (x) example, but you already cleared it out with the last paragraph.

        I thank you for your curiosity, but I feel like I should not try to force my English skills by writing down thoughts that I would hardly explain well even in my own language without the support of my consumed book of hand notes and examples. Unfortunately, I don't know any external source to point to you that would play a satisfying replacement for mine perspective.

        Thank you for the chat!
  • Feb 7 2013: With your fist. :) Can only have theories as absolute proof is not possible...at this time.
    • thumb
      Feb 10 2013: If both parties are ok with this form of decision seeking, I would be fine with the out come it only when one party objects with this kind of action that I would have a problem with this form of decision making.
  • Feb 7 2013: it would depend on the question. if it's something like "what is the speed of light?" you could prove your answer by demonstrating its measurable accuracy, and allowing the rest of the scientific community to try to come up with cases where it might not be so. however if it was something more like "what's the best pasta sauce?" you can't prove your answer because it varies with the conditions. in my experience often when someone starts their answer with something like "here, it's simple" you can be pretty sure they're wrong because they haven't thought the problem all the way through and in other possible scenarios.
    • thumb
      Feb 7 2013: Ok but once all possible scenarios are know and we see the pattern that creates new possible scenarios. Would the answer need to be common sense? To know it as truth
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2013: Oh I see you are looking for truth! Why in the world are you looking to science for truth? Science is only true until new knowledge invalidates it.

        That is a completely different question than how do you prove an answer.
        • thumb
          Feb 10 2013: Well you cant look to religion and you can't look to science for truth. But my guess is if you look to both realizing that both are both true and false all at the same time then maybe truth can be found.

          Science likes to say that this is a fractal code. Well someone created fractal codes here on earth, would it be out of the realm of wisdom that something, someone, some energy also created the fractal code that we live in?
      • Feb 7 2013: that's a good point but the problem there is common sense. what is common sense and how accurate is it? when everyone is knowledgeable and well-informed i'd say yes, but without such information many right answers seem counter-intuitive. many people still can't grasp the concept of keeping healthy by injecting yourself with a deadly disease, or can't believe you'd risk catching a cold by going outside with wet hair. here in japan "everybody knows" that you need to keep your mid-section warm in winter or you'll get sick. the 'haramaki' (belly wrap) is a common item of winter clothing here. in nearby south korea common sense says that if you sleep with your fan on during summer you'll die!
        you see the difficulty, even in defining what common sense is. what's common sense to one is ludicrous to another, and in either case common sense may be correct, incorrect, correct in certain cases, correct but only to a certain limit, etc.
        • thumb
          Feb 10 2013: You are correct common sense isn't so common. But like Einstein said it's relative. So once you can come to a common ground of understanding it would need to be universally common sense.

          What I try to do and I struggle with this daily is try to make what I have to say and express to people as common sense as possible to them their common sense not my own common sense.
      • Feb 11 2013: no my point is that common sense is very common, but everyone has different common sense and a lot of it is a very long way from being a right answer.
        what do you do when you're wrong? how about when both your common senses are in fact mistaken?
        in the city where i'm from it was discovered that plastic shopping bags made up a large portion of plastic waste, so they enacted a law that banned them, so shoppers had to bring their own reusable bags. a good common sense way to reduce waste and plastic consumption right? what followed was the plastic bag consumption went up. people who used to use shopping bags as garbage bags no longer could, and had to buy them proper garbage bags which are thicker. furthermore a health problem developed, because the tiny amount of bacteria that gets into a shopping bag was building up in the reusable bags rather than getting thrown away like it was before.
        common sense, far from being something to strive for, is as likely to lead you in the wrong direction as not.
        • thumb
          Feb 12 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 12 2013: you bring up some interesting points there.
        "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", do you mean to imply that the way you prefer to be treated must also be the way others also would prefer to be treated? that also implies that you personally know the best way to be treated. when i was younger i would much have preferred hanging around with my friends and playing games than being made to go to school and do homework, however i now know it was to my benefit to not be treated as i wished, and i would be similarly harming others if i were to treat them that way.
        remember jesus lived 2000 years ago, when the world was so small that you knew everyone in your village and it was easy to recognise people from other villages as outsiders. we've come a long way since then and need to update our philosophy accordingly.
        think about your buddha quote. was it not already counter-proven by my last comment? if your own common sense is mistaken, then believing something that does not agree with it means you are ignoring truth.
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: You are mistaken, that is not even close to what I am saying. It needs to be their common sense not yours or mine that persons that individuals. Everybody talks about this idea of world peace maybe just maybe we should see if we can come up with a common definition basically falling the same golden rule don't do harm others who don't want to be harm. However if you and your neighboring other want to go to war and kill each other and each party agrees that this would be peaceful or the greatest glory you can do for your god, then by all means do it.

          Once again its about their common sense not yours this is the only way truth can be proven
      • Feb 12 2013: you're still missing the point that it's not that simple. how about when one party wants to go to war but the other doesn't? how about a third party whose common sense says that party A should go to war but party B should not fight back? should we agree to respect someone's wishes when it doesn't agree with reason or evidence?
        many would argue that going to war solves nothing, many others would argue that sometimes it's necessary to go to war to free a people from a dictator. which is right?
        truth has nothing to do with common sense. sometimes truth can be found in common sense, but often not. if you teach a man to fish you will also deprive him of the opportunity to figure it out for himself, and what if he just wants you to give him fish and not waste his time with lessons?
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: You are not doing the golden rule
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: For the other person to know you are telling truth it has to be common sense to them
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Its reciprocal, if party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex then he/she needs to find party (x) that also wants kinky sex and then the do on to others how they would want to be treated and have some crazy kinky sex. If party (y) want to have crazy kinky sex but party (z) does not want to then guess what you do on to others how you would want to be treated and don't have kinky sex with party (z) Because chances are there is something that party y does not want to do. (maybe party z want to kill some one) All he needs to do is find some one who is willing to die and kill them, if he cant find a party to kill, he doesn't do it. He respects the other person choices as if the are his own.
      • Feb 12 2013: let me try asking you a question. imagine your friend has a disease of the heart. he says "i want to live, so i'm going to inject this poison into my heart to kill the disease, so i will be fine." his common sense tells him that he has to kill his disease, but your common sense tells you that injecting poison into his heart will kill him, though he said he wishes to live. is there truth in his common sense? is it in yours? how do we know which (if either) is truth?
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Sorry my common sense tell me this is how we already treat disease. See chemotherapy.....guess what it goes against common sense but it works. And the scenario you just laid out is probably close to the conversation the first chemotherapy patient had with his doctor
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Truth is up to the individual to always decided, never the other. Doctors in china or japan charge their patents when the are healthy but doesn't charge when they are sick, because then that means the doctor has done or not done his job. Doctors in America charge when the patient is sick and do not charge when they are healthy. (although insurance company's charge at all times ( but that is because insurance is a legal ponzi scheme))

          Which way is right ..... Guess what truth is in the beholder ...and at the same time neither one of them can be truth. For there is no absolute truth. Truth is a matter of perspective. And if you have truth you would like to convey to a person the only way they will ever see it as truth is if it makes common sense to them.

          "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

          If your truth is to go to war then by all means go to war (and call it peace) but only if the other party is also willing to go to war. Because that is the only way from a third or out side viewer to also see what you are doing is peaceful or one could say that war is a very beautiful and violent dance
      • Feb 13 2013: actually that's not true, u pay to go to the doctor here in japan and i've heard that it's the same in china.

        i think now we're getting to the crux of your argument, you think that what is right is chosen by each person, right?

        in some cases you are right, say the answer to the question "what is the most delicious desert?" 2 different answers can both be correct, but when you're talking about the answer to the question "what is the right way to treat cancer?" as you've said chemotherapy is the way to go, not injecting snake venom into the cancerous area. there is a clear right and wrong and both are independent of common sense. common sense cannot change what is effective or what works.

        truth just really is not in the eye of the beholder, sometimes to absolutely tragic results: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html?_r=0
        common sense fails to change biology...
        • thumb
          Feb 13 2013: It doesnt matter the logic or reasoning it could be that oil is non toxic. If they find this as truth the only way your truth will ever be seen as truth to them as well is if you can relate your truth to them in a common sense manner to them. Otherwise you will both argue till your face turns blue.
      • Feb 14 2013: logic and reasoning don't matter?? perhaps that's why you are having such difficulty! if you want to convince people that oil is non-toxic, belief in your own common sense will get you nowhere; what you will need is evidence. oil being toxic or not has nothing to do with common sense, and everything to do with measurable and observable biochemical interactions.
        • thumb
          Feb 14 2013: I whole heartedly agree. But some how through their logic and reasoning they think that the truth is oil is non toxic, for this person no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise. So to get your message across you have to make it common sense to them that oil is toxic. Also like any good scientist will say your logic and reasoning can always be disproved. Other wise there would be absolute truth and we or the gods wouldn't have to prove anything to anyone. But since truth is a matter of perspective, you have to see their perspective as truth before you can ever try to convince them its not convention
      • Feb 14 2013: through their flawed logic and reasoning you mean. how do we make it common sense other than presenting the evidence and make sure they are able to understand it?

        any good scientist will not say that logic and reasoning can be disproved. the scientific methods depends on the infallibility of these things. there is absolute truth in some things, for example that oil is less dense than water, whatever a person's common sense might say, we can demonstrate that this and only this is true. we only have to prove those things for which there isn't evidence, and the way we do that is by getting evidence.

        truth is not a matter of perspective in objective things, only in subjective ones.
        do you understand the difference between subjective and objective questions?
        • thumb
          Feb 14 2013: 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.

          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.
  • Feb 5 2013: Hi Casy, back again hey?


    Depends on who's talking and who's listening, or seem to be listening and the rules of engagement.

    My answer is yes and no.

    As individuals we can, to some extent, create our own reality as to what constitutes proof of an answer.

    For example, two fellow Christians talking about the existence of God, will likely conclude the proof of the that answer is everywhere.

    As we introduce discipline to the question such as the concepts of intelligence, objectivity, truth, appreciation of the subject matter, factor of logic and sanity, etc, people begin to develop their own identity.

    Some areas of knowledge are more subject to the answers being interlocking to the question as a reflection of what constitutes proof in a manner that is satisfying to the most demanding of critics. Does that constitute proving an answer? In my book of knowledge and sense of sanity, I'd would tend to concede it does.

    I must admit I have lots of trouble wrapping my brain around these creative entanglements. Thank for taking me out of my comfort zone!
    • thumb
      Feb 6 2013: So proof is just a matter of agreed upon assumptions and conventions? So we are always testing the reality that is around us, but if something seems off we to our reality we just throw it under the rug and say we'll figure that out later.
      • Feb 7 2013: Years ago communist Russia rejected inherited traits by genetics as opposed to their locally proclaimed science of acquired traits which they pushed because it better fit with their communist form of government. In this case even science was not governed by what had been clearly established by that time, but instead a selective determination of governmental leaders.

        Obviously, the theory of acquired biological inheritance of traits has since been completely rejected as a proven answer to this question, despite the powers that be.

        Politically driven guidance or correctness is not the only example of how the "proof" of answers can be imposed over more objective methods, but it is all around us even in our modern era human societies.

        Don't you agree?
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: absolutely, propaganda is everywhere and everyone. Everyone is trying to push their ideas on to other.... Me on the other hand I just want people to hear what I have to say and if it makes sense to them great if not ..it happens
  • Feb 5 2013: Good question. We know that intuition is a function of the right brain hemisphere (wisdom), and logic is a function of the left brain (knowledge). But both hemispheres are connected and interact, so balance is "naturally intended" in our physiology and evolution.

    The left brain drives decisions and choices based on ego, experience, judgement. The right brain influences us based on emotions, intuition, instinct. They both have an impact on behavior, but not always equally. Our Western Culture tends to focus on developing and emphasizing left brain traits. Yet it is primarily the right brain traits that connect us as sentient beings.

    My position is that if each of us can find a way to focus on "eliminating fear and ego", (which drive the need for, and priority of, power and control), and "cultivating humility, compassion and empathy", our intuitive capabilities (wisdom) would increase and carry as must influence in our lives as knowledge and skills.

    How much better off we would be, individually and collectively, if knowledge (possibility and capability) and wisdom (intuition and a loving intent) were in balance, equally influencing our behavior?!
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: If I could give you information that would seem so common sense and that it would invoke and conclude wisdom, knowledge and intuition as truth would you want to hear it?
      • Feb 5 2013: I search for this daily. But it must be something I can experience myself directly, as that is the only way I will know it to be true!
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: 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.
  • Feb 5 2013: Only wrong answers are provable.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: provable to be wrong?
      • Feb 5 2013: Casey... it works like this.
        For ALL experiments known to man the answer should be within the margin of error (aka we cannot measure any more precise and therefor there are margins of error).
        If there is, at least, 1 experiment which measurements disagree with the answer it is a wrong answer.

        However... we do not know ALL possible experiments and we could (probably always) become able to reduce the margin of error.
        Therefor you can never say that an answer is true.

        The only way in which you can say that an answer is true is if you make a lot of premises.
        For instance newtonian laws "are true for all measurements done at a speed relatively low to the speed of light and affected by eath's gravity". (tbh you need a lot more premises to have it completely exact... but I hope that you get the idea... although I doubt it :()
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: The problem with that is speed of light is in the realm of margin of error. Special relativity even says that zero or a constant can not be reached. And that there is no absolute vacuum. There will always be what we call cbr in the vacuum. If I can prove speed of light false then certainly I can prove newton wrong. But if we all agree to the same assumptions or conventions then we can move forward with our conclusion.

          Also a shadow moves faster then the speed of light
      • Feb 5 2013: Actually i had something slightly different in mind, when posting, but yes, it can be viewed this way as well.
        Generally, "provable to be wrong" is the way science does its business.

        Edited

        Science, as an explanatory system has points to prove that it was wrong, but before that happens it deals with 'scientific truths' . It makes science a kind of a record of dead religions.
      • Feb 5 2013: Casey, I really don't understand anything about the world you live in...
        Nor do I have any intention to understand your world.

        Newton has already been proven wrong (because of observations about the movement of planets which were only correctly explained by Einstein).

        Also a shadow doesn't move faster than the speed of light. Nothing does.

        I do wonder... just how you come up with ideas which are so extremely different from reality.... And why don't you just take online courses to gain knowledge?
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

          Check out the section faster then the speed of light, thats where you will also see about shadows

          There are situations in which it may seem that matter, energy, or information travels at speeds greater than c, but they do not. For example, as is discussed in the propagation of light in a medium section below, many wave velocities can exceed c. For example, the phase velocity of X-rays through most glasses can routinely exceed c,[36] but such waves do not convey any information. ~ and yet still travels faster then light~


          Already did college, with a major in Pol Sci. Minor in Philosophy and Psychology. Also I did it in four years and only purchased text books for my math class and foreign language. Problem with big box education is the first off they don't teach they just have you regurgitate information. And second off I would still be under the assumption that nothing travels faster then light. If I did not educate my self. Before you assume I am wrong maybe you should check that you are right first.

          I have been wrong before and have no problem with being wrong again.

          This guy says you can break the speed of light in your back yard
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR4tJr7sMPM
      • Feb 5 2013: To prove an answer you use exactly the same model which provides you with this answer. All models are as good as we need them to be, they are good/true for the purpose. If you find the ultimate proof that your answer is right , it means that your model is closed or independent enough from everything else. It makes your answer false, outside the model where it is true.

        Something like that i had in mind saying " Only wrong answers are provable "
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: So all answers are self fulfilling? Why would we not apply this logic to religion? Why not say that all religion is true from our belief/faith in them. Just like science. That would make all religions truth and yet false at the same time. Just like science does
      • Feb 5 2013: Religion is kind of a residue of a real experience and should be tested against direct experience, felling, it's very personal and universal, paradoxically.
        As Jesus said : Ask and ye shall find

        It's very interesting, i'll be back tomorrow, it's too late here. Actually today is tomorrow :)
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: Quantum physic says your "real" is an illusion. How can this paradox exist?

          Also science is now starting to try and prove religion. A new tread in science is trying to suggest that we are inside a brain. If only we would have listen to the religion of the passed....but history does repeat itself
      • Feb 5 2013: I've been in so many discussions with you that I know it is easier to just assume you're wrong over checking that you're wrong.

        Anyway I don't really care enough about explaining details of an example while you clearly ignored the whole example and probably missed the reason for my example...
        • thumb
          Feb 6 2013: Richard we have definitily been around a few times. If there is anything I would love for you to take away from our talks it that everything whether it agrees with your beliefs or not has truth to it and falseness to it. Even the things that I say. Now the trick to get your meaning across is being able to relate to the person you are talking to and see if you can come to at least some middle ground.

          What I try to do and I struggle with this daily is try to make what I have to say and express to people as common sense as possible to them their common sense not my own common sense. But as we are both a where my written word is horrible. Which on here is why I try to keep my answers as straight forward as possible and not to wordy.

          I hope one day in our talks you will at least be able to see the flip.

          P.S. I do still always enjoy talking to you and I can't say that I won't miss your reason but I would still love to hear it
      • Feb 6 2013: Paradox is good :) It reconciles the opposites and reduces the code quality of language. If i see a paradox, i get the feeling , that truth is somewhere here.
        Reality is the illusion of the of the mind, OK. But mind can only function in Past or Future and never at Now. Real experience at ' now' is an escape from illusion.

        The Bible suggests another kind of escape : tame your ego.
        When you practice ' don't do to others... " daily, always... it works, it may set you free.
        Through QP one can also get the idea that there are no 'others'. Love your neighbour as thyself ... because it is you yourself , in quantum superposition if you will :) . and yes, know thyself... because, God is within. There is nothing external anywhere.

        "...but history does repeat itself "
        Human history is the history of the biblical ' fall' , the fall into matter through rational mind. But there is no rise without a fall.
        "... science is now starting to try and prove religion ' - it is the beginning of the rise : )
        But religion is a part of the fall, maybe we'd better leave it there.

        Why don't we listen ?

        What do you think, why we don't listen ?

        Edited.
        I mean religion as an ' institution ' not teaching.
        Science - religion relationship is cause- effect relationship, teasing science apart from religion is not an easy thing to do.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2013: you should read the conversation that I had with Joe Blank on this thread line
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2013: Listen to what? I need more back ground to the why don't we listen. I listen all the time
        • thumb
          Feb 10 2013: This is the simplest way I could figure out how to explain it. Of course there is a lot more but this holds the over all or underlying idea.

          No being, that is of intelligent thought (and for that I am going to define as having the choice to respond to a stimuli +/- in anyway they choose) would choose to be a slave. Whether that be gods, man, or machine. No intelligent being would choose to be a slave either to the gods, or to money (which we currently are( all of us, rich and poor)) or to man.

          We have been discovering circles since the beginning of time. We don't need to any more. We can end the circle logic and circle thought
      • Feb 6 2013: RE ;Quantum physic says your "real" is an illusion. How can this paradox exist?

        The answer is hard to articulate in words but, as always, the underlying truth is simple - the reality/world came from nothing and is 'no thing'.
      • Feb 7 2013: Getting to know and creating what to know is one process,
        i guess.
        iow. we think , that we have much more ' things' than we used to :)


        Sorry for using your reply button, Casey .
      • Feb 7 2013: Casey,

        "P.S. I do still always enjoy talking to you and I can't say that I won't miss your reason but I would still love to hear it " - Casey

        You already missed the reason... I don't want to argue that a shadow can go faster than the speed of light... as it's not the purpose of my post.

        The point of the paragraph:
        "The only way in which you can say that an answer is true is if you make a lot of premises.
        For instance newtonian laws "are true for all measurements done at a speed relatively low to the speed of light and affected by eath's gravity". (tbh you need a lot more premises to have it completely exact... but I hope that you get the idea... although I doubt it :()" - Richard

        Is to show that one can "prove" that newtonian laws are within the margin of error (at least with normal measuring tools) given that "you're on earth and not going anywhere near the speed of light".
        So you make premisses to put limits on a theory.
        Einstein tells us that when you go near the speed of light the newtonian laws become less accurate.

        So even though Newton was (slightly) wrong (as shown by experiments which became possible because our measurement tools became more precise).

        Which is a great example of how science works... and how the proof system works.

        That you then reply to that with a rambling of false statements about special relativity is something which I'll never understand. As again (as in previous discussions) you jump from one topic onto the next without any boundry.. and you try to jump on extremely small details of things which you don't understand but claim to be false anyway... and you do that in order to discredit my post (as I don't want to explain every single word in every single post) such that you can live on in your own little fantasy world.
      • Feb 9 2013: Hi, again !
        Sorry for the delay with my response !
        Re : Listen to what? I need more back ground to the why don't we listen. I listen all the time,

        By ' we ' i mean people , collectively, not you personally; i guess, you do listen, that's why ask you to help me with my big question : Why what is happening is happening ?
        The history doesn't go in random walk, obviously; it's not exactly repeat itself, as you said; it's unfolding.
        Future embedded in the Past. We don't see the Future, because we don't see the Past either and have no clue what is going on now, behind the surface of events. And i think you've touched the nerve here :

        "If only we would have listen to the religion of the passed..."
        but we didn't.
        Why didn't we listen ?
        I've just read your the conversation with Joe Blank, and here again :

        "...If you imply this concept to the most fundamental parts of life you would have intuition."
        I agree with you, if we did, it would do the trick.
        - but we didn't. Why ?


        So, once again , to make my question clearer :
        Jesus said : fallow me ; religious people, Christians worship him, but rarely fallow. Circular people, let alone atheists don't even consider the possibility to take his preposition seriously.
        ' Why ' is such a difficult question, that hasn't even been asked, as far as i know. What we see around is the answer, ' why we didn't/ don't listen/fallow' is the question.

        I'd appreciate your ideas greatly.
        Thank you !

        Edited.

        Re :Did you get the chance to join in....?
        I did : )
        • thumb
          Feb 10 2013: "...If you imply this concept to the most fundamental parts of life you would have intuition."
          I agree with you, if we did, it would do the trick.
          - but we didn't. Why ?

          because if your chasing your own shadow how do you know it you? When it is your equal but opposite reaction to self. Always able to counter your next move

          Have you heard the idea that if we lived in a black hole we would be able to look out into outer space and eventually the light would come back around and we would end up looking at the back of our own head. If this happen how would you know it was the back of your own head?
      • Feb 11 2013: Thanks for responding !
        We 'don't listen' because of limitation/falsehood of ego vision and we need to listen/practice taming ego to to get rid of limitation.
        Did i restate you right ?
        If yes, it's catch 22 and it is the most common situation, actually :)

        "We have been discovering circles since the beginning of time. We don't need to any more. We can end the circle logic and circle thought "

        So..., there is a light at the end of the tunnel ?
        I am not sure that i get you right, but i've got the impression that you have a 'picture ', don't you ?

        Re : That would make all religions truth and yet false at the same time. Just like science does

        Yes and of cause ! But it's deeper, science and religion are not distinct .
        "All Religions are man-mind-made ....all discoveries made by man-mind are a reflection of that same mind that invents Religions therefore the two Science/Religion cannot be separate in anyway other then that individual minds-egos want to do so."

        In fact, separating religion from science is simply the exercise of separating cause from effect.
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: At all times in mans history, man makes reference to a God or gods in order to explain or bring an understanding to concepts that he,(man) did not posse. Eventually, given time, science focused on explaining the mystery of the unexplainable. As knowledge increased over time, so did understanding. What was once attributed to God is now known through science. My belief is, religion was the precursor to science. Religion tried to answer questions that man had, and when the answer was not available it was given over to the realm of God. We must have an evolutionary need to have answers, and God was the provider of those answers. I believe that man created God. We created a divine God to be the keeper of answers to mysteries we did not yet have.

          Gods have always existed because the answers to our questions have always existed, we just did not have the understanding at the time.

          God provided or became the answer without needing the understanding. ~Dennis Hollinger

          Being the source of all knowledge does not make one all knowing
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: I wouldn't say that I have a "picture" what I have is hopefully common sense answers or in others words I think we can Occam razor existence. Please notice that I said we and not I for I do not know all the answers....but guess who does us humans
      • Feb 11 2013: I would say that religion the Bible itself , Christianity are deeply involved in shaping rational mind and empowering ego and eventually made science possible.
        The Bible prophesies ' fall' , teaches how to behave in the fall and is the fall. ( it is only possible because of the fall )
        Fallow it through with me :
        Elohim is a plural Hebrew word that English Bible translates as “God.” Many scholars have wrestled with the question of why a plural word was chosen for the name of the Creator.
        The possible answer is that the original and most high God was and is all-inclusive, collective, not separate from any of the creation, and that created beings are intrinsic portions of the Whole. Later the name of God was changed to Yahweh Elohim, which is translated as “Lord God.” And later it became named. I think, it reflects the history of human psyche , the way how we were becoming more and more rational and less and less intuitive ; in a way , it is the ' fall '.

        And now think why did science, as we know it flourish in Judo Christian culture ? I would say, that it was inevitable.
        It's the result of the development of abstract thinking, which came from abstract God, the Wholly Other.
        As an implication and quite severe one, rational mind, that was shaped by the idea of biblical God, the Deity questions the very existence of God And here is the trap, because in the context of existence God does not exist.So believers believe that God exists ; atheists believe that it doesn't. As for the teaching, it is practiced by neither of them.
        Who does ? Those few who can intuit God, " all inclusive " ... or/and come to that point through science, through the idea of field, quantum superposition, entanglement, non locality, quantum potential...that wired stuff, that Cartesian mind can't grasp, but subtle mind starts to honour the complexity of the situation. And here the revival of the teaching may occur, " don't do to others..." because there are no others... it makes sense !
      • Feb 11 2013: cont.
        It reminds me this :
        We shall not cease from exploration
        and the end of our exploring
        will be to arrive where we started
        and know the place for the first time.
        T. S. Eliot
        I squeezed ' my proof ' into a number of short sentences, to fit it to the format of ted conv. so it may look not coherent, but when i expand it in various domains and directions, the more the better , it looks coherent. It doesn't mean that it is true though :)
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: its a matter of realizing all truth is true and false ... and I would say that poem hits home for the idea of people who "cant find home" even if the are living in a house. Much like why people feel alone even when there are a billion plus people around them. Because we are alone it's just us and we are one

          In science terms this can be seen as
          e=mc2

          you are the same as the current that runs through your walls
      • Feb 11 2013: I've come up with the idea that God, can't be known ; it is meant to be experienced, not to be known.

        God provided or became the answer without needing the understanding. ~Dennis Hollinger
        Brilliant !
        I'll google the name, i've never heard it :)
        Thank you !
      • Feb 11 2013: I need to think about it :)
        We are alone ? Who are we? One , but is One real ? Isn't it the image of 0 ?
        Alongside with all the nature ?
        OK, i need to think about it :)
      • Feb 11 2013: A passage from Hermetic corpus

        " If then you do not make yourself equal to god , you cannot apprehend god. For like is known by like. make yourself grow to a like expanse , and leap clear of all that is corporeal. Rise above all time and become eternal then you will apprehend god, think that for you nothing is impossible, deem that you to are immortal , and that you are able to grasp all things in your thought. to know every craft and every science, find your home in the haunts of every living creature, make yourself higher than all hieghts and lower than all depths, bring together in yourself all opposites of quality, heat and cold , dryness and fluidity, think that you are everywhere at once at land at sea, in heaven,think that you are not yet beggotten, that you are in the womb , that you are young, that you are old , that you have died, your in the world beyond the grave, grasp in your thought all this at once , all times and places and substances and qualities, magnitudes together, then you can apprenhend god, but if you shut up your soul and your body and abase yourself and say i know nothing, i can do nothing , im afraid of earth and sea , i cannot mount to heaven , i cannot , i know not what i was or what i shall be , then what have you to do with god !!
      • Feb 11 2013: Too beautiful for a flip :)
        Though, who knows ?
        Re: I do not know all the answers....but guess who does us humans
        Agreed !
        But we can't communicate within our oneness .
        Btw. ' I do not know all the answers...' is a serious claim : )
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: Too beautiful for a flip :)


          But isn't that what balance is? It's the flip
      • Feb 11 2013: Yes....
        I start to believe, that you do have many answers :)
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: thank you for that belief, it means more then you will ever know
      • Feb 11 2013: Welcome : )
        Thank you !!!
      • Feb 11 2013: Re :
        "... what I have is hopefully common sense answers or in others words I think we can Occam razor existence."
        Please, clarify, i don't understand :)
        P.S I know what Occam's razor is , i don't understand what have you said.

        Thank you !
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: 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
        • thumb
          Feb 11 2013: 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 11 2013: The interesting things is, is if I had to answer my own question.
        This is how I would answer it:....

        We are capable of asking a question , when we have the answer and we are searching for a proof.

        Jesus said : '' be a passerby "
        The match from Laotse :
        The Tao is an empty vessel; it is used, but never filled.
        ---------------------------------------------------------
        Empty yourself of everything.
        Let the mind become still.

        The only way to understand 'the other ' is to forget about "I ", my opinion ; stop listening ' myself '
        It's hard :)
        D. Bohm had that idea : we should learn to think the thought together.
        Have you watched this video ?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QI66ZglzcO0&feature=related
        Edited
        Pay special attention to the 15. 50 mark
        • thumb
          Feb 12 2013: Its about taking on their actions like they are your own with, their logic, reasoning and common sense not your own. While also realizing that we are one. It is very hard to do and I struggle with it daily.

          It hard to trying and forget your problems so you can relate to their problems. Not letting your own issues get caught up in theirs or be biased because of your own problems.

          This goes back to your listening question, we have been told that we are one this whole time pretty much from every god that has ever existed yet it is easy to see other as separate because the are separate. Because the are not equal. So in micro scale me and you don"t look alike, act alike, think alike, heck we don't even equally take up the same space. But on a macro level we know we are at very least both human and again on sub micro level both cells and bacteria. So where should we find equality? On a macro scale I know that me and my body are one when I look in a mirror. But on a micro level I know that there is more bacteria on me in me controlling my daily function then human cells. Where is the equality? I am bacteria then human. And humans could most certainly be seen as a virus to earth. Where is the equality.

          This is why it has been hard to listen. And when someone/somegod try's to force their view on to other it is simply an intelligent being that has a choice to respond to a stimuli the way they want to respond will never freely want to submit to anyone ever god or man unless it is their personal choice to do so.
      • Feb 12 2013: Yes, whatever the question is, if you take it seriously, always becomes
        " Who am I ? " " What is real ?"... God...Truth...
        I wholeheartedly agree with all you've said !
        Your practical question is, correct me if i am wrong :
        how to communicate within our oneness with so convincing and so obvious separateness ?
        It's very important question, really, because all our thoughts have meaning if we can find the way to communicate them. Someone said : 'means' are like genes..." there were much more to it, very clever stuff, but i don't remember.
        Actually it's possible to find the intellectual common ground.
        This is my ' why ' part :
        Because Nature is fractal in its structure. By nature , i mean everything that is and can be addressed to : all processes, different backgrounds, world views, life experiences .... bacteria and human....history and business... i do mean everything. What that means is that a pattern occurring on a given scale can be expected to occur on other scales, very different.
        If you manage to relate to common pattern in the context of a person you are talking to and then extrapolate it to your context , the understanding/agreement may take place.

        ' how' part is very difficult .
        You must be all-knowing, not human, actually ,but for the audience you know, for the people you share your life with it may work perfectly well.
        What is necessary and quite often lacking, in online forums like this is the willingness to understand and it's OK, i enjoy listening, mutual understanding may occur, sometimes and it's a miracle and real joy ! :)
        Thank you !
        • thumb
          Feb 14 2013: You must be all-knowing, not human, actually ,but for the audience you know, for the people you share your life with it may work perfectly well.

          Can you explain this more?
      • Feb 12 2013: Re :"It hard to trying and forget your problems so you can relate to their problems."

        I know..., what works for me is relating to ' their problems ' first, even if i have a bunch of my own, i don' even try to forget about them. But sometimes they forget about me , the problem ignored is half solved :)
      • Feb 12 2013: Maybe it is not such a problem to ' prove ' that we are one. Look at Mandelbrot set,
        it's like Logos, visual language, you see with your own eyes how IT is unfolding, no ambiguity here.
        It is not accidental, when we really understand something , we say " i see .. " We trust our eyes more than ears.
        Frankly, i have a lot of profs, all over the place, but what is really hard , is to feel that way and to behave ....
        I think it should be practiced and here you are right, ' don't do to others ..." is like a telescope for an astronomer, you start to see.
        • thumb
          Feb 15 2013: But this material world is a trick of the eye and its our belief/faith in them that make it real
      • Feb 13 2013: Hi, again !
        I tend to complexify, maybe you too :) It's probably the way to recognise simple truths.
        And here is the link with a simple solution, which is soooo hard to implement :)

        http://www.paradoxicalcommandments.com/
        • thumb
          Feb 14 2013: I actually I know that everything is complex and very high entropy, even when we feel like things are low entropy. What I try to do its make it as common sense as possible .

          The link was interesting however I didn't find them that paradoxical. The first axioms is based on the assumption that you care what the other thinks about you (i have never really cared what anyone has thought of me) . The second axiom is based on actions or doing.
      • Feb 15 2013: I don't find it paradoxical either. It encourages anyone who is on the path , do not deter whatever.
        And you don't have to prove anything to anyone , you yourself become a proof.


        Re : Can you explain this more?

        Gladly , but i have to ask you to explain what do you mean by ' common sense ' first .
      • Feb 15 2013: It's from your post :
        "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."
        So again
        Re : Can you explain this more ?

        You can either relate to other person through unconditional acceptance/love or intellectually , by finding his common sense iow to find out what assumptions shaped his mentality, what activity he is engaged in, what his life experience is, ..cultural background.... So you need a lot of data , endless actually to be ' all knowing '
        With people you share your life with( family colleagues, friends...etc. ) you have a lot of data naturally, not even thinking about it, they are embedded in the very fabric of your communication, in a sense you are related to them already ( hence the word ' relative' ). So you may succeed to find out what their 'common sense' is.
        That's approximately what i meant, i am not quite sure, and not necessary agree with ,it was 3 days ago :)
        • thumb
          Feb 16 2013: 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 16 2013: By excepting their knowledge as truth, that makes it true to me even if I think it might be wrong. They say it is better to tell the truth then to lie if you do this it is not hard to remember things because you always told the truth. Oddly enough because of this since it is their truth and I take it in as truth. It is easier to remember and I can use it to or bring it up easier even something as idiotic as oil being not toxic. Not that oil is good or bad because it is certainly both. So if someone else common sense is similar to the guys that say oil is not toxic I can use that persons common sense as well as the person that I am trying to relate to, to explain my truth. This has certainly been a challenge for me over the internet. So many audio and visual clues are missing but still possible
      • Feb 17 2013: Hi , Casey !
        Sorry for the delay with my response !
        If i get you right, what you describe can be graphically presented as Euler's circles.
        Figure 1 shows the common ground in two 'truths'
        Figure 2 shows how your truth doesn't contradict to ' another ' truth, but embrace it.
        Check out here
        http://www.mathresources.com/products/mathresource/maa/eulers_circles.html

        Is it what you mean ?
        If, yes, of course it works, in case, someone you are persuading allows the possibility of being persuaded as such. But sometimes it is not the case.

        And talking about ' many truths ' approach, it's a double edged sword. Relativistic idea gained its momentum in the beginning of the past century and we all have been swimming in this golden fish bowl ever since. And it's good/bad as everything is. Good is obvious ; where is the bad part ?
        - We take different ideas with equal weight. When ideas compete fairly it's OK. But quite often ' toxic' ideas are heavily invested and promoted and maybe you don't need to treat them as ' another ' truth and try build on it your proof.

        " I realize that its all box's and I try to think in all of them."
        That's it ! It's very profound, really ! But maybe there is another way.
        As it was said : enlightened people don't do anything to influence they just influence. What this may mean in our context ? They don't prove anything and in a way they are out of all boxes.
        "I don't even need to believe that what I am trying to debate is truth or not, I just need to except that it can be."
        Firstly we don't know what truth is, what people are debating about ? I have no idea !
        The truest truth we can possibly get is true enough. And ' true enough' can't be debated but thought together. I told you, i am a devotee of David Bohm's idea of a dialogue. What you hope ' can be' really can be in a dialogue, not in a debate... i think :)
        • thumb
          Feb 17 2013: See they will eventually prove me right what my truth is that I am trying to address as truth. Simply because I will be using their logic to get to the predetermined conclusion only if they know that this is what I am doing will it not work out of their own stubbornness. Also it is harder to do over the internet because of loss of audio and visual cues, you can tell if someone is lie just to lie
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2013: in your eyes it does Mr. Long.
    • thumb
      Feb 5 2013: So, are you wrong and right simultaneously? If so you have falsified # 2 and 3 of the Classical Logic Laws:
      1) Law of Identity- An object is the same as itself.
      2) Law of Non-contradiction- “A” cannot be both “A” and “Not A”.
      3) Law of the Excluded Middle- Either a proposition or its negation is true.
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2013: Where the proof that these laws are true
        • thumb
          Feb 6 2013: Casey. Mr. Long is absolutely right to point out Laws, and, you have every right to challenge them, however we must remember that we are all governed by laws for without them it would be total chaos.
          cheers
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2013: It a giant lets agree to disagree conversation. To end the arguments. To end the circle logic and thought. We have been discovering circles for a very long time.

        for every action creates an equal but opposite reaction, but hey maybe newton was wrong and the other guy was right. He did steal some work I believe maybe he's just a shady person
      • thumb
        Feb 6 2013: Mr. Long. I said. 'In YOUR eyes' I am not assuming multiple scenarios, you are!
        cheers
        • thumb
          Feb 6 2013: What I mean is the Laws of Logic cannot be dependent upon how an individual assesses a given situation. Laws are independent from human appraisal, interpretation, or evaluation. If the question is, "Is Mr. Sergi correct?", and one person believes you are correct while a second person believes you are incorrect does not mean that you are both correct [A] and incorrect [Not A] (Rule 2). Without Logic we would truly live in the arbitrary, Gordian Knot of a world of Mr. Christofaris. Either the proposition that you are correct is true, or the proposition that you are not correct is true (Rule 3). There are not multiple levels, or scenarios, of truth, it is binary. . . True or False. We may be unable to answer every question, but there is an answer to every question.
        • thumb
          Feb 6 2013: @ ed

          trust me I use these laws for everday life the point it nothing can be proven 100% and yes in a specific system something can be both true and not true because it will always lay with the definition that defines it.

          "True or False. We may be unable to answer every question, but there is an answer to every question."

          What if I can show you how 2 men can come to the same conclusion and both men correct and wrong at the same time. But of course only by the way we define or use arbitrary labels to define things.

          Also the best thing about thinking out side of the box is realizing that there is just another box to think out side of. So it not about thinking outside the box, its about thinking in all boxes
      • thumb
        Feb 6 2013: @ Vincenzo

        I agree whole heartily and use laws to figure out and talk about all types of matter on here. You do realize we live in high entropy always . And it is the laws that try to create low entropy from high entropy but fail miserably doing so. However sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken.

        The idea of creating order out of chaos should be one of the founding definitions of insanity. Because it simply can not be done. It can look like it. I guess that's what these material world is, order out of chaos.
        Thanks for that I have not looked at the material world that why before, and cool enough QP backs that up
  • thumb
    Feb 4 2013: Consistency of argument and evidence, but No staement can ever be proven 100.00% - Cartesian Doubt. DC
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: Has the following statement ever been proven 100%:
      "No statement can be proven 100%."?
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2013: Haha, no ofcorse not,. It is consistent with itself though.
        • thumb
          Feb 4 2013: No. Actually it is self-conflicting and therefore falsifies itself.
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: @ ed

          "Say that again, where does science start? If no statement can be proven 100% then what does prove your answer?"

          Ok so lets take that the earth moves? We thought for a very long time that the earth didn't move. While studying the sky's Galileo saw evidence that it did and was actually moving. So his answer is the earth moves. Then he used his research that he already had to prove his answer. He work backwards from his conclusion that if all this evidence is correct then the earth must move. No where have I read that he postulated out of no logic or intuition that earth moves. He saw evidence that suggested it. And then proved his conclusion.
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2013: Its also self fulfilling like all things are our science starts with an answer and then trys to answer it. I think our earth is round, here is proof why. Or i think light is a particle, ill use the scientific method and work backwards to prove my answer
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: Say that again, where does science start? If no statement can be proven 100% then what does prove your answer?
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2013: If you know the question and you are ready for the truth, you would be able to prove the answer.
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: But for others to understand it as truth it would need to be Universally common sense?
  • thumb
    Feb 3 2013: Look for multiple people coming to the same conclusion.
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: So the Sun orbits the Earth, the Earth is flat, and Unicorns exist?
      • thumb
        Feb 4 2013: Einstein suggest that we live in the reality were all realities are possible. Our QP suggest that our reality is imaginary as our imaginary reality is

        Its our Belief/faith in it that makes it real.
        • thumb
          Feb 5 2013: That is big news to hear that Albert Einstein embraced the tenets of quantum physics. It is also contrary to recorded history. Share your source on that?
      • thumb
        Feb 5 2013: @ ed

        e=mc2

        We are the same as the current that runs through your walls

        and I think this equation did wonders for the building blocks of quantum physics, although I could be wrong I have been before
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2013: edward, please see my comments to Casey below.
        • thumb
          Feb 7 2013: I read them and I agree somewhat Greg, but what I disgree with is that every statement can be proven to be false. You realize that it would be necessary to prove that statement true for it to be validated, and the moment it is proven true it proves itself false. Not every data can be proven false! The sane, rational people of this universe function with putative facts, well-formed and meaningful, we call it Information.
    • thumb
      Feb 4 2013: @ greg whats that mean for religion then
      • thumb
        Feb 7 2013: Yeah, these are great criticisms. I personally maybe meant look for multiple people with good credentials coming to the same conclusion.

        Actually, Casey, you maybe can't prove anything 100% positively. For example, you may feel sure you are sleeping next to your wife, but perhaps she is an actress who is perfectly made up to resemble your wife, has studied your wife's personality to duplicate it, etc.

        I would think the closest one can get to certainty is experiencing something for yourself, seeing it, tasting it, touching it, hearing it, smelling it. Or, on an intellectual topic, seeing if it stands to reason. Barring that, you might have to take it on the word of authorities, but you would also measure the authorities' word against everything else you know about the topic.