TED Conversations

Casey Christofaris

Owner, CS3 Inc

TEDCRED 10+

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

How do we prove an answer

that it How do we prove an answer


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

Related Talks:
+1
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Andrew Presnell

    • +1
    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

      Casey Christofaris 10+

      • 0
      Feb 10 2013: I whole heartily agree

      • Tify Ndanoboi 30+

        • 0
        Feb 14 2013: "contradiction is not possible."

        And yet water, can be liquid, gas (steam) and solid (ice).

        • Andrew Presnell

          • 0
          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?

    • Bahram Kheradmand

      • 0
      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

        Casey Christofaris 10+

        • 0
        Feb 14 2013: Ok so then what is plasma?

      • Andrew Presnell

        • 0
        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.

        • michael Chidester

          • 0
          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

        • Bahram Kheradmand

          • 0
          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.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.