Intellectual betterment.
- Thread starter Maggot
- Start date
he was cool, but he was definately crazy, it was scientific though, he was just explaining that if you enclose a chemical reaction that creates gases you have a pressure bomb and if you throw some paint in you have a paint bomb, it was like a bonus to the curiculum
So to summarise somoene got big headed, somoene got offended, somoene made a claim, then somoene asked for proof of the claim.
Easy up folks, proof is not a clearly defined term, there is mathematical proof, theological, proof in law, scientific proof.
You ask for proof when the basis for proving something is simply made up out of thin air.
You can try all you will but nothing can be proved.
Easy up folks, proof is not a clearly defined term, there is mathematical proof, theological, proof in law, scientific proof.
You ask for proof when the basis for proving something is simply made up out of thin air.
You can try all you will but nothing can be proved.
Who's that then?
She doesn't know what that means. But she is right, that picture is damned fine, although it was taken for her ex
REad Thermat's ... No thanks mate doesn't interest me. I scanned it once when I thought I wanted to read more popular science books but I quickly learnt that they bored me. They have a target audience do pop science books and that is mostly those who want to learn about science in later life because they weren't interested when back at school. I was always interested in science at school and did engineering degrees with a high science component so I find a lot of books written for general public to follow without any scientific training as missing something. For example when the BBC did a documentary on stone age man complete with a big glossy BBC/OU book on the subject I just went out and bought the academic book by the same author (and documentary presenter) to go back to the unsimplified data / information.
Was it Karl Jung who made a very good comment on mathematics and religion. Something along the lines of religion being a belief system that can't prove itself as a religion, whereas mathematics is a belief system that can prove itself. Guess its kind of like the ignorant idea that with mathematics you can prove that 1 = 0 with mathematics. Our Chemistry and Maths teacher showed us this proof once for fun.
Was it Karl Jung who made a very good comment on mathematics and religion. Something along the lines of religion being a belief system that can't prove itself as a religion, whereas mathematics is a belief system that can prove itself. Guess its kind of like the ignorant idea that with mathematics you can prove that 1 = 0 with mathematics. Our Chemistry and Maths teacher showed us this proof once for fun.
Paul b
Read my previous post re proof.
Mathematics doesn't prove anything as it is within it's own parameters.
It's like me saying 1 plus 1 is always 4, as the basis of my basis of proof, then anything i do to widen that field come back to the fact that i just made up the beginning like mathematics.
Things only exist in the mind, if noone has ever thought of it it doesn't exist.
So logically before Newton discovered gravity it never existed therefore he made it up same as maths.
Read my previous post re proof.
Mathematics doesn't prove anything as it is within it's own parameters.
It's like me saying 1 plus 1 is always 4, as the basis of my basis of proof, then anything i do to widen that field come back to the fact that i just made up the beginning like mathematics.
Things only exist in the mind, if noone has ever thought of it it doesn't exist.
So logically before Newton discovered gravity it never existed therefore he made it up same as maths.
Another example is the iq test as a measure for intellect.
It bases your intelligence level on a system that was simply made up rendering it useless.
It bases your intelligence level on a system that was simply made up rendering it useless.
Ahh, but is that the term, philosophy or skill.
It can be proven though. Books were written on bushcraft long before Uncle Ray was born.
Hold on what you are saying (if I got your meaning right) is that nothing exists until its thought up. Whether that is mathematics or widely held scientific "facts". I dispute that. Gravity existed before mankind understood it existed or gave it that name. That is a truth at this moment in time. Some time in the future we might understand things totally differently but until then it is accepted that gravity just exists whether we know it or not.
Mathematics is in everything in some way. If we don't know it or recognise it doesn't mean it is not there just that we don't know it. If I can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist indeed mankind doesn't know what it doesn't know so we can only say what we know exists. If that makes sense you're cleverer than me!!
I guess what I'm saying is things exist without us knowing it. Proof is just our way of understanding things about us. What is important is scientific method. It is only by applying this to things can we accept something as being true if it stands up to scientific method. Until that it is just a theory. That doesn't mean the theory isn't right of course. Gravity isn't made up its just the ideas mankind have come up with to explain it is made up by mankind. AS far as the "proof" my maths teacher gave to 1=0 that was based on a poor understanding of mathematics, by that I mean it used an incorrect assumption/ poor logic.I can't remember what it was now but it was a common example used to demonstrate how poor logic can result in incorrect results.
Mathematics is in everything in some way. If we don't know it or recognise it doesn't mean it is not there just that we don't know it. If I can't prove something exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist indeed mankind doesn't know what it doesn't know so we can only say what we know exists. If that makes sense you're cleverer than me!!
I guess what I'm saying is things exist without us knowing it. Proof is just our way of understanding things about us. What is important is scientific method. It is only by applying this to things can we accept something as being true if it stands up to scientific method. Until that it is just a theory. That doesn't mean the theory isn't right of course. Gravity isn't made up its just the ideas mankind have come up with to explain it is made up by mankind. AS far as the "proof" my maths teacher gave to 1=0 that was based on a poor understanding of mathematics, by that I mean it used an incorrect assumption/ poor logic.I can't remember what it was now but it was a common example used to demonstrate how poor logic can result in incorrect results.
That proof is based on so many assumptions that it cannot be proven.
To believe that we must assume that you exist, that time exists etc
Is the sky blue? Obvious answer is yes, but ask a minister and a scientist and the might give totally different reasons regarding why and how and how we know it's blue.
Another way to prove it would be by sight but how do you know what you see is there? or you may say everybody says it is, this again, Do you exist, do they? did you make everything up?
Wierdly i'm basing an argument upon my philosophy that nothing can be proven lol.
When you subscribe to one set of laws be it science or theology it tends to block the other out. Once cant know which is correct so is it not better to assume that everything is false and be open to everything.
That's blown a synapse somewhere.
I have read this over and over and over again in my head and even though I recognise each word individually the resulting question does not compute.
To be honest, I would expect better of someone with such a high intellect as you. I am not trolling, merely challenging your husbands assertion that he is in the top 1% of the entire worlds IQ ( a completely nonsensical claim), and you are one of a handful of such wildly gifted mathematicians, again on the entire planet. This isn't to doubt that either of you are very clever, just not that clever.
I don't get the bit about role reversal, could you explain that?
That's a strange philosophy.
Then "Nothing can be proven" cannot be proven, therefore there can be things that can be proven.
For instance, the simple proof that the square root of two is not a rational number is based solely on the definitions of the various terms. It works.
You say it cannot be proven, so where's the flaw?
Nothing can be prooved as we could exist as only the constructs of our own imaginations.
I seem to be taking this to a whole new level lol.
The fact is, we as humans have a need, this need is to understand the why, how, where and when.
As we can't actually know so we make up a system to allow us to explain these points but these systems are flawed as they are just made up.
What i'm trying to say is that our basis for explanation has no basis.
1 plus 1 cant equal 2 because 1 is a made up concept and so is 2, it's like me saying ghjkkjhgfdffg plus dfghnnbghuytghjuyh equals dfghytbmmmjuikjh which is exactly the same as the above sum.
