The Statement Game

As to "There is not" I say this: you do not know this.
As to "nor could there ever be" I say this: you are completely wrong.

Rudimentary programs already exist that simulate life where the entities are numbers and the food is numbers. 'Societies' develop within this program. There might already be a society that communicates through numbers alone (although I doubt it).

Have you experienced all of reality already?
Do you truly believe that what you have experienced is all that there is?

circle-a closed plane curve every point of which is equidistant from a fixed point within the curve

In a higher dimensional construct, a line can be both equidistant from a fixed point and different distances from the same fixed point. The same line can be both a circle and a square at the same time in the higher dimension, however it is represented as multiple objects in a lower dimension (2d).

Read up on string theory, which uses interesting mathematics of higher dimensions.

I wouldn't mind tripping, but the point remains the same. In a higher dimensional construct, a line can be both equidistant from a fixed point and different distances from the same fixed point.

It could be a scewed circle (oval) instead of a square if that helps you understand.

I will give you an example of a circle being a circle and a scewed circle (oval) that you can experience in 3d.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper.
Pick the paper up and hold it flat in front of you.
Pick a fixed axis of rotation (verticle works).
Rotate the paper 45 degrees along the axis of rotation.
Look at the circle you drew- it is now an oval, even though it is a circle too.

Probably a lot easier to do if you have autocad, illustrator, or photoshop, you do it with flash too.

In 3 dimensions, the circle is both a circle from one perspective and a oval from the other.

Unfortunately, I do not know a way to demonstrate a square circle in 3d, if you can think of a way (other than a higher order mathematical proof) to visibly demonstrate it, I would be amused.

Just need to say it one more time. The real world is what exists, not what you or I know. It is better to be open to possibilities than to be closed minded and limit our oppurtunities to learn. Anyways, we are living in a system (reality) where 5 can equal 4. Just remember, nothing is impossible, as long as you can dream it up- because your dreams come from reality itself. All the things that you reject as impossible are the things that do not match your narrow comfort zone of mental reality. Some minds reject ideas like children reject vegetables. Others don't (buddha, christ, me).

The quantity 5 is imaginary. 5 rocks are just rocks, they only possess the quantity 5 in our imagination.

No it doesn't. I've given a few examples in my prior post where 5 is the logical eqivalent of something other than the quantity 5.

Identity is the foundation of our entire universe. However, 5 and the quantity 5 are 2 entirely different animals.

Your understanding of things changes as you push deeper into the folds of a wet juicy reality. What you thought was only a 5 is actually a whole lot more.

Just to say, many things in language are metaphorical. It's just another possible use of the statement '1 + 1 = 1'. Of course you know what I mean by 1+1=3.

No, they are different depending on your reference point.

It's not an illusion. The object is 4 units long from one reference point, and 5 from another. The objects size is relative to the reference point- one reference point being the resting state of the object (you and the object moving at the same velocity....), another being you moving at different velocities.

 

If only that was all you're arguing! But you bringing up geometry and quantum physics makes it clear that you are not making a mere linguistic point. You're making a logical one. Saying that "4 = 5" is very different from saying that "The quantity 4 could be signified by "5" in another language." If you really do mean that the arbitrary symbol "5" could, in some weird language, mean 4, then of course that's true, but that doesn't change the fact that 5 must equal 5 and no other number. If you are making a stupid linguistic point, then that's not "mind opening," that's not even interesting and not even worth pointing out.

Also, what surprises me is, you didn't comment on that newly revised argument, which I tried to make as clear as possible.

I do have "working definitions" for these terms. They're the same bloody things philosophers since Thales have meant them to mean. I could explain to you what "metaphysics" is. I could tell you that it is both synthetic and a priori. But then I'd have to tell you what synthetic and a priori mean, and before you know it, it turns out to be a big waste of my time. If you don't know the most basic terms of philosophy (part-whole relationship is spelled out for you in the name itself), then you shouldn't be engaging in philosophical debate. If you want to learn what metaphysics and the part-whole relationship are, go here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/

No, I can't prove beyond all doubt that universes of more than 3 dimensions exist. The fact that nobody's ever been to one seems to suggest they don't exist, though. Also, I can't really think of what a 10 dimensional cube would look like. Of course, such systems of geometry could (I guess) be invented. But even then, the idea that they could correspond to some other, real universe is another matter intirely. Also, I know a little about non-Euclidean geometry and that Einstein's use of it in the theory of relativity is not to be interpretted as if there is a real, tangible non-euclidean space out there. But if you want to believe that there are universes out there somewhere that really don't make any sense, you're more than welcome to that opinion. I don't want any part of it, however.

Saying that 5 = 5 is a something first graders don't really understand because the universe is just so much more complicated than that reeks of mysticism, like seeing the whole universe in a grain of sand or other stuff like that.

 

We are not talking about symbols, Kharakov. We have already established that symbols can mean many things. We are talking about quantities. Math is math because it deals with quantities; if it dealed with symbols, it would be called symbolism.

You say "society," but if you're talking about a social network of self-conscious beings ... then I guarantee you, there are no rudimentary programs that do anything more than SIMULATE life. Certainly a simulation of life is no more "society" than Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 is "flight." They may be similar, but there is a huge difference. Or rather, they may be *percieved* as similar, but one of them is actual flight, and the other one is a representation of electrical impulses. Huge difference.

Also, even if they used numbers as labels and symbols, and varied them ... any label or symbol that is varied is STILL a different label or symbol. They are no longer quantities. Furthermore, a society can't live just by using quantities alone; they would need words and labels, quantities wouldn't be able to cut it; they'd have to use symbols.

I have experienced all that I currently have. Which is three dimensions. And since nobody has ever really experienced or proven that a fourth dimension exists (excluding time, since time isn't really a spatial dimension), it's absurd to even believe that up to a 9th dimension exists.

It's proven that our universe has 3 spatial dimensions, no more, and no less. It's just proven, and there is no evidence anywhere that we have found that contradicts it. The only thing that can contradict it is the human imagination, which creates things that are quite simply imaginary and not real.

First off: String theory is a THEORY, just like quantum physics. They aren't proven, and there are problems with both string theory and quantum physics, so you shouldn't even begin to use them as backup for your arguments.

Secondly: What are you talking about? If in 2d, it's represented as multiple objects, then IT IS MULTIPLE OBJECTS, and not a line or circle or square! A circle is not represented as multiple objects, nor is a square. A square can be COMPOSED of, say, four lines, but the square itself is still just one object.

What do you mean by "a line can be equidistant from a fixed point and different distances from the same fixed point?" That's utterly ridiculous! That's as absurd as saying "yes can be no at the same time!" The statement alone contradicts itself!

Also, if I draw a circle on a blackboard (2 dimensions), no matter where you move or how you percieve that circle, it will ALWAYS be a circle. You might see it at a perfect 90 degree angle and think it's a line, but that doesn't change it into a line, does it? It's still a circle on a blackboard. No matter what you THINK it is, or what it looks like, it is STILL just a circle.

You say, "in a higher dimensional construct," but what are you referring two? The highest you could go with certainty is 3 dimensions, and lines are never equidistant from fixed points. They extend forever in two directions; every point on the line is a different distance from the fixed point; it is never equidistant. And I have never seen a circle that was also a square in 3 dimensions, so I challenge you to find an example of one. Better yet, take a picture or put it here, so I know what you're talking about. Pictures are 2d, so you should have no problem finding a circle that is also a square.

No, it can't, that's ridiculous and I challenge you to find me an example.

If all the points on a line are equidistant from the same fixed point, then it is not a line at all, it is a CURVE. Curves are not lines.

A circle that is skewed and looks like an oval IS STILL A CIRCLE AND NOT AN OVAL. What don't you understand about that? Even if somehow you manage to come across a picture of a circle that LOOKS like a square, IT IS STILL A CIRCLE!

It is NOT an oval, it is a circle! It just LOOKS like an oval! What I percieve something to be is a perception; perceptions are imperfect because all the data about something cannot be transferred through perception. I might see a circle, but because I'm not looking at it from a certain angle, it doesn't look like a circle. But, *that does not change the fact that it is still a circle and not whatever it looks like it is*.

You of all people should know that reality is not always what it seems.

Exactly: You CAN'T even percieve a square circle in 3d. Maybe you can perceive a square ... that is actually a circle ... but then it's not a "square circle," is it? It's a circle that only LOOKS square, but in order for it to be a "square circle," the circle has to take on properties of the square at all angles, not just at one or several of them. Otherwise, it's no longer a "square circle" at other angles, which means the totality of it cannot have the property "square."

Thank you! Now, you might "know" or "think" that a circle is a square, BUT THE SQUARE DOES NOT EXIST, only the circle exists!

Heh ... so suddenly you're the next Christ, right? When you can't even follow the simplest logic? How egotistical. I honestly wonder why I bother arguing with someone as non-sensical and ego-driven as you. The only thing it shows is that you're arguing so it makes you look intelligent when you really aren't. Also, Christ rejected ideas, so did the Buddha. You really have no knowledge of them, do you? The Buddha rejected MANY ideas, because he had his own ideas. He rejected Hinduism, Taoism, and many other doctrines, and came up with his own, because he thought his was correct and he thought all other doctrines were at best only partially correct. How is THAT for rejecting ideas? The Buddha was not as open-minded as you think; Enlightened, maybe, but that does not mean he didn't reject dumb ideas the same way I'm rejecting yours.

Our imaginations are ILLUSORY. That means, they are not real! What part of "not real" don't you understand? Yes, the imagination is BASED off of reality and logic, but that does not mean it is logical OR real! If I imagine something, that does not make the imagination real. Only the sensation of the imagination is real. I can close my eyes and imagine seeing a park, but the park is not real, only the perception can be called "real."

You go ahead and show me ANY example, ANY example, where in reality, the quantity 5 equals the quantity 4, and you are NOT allowed to use perception to show it! Since we are talking about reality, and since you have already conceded above that "reality is what it is and not what we know it is," you may not use a perception (which does not coorespond to reality) to justify what reality is.

So go ahead, find me an example. And I don't mean a SYMBOLISM example where the SYMBOL for 5 equals the symbol for 4, I'm talking the QUANTITIES. If you are so hell-bent on this being the truth, then prove it.

Secondly, I wouldn't be as eager to reject your ideas as a child is to reject vegetables ... but your idea makes ABSOLUTELY *NO* SENSE whatsoever; it is not founded in ANY system of logic that has EVER existed, you haven't come up with a SINGLE instance that shows me that you are following logic (even your example of the oval on a piece of paper is flawed, because you have already said even though it looks like an oval, it is NOT an oval, because reality is not always what it seems; even though it seems like an oval, it is NOT an oval, it is a CIRCLE).

Quantity is not imaginary; quantity is a property of a group. "How many rocks are there? There are five rocks." Thus, the group has an enumerated property, "quantity," and that property has the value of the quantity 5.

Except they weren't logical by any means. You were referring to the SYMBOLS and not the QUANTITIES. You have never shown that the quantity 5 is equal to the quantity 4, you have only shown that the symbols can mean the same thing, and that is all you have done.

EXACTLY. Hello, where were you this entire discussion? We established that about three whole pages back!

Well, just in case you are slow to get on the think tank, let me spell the last 3 pages out for you:

WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT NUMBERS OR SYMBOLS, we are talking about QUANTITIES! You can sit here and talk about numbers and symbols all you want, but it's no longer even relevant to the topic!

Then who is to say that what you think is 5 is actually a whole lot less? Did the great Kharakov ever stop to think about that? How to defend yourself from your own malformed logic?

And again, coming up with equations like 1 + 1 = 1 and 1 + 1 = 3 is speaking IN TERMS OF SYMBOLS and NOT IN TERMS OF QUANTITY!

When you shorten down "1 drop" into "1" then "1" no longer represents a quantity, it is a SYMBOL.

So stop talking in symbols and start talking in mathematics!

No, they SEEM different. Here, let me QUOTE YOUR OWN WORDS:

There. You have said it. The real world is WHAT EXISTS, not what you percieve it to be. You might PERCIEVE something as different because of your reference point, but they are NOT different, they are exactly as they have always been, just percieved at a different angle.

If you remove the element of time (since we are talking about SPATIAL dimensions and not time, as you have already pointed out), then RELATIVITY as Einstein thought of it is completely useless!

Relativity is only an account of "how much time distorts our perceptions." Relativity does not change actual distances. Relativity is a function of TIME, not a function of SPACE. That's what Einstein was talking about when he released those theories.

*claps*

Kharakov, if you want to talk about symbols, don't talk about mathematics at the same time. Keep your thoughts oriented.

*claps again*

 

Exactly.
We were originally arguing about the use of the word possible. I threw in the example about geometry to give another example of the word possible in a sentence, and described a way in which the use of the word possible guaranteed that the outcome of the statement can always be interpreted as true.

No it isn't (different). Have you ever heard of cryptography? Come on now, you have to have some experience with substitution cyphers.

Actually it is worth pointing out since this whole argument is about the linguistic uses of the word possible. That is what we are arguing about, unless you think you can throw me off with a red herring.

Yet they do not support your use of them. That's the only point I was going to make by having you type them out in a message. Although it is totally non sequitur, I was just going to use the definitions you provide to point out that you used the terms incorrectly.

Really? No person that I know has been to a party in another galaxy. This doesn't make me think there are none.

Ok. I would like to point out that you said that you would be happy to argue against their (higher dimensional universes) existence in a previous post and only changed your position because you were wrong.

Sorry it seems that way to you. BTW- I did not say that 5=5 is something 1st graders don't really understand. I said "Reality is far deeper than a 1st grade understanding of 5 only equals 5- although this basic linguistic (correct word?) understanding is a necessary component of understanding that a system could exist where 5 = 4." which is totally different from your claim as to what I said.

Not being mean- but it seems to me that you are confusing a lot of the things I write either deliberately or unintentionally.

If you cannot find a direct fault in what I say without changing the wording around or throwing in a strawman, maybe it's because what I say is correct.

The main argument is this (hopefully I word it right so you don't strawman again):

That the use of the word possible in a statement such as "It is possible that 5 equals 4" leaves enough play within the realm of linguistic interpretation that the statement can always be interpreted as true.

The format of the statement is this:

It is possible that X.

With X being any proposition, including the proposition 'the impossible is possible'.

I was showing you many possible ways that 5 could equal 4 within the realm of linguistic interpretation, which is why I was calling 5 a symbol. There are also theoretical possibilities of the quantity 5 = the quantity 4, however, this just leads back to your strawmen, so lets settle with what the whole argument is about, prior to your strawmen:

The linguistics (semantical and syntactical) of the word possible in a statement with the form of 'It is possible that X' allow too many interpretations for the statement to be falsifiable.

 

Sorry you got caught up in the strawman Hikaru. We are talking about linguistic possibilities (if you go back to the very first message I wrote about the word possible). The strawman is whether or not the quantity 5 can equal the quantity 4.

Ok, I gotta answer this one... You hooked me. Damnit.

I can imagine a society that exists within computers we develop that is entirely based on numbers. The entities are numbers, they consume numbers and exchange numbers with the other entities, and this is all they do. Like us, they become more complex (or they die break down into simple numbers like 4, or 1 and a 1/3). If I can imagine it and have the programing skills to create it, I can make it exist. Unfortunately, I don't feel like doing it right now, maybe someday I will write it.

Not at all. We interprete the universe as having 3 spatial dimensions, but it might have many more. People lived in gravity for many years before they knew that it existed.

Sorry, I was just providing you with an example in which higher dimensional mathematics is used so that you could learn about it if you choose to.

It doesn't in higher dimensional mathematics, which is why I said to look up string theory- because it uses higher dimensional mathematics, and I do not know if you can find easy to understand explanations of higher dimensional mathematics if you google h.d.m. instead of string theory.

By construct I mean : something constructed by the mind: as a : a theoretical entity (courtesy m-w.com).

Since we cannot (currently) view in more than 3d, we can only mathematically represent higher dimensions as ideas (constructs) within our minds, using words, mathematics, etc.

Sorry, I can't teach you this concept in a couple messages (at least right now, gotta leave the library). You need to go to college, take higher level math courses or research it on your own until you understand it, or start a new thread so that we can discuss it, and I hopefully can convey it to you.

Line : a straight or curved geometric element that is generated by a moving point and that has extension only along the path of the point (courtesy of m-w.com)

Gotta go or I will be late. Respond to the rest of your interesting comments later.

 

My point is this: that the circle and oval are both the same entity- yet from one perspective the entity is a circle and from another it is an oval. From any position except from a line that proceeds perpendicularly from the center of the circle the circle is an oval (or line). Thus, while we know it is a circle, it is also an oval as long as we can view it from more than one angle, which we can do in our 3d perspective environment.

It's the same thing with Einstein's theory of relativity- the perspective does matter. Something can be and is more than one thing, depending on your viewpoint of it. A New York style taco means different things to different people.

We are all future christs, buddhas, or whatever you want to call them. Some of us are farther along in reaching our future christhood than others, just like some people hit puberty earlier. It's the recognition of what you are that makes you a christ, and if you don't know you are a christ, it means you have not gone through spiritual puberty yet. Fortunately, recognizing you are a christ at an early age is not as embarassing as growing breasts for a 10 year old girl.

When you are more mature, you will notice that people who are less mature will often accuse you of things that they do.

Of course I do. That statement only shows your lack of knowledge.

(on a side note, I am sitting in a library and I keep farting- they don't smell, but they are sometimes a little bit loud.)

Not all ideas are correct, or I would not be here to argue against them. This doesn't mean that an incorrect idea is always incorrect, it just means that sometimes ideas don't fit pleasantly into our picture of the world because we lack understanding of how they do. Jokes exist, whether or not you get them.

Imaginations are part of reality. Because they are not the full set of reality, sometimes there are things within an imagination that are not within the rest of reality and sometimes there are things within reality that are not contained within the imagination. Imaginations are real.

Sorry, you can't look at what I write without perceiving some part of it, so I cannot follow the rules you gave me.

I agree. That's why I use perceptions that correspond with reality to justify reality. Every perception is part of reality- you just have to understand how they fit in (with experience you will be able to).

I've already stated that the quantity issue is a strawman, however I will take you up on this delicious red herring you have offered me.

The quantity 5 is the logical equivalent of the quantity 4.

If you don't get it, you probably won't think it's funny.

Sorry that you can't see the logic in what I say. My idea doesn't make sense to you the same way calculus does not make sense to most 1st graders. This doesn't mean that the idea is incorrect- it means that you do not understand it, which is completely fine with me, because you will when you learn enough.

Quantity is a property that exists within imaginations. Do you think a group of 5 rocks sits there and thinks:

We are the 5!
We are the 5!
We are rocks and we like to be 5!
Because we are rocks, and rocks we are 5,
No other rocks can belong to our group of 5!
"How many rocks are there? There are five rocks."
and these rocks have the value of the quantity 5.

Yup. Although sometimes the symbols symbolize the quantity 5.

I can't show (reveal) something to someone that they are not ready to perceive.

Lol. That's hilarious.

At least you got something right.

OMG, I just farted so loud. Still at the library.

If you can think of a way to do it, I am all eyes. I find it hard to write without symbols.

Back to the relativity angle. Any single thing has many different properties, depending on how you view it. A circle is a circle from one angle and an oval from another. This does not mean that the circle is no longer a circle when it is an oval- it just means that it is more than one thing.

We are focusing upon the spatial dimensions. If you bring up einsteinian relativity, you can still just focus upon the spatial dimensions, although time is a fundamental part of relativity theory (without time you cannot have velocity).

No, it is a function of spacetime (space and time as one entity).

*claps*

Sorry? My thoughts are always oriented.

Oriented:intellectually, emotionally, or functionally directed (courtesy m-w.com)

*claps more*

 

Except, language wise, it IS different. This isn't cryptography, Kharakov, this is English. The same rules don't apply. When you say "4=5," the implied meaning is NOT "the quantity 4 could be signified by "5" in another language."

It doesn't make any rational mind definately think there are none. That's not the point being made. In actuality, it just makes us think it's "improbable."

We're not talking about linguistic interpretation, we are nto talking about 5 as a symbol, please stay on topic, Kharakov. We're talking about quantities regardless of perspective/interpretation. There are NOT theoretical possibilities that the quantity 5 equals the quantity 4. You would be hard-pressed to find an example of that, so again, I challenge you to go out and find an example (and not something controversial like quantum physics, which isn't definate).

So please stay on topic. We are not talking about words and linguistics like "possible," we are talking about the conditions which those words describe.

Kharakov, we are not talking about syntax. We are talking about semantics. That's what this whole argument is about: stay on track. You say that the statement allows too many interpretations for the statement to be falsifiable, and yet, syntax ambiguity aside, the concept that the statement represents CANNOT be interpreted in different ways. It means exactly what is implied. Thus, the statement IS falsifiable.

Actually, you are caught up in your own strawman. The reason we are talking about quantities and not linguistic symbols, is because that conversation stems from the previous conversation about actual possibility versus what can be implied by the word "possible." We are NOT, for the last time, talking about linguistic possibilities. You started talking about linguistic possibilities, but then the conversation changed over about 3 pages, and you're confusing the living daylights out of all of us by continuing to talk about the fallacy of language. Language problems have already been established, we are now talking about meanings.

Your analogy to a computer-like society does nothing to prove your case. Computers are NOT just numbers. INSTRUCTIONS for the computers are numbers, but computers are more than just numbers, there are 256 paths on motherboards which each do different things; the instructions are still instructions, they're just compressed into quantities for speed. There are no "entities" on computers; it is ALL electrical impulses, the "entities" that you see on the screen are nothing more than representations of those electrical impulses. And as much as I hate to say it, electrical impulses alone are far from beings.

If you can imagine it, and have the programming skills to SIMULATE it, then you can make a SIMULATION of it exist. But I guarantee you, whatever images or objects you see on a monitor do not actually exist.

Gravity is not a spatial dimension! If we live in more than 3 spatial dimensions, our mathematics would be conscious of however many there were! We would have realized, "holy shit, how many dimensions are there?" and been able to count the fourth one just as easily as we could count the first three. Gravity is just a physical law found within these spatial dimensions; you can't even compare gravity to them because it's like comparing apples to oranges.

We interpret the universe as having 3 spatial dimensions, because, try as we might, we are unable to move through any 4th dimensions. A spatial dimension exists everywhere throughout the universe; if there were a 4th dimension, it's not like we wouldn't have discovered it already.

There is your quote right there: The higher dimensional mathematics, according to Wikipedia, are wrong, and contradict observed phenomena. Your higher dimensional mathematics mean nothing because they are flawed. Yeah, any idiot can put together 3 and 1 and get 26, but that doesn't mean crap when their calculations are wrong.

You can tell me to look up particle physics, antimatter, quantum mechanics, string theory, whatever you want. I've already read up about all of these subjects and understand a fair amount about them; I know enough to know that none of those theories mean anything at all because (1) they're in conflict with eachother, (2) they're theories, and (3) the theories don't hold up to scrutiny when comparing predictions with reality.

It doesn't even matter if you say "a line can be equidistant from a fixed point and different distances from the same point" if the theory that you use to justify that observation is just plain wrong. It's akin to doing this:

I theorize that 2 + 2 might actually equal 26.
2 + 2 can actually equal 26 according to my idea of reality.

The problem is, such an idea of reality is flawed! The calculations show 26 because they're done wrong, and you know for a fact they're done wrong because they don't match up to reality!

So, you can't prove your point, but you can "enlighten" me to theories that I can already prove are b.s. relative to reality?

Okay, take this quote, which leads to the conclusion that two triangles add up as four.

Now, look at how this quote determines this from the presupposition that "triangles cannot be constructed in planes" and "[triangles] are always ... helixes."

What kind of ABSURD logic presupposes that triangles are always HELIXES, and that they cannot be constructed in planes? Look, I'll help you construct a triangle in a plane right now. Touch your finger to the top middle of your monitor, then trace it to the bottom left, then trace it to the bottom right, then back up to the top middle. There is your triangle, which has been constructed in a single plane.

Please, as I have already said twice in the past, please stop using quotes altogether, because the quotes are as dumb as the people who say them.

Where did you put together this into what looks like a single quote? It goes from talking about fruit to presupposing that there is an "octahedron" that has a volume of 4 tetrahedra, then ends a quote, and has what looks like the conclusion at the end. These are clearly three separate parts.

Secondly, about the fruit: In both of your conclusions, you say "the quantity of apples has changed, the quantity of piles has not," then "the quantity of apples and oranges has not changed, the quantity of fruit has."

In the first conclusion {1 pile of 5 + 1 pile of 5 = 1 pile of 10}, it's obvious to note here that piles can be disassembled into 5 units. If you have 1 pile of 5, and 1 pile of 5, that does not give you a pile of 10, unless you combine both piles. Quantities, however, are not objects, and they cannot be combined. When you concatenate two sizes of apples together, the actual QUANTITIES are added together.

The statement {1 pile of 5 + 1 pile of 5 = 1 pile of 10}, when represented mathematically, uses algebra, and would be {5x + 5x = 10x}.

So it's not like your statement defies the logic of mathematics. In fact, that idea is what mathematics is based on entirely. So yes, two "x's" combined together form only one "x", but "5x + 5x = 10x" does nothing to verify a statement like "1 + 1 = 1". In fact, let's factor "5x + 5x = 10x" out:

5x + 5x = 10x
x(5 + 5) = x(10)
Divide both sides by x (because x is a NEGLIGIBLE CONSTRUCT)
5 + 5 = 10.

And that serves mathematics perfectly. It does not contradict "1 + 1 = 1" because in fact, you are not showing "1 + 1 = 1," you are just showing "nx + nx = 2nx" where the x's can be factored out. But x is not a quantity, it's a variable that can either an object that can be factored out, or substitutes for an unknown quantity (where if x does become a quantity, the math will still equal out).

The other statement {1 apple + 1 orange = 2 pieces of fruit}, can be represented here: {x + y = 2z} where {x = z, y = z}.

When you say "two pieces of fruit," that literally just means "two fruits." (Wow, that sounds weird). Anyway, the type of fruit that apples and oranges are doesn't matter because they are both still fruits. And one fruit plus one fruit equals two fruits. The fact that they are oranges or apples doesn't matter because both apples and oranges can be equated to pieces of fruit.

Finally, you end it off about quantum physics. And yet, I'll say it again: Quantum physics has something fundamentally flawed about it! Quantum physics does not match up to reality, its rules can be used to "prove" that our universe doesn't exist (which is obviously false; if you prove something that is obviously true to be false, then the proof is obviously wrong). Quantum physics cannot be used to verify "1 + 1 = 4" or anything of the sort, because quantum physics is just a theory that isn't definate by any means.

And yet, again, your quotes are just as dumb as the people who say them.

2 x 2 = 4

"Two times two is not four, but it is just two times two, and that is what we call four for short. But four is nothing new at all."

No, really?

I think when we say "2 x 2 = 4" the reason why we say "2 x 2" is to SHOW that "2 x 2" is "2 x 2" but even while being "2 x 2", it is still equal to "4." If we WEREN'T showing that "2 x 2" was different from, and yet equivalent to 4.

So all this idiot does is prove the reasoning behind the statement "2 times 2 equals 4," which is what he originally set out to show flaw with.

I looked it up, and came to the above conclusion. ^

The paradox is only for theoretical spheres, not physical spheres.

In in fact, the only reason the paradox works, is because the volume of an infinite number of pieces cannot be measured.

This is the exacting reason why mathematicians and philosophers stick to pragmatic, and useful theories. If the paradox can't be applied, is it really a paradox? The paradox doesn't exist, only the description of a paradox of a particular kind exists. And there's no use thinking about how something that doesn't exist could be paradoxical. Because it doesn't exist.

 

Again, the only reason the paradox works is because of oddities about "infinity" described above, but there are many people that refute the traditional concept of "infinity" (which allows for paradoxes like the above), and say that it is wrong.

Your own quote just shows the flaw in what you have just said. It APPEARS to be two different sizes at the same time, but what APPEARS to be so is not what IS so. It's an illusion! Just like an optical illusion, the circles aren't ACTUALLY moving, but it LOOKS like they're moving.

First off, Einstein's "vision" that gravity, matter, and energy don't actually exist, is just his way of describing that the phenomenons we call gravity, matter, and energy, are actually only variations in the space-time continuum. I am very familiar with that theory. I even agree with it.

Still, when Einstein says "gravity, matter, and energy" don't exist, they DO exist; the phenomena, that is. But he is saying that they are not separate things, they are just variations of the same thing (the space-time continuum). So in essence, the phenomena of those three things exist, but they are all spawned from the same "parent."

"The circle and oval are both the same entity" -- YES, and that entity is a CIRCLE, and NOT AN OVAL. Yeesh, how many times must I say it?

"Thus, while we know it is a circle, it is also an oval as long as we can view it from more than one angle ..." -- Wrong. It is not "also an oval," only our interpretation of the circle "is an oval."

The circle is a circle.
Our interpretation of the circle is an oval.

Do not confuse the actual object with a perspective of the object.

You have completely bastardized Einstein's theory of relativity. What you have said is that "something can be and is more than one thing, depending on your viewpoint of it." But that is not Einstein's theory at all! Einstein's theory proved that there was a single object that could be percieved as multiple objects from different viewpoints.

The VIEWPOINTS may be different, but the OBJECT is not! The object remains exactly the same, as a circle, and not an oval.

Well, you can go call yourself Future Christ, or whatever; that's too egotistical for me. I'll stick with human being, or maybe philosophe/r.

The Buddha, as exalted as he was, said "every being has the Buddha nature." But why then, should we call ourselves Buddhas instead of human beings? All he is saying is that we all have the same nature that he does. So yeah, everyone is a "Buddha," but it is not necessary to use terms like Buddha or Christ, and in doing so, all you are doing is showing off your ego.

Use Ockham's Razor here: It makes more sense to say "We are all human beings." than it does to say "We are all human beings who all have the Buddha/Christ nature." You can cut out the Buddha/Christ part and it won't have any effect.

If I'm so immature, why am I the one disproving all of your points, and then you're just restating them in the exact same way. Look back at what you have been talking about for the past 3 (no, the count is up to 4 or 5 now) pages. You've been hammering on and on about the same topics that all of us have already proven don't make sense in more ways than one; it's like you're pretending that we aren't arguing against you.

WHAT the ****?

Kharakov, LOOK at the above three quotes. The first one is by you, the second one is by me, and the third one is by you.

You first say "Some minds reject ideas like children reject vegetables," then "others don't." You give the examples of Buddha, Christ, and yourself, of peole who don't reject ideas.

Then, you say "of course I [know they rejected ideas]." (substituted "do" to be specific to what we are talking about)

What the heck kind of logic are you using? You're contradicting yourself *all over the place!*

Kharakov, every time I have argued with you, I have never really had the impression that I was dealing with someone worth arguing with. This is the reason why: You contradict yourself all over the place, to make it sound like you are right! You're like Bush, you say one thing, then say "I never said that" later, or say something that contradicts it! THEN, you try to justify your contradiction with another statement that is contradictory!

It's ridiculous. How can I argue against you like this? The only sense you make is to yourself.

Nawww, seriously?

You're just stating the obvious like you're refuting what I said at all!

First off, you say "not all ideas are correct, or you wouldn't be here to argue against them." But that does nothing at all to refute the fact that Buddha dismissed many, many ideas as trivial and incorrect.

Then, you say "This doesn't mean that an incorrect idea is always incorrect," and to paraphrase, it just means it isn't something we like because we don't understand it.

People label ideas as "incorrect," but that label doesn't have any correllation to whether the idea actually IS correct or incorrect. Again, Kharakov, we are not talking about linguistics here, we are talking about logic. When an idea is incorrect, it is ALWAYS incorrect; we don't need to go through the stupid things like separating an idea's truth from what it is labelled as.

"Jokes exist whether or not you get them." And this has absolutely nothing to do with the Buddha rejecting ideas, nor does it follow from the logic of what you are talking about. Existance doesn't have any relation to correctness; it can be correct and not exit, or it can be correct as well as existing.

Imaginations are real, but the things we imagine are not real. Again, you're just placing labels and arguing over linguistics. We are not talking about the label "imagination" being real, we are talking about what you actually imagine, whether it corresponds to reality or not.

You may imagine a unicorn. In reality, unicorns do not exist. The imagination of a unicorn exists, but the unicorn itself does not.

When an idea (say of a unicorn existing) does not correspond to the actual state of reality (whether or not unicorns actually exist), then the idea is false. The concept of the unicorn exists, but the unicorn does not.

That's similar to having blueprints for a house. You're doing the equivalent of arguing that, because the blueprints exist, and because we can picture the house in our mind, the house must exist. When in fact, it hasn't even been built yet.

Let me rephrase myself then. You go ahead and show me ANY example, ANY example, where in reality, the quantity 5 equals the quantity 4, and you are NOT allowed to use perceptions that do not coorespond to the actual state of reality to show it.

Take Einstein's theory of relativity, for example: You say that a circle and an oval both exist. However, Einstein's theory of relativity shows, that there must first be a circle that exists AS a circle and ONLY as a circle, and there must first be a perspective to view the circle in. When the circle is viewed from that perspective (say, 45 degrees), it LOOKS like an oval. However, if what you were looking at were actually an oval as we saw it, then the perspective from which we viewed that oval would make it appear to be a straight line.

In other words. You see an oval. But the figure you are looking at is a circle. What you are seeing isn't actually an oval, it's just a 2D circle that is injected into a 3D world, and the plane on which the circle resides happens to NOT be perpendicular to the third dimension.

Just because you see an oval, doesn't mean the oval exists. I can take magic mushrooms and see a fairy, but the fairy doesn't actually exist. What you percieve is very very different from the state of things as they actually are. And THIS is what Einstein's theory proved. Not that the oval exists because you see it.

In other words, you aren't actually seeing an oval, it's just that what you are seeing is represented, to you, as an oval because of your perspective.

So ... you must use a perspective that cooresponds identically to actual reality, to come up with your example.

You say the perceptions you use coorespond to reality. But then you say that the distance is 4 from one perception and 5 from another perception.

Einstein's theory of relativity would show that the number might be 5, but you see it as 4 because the space-time continuum DISTORTS WHAT YOU SEE. That is the theory of relativity.

The example I was given to show the application of the theory of relativity is this:

Imagine you and a friend are right near a black hole. You aren't in the gravitational pull, but your friend is. Since you're doing this experiment, you each have a watch and a flashlight for spotting the other person.

As your friend gets pulled further and further into the black hole, because space-time is warped because of the black hole, the wavelengths from the flashlight are sent from the sender as yellow light waves, but the person being pulled into the black hole will see blue light waves instead of yellow ones.

Similarly, if either person looks at his own watch, it will appear to function normally. But, if the person in the black hole looks at the person outside the black hole's watch, the watch will LOOK like it is going slower. And if the person outside the black hole looks at the watch of the person inside the black hole, it will look like time is going super fast.

So which wavelength is it, yellow, or blue? According to Einstein's theory of relativity, the wavelength is still the same length for both people, but because space-time is warped for the person in the black hole, it appears as if it is of a different length (which is why it as seen as blue).

You say "every perception is a part of reality," but that is not true. Every perception is a DISTORTION of reality; at least according to what science has proven (thanks in part to Einstein, Hawking, and countless other scientists).

In fact, this is even the fundamental concept behind Buddhism, that there are two "realities," one of them is actual reality, and the other one is a distorted version of that actual reality.

The degree to which reality is distorted is relative. Consider the light wave example again. The flashlight's waves are a specific length. Because the person holding the flashlight outside of the black hole's gravity does not have much distortion between the light waves and his eyes (space-time continuum distortion includes gravity, magnetism, etc.), the light waves emitted are of a yellow wavelength. But because there is a lot of distortion between the flashlight and the person inside the black hole (because of the enormous amount of gravity in the black hole, which distorts space-time), the wavelength appears distorted, slower, and blue. But it is still actually the exact same wavelength.

So let me laugh; the funny part is that you say "the quantity 5" and "the quantity 4" but what you are referring to is actually not what is defined as a "quantity" in English, but rather something else that you have fabricated in your own mind, right?

You can say the issue of quantity is a strawman however many times you like, that does not change the fact that you are beating around the bush to avoid this matter, which you are actually wrong about.

Alright, I'm just going to come out an say it: You are an outright egotistical prick.

Listen, I'm trying to have a logical discussion with you. You go and instead of arguing over what is logical and what isn't, you just proclaim yourself to be above the other person. That's just you going "I'm right, you're wrong, I can't prove it, but I don't care."

In reality, it just makes you look like: A COMPLETE RETARD. A retard who doesn't care about what actually is, but argues just to waste people's time.

 

Idiot; rocks don't have imaginations. They can't "think" that they are of the quantity 5, they just ARE in the quantity 5. Rocks and other nonliving things have values, and we (as living things) have perceptions. The values are what make up reality; there ARE 5 rocks. The perceptions are just data that we recieve that are distorted from the actual values.

Our perceptions are not always compromised by distortion of reality. Most times, our perceptions are rather accurate to reality. When I walk down the street, unadulterated by chemicals, and not in a black hole or under any other distorting conditions, I will see 5 rocks with a perception that cooresponds to reailty because it is not distorted from reality.

If I am drunk and walking down that same path, I might see 10 rocks, but that perception is distorted, so it does not correspond to reality.

Here's one example. Let's say, I have 15 bottles. And I want to relay the information "how many bottles" to you. So, I tell you, 15. However, the number that I say ("fifteen"), as it travels through reality, might become distorted for various reasons, and what you hear, you might interpret to be "fifty" instead of "fifteen." Because it does not take much distortion for "fifteen" to sound like "fifty."

But, what I actually said was fifteen. I did not say fifty, even though you heard "fifty." And that is the theory of relativity. I said fifteen, I did not say fifty. From your perspective, I did say fifty, but I actually did NOT say fifty. By your logic, I would have said both fifteen and fifty, and that's impossible according to actual logic.

Again, you're just an egotistical dumbshit. I'm sitting here trying to make sense of what you're saying (so is everyone else), but you're just assuming that I'm not trying to make sense out of your nonsense, so you state something like this because you think you're the smartest piece of shit that ever lived.

But in reality, you're just being a moron, using the same kind of distorted logic that Christian fundamentalists do to "prove" that their god exists. They aren't actually proving anything, nor are they more understanding than anyone else, but they think they are, because they're so caught up in their own goddamn selves, just like you, Kharakov.

You obviously aren't capable of actually having an intelligent argument, so do me a favour and just stop here.

Fool; I'm not talking about writing with symbols, I'm talking about making conversation about mathematics instead of symbolism. Which you are obviously incapable of doing.

So, stop talking about symbolism and start talking about mathematics. I guess that's what I mean to say.

That is not relativity as Einstein taught it; that's your own distorted version of it.

This is taken right from Wikipedia:

Read that last bit: The observer will FEEL weightless (but actually they are falling towards the Earth). That does not mean they ARE weightless. Which is what you are saying the theory of relativity says: that they are weightless.

You say that a thing has many different properties depending on how you view it. But according to the theory of relativity, a thing always has the exact same properties, but because you must view those properties, there is an amount of distortion involved that may be great enough to distort how those properties are seen, so that they look like other properties.

In other words, again, the circle is still a circle and it is not an oval, but your view of it is distorted enough for the circle to look like an oval (even though it is not an oval).

I will admit here that what I said makes no sense. I said something that didn't correspond to what I was thinking. Allow me to rephrase it:

Relativity is a function of space-time distortion, not a function of the actual state of reality.

Then keep them intellectually directed instead of emotionally directed. Keep them *cooresponding to what the argument is about*, is what I mean by "oriented."

 

That's a strawman. Do you know what a strawman is?

Which is part of linguistics. My original argument is about the linguistic use of the word possible.

I later on rephrased the original argument because the word ambiguous did not convey exactly what I meant (which is pretty funny). The word falsifiable was added to the argument to further clarify what I meant.

It isn't. 'It may or may not be true that 5=4' is a true statement, it covers all of the options. If you couldn't understand this simple fact, I would worry about you. I know you can though. Maybe you should read up on boolean logic. Find out what an OR gate is.

I have been talking about them all along.strawman

Yah. There is a program that did it. Something prior to Avida (google avida and check out their websight for a cool evolution program- I don't know if avida uses the numbers only setup).

I never said it was. You need to take a deep breath and read what I write.

You know Hikky- this is just another strawman of yours. You gotta respond to what I say if you really want to argue.
I said people didn't notice gravity for a while although it was always there. Same with other spacial dimensions- they could be there and not noticed yet.

People didn't discover gravity for hundreds of years.

Another strawman. You are not able to argue anything directly, are you?

I suggested you learn about higher dimensional mathematics by reading stuff about string theory. Anyways, even your strawman is wrong. Higher dimensional mathematics are not wrong- the theory they are used to describe is wrong.

Higher dimensional mathematics is not a theory- it is a type of math that can describe a line that can be equidistant from a fixed point and different distances from the same point. String theory is a theory- HDM is a type of math.

I didn't say I couldn't prove my point. You do not understand my point. Maybe you will understand it after college if you take HDM. I pointed you to string theory because I thought you might find HDM examples that you would understand (because string theory pages are aimed at layman, and I don't know if you can find an HDM page designed for laymen).


The rest of your post was to Meagain.

 

Hik- Draw a wide oval. View it from an angle. It is a circle.

Say you approach a glowing geometric object floating somewhere. It looks like a circle. You walk around it and it now looks like an oval. It's just a glowing line that appears different from different perspectives. You do not know have a specific perspective that is the correct interpretation of the object. The object is and oval from one perspective and a circle from another.

You are right. Something can have many different properties depending on your viewpoint, although it is always the same thing.

Saying the truth only offends those who have an ego.

You haven't disproved any of my points. You have pointed out that I worded something incorrectly, and I appreciate that.

Should I say "Some minds reject ideas that are good for them like children reject vegetables" so it is easier for you to understand? I never said I don't reject ideas, I implied (with the vegetable comment) that the ideas you rejected were good ones for your mind. Of course I reject bad ideas. I reject yours, don't I?

Still a strawman. HDM.

The funny part is that we are talking about it at all. Strawman.

I was never arguing that the quantity 5 = the quantity 4. In fact, I gave numerous examples that illustrate that I was not talking of quantities. The whole quantity issue is a strawman.

I have proven that my original argument is correct. You can't touch it, so you bring up all your strawmen, which, although entertaining, have no bearing upon the original argument.

You aren't wasting my time. I am here to participate in your and everyones learning (including myself). It so happens that even though you don't admit it publically, some of the information I give you is sinking in. I have already seen you repeat some of the things I said to you last summer in the other large argument we had. Even though you denied that the concepts were correct last summer, now you use them, which is gratifying to me. I am sure you are learning things now that you will use later, even if you do bitch about it constantly.

Strawman. Remember.

 

Got me. I thought they did. Truly I did. Me pops is gonna smack me bad this 'ere night, e' is.

What if you are tripping and swing a rock on a string. How many rocks would you see then?

Yeah. I told my friend I was gonna buy him a case of beer cuz he helped me fix my car. So, on the way home from the distributor, I drank a beer. So he only got 23 beers. Than I drank more at his house. So even though I said I was giving him a case, he only ended up with about 15 beers, cuz I was over there last night drinkin' too. Ohh, and they were bottles.

Nah. We aren't talking about what you think you said, we are talking about the sound waves that came out of your mouth. You know this is a strawman too. When I give an example to support my main argument and you turn it into an argument about the example it's still a strawman. You have to address the main argument.

Look Hikaru, if you don't understand what I'm saying, it's probably because you don't know enough yet. Trust me, you don't stop learning at 18. You keep on learning. You know how much more knowledgeable you are now than when you were 8? You are going to gather that much more knowledge in the next 10 years. Some of the things I am saying now will make perfect sense to you later. You really need to work on your own pride. It causes you to make many rude comments about other people being proud, when all they are doing is telling the truth.

Ohh, well that would be a new topic. Why don't you start a new thread and see if anyone joins in?

Sorry, that would mean that I accept your strawman, which I do not.

You are right, I wasn't talking about Einsteinian relativity at all. I got my distorted version of relativity right from the freakin' dictionary where I get all my distorted words-

Relativity : the state of being dependent for existence on or determined in nature, value, or quality by relation to something else (courtesy m-w.com)

If I addressed your einsteinian relativity strawman, please disregard it. I sometimes space out (hahaha) for a while as time (hahaha) goes by.

God. Hikaru- I was going to say the same thing to you. You are very bright- probably near genius level IQ, but you really let your pride get to you. You think when I dismiss an idea as wrong that I am dismissing you, and I definitely am not. I am sure there are things that you know that I don't, but you have to know that I have been around longer than you and have 11 years of experience on you. I have been talking on discussion boards for years, thinking about science, philosophy, religion, and linguistics the whole time. My path to knowledge has been guided by the most intelligent mind of all, and I humbly except that I will always be a student, but I will always be a teacher as well.

The main argument is what I have been trying to direct you towards. All of these strawmen are inconsequential to the main argument.

A statement of the form "It is possible that X" can always be interpreted as true even if X is false.

Here is the proof (courtesy m-w.com)
possible: being something that may or may not be true or actual

 

And many, many pages ago, we rose above possible as a word, and started talking about possible as a logical condition. Logical conditions are not part of linguistics, it's the other way around. Linguistics are part of logical conditions. Reason precedes language; language's base is literally reason and logic.

You say 'It may or may not be true that 5=4' is a (true) statement.

All statements have an intended meaning.

Some statements, like the above, are ambiguous, and can be (incorrectly) interpreted to mean something other than what was intended.

So when you say "It may or may not be true that 5=4," that does not cover all of the options, it can only be interpreted to mean all of the options. But what was actually intended is only one of those options.

Just like the theory of relativity ... the statement means something. What it actually means is often distorted, and people think it means something else, but it actually doesn't mean what they think it means, it means what was intended.

The original concept that you intended to describe with your statement IS falsifiable (unless it is true, of course; but it'd be true on the virtue of cooresponding with reality, not on the virtue of being ambiguous).

The statement can be interpreted many ways, but what you meant when you said the statement is not "all of the options," it can only be one.

Also, I'm a freakin' programmer, a CS major. I know what boolean logic is; I'm willing to bet I know more about it than you. That contest aside, an OR gate is just an inclusive or boolean construct that works like this:

Condition 1, or, Condition 2, Result
true, or, true, true
true, or, false, true
false, or, true, true
false, or, false, false

I knew that concept when I was 13 years old, you're not going to win by default because I don't know boolean operators, you'll have to try much harder than that.

Regardless, Kharakov, I think you need to specify, in terms that aren't ambiguous, exactly what you mean by your statement.

And a long time ago, we all came to the conclusion that linguistic possibilities are based on logical possibilities, so we talked about logic. You know you can't win the argument if you follow it into logical grounds, so you're struggling to avoid the argument.

Regardless, make your argument again, I'll even talk linguistic possibilities with you until you finally understand why language is based on logic.

What kind of response is this? Even if someone did write that program, programs alone do not create results. They require defined hardware, and hardware never comes in a numerical form. You might be able to write instructions in numbers, but then again, you are NOT writing instructions in quantities anyway. Instead, you are using "1" and "0" as symbols for true and false; so instructions in computers aren't even quantities to begin with.

*takes a deep breath*

You equate gravity to a spatial dimension through the comparison that gravity went unknown for a very long time, and use that as your argument to justify not knowing that a spatial dimension exists.

However, gravity and spatial dimensions, being of entirely different natures, do not follow similar rules. Gravity might go unnoticed, but a fourth spatial dimension would not.

This is not even a strawman to begin with. You related gravity to spatial dimensions, so I explained how the relationship you drew is invalid. Now, you're starting to use the word "strawman" as a strawman itself, trying to draw us away from your failure to actually defeat me in the argument.

Secondly, how would a spatial dimension exist without us not noticing it? For the past century, scientists have been trying to prove that a whole of 26 dimensions exist, but they can only even find concrete evidence that 3 exist. What does that tell us?

Also, movement into a 4th spatial dimension has never been observed, nor can an experiment be set up to try to move something through a 4th dimension. This suggests that one does not exist.

So wait ... you tell me to look up higher dimensional mathematics to gain an understanding of what you are talking about ... and then, when I do exactly that (and show how much of an idiot you are for even bringing it up), you call it a strawman? YOU BROUGHT UP THE WHOLE IDEA, DUMBASS. You're the one who suggested the strawman to begin with, then you blame it on me? Honestly, how fucking retarded are you, up there on your high horse?

A type of math that directly contradicts proven facts. Therefore, it cannot possibly be 100% correct. Furthermore, because it cannot possibly be correct, using it to justify your arguments is worthless, because a flawed set of mathematics doesn't support any conclusions drawn from those mathematics.

Drawn it. Looked at it from an an angle. Yes, it looks like a circle. But I know for certain that it is NOT a circle, because I did not draw a circle, I drew an oval.

For the last time: Just because something looks like it is something does not mean it is what it looks like. You have even said this yourself in previous posts.

What idea is keeping you from understanding what you yourself have said?

But when we "do not [sic] have a specific perspective that is the correct interpretation of the object," we do not conclude that it is both one object and another objects, especially when those two objects cannot possibly be the same.

Instead, we say "we don't know what exactly that object is," and then we go further to say "it looks like a circle sometimes, and looks like an oval other times, but we do not have enough information about the object to conclude that it is either one, or both."

Science was not founded in calling all rectangles squares just because you can look at it a certain way and it looks like a square. Science and mathematics stems on the fact that not all rectangles are squares, even though all rectangles can be viewed as squares (not to confuse rectangles with quadrilaterals, which can't all be viewed as squares).

By your logic, all rectangles are also squares.

But there are about 6 billion people in the world who can prove that wrong.

Don't get me wrong, it's not offensive. I'm just pointing out that, in saying the truth that particular way, you seem incredibly egotistical. You could say that same truth in another, more humble, and less complex way, but you didn't. And the only reason that can follow from why you wouldn't say it that way is because you are seeking to glorify yourself.

How about you re-list your major points, and we can start from scratch to find out exactly where it goes, aye?

This is getting too complex and frankly I'm running out of patience for it. I can only imagine that you want to solve this too.

Strawman this:

HDM is not an example; HDM is outright flawed.

You're just hiding behind "strawman" again, instead of giving a good example. Put your ideas where your mouth is, and give me an example, without using a mathematical system that contradicts reality.

You don't even know how to use the word "strawman" correctly. In my quote above, I take a break from even arguing about logic, and I go back to arguing about linguistics (which is part of what we were originally arguing about), and you call that a strawman? You're calling part of your original argument a strawman; that's ridiculous.

All of those four quotes above were by you, Kharakov.

So ... let's see you ... you say "that it is possible 5 = 4," then you say "I was never arguing that the quantity 5 = the quantity 4."

Now, I'm assuming you are speaking in English. In English, 5 represents the quantity 5, and 4 represents the quantity 4. Any other things that 5 and 4 represent need to be specified ahead of time, because 5 and 4 do not normally represent anything other than quantities.

So your statement "it is possible 5 = 4" can only logically be interpreted to be speaking about quantities. Because you could not be talking about 5 and 4 as symbols for something else, because in English, they are not symbols for anything else at all.

Thus, you were in fact speaking about quantities, Kharakov.

How have you proven that? Just humour me, and restate your original argument, and restate your concrete and undeniable proof.

Secondly, it's hard not to bring up "strawmen" as you put it, when you say things like the 5 = 4 quotes, and assume that we will think you are saying something else. You're the one bringing up strawmen, then denouncing me when I disprove you about it. You bring up "strawman" every time I have an argument that you don't want to face.

Hmm ... I have no recollection of ever learning anything from you, but that does spark my interest. What, specifically, have I said, that you have "taught" to me?

Also, if I take up a position in an argument, then a year later, you see that my position has changed ... that doesn't mean YOU proved me wrong. You're just inflating your ego again, by thinking that it does.

Ah ... strawman, Kharakov. "Remember." As you so quantily put it.

Strawman again. This isn't even an intelligent response to what I said.

You address the main example and prove it right or wrong using examples. When I show that your examples are wrong and don't prove your main argument, you simply do what you're doing here: Claim that it's a strawman.

I called you egotistical for a reason, Kharakov. You obviously don't understand why, but ... maybe you will, in time. I hope, one day, you actually do get off your high horse, and do manage to prove that you were right about at least one thing. Because so far, all you've done is hidden behind a word like "strawman."

Listen. Many pages ago, I explained how we were no longer talking about linguistics, we were talking about logic, because linguistics is based on logic, and you have to go right down to the fundamentals if you're going to discover any fundamental truths.

However, every time someone tries to go and talk about what is BEHIND the linguistics, you just throw up the word "strawman," then say that it's not what the argument is about. But, it IS what the argument is about, because by resolving the argument about logic, we can resolve the argument about linguistics, because lingustics are based on logic.

So, that definition above, is Einstein's Theory of Relativity?

Kharakov, you just defined the word "relativity," not the concept of "Einstein's Theory of Relativity."

The word relativity has little if nothing to do with Einstein's theory of relativity.

Again, you're just putting up a strawman that claims that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a strawman (which it isn't).

 

Alright. All that stuff I said above, about restating your main argument and its proof, disregard it. You've just done it.

Now, let's take a critical look at this here.

You say that the statement "It is possible that x" can always be interpreted as true even if X is false.

However ...

X is not defined in this statement. You have previously defined X as "5 = 4." Now, considering that the statement is in English, when you say "5," the only English definition for "5" is the quantity five. The same goes for 4. So, because you are speaking in English, the statement, by default, is interpreted to be talking about quantities, because English does not have other meanings for the symbols "5" and "4."

Dictionary.com defines "five" as:

"The cardinal number equal to 4 + 1."

Since all numbers represent quantities, it can be inferred that we are speaking about quantities, since "five" is defined in English.

Now, we take a critical look at "5 = 4." This statement, by the logic of the universe, is false, because it contradicts the laws of quantitative mathematics. If you think that "5 = 4" can be true, you are burdened with the obligation of providing an example where that is the case.

Thus, "X", in this particular situation is indeed false.

Now, you define something that is possible as "something that may or may not be true or actual."

However, X, in this case, is NOT "something that may or may not be true or actual." Specifically, it is something that cannot possibly be false.

So, because it is NOT possible for X, the statement that says it IS possible is false.

In any situation where X is not defined, you are correct in saying that the statement cannot be falsified. However, that does not mean it can be shown to be true, either. It is just unresolvable.

Now, I have an intuition that you will disagree with my argument here. So, I'd like to ask something of you. I want you to point out the specific part where my argument is wrong, and then explain how it is wrong; that way, we can get this over with without any strawmen, aye?

Also, just to make sure we don't mix up anything from the previous posts with this current, particular argument, let's try and keep them separate, alright? Then we won't go through all of that crap we did previously.

 

Yes.

However ...

On purpose because 5 != 4. It's an example of X being false. Although there are exceptions in which the symbols 5 = 4 mean something other than the quantity 5 is the equivalent of the quantity 4, I don't see how it is relevant to the main point (as I am looking at it). The whole 5 =4 strawman arose because the statement 5=4 can mean more than one thing (it could be part of a substitution cypher chart, or some other wierd thing using 5s and 4s as symbols, like a road map or something) and someone implied that it could only mean the quantity 5 = the quantity 4, which I had to correct because that is completely untrue.

You are right, and I was. The only reason I mentioned anything about this strawman (sorry to have to call it that, but it is a seperate argument) was that 5 = 4 can mean more than one thing, not that it usually does, but there are times when it does mean something other than the mathematical interpretation.

You are completely right abd I provide this example. Substitution cypher. This deals with symbols being used in place of eachother- not the straight out mathematics of 5=5 and only 5 (which I do understand).

For the rest of this (current) message 5 = 4 only refers to the false statement that the quantity 5 is the equivalent of the quantity 4.

I am glad you understand boolean OR gates. Makes this a lot simpler.
'X May (true) OR May Not (false) be true.' will always be a true statement unless X can neither be true or false. I don't know any other way of explaining this concept then a boolean OR gate.

I totally understand what you are saying, but you are using the wrong definition of possible, although with this definition your statement is correct:

I am using this definition which includes (a version of) the boolean OR gate:

Another way to word the example statement is this:
It is either true or false that 5=4. (which implies that it is not both true and false- it is one or the other- which is true)

Your argument is sound, but I feel it is directed at the wrong definition of possible... and I don't want to say str...an and piss you off.

 

(This particular quotation should be marked now as a separate deviance from the argument.)
I'd argue that, in English, 5=4 couldn't possibly mean anything else, unless what it could mean was previously specified (for example, using "5" and "4" as "x" and "y" equivalents; to correctly interpret what you're talking about, you'd have to have previously specified what they meant).

Now I see what logic you are deriving this from. However, I'd like to point out that "possible," as a logical construct, doesn't directly infer a boolean OR clause just because the linguistic definition implies it. You are using this, how to say, order of operations:

***Note: "||" means binary boolean "or"

( (x == true) || (x == false) )

However, because this particular equation always results in a true answer ... it doesn't actually describe the how possible it is for X to equal a particular value.

To correctly think of how possible should be used, you would use an equation like this:[in]

(x == undefined)

I'm not sure if you are familiar with programming at all; this just means, this statement returns the value "true" if x is undefined. That "true" would correllate to "possible," where false would correllate to "impossible."

In this statement (I apologize if my programming habits get in the way of explaining this, just let me know if they do) when x is not a definate value, it is possible that it can be many values. However, when x is defined as a particular value, it is not possible for x to equal any other values at all.

Thus, when x is defined, it is not possible for it to be something else. So it is no longer a "possibility." And when x is not defined, it is possible for it to be one or more values.

This would stem from the idea that every concept would have a property, "possibility," as to how possible it is for this concept to reflect actual reality. And we don't actually know what that property's value is all the time. If you use an OR clause to describe how "possible" it is for occurring, then you are always saying "it is possible."

Here is what will probably link up the difference between your dictionary definition and my definition:

Think of a real object. Say, a ball, or a planet, or something. What are the chances that, over the duration of the entire universe's existance, a ball or planet of those exacting properties would appear? The chances are almost non-existant. However, it is still possible.

So when you are dealing with physical objects, it is pretty much always possible for something to occur.

However, when you talk about constructs and non-physical concepts, and you use the word possible, another, more technical definition must be used. A logical statement like "5 = 4" would actually have no chance of occurring, ever, within the logic that the statement is built on. If the logic of the universe would change, then it wouldn't be that "5 actually does equal 4," it would just mean that the statement "5 cannot equal 4" would be inaccurate to reality and would no longer be considered truthful.

So because, within the unchanging system of logic in which 5 cannot equal 4 (our current logic system that our universe is based on), it can't actually be said that "5 could possibly equal 4."

So the definition that you should use instead of either of our definitions, would actually be a synthesis of both definitions. Something along the lines of this (bear with the programming structure):

if ( x is defined ) then {
if ( ( x is true ) || ( x is false ) ) then return true;
otherwise return false;
}
else {
if ( x is true ) then return true;
otherwise return false;
}
}

Again, I apologize if that makes no sense. I'll explain it in English here:

If what we are talking about (x) is defined (meaning it has physical properties; it is a physical object, or a "blueprint" thereof), then it is always possible, because the universe is constantly changing and it could one day come into existance if it doesn't exist already.

However, if what we are talking about is not defined (meaning it doesn't take on properties like a physical object; it would then be a concept), then it is either possible or impossible. And, if it can be evaluated (if it is definately true or false according to actual reality), then it is possible only for it to be what it is, and it is impossible for it to be anything else.

If you applied your definition to a logical concept, the statement "it is possible that 5 = 4," then it would always be possible, under the current logical system, for the quantity 5 to equal the quantity 4. However, nowhere in this unwavering logic would those quantities be equal, so then the statement "it is not possible that 5 = 4" using your definition, would not accurately describe the possibililty of that condition of arising.

Similarly, if you applied MY definition to a physical concept, you'd also get bogus, incorrect results: You might say "this ball could possibly exist at (x, y, z)." However, because that ball doesn't exist there, you'd be forced to conclude that it isn't possible (because it isn't currently true). Thus, the statement would alawys be false, but that wouldn't be the actual case, because the ball might move into that exact position at another time, which demonstrates that it IS possible.

In other words, I think the problem is time. Our universe's state changes with time, but its behaviour (logic/laws) doesn't. This would be a similar concept in programming, when talking about objects. Objects have a state (which changes while the program is running), a behaviour (which is what specifically makes that object what it is), and an identity (which separates it from other objects that have the same state and behaviour).

Since logic never changes,a logical x is not always possible. But since the universe's state does change, a physical x is pretty much always possible.

Do you agree?

Sorry if halfway down this post, I don't seem to make much sense, then I start making sense at the end. This post is kind of a log of my attempt to come to a conclusion.

 

this is the thread of long posts


with good there must be evil at a point in time

 

Duelly noted. Pun intended, with love and drunkeness (my friend just graduated from college, his mom made awesome cabbage rolls).

At the same time, I could use it to mean what I mean. You understand my point about substitution cyphers (a cypher in which you use one symbol as the equivalent of another (which, BTW, are totally awesome, and I love them when I am sober)) where one party would not tell another in the message what they mean, because they did not want to expose the secret of the cypher (or the sith. I need to see that movie, being drunk at 7:14 pm at your parents house while you are visiting your old home town and are gonna go out with old friends KICKS ASS! I am so happy now.).

Thanks man.

Yah, but the implication of the definition allows some play- you can use the definition to mean more than one thing, which is what I have been saying. You are totally right with what you are saying about it: (continued after quote)

But you can interprete the definition of possible in the way I have said, which is the problem I had with the use of the word possible in the original statement of this thread:

I understand this completely. You made this point earlier in a non programing way, and were completely correct about it- but the words definition allows more than one interpretation, which is my point.

According to this definition of possible:1 a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization b : being what may be done or may occur according to nature, custom, or manners....

but not this very broad definition that may be interpreted in the way I have said: 2 a : being something that may or may not occur b : being something that may or may not be true or actual <possible explanation>

I stress that this only applies to definition 1 of possible.

Which has a direct relationship to the first definition of possible. The only issue I truly have is that the other definition allows you linguistic leeway in the interpretation of the definition, whether or not everyone else can see it. It's not your logic that I accuse- it is the word itself that fails to meet my standards of constraint of meaning. I am ultimately very very anal retentive when it comes to definitions of words (if you haven't noticed yet (which is impossible, because you know how often I site the dictionary)). I really have strong feelings about words. I don't know why- but I really want everything to be completely organized- including the usage of words. God given blessing or curse. Who knows.

I don't know. Don't get it or something. The previous statement confuses me, but I am pretty buzzed, so it might be completely logical and correct. It just seems wierd. However, you should notice that I spell as well drunk as I do sober, because I only drank beer.

That's why reality is so awesome. You never know when a totally hot chick is gonna offer to let you take shots off her boobs in an airport, but it happens. Trust me.

Which is exactly what I was talking about. I was flying back from Sacramento once on Southwest and I meet this girl in the line for the plane. I was with my dad (and I have a girlfriend). The girl was super hot, and really friendly. Well, she started talking to the guy in front of us in line. I gave up. Well, we all got on the plane and she was sitting by herself a couple seats in front of us (while I was walking through the plane). So I asked her if she wanted to sit with anyone. She did! This girl told me how she was a stripped down in florida. She showed me her ID with the name her parents gave her (possibly): Star Zamarippa. That is a total stripper name.

She had finagled a couple of free drink coupons from the ticket agent, so she got me wasted. We played strip poker in the plane until a flight attendant yelled at me (she said she couldn't understand why, cuz I am hot and the guy was gay, but whatever). She gave me a few Klonapin. The next thing I really remember is drinking shots off her tits in an airport bar (woot!) and my dad grabbing my shoulder and telling me it was time for the next flight.

Well, it's time for dinner (I am visiting my parents), so I will talk to you later.