Originally Posted by Mahratta

Rubbish. If you read a spot into the why of mathematics - kind of like working outside of the calculus - you'll see that even the most "trustworthy" mathematical system is doomed to either inconsistency or incompleteness. Of course, we're hoping that it's incompleteness - we don't have any way of showing that our hope is well-founded, though, without using (non-mathematical) induction, which itself is inherently problematic from a deductive point of view.

My mistake, I should have said : "Mathematics that describe laws of physics or laws of nature are flawless. 1=1.

And that is a fact and it has been proven with experiments. How do we know the universal constants ? Experiments.

How did we prove Laws of Motions and mathematical models which describe subatomic particles ? Experiments.

Originally Posted by Commander

My mistake, I should have said : "Mathematics that describe laws of physics or laws of nature are flawless. 1=1.

And that is a fact and it has been proven with experiments. How do we know the universal constants ? Experiments.

How did we prove Laws of Motions and mathematical models which describe subatomic particles ? Experiments.

Even worse.

Experiments are precisely the problem, not the solution. Indeed, it's the same reliance on (empirical) induction that makes our hope in the consistency of formal mathematics logically flawed, except rather more explicit.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Even worse.

Experiments are precisely the problem, not the solution. Indeed, it's the same reliance on (empirical) induction that makes our hope in the consistency of formal mathematics logically flawed, except rather more explicit.

Oh you did not say that.....

Experiments are REAL and in Science : No Experiments ---> Theory is bollocks (when it deals with Universe)

So according to you this formula isn't fact...

E=m*c^2

Even if Hiroshima was proof of that.

Originally Posted by Commander

Oh you did not say that.....

Experiments are REAL and in Science : No Experiments ---> Theory is bollocks (when it deals with Universe)

So according to you this formula isn't fact...

E=m*c^2

Even if Hiroshima was proof of that.

See, this is precisely why it was comical that you brought up 'arguing with creationists'.

Creationist: "God created the Earth!"
Commander: "We can universally generalize future instances from a finite number of past instances!"

Response: "There's no proof of that."

Creationist & Commander: "Oh you did not say that...<insert "justification" that begs the question here>"

You dig?

Originally Posted by Mahratta

See, this is precisely why it was comical that you brought up 'arguing with creationists'.

Creationist: "God created the Earth!"
Commander: "We can universally generalize future instances from a finite number of past instances!"

Response: "There's no proof of that."

Creationist & Commander: "Oh you did not say that...<insert nonsense>"

You dig?

You retard.....

I BELIEVE IN PROOF.

I KNOW NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITY IS REAL BECAUSE HUMANS LAUNCH SATELLITES INTO F***** SPACE THANKS TO IT.

You are making crap out of nothing. I did not say that I didn't support proof. I clearly said, experiments proved these laws of natures which are expressed mathematically. And by Creationist, I meant those that reject evolution and believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. My mistake, I generalized creationists, even when I mentioned that it was about those who rejected evolution (biological).

Originally Posted by Commander

You retard.....

I take this switch to the ad hominem as concession to my point.

I BELIEVE IN PROOF.

I KNOW NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITY IS REAL BECAUSE HUMANS LAUNCH SATELLITES INTO F***** SPACE THANKS TO IT.

"I KNOW GOD CREATED THE EARTH BECAUSE THE EARTH IS SUITABLE FOR F****** HUMAN HABITATION!"

Unfortunately for your argument, caps lock and cursing doesn't make blind faith rational.

You are making crap out of nothing. I did not say that I didn't support proof. I clearly said, experiments proved these laws of natures which are expressed mathematically.

I hope someone else notices how similar this is to an 'argument with a creationist' - just substitute 'laws of nature' for 'God'...

Originally Posted by Mahratta

I take this switch to the ad hominem as concession to my point.



"I KNOW GOD CREATED THE EARTH BECAUSE THE EARTH IS SUITABLE FOR F****** HUMAN HABITATION!"

Unfortunately for your argument, caps lock and cursing doesn't make blind faith rational.



I hope someone else notices how similar this is to an 'argument with a creationist' - just substitute 'laws of nature' for 'God'...

You are delusional..

So using your stupid way thinking...

Person B goes to Mahratta, and tells it that he has an apple in his back pocket.

A Logical person would response : Show me your apple, prove your statement.

And if the person has an apple, he/she would show it.

However, Mahratta sees the apple and says :" I don't see anything.. This isn't an apple, I don't believe in reality because I play too many video games like Assassin Creed (probably where he got the idea of "Nothing is real...".

You know who have your philosophy ? Nihilists.

THE VERY THING YOU ARE USING RIGHT NOW WAS MADE THANKS TO KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNIVERSE WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSLATED IN TERMS OF MATHEMATICS FOR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.

Originally Posted by Commander

You are delusional..

So using your stupid way thinking...

You clearly misunderstood. The point is about the universal generalization of a finite number of past instances to a potentially infinite number of future instances. In other words, your "example" is completely impertinent.

Of course, I don't think you need to shake your baseless belief. Indeed, as an engineer, it's best to keep the wool over your eyes and work 'in-calculus', so to speak.

Originally Posted by Commander

THE VERY THING YOU ARE USING RIGHT NOW WAS MADE THANKS TO KNOWLEDGE OF THE UNIVERSE WHICH HAS BEEN TRANSLATED IN TERMS OF MATHEMATICS FOR HUMAN UNDERSTANDING.

Errr, not really. This is, in fact, exactly the response which I'm likening to the (stereotypical) 'creationist response': "We have the internet, therefore the scientific method is true". Of course, logically speaking, this is nonsense - just like "we have beautiful natural phenomena, therefore God created the Earth".

Originally Posted by Mahratta

You clearly misunderstood. The point is about the universal generalization of a finite number of past instances to a potentially infinite number of future instances. In other words, your "example" is completely impertinent.

THERE IS NO POTENTIAL INFINITE NUMBER OF FUTURE INFINITE INSTANCES.

If you change a universal constant by a little, the universe wouldn't exist. It wouldn't be. Parralel universes may exists, but they would only be parallel (no interaction with other universes).

That is WHY Laws are Laws. That is why the speed of light is the limit. That is why Energy conservation is real. That is why 1=1.

And congratz for introducing a new point and trying to escape your doom... Because you clearly rejected the fact that Newton's law of Gravity is real.

Originally Posted by Commander

THERE IS NO POTENTIAL INFINITE NUMBER OF FUTURE INFINITE INSTANCES.

Perhaps you'd like to reword this. It doesn't make any sense.

If you change a universal constant by a little, the universe wouldn't exist. It wouldn't be. Parralel universes may exists, but they would only be parallel (no interaction with other universes).

I think you're either deliberately avoiding the point, or pulling the same 'deferring' argument characteristic of adherents to intelligent design - you're working in your system, and arguing that your system is valid. All that is, of course, is asserting that your system is consistent, which brings us back full-circle. I won't bother responding to the rest, as it's really more of the same.

Originally Posted by Mahratta

Perhaps you'd like to reword this. It doesn't make any sense.

I think you're either deliberately avoiding the point, or pulling the same 'deferring' argument characteristic of adherents to intelligent design - you're working in your system, and arguing that your system is valid. All that is, of course, is asserting that your system is consistent, which brings us back full-circle. I won't bother responding to the rest, as it's really more of the same.

Here , turn potential into an adverb....

I am not "working" in my system...

I am talking about the Universe which wasn't defined by me.

The Universe is consistent or else you wouldn't exist you dumb****.

Originally Posted by Commander

I am talking about the Universe which wasn't defined by me.

That's rubbish. You're talking about the Universe in your terms. Your choice of 'terminology' is no more rational than a Creationist's. Instead of humiliating yourself further, perhaps you should actually try and understand my argument. It's for your own good.

To help you out a bit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

Originally Posted by Mahratta

That's rubbish. You're talking about the Universe in your terms. Your choice of 'terminology' is no more rational than a Creationist's. Instead of humiliating yourself further, perhaps you should actually try and understand my argument. It's for your own good.

I was talking about the Universe in terms of physics which you clearly don't comprehend.

The "laws of Nature" are consistent and related. You probably didn't know that your computer was designed because humans understood electromagnetism and quantum mechanics.

You have no argument. You keep switching arguments.

First you said : I have blind faith because I believe in Newton's Law of gravity.

Second, you said : Universal laws aren't real because there is a "potentially infinite number for future instances" (which is totally ridiculous)

And now you say : "you're working in your system" (When I was talking about the system, the Universe)
And you also said that I am talking about the Universe ( now you admit that I was talking about the Universe) in my terms. (while I was talking it in terms of reality)

The quote below has been taken straight from your link (wikipedia, so sad... Do you actually take stuff from wikipedia?)
"The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge."

Notice the word "question". All of your arguments are invalid.

You clearly seem to not understand what "laws of physics" are or mean. We don't conclude that the laws of physics are constant from observation... We conclude it from logic.

If the laws of physics change: This Universe wouldn't exist. Therefore nothing would exist.

Do you know what Laws of physics are ?

Originally Posted by Commander

You retard.....

I BELIEVE IN PROOF.

I KNOW NEWTON'S LAW OF GRAVITY IS REAL BECAUSE HUMANS LAUNCH SATELLITES INTO F***** SPACE THANKS TO IT.

You are making crap out of nothing. I did not say that I didn't support proof. I clearly said, experiments proved these laws of natures which are expressed mathematically. And by Creationist, I meant those that reject evolution and believe that the Earth is 6000 years old. My mistake, I generalized creationists, even when I mentioned that it was about those who rejected evolution (biological).

Uh...I hope you realize Newton's law of gravity is an empirical explanation of phenomena observed on Earth, and therefore cannot be extrapolated to be a universal truth the way you're implying it to be, right?

Newton thought it was force between bodies, while a more likely explanation is described by general relativity, where the force doesn't actually exist the way Newton thought it did, instead it's simply due to an alteration/curve in the space-time continuum.

So you "knowing" Newton's law of gravity is real sort of undermines your entire point.