Prev: Objectives tree (non mathematical)
Next: Struggling poet needs cash. Please help.
From: travisgod on 19 Apr 2010 17:58
On Apr 18, 9:20 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
> Mark-T <marktanne...(a)gmail.com> wrote innews:d0a9859e-0f2d-4bc0-a324-f0cf19beef7d(a)k41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > yeah, I know that one:  "You can't prove a negative."
>
> Actually, while not every negative propoposition that is true can be proved
> to be true, many (in fact, an infinite number) can!
>
> (Nor can every true proposition be proved true - as Godel showed.  
> Actually, Tarski is the better place to start but I'll let that pass for
> the moment.)
>
> The classic "negative" that can be proved true is: There is no rational
> number which is the square root of 2.
>
> But for folks who are mathematically challenged, I'll give a simpler
> example:  There is no integer smaller than 11 that is the sum of 2 and 5.
> (Or, if you like, "There is no negative integer that is the sum of 4 and
> 2.")

On Apr 18, 9:20 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
> Mark-T <marktanne...(a)gmail.com> wrote innews:d0a9859e-0f2d-4bc0-a324-f0cf19beef7d(a)k41g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > yeah, I know that one: "You can't prove a negative."
>
> Actually, while not every negative propoposition that is true can be proved
> to be true, many (in fact, an infinite number) can!
>
> (Nor can every true proposition be proved true - as Godel showed.
> Actually, Tarski is the better place to start but I'll let that pass for
> the moment.)
>
> The classic "negative" that can be proved true is: There is no rational
> number which is the square root of 2.
>
> But for folks who are mathematically challenged, I'll give a simpler
> example: There is no integer smaller than 11 that is the sum of 2 and 5.
> (Or, if you like, "There is no negative integer that is the sum of 4 and
> 2.")

Uh...isn't 7 the sum of 2 and 5? That is smaller than 11 last I
checked.

Trav
From: travisgod on 19 Apr 2010 17:59
On Apr 19, 2:30 am, "nemo_outis" <a...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
> huge <h...(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote innews:heCdnWrEuZYyJlbWnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com:
>
> ...
>
> > However, when you hear someone say "you can't prove
> > a negative," it is often shorthand for "empirically, you can't
> > prove that there are no x in existence."  
>
> Empirical matters are decided by the sufficiency and weight of empirical
> evidence and the conclusion is always only probable and provisional.  And,
> of course, empirical supporting evidence, by its very nature, cannot be
> absolute and is always partial and cumulative (indeed, is often at least
> partially inconsistent or contradictory). But all this is merely to say
> that the empirical is not the apodeictic.  
>
> But logic still applies.  So, right after we define our terms, there's a
> nice simple syllogism:
>
> Empirically, does God exist? (where God is an entity with properties and
> characteristics which would allow it to be recognized and distinguished
> from other entities. Otherwise, empirically, we don't even have a valid
> proposition that can be ascribed a true or false value, even a
> probabalistic one.)
>
> 1.  If God exists there must be empirical evidence of its existence.
>
> 2.  The empirical evidence for the existence of God is limited, weak, and
> contradictory, and insufficent to distinguish God from other alleged
> entities with similar properties and characteristics, or from other likely
> sources of the empirical evidence.
>
> 3.  Conclusion: On the evidence, God does not exist.
>
> Oddly enough, an almost identical argument regarding pink unicorns, with
> the conclusion that, on the empirical evidence, they do not exist, causes
> Theists no problems whatsoever.  
>
> In fact, although she still doesn't make the empirical cut for the
> truthitude of her existence, the tooth fairy does much better in the
> evidentiary balance than God. Widespread occurence of quarters under
> pillows carries a lot of weight. :-)

There is abundant evidence that your intellect does not exist


Trav
From: travisgod on 19 Apr 2010 18:00
> >The argument from contingency is also not so easily shrugged
> >off. Every object we observe has a cause, or perhaps more
> >accurately, is contingent upon another for its existence.
>
> Nope. Not according to Quantum Mechanics.

A misunderstanding of Quantum Mechanics.

Trav
From: nemo_outis on 19 Apr 2010 19:30
"travisgod(a)aol.cominyrface" <travisgod(a)aol.com> wrote in
news:420e5d83-6215-43c4-be66-b995a5c4423f(a)e21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

>> But for folks who are mathematically challenged, I'll give a simpler
>> example: There is no integer smaller than 11 that is the sum of 2
>> and 5. (Or, if you like, "There is no negative integer that is the
>> sum of 4 and 2.")
>
> Uh...isn't 7 the sum of 2 and 5? That is smaller than 11 last I
> checked.

I'm delighted someone is reading so attentively. Make that "larger."

Regards,

From: Mark-T on 19 Apr 2010 20:30
On Apr 18, 6:20 pm, "nemo_outis" <a...(a)xyz.com> wrote:
> > yeah, I know that one:  "You can't prove a negative."
>
> Actually, while not every negative propoposition that is true
> can be proved to be true, many (in fact, an infinite number) can!
>
> If by "negative" you mean there aren't valid negative existence
> proofs (there is no x such that y is true) then the above examples
> dispose of your error.  If you instead mean that no proposition
> that is expressed in the negative can be proved true then
> demolishing this error is simpler yet.
>
> So, yes, many "negatives" (whatever you twist that to mean)
> can indeed be proved.

Cool. Hence, "you can't prove a negative" is false.

So if I claim Jehovah sends disasters to punish
the sinners, and someone denies it (because Jehovah
is imaginary), and I challenge him to prove it, he
should be able.


Mark
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: Objectives tree (non mathematical)
Next: Struggling poet needs cash. Please help.