k30dxedle wrote:
This statement can be proven wrong.
Done before... from:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p1376031ShawN_ wrote:
topal63 wrote:
ShawN_ wrote:
You will prove me wrong!
You are right... therefore you are wrong.
Think about it for a minute...
O_o cunning logics...
Meh.......
Guess I will have to get more technical then?
This is similar to the liar's proposition / contradiction. The statement is as follows: "Everything I say is a lie." Is this true or false (right or wrong)? How can this be TRUE if everything he says is FALSE? For it to be TRUE he cannot be a liar in every instance - ergo this is a lie (FALSE). And only suggests that this instance is a lie (FALSE). He could only say this instead to avoid a contradiction: "I almost always lie."
Now your statement also contains a subtle contradiction. If we don't prove you wrong - then you are wrong (we could just ignore your post, therefore you are wrong). But how can we prove you wrong by not proving you wrong (by avoidance)? It's a subtle contradiction. Also if we prove you wrong then you are right (as we have proved you wrong), which is a contradiction again by proving you wrong - instead of disproving you - we end up proving your statement (contradiction again). But that only indicates the statement is a contradiction and thus is a FALSE statement, inherent to all self-contradictory statements.
By being right - yet self-contradictory (inherently false) - you are wrong.
______
This is an
OLD problem (from previous posts), that I think did not satisfy as an explanation of why it is not TRUE (or proved to be true). You know, Coobeano's TOK (theory of knowledge) problem is similar to the Celsius problem (WinterWayfarer), now that I think about it:
+1C=+1C, and X=X, the identity assumption. . . in reality outside our minds (outside the subjective creations in-mind) it cannot be proven to be true, and it can't ever really be demonstrated to be true in-mind; subjectively; either(!).
Coolbeano wrote:
topal63 wrote:
X can NEVER be EXACTLY equal to another similar X (in reality). X is not even EQUAL to itself, it cannot be exactly X (in reality, from one subjective time frame to another subjective time frame)
But what if the time frame is included in the claiming of X?
Example; this paper clip was at this point in space at this point in time (those two also being just simplified versions of purely arbitrary but absolute value) and the fact that it existed at that point will be eternally valid, and thus the fact, the concept, not the paper clips existence but the fact that it did exist there is equal to itself. Eternity does not change.
Time cannot be frozen and compared to itself; anywhere in reality. You're right back to where you were before - a 'gedanken' - it's a thought experiment; a fantasy of mind... it can be symbolic; but not real. There is no infinitely small time-frame either, a zero-point length moment in time.
Time does not exist... it is not a physical thing.
There is NO instant in time.
There is NO time particle.
It is a SUBJECTIVE creation of mind.
Relativity has lead (some) people to think, in error, that Time exists. BUT there IS NOT an instant in time; there is no subdivision of time you are moving through. The moment is ETERNAL, because time does not exist. Eternity is FLUX; change in the moment.
This is an accurate demonstration of why it is FALSE:
Coolbeano wrote:
X can be either X or not X.
FALSE... it is an abstraction; and they are only TRUE in mind; or on paper; BUT are never TRUE in reality. The only truth in existence is that all (so-called) truths are incomplete ( including this one
); and that they are most often generalizations by induction; or approximations in reality... fantasies of mind when an abstraction (or symbolic in form).
Fantasies are NOT true in the real world.
X is an attempt to represent something real (as a variable)... as an abstraction; to aid in theory our desire to predict physical behavior based upon what can be understood and represented in symbolic form.
X can NEVER be EXACTLY equal to another similar X (in reality). X is not even EQUAL to itself, it cannot be exactly X (in reality, from one subjective time frame to another subjective time frame); it can only be like (similar) to X (itself). There is no IDENTITY in reality. All energy is subject to change; even at absolute-zero. Change is constant; therefore constant is a NOT; IDENTITY as a truth is NOT; and even X is X or NOT X is a NOT.
WinterWayfarer wrote:
topal63 wrote:
Since this is a measurement and that is what your referring to: a measurement of temperature... it should be clear to you that all measurements are temporary and fleeting moments in time.
1 might = 1, inside your brain, but subjective reality cannot be demonstrated to be real; or reality. So you have to set aside mental analytic constructs that exist only in-mind to examine the reality of this statement.
Does 1 ever equal 1 in reality, and what does it even mean if I measure 1 of anything. In reality the measurement itself is subject to error. It might be 1.00001 or 0.999997 or some other number of measure the moment you take the reading so,
+1C might actually be = +1.00001C or +0.999997C or +1.00000000000075 or some other value.
And if you repeat the measurements just moments later it might be this,
+1C might actually be = +0.9979998C or +1.00000097C or +1.000000104535 or some other value.
And not at any time were we able to establish that +1C was exactly +1C, or what the actual exact value was. And measuring any exact value in reality is basically impossible.
The construct ---> this = this, exist only in your mind, in reference to analytic things (like a math equality).
In reality the measure is approximate or: ≈. ... Thus +1C DOES NOT EXACTLY = +1C
In reality it is incorrect to say what you've stated, it is correct to state it this way,
+1C ≈ +1C.
+1C = +1C. +1C does not equal +1.000000001C
(<-- EXACTLY! Yet you continue to misunderstand +1C is not known exactly, you don't know what the temperature is exactly when you measure it)In saying that "this = this exists in only your mind", you are quite right, because everything exists within our thoughts, but there are rules to math, and one of these rules is called the Reflexive Postulate, in which any number is equal to itself. In symbols: a = a. Therefore, +1C = +1C.
I have already illustrated the error in thinking for you, why do you persist in denying the obvious (at least obvious to some people)? ... I was having fun with the Kantian thing in-itself problem (and errors of thought associated with it). Together with the problem people don't understand about subjective creations of mind vs the reality external of in-mind subjective creations.
+1C exist only in your mind, you cannot demonstrate the reality of an exact measurement - ever.
It is always an approximate value and never an exact measure. And it stands as was already stated.
+1C = +1C, exists only in-mind, as a subjective thought, as an analytic construct,
The TRUTH in reality is (that the measure is not exact):
+1C ≈ +1C (is not exact, it is an inexact approximation).
You cannot measure +1C exact. And reality is not what you think it is. It is not dependent upon you, you are dependent upon it.
... in reality, you can't PROVE that +1C when measured is anything other than an inexact answer. It can be precise to a certain decimal place, but not a representation of the exact value. And if you can't PROVE that it is +1C you can't say that it is, or assume that it is.
X=X, the identity assumption:Here is another way to think about it, since your so sure math as a system is (completely) proved (with proofs) and contains no assumptions.
These problems [above] are similar (in assumptions) to the concept of tangents in geometry and limits in Calculus. They do not actually touch the geometric curve or the limit of the function. It is a point. A point is without dimension. There is no length of it that is congruent (touching) the zero-length dimensionless point, in fact it never touches. When we say a function approaches a value, we are reasonably demonstrating that there is specific value that it yields - yet it never actually can (in infinity). The regression is infinite in scope – but we assume (not prove) that it (the tangent) would touch here (if a zero-length line could) and that the limit is resolved in infinity. The assumption is the infinitesimal. Is there such a thing?
Is there such a thing as an infinitesimal difference? It seems an impossible thing, it seems there has to be resolution, if a difference is infinitesimally different – it effectively is not different – but I can't prove that. I can't prove it is different. I can't prove it is the same.
1 = 1, or X = X . . . is this a resolution of precision or an affirmed identity?
1 = 0.9999
9…..→ ∞ is this different than 1 = 1.
or
1X = X*0.9999
9…..→ ∞ is this different than X = X.
Strictly speaking YES they are different (yet I can't prove they are).
As a reasonably resolved value NO they are the same (yet not proved, it is assumed to be true).
1 = 0.9999
9…..→ ∞ is assumed to resolve, disregarding the infinitesimal as 1 = 1.
or
1X = X*0.9999
9…..→ ∞ is assumed to resolve, disregarding the infinitesimal as X = X.
I can represent the identity problem as follows:
1 = 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3, thus 1=1.
1 = 0.3333
3…..→ ∞ + 0.3333
3…..→ ∞ + 0.3333
3…..→ ∞, thus 1=1.
But I cannot make a formal rational representation (a ratio) of the value 0.9999
9…..→ ∞. I can for 0.3333
3…..→ ∞ that = 1/3, but I can't make/construct a ratio for the decimal 0.9999
9…..→ ∞. A formal ratio for this irrational real number (as the ratio of two integers) cannot be expressed in mathematical terms.
There is no way to represent this decimal as a ratio in math so it is assumed to be 1 even though it is not proved to be true (and I cannot prove the opposite either).
The identity in TOK, and math, is an assumption of resolution and not a proved identity postulate.
Then:
0.9999
9…..→ ∞ = 1, because 1 = 1, as an identity postulate is a subjective creation of mind, and the infinitesimal difference is a subjective creation of mind. None of it can be proved.
0.9999
9…..→ ∞ = 1 cannot be formally demonstrated to be different than 1 = 1. Yet it is.
Therefore:
1 = 1
OR 0.9999
9…..→ ∞ = 1. (But not 1=1 exclusively).
Note: This last part is for WinterWayfarer, only because I thought you might be interested in this - little bit of information (the identity assumption in math). Also every long post I post helps to make this one thread - one of the longest threads in BF2S history!
Last edited by topal63 (2007-04-27 11:51:52)
