BF2S Forums Claim anything, I'll prove it wrong

WinterWayfarer wrote:

NooBesT[FiN] wrote:

WinterWayfarer wrote:

Osteoporosis is a disease of bone in which the bone mineral density is reduced.

If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then how can we prove anything wrong in the first place?

Every human being on Earth today will eventually die.

I am a combat medic.

There is no one but myself that has posted using this account.

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake happened around 5:12 A.M. (Pacific Time) on Wednesday, April 18, 1906.

Osteoporosis is a word.


Everything that isn't proved right, is wrong.


Back to cyrogenics(or w/e). So, if someone gets frozen now and finally after several million years when human race has invented some kind of way to achieve immortality then you will be wrong.


You are human being.


You haven't posted with that account, you have sent data to the server which has changed some 1's and 0's in it's database.

I never really liked your proofs because of its crappy logic. Jk, but have you taken geometry before? Jk

--

* Osteoporosis is both a disease of bone in which the bone mineral density is reduced and a word.


"Everything that isn't proved right, is wrong." How can something just be wrong if it hasn't been proven right yet?

Immortality is fairy tales. No one can live forever physically, and isn't outer space going to start collapsing in on itself?

* Again, I am both a combat medic and a human being.

* And again, in saying what you said, "posted with that account" means exactly as "sent data to the server which has changed some 1's and 0's in it's database" and the meaning your attempting to convey here can be rewritten a bit.

And @EVieira:

* The 1906 San Francisco earthquake happened around 5:12 A.M. (Pacific Time) on Wednesday, April 18, 1906 and on whatever the Hebrew calendar says so that's still not proving me false.

_{* Synonymous statements}

--

And let me rephrase my statement so it's not a question anymore:

"If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place."

--

And i accept mkxiii's proof heh so:

WinterWayfarer wrote:

Osteoporosis is a disease of bone in which the bone mineral density is reduced.

If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place.

Every human being on Earth today will eventually die.

I am a combat medic.

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake happened around 5:12 A.M. (Pacific Time) on Wednesday, April 18, 1906.

Clever proofs must be written in order for me to eliminate a statement.

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Just say something, I'll prove it wrong. Give it a try!


_____________________________________________________________________________________________

As the things have gone (a bit too) serious here, I will now write down the unwritten rules. Nothing but common sense, but some of you just don't seem to understand without help.

1. Do not use My (or NooBesT[FIN]'s / topal63's) statements against us. EVER.
2. Do not correct your statements, nor edit them, or we'll disqualify them.
3. Keep D&ST flamewars & other shit out of here, this is PURELY JunkDrawer.
4. If you make some kind of mistake in your statement it's not our fault and we can use that to prove your
    statement wrong.
5. The rules might change any time, If I'm forced to change them. Check this once in a while.
6. I am the OP, NooBesT[FIN] is my #1 assistant and topal63 is the Einstein.

AND THE ULTIMATE RULE: DO NOT TAKE THIS TOO SERIOUSLY!!!!

Immortality is fairy tales. No one can live forever physically, and isn't outer space going to start collapsing in on itself?

* And again, in saying what you said, "posted with that account" means exactly as "sent data to the server which has changed some 1's and 0's in it's database" and the meaning your attempting to convey here can be rewritten a bit.

* Again, I am both a combat medic and a human being.

Osteoporosis is a disease of bone in which the bone mineral density is reduced.

Wikipedia wrote:

Osteoporosis is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) in women as a bone mineral density 2.5 standard deviations.

* The 1906 San Francisco earthquake happened around 5:12 A.M. (Pacific Time) on Wednesday, April 18, 1906 and on whatever the Hebrew calendar says so that's still not proving me false.

EVieira wrote:

Wrong, the San Fracisco earthqake happened in the year 5666. Check your Jewish calender...

The_Jester wrote:

I'm posting just to test my signature.

WinterWayfarer wrote:

HUGE ASS QUOTE

Rules wrote:

1. Do not use My (or NooBesT[FIN]'s / topal63's) statements against us. EVER.
2. Do not correct your statements, nor edit them, or we'll disqualify them.
3. Keep D&ST flamewars & other shit out of here, this is PURELY JunkDrawer.
4. If you make some kind of mistake in your statement it's not our fault and we can use that to prove your
    statement wrong.
5. The rules might change any time, If I'm forced to change them. Check this once in a while.
6. I am the OP, NooBesT[FIN] is my #1 assistant and topal63 is the Einstein.

AND THE ULTIMATE RULE: DO NOT TAKE THIS TOO SERIOUSLY!!!!

WinterWayfarer wrote:

Lol , Anybody else want to try my:
1.) Osteoporosis is a disease of bone in which the bone mineral density is reduced.

NASA microgravity effects on bone tissue & osteoporosis similarities:
http://weboflife.nasa.gov/currentResear … kKnees.htm

MedlinePlus (Online) Medical Encyclopedia (Definition of: Osteoporosis):
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency … 000360.htm

Last edited by topal63 (2007-05-02 20:50:53)

topal63 wrote:

WinterWayfarer wrote:

Lol , Anybody else want to try my:
1.) Osteoporosis is a disease of bone in which the bone mineral density is reduced.

One at a time, I am actually getting a little busy, as my... business is beginning to pick up in volume. I might not have as much time, as before, for BF2S forum nonsense (but never really too busy for utter nonsense!).

This is clearly a non-unique definition that does not define what "Osteoporosis" really "is." As Bill Clinton would say, 'this depends upon what your definition of "is" is.'

If "is" implies a specific thing - then this "is" an utterly non-specific definition (as already stated). Astronauts returning from space have a reduced bone mineral density, due to the effects of a lower gravity environment. They are not suffering from a disease; but clearly this fits your definition of what "osteoporosis" "is."  Also, studies have been conducted showing that lifting weights can affect bone mineral density. Less activity; a sedentary lifestyle can affect bone mineral density; that it "is" reduced. This also "is" not really a “disease” either known as "osteoporosis."

Osteoporosis occurs when the body fails to form enough new bone, or when too much old bone is reabsorbed by the body, or both. Calcium and phosphate are two minerals that are essential for normal bone formation. Throughout youth, the body uses these minerals to produce bones. If calcium intake is not sufficient, or if the body does not absorb enough calcium from the diet, bone production and bone tissues may suffer. The leading causes are a drop in estrogen in women at the time of menopause, and a drop in testosterone in men. Women, especially those over the age of 50, get osteoporosis more often than men.

Osteoporosis is a condition characterized by progressive loss of bone density, thinning of bone tissue and increased vulnerability to fractures. Osteoporosis may result from disease, dietary or hormonal deficiency or advanced age. Regular exercise and vitamin and mineral supplements can reduce and even reverse loss of bone density.

Sources:

NASA microgravity effects on bone tissue & osteoporosis similarities:
http://weboflife.nasa.gov/currentResear … kKnees.htm

MedlinePlus (Online) Medical Encyclopedia (Definition of: Osteoporosis):
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency … 000360.htm

Osteoporosis may result from disease, but it is not by definition limited to being a “disease,” as environmental factors can cause the same effects that fit the definition. Osteoporosis "is" also NOT a disease, it can simply be a condition resulting from a dietary deficiency.

WinterWayfarer wrote:

If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place.

Every human being on Earth today will eventually die.

I am a combat medic.

The 1906 San Francisco earthquake happened around 5:12 A.M. (Pacific Time) on Wednesday, April 18, 1906.

Last edited by WinterWayfarer (2007-05-02 21:11:12)

In the english language the word "milk" translated into the russian language means: "молоко"

The liquid substance called/known as water (to the avarage human) freezes at 0 degrees celsius

1 degress celsius is equal to 1.8 degrees fahrenheit

The english alphabet has 26 letters in total as of this day- The second of March in the year of 2007AD in the average calander and the chritstian calander

Kenya is what is called a "Developing Country" and is located in east of the continent
"Africa"

When an object looks what most people call the 'colour' "black" that object is not reflecting any light. Instead is Absorbing all light

The 'Light' that a light bulb is giving out is called 'White light' and has 7 colours Red,Orange,Yellow,Green,Blue,Indigo and Violet which can be seperated but using a glass 'prism'

You will ignor this post and you will not reply

Last edited by NooBesT[FiN] (2007-05-03 06:51:54)

topal63 wrote:

On to #2 then,

WinterWayfarer wrote:

If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place.

"...then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place" = inconsistent (False or Wrong),
= inconsistent & you're wrong in conclusion = you're right in principle = not not true = -- = + = true.

So it is false in conclusion yet it is nearly the form of a known truth (and/or theorem). So on the other hand, in another way, it is right - so therefore you're wrong (ZEN!).

The Zen part: or

Unproved = proved unproven until demonstrated otherwise and it hasn't been yet,
If it is not absolutely proved it is incomplete as an axiomatic system (as all are known to be) and this remains as a constant - as being not completely proved - hence it is (consistently) "partially unproved." Therefore your statement itself is inconsistent (internally self-contradictory); because you're (I'm) stating that something is at least partially unproven (at least once exception can be demonstrated to exist); and that every-time the exception comes up it proves, at a minimum, the "partially unproven" or system-inconsistency statement. But isn't that a contradiction of logic? A reversal, like the reversal of sign ++ = +, yet -- = +. Self contradictions are logical operators in the sense that they are reversals of a state (sign, value, in logic a reversal of true-false/false-true). It is consistent that it will be inconsistent = true = Zen!

The statement you've made is almost a truth itself. A better way of stating it (this truth you're either aware of; or discovered independently) would be by stating what it actually is:
"Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem"
2.a) For all formal (and likely informal) axiomatic/logical/mathematical systems there will be at least one case that cannot be proven by that same system (or rather one would have to construct a system to prove the first system. Thereby having at least one case unprovable again, and therefore having an endless recursive need for another system, and another exception, etc, etc, etc).
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsInc … eorem.html

Or what is indicated is a general principle of truth about accepting uncertainty as a truth itself.
2.b) Absolute certainty in knowing is not warranted in this life by human beings based upon our current understanding of reality.

And yet it indicates another general principle of truth - inconsistency is consistent (a constant of sorts) or rather this:
2.c) Heraclitus, "All is flux" ... Or change is a constant, the ever changing state of energy(matter) existing in the moment.

topal36 wrote:

Moving on to #3,

WinterWayfarer wrote:

3.) Every human being on Earth today will eventually die.

Been there done that, maybe even an infinite number of times! Oh wait, this has come up before in this very thread (in response to "everyone dies"),

From:
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p1351451

topal63 wrote:

Or this ... there is an infinite number of entangled universes (explaining the quantum state). In the entangled multi-verse, there are a near infinite number of you's. Your experience in this slice of the reality-pie, only resolves the observation of specific quantum states, the other multitude is unknown to you. In at least one other reality (unknown to you) - that other entangled-conscious you - does not die ever - or rather no-one dies ever. Conscious observation of reality resolves it in a sense. If there is a direct relationship of conscious observation necessary to reality - consciousness might be a more fundamental physical nature; than say the energy-effects experienced as matter/energy/quantum-states/string-theory. If the body dies (passes away) and consciousness as the real essence of you persist somehow in some form in a possible multi-verse - then one can say no-one ever dies - when the body passes away. I don’t know. But there is no way to be sure until you die - and find out - crap I still exist!

Also consider #2 [above], that things potentially have an exception, and things you know exist in a state of not-being-absolutely proven - and that is a truism. So how can you be certain the definitions you know of life and death are even correct?

Life is a line crossed, well more like a blur, as a distinction - from what is mere chemical reaction to what is labeled alive. From the chemicals that make up proto-life, to a simple single cell and its RNA/DNA (then DNA/RNA), to the you existing today, this is an unbroken chain of existence. Where the potential for what we label life is inherent to the system. You are as much the cellular continuance of your mother father as much as you are the cellular continuance of the first & most simplest of cells. And you are the continuance of the precursors that precede even that. In a sense what is alive is a potential existing in the universe (as energy/matter/consciousness) and this is alive in you, it is alive as an unbroken chain from the potential to the proto-life, to those forms that preceded you, to your mother & father, to you - and even to the potential of you existing entangled in quantum-way to a infinite reality you simply are not experiencing from this perspective.

It is even possible that the energy-matter-consciousness that makes up the whole of it is a single entity (this universe). That your singular existence is more illusion than reality. It is a perspective of self viewing the whole. People are kind of like a point-of-view; in which the universe is looking at itself. IN this idea - you are a part of whole that is alive. Like your cells that are individually alive and can die-off all the time, yet you remain, and so the universe (and potential universal-self) remains. Who really knows if any really dies? I don't - at least not for certain.

topal63 wrote:

Moving on to #4,

WinterWayfarer wrote:

1.) I am a combat medic.

No you are not. You are unbroken chain in existence tied to the nature of the whole (universe); we can call you a human being by definition. We can call you a name based upon what you've learned and what you practice; or do. By definition we call what you are doing (and have learned to do) - as being that of what is labeled a “combat medic.” This applies to anything: learning math, science, medical-science, religion, anthropology, psychiatrics, etc - and then practicing that learned activity/method. This is by definition a “role” in life. You assume many roles in life: medic, father, brother, lover, friend, patriot, a shoulder to lean on, philosopher, son, and so on.

You may work as a combat medic from time to time, your station may be that of assuming the role of a combat medic. But you are not a combat medic. That is an activity and learning - and thus a role you assume on occasion. It also is not a role in life that you’ve always known (prior you assumed other roles, stations in life, and in the future you probably will assume other stations/roles in life). It is not a role you occupy 24/7 (that is misnomer). 24/7 you might be able to assume the role of combat medic - when necessary. But 24/7 you are not actually assuming that role. Often times you and I are assuming the other roles in life (we don't just do one thing): friend, son, father, specific work-task, etc. We identify with what we do - so it is just a common figure of speech to say: I am a teacher, I am a combat medic, I am a doctor, I am a student, etc. But that is role you personally identify with, it is not what you actually are.

topal63 wrote:

Moving on to #5,

WinterWayfarer wrote:

5.) The 1906 San Francisco earthquake happened around 5:12 A.M. (Pacific Time) on Wednesday, April 18, 1906.

Well first off, you did forget to mention what this date is in reference to - which calender? I don't see any mention of AD or CE either, and it could be BC or BCE. Even if we assume the Christian calender - this statement is ambiguous.

5.a) So no - that event didn't happen in the year 1906 BCE, as far as I know a city named "San Francisco" did not exist then either.

5.b) You said it "happened around 5:12 A.M." - you probably meant "something occured at that time, around 5:12," as a foreshock occurred at 5:12 A.M. on April 18, 1906 CE. The actual earthquake started some 20 to 25 seconds later, with an epicenter near San Francisco. The duration of the event lasted some 45 to 60 seconds.

5.c) Also you've mentioned (Pacific Time) are you sure about that? It was actually San Francisco local time. Standard zone time was formally adopted by the U.S. Congress on March 19, 1918 as the "Standard Time Act." Also it would be impossible to determine if their clocks were perfectly calibrated (in 1906). The first foreshock might actually have occurred at a different time (with the actual earthquake occurring later) - there is no way to know. So it is incorrect to assume that time stated is accurate (it is merely an inaccurate reference point: stated in a history book).

WinterWayfarer wrote:

If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place.

NooBesT[FiN] wrote:

WinterWayfarer wrote:

If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place.

Well...

If nothing can be proven right, it must be wrong. It can't be right but it must be something so by standard it's wrong.

topal63 wrote:

WinterWayfarer wrote:

2.) If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place.

Demanding a BETTER PROOF! How dare you! … I could have just dismissed the statement easily as being inconsistent and self-contradictory; therefore wrong; and it is. But because it contains a potential for linkage to other ideas I decided on another approach.

      First take note of your use of the word “absolutely,” this actually renders your statement incorrect (I will explain at the end of the argument). Then there is also the problem with the word “prove”, this is definition dependent. I ignored these problems with the first proof because I was interested in tying previous concepts into this proof. As I have stated before my feeling is that you can have fun with ideas (these so-called proofs) by presenting a different perspective. Let my try a different and yet similar angle. Lets go backwards (a reverse flow of the previous argument) this time…

2.a.) In your statement about the San Francisco Earthquake a good idea was inserted into the statement. That idea was a qualifier (a logical dependency modifier). The idea was used when you included the qualifier; modifier; word “around.” While there were other errors in the statement - this was a very good idea to include as a concept. As used the context meaning, as expressed, or implies, a limitation (a qualifier) of either: value or accuracy.

      This in itself is similar to a concept contained in our X=X problem where there is usually (most likely always) an uncertainty as to perfect absolute precision, thus we arrive at X≈X, that our precision is a limitation (it is not absolute), we must qualify it (it reasonably equals X, even though it is actually an approximation, and it is a matter of precision approximation in all known applied mathematics; those applied to real word situations/problems).

Which brings us to the principle of uncertainty of perfect knowing, as no such thing can really be demonstrated, but it does not need to be demonstrated (as approximation is a form of knowing, disregarding the potential absurdity of being “absolutely” certain) - thus we arrive at:
A general principle of truth about accepting uncertainty as a truth itself.
2.b) Absolute certainty in knowing is not warranted in this life by human beings based upon our current understanding of reality. (To make our statements correct we must be careful about qualifying them and accept the principle of uncertainty).

Which implies this other general principle of truth - inconsistency is consistent (a constant of sorts) or even this:
2.c) Heraclitus (Greek Philosopher: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/HERAC.HTM ), "All is flux" ... Or change is a constant, the ever changing state of energy(matter) existing in the moment. If something is always moving; at least I know it is always moving. If there is a demonstrated exception to the system, every time, there is consistency in inconsistency of a formal system. It seems paradoxical at first glance to say: “Change is a constant” and “If something is inconsistent then it is consistent” but it is not. Change is a rule you can depend upon happening thus it is constant; as a rule. The same is true for inconsistency. If it is demonstrated to be inconsistent every time, the fact it is inconsistent every time means that inconsistency is consistent as a rule.

Which brings us to that as a formal theorem itself (inconsistency implies incompleteness):
"Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem"
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/GoedelsInc … eorem.html
2.d) For all formal (and likely informal) axiomatic/logical/mathematical systems there will be at least one case that cannot be proven by that same system (or rather one would have to construct a system to prove the first system. Thereby having at least one case un-provable again, and therefore having an endless recursive need for another system, and another exception, etc, etc, etc). But incompleteness does not imply unprovability; rather it implies proper dependencies and proper qualifications.

On to your statement:

WinterWayfarer wrote:

]If there is absolutely nothing that can be proven right, then we can't prove anything wrong in the first place.

But, unproved = proved unproven until demonstrated otherwise - this is a form of knowing something (which contradicts your statement/conclusion; and why the statement is internally inconsistent itself & self-contradictory). That we can’t demonstrate something as being right (or proved to 100% certainty) is wrong when an absolute-truth (knowing) is the expectation, rather than what is really knowable/provable; and that is a qualified dependent truth. If it is not absolutely proved (to 100% certain precision) it is only because it does not need to be as incompleteness is part of any axiomatic system (as all are known to be) and this remains as a constant.
Example:
If I know that God conceptual is not proved by logic or evidence, then I also know God conceptual is not disproved either by that same system, therefore what I know and have proved is that God conceptual is possible ("possible" is a qualifier; a logical dependency modifier), that is what I know and have proved.

Therefore your statement itself is inconsistent; erroneous; wrong (as it is internally self-contradictory); because you're stating that: (1) it must be an absolute to conform as knowledge/truth, but this is false. Because (2) a dependency (qualifier) can render a statement true in the form we really know/prove most things (as a dependent truth). And (3) your internal definition of proved within the statement: implies that it must be independent and absolute - and this is wrong. All known truths are dependent truths (as uncertainty, inconsistency; thus qualification - dependency is part of the system).

Your idea as revised by me:

If there is not anything that can be absolutely proven to 100% perfect certainty; then what is right and proved is not required to be perfect or absolute (to perfect 100% certainty), but for it to be correct; or true; or proved; it must be qualified by demonstrating the proper logical dependencies - else it will easily be proven wrong.

thareaper254 wrote:

Ice is cold.

Zimmer wrote:

leetkyle wrote:

surgeon_bond isn't a chav

leetkyle is gay.

nukchebi0 wrote:

thareaper254 wrote:

Ice is cold.

Cold is a subjective adjective and can't be true for everyone.

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

This is not the most useless, pointless, and annoying thread over 15 pages long.

leetkyle wrote:

surgeon_bond isn't a chav

Zimmer wrote:

leetkyle wrote:

surgeon_bond isn't a chav

leetkyle is gay.

Entertayner wrote:

General Knowledge:  leetkyle once had a girlfriend.