Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Think about this

J

JURB6006

Jan 1, 1970
0
The only thing which cannot be proven is that something does not exist.

If something exists, it's existence cannot be disproven without deception.

Am I the only one ?

JURB
 
R

Rich.Andrews

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] (JURB6006) wrote in
The only thing which cannot be proven is that something does not exist.

If something exists, it's existence cannot be disproven without
deception.

Am I the only one ?

JURB

The first statement is untrue.

The second is likely true.

The third is unqualifed.

You point is what?

r
 
C

Cobalt

Jan 1, 1970
0
| The only thing which cannot be proven is that something does not exist.

(Nothing unreal exsists)

Scientificly , It depends on how you are testing to prove weather something
exsists or not. Is it really a valid test on whatever you are doing that
covers all the possibilities of what you are trying to disaprove? Do you
even know for certain all the properties of what you are trying to disaprove
? Its imperative to have everything in perspective first.

I like what Spock use to tell Kirk alot when he asked for an evaluation on
some weird thing they would come up on in space: "Insufficient data at the
moment".



| If something exists, it's existence cannot be disproven without deception.

Even with deception , there are ways to prove or disaprove. This is what
crime scene detectives are always using to help solve cases.
Theres always some overlooked aspect however insignificant that could be a
key piece of information. It takes time, and if you are trying to prove the
exsistence of an intelligence weather knowingly or not, you need to consider
what you are looking for may be aware you are looking for it, and if it dont
want to be found, it wont be. The movie PREDATOR comes to mind.
 
G

Gareth Magennis

Jan 1, 1970
0
It's an example of human arrogance that we think we can "prove" anything at
all. I can't even prove that I exist let alone anything else outside of my
conciousness. And my physical experiences consists purely of signals and
stuff happening inside my head - I have no direct experience of anything
outside it, if in fact it even exists.

The only thing I "know" is that really I know very little indeed. Thus I
think your statement is meaningless.

Or perhaps my head has a dry joint. Who knows.
 
B

b

Jan 1, 1970
0
whay are you posting this to an electronics repair site?
I suggest you put it on reasoning/ philosophy newsgroups instead
 
T

Tom MacIntyre

Jan 1, 1970
0
The only thing which cannot be proven is that something does not exist.

If something exists, it's existence cannot be disproven without deception.

Am I the only one ?

JURB

I've thought about this before too...I worded it differently, but the
idea is essentially the same.

Tom
 
L

LASERandDVDfan

Jan 1, 1970
0
I can't even prove that I exist let alone anything else outside of my
conciousness.

"I think, therefore I am."
 
C

Cobalt

Jan 1, 1970
0
| I've thought about this before too...I worded it differently, but the
| idea is essentially the same.
|
| Tom

Oh, Ok. Now I (think) I know what the original post meant
I use to think this alot when I was like 9 yrs old. I guess it was because
wherever I seemed to look or go there was no validation or affirmation that
I was here or anyone cared. So in my mind, I knew I exsisted and I was real,
but thought everyone else could be non human and I was on an alien planet.
(too much Star Trek?) Guess it was my way of dealing with whatever was going
on at that time, but now I have concluded we are here but each of us share
different views and have different approaches in how we handle things in
general. Not any one of us is 100% correct, but nor is any of us 100% wrong.
I think all mankind together when channeled into one 'team' effort on
solving whatever question is posed, gets us that much closer to
understanding the whole picture. Still not sure if I am answering the post
in topic or not but I like the topic because its perhaps trying to bridge a
gap from human thought and physics.
 
J

JURB6006

Jan 1, 1970
0
I hope this goes thru the hierachy correctly because I have seperate responses
to post. If it does not, please bear with my outdated NG reader;

Rich said;
The first statement is untrue.

In response to;
The only thing which cannot be proven is that something does not exist.

My response follows;

<u>Any</u> source of information, be it a he, she or it, to unequivocably claim
that something absolutely doesn't exist must have been to the edges of the
universe, and seen everything and have infallible recall.

For example unicorns. Now I'm not going to put forth a theory like an old Star
Trek, parallel development is crap. It makes for a good story, but it's crap.
How did the Iotians read that book about the Chicago gangs ? No way.

However, it's not unreasonable to think that there are quite a few planets out
there with an enviroment like our own. Therefore it would not be unreasonable
to think that life would develop in a similar way. Therefore a beast, just like
a horse could develop but with a horny bone thing protruding out of the top of
his head. If you saw one, well, what then ? Also, modern horses evolved from
something else just like every form of life on the planet. Perhaps one of the
rarer forms had a horn, like a rhino or a deer, things that ARE on this planet.
Elephant's tusks would be another example.

Horse type creatures are not all that good at feeding themselves. They can do
it but they have no real offensive weapons, maybe that's why they took so well
to domestication. A horse with say, a 12" pointy projectile might be a bit more
formidable, or deemed more formidable by the men who were to train them so they
got rid of them and they went off and starved in the wilderness.

Which brings me to this, if anyone wants to say "never happen" they need to
know the entire history of the universe. Never means never, "it'll never
happen" is a different story. I'll keep an open mind, but I would really like
to see the method by which anyone can prove that something does not exist.
Additionally, I'd like to see how anyone can prove something never existed, and
even more fun, that something will never exist, but let's deal with the present
right now.

Get that done and we'll move on to future and past.

JURB
 
J

JURB6006

Jan 1, 1970
0
I hope this goes thru the hierachy correctly because I have seperate resonses
to post. If it does not, please bear with my outdated NG reader;

Cobalt wrote;
Even with deception , there are ways to prove or disaprove.
and;

This is what
crime scene detectives are always using to help solve cases.

I think you meant without deception.

Everything is easy with deception. Without real deception, the proper omissions
of information amount to the same thing. This is done in court, with a jury not
hearing all the evidence. How can a defendant's evidence be disallowed ? I'l
tell you what, the existence of the Constitution certainly could not be proven
by the behaviour of the courts today.

Think about it.

JURB
 
J

JURB6006

Jan 1, 1970
0
I hope this goes thru the hierachy correctly because I have seperate resonses
to post. If it does not, please bear with my outdated NG reader;
It's an example of human arrogance that we think we can "prove" anything at
all. I can't even prove that I exist let alone anything else outside of my
conciousness.

Human arrogance is part of what makes us human. Should a Christian pray for the
(possible) soul of the cow from which his beef came ? Should a mounted
policeman politely ask if the horse would like to get going to catch a bad guy
?
The only thing I "know" is that really I know very little indeed.

Every time a question is answered it brings up two more, at least for me. I
guess this intellegence is actually a virus !
Thus I
think your statement is meaningless.

Or perhaps my head has a dry joint. Who knows.

Calling my statement meaningless was uncalled for, but I got thicker skin than
that so I don't care. Suffice it to say it's meaningless to you. If we all are
indeed a figment of your imagination my statement would be meaningless.

Such thoughts, well more like YOU were figments of MY imagination have gone
through my head, but I don't act on them. You can't in society.

Another thought; it is just as likely for you to be a figment of my imagination
as it is for me to be one of your's.

JURB
 
J

JURB6006

Jan 1, 1970
0
whay are you posting this to an electronics repair site?
I suggest you put it on reasoning/ philosophy newsgroups instead

Noted, but the people who do this kind of work are usually pretty logical. I
specifically want opinions from those reading THIS NG. I might try what you
say, but I wanted the opinions from here.

Sorry if it bothered anybody.

JURB
 
J

JURB6006

Jan 1, 1970
0
I hope this goes thru the hierachy correctly because I have seperate responses
to post. If it does not, please bear with my outdated NG reader;
I've thought about this before too...I worded it differently, but the
idea is essentially the same.

Tom

This all stems from a post by Leonard C. He apparently has a protoge and was
asking for some hints as to how to educate the young man efficiently.

I said that you need to know exactly what is proven, and what is disproven by
any given result or information.

For example;

When we got a PTK169 shutting down immediately, we used to pull the flyback
wire out and quote it.

Knowing what proves and disproves, along with the proliferation of coolant
leaks has necessitated a change. Now I pull the CRT anode leads first.

Now Leonard was talking about inductive vs. deductive reasoning. I don't know
where to put his. Reasoning has inducted a change in my procedure.

Perhaps it's all what I would call logic.

JURB
 
J

JURB6006

Jan 1, 1970
0
Cobalt;

Lemme talk;

I would guess you're in your thirties, party, but not bad and you are probably
90% self taught. If I'm wrong oh well.

At any rate, this is hard, you are reaching what I call critical mass.

When you get to the point where your open mind starts having it's own thoughts,
this is good. This is your new mind. If you are a consistent problem solver
it's likely you are close to critical mass.

What I mean by critical mass is that you have gleaned enough info from the
world around you, and with that, you ARE intellectually superior to most of
your local friends. If you're cool you don't flaunt it.

When you actually reach critical mass in your mind you'll probably have a quite
wierd dream, or that evasive "moment of clarity".

It's as if your mind "puts the puzzle together". Do not expect others to
understand.

When it came for me I realized alot of things, like how electronics and
hydraulics were the same as simple physics. It's math that links them. I can
explain in another post, but when your enlightenment comes, remember as much as
you can.

It will most likely be when you lay down to sleep. Savor it.

I got mine at 35 and it was something, and there's no stopping it. This also
breeds curiousity. Have fun.

JURB
 
C

Cobalt

Jan 1, 1970
0
| Everything is easy with deception.

Its easy depending on what type mind you are trying to fool. Easy to fool a
primitive narrow (or closed) minded one or that of a childs. Or as stated
here, easy to decieve a mind that is not vigilant and/ or too trustworthy.

How many people have been fooled by Emails claiming to be from Ebay
requesting validation of account and personal information, and they give it,
only to see shortly thereafter their password has been changed and non
exsistent items were posted and were won by bidders, but were never sent by
the seller because they were unaware what took place before it was too late?

Now, there is a process of information you must collect before you conclude
every piece of that puzzle is correct. It could also be the seller is more
clever that we think, and created the whole story just to make a fast buck.
Key data would be in the Ebay server logs that would substantiate the claims
by analyzing IP addresses the seller used compared to the one the scammer
used to manipulate the account from. Even if they are different, could it be
the seller enlisted outside help from another country so the IP addresses
are not linkable? There is another task (amoung many more) that may need to
be looked into bit by bit that will gradually bring the jigsaw puzzle into
complete view. So if a conclusion is made before all the pieces are
together, you still run a small chance of being incorrect because one
missing piece could be that one thing that absolves the other conclusion.

|Without real deception, the proper omissions
| of information amount to the same thing. This is done in court, with a
jury not
| hearing all the evidence. How can a defendant's evidence be disallowed ?
I'l
| tell you what, the existence of the Constitution certainly could not be
proven
| by the behaviour of the courts today.

It all depends on the Jury, and how good their minds are. Like I stated, you
have to have as much information as possible and clear thinking objective
minds to piece it all together, and they must also need to know of the
possibility that they were intentionally given pieces that do not belong to
the puzzle at hand. It takes a very clear mind indeed....and a lot of time.

As for the Constitution, yes for certain there are distortions proportionate
to the type of mind that is attempting to interpret it. Same can be said for
the same mind trying to interpret most anything else. Alzheimer's comes to
mind as one of many many possibilities out there. Since all our body
chemistry is different from one person to the next, certain foods or drugs
will effect us differently than the other to a certain point. Some people
can wolf down Chips, beer , eggs for years and no noticeable changes will be
seen, but someone else would be dead already. So while we all interpret the
physical world outside us in different ways , proportionately to our
experiences and learning ability, there is always the UNKNOWN - - things
that none of us have ever discovered yet, but still exists. Forces that you
cannot see like the suns radiation and EMF waves from electricity encircle
us all right now, but for certain are effecting us although we cannot (for
the most part) feel their presence. Could it be perhaps these forces effect
others in such ways to distort their reality ? Time will I suppose tell. If
you are interested in that stuff, do a Google search for "The Montauk
Project".
 
S

Shpalman

Jan 1, 1970
0
The only thing which cannot be proven is that something does not exist.

In other words, if the rechargable batteries in your remote go flat it'll no
longer shine a beam of infrared to control your device.
If something exists, it's existence cannot be disproven without deception.

....in other words, if you think you're buying long life batteries, you're
not..

Sorry ;-)
 
C

Cobalt

Jan 1, 1970
0
| I would guess you're in your thirties, party, but not bad and you are
probably
| 90% self taught. If I'm wrong oh well.

late 30's never partied too hard and only did so when I was in my early
20's. Had an eppiphany about drugs and alsohol in my mid 20's, and from
there I can for certain say thats where clearer thinking began. So you are
fairly close.


| At any rate, this is hard, you are reaching what I call critical mass.
| When you get to the point where your open mind starts having it's own
thoughts,
| this is good. This is your new mind. If you are a consistent problem
solver
| it's likely you are close to critical mass.
| What I mean by critical mass is that you have gleaned enough info from the
| world around you, and with that, you ARE intellectually superior to most
of
| your local friends. If you're cool you don't flaunt it.

Heh, you learn not to flaunt your talents around the wrong people, or soon
you will have people sticking their nose into your life wanting to know what
you know, wasting your time. They want it sold in a box on a shelf in some
store to them, and dont wanna do their own journey so they can learn in
their own way and time, which is key to getting the knowledge and
understanding it, and using it to learn the next stage when it happens.


| When you actually reach critical mass in your mind you'll probably have a
quite
| wierd dream, or that evasive "moment of clarity".
| It's as if your mind "puts the puzzle together". Do not expect others to
| understand.

Yea, I got called 'crazy' once by a former employer when I asked for a way
to get more money if I do more work for him. Took that experience, and
started my own business from it.

| When it came for me I realized alot of things, like how electronics and
| hydraulics were the same as simple physics. It's math that links them. I
can
| explain in another post, but when your enlightenment comes, remember as
much as
| you can.
| It will most likely be when you lay down to sleep. Savor it.
| I got mine at 35 and it was something, and there's no stopping it. This
also
| breeds curiousity. Have fun.

For many people its status quo and comfort to remain in denial about certain
things. I am learning , as hard as it is, to let the process continue and
not try
and enlighten them unless they specificly ask. A lot of them are the younger
generation. I suppose, I too, like my former employers are 'biased' about
them because of certain beliefs in general about their integrity, sincerety
and honesty..etc..(probably how I was viewed by my elders too) so I refrain
from befriending them at all.
 
R

Rich.Andrews

Jan 1, 1970
0
[email protected] (JURB6006) wrote in
I hope this goes thru the hierachy correctly because I have seperate
responses to post. If it does not, please bear with my outdated NG
reader;

Rich said;


In response to;


My response follows;

<u>Any</u> source of information, be it a he, she or it, to
unequivocably claim that something absolutely doesn't exist must have
been to the edges of the universe, and seen everything and have
infallible recall.

That depends. The luminerferous ether doesn't exist. We certinly have
proven that it does not exist...at least to my satisfaction and the
satisfaction of many others.

Proving a negative is quite impossible in many cases.

How does one go aboout proving or disproving the existence of a God or
Gods. Either way it is quite impossible.

r
 
G

Gareth Magennis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Calling my statement meaningless was uncalled for, but I got thicker skin
than
that so I don't care. Suffice it to say it's meaningless to you. If we all are
indeed a figment of your imagination my statement would be meaningless.

I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be offensive. Your statement uses words like
"proof" and "existence" as if they are clearly defined and then goes on to
try and "prove" the definitions of them. Kind of. It's just a circular,
thus meaningless, concept to me.

And another thing I mean when I say that we know very little. We often base
our interpretation of whatever is going on here on certain infallible
truths. e.g. we are all different people, two objects cannot be in the same
place at the same time, the past happened before the present which is
happening before the future, etc etc. If/when examples like these were to
be discovered to be incorrect, what a different perception of our worlds we
would have. We only have 5 senses. How much information are we missing?
That's the human arrogance, that we think we know so much.

We are very young.
 
C

Callipygian Nullifidian

Jan 1, 1970
0
[...]
: Horse type creatures are not all that good at feeding themselves.
They can do
: it but they have no real offensive weapons, maybe that's why they
took so well
: to domestication. A horse with say, a 12" pointy projectile might be
a bit more
: formidable, or deemed more formidable by the men who were to train
them so they
: got rid of them and they went off and starved in the wilderness.

You know nothing about horses. They are quite good at feeding
themselves - and you don't appreciate the damage a horse's kick can
do. Have you never wondered (or perhaps realized in the first place)
why war-trained horses can be considered to be weapons, in and of
themselves?

Your bit about unicorns is fairly goofy, too.

: Which brings me to this, if anyone wants to say "never happen" they
need to
: know the entire history of the universe. Never means never, "it'll
never
: happen" is a different story. I'll keep an open mind, but I would
really like
: to see the method by which anyone can prove that something does not
exist.
: Additionally, I'd like to see how anyone can prove something never
existed, and
: even more fun, that something will never exist, but let's deal with
the present
: right now.

This paragraph appears to me to be primarily a way of saying that you
have a closed mind, but don't want to admit it.
 
Top