Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
Think about our significance to the universe?!

 

I'm not insignificant. In fact, I can mathematically prove the universe revolves around me.

 

Admittedly, it's a series approximation of a coordinate transformation. But I can still calculate it to reasonable accuracy.

Posted
I'm not insignificant. In fact, I can mathematically prove the universe revolves around me.

 

Admittedly, it's a series approximation of a coordinate transformation. But I can still calculate it to reasonable accuracy.

 

:devil: Link :blush:

Posted
It just might if the skinheads have their way. :blink:

 

You ever meet a skinhead? They generally don't have enough brains to successfully pick their nose, let alone plan an assassination.

Posted
I'm not insignificant. In fact, I can mathematically prove the universe revolves around me.

 

Admittedly, it's a series approximation of a coordinate transformation. But I can still calculate it to reasonable accuracy.

Maybe, however, you can't even prove that you or I physically exist, one or both of us could just be illusions based on our limited, distorted or false perceptions... either way you can't distinguish proof wise the difference, it is all a matter of opinion or get this... wait for it.... faith! :blink:

Posted
I'm not insignificant. In fact, I can mathematically prove the universe revolves around me.

 

Admittedly, it's a series approximation of a coordinate transformation. But I can still calculate it to reasonable accuracy.

 

To an accuracy of 3.5 feet! :blink:

Posted
Maybe, however, you can't even prove that you or I physically exist, one or both of us could just be illusions based on our limited, distorted or false perceptions... either way you can't distinguish proof wise the difference, it is all a matter of opinion or get this... wait for it.... faith! :blink:

 

Actually, the question of whether or not we physically exist is not a question of "proof", it's question of defining "exist". As an empiricist, the only definition I can truly accept for something to exist is that I am able to sense its existence in my frame of reference. Therefore, empirically, I can prove at least that your posts exist - however, from that proven truth I can only infer that you yourself exist.

 

And following from that...although that "proven truth" is only so in my frame of reference, I've already described how a frame of reference is a matter of selecting a coordinate system. Therefore, with the empirical truth of your existence in my frame of reference, it is a simple matter of - again - a coordinate transformation to demonstrate you exist in all other frames of reference, and therefore do truly physically exist.

 

QED. :lol:

Posted
Actually, the question of whether or not we physically exist is not a question of "proof", it's question of defining "exist". As an empiricist, the only definition I can truly accept for something to exist is that I am able to sense its existence in my frame of reference. Therefore, empirically, I can prove at least that your posts exist - however, from that proven truth I can only infer that you yourself exist.

 

And following from that...although that "proven truth" is only so in my frame of reference, I've already described how a frame of reference is a matter of selecting a coordinate system. Therefore, with the empirical truth of your existence in my frame of reference, it is a simple matter of - again - a coordinate transformation to demonstrate you exist in all other frames of reference, and therefore do truly physically exist.

 

QED. :blink:

 

I drink therefore I am - Monty Python

Posted
Actually, the question of whether or not we physically exist is not a question of "proof", it's question of defining "exist". As an empiricist, the only definition I can truly accept for something to exist is that I am able to sense its existence in my frame of reference. Therefore, empirically, I can prove at least that your posts exist - however, from that proven truth I can only infer that you yourself exist.

 

And following from that...although that "proven truth" is only so in my frame of reference, I've already described how a frame of reference is a matter of selecting a coordinate system. Therefore, with the empirical truth of your existence in my frame of reference, it is a simple matter of - again - a coordinate transformation to demonstrate you exist in all other frames of reference, and therefore do truly physically exist.

 

QED. :lol:

 

Nice circular reasoning... combined with some pithy infinite regression, but you still didn't get there without some .... wait for it.... faith! :blink:

Posted
Nice circular reasoning... combined with some pithy infinite regression, but you still didn't get there without some .... wait for it.... faith! :lol:

 

Not faith...an a priori assumption of the validity of empiricism. The only other assumption was the inference from your posts that you exist, which is not a question of faith, just a necessary assumption (not even a priori) for the proof that I'm willing to concede could be wrong.

 

Not even circular reasoning: if I exist, and I perceive you to exist, then you exist in my frame of reference, from which I can mathematically demonstrate that you exist in all frames of reference.

×
×
  • Create New...