Message 168 of 172 (564416)
06-10-2010 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 167 by Straggler
06-10-2010 9:15 AM
Where's your work?
Stile initially says: (something that was written in this thread)
Stile now writes: (something that was written in the previous thread)
Yes, I've been trying to clarify things for you since the previous thread. I have attempted to word it in varying ways because you do not seem to understand what I'm saying and seem to refuse to believe me when I tell you you're getting it wrong.
This mathematical relationship (originally cited by Cavediver earlier in this thread) is true regardless of culture or psychology. It is true regardless of the nomenclature or symbology used. It is as true for an intelligent alien race as it is for us. Indeed it remains true even if all intelligence in the universe is wiped out. It is agreed to be, and can be verified as being, objectively true.
So you and cavediver both have claimed. And I'll tell you what I told cavediver... I do not understand this equation, and I do not understand why it is considered "verified as objectively true" or what you mean when you use those terms.
Is it "objectively true" according to an extrapolation of the rules of mathematics? In which case, it is not considered a part of what I'm talking about.
If not, then how (specifically) has it been "verified to be objectively true" without using the scientific method?
You cannot expect me to use strict definitions, and then waffle them yourself. If, in fact, you can describe how this relationship is "verified to be objectively true" (as I've defined it) without basing things on the foundational rules of mathematics... I would be very interested to hear how the scientific method cannot be applicable.
|Thus your main point is refuted. No?|
It's certainly claimed to be refuted. But until you show your work, it remains a simple claim. You're saying this relationship can be "verified to be objectively true".
Are you talking about "known to be a part of objective reality"? As I am? Or have you once again shifted the goal posts back to "including theoretical objectivity based upon the rules of mathematics"? Which I have explicitly stated is not covered in what I'm talking about.
|Yet when I ask you which numbers are “known to be in objective reality” you tell me that you don’t know. So how can they be known if they are unknown? This would seem to be a contradiction in terms.|
I said that I do not know all the numbers that are "known to be in objective reality". But I certainly provided you with a method to figure such a thing out on your own. Namely, find out if such a number has been counted with physical objects yet or not. If you're not willing to do your homework, I can't be expected to answer all your questions.
|The main point remains that is known to exist within objective reality and yet is not verifiable through the scientific method.|
But we should remain honest in our debate, shouldn't we?
We should be honest and consistent with what we're talking about when we say "known to exist within objective reality", shouldn't we?
I'm talking about things like the man-in-the-box example.
Aliens may very well recognize "6" just as this man will. For it exists objectively as an extrapolation of the rules developed from his 5 apples.
However, "6" is not "known to exist within objective reality" because he doesn't have 6 apples and thus he cannot confirm it's existence.
So we need to be clear about what you're talking about.
Does this equation represent something like the numbers 1 to 5 with this man in the box? Is it something that is "known to exist in objective reality"?
Or is this equation more related to the number "6" as far as the man-in-the-box is concerned? Objectively extrapolated, but not quite "known to exist in objective reality"?
Either way... you'll have your answer.
If it's like 1 to 5, then there is a scientific test that can be done.
If it's like 6, then it's not what I've been discussing anyway.
Like I said, the statement I've been making is very simple and very circular. There really isn't any "loopholes" in it unless you continue to shift the goal posts or re-define terms.
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 167 by Straggler, posted 06-10-2010 9:15 AM|| ||Straggler has responded|