Philosophical Question...
- Thread starter Gl3nn
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Posts
- 1,410
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 16
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Somewhere in the universe
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
dong20
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Posts
- 5,967
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 38
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The grey country
- Sexuality
- No Response
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Posts
- 1,410
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 16
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Somewhere in the universe
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
The body in question is pulling everything towards it in a dark hole. The intensity is such that light is drawn towards it. In likelyhood, it would not slow down.
Matter pulled towards it would have some increase in mass until it hit said object.
D_Chaumbrelayne_Copprehead
Account Disabled
Physics has shown that all situations are changed by the observer ... in other words, there's no such thing as an observed situation that hasn't been changed at least slightly by the one observing it.
For some of us, there might be undeniable truths. For others of us, there might not be undeniable truths ... in our observed universe. Therefore, there are no undeniable truths if they are not universally undeniable, even if for some of us, they are.
(I mean, aside from the obvious ... that I have a thick cock, baby!)
Kant argued it was impossible for us to know. We can never be certain what the difference is between reality and perception. We are limited by what we are capable of sensing and thus perceiving. Our senses can be fooled, our minds incapable of apprehending, our intellect incapable of comprehending.
Because of this, we cannot truly know the nature of anything outside of ourselves.
Because of this, we cannot truly know the nature of anything outside of ourselves.
D_Tintagel_Demondong
Sexy Member
A good scientist's conclusions are never certain. They, instead, deal with theories, postulations, principles, and many other assumptions that are not proven, but certain enough to be taken as fact. Unless these assumptions are made, science can't advance.
If we agree to a set of foundational assumptions, we can derive "truth statements" using those assumptions -- that's the basis of the "truth" of epistemology and mathematics. All undeniable truth statements in these approaches are predicated by the implicit, "if we agree that these foundational assumptions are true..." condition.
You may believe that you actually exist, but you really may not. You may just be a dream (solipsism).
Logic gives us a cleaner system that allows for undeniable conclusions, such as a tautology:
Example: "If neither John nor Sue is here, then John is not here."
And rule of replacement:
p º ( p Ú p ), p º ( p · p )
Example: "Paul is tall," is equivalent to, "Paul is tall and Paul is tall."
On paper, you can always argue that if A=A then A, with respect to itself, is A. Real-world science doesn't allow for this sort of clean analysis, and bold conclusions can cost a scientist their academic reputation.
If we agree to a set of foundational assumptions, we can derive "truth statements" using those assumptions -- that's the basis of the "truth" of epistemology and mathematics. All undeniable truth statements in these approaches are predicated by the implicit, "if we agree that these foundational assumptions are true..." condition.
You may believe that you actually exist, but you really may not. You may just be a dream (solipsism).
Logic gives us a cleaner system that allows for undeniable conclusions, such as a tautology:
Example: "If neither John nor Sue is here, then John is not here."
And rule of replacement:
p º ( p Ú p ), p º ( p · p )
Example: "Paul is tall," is equivalent to, "Paul is tall and Paul is tall."
On paper, you can always argue that if A=A then A, with respect to itself, is A. Real-world science doesn't allow for this sort of clean analysis, and bold conclusions can cost a scientist their academic reputation.
Bbucko
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Posts
- 7,227
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 379
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Sunny SoFla
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Is there something I'm missing here?
It's an undeniable truth that the Earth revolves around the sun, just to pick the most obvious, or that it is impossible to breathe fresh oxygen deep underwater without SCUBA apparatus.
Those were two that came immediately. Ten minute's reflection would result in a dozen more, at least.
It's an undeniable truth that the Earth revolves around the sun, just to pick the most obvious, or that it is impossible to breathe fresh oxygen deep underwater without SCUBA apparatus.
Those were two that came immediately. Ten minute's reflection would result in a dozen more, at least.
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2008
- Posts
- 1,410
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 16
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Somewhere in the universe
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
I guess we could alter Descartes' theory a bit and say: Can you prove that Earth actually exists? Maybe you're just dreaming or thinking about this world, and that would mean Earth only exists in your mind.
D_Tintagel_Demondong
Sexy Member
Ironic choice, Buck, since Western science believed, for centuries, that the sun revolved around the earth.
It's only undeniable if it can't be challenged. I can challenge all of these assertions simply by attacking your reliability, and thus the reliability of your claims.
Similar threads
