Prove existence

[sameandnot]

you can't prove this sentance.

further, why is everyone trying to prove something?

i don't know. but i do know that the mind has made Two of what is only One.

why does one do this?

 

[QuantumTheory]

you can't prove this sentance.

further, why is everyone trying to prove something?

i don't know. but i do know that the mind has made Two of what is only One.

why does one do this?

It's a good question, but sometimes people on this forum go too far, LOL. :rofl:

Let's prove this forum exist!
Let's prove my dog exists!
Let's prove japanese is a real language!
Let's prove we are smart!
Let's prove our IQ!
Let's prove everything!
Let's prove the universe is not infinite!
Let's prove calculus is real!
Let's prove time travel isn't possible!
Let's prove that Albert Einstein really didn't believe in god!
Let's prove string theory is real!

UGhhhh

 

[Maxwell]

What a sad, non-scientific way of thinking.

 

[quantumcarl]

What a sad, non-scientific way of thinking.

Potentially, yes.
Mind you, am I talkin out my damn-near-wrecked-'im when I say that all sciences ultimately rely upon perception, acceptance and belief systems... similar to every religion and/or discipline?

Science would benifit from opening up the mind a little more to peripherial concepts in order to advance. I realize science has advanced at an exponential rate over the last 200 years. But, for the most part the discoveries are re-makes of ancient, true discoveries... perhaps unconsciously found or perhaps actually excavated from still existing ruins.

One case in point is the once, highly insulated temple at the peak of the "pyramid of the Sun" in Mexico. It had a layer of mica specifically mined from a quarry 2000 miles from the pyramid while there was another, less insulating source of mica left un-mined only a few miles away.

The layer of specified mica was 2 feet under the floor of the "temple" and could only have been put in place to serve as insulation for a capacitor of great magnitude.

Centuries later the temple atop the "pyramid of the Sun" was excavated and decimated in around 1918 and the mica sold to stove makers and glaziers around the world.

But, who else heard about the set-up on the pyramid? Who might have derived an invention of some sort from the information initially found at the site? Did this early 20th century discovery lead to Tesla's ideas, Edison's inventions... etc...?...

tune in next year when it is proven that we exist through the employment of tazers in a hot tub filled with 'magma'.

 

[Maxwell]

Hey quantumcarl,

My post was in response to sameandnot and QuantumTheory's post about why we bother to ask "Why?"

However, since you took the time to reply to me, I'll reply to something you said:

But, for the most part the discoveries are re-makes of ancient, true discoveries... perhaps unconsciously found or perhaps actually excavated from still existing ruins.

I do not think this is the case. Most of the recent (as in the past 200 years) groundbreaking, life-altering technologies and advancements in science have been found because of ancient discoveries. They certainly were influenced by them -- it's like a snowball rolling down a never-ending mountain. However, they are not re-makes in the sense that they were "invented," by ancient peoples and then "re-invented" by us, like in your example. Sure, most of our science and technologies have its beginnings in ancient time, but I think that is a far cry difference than saying they are "re-makes."

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your statement, I just woke up. :yuck:

tune in next year when it is proven that we exist through the employment of tazers in a hot tub filled with 'magma'.

:rofl:

 

[Mr. Tambourine Man]

In my humble opinion, to ask about the existence of something simply means to ask whether or not the item in question is in some empirical relation to all other things. I don't think existence is an ontological concept. I think it is merely a pragmatic concept. But because the universe is all there is, to ask whether or not the universe is in some relation to to something else would be meaningless, in my opinion. Existence can only define the parts...not the whole. If my premises are correct, then the number "2" exists in the same sense as my tongue, because the number "2" is in some empirical relation to all other things in that it is an orderering mechanism which defines how the universe must work, arithmetically speaking.

 

[QuantumTheory]

Hey quantumcarl,

My post was in response to sameandnot and QuantumTheory's post about why we bother to ask "Why?"

Listen maxwell, I do understand the point. Everything we think of is just our perception. And you are right, as well as the author. But, mind you, I'm 17, and I do find the "do we really exist" thread laughable. I understand the scientific concepts, but heh, it just is kind of funny.

It's like saying, "I just bought a BMW, but does it REALLY exist?"

Sorry, :rofl:

 

[QuantumTheory]

Listen maxwell, I do understand the point. Everything we think of is just our perception. And you are right, as well as the author. But, mind you, I'm 17, and I do find the "do we really exist" thread laughable. I understand the scientific concepts, but heh, it just is kind of funny.
It's like saying, "I just bought a BMW, but does it REALLY exist?"
Sorry, :rofl:

Of course it exists, it is made up molecoles, and atoms, therefore it is made up of energy. Energy exists', right?

 

[quantumcarl]

Hey quantumcarl,

My post was in response to sameandnot and QuantumTheory's post about why we bother to ask "Why?"

However, since you took the time to reply to me, I'll reply to something you said:



I do not think this is the case. Most of the recent (as in the past 200 years) groundbreaking, life-altering technologies and advancements in science have been found because of ancient discoveries. They certainly were influenced by them -- it's like a snowball rolling down a never-ending mountain. However, they are not re-makes in the sense that they were "invented," by ancient peoples and then "re-invented" by us, like in your example. Sure, most of our science and technologies have its beginnings in ancient time, but I think that is a far cry difference than saying they are "re-makes."

Forgive me if I misinterpreted your statement, I just woke up. :yuck:



:rofl:

No misinterpretation really.
However, would we call the holographically projected semi-remake of starwars in 3056AD a "remake" or an improvement?

What I mean is that original ideas are few and far between... yet, expounding and expanding on these ideas appears to be the staple of those many people with a less excercised imaginations.

Personally I perceive that there has been a whole bag full of "sh's" dumped on discoveries that would otherwise allieviate most if not all of the cause for disharmony and disruption we see today (excluding hot "magma").

Somehow, and I fail to see how, a small group of people have decided it is a better thing to keep people in fear of as many things as possible rather than solve any problems with either new and/or "ancient" solutions.

Furtherto my earlier bent, what better way to collect energy than from the static electricity caused by the friction between the rotation of the Earth and its atmosphere? It gives new meaning to the idea of "this mortal coil". I'll go rattle my chains somewhere else now.

Best of Munchen Drinken Der Beiren.

 

[quantumcarl]

does nothing exist apart from my mind?

The question is proof of existence.

 

[Ubern0va]

Prove it to whom? What does it mean to prove something? to explain something? It means to relate some phenomenon to one of our 5-6 senses. Maybe I coul'd prove it to you, but it doesn't mean that I've fundamentally proven it.