25 Feb 2008, 3:47 pm
25 Feb 2008, 4:47 pm
25 Feb 2008, 4:58 pm
Quote:
I am, how do you know that aging will not become preventable within our lifetimes?
Lets just say this: its Extremely unlikely. Are you also unsure that the world isnt flat? If you are unsure about this please do tell me where the edge might be
. I donno how old you are but there are SERIOUS thermodynamic barriers to those of us who are already adults to becoming immortal. The oxidative decomposition reactions that occur shortly after clinical death(which lead to 'biological death') are thermodynamically irreversible. The ONLY way to prevent aging is through major genetic modification which would have to be done during the gamete phase in order to affect EVERY cell in your body. Multicellular organisms are evolved to age-which means that the cellular repair mechanisms start to shut off by the time a person is in their 30s and 40s.
25 Feb 2008, 5:03 pm
Quote:
Logic is fallable because it is bound to human perception and not reality. Even maths
WRONG
Logic is independent of perception, in fact its independent of physical reality. Where do you come up with this BS sophistry?
Parallel line never meet in EUCLIDEAN SPACE-which is defined by the Euclidean Metric. However, 1+1 Is ALWAYS EQUAL TO 2 ! !
So why dont you tell ush Asha what the Four Basic Assumptions are that "Maths" is based on, eH.....
25 Feb 2008, 9:24 pm
25 Feb 2008, 10:32 pm
Phagocyte wrote:
Another transhumanism advocate I presume? I'm actually writing a research paper for English defending transhumanism and attacking bioconservatism. Interesting topic.
Yes, I'm very much a Transhumanist.
25 Feb 2008, 10:37 pm
D1nk0 wrote:
Quote:
Logic is fallable because it is bound to human perception and not reality. Even maths
WRONG
Logic is independent of perception, in fact its independent of physical reality. Where do you come up with this BS sophistry?
Parallel line never meet in EUCLIDEAN SPACE-which is defined by the Euclidean Metric. However, 1+1 Is ALWAYS EQUAL TO 2 ! !
So why dont you tell ush Asha what the Four Basic Assumptions are that "Maths" is based on, eH.....
Mathematics is a human construct, it is a special type of language. 1 + 1 = 2 simply because of how those symbols are defined.
25 Feb 2008, 10:55 pm
Odin wrote:
Mathematics is a human construct, it is a special type of language. 1 + 1 = 2 simply because of how those symbols are defined.
Case in point.
However, there is at least a bit of a problem with this point.
Warning! Technical monologue!
Kurt Goedel proved that there exist propositions of mathematics which are true, but cannot be proven. That is to say, there exist mathematical statements which assert something in a way that cannot be concluded from the definitions of mathematics that is in fact true. In his case, he proved that mathematical statements could describe the provability of other mathematical statements (a nested metalanguage), and that no matter how we formulated math in general, it is always possible to have a statement which asserts the impossibility of its own proof, but the nonexistence of its own proof implies that it is a true metamathematical statement. Some mathematical philosophers have interpreted this as a refutation of the linguistic interpretation of mathematics: if math were simply language, then each mathematical statement would be reducible to the base assumptions of mathematics (say, the Peano Axioms); i.e., given a mathematical statement, it is simply an elaborate way of rephrasing our own definitions. However, this is just not the case, by Goedel's proof. Consequently?
Something to think about. Goedel's proofs are what got twoshots into maths in the first place.
25 Feb 2008, 11:21 pm
Even relativity is relative, and uncertainty is certainly uncertain.
Therefore, we are uncertain about our relatives. 
26 Feb 2008, 1:34 am
Quote:
Mathematics is a human construct, it is a special type of language
WRONG. Mathematical principles govern physical law. EVEN on the quantum level where everything is uncertain.
Symbols can be given physical representations which illustrate mathematical principles.
Last edited by D1nk0 on 26 Feb 2008, 1:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
26 Feb 2008, 1:36 am
twoshots wrote:
Asha wrote:
Quote:
Mathematics is certain
Only if the four assumptions it is based on are correct. Classic blunder. Math is purely a priori. There is a saying that ends in "Mathematicians defer only to god himself". However, in reality, if God told us 1+1=3 we would have to conclude that we were disagreeing on one of the parts of the expression. That is, mathematics cannot be wrong. In some people's minds, this means that math, being entirely tautologous, is actually contentless and is therefore merely a product of our language rather than anything real (see for example the logical positivists).
Positive propositions about the world of our senses are invariably in doubt. Anything which depends on the outside world is uncertain; this is true.
CORRECT!
Quote:
Kurt Goedel proved that there exist propositions of mathematics which are true, but cannot be proven
For example, Euclids parallel postulate. It is logically independent of the other 5 Euclidean axioms.
26 Feb 2008, 2:25 am
Ah, but the difference between Euclid's Parallel Postulate and Goedel's statements is that Euclid's postulate is just that: it is something which being independent can either be included or excluded in the formal system without issue. However, the kinds of statements Goedel came up with are not independent of the system at all: they describe a fact of the system that cannot be determined within the system, but nonetheless are true. They constitute a proof that an arithmetical system which can do even the most basic arithmetic is insufficient to determine all true facts about numbers (I'm bouncing a lot of fine nuances; all this only really applies in the strictest formality; people are quite good at reasoning outside of the rules of formal arithmetic). Very interesting stuff. If you'd like, I can recommend some books on the subject (other than the behemoth GEB) 
Asha wrote:
All I know is I am me. And I am here. And I am always me despite what happens to the world around me.
Many philosophers might even disagree that such "immediate certainties" exist
However, I am something of a believer in the Cogito myself.
26 Feb 2008, 2:45 am
GEB was a very disappointing and rather irritating book on the subject.
Quote:
Ah, but the difference between Euclid's Parallel Postulate and Goedel's statements is that Euclid's postulate is just that: it is something which being independent can either be included or excluded in the formal system without issue. However, the kinds of statements Goedel came up with are not independent of the system at all: they describe a fact of the system that cannot be determined within the system, but nonetheless are true.
Mhm...........like the Axiom Of Choice.
26 Feb 2008, 9:27 am
D1nk0 wrote:
Quote:
Mathematics is a human construct, it is a special type of language
WRONG. Mathematical principles govern physical law. EVEN on the quantum level where everything is uncertain.
Symbols can be given physical representations which illustrate mathematical principles.
Mathematics only DESCRIBES an approximation of physical laws. We can only know the descriptions of the approximations, the phenomenological world of experience, not the actual physical laws, the noumenological world. Mathematics is merely a tool for approximating the nature of reality, it is not part of the nature of reality.
26 Feb 2008, 10:36 am
Quote:
All I know is I am me. And I am here. And I am always me despite what happens to the world around me.
no; you think you think, therefore you think you are. your brain could be playing memory tricks on you, and be confabulating memories regarding your identity. twenty years ago you could have been a serial killer or something, and are blocking it out. not even you are certain.
if mathe is so certain, give me the last digit of Pi...
26 Feb 2008, 11:24 am
bheid wrote:
Quote:
All I know is I am me. And I am here. And I am always me despite what happens to the world around me.
no; you think you think, therefore you think you are. your brain could be playing memory tricks on you, and be confabulating memories regarding your identity. twenty years ago you could have been a serial killer or something, and are blocking it out. not even you are certain.
if mathe is so certain, give me the last digit of Pi...
The last digit of Pi does NOT exist-and that IS Certain
. No you say "you think you think", well how about: I think that I think that I think...
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| How much personal space do you need? |
Today, 12:37 am |
| Hello fellow space travelers |
30 minutes ago |
| Hyperfocus and time management |
20 Feb 2025, 9:25 pm |
| Why am I accused of arguing all the time? |
14 Feb 2025, 12:41 pm |
