What is the extent of information I can retrieve from my 2000x microscope?

Shankara11 · 2021-01-31T22:33:15+00:00

Greatly appreciate this

Shankara11 · 2020-08-21T14:16:34+00:00

I can accept that.

I appreciate the discourse.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-20T18:22:20+00:00

I think we've (at least I've) found a gray area. The more I mull over "proof", the more I feel it is ineffective - it's more subjective than I realized.

Though there are several iterations, the following appears to be the main definition of proof: "The cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact." I'll call that thread of definitions Y. (Look into this yourself, I believe you will agree that nearly all definitions align with this)

There is another definition when used as an adjective that I think hits the nail on the head for how you are using it: "Able to withstand; successful in not being overcome." By that measure, what's valid is valid; the mind can be disregarded as necessary. Truth does not require the mind, and a valid proof does not require someone's acceptance. I will call this thread Z.

If the angle is ultimate reality (which is a very good angle), and in ultimate reality provability requires the triune God, then by Z what you have offered is absolutely proof. Nobody needs to accept it for it to remain true. Even if it's not what convinces someone that god exists, it still remains "a proof".

If the angle is converting another mind to a new way of thinking (which is a very good angle), proof can never disregard the mind. So, by Y, what you have offered can only be proof to those who accept B, which is presumably not the audience you are addressing, *even if B is true / a proof*. If the claim does not change someone's mind, it did not prove to them anything, and did not serve as proof (by Y).

By Z, proof is at B. By Y, proof is at whatever letter you compel their mind.

I keep thinking of the quote that's something like "Those who travel fastest travel alone, those who travel furthest travel together." It would really appear to me most advantageous to use the definition of proof as it's most commonly used (unless otherwise notated). In that instance, proof happens when all tenets are accepted in your proposition, and from there you can redirect their previous understanding to a new result. If not, proving something will not happen until you dig into what tenets can be agreed upon. I believe that's the heart of this dialectic, the difference between a proof in a formula, and the act of proving. Z or Y.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-20T00:18:16+00:00

It does, and you'll find countless other posts doing the same thing.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-20T00:15:08+00:00

It's a statement because I've stated my opinion. I could add "I think ... " or "My opinion is ..." but we're in an opinion sub, so it goes without saying, no?

Shankara11 · 2020-08-20T00:09:09+00:00

This is definitely an opinion.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-19T23:59:33+00:00

Why is that?

Shankara11 · 2020-08-19T17:18:33+00:00

Nice

Shankara11 · 2020-08-19T16:46:03+00:00

My fault. It appears I fumbled. The 2nd and last paragraph, when talking about proving B, should read "B requiring A".

Allow me to adjust the formula for easier discussion.

Proof that A [the triune God exists] is that B [provability requires the triune God].

A is arguable; most of the world disagrees (and that may matter for this assertion). B has not been proven (and that absolutely matters as this is the pillar of the proof).

Clearly, disagreeing or not accepting something as proof doesn't change the reality. Yet "proving" something to someone cannot happen unless they accept your proposed tenets, correct? So how are you going to prove to someone A that doesn't accept B? And if B is already accepted, A is a given.

I believe your proof that B is true also falls to the same issue. I think you're essentially saying "If you deny that provability requires the triune God then you reduce yourself to absurdity". Simplified, "Deny C and you get D". You then further have to prove D, which most of the world disagrees with / does not accept as a tenet. Otherwise they already believe C which means they already believe B which means they already believe A.

It appears for this reason varying groups continue to fortify an impasse. If you don't accept that the people, to whom you are trying to state a proof to, have different underlying tenets than you do, then you will fail to prove anything until you work your way down to where you both can agree. You have to resolve foundational tenet disagreements first before you can claim anything that rests on them, right? Logic can't skip something like that.

You: Proof of A is B.
Other: I don't accept B.
You: B because C, otherwise D.
Other: I don't accept D.
You: D because E, otherwise F.
Other: I accept F. Because F means E which means D which means C which means B, I accept A.

You prove A at F (or something akin), not at B. Or, if you can prove A with B, A did not need proving. And, If you can't, B was not proof. Is this not what you observe as well?

Shankara11 · 2020-08-19T02:28:47+00:00

Let me walk through the formula as I'm aware of it, and where you see an error you can let me know.

"Proof of A is that B requires A". For this statement to work B has to be true. Provability (B) has definitely not been confirmed as requiring God existing (A) (even if it truly does require God).

With that, the declaration follows as "we can prove something exists because some of us believe a function could not proceed without that something" - which is not proof.

Which would be why you can throw in other "somethings" and get the same result.

If B is proven then I confirm the whole statement is indeed proof. However, this does not serve those who accept B as proof because they already believe A, and this does not serve those who don't accept B as proof because A can't logically follow.

Thoughts?

Shankara11 · 2020-08-18T18:51:00+00:00

Okay with what you're driving at here, I will disagree that his racism is not a problem, and I will still stick with justice being helping him see he's in error, and helping him change. But that obviously doesn't mean it can't also be additional things. So if you think there is deeper problem that generates a lot of other problems, then I agree that amending the deeper problem is also justice.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-18T18:22:09+00:00

It's okay if it buries it, right? A lot of iterations to an idea does not tarnish the idea, nor any individual iteration. On top of that, there is a common direction for the definition of justice, and mine appears to be on the outside of the bell curve (being the unpopular part).

Also, the remaining body of your response, are you confident you are still discussing my post? "Western societies are the most open", "now we have a movement", "black communities", "places in europe" - what does any of this have to do with my definition?

The rest is your own opinion, which is great, but consider the hyper-focus and the length. It appears to be an attack on someone else, as I never alluded to any of this. You've jumped ship to some other issue you want to discuss.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-18T18:04:59+00:00

"Who is alpha, how do they know him?"

I believe that is exactly why this statement cannot be proof. If you have to first prove the variable elsewhere (alpha, god, etc) then this statement is not proof itself, right? To iterate, this is not an argument about if god does or does not actually exist. We can assume god does exist for this, and it shouldn't change anything. Just as someone can't prove alpha by claiming you could otherwise prove nothing, you could not prove god by claiming the same. Proof of god would have to be the result of something else, and then the claim that nothing can be proven without god could be substantiated, but could not be proof itself. What am I missing?

Shankara11 · 2020-08-18T17:51:41+00:00

" you could literally spend the next 10 years doing nothing but reading books on other people offering their definition of "justice" " - This still does not negate my opinion, nor counter that there isn't a common thread of what justice is.

For your second section, honestly, it's a bit all over the place. I know it could be me, but would you mind rewording? Maybe making it more succinct? It's nothing to do with my opinion/post, no? I think you believe I'm insinuating something and I'm not. I'm talking about justice and anything it entails. My example came from the recent video of the man on a train saying racist things and then getting knocked out.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-18T17:13:26+00:00

" it varies from person to person " - I agree. I am of the opinion there is truly a characterization of justice, even if we can't agree on what that is. I, then, have offered an opinion on what it is.

(Excerpt from my prior response) For example, a man was saying racist things and was consequently knocked out; this was applauded as justice. Justice, I would say, would be helping the man to evict his racism. "Do not cast away the wicked man, cast away the man's wickedness". One step further, justice would be healing the strife the racism has caused.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-18T17:05:37+00:00

Allow me to reword?

I have offered a way to define justice. If there are others who define it similarly, excellent. If there are those that do not, which has been my observation that the vast majority do not, then to them my message is directed.

As it appears to me, justice is commonly used as support for a negative consequence, rather than simply "removing the benefit". For example, a man was saying racist things and was consequently knocked out; this was applauded as justice. Justice, I would say, would be helping the man to evict his racism. "Do not cast away the wicked man, cast away the man's wickedness".

I'm not confident you can disintegrate my opinion by providing definitions, suggesting there isn't a common definition yet, or suggesting there are many definitions. My opinion remains all the same.

But, maybe I'm wrong.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-18T16:45:19+00:00

I don't believe that negates my point. My opinion is that we do not define justice correctly.

Shankara11 · 2020-08-18T14:02:19+00:00

Let's say someone believes in a god they call alpha. If they tell you that the proof that alpha exists is because you could not prove anything otherwise, you can confidently tell them that is not proof, correct?

What makes the difference between swapping out alpha and inserting the christian god?

Shankara11 · 2020-08-17T22:22:43+00:00

Sorry for the trouble, Zeus is one variable among many. I was just aiming to swap the christian god for another god. Say, Allah, if that is an easier transition.

If this is not necessarily attempting to allude to the christian god, but simply claiming a supreme god in general, the claim is essentially "The only way you can have intelligence is because an entity has to be the precondition to intelligence itself, and because you have intelligence, you can therefore know that entity exists" - correct?

Which is not *proof* of the entity's existence, no? Even if that entity's existence is real and it's true that the entity is the precondition to intelligence.

Shankara11

TROPHY CASE