If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

[IBDaMann]

nonexistence of an integer solution.

An integer solution is a "something".

is not the same as just nonexistence of something

That's exactly the kind of example it is.

we know fractions exist.

You and I do, but let's keep that our little secret.

it seems cool though.

Very much so. I recommend you read about Fermat's theorem because he stated the theorem without giving the world the proof before he died. Humanity spent centuries searching for a single integer solution to prove the theorem false. Upon the advent of computers, many have been dedicated to the attempt to bust Fermat's theorem.

Finally, in the 1990s, a new branch of mathematics was created, elliptic curves. Fermat's theorem is proven using this new math. The NSA said "Awesome! Since no solution exists, we can make virtually unbreakable encryption using this principle!"

... and thus the unbreakable elliptic curve encryption came to be.

and it really its above my grade.

It really isn't. Math is an example of a closed functional system. Of course nonexistence can be proven within such a context. This is where you got tripped up. You were focused on science, an open functional system, in which nonexistence cannot be shown, and no law of nature can be confirmed to be true.

but just as you explain it, it seems to not fulfill our conditions.

It does. It's just that the moment you see the word "proof" (or "prove"), you should realize that the context has turned to a closed functional system, and lots of neat stuff has been proven in math.

 

[Monad Portal]

An integer solution is a "something".


That's exactly the kind of example it is.


You and I do, but let's keep that our little secret.


Very much so. I recommend you read about Fermat's theorem because he stated the theorem without giving the world the proof before he died. Humanity spent centuries searching for a single integer solution to prove the theorem false. Upon the advent of computers, many have been dedicated to the attempt to bust Fermat's theorem.

Finally, in the 1990s, a new branch of mathematics was created, elliptic curves. Fermat's theorem is proven using this new math. The NSA said "Awesome! Since no solution exists, we can make virtually unbreakable encryption using this principle!"

... and thus the unbreakable elliptic curve encryption came to be.


It really isn't. Math is an example of a closed functional system. Of course nonexistence can be proven within such a context. This is where you got tripped up. You were focused on science, an open functional system, in which nonexistence cannot be shown, and no law of nature can be confirmed to be true.


It does. It's just that the moment you see the word "proof" (or "prove"), you should realize that the context has turned to a closed functional system, and lots of neat stuff has been proven in math.

and a negative pregnancy test does not mean pregnancy doesnt' exist.

doh.

yer dum.

 

[ZenMode]

Lile.

Ok?

Nope. It's a circular argument. I am not trying to prove anything.

I said you claimed something that I was responding. Are you ESL?

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You cannot make any evidence just disappear. Evidence is not a quantity.

Negative proof fallacy.

Incoherent babbling.

 

[ZenMode]

You cannot resolve any of your paradoxes by denying them.

You still can't create a paradox by claiming one exists.

All your word games and misdirection is all meant to avoid an actual discussion. I'm not playing along any more.

 

[Monad Portal]

You still can't create a paradox by claiming one exists.

All your word games and misdirection is all meant to avoid an actual discussion. I'm not playing along any more.

it's all he has.

he's actually dumb.

 

[Cypress]

The Universe is unorganized!!!

IntoTheNight: The universe is unorganized and random!!

Me plus the global physics community: The past, present, and future physical state of matter, space, and energy is predictable and lawful.

 

[Cypress]

... but you can only project under the assumption of zero collisions, and you don't know what collisions actually occurred when and where!!

Think man, think!

That only speaks to human ignorance or lack of data. It says nothing about physical reality.

The information is out there, whether we possess it or not. That's an epistemological problem. Not an ontological one.

In principle, if we had all the relevant information, we could calculate the position, trajectory, momentum of Haley's comet or Mars arbitrarily far into the past.

As it is, even just given currently available information, we can reliably state The position and trajectory of Haley's comet thousands of years into the past.

The universe is neither unpredictable, nor unorganized, nor random. That's only something middleschool dropouts would say.

 

[Margot]

Think man, think!

That only speaks to human ignorance or lack of data. It says nothing about physical reality.

The information is out there, whether we possess it or not. That's an epistemological problem. Not an ontological one.

In principle, if we had all the relevant information, we could calculate the position, trajectory, momentum of Haley's comet or Mars arbitrarily far into the past.

As it is, even just given currently available information, we can reliably state The position and trajectory of Haley's comet thousands of years into the past.

The universe is neither unpredictable, nor unorganized, nor random. That's only something middleschool dropouts would say.

"Break on through to the other side."

 

[Monad Portal]

Think man, think!

That only speaks to human ignorance or lack of data. It says nothing about physical reality.

The information is out there, whether we possess it or not. That's an epistemological problem. Not an ontological one.

In principle, if we had all the relevant information, we could calculate the position, trajectory, momentum of Haley's comet or Mars arbitrarily far into the past.

As it is, even just given currently available information, we can reliably state The position and trajectory of Haley's comet thousands of years into the past.

The universe is neither unpredictable, nor unorganized, nor random. That's only something middleschool dropouts would say.

there's elements of order and elements of chaos.

why are you so dumb?

 

[Cypress]

there's elements of order and elements of chaos.

why are you so dumb?

In science, even chaos in physical systems has an underlying hidden order underneath the seemingly random disorder. This is famously illustrated mathematically by strange attractors.

 

[IBDaMann]

That only speaks to human ignorance or lack of data.

Yep. That it does.

It says nothing about physical reality.

Now you are conflating ontology with physics. You have to pick one. If you pick ontology, you are admitting that you are abandoning physics.

The information is out there,

Explain what that means. What is "out there", exactly? Are we the opening to X-Files?

What information are you claiming exists in the distribution of a random dust cloud? What is "THE Information"?

Warmizombies and climate lemmings insist "THE Data" is "out there". You insist some "THE Information" is "out there." I wonder how long it will be until leftists insist that "THE Knowledge" is "out there."

That's an epistemological problem. Not an ontological one.

The ontological problem you face is that we find ourselves in an unordered, random dust cloud (physical reality) that you need to be ordered and fine-tuned lest your religious beliefs face a crisis. You should have spoken to me before committing to a belief that is totally absurd. A completely random universe is your best sign, and strongest argument, for your God; you shouldn't be so quick to discard that for something so absurd you need to chant it to yourself in order to keep yourself sufficiently deluded.

In principle, if we had all the relevant information, we could calculate the position, trajectory, momentum of Haley's comet or Mars arbitrarily far into the past.

Again, that information would have to detail all collisionsfor you to be able to do that. Oh, and you can't get that information.

As it is, even just given currently available information, we can reliably state The position and trajectory of Haley's comet thousands of years into the past.

Nope. You do not have any information about its collision history.

The universe is neither unpredictable, nor unorganized, nor random.

The universe is a random dust cloud, i.e. totally unorganized. You know this. There is no randomness test that the universe would fail.

 

[IBDaMann]

"Break on through to the other side."

Rake on through to the other side, rake on through to the other side, rake on through to the other side, yeah ...

 

[Into the Night]

Ok?

I said you claimed something that I was responding. Are you ESL?

Incoherent babbling.

YARP. Inversion fallacy.