Prove it

[ratcharmer]

Huh, I really thought this thread had died . . . I dub this thread lazarus.

you can not prove this statement untrue

Can you prove that I'm incapable of proving that?

This statement is false.

My proof: bacon.

You must prove . . . bacon?

[EvaRia]

Yes.



Also:

I can't prove that this statement is true.

Prove it? I can't.

[Nepycros]

I am the only person in this world who uses the username Nepycros at the time of this posting.

My proof: Extensive research through Google and other search sites, and the fact I created the name from within my own mind recently, thus proving that no other living being coined it up before me and used it as a title in an online game.

[EvaRia]

I am the only person in this world who uses the username Nepycros at the time of this posting.

My proof: Extensive research through Google and other search sites, and the fact I created the name from within my own mind recently, thus proving that no other living being coined it up before me and used it as a title in an online game.

Prove that your username is Nepycros. Prove that Google and Search engines are reliable. Prove that it was your mind that came up with the username and that it was not implanted. Define "Username" and prove the definition. Define "World", and prove the definition. Prove that the time that you posted this exists. Define "Post" and prove the definition.

[Pineapple]

I am the only person in this world who uses the username Nepycros at the time of this posting.

My proof: Extensive research through Google and other search sites, and the fact I created the name from within my own mind recently, thus proving that no other living being coined it up before me and used it as a title in an online game.

Prove that your username is Nepycros. Prove that Google and Search engines are reliable. Prove that it was your mind that came up with the username and that it was not implanted. Define "Username" and prove the definition. Define "World", and prove the definition. Prove that the time that you posted this exists. Define "Post" and prove the definition.

Oh, EvaRia did not just go there...

[Ele124]

A slight hiccup here. Can anyone prove that our senses (which are clearly instrumental in determining whether these 2 "systems" are equal) are giving a true account of the evidence without using evidence obtained from our senses?

Im pretty sure this still applies. Unless you are blind, then you have been using your sense of sight to access this "evidence" and using the above argument, all senses are inherently fallible.

[johannhowitzer]

Ele124, I can't be 100% sure I'm reading your words correctly.  Or that they're your words.  Or that there are actually words.  Or that I'm typing on a keyboard right now.  Or that I'm awake.  Or that I exist.  Wait, I can think... so I do know that part.  *whew*

[ratcharmer]

Ele124, I can't be 100% sure I'm reading your words correctly.  Or that they're your words.  Or that there are actually words.  Or that I'm typing on a keyboard right now.  Or that I'm awake.  Or that I exist.  Wait, I can think... so I do know that part.  *whew*

Can you prove that youcan think?

Or, can you prove that only things which exist are capable of thought?

[johannhowitzer]

Cogito ergo sum.  Unless you're a solipsist, you begin by granting first principles, then build up from that foundation.

[Ele124]

Well, I cant prove to you that I can think, but the very fact that im considering this argument shows to myself that I can think. In order to think it is logical to assume that I must exist (in some format).

=> "I think therefore I am"

Your second point is highly dependant on the definition of "exist". My definition of somthing that exists is "an object (no specified format) that has the potential to interact with me". Under this definition, if an object does not exist, it will not affect me and whether or not it can think becomes a moot point.

EDIT: On second thoughts, by thinking, I am interacting with myself, therefore under this definition I exist.


*google's solipsist*

[nerd1]

two things, one, are there any postulates, and two, i can not prove this statement true.

[Ele124]

Nope, no postulates. There is only undeniable fact and solid logic based on it. In your second point, im not sure which statement you are referring to?