1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    31 Mar '09 05:18
    Originally posted by znsho
    You have got me by the short and curlies. I suppose I could say 'they cannot be seen or detected, except by me'. This sort of thing has happened before and have led to new religions. For example, no one except Joseph Smith could look at the tablets.
    I fully agree that it is easily possible to define something whose existence or non-existence can not be determined. But that is not in any way equivalent to saying that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything.
    For example an all powerful God that wants me to know he exists before I reach the age of 30 does not exist - this is trivial as I am over 30 and do not know that such a God exists.
  2. Joined
    03 Oct '05
    Moves
    86698
    31 Mar '09 09:19
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Because it is trivial to define something that if it exists would be unmistakably detectable. This leads to the logical conclusion that if it is not detected it does not exist - proving your statement false.
    No, the concept that 'it is not possible to prove a negative' is not the same as saying 'if it is not detectable, it does not exist'. I am simply saying it is impossible to prove something does not exist. One can only surmise that something does not exist on the basis of the evidence available. At the end of the day, it is down to probability.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    31 Mar '09 13:57
    Originally posted by znsho
    No, the concept that 'it is not possible to prove a negative' is not the same as saying 'if it is not detectable, it does not exist'. I am simply saying it is impossible to prove something does not exist. One can only surmise that something does not exist on the basis of the evidence available. At the end of the day, it is down to probability.
    No, it is not down to probability. Obviously I do not think mathematical proofs apply to reality and the 'prove' I am talking about is evidence that when presented to any sane Jury would be accepted as sufficient. One can of course assume that everything is an illusion and that we can never know anything, but even that argument fails with the famous "I think therefore I am".
    But without getting too deep into philosophy, if I say that a gigantic 10 ton squid (made of all the normal atoms etc that squids are made of and not some sort of special invisible anti-mater type squid that you have dreamed up) is sitting on your keyboard right now then you would either agree with me that it does not exist or you need to see a psychiatrist.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree