Metaphysical Theory

>>8532481
I did post my working version a month or two ago, some of you might have seen that. This is the finished result.

>he thinks I'm going to click that link

lolnothanks

>>8532527
It's onedrive... hahaha. 1drive.microsoft.

This is the expanded link if you don't trust me though ;P
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=3908EE6112D44DC8!2945&ithint=file%2cdocx&app=Word&authkey=!AE7UVEjKlgY6tHE

>>8532540
Write a book about this and peddle it to retards and you'll probably make millions.
All the non-brainlets will know that you're a retard, but you'll be rich off of retard money, so I wouldn't care. Go travel the world.

>>8532564
It's not a joke, or pseudoscience. That is the natural reaction when you don't quite understand what I've said because my ability to communicate is more advanced than yours.

When it becomes scientific belief you'll read it a couple more times and decide that you simply didn't understand, at all, and thought you did.
It's just an example of human's tendency to assume they understand even when they do not.

File: mypiano.jpg (51KB, 393x513px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 393x513px

>>8532576

File: papa.jpg (76KB, 700x401px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 700x401px

>>8532618

File: 1435804865138.gif (236KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

236KB, 500x500px

>>8532481
When Philosophy Majors do science
>Y-Y-You just don't get it c-c-cause i can communicate it better.
How can you not be self-aware of how gay this is

>>8532667
I'm not a Philosophy major, I've studied 3 years of IT.

If you assume what I'm doing is pseduoscience that means you haven't yourself made a sustained enough effort of demonstrating HOW it is pseudoscience, because upon that attempt you realize that it is not.

It is something you must attempt to prove flawed before most are willing to accept it's not.

Interesting theory, especially as you get into the fact that data always objectively exists.

It coincides with my metaphysical theory of God's Awareness.

God is firstly existence. The interior structure of existence is existence. There is an infinite chain of existence being informed by existence. Then because existence is whole, existence is informed of itself, making each bit of existence within all infinite bits of existence and contain each bit of existence.

The whole is informed of itself fully. God knows itself. Again, the whole is informed of itself fully but this time it is informed of its informing or knowing. God knows that it knows or is given Awareness and subsequently Bliss(the harmony of self-knowing.) (note: God at this step is similar to our own awareness, except that each mote of bliss is clearly perceived individuated and while also experiencing the infinite spaciousness of existence)
God possess the attributes of Omniscience and Omnipresence. His Awareness is spread through out the whole uniformly. At each piece of bliss, a new whole arises at that point. God multiplies Himself by Himself in addition to his original Self. The process continues, the new whole again arises at each point of bliss. The process continues infinitely.

Mathematically we can look at it like n+n2, where n is the previous sequence of the set starting with infinty : ∞, ∞+∞2, ∞+∞2 + (∞+∞2 )2, etc… We will call this set of infinities Alephࡗ(which will come in handy later).
God is an infinite expansion of infinite existence-awareness-bliss.

>>8532692
Unfortunate that my theory outranks yours due to Occam's Razor ;/
You make an unproven assumption that data is god, as if there is identity before anything else.

My Theory assumes nothing, proves every premise and substantiates every conclusion.

I explain life, and it isn't a result of a deity. We have a soul, but it's not a God.

There is no evidence of a deity in our universe.

>>8532692
>>8532713
Unless when you refer to god you literally just refer to an awareness which exists on a higher plane than ours, but I think if that is the case you would need to distinguish your language much more clearly because humans typically refer to God as the creator, as if he is a being and not an object.

>>8532713
There is evidence of deity, it's called the fine-tuning hypothesis.

There is also the hard problem of consciousness and mystery of abiogenesis.

>>8532720
That is to say, there is no physical manifestation of a deity which created us of any kind, because we are the 'physical' manifestation of the 'god' if that is what you want to refer to the origin as.

>>8532723
That is garbage nonsense, the universe is explained by probability or chaos theory.
I explained consciousness, read the discussion.

>>8532481
Lol, this is total crankery. Makes sense that you're in IT.

>>8532729
I forgot IT wasn't a real science :/ Better return your computer or phone to the shop bro, it's not really working - it's just an illusion!!!

>>8532724
The universe in it's current state is highly improbable. Claiming this is just a manifestation of Chaos Theory which applies to physical systems and not the laws of nature is quite a stretch.

I read what you wrote but I see no physical model for consciousness, which is what the hard problem is.

>>8532481
>References
>Descartes, R. (1644). Principles of Philosophy.
>Wikipedia. (2016, May 12). Principle of Relativity. Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity

ayyy lmao

>>8532734
The brain is the physical model for consciousness, what the fuck do you mean hahahah

It's not at all a stretch, that is what the scientific consensus is. If you believe it's a stretch, then you clearly do not quite grasp the incredible size of the universe, because you underestimate the numbers we are working with when we determine the probability of life occurring within all the phenomenon associated with entropic activity on a scale of that magnitude, especially over the insane amount of time that has passed since the birth of the universe.

>>8532739
The hard problem is that the brain does not adequately describe awareness. I could go on if you want.

Yes, the eventual rise of a system that goes against entropy may not be that improbable, but the universe beginning in a low entropy state is improbable, it goes against what one would expect if it were an accident.

>>8532731
>IT guy takes credit for Computer Engineering

Yeah okay. If you could pass Calc 2, you might have been able to recognize how ridiculous your "treatise" is. You're a crank.

>>8532742
I'm saying the industry is responsible for computer engineering, obviously yes. You attacked me based on the subject I study, I defend the subject by pointing out the hypocrisy of that attack and you make some hyperbolic accusation misrepresenting what I say so dramatically that you think it paints me negatively? You sound like a moron friendo :)

Maybe if you could say WHY it is ridiculous, you might be taken seriously when you give your opinions... Just a thought :)

>>8532741
It wasn't an accident, it was necessitation. There was a cause, it just wasn't a god.

The brain actually encompasses the subjective manifestation of awareness because it allows the soul to manifest inside the container it represents. The soul is trying to be life in every universe it can, so when conditions allow life to develop it does. When it develops enough, it can become more like the soul - self-aware. Then, it can become completely aware, by understanding itself, its universe and its relationship with its greater self - the soul. This is not God. This is logical action, awareness understanding what it is aware of.

>>8532752
So you take the position that consciousness is a fundamental property of the universe, and it has some control over the universe?
If consciousness is omnipotent then why isn't it God to you?

>>8532752
I mocked you for IT because you think you have a unified theory of physics and the universe, but IT professionals literally don't even know basic calculus, let alone theoretical physics. Your treatise is about Deepak Chopra level.

>>8532762
It's not a fundamental property of the universe, it is a consequence of the conditions in this universe allowing its manifestation. It exists on a higher plane than this universe but it is not fundamental in either universe.
It's not omnipotent. There are universes where the conditions do not even allow life to originate. An infinity of different universes like that. Just because it is my origin does not make it a being. God refers to a social construct. I believe in science and scientific names, so I will not call it what it is not.

>>8532772
Hahaha yeah you caught me out :/ Sling some more insults bro, I'm shaking in my boots thinking of all the references you're gonna throw at me proving me wrong!

Oh wait, you don't seem to be interested in a debate of ideas, merely an attack of character... Maybe it's because you're incapable mentally of competing :)

If you think you're more logical than me friend, identify for me the flaw in Set Theory, and describe to be what the effect of that flaw is on the current beliefs held by mathematical professionals about relative degrees of infinity?

>>8532777
Yeh, but Occam's razor supports a single universe, not multiple universes.

>>8532782
Not if the explanation for multiple universes is simpler than the explanation for just one... which it is.

>>8532777
>If you think you're more logical than me friend, identify for me the flaw in Set Theory, and describe to be what the effect of that flaw is on the current beliefs held by mathematical professionals about relative degrees of infinity?

I admit I don't know such a "flaw." I know that whether or not there exists a cardinality between countable and uncountable is independent of the ZFC axioms.

>>8532785
I disagree.
ALl evidence we have points to a single universe.
From whence comes the multiverse?

>>8532795
I have already explained this, it must exist because this universe exists theoretically also.

>>8532792
Explain to me what you think Set Theory is exactly :) Like what is the idea behind set theory, and explain what you think a 'countable infinity' is.

>>8532797
Set theory is an attempt to specify the simplest foundations necessary to describe all branches of mathematics. A "set" is taken intuitively, without rigorous definition, to be a collection. One of the axioms is induction, which allows us to recursively describe natural numbers, and anything that can be put into bijection with the natural numbers is said to be countable.

Absolutely embarrassing. Remove your name for it if you don't want to taint your career.

>>8532797
"well, that's like your opinion man."
So, you mean according to your metaphysical theory there must be other universes?

But I already see a flaw in your reasoning.
"For something to exist there must be something relative to it that does not exist."

I don't think this is analytic a priori knowledge.
You've yet to prove that to me.

Are you people seriously discussing this paper with him? He has absolutely no idea what he's talking about. Just point your finger and laugh at him.

>>8532481
Cringe. This pseudo-religious drivel is written with a unfounded confidence. That makes it very embarrassing when you have your facts wrong because you didn't study and decide daydreaming while stoned is sufficient research.

Oh and enjoy your pizza :^)

>>8532813
There's only one guy discussing it with him seriously, and that guy believes in God. So it makes sense.

>>8532809
I don't use that in my true proof. Read more I specifically state that argument is a linguistic one demonstrating a paradox and is thus flawed. My true proof is further on in the document...

>>8532804
If the set of Natural number N is not equivalent in size to the set of Rational numbers R, then how is it that Set Theory describes both of these sets as countable infinities?
Define infinity for me...

>>8532819
Have you ever tried saying "Facts X and Y are wrong therefore you are wrong, and enjoy your pizza :^)"...?
Nah you haven't because you're incapable of it hahaha. Point out where I'm wrong or accept it is possible I am right.

>>8532822
>If the set of Natural number N is not equivalent in size to the set of Rational numbers R, then how is it that Set Theory describes both of these sets as countable infinities?

It is equivalent in size. We can put the rational numbers in bijection with the natural numbers.

Hi Chris

>>8532825
Not accurate. If N = 6, R = 36. Therefore they are not equivalent in size.
Mathematics is about equal changes. If I limit the set of Natural Numbers to 6, then there are only 36 Rational Fractions possible. This means that their size is distinctly different, and if both are infinite, these sets are different by a measure of infinity.

Infinity means non-countable. To say countable infinity is to admit you do not understand the language you employ. Since, however, mathematics insists upon using such flawed language... If there IS a countable infinity, it is the set of N and any sets equivalent in size. R is not equivalent in size, and thus is NOT a countable infinity.

>>8532481
By an unfortunate turn of events I have a masters in philosophy and holy shit your paper is fucking hilarious.

>>8532833
Unfortunate for you maybe.

Identify for me the flaw in the reasoning made by Rene Descartes which I cite in my paper, if you can. I can, surely a gentleman with such qualifications can find a simple and obvious contradiction in a statement not two lines long...

>>8532828
They are both infinite, one is more dense than the other.
Thank you Numberphile.

>>8532837
Yes, which describes the ONLY difference IN infinities. Therefore... if you call any infinity countable, it is either the FIRST one alone, or all of them... Not the first and second depths but no further? hahahahah
each subsequent depth of infinity presents an identical problem, there is no distinction between 2 infinities and 5 in terms of why cardinality fails.

File: matt acutt.jpg (26KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x480px

>>8532828
Hey Matt. Guess what? You're a junior in college and you don't even understand foundations of higher math. (Also, R conventionally refers to reals. Q is rationals). Infinity does not mean "non-countable", and if you did something other than post memes about gaming all day might know something.

File: fucking liberal arts kids.jpg (2KB, 90x90px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 90x90px

Christ, this is terrible. For one thing, you don't at all understand the theory of relativity. For centuries, it has been known that the velocities of everything in the universe is relative; that is, velocity differs based on your point of reference. What Einstein showed was that light is NOT relative, which means that time differs based on your point of reference. Already your paper has fallen apart, since it presumes that everything is relative. Secondly, your "proof" for the existence of data requires that theoretical existence stops existing if there is no data, which is absurd. Just because there was no evidence for the earth to be rotating the sun in ancient times doesn't mean that it's false. Again, your theory falls apart. I could probably find more glaring mistakes if I could be bothered to do anything more than skim this atrocity, but I can't. Stick to /his/ you self-absorbed twat.

>>8532841
>Yes, which describes the ONLY difference IN infinities.

No. The difference between infinite cardinalities is whether or not a bijection can be defined between a set and the natural numbers. Q can be put in bijection with N, R cannot. Reals are uncountable, but the set of rationals and reals have the same cardinality.

>>8532845
Wow can you use Facebook search :/ I am embarrassed beyond belief, that's why I branded my Theory with my name... I must be so ashamed right now.

Irrelevant, because I said what convention I was using which is the convention I learnt in.
Just because I am young doesn't mean I am wrong. Just because I like video games and memes doesn't make me stupid. Attacks on my character do not invalidate my work.

Infinity does mean non-countable. Finite refers to the fact that you can apply integer, the concept of countability, the basic principle of math. Infinite is the opposite - you cannot. To attempt to apply math to infinity is a contradiction in itself and it is where the flaw originates.

>>8532847
No, you misunderstand what cardinality represents my friend. The bijection is irrelevant and it implies something which isn't true. If I can limit the sets and prove that they are not equal, then there must be distinction made in their naming. They are not BOTH countable infinities, because that implies they are the same thing which they are not. There is a difference between them, which I just demonstrated.

>>8532847
*rationals and naturals, a typo. reals and rationals have different cardinality.

>>8532846
Hahahahah you make the most obvious logical mistakes I can think of friend.
I don't presume everything is relative. I explain that everything exists in a state of relativity. How things are relative depends on their nature and thus their structure.
No, it's not absurd hahaha. If there wasn't data to substantiate a theoretical concept, what would it be made of? Dummie...

File: 1900044_589833657759530_1098518776_n.jpg (67KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 800x800px

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE NORMIES GET OUT GET OUT GET OUT

ENJOY YOUR PIZZA NIGGER

File: dankdank.jpg (63KB, 480x478px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x478px

>>8532856
Thanks senpai :)
If I didn't want my information viewed my profile wouldn't be public, but roast away. I know it's all you've got ;)

File: chris mackinga.jpg (43KB, 540x540px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 540x540px

>>8532849
>>8532851

If you kids are so interested in Math, why don't you study it? Because you literally don't know the definition of cardinality, and you don't know what infinity entails mathematically.

Your age doesn't invalidate your work, but your arrogance coupled with your total ignorance of mathematics is very reflective of your age.

>>8532851
>No, you misunderstand what cardinality represents my friend

Cardinality is literally defined by bijections, even finite cardinalities.

>>8532865
Infinity cannot entail something mathematically which the term contradicts literally. That's a fact.

If the size of sets is different, then their cardinality is not identical. You describe that cardinality can be applied to the set - I would propose that the process of cardinality is applying Natural numbers to indexed elements. If there are only 6 Natural numbers, then the cardinality of the second set is only 6 also, even though there are 36 elements. This demonstrates that cardinality and thus countability CANNOT be applied to the set R of rational numbers.

File: 1458510777682.jpg (69KB, 600x584px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 600x584px

Go back to /b/ and never come back to /sci/

>>8532873
I'm 95% confident that this is b8.

File: 38347828.jpg (32KB, 436x436px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 436x436px

hope you like dominos :^)

File: deletos.jpg (37KB, 467x735px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 467x735px

>>8532875
okay pope pepe, i submit to your religion of current scientific belief :)

>>8532881
Thanks dude I was actually getting pretty hungry :)

>>8532880
Because you have no idea how to argue with it so you assume I must just be retarded? Because Math couldn't possibly be simply wrong like I describe hey... ;)

>>8532873
>Infinity cannot entail something mathematically which the term contradicts literally. That's a fact.

Infinite means not finite. That's all it means. It turns out that sets that are not finite have interesting (and sometimes unintuitive) mathematical properties.

> If there are only 6 Natural numbers, then the cardinality of the second set is only 6 also, even though there are 36 elements.

But there aren't 6 natural numbers. Finite sets do not have the same properties as Infinite sets, and its not because mathematicians dreamed up these properties based on their intuitions. For example, the union of any finite set A with an infinite set B has the same cardinality as B. And it also turns out that the union of any two finite sets that can be put into bijection with the natural numbers can itself also be put into bijecction with the natural numbers.

If you actually want to learn things, take foundations of higher math and real analysis.

>>8532899
*the union of any two infinite sets that can be put into bijection with the natural numbers

>>8532899
not finite has a definition in and of itself, it is not simply 'not something'. Trying to argue that is retarded.

There are, that's how I limited the sets. I describe how many there are, you don't get to.

If there are ONLY 6 natural numbers, that's how many there are. For the whole equation. Not until the step before the end where suddenly there are infinite natural numbers again; no. There are six.

>>8532834
Sure thing. I haven't read your paper fully as I was struck with second hand embarrassment but provide a sketch of your argument and you'll see why it has to fail. Anyway, Descartes' argument doesn't follow from 'cogito ergo sum'. The proposition itself says nothing more than what is contained in the fact that it is referential. It's a tautology, and is so not a worldly fact. That means that no matter what you do, without presupposing something else, you won't be able to deduce a worldly fact just from it. What Descartes actually wanted was to show that there is a proposition that is epistemologically privileged, that this is a worldly fact that is somehow different from other worldly facts, but that doesn't (and cannot) follow from just his argument.
To cut the whole story short, even if we constructed the argument correctly and showed that it is a self-evident worldly fact, you still wouldn’t be able to prove the existence of the outside world with phenomenological reduction. You need something to break out of solipsism, and to do that you’d have to defeat the purpose of your methodology.

>>8532854
But as I said, not everything is relative. Light is the same velocity no matter your frame of reference.

>>8532905
Okay, if you define N = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}, and R to be the ratios of elements of N, then there are more elements in the set R than in N (but actually there aren't 36 distinct elements, because 3/6 = 2/4 = 1/2, and 2/6 = 1/3.)

That fact has nothing to do with the cardinalities of Naturals and Rationals.

>>8532913
No because clearly you don't understand from what belief of his originated his reasoning, and I doubt you know its true version either. He proposes something which is very hard to contradict and works from there. It's not true, but it's pretty close so no-one has ever noticed.

>>8532916
That's called a universal constant, it is relevant to its datalogical cause.

>>8532920
It does actually, because you aren't supposed to simplify them. You are simply supposed to provide how many elements can be made from each. It has EVERYTHING to do with the cardinalities, and if you cannot understand that you have no place in this discussion.

>>8532924
>No because clearly you don't understand from what belief of his originated his reasoning, and I doubt you know its true version either. He proposes something which is very hard to contradict and works from there. It's not true, but it's pretty close so no-one has ever noticed.
This has to be bait. You can't really be this stupid, can you?

>>8532924
>It does actually, because you aren't supposed to simplify them. You are simply supposed to provide how many elements can be made from each. It has EVERYTHING to do with the cardinalities, and if you cannot understand that you have no place in this discussion.

LMAO. Okay, I know you're trolling now.

>>8532924
Don't bully the guy he named in the paper, it's probably not him. B8.

>>8532927
I'm not stupid, tell me what belief his statement originated from?

>>8532928
If you simplify them you disingenuously manipulate the number of elements, however it's not relevant. There are still more than 6 unique elements. This proves cardinality fails.

>>8532481

What is your background, if you don't mind me asking? I only ask because all of these questions you're trying to answer have already been answered in the intersection of philosophy, modern logic, and information theory.

The literature on these topics is vast and ever-expanding, constantly growing due to the labor of some underpaid philosophy postdoc somewhere. I don't want to kill your interest in these topics, but I don't want you to delude yourself.

>>8532933
>This proves cardinality fails.
What does this statement even mean? I agree with you that the set N x N has greater cardinality than the set N when |N| = 6. What does this have to do with the cardinality of the set of natural numbers.

>>8532938
These kids are undergrads studying Information Technology.

>>8532939
N is the set you describe when you describe cardinality. That is what it has to do with it... N is the set you apply to other sets, that's what cardinality is.

>>8532938
I studied 3 years of IT, however on a personal level I have been studying science and philosophy for about 6 years casually, and about a year intensely.

>>8532924
PLEASE kill yourself

>>8532947
>I studied 3 years of IT
Stick with it.

>>8532947
>N is the set you apply to other sets, that's what cardinality is.

What does that mean? In what way do you "apply" it? By constructing a bijection?

>>8532944

I don't believe the major necessarily matters, but this document reads of somebody with a genuine interest who should be investing energy into understanding the body of modern knowledge at this point.

>>8532947

I highly encourage you to switch from IT and into at least a more theoretical field, such as computer science. If you have any hope of pursuing work of this sort in your life, you need a much more rigorous education on the topic.

On that note, I applaud your attempt, but my critique is this: for work attempting to address such wide and philosophical issues, I can tell by your meager references section that you do not have a complete understanding of what knowledge already exists. From your phrasing, I understand that you don't have any formal training in logic systems, either, and from the minor blunders you make with regard to your attempt at deduction, I can tell that you need practice.

What you've written will with near-100% probability not be published in any reputable journal, but I again encourage you to keep fast to your dream and do what is necessary to pursue fields that better align.

>>8532959
Yes, by constructing a bijection. So if N = 6 and R != 6, there is no bijection, therefore cardinality doesn't apply.

>>8532961
I think that your opinion of my level of training is accurate, but that opinion does not necessarily indicate the quality of my ideas deductively.
Just because I don't know everything in the field, or speak with perfect precision doesn't mean my idea is flawed. If it IS flawed, it IS possible to identify the exact location and cause of the flaw, and repair it. If you believe you see such flaws, point them out to me.

I appreciate your measured response

>>8532962
The set of natural numbers is infinite, and we can construct a bijection between it and the rationals, which is also infinite.

Showing that a set with 6 elements cannot be put in bijection with a set of formal quotients of those elements has nothing to do with the infinite sets we're talking about.

>>8532966
And there is your misunderstanding; the idea that cardinality and infinite can be used in conjunction; they cannot.

>>8532968
Honest question: Why don't you read a set theory textbook? Or a real analysis book?

>>8532980
I have learnt Set Theory off professionals who wrote textbooks on it. I have discussed it with them.
I am not an idiot, and I am not simply unlearned. Assuming that is a pretty dumb stance.

>>8532965

I'm sad to say that, in order to publish ideas you claim to be new, you do need to prove to the publisher that what you have given is new. This would imply that you're familiar with the vast quantity of at least the widely accepted knowledge that is available.

With regard to your attempt at deduction, on the very first page, you list two premises, followed by four "steps," along with no axiomatic justification for the steps you make. Even if I forgive or overlook these blunders (which a publisher will not), the first of these premises is this: "logic exists." Which logic exists? Or, if you're not referencing any specific logic, what do you mean by 'logic'? Why does it exist?

If I can doubt your premise, I can doubt your conclusion.

>>8532968

The cardinality of infinite sets is well-studied. One of the most basic results is that which defines countably infinite and uncountably infinite sets. There also exist infinite cardinalities. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality#Infinite_sets

>>8532994

Just another note: but you seem to in no way list which of these 'steps' constitute steps in a deduction and which of these 'steps' constitute a claim. There also seems to be an odd habit of claiming 'proof by contradiction' without ever stating what you're proving by contradiction.

>>8532982
Then how do you define cardinality? Because your statements indicate you are totally unfamiliar with the definition used by every math book.

File: 1481515328742-978717037.jpg (2MB, 2336x4160px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2336x4160px

Im the delivery guy you assholes sent to this guys house.

Top kek you smartasses, pepe would be proud but my bosses are miffed so pls stop

>>8532994
Logic refers to the principle of consistency. All things logical must be completely consistent with all other logical things, or illogicality is being described.

I list two premises that are inherent in the statement I make. The axiomatic justification is that if I suppose data and logic do exist, I can use these elements to represents observation and deduct from that observation, which is what I do.

>>8532998
It's well studied and the conclusions are incorrect, as I have demonstrated. The classifications used are obviously not correct.

>>8533003
I state what I prove by contradiction at the start of each step. Are you blind?

>>8533004
The number of elements in a set or grouping. Therefore, the possible number of elements is determined by the set of Natural numbers.
Therefore if the set of Natural numbers is limited and made finite, so too is cardinality.

>>8533006
You did God's work. Did Matt tell you all about his brilliant theories?

>>8533006
Why haven't you killed him?

>mods keep this thread alive but remove my kurisuposting
???

>>8533019
It's a scientific theory... Why would they delete it lmao.

>>8533012
>It's well studied and the conclusions are incorrect, as I have demonstrated.

LOL.

>>8533022
Metaphysics isn't science.

>>8533024
>studies can't be wrong, methodologies can't be flawed
>evidence can't be demonstrated to have been misconstrued
>nothing established as true is ever wrong

>help me mummy someone is challenging my beliefs

>>8532481
>Step 3. Since life exists, life's nature is to survive.
>Implying you control wether you exist or not
It's not because something's Nature dictate it exist for a moment that it won't phase out of exist at a time or come back.
>Definition: To survive is to live long enough to propagate your genetics as much as possible.
WRONG
>Definition: The maintenance of life is defined as the actions or inaction which supports the nature of life.
Life in itself may or may not require the concept of maintenance.
Your world isn't proved to be real, the only thing you proved as real is a form of counsciousness.
There is no demonstrated link between counsciousness and action.
Complete lack of PROOF on 99% of thing you've written.

>>8532679
Argument from ignorance.

>>8533028
It is now.

>>8533031
you sound like you have a mental disability. Why don't you take a deep breath, and try again, but this time, make sure you are clear with what points you disagree about and why.

>>8533033
Nope...

>>8533012

I'm sorry--I began to type a post to correct you on the various mistakes you're making with respect to your understanding of formal logic and mathematics, but I'm realizing that you would do much better to simply take the courses.

Let's do this instead: in this thread, copy one of your claims having the shortest deduction. Then, separate the claim from the premises and the deduction. Next, I would like you to translate your claim and your deduction into at least the English equivalent of a first-order logic system. Then I will point out the flaws. As it stands, it honestly seems that you're dressing a rhetorical argument in the garb of some of the vocabulary you might see in a rigorous deduction.

If you do have any hope of being published, just note that, so far, you've claimed to disprove many parts of fundamental set theory, including simple finite cardinality. If you're also going to claim that you've disproved modern mathematical logic, I have to say that you will not be published. As you are, you will be labeled a crank.

Once in a while these people come around to enlighten us with their wisdom. Was the last one the chemist? Did I miss anyone?

>>8533039
let's start here
>I think therefore I am, thus I exist.
well i coul poke at this argument endlessly but Descartes is pretty much solid so i'll pass this time.
>I exist, and I am defined as conscious life, therefore conscious life exists.
You haven't proved you're alive, you've proven you're self-counscious and existing.
and the rest falls apart

>>8533030
Holy shit kid, doesn't it bother you that you are claiming a century of work in mathematics is wrong without having studied it? Does that not strike you as maybe a little bit of a red flag?

File: 1480658926427.jpg (178KB, 798x770px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 798x770px

>>8533006
AAHAHAHAHHAHA IT ACTUALLY WORKED

HOW YOU DOIN TOBIAS :^D

OP IS A FUCKING COWARD. WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST PAY FOR IT, FAGGOT?

You're so stupid to have put this gem out without publishing it. It's mine now.

>>8533042
Data exists, a proof by contradiction.

That is the only claim I make, because all other claims are made off that claim. I prove that claim. I use a proof by contradiction.

Flaw my proof of the objective existence of data.

>>8533046
Actually I define myself as alive. I don't need to prove that, humans have already proven it by defining it. It's true that's the definition.

>>8533046
He started with I doubt actually, and it is in this statement which he contradicts himself.

>>8533054
Yeah good luck claiming ownership of my work when I have proof I created it first hahaha.

>>8533047
Not if I can prove it, and I did.

>>8533033

His major argument is this, yes.

File: 1479177728607.png (330KB, 733x719px) Image search: [Google]

330KB, 733x719px

>>8533006
I'M SORRY DUDE. BLAME OP FOR BEING A FAGGOT. PLEASE TELL US:

HOW DID YOU FIND THIS THREAD? WHAT DID HE SAY?

>>8533058
No it's fucking not hahaha

>>8533057
You've not proven you're human.

>>8533063
Defining myself as a human is what proves it is true. There is no way to say that it's false we are human because it is ONLY our saying it that makes it true.That's what a definition is.

"Proof by contradiction" of 'life's nature is to survive.'

In your logical schema, I can say that "Life's nature is to die," and this will negate the claim that "life's nature is to survive" without contradicting the claim that "life exists." In fact, if I were to state that "life does not exist" and that "life's nature is to survive," I would have a contradiction.

>>8533065
Wew lad

>>8533057
>Not if I can prove it, and I did.
Can you give me your proof, starting from the axioms and definitions?

>>8533067
Welcome to the party

>>8533065
WRONG
you assume you are Human
Definition are worthless you demonstrated you exist now demonstrate something that something that exist is human or that your existence is definable as Human

>>8533057

You literally did none of the things I asked you to do. Would you please mind Googling 'the language of first-order logic,' and 'deductions in first-order logic'? I understand that you have little knowledge of these formal topics, but if you can't even be arsed to look them up, how do you expect to respond to reviewer criticism?

I AM HERE FROM THE EGGY STREAM. WHERE IS THE FAGGOTRY MENTIONED IN THE CHAT?

>>8533074
We already did it. We have reasons for classifying different types of existence. Unless you challenge the reasoning of classification, we are humans and we are alive.

>>8533076
I know what you want, I just couldn't be fucked to waste my time converting them over so you can fuck around and make a linguistic argument yourself about how they are wrong in that form. If you believe you can easily demonstrate I'm wrong in that form, do it yourself. I am not obligated to prove myself wrong for you, I proved myself right. It is the reviewers job to perform the work required to expose the flaws.

>>8533067
Of course you can demonstrate a contradiction if you shuffle the terms around lmao?
Life's nature is to die precludes its reproduction, and if it doesn't reproduce how does it exist?

>>8532679

What you're doing is pseudoscience because it attempts to use itself in a circular fashion to blindly reject centuries' worth of knowledge of philosophy and mathematics.

The definition of pseudoscience is "a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method," which is precisely the case here. You believe that what you've done is based on scientific method; you have people in this thread who have spent large portions of their life studying science telling you that your work is invalid for well-justified reasons. When these objections pop up, you dismiss them out of some contrived claim that your work disproves whatever theory contradicts yours. That's not the scientific method at all.

>>8533085
NOT IN THE TEXT
Demonstrate that a prerequisite for Consciousness is life and being Human and you'll stop assuming otherwise GTFO Philosophy monkey.
Human aren't proven to exist and life isn't proven to exist by first order reasoning without axioms therefore it's NOT FUCKING METAPHYSICS

>>8533084 (You)
see:
>>8532819
>>8532856
>>8532881
>>8532885
>>8533006
>>8533050

>>8533094
No... I say that you must demonstrate that I haven't used scientific methodology. That's reasonable. None of you are saying HOW it's not scientific, just THAT it's not. That method of contradiction is unscientific in itself.

>>8533095
You're a moron. A prerequisite for being me, a human piece of life, the person testing "I think therefore I am thus I exist" is that I am both human and alive. I identify me as me, that is where the foundation of the subjective experience I am using to evaluate it comes from.

Humans ARE proven to theoretically exist by Descartes' reasoning. That is all I propose, that we theoretically exist. The axioms are that logic and data objectively exists.
You are being a spastic cunt.

>>8533085

I didn't just shuffle around terms. I gave a logically sound contradiction to one of your core claims while remaining consistent. This disproves your claim.

An alternative disproof, you claim that "life does not survive" implies that "life does not exist." Your argument is not based off of any definite temporal logic, so if it is the case that "life lives for 300,000 years and then disappears forever" it is, in fact, the case that "life does not survive," but it is also the case that life currently exists. Your deduction is not sound.

>>8533105

People have, in fact, pointed out how your work is flawed by nature of mathematical truths (such as the cardinality of sets). The response to this was, "I have disproved cardinality," which is patently false, given that we have objective truths regarding finite cardinality, the very thing you reject. This blind rejection of proven truths is precisely the part of your work that is unscientific.

>>8533106
I already demonstrate the fact you change. You cannot contradict something I list in premises just because it is a premise, if previous reasoning in the argument establishes it as fact.

It wasn't consistent, so it didn't disprove my claim.

No, I refer to an attempt to survive. If life makes no attempt to survive, it cannot exist. Life's nature being to survive describes a perpetual attempt to exist, which is what allows existence. Without survival, no attempt to exist would be made therefore no life could exist.

>>8532481
Do cranks have schizophrenia?

I'm not being facetious. They not only have delusions of grandeur, but they also engage in conspiratorial thinking about academia, and write in very uncontrolled word-salad style and claim it is rigorous and obviously logical.

>>8533109
Actually I did the experiment which demonstrated that the current conclusions of mathematicians on the subject MUST be wrong, to which you and others responded "but it cannot be", and that I needed to study the Theory. I used the Theory and showed why it doesn't even make sense. You cannot mathematically describe an infinite set without limiting it, for mathematics relies on the concept of integer and infinity describes that which is outside the realm of integer.

>>8533113
Why do you keep talking shit without demonstrating evidence lmao

>>8533105
>the person testing "I think therefore I am thus I exist" is that I am both human and alive
no it mean a form of counsciousness exist you sensation and perception can fool you everything that your sense pick up may be wrong.
While we thus reject all of which we can entertain the smallest doubt, and even imagine that it is false, we easily indeed suppose that there is neither God, nor sky, nor bodies, and that we ourselves even have neither hands nor feet, nor, finally, a body; but we cannot in the same way suppose that we are not while we doubt of the truth of these things; for there is a repugnance in conceiving that what thinks does not exist at the very time when it thinks. Accordingly, the knowledge, I think, therefore I am.
DO TAKE NOTICE THAT ALL THINGS PHYSICAl ARE STILL IN DOUBT.
HUMANS ARE NOT PROVEN TO EXIST
YOU HAVENT PROVEN YOU ARE HUMAN, YOU HAVENT PROVEN HUMAN EXIST,
YOU HAVENT PROVEN YOU ARE ALIVE,
YOU HAVENT PROVEN LIFE EXIST.
YOU JUST PROVED A CONCEPT OF SELF EXIST

>>8533120
You don't understand. I think you need to calm down and talk to someone you respect on the subject about what you think, because your ideas are inherently self-contradictory. Either identity exists or it doesn't. You cannot have it both ways.

>>8533121
Identity isn't proven, existence is what you proved.
You didn't prove the existence of something just the concept of existence itself and all that is anyway based on the syllogism that whatever has the property of thinking exists.

>>8533120
His reasoning is not I think therefore I am.
His reasoning was as follows:
I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am, thus I exist.
I doubt is contradictory - a statement is NOT a doubt. It does not doubt observation, it is an observation assumed true about doubt.

The true version of Descartes' reasoning is simple:

I doubt I doubt, therefore theoretically I doubt, therefore theoretically I think, therefore theoretically I am, thus I exist theoretically.

>>8533110

If I contradict your premise, I contradict your entire proof. That's how proofs work. The fact that you attempt to contest this is one of the reasons why people are saying what you're doing is not scientific.

For the record, you did not use 'previous reasoning' to show that premise to be correct. You attempted to use the claim that 'life's nature is to survive' as a step in another deduction, and I was able to contradict that claim while remaining consistent.

>consistency

It was consistent. If you claim it is not consistent, show how it is not consistent.

>nature versus attempt

Now you're naming something completely different. Again, the problem with your argument is that you're using words, not mathematical logic. As you've claimed that I "shifted around words lmao," you've just "shifted around words lmao" to move the goalpost.

Again, however, I may still contradict you while remaining consistent. I can claim that life inherently exists for a finite period of time. No attempt to survive is necessary, and therefore I can reject the claim that 'life's nature is to survive' and replace it with 'life's nature is to exist for a finite period of time.'

>>8533129
Well you're just plain wrong man hahaha. For me to prove anything, I prove identity, because systems of proof rely on the concept of identity.

>>8533133
No, from the reasoning "I think therefore I am, thus I exist", I extract three facts:
That I exist, That conscious life exists, and that life exists.

These facts are irrefutable from the reasoning I think therefore I am once you acknowledge that the person thinking those thoughts (me in this case) is indeed, from our perspective, defined as a human piece of life.

>>8533134

Yet another example of you not being scientific. "You're just plain wrong man hahaha" is not a scientific argument.

>>8533132
>I doubt I doubt, therefore theoretically I doubt, therefore theoretically I think, therefore theoretically I am, thus I exist theoretically.
still false you haven't proved thinking mean existing.

>>8533139
I don't need a scientific argument. It's a scientific fact that systems of proof rely on identity.

>>8533140
I don't need to prove that, because I don't think that. I prove it means theoretically existing, and it does.

>>8533118
>for mathematics relies on the concept of integer and infinity describes that which is outside the realm of integer.

Oh my God, kid. Mathematics is unified by the study of sets. Math does not "rely on the concept of integer".

>>8533118

The reason why you "must be wrong" is because mathematicians have proved beyond doubt that these statements of finite cardinality are true. There exists a sound and complete proof which contradicts you entirely.

The fact that you're talking about 'experiments' disproving an objective logical proof of truth in reality is why you're getting called a crank.

>>8533141

>"I don't need a scientific argument."

You wanted proof that what you're doing is pseudoscientific, correct? Here it is. Read your own post.

>>8533141
>theoritically existing
so you're Schrodinger's cat now?
you can do any fucking demonstration with theoretical conclusions
there's no conclusion that link the concept of there being thought and there being existence
Therefore you argument is as true as the following "i theoretically ate a bagel therefore theoretically i'm not hungry"

>>8533147
Especially because he did "experiments" on infinite sets.

>>8533133
You can't claim that unless you provide reasoning for why and how there is a timer, and how life's existence is sustained with no attempt to survive the environment.

>>8533142
It literally does. At the foundation of mathematics is the concept of integer.

>>8533147
No... Just because you think that something represents objective logical proof doesn't make it true. You are experience mental trickery because the subjects being discussed have been taught to you incorrectly. The current field is incorrect. That is NOT inherently impossible. You have no evidence that it isn't true. I agree there are parts of math that run contradictory to what I am saying, but I am asserting I can prove they are contradictory because of their own fault, not my fault. Which is possible, again.

>>8533151
What you're doing is called taking things out of context. I don't need to prove something proven by scientists years ago. I am not under an obligation to demonstrate to you facts already agreed upon in science. There is no contesting the validity of the assertion that proof relies on identity. To attempt to argue with that line of reasoning demonstrates a complete lack of respect for science.,

>>8533152
Yes, and your argument that you objectively exist is as unsubstantiated as that theory about the bagel.

If something is logically true, then it is true regardless of whether or not that truth exists theoretically or objectively.

>>8533153
By limiting them, the way any mathematics is performed. Equal treatment of both halves of an equation.

>>8533159
Can you please give me a step by step proof that the cardinality of the natural numbers is not equal to the cardinality of the rational numbers?

>>8533154

Listen to yourself. In the same post, you said, "The current field is incorrect. That is NOT inherently impossible." And then you said, " I don't need to prove something proven by scientists years ago."

Do you not see how crazy you sound? Literally every time you're contradicted or shown to be wrong, you make something up and claim to be right, even to the point of completely contradicting yourself.

For the record, you have not disproved any part of set theory. What you've done is misunderstand it. And when that misunderstanding is identified, you claim that others are the ones misunderstanding, not you.

Please, submit this to a journal. Maybe the reviewers will have more luck getting through to you.

>>8533171
Cardinality is the application of Natural numbers to other sets. If Natural numbers is limited to 6, there are 36 Rational numbers, therefore when applying cardinality the set of Rational numbers goes up to 6 indexed elements and there are 30 un-indexed ones because of the extra depth not being accounted for due to the inherent difference in the infinities to begin with.

>>8533172
No, when I point out that something is wrong you say that it cannot be wrong, and the evidence you provide is that people agree it's not wrong. That is not sufficient or sound evidence. The current work on set theory doesn't disprove or disqualify the example I am giving of the inherent difference in depth between N and R that demands specific classification currently denied because of a foundational mistake in representing infinities.

File: 1464684981605-b.png (210KB, 444x500px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 444x500px

>>8533016
No kek but he did say he had his name on 4chan and then i laid my sides to rest when driving back

>>8533050
Yah for reals OP shoulda just manned up but he was just a bubby so no money anyway

>>8533177

There are unique 36 rational numbers whose ratios involve only 0 through 6, huh? Care to list those out?

>>8532481
Logic can be best defined as the only method to discover higher, compounding truths, where a truth is defined simply as anything that does not contradict another truth (truths are the same thing as information in a physical sense). The highest truth (or maybe the lowest truth) is simply that existence negates contradiction

So contradiction is ultimately what information isn't. I guess the more interesting consideration to takeaway from this is whether there is only one possible string of events that can occur, or if there are multiple strings.

But existence is unobjective, defined through only our personal perspective and understanding of information. Only information we manage to properly process and understand will match the true functioning of the universe (physics).

Keeping in mind the idea of Superposition, which of the four following scenarios is correct:
1) the functioning of the universe can contradict; information cannot
2) information can contradict; the functioning of the universe cannot
3) both can contradict
4) neither can contradict

>>8533159
ok then disprove this purely logically constructed truth from scratch
>Thoughts exist
>Thoughts aren't persistent and often subject to change
>Therefore perception exist
>Since thought change perception change
>The unit that link The Thought and the change of perception is defined as Self from now on
>Since Thought exist and perception change and exist a Self exist
Here's a complex version.
Thoughts exist
Thoughts change
Thoses two things are thoughts themselves therefore metacognition and perception exist
Thus definiting Self as a unit that formulate/discover/create/think thoughts dependent of change and metacognition aka perception
A Self Exist

Disprove this or die trying skepticfag

>>8533050
ayy bay-bee

i had a fun shift and couldnt wait to shitpost on /sci/ all through work

haven't been on this board before, im too stupid

>>8533183
1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/1
1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 6/2
etc...
They are unique combinations of the 6 numbers possible.

>>8533059
I actually knew his brother from school and asked him for the thread link. as soon as i got home I came on here and kek'd hard at this newfag posting something with his name on it

>>8533189
>he doesnt realize 1/1=2/2
KEK

>>8533186
I agree, a self exists, however that existence is not necessarily objective. I propose that self exists theoretically.

>>8533189

Go ahead and continue to list those out. You'll find that the unique rational numbers formed are less than 36.

What is making you believe that the definition of cardinality implies that there should be 36 unique rational numbers whose elements may be expressed as pairs of the natural numbers up to 6?

>>8533196
I proved with objective proof disprove its basis on objectivity or the reasoning but when i bring proof don't call it theoretical faggot

>>8533189

Also, bub,

1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 4/1, 5/1, 6/1
1/2, 2/2, 3/2, 4/2, 5/2, 6/2

is actually the set {1,2,3,4,5,6, 1/2, 3/2, 5/2}. There are less rational numbers than there are pairs of natural numbers.

>>8533183
> whose ratios involve only 0 through 6
>he doesn't mention "only integers"
ok let's start
1 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2 divided by 2.....

>>8533210

Don't be a prick. Clearly I was speaking of the natural numbers from 0 through 6. But, then again, I assumed reading comprehension, which may not have been appropriate of me to do.

>>8533211
i perfectly understood you just wanted to be a prick and point a flaw in your logic without adding that only "natural numbers" there's way more than 36 in fact an infinity.
but yeah i'm gonna let the other anons have their fun from now on.

>>8532481
>>>/x/

And before you go off on your "you don't understand" shite, yes I perfectly do understand. Those are random symbols on a webpage. We assign meaning to them, so whatever the fuck you can say with them is also an assignment of meanings we have ourselves created. Logic is discursively constituted. You're just a fucking brainlet that thinks you can speak on physical reality without measuring something.

People who claim you Are bullshit without reading your paper, are ironically like you, who dont read other books on these subjects.

>>8533301
I read his paper. It's drivel.

>>8533154
>It literally does. At the foundation of mathematics is the concept of integer.
No, friend. Sets are taken by axiom. Integers are constructed out of sets.