+- One Man Left Studios Community Forums (http://www.onemanleft.com/forums)
+-- Forum: General (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Outwitters (/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Thread: Master Control vs Processor (/showthread.php?tid=3618)
RE: Master Control vs Processor - baustin42 - 05-17-2014 08:08 AM
(05-17-2014 07:55 AM)Bbobb555 Wrote:(05-17-2014 07:07 AM)[PETA] Doodat Wrote: Nothing is proof about anything.
unless you count mathematical proofs.
Can we not?
RE: Master Control vs Processor - Flarp55 - 05-17-2014 08:13 AM
(05-17-2014 08:08 AM)[PETA] Doodat Wrote: It's all based on assumption.
What do you mean? If you mean that all of math is based on a group of axioms and definitions, then you are right. Of course you need to base everything on something. But after that, a proof is a proof.
RE: Master Control vs Processor - Demon - 05-17-2014 09:02 AM
We're getting meta now. Bbobb is right, proofs ARE infallible, but only within the confines of assumptions generally accepted as universal truths. Proofs and scientific theory don't always hold through the test of time (such as Newton's mechanics formulae being proven wildly inaccurate as objects approach the speed of light hundreds of years later), but without a counter example or empirical data to debunk, they can be considered truth for the time being.
But I digress.
RE: Master Control vs Processor - Flarp55 - 05-17-2014 09:13 AM
(05-17-2014 09:02 AM)Demon Wrote: We're getting meta now. Bbobb is right, proofs ARE infallible, but only within the confines of assumptions generally accepted as universal truths. Proofs and scientific theory don't always hold through the test of time (such as Newton's mechanics formulae being proven wildly inaccurate as objects approach the speed of light hundreds of years later), but without a counter example or empirical data to debunk, they can be considered truth for the time being.
But I digress.
I'm not talking about physics, so your example of Newton's mechanics is invalid. In physics, you don't know what your starting axioms are; the whole point of physics is to try to find the axioms. Math is an artificially created system of axioms, and these axioms are always true, because we say they are. If the axioms are not true, we get a different kind of math, but the original system still holds under the given choice of axioms.
RE: Master Control vs Processor - Demon - 05-17-2014 10:29 AM
My point still stands though that your proofs are still based on assumptions in a constructed system
RE: Master Control vs Processor - [PETA] Doodat - 05-17-2014 01:40 PM
Right, those axioms are truth because we say they are (definition of assumption).
RE: Master Control vs Processor - Demon - 05-17-2014 01:44 PM
Though everything is really constructed. We're constructed. Even our reality is just a construct of our minds, interpreting electrical impulses as perception. Maybe I should go to sleep.
RE: Master Control vs Processor - Extreme Ghost - 05-17-2014 01:46 PM
So let me get this straight all those math problems I was told I missed in school I was actually right!?
Since I make my own truth? 6+9=69! You can't fight the power of personal perception!
Lol demon ninja'd me XD
RE: Master Control vs Processor - Demon - 05-17-2014 01:54 PM
(05-17-2014 01:46 PM)Extreme Ghost Wrote: So let me get this straight all those math problems I was told I missed in school I was actually right!?
Since I make my own truth? 6+9=69! You can't fight the power of personal perception!
Lol demon ninja'd me XD
Flawless logic
RE: Master Control vs Processor - LegacyofEight - 05-17-2014 01:55 PM
I still can't stand math