NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,14:07) | | Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50) | | Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08) | MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.
You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.
Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.
This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.
If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.
All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue
The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.
Learn some things. |
Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.
Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me. |
That is fallacious reasoning, I don't need to come with a replacement to demonstrate you are wrong which I have on multiple occassions. |
How do you know I'm wrong if you don't know what is right? If you know what is right/correct, then, present here your replacement for real and universal intelligence. Let us compare.
If not, you are telling a lie! SHUT UP or PUT UP! |
Nope.
You've been correct on this fundamental error repeatedly.
One does not need to know or have in hand a 'replacement' to successfully reject a flawed argument or suggestion.
Just as I proved that one need not know that 2 + 4 equals 6 to prove that 2 + 4 does not equal 10, any bad argument can be defeated even in the absence of some 'right' answer.
Worse, in your case in particular, you have yet to identify what the heck the problem is for which you have 'the answer'.
Further proof that you simply do not know what you are talking about.
Flaws in logic, lack of evidence, internal contradictions, incoherence of logic, all are sufficient grounds to reject proposed 'conclusions'. Your work is littered with nothing but logical flaws, missing evidence, blatant unsupported assertions, internal contradictions, and incoherence.
Thus, you lose.
We know you are wrong because we've obliterated each and every argument you have made. No one is obliged, in any way, to accept assertions made without evidence. Yet that is very nearly all that you have. The tiny bit left is illogical or anti-logical. None of it has any evidence.
You are completely lacking in operational definitions.
You are completely and totally wrong about how science works, which makes for a strong case that you are completely and totally wrong about what science is.
You lose.
Oh, and by the way, the only one who has provable lied in this thread is you. We've all seen it, we all know, you've run away from it, just as you have run away from any honest or good faith attempt to engage your work.
Run away, little loser.
You have nothing to offer but opportunities to laugh and point.
|
