Can you disprove the existence of ANYTHING?
Can you disprove the existence of ANYTHING?
| Aredon wrote: |
| Can you disprove the existence of ANYTHING? |
In the physical world? No.
In a closed system of logic? Yes. (ie you can disprove a proposition in formal logic or math, but you can't disprove the existence of an entity in 'real life').
| Bikerman wrote: | ||
In the physical world? No. In a closed system of logic? Yes. (ie you can disprove a proposition in formal logic or math, but you can't disprove the existence of an entity in 'real life'). |
Well... ^_^;
Technically correct - it is simply impossible to directly prove a purely negative claim (and "X does not exist" is purely negative).
However! ^_^;
If you can find a contradictory positive claim, and prove that, then you can prove that something does not exist. In plain English, you can never directly prove "X does not exist", for any X. But, if the claim "X has Y" must be true, and "Y is impossible" is true, then you can prove indirectly that X does not exist.
This is what "arguments against God" do, for example - they cannot prove God does not exist, so what they do is they take the form: "God has property A, and property A is impossible, therefore God does not exist". Of course, this only works if you accept that God must have the property A, and if you accept that logic must hold (which is not necessarily true in the case of a god).
The trick is to pick your "Y" carefully. Here's an example:
The man on the Moon does not exist.
Now, we cannot prove that statement, ever. So, we look for an indirect way to go about it. First, we have to clearly define the man on the Moon:
The man on the Moon lives on the surface of the moon, not underground.
The man on the Moon is an ordinary, average human being - no special abilities.
The man on the Moon does not have a space suit or an enclosed house.
The man on the Moon is alive, and can reasonably live for a normal human lifetime.
No ordinary, average human being can reasonably expect to live for a normal human life span on the bare surface of the moon without a space suit. That would be impossible. Therefore, the man on the Moon does not exist.
But here's the catch! In order to make this work in practice, "Y" has to be pretty tightly defined - you have to be pretty damn sure that both "X has Y" and "Y is impossible" are true. For something as silly as the man on the Moon, i had to list four conditions. For less tightly defined things, it gets harder and harder to prove "X has Y". For something more plausible, it gets harder and harder to find a Y that is impossible.
In practice, that means there are only a very, very small range of things for which you can practically have satisfactory cases for both "X has Y" and "Y is impossible" - and most of those cases have to be artificially constrained. i cannot actually say the man on the Moon does not exist, i can only say that the man on the Moon that i have described does not exist.
To put it another way, if you can constrain the parameters of X enough, you can artificially create a closed system of logic out of the open system of the universe... and then you can pull it off. In reality, the amount of constraining you have to do in most cases is functionally impossible (not literally impossible, just so damn hard it might as well be).
Which means that in practice... every attempt to prove "X does not exist" becomes a straw man fallacy... but that's technically not a problem if X was a straw man to begin with (like my man on the Moon).
(And by the way, this indirect proof method has many forms beyond just "X has Y"/"Y is impossible". You can also have "X cannot have Y"/"Y must be present", and many other forms. Technically "Y is impossible" is a purely negative claim, but in practice what we do are things like this: "X must have Y and must not have Z"/"Y must exist with Z" or "X has (Y and not Z)"/"(Since Y means Z and not Z means not Y, Y and not Z) is impossible".)
What if he has a gravity making field which allows a mini oxygen atmosphere?
What if aliens visited him and gave him some advanced technology to survive on the moon when they saw him dying.
Hmm... makes me wonder why we don't make the moon inhabitable, lol.
What if aliens visited him and gave him some advanced technology to survive on the moon when they saw him dying.
Hmm... makes me wonder why we don't make the moon inhabitable, lol.
| Aredon wrote: |
| What if he has a gravity making field which allows a mini oxygen atmosphere?
What if aliens visited him and gave him some advanced technology to survive on the moon when they saw him dying. Hmm... makes me wonder why we don't make the moon inhabitable, lol. |
Well then he would either be in an enclosed atmosphere, a space suit or he'd been modified so he was no longer an average human. ^_^;
This reminds me of something in Chris Moyles' second book. He was saying that Eastenders was made about the average family. The average family watches the Eastenders Christmas special on Christmas day. The families in Eastenders cannot. In the Eastenders world, everything that every actor in it has appeared in does not exist. The Eastenders world does not seem so average now. Just think of a world with no Carry-On films!
Well you cannot disprove things that do exist and disproving the existence of things that DONīT exist is often quite hard.
I mean the fact that no single goblin has been found doesnīt mean there arenīt any the fact that we canīt find them here doesnīt mean that they donīt exist on the moon.
However you can only disprove things(1) that conflift with facts(2) that have been proven. Of course things could have gotten mixed up some evidence and that the ``facts(2)`` that have been ``proven`` could have gotten wrong and that the other thing(1) is still right.
I mean the fact that no single goblin has been found doesnīt mean there arenīt any the fact that we canīt find them here doesnīt mean that they donīt exist on the moon.
However you can only disprove things(1) that conflift with facts(2) that have been proven. Of course things could have gotten mixed up some evidence and that the ``facts(2)`` that have been ``proven`` could have gotten wrong and that the other thing(1) is still right.
You can approve or disapprove the existance of absolutely anything if you think about it for a significant amount of time. You can convince yourself that you are being haunted by a three-headed cat with wings if you wanted to. The human mind is a powerful tool.
| Klaw 2 wrote: |
| Well you cannot disprove things that do exist and disproving the existence of things that DONīT exist is often quite hard.
I mean the fact that no single goblin has been found doesnīt mean there arenīt any the fact that we canīt find them here doesnīt mean that they donīt exist on the moon. However you can only disprove things(1) that conflift with facts(2) that have been proven. Of course things could have gotten mixed up some evidence and that the ``facts(2)`` that have been ``proven`` could have gotten wrong and that the other thing(1) is still right. |
Yes, or to put it in clear terms:
You can't prove X does not exist (where X is (1)).
You can do:
X must be/have Y (where Y is (2))
Y is impossible
Therefore X can't exist
But as you say, that only works if X really must have or be Y.
| jesicarie wrote: |
| You can approve or disapprove the existance of absolutely anything if you think about it for a significant amount of time. You can convince yourself that you are being haunted by a three-headed cat with wings if you wanted to. The human mind is a powerful tool. |
That has nothing to do with proof. That is belief. You can believe anything exists. You can't prove anything exists. You can even believe you've proven it... but that's still not the same as actually proving it.
A quick question
When everyone believed the world was flat was it?
Is proof not just the belief of the majority, or even is the belief of the majority not more important/relevant than proof.
When everyone believed the world was flat was it?
Is proof not just the belief of the majority, or even is the belief of the majority not more important/relevant than proof.
| Pantherus wrote: |
| A quick question
When everyone believed the world was flat was it? |
| Quote: |
| Is proof not just the belief of the majority, or even is the belief of the majority not more important/relevant than proof. |
None of you really exist, and I bet I'm right.
Belief and Proof are two different concepts.
Belief is personal faith that something is the way it is.
Proof is scientific evidence that says using these defined parameters X + Y equals Z.
As for the original question, No, No amount of knowledge will ever be enough to exhaustively prove that something doesn't exist. We can only prove it on a case to case basis using known facts.
Belief is personal faith that something is the way it is.
Proof is scientific evidence that says using these defined parameters X + Y equals Z.
As for the original question, No, No amount of knowledge will ever be enough to exhaustively prove that something doesn't exist. We can only prove it on a case to case basis using known facts.
It's not up to anyone to DISPROVE anything. For something to be accepted it's not a matter of "I can disprove God, therefore evolution exists" it must be a matter of "I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, therefore God exists."
In the same, you must have some proof that the object in question that you speak of exists or has existed. For Christians, this is the Bible. For evolutionists, this is the fossils and skeletal structures. If you could just present a new argument with no foundation to your reason or argument, then you could say that a watermelon is really blue on the inside, but as soon as it's shell is pierced by anything (scanners included along with simple knifes) then it turns red. Or a giant spaghetti monster exists, I have no proof for this except that I say so. (this logic is clearly flawed, and even though this is used to represent the same logic for which Christianity is based, is also flawed in that same analogy because Christianity DOES have at least some reason pointing to the existence of Jesus Christ, and they do have a Bible which acts as a foundation for their beliefs, unlike the flying spaghetti monster which was just created by some artists overactive imagination quite admittedly.)
In the same, you must have some proof that the object in question that you speak of exists or has existed. For Christians, this is the Bible. For evolutionists, this is the fossils and skeletal structures. If you could just present a new argument with no foundation to your reason or argument, then you could say that a watermelon is really blue on the inside, but as soon as it's shell is pierced by anything (scanners included along with simple knifes) then it turns red. Or a giant spaghetti monster exists, I have no proof for this except that I say so. (this logic is clearly flawed, and even though this is used to represent the same logic for which Christianity is based, is also flawed in that same analogy because Christianity DOES have at least some reason pointing to the existence of Jesus Christ, and they do have a Bible which acts as a foundation for their beliefs, unlike the flying spaghetti monster which was just created by some artists overactive imagination quite admittedly.)
| KHO wrote: |
| It's not up to anyone to DISPROVE anything. For something to be accepted it's not a matter of "I can disprove God, therefore evolution exists" it must be a matter of "I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, therefore God exists." |
You cannot prove ANYTHING (outside formal tautologies in maths and logic). This is known in science as the problem of Induction and was first outlined by David Hume centuries ago.
What you CAN do is to disprove things. No matter how many times you observe some phenomenon, you cannot say for sure it will happen again the same way. What you CAN do is look for one example of it not happening.
Thus, science does not work by trying to prove things correct - it works by trying to disprove things. Anything which cannot be tested (and therefore possibly disproved) is NOT science. The existence of God is not, strictly, testable. Some versions of God ARE testable (those, for example, which say he created us around 6,000 years ago, that Noah populated the world from his Ark, that the Universe is about 10,000 years old) and obviously these 'versions' of God are totally refuted. It is not possible, however, to refute the God of the Big Bang - the God of Deists - and so the question remains outside science and in the realms of metaphysics.
Bikerman,
I understand how that works as far as theories about systems and forces in, say, quantum physics for example, where we cannot directly observe the forces at work or the particles involved, but I don't understand how it works when applied to something like... say Bigfoot for example.
You can lay out all kinds of reasons why he doesn't or shouldn't exist, but all I would need to do is to plop the body of one down on your table to prove, beyond a doubt, that it does exist.
KHO,
Without corroborating evidence that the events of the Bible are true (which there is none as far as the existence of Jesus and the events surrounding and leading up to the crucifixion... in fact the historical record contradicts the events as they are depicted in the Bible,) you can no more claim that it is true than you can that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is true. That was kind of the point. All you have in each case is a single set of documents with nothing outside of those documents to back up the stories presented there. The only reason more people believe in the Bible is because it's very old, and has had a militant PR campaign going for it for a millennium or two.
I understand how that works as far as theories about systems and forces in, say, quantum physics for example, where we cannot directly observe the forces at work or the particles involved, but I don't understand how it works when applied to something like... say Bigfoot for example.
You can lay out all kinds of reasons why he doesn't or shouldn't exist, but all I would need to do is to plop the body of one down on your table to prove, beyond a doubt, that it does exist.
KHO,
Without corroborating evidence that the events of the Bible are true (which there is none as far as the existence of Jesus and the events surrounding and leading up to the crucifixion... in fact the historical record contradicts the events as they are depicted in the Bible,) you can no more claim that it is true than you can that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is true. That was kind of the point. All you have in each case is a single set of documents with nothing outside of those documents to back up the stories presented there. The only reason more people believe in the Bible is because it's very old, and has had a militant PR campaign going for it for a millennium or two.
| Jinx wrote: |
| Bikerman,
I understand how that works as far as theories about systems and forces in, say, quantum physics for example, where we cannot directly observe the forces at work or the particles involved, but I don't understand how it works when applied to something like... say Bigfoot for example. You can lay out all kinds of reasons why he doesn't or shouldn't exist, but all I would need to do is to plop the body of one down on your table to prove, beyond a doubt, that it does exist. |
What you say is quite correct, and I retract my previous point.
i think all these theories are already chewed while dealing with the question if GOd exists.
| Indi wrote: |
|
You can't prove X does not exist (where X is (1)). You can do: X must be/have Y (where Y is (2)) Y is impossible Therefore X can't exist But as you say, that only works if X really must have or be Y. |
Not quite. That's flawed because you're not taking into account magic, god(s), supernatural, etc. where these fundamental laws either don't exist or don't matter. God (the Christian/Jewish/Islam god) wants us to believe in him by faith, so he may be purposely using his "magical" powers to create evidence or "proof" against him just so that people have to believe in him by pure faith alone.
Therefore, it's still technically impossible to disprove the existence of anything in the real world.
I know what I said just sounded ridiculous, but I've met many people who do think like that.
What's hardest:
1. to prove an illusion, or
2. to disprove an illusion???????
1. to prove an illusion, or
2. to disprove an illusion???????
It is possible to prove that some things are so incredibly unlikely to exist that if they did then everything we believe we know about life the universe and everything would be thrown out of the window as we attempt to alter our perception of reality to accommodate this otherwise ludicrously impossible entity.
Therefore I think it's only realistic for it to work the other way around. Those that make claims that these ludicrous things exist should be asked to provide supportive evidence that can be verified and excepted by the scientific community. If they can't provide such evidence then it should not be required of anyone else to acknowledge the possibility that their claims are in any way valid.
We're not really in a position to disprove the existence of something somewhere in some form or other. We're still very ignorant. Therefore things will only come into existence as a part of our perceived reality upon our discovery of them. Any wild claims regarding the existence of the unprovable (and this goes for scientific hypothesis such as string theory and alternate dimensions, not just religion), should be regarded as irrelevant until such a time that we're able to prove/disprove them.
Therefore I think it's only realistic for it to work the other way around. Those that make claims that these ludicrous things exist should be asked to provide supportive evidence that can be verified and excepted by the scientific community. If they can't provide such evidence then it should not be required of anyone else to acknowledge the possibility that their claims are in any way valid.
We're not really in a position to disprove the existence of something somewhere in some form or other. We're still very ignorant. Therefore things will only come into existence as a part of our perceived reality upon our discovery of them. Any wild claims regarding the existence of the unprovable (and this goes for scientific hypothesis such as string theory and alternate dimensions, not just religion), should be regarded as irrelevant until such a time that we're able to prove/disprove them.
Which can all be summed up in a simple sentence, popularised, if not coined, by the late great Carl Sagan:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ||
Not quite. That's flawed because you're not taking into account magic, god(s), supernatural, etc. where these fundamental laws either don't exist or don't matter. |
Logic is not a half-way game. Either you use it, or you don't. You can't throw something completely irrational into a logical argument and still have a logical argument.
If those things - magic, gods, whatever - follow logical rules, then the pattern still applies. If they don't, and they're just simply irrational, then logic won't do you any good, no matter what you're using it for. If irrational elements exist in the universe, then you can't even prove something does exist - you can't prove anything at all, because maybe magic/gods are mucking up the reasoning somehow.
| Indi wrote: | ||||
Logic is not a half-way game. Either you use it, or you don't. You can't throw something completely irrational into a logical argument and still have a logical argument. If those things - magic, gods, whatever - follow logical rules, then the pattern still applies. If they don't, and they're just simply irrational, then logic won't do you any good, no matter what you're using it for. If irrational elements exist in the universe, then you can't even prove something does exist - you can't prove anything at all, because maybe magic/gods are mucking up the reasoning somehow. |
I know what you mean, but that is a little beside the point. I wasn't arguing that what I said is logical. I was arguing that what I'm saying is something that many people believe in. To many, the earth being created in 6 days 6,000-10,000 years ago by some all-powerful supernatural being is completely non-logical, yet millions of people still believe in it. That's why I felt that it was necessary to bring it up.
 |