My hypothesis is that there is nothing on this planet that can be proven. Ever.
The only way to prove anything is to take what we think we already know, and use it to support our other ideas. However, that is using what we are pretty sure we know and using it to determine what is really true.
Not even history, or math can be proven, simply because both of those things are man made and therefore contain error, no matter how slight, it is still there.
Hmmm... then how could the hypothesis of nothing can be proven, be proven? Also your definition of being proven could be different from other peoples. Some are just happy with it being proven in real world applications thus a theory, which is the closest we can get.
"There's nothing new under the sun"... you weren't the first two to think in such a way... and ur not going to be the last
just b/c its a duplicate thread doesn't make it any less discussion worthy... if he revived it you would all scream "NECRO!!!!"... you've found someone who wants to discuss the same things you do. Why cast him aside like that when you could just redirect him to the original thread?
just b/c its a duplicate thread doesn't make it any less discussion worthy... if he revived it you would all scream "NECRO!!!!"... you've found someone who wants to discuss the same things you do. Why cast him aside like that when you could just redirect him to the original thread?
It was made less than two months ago. Nobody would mind discussing it. Besides, only two people have actually commented on this in two days. I doubt this will go very far.
Before debating this topic, we have to know what do you consider as "roof"? Prima facie evidence? Empirical? Or something else?
Ps. "Nothing can be proven" is self-contradictory and paradoxical. If everything cannot be proven, the statement "nothing can be proven" cannot be proven (by your logic [everything manmade contains error]),ergo it cannot be used as evidence/proof. Nonetheless you are using your thoughts/hypothesis as proof that "nothing can be proven", that's inconsistent.
Math is possibly the only science that is build on one hundred percent proof. Because it is theoretical and does not have to relate to the real world.
Other than that, you are correct. Science is build up on theories, that by disproving one hypothesis can move closer to being true, but until we are actually able to observe everything and step outside our human minds, we will never actually hit the true truth. However, until something has been disproved, we can assume that a certain theory or hypothesis is correct, and thus "roven"/the truth.
Math is sort of based on the real world, but it is all completely logical. There are things you can't prove in math like parallel lines meeting. The Greeks then invented Euclidean geometry.
Well, now that you've posted, it's obviously alive again. And two weeks without activity is hardly enough to call it necro, which would probably mean that it was never dead. It was just napping.
