Peace Napalm and welcome, I could get used to you around here. It's apparently much needed.

Nice first post. Mod's please check IP

First it was hysteria, now it's paranoia lol

Thanks .

Mel I've been around much longer than you. I suppose I should credit your amazing lack of understanding and idiocy for bringing me out of the woodworks and putting an end to my lurker status.

This is a logical contradiction. If nothing was for certain, then neither is that statement. By making the statement absolutely nothing is for certain youre entering a world of paradox because youre saying on one hand that nothing is absolute, yet youre making that fact an absolute. This is one of the most fundamental contradictions of philosophies based on nihilism where everything is relative.

Oppinion. You are telling me what you think I mean.

No. Read it again 'This is a logical contradiction'. All else he said follows from said statement. It is logical.

First of all, Plato and 2000+ years of academia was not my proof that was to illustrate that the idea of logic being objective isnt a pet idea of mine.

No it is a pet idea of many people.

Quit with the asinine statements. Either that or go and look up the meaning of 'pet ideas'. FYI, I don't think you'll find it in dictionary.com.

Secondly, Quantum physics is built upon observation (important note quantum theory does not state that reality is subjective, it states that our interpretation of reality is subjective);

THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING!!! And there is NOTHING but our personal interpretation of reality. I can not know that you'r reality is the same as mine, but we can agree on certain things, that we observe in the same way.

No. Re-read (or better yet, understand) Neo's points. The points at hand are not our 'interpretations of reality'.

To be honest, it wasnt that many words but youre a math major so I understand that you get lost if I use more than a sentence.

No try and get a bullhorn. We all know that louder is more true. You have used the same old tired circular arguments that I heave heard a million times before. And they are all up for interpretation. This does not make it facts.

The only one who has presented anything remotely circular in this discussion is you. Please learn the definition of 'interpretations' (preferrably from a source not named dictionary.com).

Anyway, Ive given you plenty of examples. Ive asked you to disprove the notion that 2+2 = 5, which you have not.

But what i did prove was that anything, is up for interpretation in its own right. There is nothing silly about large values of a number. What is silly is using it to prove something in "the real world". Because in the theoretical world that is math, it is possible.

Again, please refer to my earlier points in the post.

Ive asked you to disprove Pythagoras idea of objective proof via x? + y? <> z?, which you have not.

What pythagoras forgot was the fact that there are only the framework that we set up to work within, like math. So saying something like a=a and not a^a makes sense since we all agree what a is to begin with.
This is basic and pretty forward stuff. But if you want to follow a specific path of knowledge seeking. be my guest. By all means, limit yourself.

Are you sure you have a degree in mathematics?

Ive asked you to demonstrate that something can come form nothing, which again (to nobodys surprise mind you) you have not.

Within what framework? The world? Natural laws? what?

The 'framework' has already been provided. If you have not discovered it after so many pages and posts, tis not our responsibility to spoon feed it to you.

These are all objective statements that pertain to our reality. Then Ive gone forth to give you a formal argument on why logic is objective, which you have not countered except to say that you disagree. Yes, Im glad you disagree but I dont really care if you dont show why you disagree, in fact no one does. If you disagree, lets see why you do if not, please be so kind to keep your asinine opinions to yourself where it wont pollute the eyes and minds of sane minded people.

ahh, getting worked up are we? Yes i showed you excactly why I disagree. because you want to prove something to me within the framwork of a language, thus use the tool itself to prove that the tool is right. wrong!

You have not showed us anything. I repeat, anything.

That is not a flaw in logic that is a flaw in your premise.

Good catch. finally we're getting somewhere. So if the premis for something is skewed to begin with. Like setting up the framework you want to be within and start to define your own framework, using itself to do so, you are off track?

Again, refer to points made earlier in the post. Stop trying to erect 'frameworks' (i.e barriers/red herrings) in an attempt to disguise your utter lack of understanding of the issues being discussed.

And you call yourself math graduate.

yes

Sad.

I gave you evidence as calculating 3 dimensional fractals in realtime can only be achieved by someone with an advanced math knowledge0. But if you refuse to view evidence, because you dislike my personality. what does that say about you, really?

Who will cause the doom? The arsehole willing to listen to arguments given that they are good, nomatter what arsehole comes with them. Or village idiot, that will only listen to sources they like, and think is nice.

The evidence was in the file.

My apologies for jumping in at such a hysterical point in the thread. I've been following the replies and wanted to chip in with my two cents.

Mel Tooting your own (broken) horn will not further your points. Your metaphors and allegories aren't helping either. I have not seen you present a shred of even plausible..'evidence' (as you like to call it) in response of the statements put forth by Neo.

You've gone from running around in circles (i.e. "i disagree" why? "well because I do") to tooting your own horn. Perhaps you'd like to get off your high (relatively)speaking horse and present some credible proof that goes beyond your hippie'world is so preeety and what i see is perfect in my eyes n same to you' nonsense.

I await such evidence, as do the others who are interested in this topic.

Sincerely,
Napalm.