Kedamanology

[kedaman]

Ok, i'm declaring my theory of what reality is here, and you can comment me as much as you want:

1. FACT
2. Commonly known as prooved FACT
3. Commonly known as FACT
4. Theory
5. Commonly known as False
6. Commonly known as disprooved
7. FALSE



1. Reality
2. Subjective reality (this is what science is talking about)
3. Semi-Subjective reality (this is what we see)
4. Ideology
5. Unknown reality
6. False reality
7. Nothing


Now here we have a complete load of bullshit, but consider it applyable on all concepts and references we make when were arguing.
I'm going into each of these.

1 and 7
There's probably hard to know if we actually know if something is true or not, but we have a so strong believe in ie 2 or 3 that we can actully think that we have 1. 7 Is a bit more reachable than 1 but on the other hand, how do we know something actually is false? Give me some statements!

3 and 5 This is how we see universe today, we take this and that for true, earth is round, people in Israel died again, universe is expanding, and more...
This is everything we can observe and also what we thrust is true because the newspaper tells it or because you feel pain when you bonk your head in the wall.

2 and 6. This is what those great greek philosophs have prooved or disprooved by logical and reasonable argumentation. This is not where you can put theories (4) like E=mc^2 and Universe is 10 dimensional. Not either commonly known things like Earth is round, because that's not prooved.

4. Theory. This is where most of things get, actually a lot of them goto 3 and 5 but a we must have them separated as something commonly known makes too much difference in argumentation, also it's not far from the next stage either.
a) Subjective theory: There's only one person that think's it teoretical. The rest have another view
b) minor or major theory: A big bunch of people believe in god, another not.
c) theory with a hole: A theory that lacks explanation of something. Someone have disprooved something in it, it's not yet clear if the disproof is correct or not
d) theory that stands: A theory that have no holes, and is true until something disprooves it. (the contradiction is not in this section)
e) physical or religious theory: Can be based on beliefs or a scientific view. beliefs can stand against holes with philosophic argumentation, scintific views can be backed up with math and observations. Prooving is hard in both cases.



All concepts have a relative aspect to different views and point in time. While if they are true or false, is the only real reference. But we live behind millions of filters so we can't see it. This is why we need to understand.

Also Bullshit, is another category, but i don't know where to put it. Can you help me with that? What about crap, and many more? I would appreciate any suggestions to make my theory more complete. Feel free to ask if you don't know about something, or point out lacks in my theory.

For starters, I think that Kedaman's Theroy sounds like a better name.

Regarding 1 and 7. You said that how do we know that something is false? Well reverse that statement. How do we know everything is true. All you really know is that YOU exsist. Everything around us could be false. (Think of Matrix for example)

Regarding 3 and 5. You said that people commonly think that the Earth is round. It is round, and that should fit into Commonly known as a fact. But going back to 1 and 7, people could argue about it. But generally speaking, I think "the earth is round" should fit into 2.

Regarding your Bullshit and Crap catagories. No offense to anyone out there, but I think that some theories or belifs should be stashed in there.

[kedaman]

Why, kedamanology sounds better to me.

Regarding 1 and 7. You said that how do we know that something is false? Well reverse that statement. How do we know everything is true. All you really know is that YOU exsist. Everything around us could be false. (Think of Matrix for example)

That's right Meg, but we can still refer to that, and that's why we have it here.

Regarding 3 and 5. You said that people commonly think that the Earth is round. It is round, and that should fit into Commonly known as a fact. But going back to 1 and 7, people could argue about it. But generally speaking, I think "the earth is round" should fit into 2.

No, it's not known as prooved fact, it's assumed as true, it belongs to 3. Earth is an observation, so it's not prooved that there is an earth.
Thanks Meg.

[RealisticGraphics]

I'm with Megatron on the name thing. Kedamanology would be defined as the study of Kedaman. So, unless you want an entire field of science devoted to nothing more than studying you, you should probably call it Kedaman's Theory or possibly Kedaman's Hypothesis as a Theory normally has some known FACT to back it up.

My Hypohesis consists of the idea that there is no truth. You can never fully prove that an idea is true. As Werner Heisenberg observed, one can not be an objective observer of events in which one is directly involved. The very attempt of observation is changing the outcome of the events. If someone is brought up to believe that red is actually green, are you going to have any success trying to prove to them that it is actually red?

Truth in itself is inherently subjective. Each person has their own idea of what the truth is and they may or may not be prusaded to the contrary.

Not to be egotistical I'm quoting my essay on the lack of truth.
The ultimate end to the change of truths is the acceptance that there is no truth, but only a pattern produced by the human mind overlaid on the randomness of the universe.

You're right on that RealisticGraphics. No one can prove or disprove anything.

Kedaman
Tell me, what is the difference between 2 and 3? In order for something to belong into 2, does it have to work out mathematicaly? i.e 1 + 1 = 2?

[kedaman]

It's definitely not a theory, it's bullshit, paradox or false and true. But it's still kedamanoly because "kedaman" means reality and "study of reality" is just perfect. Of course there isn't such thing as reality and we don't need those definitions but why are we arguing about things then? I think this is just what we need for it. As for the statement "there isn't such thing as reality", which category does it go to?


Truth in itself is inherently subjective. Each person has their own idea of what the truth is and they may or may not be prusaded to the contrary.

That's true, i mean not true because we cannot put that in 1 or 7 according to you.
What about "I exists" ? where do you put that?

[RealisticGraphics]

How do you know "I exsist"? What if what you concieve as your exsistence is nothing more than an illusion? Can you prove to me that anything actually exsists without leaving any holes in your arguement?

Oh, and if you want mathematical "proof" that 1+1=2, then I can give you a mathematical "proof" that says 1+1=1.

a=1
b=1

a^2+b^2=ab-b^2
(a+b)(a-b)=b(a-b)
a+b=b
1+1=1

That doesn't work out. Try subbing in the values, as you would to check your answer.

a^2 + b^2 = x
1^2 + 1^2 = x
1 + 1 = 2

[kedaman]

How do you know that meg? And RealisticGraphics, go searh for Descartes, it's his proof, not mine. "anything actually exists" is to me also plain bullshit, until you give me the definition of those three words, what we need to define first is what is "True" and i don't want any comments like "the opposite to False" because if that is true, then you have a paradox. This thread is about how to have our minds cleared from paradoxes

i know that because RealisticGraphics said, himself, that both A and B are = 1. Look at my equation and you'll get the same answer.

1^2 is 1.
Therefor 1^2 + 1^2 = 1 + 1 = 2

[RealisticGraphics]

First off, I never said that 1+1=1, I just said that there was a mathematical poof for it.

Secondly, "Cognito ergo sum." - Rene Descartes. Of course, he was also a raving alcholic.

You want to know what is true, right? Well, nothing is true, because nothing can be proven. If you want a programming defenition it happens to be defined in Microsoft's own code as:

Const True = Not False

I prefer to believe that there is no truth. You may chose to beleive otherwise. But if you think your theory of reality is complete bullshit then why is it your theory of reality.

Just because you can think does not mean that you exist, it only means that you can think. The earlier example says that you exist and everything around you may be an illusion, but if everything else is an illusion then who's to say that your own intelligence and existence isn't also an illusion.

Saying that nothing exists is insane. you know that you exsist. You know your friends exsist because you can interact with them. As long as I live my life fine without anything disappearing or appearing out of nowhere, everything's good and it's not an illusion.

[kedaman]

?true=nothing
'pops up an "compile error: invalid use of object"

Well some people must be insane, if we don't have any truth then what is (false=false)? False? Give me a math book, everything can't be false! "universe exist" -false, "universe exists not" -false

[Sam Finch]

1 + 1 is 2
this nuch is true


did you like my little poem?

1 + 1 = 2 is an identity, which means it's true. it is actually the definition of the number 2

1 is defined as the identity under multiplication,

0 is defined as the identity under multiplication.

addition and multiplication are operators, I can't remember their definitions , I think they are defined in terms of each other, and in terms of an ordered field (the real numbers are an ordered field)

thereby any mathematical statement is true if there exists an ordered field, and as the real numbers are an ordered field then all mathematical statements are true by the very nature of their existance.

this means that a proven mathematical statement cannot be false as in order to be false it has to be, and if it is then it is true.

so that's a proof of all mathematical statements from a grand total of 0 assumptions. therefore we have some truth in the world.

however, maths is entirely self contained, and whereas pure maths is true applied maths (where we apply these things to the real world) is not as true. (I didn't say it was'nt true, I said it wasn't definatly true)

as for the 1+1=1 proof it assumes the statement a^2+b^2=ab-b^2 => 1+1 = 0 (a = b =1)

so you proved that if 1+1 = 0 then 1+1 = 1 (and no you can't use that to prove 0 = 1)

meg
Tell me, what is the difference between 2 and 3? In order for something to belong into 2, does it have to work out mathematicaly? i.e 1 + 1 = 2?

a = b means that a is the same number as b (a number is an element of the ordered field "the real numbers") there are no 2 distinct elements a and b of an ordered field such that a = b, if a = b then a and b are simply different names for the same number. for any 2 distinct numbers a and b either a>b or a<b. (usually is we simply refer to 2 numbers a and b we are not ruling out the possibility that a = b)

kedmanology.

me and kedman had a natter on ICQ last night and I think that it can be shown that you cannot classify statements into a finite number of catagories distinguishing between them by how true they are. (ie for a theory like kedman's to be true you would need an infinite number of catagories)

The proof involves the Russell Paradox which I don't fully understand but from the little I do know about it I think it can be applied to show an infinite number of catagories would be needed. (the proof involves the Idea that for any finite number of catagories we must put the statement "every statement must belong to one of these catagories" into a catagory, for some reason this means that the statement cannot be proven to be true so must go either into the catagory false or a catagory that says it's true but cannot be proven,(call this catagory A) which goes on to show that the statement "Some statements must go into the catagory A" cannot be proven but it must be true since we have a statement in catagory A so there is a contradiction and the original statement must be fale.


If anyone has a good understanding of Russell then if they want to have a look at this argument I would be greatfull.

Realistic Graphics.

Be glad it wasn't me who marked your essay on the lack of truth.

, "Cognito ergo sum." - Rene Descartes. Of course, he was also a raving alcholic.

If an alcoholic told you you were about to be his by a bus would you not believe him even if you could se it coming?

Descartes proved the existance of everything that is observed from the single assumption that the observer existed. it involves the concept of a reality, a reality doesn't have to be real, a dream is a reality, the world in a book or a film is a reality, he defines something as existing if it is in the same reality as the observer. Truth is truth with respect to the reality you are in.

Your Idea that there is a reality that is real and that truth implies truth in that reality is to exlude yourself from this reality by denying its truth and existance, however you as an observer exist in this reality and that is the one we're discussing.so you might as well take your head out of the sand and accept the existance of objects in this reality.

As Werner Heisenberg observed, one can not be an objective observer of events in which one is directly involved. The very attempt of observation is changing the outcome of the events. a paradox in itself, if he observed this then that means he affected how true it was, surely it was just as true before he thought of it as afterwards.

Heisenberg in fact did nothing of the sort, he proved some quirky properties of the position of particles. The uncertainty principal is the most misinterpreted piece of physics ever, it is a statistical law that applies to small particles and small particles only.

[qoute]If someone is brought up to believe that red is actually green, are you going to have any success trying to prove to them that it is actually red? [/quote] so what?

if I ask you what 1+1 is you'd say 2 (actually you'd say 1 but you'd be wrond) if I went back in time somehow and asked a roman he'd say 11 because that's his name for 2, the statement 1+1=2 and 1+1=11 are equivilent, it's just different names for 2. Likewise if I asked a frenchman what colour something was he'd say rouge, it doesn't matterwhat names we use for things, a statement is still the same statement whatever language it's in. If you're confused man says something is green when it's actually red it's still true in his language.

[RealisticGraphics]

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has since been applied on the large scale. Heisenberg's observation is that if you try to measure one aspect of a particle you change its other properties(ie, measure position change velocity, measure velocity change position). This is modified to say something similar to if you put cameras in a house to observe someone's behavior they will change their behavior as a direct result of the observation.

And actually, your Roman friend would answer II not 11. However, 1+1 can be equal to 11 if you do your math in binary just as 5*5 can be equal to 19 in Oct or 5+5=A in Hex. It all just depends on how YOU look at the world. That is the beauty of living in freedom, you can look at the world the way you want and I can look at the world the way I want.

I was never trying to say that nothing exists. I was just trying to make the point that just because someone beleives something to be true doesn't mean it is. I chose to beleive that "I feel therefore I am." rather than "I think therefore I am." The statement made by Descartes was not meant to prove that things exist. He was using it as a defintion for Consciousness. He beleived that if a species can comprehend that it exists that it is therefore conscious.

And you're right, reality is subjective. The reality of a dream is no less valid than the reality of the "waking" world. What is important is how you interpret reality and which one you chose to beleive is "real". Sometimes I would rather have this be reality, other times I would rather live in a dream world. As I said before, that is the beauty of living in freedom. We can all beleive whatever we chose and don't have to care what anyone else beleives. I was only putting my beleifs out for the consideration of others.

for a theory like kedman's to be true you would need
an infinite number of catagories)

Why would he need an infinite amount of catagoires?

[Sam Finch]

meg, I did explain why, something to do with the Russell Paradox, although I don't know if it's actually true but I think that you can't have a theory that divides truth into an infinite number of catagories.

Realistic Graphics

No, that's not true, you can observe people with heat sensors, or from satalites thousands of miles away so they don't know about it. The uncertainty principal only concerns particles small enough to have simple harmonic probability waves

[RealisticGraphics]

Of course you can't have a theory that divides truth into an infinite number of categories. There in lies the Paradox of it. There are an infinite number of truths so if you want to catergorize truth you must have an infinite number of categories, but you can never accoplish the goal of having an infinite number of categories.

And when dealing with systems larger than that of an atom it is refered to as Chaos Theory. Again all of this is basicly just conjecture in that we all have a series of theories that are based on theories.

[Sam Finch]

no, I'll disagree on both counts (in fact I'll do it backwards)

2 Chaos theory

imagine we're looking at someone's movement's from a satelite, we cannot see individual particles, no matter how good our satalite is (uncertainty principal again) so we cannot know the position of an individual particle and hence we cannot affect their momentums, also we cannot know it's momentum because we only take a still photo, we are then observing without affecting (assuming we are merely an observer in the satalite and do not act on this information)

this is a misinterpretation of reality, it is completley unfounded and based on books which try to popularize physics(which while good in many ways a little knowledge is a dangerous thing and we get misinterpretations of the facts like this)

1 yes we can divide truth up into an infinate number of catagories, let's define some operators

=> a => b means that if a is true then b
is true (pronounced a implies b) it does not
neccaceraly mean that if a is false b is false

<= a <= b means b => a

<=> a <=> b means a => b and a <= b


<=> satisfies the conditions of an equivilence relationship

(a <=> b) <=> (b <=> a)

(a <=> b) & (b <=> c) => (a <=> c)



where & is a logical and


(statements like this take a while to read but they're very hard to express without symbols so you'll have to lump it)

because <=> is an equivilence operator in divides statements up into catagories where a is in the same catagory as b if and only if a <=> b

this divides all statements up into catagories

we also have the rule that for any statement x

False => x => True(think about it)

this means that if a => b then b is either in the same catagory as a or b is in a catagory more true than a.

I only came up with this this afternoon and I have a lot more thinking about it to do but there we have it, an infinite number of catagories. (I still want to work out what type of infinity this is and wheather we can have a numbering system etc)

[kedaman]

1+1 can be equal to 11 if you do your math in binary

10 atually.

I was never trying to say that nothing exists. I was just trying to make the point that just because someone beleives something to be true doesn't mean it is. I chose to beleive that "I feel therefore I am." rather than "I think therefore I am." The statement made by Descartes was not meant to prove that things exist. He was using it as a defintion for Consciousness. He beleived that if a species can comprehend that it exists that it is therefore conscious.

According to my Reality (not theory), you're just have a spectra from 3 to 5, and that spectra does not explain why we're having a common reality around us the 1 to 7. This can be prooved by the spec of 2 to 6. Let's look at the difference between being awake and deaming.

1. What makes a dream so real you can touch it? - Your mind

2. What makes your observations real when you're awake - Your eyes and mind.
___
Then we have other people around us:

3. What makes the world real? - Our common world

4. What make prooved reality - Common sense

....

5. What makes FACT - Nobody knows, -But we still can refer to this one, and that's the big idea of kedamanology.


Ok when you pass the first line ___, you have two alternatives: 1. to take other people as real (you may continue) or 2. not. For the second alternative you must consider either they to be an illusion or that this illusion was created by something, so you're actually not in this case alone either.
The .... barrier is what you can't pass without knowing any FACTS, so if humanity where to explore universe, we have to pass this barrier one day. But if you exclude this one, you have to make all subcategories as illusions, including you. And that's nonsense, because reality includes you + something else.

And for all those infinite subcategories, we do not need them to be present in my theory at this state, I can make a infinite tree of those whenever i want when it it reality.

(a <=> b) <=> (b <=> a)

(a <=> b) & (b <=> c) => (a <=> c)

This was something I was looking for Sam, a way to explain more logical by using symbols. In each =>() We have a subreality and by each <=> we can explore them, so if we somehow can reverse engineer back to reality we may pass ..... barrier. If you think There's more subrealities (categories) that are somehow relevant to us, just mention them

someone said something about how do we know something is True or False. Saying something is false is not a problem. Because if you're saying "How do you know it's False" is like "Is it True that it's False?". It may be difficult to comprehend, but both statements are asking if something is True. So saying something is true is the hard part, False is the easy part. If you answered "NO" or something along those lines to the questions, than you are implying that it is False.

[kedaman]

No, meg it's as simple as saying something is false: ""This is true" is false" is true and so on...
Ie:
Earth is flat <-False
Easth is not flat <-True
What is hard is to know what is FACT and not, and both of them are equally hard.

If nothing is true or false then what is it?

[Gen-X]

Sam

But you have effected them from the satellite.

You can't see it of course (Uncertainty principle) but you have caused the energy state of the molecules that person is made up of.

You can't take photographs from space because all you would get is a collection of the photons from the clouds. The photons that bounced off the person and up into the sky are probably deflected by the ozone in the atmosphere (the whole reason we have a blue sky).So instead you use something that actually sends particles down and you read the ones that come back.

So you HAVE changed what you are looking at... its just too small to notice. Which as you love to point out is the Uncertainty Principle.

The pictures are send using singnals. I think it's the same way digital camera's work. They are saved in Binary.

But in a spaceship, they are sent with singnals, back to the station.

[kedaman]

Meg, all statements are either true or false - and this is the most objective view you can get

That's not what I meant. What i meant is why does everyone fail to see that something is true!

1 + 1 = 2. That is TRUE!