"We" means more than one person. You don't think we can empirically show more than one person?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Five million man: proofs of key problems
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
"We" means more than one person. You don't think we can empirically show more than one person?
No, it is not subject to argumentation. You need, in order to have a proof, to show that the 'allowed' situation does actually happen.
Again, that is basic logic. And you failed in that. And, it seems, you don't even understand that it is necessary. Which means you need to go back and learn some basic logic.
Yes, the RH may be independent (have no proof either way). At which point other considerations come into play.
But what you have isn't a proof at all. It isn't just *unusual*, it is fundamentally flawed.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
I want you to show that the agreement of 2 or more humans to subjectively set a goal make the "we set a goal" for the "we" as being objective.
Note - we are playing if the world can be reduced down to being only objective in the end. I know, it can't, because we are subjectively disagreeing. If the world in the strong sense was only objective, then we couldn't disagree.
The goal remains subjectively set. Again, this isn't in dispute. If you don't care about helping others or not harming others, I don't know of any "objective" way to make you care. However, most of us do care, and recognize that caring is in our interest and the interest of people we care about. The fact that we agree on the subjective goal can be measured objectively, by asking you and asking me what our goal is.
Once the goal is agreed upon, we can objectively measure how to achieve the goal.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
I mean following: the mathematics is consistent with the thesis ``situation is allowed'', however that drives us to the described contradiction; thus, to avoid such contradiction, we must accept the validity of the Riemann Hypothesis.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Okay, so we can't objectively set the goal. That is my point. That is one way to understand a part of this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Such science will not be conducted in the afterlife I tell you. No.
No, the logic there is wrong. The situation is 'allowed' only in the sense it hasn't been shown not to occur. That is very different then showing it would occur if the RH was false. But it is the latter that is required to have a proof.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, if you can only tell me that then it is subjective and I subjectively believe differently. So just walk away. I am a skeptic and I am "good" at subjective versus objectivity. Now if you can show me objective evidence or proof, I will listen.
Yes, you've posted that about a million times. I believe I also replied literally in the thread you made with it in the OP. The moral goal is set subjectively, and measured objectively.
Last edited:
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
It can be argued. Therefore, if published, the Math Community will become divided into two camps: ones with me and ones with you. It is like Putin and Trump.
No, that isn't how it works. The logic is wrong. There won't be a division because any trained mathematician can easily tell you failed in your logic.
Once again, if a student submitted this in a beginning proof class, I would assign a failing grade and require them to do it over until they get the logic right. Anything above that level and it would be a failure in the course almost automatically.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Science not only follows evidence, the
Science uses emotions and moral, because there is even toilet paper use in CERN.
Science is moral, alternative is immorality.
OK, so you don't understand science either.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
If you would be my mother, you would not say that. You would be proud of my talent. I repeat it is like Putin and Trump: no common ground.
Don't expect editors and referees to lie to you like your mother.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Good, then stop claiming a "we" that is not there. For the purpose of your "we" I am one of "them", because I am a high functioning autist. And yes, IFF you are functionally a normie, then you won't notice, how normies harm those, who are neuro-diverse. I don't know if you are a normie, but you use a "we" like all other limited social groups, whether it be culture/sub-culture/ideology/philosophy and even science.
So in short, when you subjectively go "we", I go "them". Now that is a fact, which you can observe using science. So yes, I am a social warrior and I fight the privilege in the "we".
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
What about my CV above?
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
No, another behavior than yours is just that - another behavior. You are not unique in that you in the end claim Objective Authority to judge your own and other humans different behavior.