Thread: Go Ahead And Ask Me, Universal (and Others)

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

So I need to specify that I am dealing with base 10? Okay, I am dealing with base 10. I think you know what meanings my words have without my defining every single one of them. My point is that the reality behind the symbols as they are intended is objective reality that is absolute. If you have this many and you add this many , you have this many . There are no exceptions to that.

When using such blanket statements as, "The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six," you better specify; otherwise you'll be shown to be wrong time and again.

This could go round and round all day. I've seen it happen before. One more counter-example, and then I'm done.

squareroot4+squareroot4+squareroot4= 6, 2, -2, or -6. Thats 4 different possible outcomes, none of which could you actually say is the "right" one. Whats more, it would even be valid to say that simplified, this equation shows how 3=4;

3(integers) = 4(possible outputs)

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

When using such blanket statements as, "The point is that three plus three does not equal four or eight or a thousand or anything other than six," you better specify; otherwise you'll be shown to be wrong time and again.

This could go round and round all day. I've seen it happen before. One more counter-example, and then I'm done.

squareroot4+squareroot4+squareroot4= 6, 2, -2, or -6. Thats 4 different possible outcomes, none of which could you actually say is the "right" one. Whats more, it would even be valid to say that simplified, this equation shows how 3=4;

3(integers) = 4(possible outputs)

Every positive real number has a negative and a positive square root.

It is always understood that people are using base 10 unless stated otherwise. Does your post number need to have "using base 10" beside it? What about the national debt or number of new immigrants per year? I know algebra and geometry books don't specify it. I also specified it in my last post. My point that the realities behind the symbols are absolute stands.

The inherent problem with speaking in absolutes as you so often do is that you must cover all your bases if you hope to not be so easily proven wrong. The post count does not claim to be an absolute truth. The statistics you mentioned do not claim to be absolute truths. You did, and so you will be held to higher standards; standards you are incapable of meeting.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

The inherent problem with speaking in absolutes as you so often do is that you must cover all your bases if you hope to not be so easily proven wrong. The post count does not claim to be an absolute truth. The statistics you mentioned do not claim to be absolute truths. You did, and so you will be held to higher standards; standards you are incapable of meeting.

I did meet the standards, and the post count and the statistics I mentioned are absolutes. This is the 125th post in this thread, and that number does not depend on perspective or gravity or anything else. There were 124 posts before it. I don't have to define every word in this paragraph to legitimately make that point.

This conversation, like our triangle one, is getting away from the point. The topic is the objective and absolute nature of mathematical reality, in terms not of the symbols but in terms of what the symbols are used to represent. You are not addressing the major point I keep making. The mathematical realities behind the intended symbols are objective and absolute. If you disagree with that, why?

As you I should have known, Universal gets to dictate the subject of discussion. You win dude. You will continue to lead the topic astray until you find ground that you are comfortable on and then when beaten on that ground you will accuse me of going off topic so, you win. You are right, I am wrong;

Keeper, I return the thread to you. I've lost my stomach for these circular arguments against people claiming to know the true nature of the universe. They obviously know more than I; for I am a lowly human.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

As you I should have known, Universal gets to dictate the subject of discussion. You win dude. You will continue to lead the topic astray until you find ground that you are comfortable on and then when beaten on that ground you will accuse me of going off topic so, you win. You are right, I am wrong;

I was hoping you would actually counter my major point, which is extremely relevant to the discussion we were having with Keeper about how the absolute nature of logic relates to the existence of God, instead of running away with false tangents the whole time. Too bad. I guess your absurd personal insults against me make perfectly good subsitutes.

May I ask you a question: Why would God conform to Logic?