### Post by Radrook Admin on Jul 13, 2022 7:02:16 GMT -5

**Debate on Ultimate Location 2**

**Comment:**

In fact, and as you should know, the scientific method is totally dependent on observation via the senses in order to arrive at valid conclusions.

Yes, and the scientific methods talks about things that are accessible to observation. The notion of "existence" or "ultimate location" are not one of them. That's why you don't see scientists arguing about them.

**My response:**

You are wrong when you claim that existence is merely a notion? Please note that Descartes nor Hume nor Emmanuel Kant ever placed our existence in doubt. They merely delved into its nature. BTW Of course scientists don't debate these points. That's the realm of philosophy called Metaphysics. That they are different in their focus is supposed to b common knowledge. I am surprised that you are unaware of that.

**Comment:**>Really? Squares, triangles, circles, spheres, cubes, cones, can all exist without shape?

Dude I was talking about BOUNDARY and you reply with SHAPES. Totally irrelevant as you see.

Besides since you mentioned GR, you must know that in differential geometry one considers manifolds WITHOUT an ambiant space in which they are immersed? These manifod don't have a "location" (=ambiant space). Well according to GR the universe precisely is a manifold. This should answer to your "ultimate location" question. Shape is what provides them with an identity.

**My Response:**

Boundaries and shapes are intrinsically related.

A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one, In short, you are once more arguing via straw man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

**In any case,****m**athematics is totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. Furthermore, I never claimed that shape doesn't provide things with an identity. I claimed the exact opposite. You seem to imagine things I never claimed, and then you proceed to vehemently argue against them. That is called the Straw Man Fallacy.A straw man (sometimes written as strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one, In short, you are once more arguing via straw man.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

**Comment:**My reply was honest, and, as far as I can tell, polite. Disagreeing with you doesn't mean attacking you. That's the essence of debating. Now if you're going to be rude and assume that I am dishonest, I won't continue this any further.

**My Response:**

You are wrong! I have never accused you of being dishonest or of attacking me. Although your responses are occasionally laced with sarcastic remarks. In any case, Your confusion is induced by a flawed inference that the mathematically-expressed invariably have their counterparts in reality. That simply isn't true. Mathematically correct does not automatically represent what actually exists. There are impossibilities in reality, such as the literal existence of the infinite.

**Comment:**You are wrong. Everything that is mathematically possible is a priori possible in reality (it does not HAVE to actually exist but it CAN). With that kind of reasoning, one would have never discovered electromagnetic waves or that space-time can be curved because these are "mathematical abstractions". Of course you are free to believe that some mathematical (ideas) cannot exist in reality, but I'd call that narrow-mindedness.

**My response:**

Wrong! Infinity is mathematically expressed and is an impossibility in reality.

Narrow minded? Name-calling or ad hominem indicates inability to offer a viable answer. Yiou are wrong when you claim that all mathematical equations representing ideas have their counterpart or else are possible in reality, That is admitted by both mathematicians and scientists. So it really comes as a total surprise that a person who is posturing as if he or she were exceedingly knowledgeable is expressing complete ignorance in reference to it. I call that at the very least, sloppy research technique.

When we are unsure, we are under ethical obligation to check. That is a basic procedure of proper debating. Otherwise we might fall into the trap of claiming true what is widely accepted as impossible.

The links posted provide evidence of the impossibility of some mathematical equations not being representative of actual realities. In any case, here are some additional articles and some video links that will help dissolve your misunderstandings.

Narrow minded? Name-calling or ad hominem indicates inability to offer a viable answer. Yiou are wrong when you claim that all mathematical equations representing ideas have their counterpart or else are possible in reality, That is admitted by both mathematicians and scientists. So it really comes as a total surprise that a person who is posturing as if he or she were exceedingly knowledgeable is expressing complete ignorance in reference to it. I call that at the very least, sloppy research technique.

When we are unsure, we are under ethical obligation to check. That is a basic procedure of proper debating. Otherwise we might fall into the trap of claiming true what is widely accepted as impossible.

The links posted provide evidence of the impossibility of some mathematical equations not being representative of actual realities. In any case, here are some additional articles and some video links that will help dissolve your misunderstandings.

Comment:

Comment:

>\To illustrate this impossibility, let us imagine a microscope with infinite magnification. Let's attempt to focus that infinitely powerful microscope on what we might imagine as an infinitely small thing.

Misunderstanding about the notion of infinity. The notions of "infinite magnification" and "infinitely small" don't make sense MATHEMATICALLY.

**My Response:**

Oh really? There is a symbol employed in mathematics to represent the infinite.

The infinity sign is conventionally interpreted as meaning that the variable grows arbitrarily large towards infinity, rather than actually taking an infinite value, although other interpretations are possible.

The infinity symbol may also be used to represent a point at infinity, especially when there is only one such point under consideration. This usage includes, in particular, the infinite point of a projective line, and the point added to a topological space to form its one-point compactification.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_symbol

But once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. It only serves to prove that you are fond of making dubious mathematical claims. Nothing more.

The infinity sign is conventionally interpreted as meaning that the variable grows arbitrarily large towards infinity, rather than actually taking an infinite value, although other interpretations are possible.

The infinity symbol may also be used to represent a point at infinity, especially when there is only one such point under consideration. This usage includes, in particular, the infinite point of a projective line, and the point added to a topological space to form its one-point compactification.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity_symbol

But once again, this has absolutely nothing to do with the subject. It only serves to prove that you are fond of making dubious mathematical claims. Nothing more.

Comment:

Comment:

>Quote:

>An event that takes infinitely long to occur simply never happens. Something at an infinite distance is simply not there. Infinitely small means 0.

Yep exactly. This quote applies perfectly to mathematical infinity.

**My reply:**

Well, I never denied mathematical infinity. So now you are once again resorting to straw-man arguments.

**Comment:**>Care to clarify exactly what the contradiction is?

Consider "everything that exists". It is a thing. So it must be surrounded by something else, which therefore exist. Since this thin exist, it is part of "everything that exists". But we just said it was "something else" than "everything that exists". Contradiction.

**My Response:**

**"everything that exists".**

I never used that term. The one who introduced that term into the discussion was you. In short, you are creating self contradictions and then very glibly attributing them to me. Why? Beats me.

**Comment**>Also, please note that I never claimed that the axiom is provable.

Well duh by definition an axiom is not provable.

**My Response:**

Oh Really?

1: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE sense 1

one of the axioms of the theory of evolution

2: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have"

3: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit

the axioms of wisdom

Did you know?

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiom

I see nothing in that definition which renders an axiom unprovable. Nether does the following definition support your claim.

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.

As used in mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define and are often shown in symbolic form (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually substantive assertions about the elements of the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic)...,.

Any axiom is a statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Whether it is meaningful (and, if so, what it means) for an axiom to be "true" is a subject of debate in the philosophy of mathematics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

So as you can see, or I should say, should be able to see, you are wrong, since the official definition is completely out of kilter with your personal definition. Unfortunately, whenever anyone disagrees with your flawed personal definition, then you commence to deploy ad hominems. You also, choose to repeatedly and purposefully ignore any and all evidence that contradicts your pet belief. But ignoring evidence is definitely not a refutation. It is merely a stubborn response referred to as invincible ignorance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

In short, your confusion involves the erroneous idea that everything in mathematics has a counterpart in reality. But as the evidence that I provided demonstrates, that flawed concept is definitely not supported by any branch of science nor by logic.

**Definition of axiom**

1: a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE sense 1

one of the axioms of the theory of evolution

2: an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth

cites the axiom "no one gives what he does not have"

3: a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit

the axioms of wisdom

Did you know?

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/axiom

I see nothing in that definition which renders an axiom unprovable. Nether does the following definition support your claim.

An axiom, postulate, or assumption is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. The word comes from the Ancient Greek word ἀξίωμα (axíōma), meaning 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident'.

The term has subtle differences in definition when used in the context of different fields of study. As defined in classic philosophy, an axiom is a statement that is so evident or well-established, that it is accepted without controversy or question. As used in modern logic, an axiom is a premise or starting point for reasoning.

As used in mathematics, the term axiom is used in two related but distinguishable senses: "logical axioms" and "non-logical axioms". Logical axioms are usually statements that are taken to be true within the system of logic they define and are often shown in symbolic form (e.g., (A and B) implies A), while non-logical axioms (e.g., a + b = b + a) are actually substantive assertions about the elements of the domain of a specific mathematical theory (such as arithmetic)...,.

Any axiom is a statement that serves as a starting point from which other statements are logically derived. Whether it is meaningful (and, if so, what it means) for an axiom to be "true" is a subject of debate in the philosophy of mathematics.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom

So as you can see, or I should say, should be able to see, you are wrong, since the official definition is completely out of kilter with your personal definition. Unfortunately, whenever anyone disagrees with your flawed personal definition, then you commence to deploy ad hominems. You also, choose to repeatedly and purposefully ignore any and all evidence that contradicts your pet belief. But ignoring evidence is definitely not a refutation. It is merely a stubborn response referred to as invincible ignorance.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy

In short, your confusion involves the erroneous idea that everything in mathematics has a counterpart in reality. But as the evidence that I provided demonstrates, that flawed concept is definitely not supported by any branch of science nor by logic.

**Comment:**

>Paradoxes cease to be paradoxes if they are and I offered it up as a paradox.

Paradoxes are contradictions, meaning something is wrong and has to be fixed. In your paradox the thing that is wrong is the assumption that everything that exists exists inside of something else.

My Response:

But you haven't proven otherwise. Instead, all the info you provide always conifrms what I claim.

**Comment:**>Such a term involves a serious contradiction.

It doesn't. As I mentioned above, I won't reply any more.

**My Reply: Again!**

I was quoting you dude! Since I was quoting you, I logically assumed that we were in agreement. Guess I was wrong. Don't know what you are smoking but it must be some mighty powerful stuff! LOL! Just kidding!