|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 1:57 pm
Joscerelle Kanon Vilente Joscerelle I don't think you can prove that something doesn't exist, you can only prove that something does. You need physical evidence to prove something exists. Since non-existence is the absence of physical form you can't prove it with any hard evidence. Even using the angle of an absence of physical form you still can not prove that something does not exist. Ha xp sweatdrop I really need to pay attention cause I dont know how many times I have accidentally edited someone elses post sweatdrop I think that's what I said right? I'm slow today. Lol basically but I hadnt typed my response out completely xp sweatdrop I was going to but I had realized I was actually editing your post rofl
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 01, 2007 8:12 pm
Joscerelle I don't think you can prove that something doesn't exist, you can only prove that something does. You need physical evidence to prove something exists. Since non-existence is the absence of physical form you can't prove it with any hard evidence. Then how does something such as gravity exist? It doesn't have a "physical form" as far as I'm aware of. So, by your rules; Physics, Mathematics, and everything like unto those subjects do not exist. Science has gotten pretty far by disproving - I don't like to mess with a good system. ^^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 12:57 pm
Kanon Vilente Obscurus You could prove that its opposite is what exists and that the original thing is actually just an absence of what actually exists. Example: Darkness doesn't really exist; it's only an absence of light. Although, personally, I don't believe anything can be proven to not exist. Well now heres the question if Darkness doesnt really exist. Then why is it being labled and shown as something that does? Its kinda like "Nothingness" So you can't really say it doesnt exist I guess. Although what you have already said is more accurate. It's only an absence of that common element. So since those are missing it results in being something else or return to its original form. I guess that is the easiest way to say it. Personaly I think there is darkness, maybe not in the way of seeing it, but in the way of beeing verry sad, or verry depressed. I mean, when there are bad time's, they call that "dark times" isn't it? Well, that's an other dark then what you ar talking about, but you can't say that that isn't dark! So my conclusion is that there is dark, but I don't think we can see it, I mean, you can't see anything when it's dark, right? razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:00 pm
miriampje Kanon Vilente Obscurus You could prove that its opposite is what exists and that the original thing is actually just an absence of what actually exists. Example: Darkness doesn't really exist; it's only an absence of light. Although, personally, I don't believe anything can be proven to not exist. Well now heres the question if Darkness doesnt really exist. Then why is it being labled and shown as something that does? Its kinda like "Nothingness" So you can't really say it doesnt exist I guess. Although what you have already said is more accurate. It's only an absence of that common element. So since those are missing it results in being something else or return to its original form. I guess that is the easiest way to say it. Personaly I think there is darkness, maybe not in the way of seeing it, but in the way of beeing verry sad, or verry depressed. I mean, when there are bad time's, they call that "dark times" isn't it? Well, that's an other dark then what you ar talking about, but you can't say that that isn't dark! So my conclusion is that there is dark, but I don't think we can see it, I mean, you can't see anything when it's dark, right? razz Depends on the "person" or "animal" if they can see in the darkness or not. And what type of "sight" theyre using but still darkness is something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:06 pm
Kanon Vilente miriampje Kanon Vilente Obscurus You could prove that its opposite is what exists and that the original thing is actually just an absence of what actually exists. Example: Darkness doesn't really exist; it's only an absence of light. Although, personally, I don't believe anything can be proven to not exist. Well now heres the question if Darkness doesnt really exist. Then why is it being labled and shown as something that does? Its kinda like "Nothingness" So you can't really say it doesnt exist I guess. Although what you have already said is more accurate. It's only an absence of that common element. So since those are missing it results in being something else or return to its original form. I guess that is the easiest way to say it. Personaly I think there is darkness, maybe not in the way of seeing it, but in the way of beeing verry sad, or verry depressed. I mean, when there are bad time's, they call that "dark times" isn't it? Well, that's an other dark then what you ar talking about, but you can't say that that isn't dark! So my conclusion is that there is dark, but I don't think we can see it, I mean, you can't see anything when it's dark, right? razz Depends on the "person" or "animal" if they can see in the darkness or not. And what type of "sight" theyre using but still darkness is something. I heard from someone that nothing or no one can see witout light, that's not possible.. But it's just something I heard, I don't know if it is true... razz
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 02, 2007 1:37 pm
miriampje Kanon Vilente miriampje Kanon Vilente Obscurus You could prove that its opposite is what exists and that the original thing is actually just an absence of what actually exists. Example: Darkness doesn't really exist; it's only an absence of light. Although, personally, I don't believe anything can be proven to not exist. Well now heres the question if Darkness doesnt really exist. Then why is it being labled and shown as something that does? Its kinda like "Nothingness" So you can't really say it doesnt exist I guess. Although what you have already said is more accurate. It's only an absence of that common element. So since those are missing it results in being something else or return to its original form. I guess that is the easiest way to say it. Personaly I think there is darkness, maybe not in the way of seeing it, but in the way of beeing verry sad, or verry depressed. I mean, when there are bad time's, they call that "dark times" isn't it? Well, that's an other dark then what you ar talking about, but you can't say that that isn't dark! So my conclusion is that there is dark, but I don't think we can see it, I mean, you can't see anything when it's dark, right? razz Depends on the "person" or "animal" if they can see in the darkness or not. And what type of "sight" theyre using but still darkness is something. I heard from someone that nothing or no one can see witout light, that's not possible.. But it's just something I heard, I don't know if it is true... razz Well that depends on the type of "sight" the being uses. Such as a bat using sonar. IF your talking about eye sight then such felines can see with a very minimal amount of light fortunately we do not have to deal with pitch black unless it is within an enclosed space.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 12:55 am
Kanon Vilente miriampje Kanon Vilente miriampje Kanon Vilente Obscurus You could prove that its opposite is what exists and that the original thing is actually just an absence of what actually exists. Example: Darkness doesn't really exist; it's only an absence of light. Although, personally, I don't believe anything can be proven to not exist. Well now heres the question if Darkness doesnt really exist. Then why is it being labled and shown as something that does? Its kinda like "Nothingness" So you can't really say it doesnt exist I guess. Although what you have already said is more accurate. It's only an absence of that common element. So since those are missing it results in being something else or return to its original form. I guess that is the easiest way to say it. Personaly I think there is darkness, maybe not in the way of seeing it, but in the way of beeing verry sad, or verry depressed. I mean, when there are bad time's, they call that "dark times" isn't it? Well, that's an other dark then what you ar talking about, but you can't say that that isn't dark! So my conclusion is that there is dark, but I don't think we can see it, I mean, you can't see anything when it's dark, right? razz Depends on the "person" or "animal" if they can see in the darkness or not. And what type of "sight" theyre using but still darkness is something. I heard from someone that nothing or no one can see witout light, that's not possible.. But it's just something I heard, I don't know if it is true... razz Well that depends on the type of "sight" the being uses. Such as a bat using sonar. IF your talking about eye sight then such felines can see with a very minimal amount of light fortunately we do not have to deal with pitch black unless it is within an enclosed space. yes but bat's don't REALLY see, they feel objects, they don't see them. But I was talking about eye sight yeah razz So what you exually just said is that we can't see without light, right? I mean,..., yeah, that's execty what I ment xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 6:39 am
Bats don't really feel they basically use measurements.
Let me explain a bit better.
They use echolocation/biosonar.
Echolocation works like active sonar, using sounds made by an animal. Ranging is done by measuring the time delay between the animal's own sound emission and any echoes that return from the environment. Unlike some sonar that relies on an extremely narrow beam to localize a target, animal echolocation relies on multiple receivers. Echolocating animals have two ears positioned slightly apart. The echoes returning to the two ears arrive at different times and at different loudness levels, depending on the position of the object generating the echoes. The time and loudness differences are used by the animals to perceive direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri May 04, 2007 2:02 pm
This may be redundant (HA TAKE THAT 8TH PERIOD ENGLISH, I USED A VOCAB WORD!) but most of Science is theories, there's only a few real laws. like math, basicly outside the monitary and numeric world anything below Zero technically isn't there... you can't have -5/8ths of an apple...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 05, 2007 6:52 am
You can't prove something doesn't exist, you can only work on probabilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 12:21 pm
ShrinkWrapped You can't prove something doesn't exist, you can only work on probabilities. Well I don't really think that. Because it's more like we can't truly grasp the concept of nonexistence. Although I can see myself just imagining and creating something in my mind that doesn't really exist. So upon its creation within my mind it now exists in some form. So before I created whatever thing that came to mind. I would now think to ask the question. Where did it come from in the first place? Lol its a thought thats uh a work in progress lol. rofl
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:27 pm
Kanon Vilente Because it's more like we can't truly grasp the concept of nonexistence. I think I have to agree with you there. Nonexistance seems almost impossible in many ways. For something to be nonexistant it must be nothing. But for nothing to exist surely it must be something.... and if it is something it is no longer nothing, therefore it exists. The only way I can see for something to be nonexistant, is for nonexistancy itself to not exist, which is a concept that's extremly hard to get my head around. I'm not sure if that actually made any sense. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 06, 2007 4:35 pm
velvet-wings Kanon Vilente Because it's more like we can't truly grasp the concept of nonexistence. I think I have to agree with you there. Nonexistance seems almost impossible in many ways. For something to be nonexistant it must be nothing. But for nothing to exist surely it must be something.... and if it is something it is no longer nothing, therefore it exists. The only way I can see for something to be nonexistant, is for nonexistancy itself to not exist, which is a concept that's extremly hard to get my head around. I'm not sure if that actually made any sense. sweatdrop Lol. I understand what you mean. Thats why I consider "Nothing" to be a logical fallacy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 4:42 am
After all this time I can't even think of one good argument for this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 15, 2007 10:27 pm
Hmm perhaps this is one of those things that simply doesn't have an answer. Perhaps this isn't meant to be answered. Who knows. Is there a heaven/hell? Good People/Bad actions? *shrugs* I think these things are just abstract ideas that were created by man to explain what science can't or to help whoever sleep at night. Just a theory though.
Though how do you prove that something doesn't exist or does exist? Perhaps the fact that we put faith into whatever we believe or don't believe. Or something like that. I'm tired and can't put a good answer to it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
