# The Theory of Everything



## Limburglar (Mar 7, 2012)

Hey folks,

    Back in January, I wrote the Theory of Everything (but I named it the Fundamental Theorem of Logic).

    I can put this idea into mathematical or scientific notation, but I wrote it in plain language, so everyone can understand it...if they read it carefully.

    The brats at the Science Forum threw their childish tantrums, but not the loftiest scholar or scientist has been able to dis-prove my theory.

    I hope the people here at the Writing Forum are more mature.  If you don't understand it, that's cool.  I hope it provides some entertainment, at the very least:


"The Fundamental Theorem of Logic"
As every scientist and school child knows from math class,
if you exclude any factor or variable from your calculation,
then your answer will be wrong. Your "answer" may
still be pretty close, but the margin of error implies it is less than 100%.

As humans, we are not omniscient. Since we do not have all the answers, our 
calculations and perceptions are simply reasonable beliefs. "Belief" is another
word for "Faith" and faith is the foundation for "God."

I (the flesh and blood person writing this story) am not omniscient.
What I just said is false, even if it's true.

This is a paradox, but truth is anchored in paradox, and truth is perfection.


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 7, 2012)

'What I just said is false, even if it's true.'

I do not agree.
One can say truths without knowing it is the truth, say, by pure chance. Not having evidence does not make something false, it makes it unlikely to be true.

Also, I don't really see why you brought up God, or posted this in the fantasy/horror section.

I agree, however, on what you seem to be saying about how the ideas and theories we, as a scientific community, generate, are likely to be proven wrong in time, and replaced by a different idea or theory that is closer to the truth.


----------



## Cefor (Mar 7, 2012)

I take issue with your assumption that 'faith' is another word for 'belief' - it is not. They are close in meaning, but they have separate nuances which define them more specifically than "they are the same".

*be·lief *_n.
_*1. *The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: _My belief in you is as strong as ever._
*2. *Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: _His explanation of what happened defies belief._
*3. *Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

*faith* _n.
_*1. *Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
*2. *Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
*3. *Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: _keeping faith with one's supporters._
*4. *often *Faith* _Christianity_ The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
*5. *The body of dogma of a religion: _the Muslim faith._
*6. *A set of principles or beliefs.

These are from thefreedictionary.com.
As you can see, faith is more in line with belief in something _regardless_ of logical proof or evidence. Belief, it is implied, is based more on observations, "truth, actuality, or validity of something".
One can believe in one's faith, which is why they are inexorably linked, but they are two different concepts - which, incidentally, is also why there are two distinct words.
Also, note how the first entry for 'faith' says "confident belief in the truth...", it is adding a qualifier to the concept of belief. Faith is therefore a 'stronger' version of the concept of 'accepting something as true'.

I'm also rather confused as to why this is in the Fiction section... perhaps it would be more suited to the Lounge or Debate section, depending on your wishes... however, this reply is critically assessing the lexical choices you made - whether this is fiction or not.

Cheers,
Cefor


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 7, 2012)

Hey Outiboros,

    The quotation marks bring attention to the Ambiguity of the words contained within the quotes.  If you understand Ambiguity, the you should understand the concept behind the Paradox.

    So basically a supreme God is an Omnipotent being.  According to my Theorem, Omniscience would be a requirement for Omnipotence.  So "God" is simply the Universe in it's totality.

    "Everything"  "God" "Universe" "Allah"

    Take your pick.  These words are all synonymous.

    Since my Theorem claims to be both true (non-fiction) and false (fiction) then it absolutely belongs in BOTH a Mathematics Forum, and a Sci-Fi/Fantasy Forum.

    Anyway, thanks for your feedback.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 7, 2012)

Hello Cefor,

    According to thefreedictionary.com, those words (faith and belief) that we're analyzing, seem to have multiple Definitions.  Since they're not clearly and definitively Defined, that basically makes them non-Defined.

    Joy to the Ambiguity and the Paradox.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 7, 2012)

To all viewers of this thread who are wondering, "Why did this guy post this thread in a ScienceFiction/Fantasy Forum?"

Answer:  "The Fundamental Theorem of Logic" is the 1st part of a 3-part project of mine.  The 2nd part deals with Extrasensory Perception, and the 3rd part deals with Cybernetics.

Depending on the disposition of this Forum, I will release the other two parts.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 7, 2012)

> "Belief" is another word for "Faith" and faith is the foundation for "God."



I have belief in my computer in front of me.  So, according to your theorem, I must start worshipping it like a god.  Sorry, but I think it's proven wrong right there.  

Btw, the universe isn't omniscience beyond the flash of an instant.  The glass of water cant tell you what form it had taken previously, the light shining out from your digital clock can't tell you whether it was made from coal; so there goes the omniscience universe.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 7, 2012)

Hey Rustgold,

    If you've posted 716 posts on this Writing Forum, (and perhaps more time composing written work,) then it would appear that you already and certainly Worship your Computer.  It is the "Stareway to Heaven" after all.  Oh, since it's a Relative god, then your computer is properly classified as a demi-god.

    Here's a mental exercise my dear friend:

x - 2 = 3

Prove me wrong.


----------



## LaughinJim (Mar 8, 2012)

This just looks like a bit of fun, but I’ll bite.

Your ‘theorem’ contains two glaring fallacies among other things that I choose not to go into. 
(1) “...faith is the foundation for God.” No, this is only true if you believe that Faith causes God to exist. If God exists, then those who believe in him have Faith. If God does not exist, no matter how much Faith and no matter how many people have it, they cannot bring him to life. We are God’s creatures, not the other way round. Example: I have never worked for the post office but I have a strong feeling that if I constructed an exact duplicate of a blue USPS mailbox, placed it on the corner and dropped my letters into it, no matter how much faith I have that the mail must go through, it is unlikely that the local postal carrier will turn his key, even if it happened to fit, and deliver my letters. (I would also be likely to get into a great deal of trouble.)
(2) “What I just said is false, even if it is true.” In other words: A is false and A is either true or false. I am sorry, that is a logical impossibility.

I am not surprised that you were summarily dismissed at a Science Forum. It is definitely not a theorem but it certainly belongs in a fiction section. It is unfortunate that it happens to be this one.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 8, 2012)

Hi LaughinJim,

    Your comment amuses me, so I thank you for the chuckle.

    If you can concisely explain this mathematical function:  f(x) = 1/x

    Then I may consider taking you seriously.  If not, you may excuse yourself.

PS
For everyone else, I greatly appreciate mature and intelligent feedback. But you post a negative comment, I may feel inclined to bully you.


----------



## LaughinJim (Mar 8, 2012)

Hellow Limburgher,

I am not a mathematician but I understand this to mean that the function of x is equal to the inverse of x. Any given value plugged in to the function would become its inverse, that value divided into one.

I don't wish to debate you about anything, but your 'theorem' was crying for my two sense.

Peace,

Jim


----------



## riverdog (Mar 8, 2012)

> Hellow Limburgher,
> 
> I am not a mathematician but I understand this to mean that the function of x is equal to the inverse of x. Any given value plugged in to the function would become its inverse, that value divided into one.
> ​



x=1/x True iff  x=1 or -1, False if x= anything else


----------



## rubisco (Mar 8, 2012)

I think it's an interesting mental exercise.  But even if it's true, how we were made is to act upon facts that we believe are true.  Several people would probably have different stories of an auto accident (depending on their perspective of the crash), all their different testimonies can be true due to the different perspectives.  It's nice to point out that we as humans certaintly can't know everything, but on a day to day basis, we have believe (yes, with rock-like faith, which is probably disguised to some people as cold hard evidence) that we know for sure certain things, otherwise we'll all go mad.  Reminds me a lot of Descartes arguments, such as the only thing you might be able to be sure of is that because you think, therefore you exist.  For all you know, once you leave a room, everybody and everything in it ceases to exist because what you perceive in the instant is the only thing you can be sure exists at that time.  Lots of good things to think about.  I think it especially frustrates mathematicians that they can't know anything for certain, for all we know, when you put one apple and another apple together (1+1), 50 new apples miraculously are created in another dimension that we can't sense or detect, so 1+1 could equal 52 (but yes, in our dimension, for all functional purposes 1+1=2, from what we can observe and detect).


----------



## Cefor (Mar 8, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hello Cefor,
> 
> According to thefreedictionary.com, those words (faith and belief) that we're analyzing, seem to have multiple Definitions.  Since they're not clearly and definitively Defined, that basically makes them non-Defined.
> 
> Joy to the Ambiguity and the Paradox.



Haha, that's the point... they have multiple definitions to make it clear and totally defined. If there was one definition for the words, but didn't cover the whole spectrum of how those words can be used, it would fail at being clear.

I'm afraid it looks like you're just being obstinate and troll-like.

Have a nice day.

EDIT: It seems that you are more of a mathematician, not a writer - which brings me to the conclusion that you're simply here to effect confusion and not in any capacity as a creator of fiction. Thus, you are obviously uninterested in the study of lexis and semantics (hence your disregard for the "obscurely defined" words 'belief' and 'faith' and their differences) and I cannot help but wonder why you came to argue over semantics with a lot of people who have made it a matter of course to study such things?


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 8, 2012)

Not worth suggesting corrective... whatevers.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 9, 2012)

Hey rubisco and riverdog,

I appreciate whenever someone takes the time to closely look at an issue, before making a conclusion.

Both of your comments are closely related.  (One is in math notation, and the other is in written language.)

Here's a fun fact:  In Antiquity, philosophers/mathematicians refused to apply the *Square Root* procedure to a negative number.  After awhile, they resolved this issue.

Nowadays, the scientific community refuses to accept the application of *any number* divided by Zero.

Depending on the computer programming language, or the mathematical system being used, various results will emerge when something is divided by Zero.  (If you Wiki "dividing by zero" you'll find an interesting summary.)

With the Fundamental Theorem of Logic, we may now divide by zero.


----------



## Druidus-Logos (Mar 10, 2012)

I don't really like it; I kind of agree with many of the other posters.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 10, 2012)

Druidus-Logos,

I like your name: Logos is one of three modes of persuasion. (The other two are Ethos and Pathos.)

Logos is appeal to Logic.  Pathos is appeal to Emotion.  And Ethos is appeal to Credentials.

I asked a professor once, "Is it the responsibility of the Poet to make himself understood?  Or is it the responsibility of the Audience to understand the Poem?"

(As fellow writers, how often have you wrote something, that your readers just "didn't get it?")

Anyway, if I claim to be a Poet, then it's my responsibility to successful present my Poem to the Audience.  If not, then I will be speaking to myself, and only myself.

I've stumbled across this informatin contained within the Fundamental Theorem of Logic...and now I see that the Majority is hypnotized by a fallacy.  I would like to convince everyone NOT to plunge down the abyss, but the choice will ultimately be theirs.  However, I refuse to follow the crowd, if the crowd is misguided.


----------



## tputnik (Mar 10, 2012)

Wow..... Just... Wow.


----------



## LaughinJim (Mar 11, 2012)

Is anyone going to put a stop to this? This entire absurd thread is a waste of precious bandwidth.

"Ethos is an appeal to credentials?!?!"

Limburgher what in the hell are you talking about. Jeepers.


----------



## isaiah (Mar 11, 2012)

I'm not sure if this is insanity or a joke. The ambiguity of all of your claims/statements so far, Limburglar, surpasses any level of misdirection and nonsense I've ever seen. If you truly are convinced of what you're saying to be true, then you might be submitting to some intensely strange doctrines. I do believe to some extent that "all things are possible", but you are being completely illogical, while trying to use logic in proving your theorem. So far you've only made mostly irrelevant responses to anyone's objection to your theorem. If you don't mind, would you explain yourself a bit better?


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 11, 2012)

Hi LaughinJim,

If you don't understand my Theorem, that's cool.

Your deficiency is forgiven, but your rudeness is unproductive and dissatisfactory.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 11, 2012)

Hey isaiah,

I would be happy to explain any part of my theorem.  Please tell me which part seems unclear.


----------



## isaiah (Mar 11, 2012)

Limburglar

First of all, what exactly is your theorem? Let us clearly know that before we move on. Secondly, you said you can put it into mathematical or scientific notation; I would also like to see that. In your original post, there were several things you spoke of, but I'm not sure which part of this is your theorem.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 11, 2012)

To basically summarize my Theorem:

The only Proof, is that there is no Proof.  (This is a paradox)

The Scientific Community relies upon the notions of "proof and evidence."   Since these things are imaginary, then the Scientific Community is in NO position to impose their doctrine upon others.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 11, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hi LaughinJim,
> Your deficiency is forgiven, but your rudeness is unproductive and dissatisfactory.




Oh dear dear, I had to see this thread again.  I'm going to quote your words.




> and now I see that the Majority is hypnotized by a fallacy. I would like to convince everyone NOT to plunge down the abyss, but the choice will ultimately be theirs.
> 
> If you can concisely explain this mathematical function: f(x) = 1/x
> Then I may consider taking you seriously. If not, you may excuse yourself.
> ...



So those who don't jump obediently in line with you are 'hypnotised' creatures and those who dare to express a view contrary to your thinking are deficient creatures and are deserving of bullying?

Me thinks there's a differing viewpoint on what constitutes rudeness.  Have a good life.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 11, 2012)

@ Rustgold

It seems that your feelings have been hurt, and now your judgement is muddled.

Would you like to address a particular aspect of the Theorem, or do you just require a Hug?


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 11, 2012)

And how would one falsify this theorem? The theorem itself is that there is no proof, and therefore, proof for the theorem is impossible to exist.

You basically just say a big 'NO' to the scientific community and their laws and rules that took thousands of years to develop. I don't even see why you'd want to do that.

Besides, burden of proof is on you, and since evidence for your theorem just can't exist, I suggest we move on.


----------



## Meliha (Mar 11, 2012)

Going back to the begining... Oh dear! There isn't much I could say - you had an idea, you stated it in shortest possible way, other's (of course) disapproved since you didn't say exactly what you mean, and you do not mean the commonly accepted meanings, so to be honest I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to have an idea, you think its big; however, if you trully believe that, you need to apply much more effot into projecting it. Your idea is clear in your mind, a writer needs to know how to make it clear for readers as well. 

As for others who've left comments - this thread doesn't eactly read like Plato's Republic in terms of dialogue, discussion, exchange of ideas, presentation of ideas etc. Let's think it through!


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 11, 2012)

Hey Outiboros,

    I'm glad you're back.  After dealing with the science and math types, I've learned that hostility only yields more hostility.

    Science has given us a lot of nice things like computers, cars, medicine, etc.  However there's something eerie about all this...

We developed *And Used* nuclear weaponry, before we solved the world's Hunger.

We sent astronauts to the Moon, before we solved racism and prejudice.

We made Smart Phones and super computers, before we solved Global Warming.

So ask yourself this question:  Does science and technology Really have the answers that we need?


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 11, 2012)

Yes. It does. Don't hate scissors because you've cut your fingers off. 

Besides, 'science' as you use it isn't even a thing. I study biology, for example. Should I question my data because the atomic bomb was made by 'scientists'? Should I disregard the basic rules of science because the men and women who make iPads are being exploited?

I'd rather stick to the rules of science, and your theorem is unfalsifiable, petitio principii, and therefore a logical fallacy.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 11, 2012)

I see where your heart lies.

If you insist-on clinging to "nuclear weaponry" and intolerance, then I hope your Destruction is disguised in happiness.


----------



## Meliha (Mar 11, 2012)

Limburglar, nicely said  ... Though, to be honest, scientists are much like parts of the machine we call our society which is largely affected by other systems, in my opinion, economic. Capitalism teaches us that we are selfish and interested only in self gain - not exactly untrue, but not exactly the absolute truth. However, if you are taught this from the day you are conceived, you will believe it; profit will be your only aim, you will be your only aim, blind to effects others have on you and you have on others until it is too late... Well, you'll have a chance to read more about this (should you wish of course) in my soon-to-be-out book Just Another Life.


----------



## Cefor (Mar 11, 2012)

I love how you ignored my post, Limburglar, since you had no way of countering what I said.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 11, 2012)

Hey Cefor,

I ignored your comment because it was of limited value.

Now go to Wikipedia or wherever, and find the definitions for Amelioration and Pejoration.

Come back and tell me what those words have to do with your recent comment.


----------



## isaiah (Mar 12, 2012)

Limburglar, what exactly are you trying to gain here? This isn't even the proper place for this kind of discussion. Just because you were dismissed from a science forum does not mean this is the proper place to set up your soap box. Furthermore, you ignored my request to see this theorem in mathematical terms and/or scientific notation. Why? 

At this point, you just seem to be looking for arguments. I found your last response to Outiboros unrelated to his post. You simply accused him of "clinging to "nuclear weaponry" and intolerance", which really had nothing to do with his post at all.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 12, 2012)

Hey isaiah,

Mathematical notation would require a few symbols to properly demonstrate, and I do not have the computer savvy to post these equations on this forum.

Besides, if you don't get it in plain language, why would you assume to understand it in scientific notation?


----------



## isaiah (Mar 12, 2012)

Do you have a camera? If so, take a picture of your written formula or theorem, and upload it to an ordinary image hosting website and post it here. If that's too much trouble, well...

And you are assuming I don't understand it. I'm just wanting you to fulfill your promise of putting this in mathematical terms like you said you could in your first post. What are you really trying to prove? That science is not always right? Of course not. It is a gradual learning process that takes centuries. And things have to be learned through trial and error. Nothing in science comes easy. 

It used to be a commonly accepted idea that you could bleed out an infection from an individual. However, in modern society we know this not to be true. Also, before the British surgeon, Joseph Lister, discovered that bacteria caused patients to get infections and that a method of sterilizing surgical instruments was needed, many patients died because of doctors' ignorance. History is punctuated frequently with scientific ignorance that often times can lead to harm. However, we learn from these mistakes.

Your paradoxical theorem is self-fulfilling and illogical. But, that is your point is it not? That the illogical paradox proves everything (or nothing?). If your theorem is true, please try to state it in another way that is more sensible. If you are saying that the only thing one can be certain of is his own existence/consciousness, then that does not mean that is the only existence. Uncertainty does not negate the possibility of other alternatives. It just means they are unknown.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 12, 2012)

Hey isaiah,

I'm assuming you don't understand my theorem, because you disagree with me.

Instead of butting-heads, can you address a specific part of my theorem that seems unclear?

I would be happy to explain any part of it.


----------



## Meliha (Mar 12, 2012)

Limburglar - the whole thing seems unclear, not because it's complex but because you haven't siad anything - this is a writing forum, this is where we write. If your computer isn't able to deliver the math, maybe you could write it and take a few photos and post those?

As you can see, I'm not here to be on anybody's side, I'm judging each post individualy; however, if you want your theory to be even considered I believe you'll have to do more than you've done. Do you want people to take you seriously or not? Are you prepared to fight for your ideas or not? This thread is not enough regardless of the title, which, by the way, is misleading  - theory of everything in 100-200 words


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 12, 2012)

Hey Meliha,

    I appreciate your open and objective mind.

    Here's an oddity:

    I first posted my complete project (Logic and Cybernetics) on 6 Feb 2012 in a different Forum.  This thread has received about 600 views, but only one person beside myself has responded.  If I proposed something preposterous and illogical, then WHY wouldn't someone respond?


----------



## felix (Mar 12, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> Back in January, I wrote the Theory of Everything (but I named it the Fundamental Theorem of Logic).
> 
> ...



I have no argument to make for this, as these words alone seem not to say anything much at all. You seem to have the philosophical 'punch lines' without the actual setup, the meat of meaning. But I have a few things to say.

1. I'd personally be very interested in seeing your equations, perhaps if you could upload a few pictures as somebody said, or post a link to a word document or something similar. 
2. You seem very much to consider any counterargument to be the result of somebody either being wrong or not understanding your work, which is a fundamental flaw. If you assume that you couldn't possibly be wrong, then how could you ever know if what you've written is gibberish, even if it isn't? 
3. Calculations are not based on beliefs, they are based on empirical observations. The only 'belief' involved is the assumption that the universe will continue to behave as it has done with each consecutive unit of time. 
4. This 'theory' isn't a theory. It doesn't state anything. Nothing can be drawn from it. They are, in fact, just words. Perhaps the mathematics makes it more clear, but in word form, no, it's insufficient. This may be just that; Relativity isn't all that clear without the equations in front of you, but until then, yes, they're just words.


----------



## LaughinJim (Mar 12, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> If you don't understand my Theorem, that's cool.
> 
> Your deficiency is forgiven, but your rudeness is unproductive and dissatisfactory.


These may be good points for you

My problem that caused you to hurl your stone was not with your theorem this time (which may or may not have problems) but rather with your statement that ‘ethos’ was an appeal to credentials. Greek may be Greek to me but I do own several dictionaries, all of which agree that ‘ethos’ means the customs and practice of the times or ‘zeitgeist,’ if that helps you

I might add that your theorem is a simulacrum of an argument where no truth, proof or logic exists, but my deficiency may not be a deficiency at all. Thanks a whole lot for caring.

The rhetorical tidbit that you were so magnanimously trying to teach us of, actually means an appeal to common belief. Or in littler words ‘most people hold that x is true.” This is the weakest of those persuasive appeals of rhetoric, as isaiah said about the bloodletting, it doesn’t always work. But fear not, your slain are not slain by the sword nor killed in battle . Whatever reference material you may have dredged up your obvious error should be discarded


----------



## Meliha (Mar 12, 2012)

> If I proposed something preposterous and illogical, then WHY wouldn't someone respond?



You didn't propose anything preposterous or illogical, or logical for that matter. You've stated an idea, but without evidence of proof it is nothing more than your idea; could be right, could be wrong, could be new, could be worn out, could be anything in the world. You have a foundation, not a building, you have a seed not a plant - a seed may or may not turn into something more, and what it will turn into is an even bigger question... For many seeds look the same  - OK, I'm being a writer there, but I believe I have a thought connected to the topic and I could probably go on and on.


----------



## isaiah (Mar 12, 2012)

Limburglar

Still, you have yet to address anything I have said, and only repeat yourself with "which part seems unclear? I'd be happy to explain any part". You still have not agreed to even *try* to write out your theorem, thus it seems you are avoiding this issue. I addressed several things, and you did not answer any of it. I have not particularly addressed one specific part of your theorem yet because, as it stands, your theorem is simply that "the only proof is that there is no proof". That is a win-win situation for you and anyone who opposes it. It's like saying, I'm right because I'm wrong. Now, would you please try to actually address something I've said.


----------



## Cefor (Mar 12, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hey Cefor,
> 
> I ignored your comment because it was of limited value.
> 
> ...



Amelioration - This is the process by which a word takes on a different, more positive, meaning than it had previously, thereby gaining status. For example, 'pretty', once meant 'sly', now it means 'attractive'; or, 'priest', once meant 'old man', now it means 'church leader'.

Pejoration - This is the process where a word takes on a different, more negative meaning than it had previously, so losing status. For example, 'notorious', was 'widely known', now 'infamous'; 'idiot', was 'private citizen', now ' someone being stupid'.

These two terms apply to semantic change. I shall now see what you were trying to say regarding my comment.



			
				Cefor said:
			
		

> "I love how you ignored my post, Limburglar, since you had no way of countering what I said."




I suppose the main word subject to semantic change here is the word 'love'. There's no physical love of the action you committed, or didn't as the case stands. However, 'love' has weakened, in the same way that 'awesome' has, and is now used as a form of showing how delighted one can be with a particular concept or action or person, etc. 

Nothing else in that post could have been the culprit of your accusations, whatever those may be... I'm fishing here, as you've not informed me of what I am supposed to be looking for.

But, by chance, I'll reference that post of yours to my other one, which you ignored.



			
				Cefor said:
			
		

> Haha, that's the point... they have multiple definitions to make it clear and totally defined. If there was one definition for the words, but didn't cover the whole spectrum of how those words can be used, it would fail at being clear.
> 
> I'm afraid it looks like you're just being obstinate and troll-like.
> 
> ...



Let me see...
Oh, I think I understand. You were trying to catch me out, by referring to two subjects of semantics which not many of your average dabbler in writing may have come across before. It's a clever tactic, unfortunately for you, my friend, I actually _do _study this and wasn't using long words to try and confuse people out of the thread so that you win your non-existing argument.

Is there any chance what-so-ever that you're going to actually comply to what everyone demands -- i.e. to see more proof of your 'theory'? Perhaps you'd like to respond to my comment, now that you realise I wasn't talking out of my bottom and they were serious topics of discussion?

The burden of proof is on you, not us.

"Oh, you can't understand the obfuscating sentences I use? You must be stupid." <-- This is not the way to win arguments.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 12, 2012)

Hey folks,

I'm busy right now, but I'll try to get on the forum later and respond to your posts.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 12, 2012)

Hey isaiah,

Your attempt to *induce* me to provide the theorem in mathematical notation is charming.  These tactics will be mostly ineffective.

(Do you really believe that I would claim the "Theory of Everything" without having my bags packed and my guns loaded?)

First off, The Universe is both * In-finite * and * Un-de-finite *

Second off, mathematics is a bounded system. ( * De-finite * systems are artificially created to make practical Sense of things.)

Sense you're so enamored with Equations, I'll throw a Red Herring at you to snack on:

3 = 5

Prove me wrong.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 12, 2012)

Hey Cefor,

    I've identified you as a smart person, so I knew that you would appreciate those words (Amelioration and Pejoration).

    Now I'll demonstrate the connection between those words and your comment:

    Many Words have mutiple "definitions."  Frozen in a moment in time, the same word can have many different meanings and effects, depending on how they are used, and how they are interpreted.

    To compound the issue of *non-defined-ness*  Words are constantly subject to change over long periods of time (with Amelioration and Pejoration being just to such examples).

In effect, Change is Constant. (This is a paradox of course.)


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 12, 2012)

Hey LaughinJim,

I don't understand your last post, but you seem pretty cool.


----------



## isaiah (Mar 12, 2012)

Limburglar

Prove you wrong? First of all, you have still avoided mathematics in relationship to your almighty theorem. Why did you even bother to mention this in your first post if you cannot do so? Back on the proving you wrong; 3 ≠ 5. Does that count? You obviously have no faith in mathematics, yet you use it to try and throw people off. You're really asking someone to disprove 3 = 5?! Also, undefinite is not a word, so what did you mean by that?


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 13, 2012)

Hey isaiah,

    According to the bounded and rigid system of mathematics, then 3 ≠ 5.

    However, if you're NOT limited to a bounded system, you could say, "3 five-pound weights Equals 5 three-pound weights."

    In this example, then indeed 3 = 5.

    So what I'm trying to say is:  Both are right, and both are wrong.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 13, 2012)

Oh one more thing,

5 =5

And...

My Fundamental Theoreom of Logic is right, sooooo:

Prove me wrong.


----------



## Outiboros (Mar 13, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hey isaiah,
> 
> According to the bounded and rigid system of mathematics, then 3 ≠ 5.
> 
> ...


Not quite. Both can be wrong and can be right, according to circumstances. That's not the same as 'both are wrong and right'.

Also, to your second post - you reverse burden of proof. Why?


----------



## Meliha (Mar 13, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hey isaiah,
> 
> According to the bounded and rigid system of mathematics, then 3 ≠ 5.
> 
> ...



Alright, let's try this: Language: 'three equals five' vs 'three five-pound weights equals five three-pound weights' - these two sentences have a completely different meaning - do I need to prove it? So, trying to justfy one by using the other is invalid. 

Mathematically: 3(x)=5(y) - that's what you second sentace should be... You want to prove 3=5, but its not quite so simple and in the end (as far as I know) the bext of mathematicians have failed to prove this as true; hence, it is in fact not true. 

The univese: I'm not going to go into out of space, let's stick with our world and if we handle that, we'll move on. I could argue that this world is created with a set of rules and prove it with 'consequences' - too long, but see if you can disagree --- like 'someone'  smart said (not quoting) - only an idiot would do same thing over and expect different results. So, if there are constant rules, we can call them 'Laws of Nature', can we ever be unbounded, or is everything bound to this law? And if it is, what is the point of stepping out of a Law that governs our lives? Disorder?

Let me ask you this: Do you think time exists? Or perhaps time is only a measure - like inches - inches don't exist, but other things exist in terms of inches. So, does time exist as seperate entity? Or is that another bound of the Law of Nature?


----------



## helium (Mar 13, 2012)

You seem to have this perception that truth is perfection, flawless. Yet you say paradox is truth, when it is meant to contradict truth. This is not perfection, quite the opposite. Perfection seems to be some kind of self hate in your own mind. As I dissect your posts agaisnt the commentors arguments, you are creating a truth to your own being, to be always right. Ad hominem at its most desperate. As you come to understand the nature of being wrong, you will find your answer. But for now please go on, as you seem well grounded in your own ego.


----------



## LaughinJim (Mar 13, 2012)

Slow down Meliha,

Give Limburgher a couple of weeks to comprehend that bit.


----------



## SeaBee1 (Mar 13, 2012)

OK everybody, Limburgler is OBVIOUSLY right and everyone else is wrong.... this is not the droid you are looking for... move along citizens.... move along... nothing to see here.... move along....


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 13, 2012)

Hey folks,

My "dream job" is to teach Sign Language to monkeys.  However, I've found that monkeys are insolent and easily distracted.

Outiboros, Cefor, and Meliha are cool.  SeaBee1 isn't cool at all.  LaughinJim isn't cool, but I still like him anyway.

I'm finished with this forum.

Farewell.


----------



## isaiah (Mar 13, 2012)

Can't say I'm sad to see you go.


----------



## SeaBee1 (Mar 13, 2012)

Not cool at all??? Not even a little bit???

I feel honored...


----------



## Cefor (Mar 13, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hey Cefor,
> 
> I've identified you as a smart person, so I knew that you would appreciate those words (Amelioration and Pejoration).
> 
> ...



Limburglar,
Yes, I agree that language is in always undergoing some form of change... it always has and always will do as our civilisation grows... however the same cannot be said of the concepts underlying your argument. The concept itself of faith in something is the same, subject to relative meaning to individuals perhaps, but inherently the same. You cannot say that because we do not define a word completely we can then change the meaning arbitrarily.

Because the world and the Church (in particular) believed we were at the centre of the universe and the sun and stars revolved around us, did that make it true? The same thing goes for abstract nouns and the concepts they describe.

Also, I would argue against your last statement:


> In effect, change is constant. (This is a paradox of course.)"


It's quite logical to assume that some change is constant. 'Constant' refers to the temporal sense of the noun 'Change'. It merely states that the process of change is occurring constantly, in effect "always changing". 'Always changing' is not a paradox. Our bodies undergo constant change. Skin is constantly renewed. Cells die and are created constantly within your body. Your blood is constantly moving and flowing through veins and arteries, carrying oxygen from your lungs to your organs - the haemoglobin working their little arses off to keep you alive. Indeed, if you were to ever stop these processes in your body (in effect, ceasing the constant nature of that 'change') you would surely die.

I'm sorry to read that you find yourself unable to continue this argument... but if you must go, then adíos señor, I wish you well in your travels.


----------



## lowprofile300 (Mar 22, 2012)

It's all a joke, lol. I spent the past few minutes reading the first 2 pages and I felt like I was at the comedy store Limburglar, are you serious? Your words remind me of the computer program called The Architect that Noe confronted in the movie, "The Matrix". That program had an answer for everything and I quote, "I am the Architect. I created the Matrix. I've been waiting for you. You have many questions, and although the process has altered your consciousness, you remain irrevocably human. Ergo, some of my answers you will understand, and some of them you will not. Concordantly, while your first question may be the most pertinent, you may or may not realize it is also the most irrelevant". 

 Well, let me go back to reading the last 3 pages, I can use a good laugh after a hard days work.


----------



## Limburglar (Mar 22, 2012)

Hey lowlifeprofile300,

Your signature reads:  "The only constant in life is change."  This statement is a Paradox, and I approve of this logic.

My first impression of you, was that you were a gibbering idiot...but it would seem you have a flicker of intelligence.

Congratulations Earthworm Jim.


----------



## Limburglar (Apr 22, 2012)

Meliha was banned?  It's not surprising that one of the few enlightened people out there got censored...


----------



## Camden (Apr 22, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> Back in January, I wrote the Theory of Everything (but I named it the Fundamental Theorem of Logic).
> 
> ...



Theorems require deduction.  This is mostly assumption.  You haven't deduced a string of logic to make your point.
Example: "As humans, we are not omniscient.  Since we do not have all the answers, our calculations and perceptions are simply reasonable beliefs."You didn't prove humans are not omniscient, you simply said it.  Furthermore, you make the assumption that not having all the answers means you don't have any of the answers.  Because we are not omniscient, we can't know anything, if we can't know anything we must know nothing.  This is a fallacious statement because it's a non sequitur.  Your attempt at deduction is lost, and the whole thing is ruined.​Example: "I am not omniscient.  What I just said is false, even if it's true."  The fallacy and truth within the statement is incongruent, and as such it is not a paradox.


----------



## Limburglar (Apr 22, 2012)

Hey Camden,

    Uh-oh, you're relying on the p-word. (proof)

    If you expect to sharpshoot my theorem, you must first understand it.

    It's the Fundamental Theorem of _Logic _not proof.

    Thanks for responding though.


----------



## Camden (Apr 22, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hey Camden,
> 
> Uh-oh, you're relying on the p-word. (proof)
> 
> ...



Proof, as in a philosophical proof which is basically the same thing as a Mathematical Theorem requires proof.  Proof does not mean empirical, as it sounds like your assuming again, statements can also be proven through deduction.  Deduction is the center-piece to a theorem or a proof.

If any part of your deduction is found to be fallacious, it's no longer logical and as such is no longer a proof or a theorem.  But, instead shown to be what it really is - a Gary Busey rant.

I explained to you which parts of your deduction, even though there are others, are wrong - so either fix them or don't.  But, either way if  you think this is the end all be all of things, submit it to an academic journal - make sure to post their responses; that should be a fun read.


----------



## Limburglar (Apr 22, 2012)

Hey Camden,

    Which (specific) part seems illogical?

    Arguing with me doesn't benefit either one of us.

    How about you fetch one of your super smart and distinguished professors at UT Austin, and see if they can grasp my Theorem.

    (I'm tired of dealing with amateurs.)


----------



## Camden (Apr 22, 2012)

Limburglar, if you are actually interested in feedback and not just looking for praise of your intellect, then go back and read my initial post - the specifics are in there.  

If in the future, if you attempt another academic venture, please try to not attack everyone who gives feedback nor lace your remakes with hostility.  It tends to take away from any merit your attempt may have.


----------



## Limburglar (Apr 22, 2012)

You're right Camden.

My character is flawed and my tactics are wrong...

but my Theorem is right.

(There's no need for me to be a troll.)


----------



## Camden (Apr 22, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> You're right Camden.
> 
> My character is flawed and my tactics are wrong...
> 
> ...



Then submit it to an academic journal.  If you want to pave the way in mathematics or philosophy, you have to be peer reviewed.


----------



## Limburglar (Apr 22, 2012)

Hey Camden,

    I would like my idea to be evaluated...

    Unfortunately, the information contained within my theorem conflicts with the prevailing system of academics (the scientifc method, proof, measurement etc etc).

    My personal Catch-22 is that the people who are in a position to recognize and accept my idea, are also the same people who will be most resistant to it.  After all, why would they yield their authority?

    Anyway, I work in a warehouse as a manual laborer.  Perhaps I should submit my theorem to my peers at work, for peer review.  Bahahaha!


----------



## Camden (Apr 22, 2012)

Limburglar said:


> Hey Camden,
> 
> I would like my idea to be evaluated...
> 
> ...



Proof does not have to be empirical.  I can prove God exists if I'm able to write a logical deductions which no one else can refute.  It doesn't mean I have to have a photo of God, kickin it on a beach.  However, if my deduction has a flaw in it, then it's no longer logical and as such can not be proof.

If you want to call it a Theorem, then it has to be logic based on deduction.  If any part of your Theorem has a logical flaw in it, then it's no longer a logical deduction and thus no longer a Theorem.  

I hope you understand that stating your Theorem is illogical, does not mean the idea is wrong, it simply means the way it's being presented is fallacious.

Either way, I hope you continue to refine your Theorem and work on others.


----------



## Limburglar (Apr 22, 2012)

Hey Camden,

    You make some good points.

    I guess I titled it "Fundamental Theorem of Logic" since there was no such thing yet, that I was aware of.  I looked around the Internet and such, but I couldn't find this theorem (or something like it).

    I do think it's odd that nobody has formally released something that should be the heart of reason and deduction...

    Back in January and early February, I spent (wasted) $105 on copyrights, thinking that this piece of trash called a theorem would be worth something.  You want it?  It's yours for $5 plus shipping and handling.

    Do you know, that when I finished my theorem my hands were shaking so much, took me like 4 or 5 minutes to send a 3 word text message to a friend.

    lol

    What a lame fuck-around this has been.


----------



## Camden (Apr 22, 2012)

Limburglar,
I used to work manual labor too.  I used to work night shifts in a warehouse, day shifts doing excavation.  I sought knowledge beyond my circumstances. I also remember very well the feeling I had when I came up with my first deductive argument, very similar to the one you described.  

Understand, that you are not what you do, you are what you think.  Do not think that by having a flaw found in your logic, it means you aren't intelligent and if you aren't intelligent then you're only a manual laborer.  Failure is a part of success, and only a temporary set back. 

You're an intelligent guy, and I sincerely hope you do keep writing down your thoughts on math and natural science and refining them.

I don't know how old you are or what your circumstance is, but if you have the opportunity to take a few classes at a local community college, do so.  Intro to Philosophy and English 1 would be a fantastic starting point.  I know, I know, it's the system and the systems a money grubbing whore.  But!  It can be a place where you can shape your mind, challenge others, and be challenged by others.

Good luck!


----------



## Limburglar (Apr 22, 2012)

Both your analysis and your encouragement have helped.

Thanks for this.


----------



## lowprofile300 (Apr 23, 2012)

Camden said:


> Limburglar,
> I used to work manual labor too. I used to work night shifts in a warehouse, day shifts doing excavation. I sought knowledge beyond my circumstances. I also remember very well the feeling I had when I came up with my first deductive argument, very similar to the one you described.
> 
> Understand, that you are not what you do, you are what you think. Do not think that by having a flaw found in your logic, it means you aren't intelligent and if you aren't intelligent then you're only a manual laborer. Failure is a part of success, and only a temporary set back.
> ...



Well done Camden, you single handedly managed to to do what all of us here have tried, but failed to do; and that is, to have a civil conversation with Limburglar.
After my last comment, I realized it was pointless to continue my conversation with Limburglar, as I was met with a barrage of insults.
Again, bravo!


----------



## Limburglar (Apr 23, 2012)

Yes, Camden demonstrated that things are (usually) better when "cooler heads prevail"

I suppose I get defensive because I see MANY positive things that are derived from the FTL.

I momentarily doubted my theorem yesterday, but I re-evaluated it, and I still cannot find an error in the logical sequence.

If you all are interested, I'll show the first paragraph in math notation:

The sum of A, B, and C equal D.

A=2, B=3, and C= 0.000001

So,

A + B + C = 5.000001

and

A + B = 5

These sums are Very close in value, but *A + B* does not correctly define the value of D.

When you omit something from your calculation, then your answer will be wrong, even if it's very close in value.


----------

