Growing pains

[T-Bone]

 

[So_crates]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Can you find evidence to the contrary?  In other words, what great profound proofs do you know of?

 

1 hour ago, Mike said:

I think it would be a burden for any of us to come up with any tight proof for anything significant.  My aim is not to prove this, but to announce it as my expectation.

Oh, Okay. Saint Vic is an agent of the devil and PLAF is his vehicle to spread the devils lies.

Since this is a profound truth, and my expectation, you'll understand if I don't offer any proof, as by your reasoning I don't have to.

Quote

  Anyone who is able to prove my hunch wrong is invited. I like learning.

Don't you mean you like to claim you like learning. These past couple of threads have offered you a banquet of learning to feast on. What have you done?

Made excuses, offered cornball reasons, evaded, dodged questions, given dishonest answers...

Edited February 16, 2018 by So_crates

[Mike]

2 hours ago, waysider said:

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

I already answered this, but I can see it's not understood by some.

Why is everything a proof?  And how do you prove a negative.

Statement: It has been my experience that hardly any tight proofs of profound ideas exist. Period. QED That is my experience. It is proved. I'm a witness to my own experience.

Now, without any proofs whatsoever, I throw out the challenge to produce one tight proof of a profound idea. I would kinda like my hunch to be proved wrong.

I've thrown this out now about 3 times and on the proof thread I did another 3 times. No takers. Do I win this proof by default?

Edited February 16, 2018 by Mike

[Mike]

Hire is one tight proof of a profound idea.....Godel's Theorem.

However, this profound idea is in the trivial arena of mathematics, not life, love and mind.

Edited February 16, 2018 by Mike

[So_crates]

24 minutes ago, Mike said:

I already answered this, but I can see it's not understood by some.

Why is everything a proof?  And how do you prove a negative.

Statement: It has been my experience that hardly any tight proofs of profound ideas exist. Period. QED That is my experience. It is proved. I'm a witness to my own experience.

 

34 minutes ago, So_crates said:

 

Oh, Okay. Saint Vic is an agent of the devil and PLAF is his vehicle to spread the devils lies.

Since this is a profound truth, and my expectation, you'll understand if I don't offer any proof, as by your reasoning I don't have to.

 

Edited February 16, 2018 by So_crates

[Rocky]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

Here's an example of missing or forgotten data. When I found VPW's very last teaching I did informal polls on who had heard of this last teaching versus who thought "The Hope" was his last teaching.

I fail to see how that is relevant to anything.

[Rocky]

3 hours ago, Mike said:

 

Can you find evidence to the contrary?  In other words, what great profound proofs do you know of?

I think it's pretty neat that Quantum Mechanics can be proved by how well it explains the Hydrogen atom. But the Hydrogen atom is pretty trivial.

 

Really?  The hydrogen atom is tangible and inherent (and profound) in life as we know it. Declaring it to be trivial is a gross misstatement of biological and chemical reality.

The most abundant element in the universe, hydrogen is also a promising source of "clean" fuel on Earth.

Named after the Greek words hydro for "water" and genes for "forming," hydrogen makes up more than 90 percent of all of the atoms, which equals three quarters of the mass of the universe, according to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Hydrogen is essential for life, and it is present in nearly all the molecules in living things, according to the Royal Society of Chemistry. The element also occurs in the stars and powers the universe through the proton-proton reaction and carbon-nitrogen cycle. Stellar hydrogen fusion processes release huge amounts of energy as they combine hydrogen atoms to form helium, according to Los Alamos.

Perhaps this is a tangent, but to cite the hydrogen atom as trivial seems to display a profound lack of understanding of the world (and life) around you.

[Twinky]

Good, concise, example of something very complex, Rocky (or trivial, Mike).

Mike, could you have a go at presenting your "thesis" in such concise terminology?  It's only about half a dozen lines.  Shouldn't be too difficult for such a knowledgeable Professor of PFAL such as yourself.

[Rocky]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

I think it would be a burden for any of us to come up with any tight proof for anything significant.  My aim is not to prove this, but to announce it as my expectation.  Anyone who is able to prove my hunch wrong is invited. I like learning.

"I like learning," in this statement IS evasion. The context is discussion, debate. If you really did like to learn, learn about how to productively conduct yourself in discussions and debates.

Your understood expectation is to try to get people to see your side of things. You're not getting the job done. You consistently put more energy and effort into avoiding getting the job done... at least as it pertains to what you post at GSC.

[waysider]

7 hours ago, Mike said:

I already answered this, but I can see it's not understood by some.

Why is everything a proof?  And how do you prove a negative.

Statement: It has been my experience that hardly any tight proofs of profound ideas exist. Period. QED That is my experience. It is proved. I'm a witness to my own experience.

Now, without any proofs whatsoever, I throw out the challenge to produce one tight proof of a profound idea. I would kinda like my hunch to be proved wrong.

I've thrown this out now about 3 times and on the proof thread I did another 3 times. No takers. Do I win this proof by default?

No. You simply sidestepped your responsibility to provide proof of your claim.  The ball is still in your court.

[Mike]

11 hours ago, waysider said:

No. You simply sidestepped your responsibility to provide proof of your claim.  The ball is still in your court.

But wouldn't a proof

of the impossibility of proving profound things

be a profound thing proved itself?

[So_crates]

13 minutes ago, Mike said:

But wouldn't a proof

of the impossibility of proving profound things

be a profound thing proved itself?

Like a rationalization

for a rationalization

is a rationalization itself?

 

19 hours ago, Mike said:

Hire is one tight proof of a profound idea.....Godel's Theorem.

However, this profound idea is in the trivial arena of mathematics, not life, love and mind.

Even Godel's Theorem had to be proven

Paragraph Two of this article starts the proof

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-is-godels-theorem/

Edited February 17, 2018 by So_crates

[T-Bone]

19 hours ago, Rocky said:

"I like learning," in this statement IS evasion. The context is discussion, debate. If you really did like to learn, learn about how to productively conduct yourself in discussions and debates.

Your understood expectation is to try to get people to see your side of things. You're not getting the job done. You consistently put more energy and effort into avoiding getting the job done... at least as it pertains to what you post at GSC.

I agree - when someone says they “like learning “ but continues to avoid direct questions about their ideas, thesis, or whatever it is that they keep harping about ...and besides that, if the person also comes across as convinced they are so right - I tend to think it’s all a pretense...or decoy to entice other posters into some convoluted mess of logical fallacies.

 

On a separate thought now...I found an interesting link on Definitions of learning

[waysider]

31 minutes ago, Mike said:

But wouldn't a proof

of the impossibility of proving profound things

be a profound thing proved itself?

Are you your own grandpa now?

Yeah, I can answer a question with a question, too. How about that?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now back to the point.

You made this claim.

"...very few profound, significant thing can ever be proved. Most proofs are of small and/or relatively insignificant things."

Now use some sound logic to demonstrate its accuracy. Otherwise, you're simply showing me you lack the necessary skills to present a valid argument.

 

edit. By the way, it's not a *thesis*. It's an opinion. 

Edited February 17, 2018 by waysider

[OldSkool]

21 hours ago, Mike said:

But wouldn't a proof

of the impossibility of proving profound things

be a profound thing proved itself?

Circular reasoning works because it works

[T-Bone]

Prove: demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument.

 wierwille - known as a man of god by TWI followers - was a hypocrite, liar and thief who said he stood for the accuracy and integrity of “the word”. 

 Proof? Evidence and arguments that is so?

Accounts of his licentious behavior as told by former way corps and noting specific sources that he plagiarized.

that is my “thesis” and has yet to be proven wrong 

Edited February 18, 2018 by T-Bone
Triple-dawg- dare-yah

[chockfull]

On 2/16/2018 at 12:40 PM, Mike said:

I was referring just now to polls I did before coming here. These were all conducted individually on phone, in person, or e-mail. That was for one piece of data. It was an example of missed or forgotten data that I wanted to make known. 

When I came here in 2002 I was not able to count the numbers, but it was obvious that VPW's last teaching and many other pieces of data were missing in many minds.

Individual polls.  In person, phone, email.    And you found many who did not remember nor care about VPW's last teaching.  Then because of this, you formulated a thesis.  This thesis is along the lines of the "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" scam fronted in PFAL.  

In logic, this is called a flawed major premise.

In truth, many did not remember nor care about VPW's last teaching mainly because his life and the fruit of it negated the teaching.

[chockfull]

On 2/16/2018 at 2:32 PM, Mike said:

Hire is one tight proof of a profound idea.....Godel's Theorem.

However, this profound idea is in the trivial arena of mathematics, not life, love and mind.

I'm sorry - what are you claiming here about Godel?  And what exactly is trivial about mathematics?  I am failing to see a "tight proof".

 

[So_crates]

On 2/16/2018 at 4:27 PM, Mike said:

Why is everything a proof?  And how do you prove a negative.

While the can't prove a negative myth gives fuel to the reason for our legal system, it isn't true--you can prove a negative.

How?

Well, you can prove you didn't commit a crime by proving you were somewhere else other than the crime scene.

Other ways in symbolic logic include:

 

If A then not B

A

Therefore not B

 

If not A then B

B

Therefore not A

 

A or not B

Not A

Therefore not B

 

A and not B

A

Therefore not B

 

AND

negating a negation creates a positive, i.e,

 

Not not A=A

Edited February 20, 2018 by So_crates

[Mike]

34 minutes ago, chockfull said:

I'm sorry - what are you claiming here about Godel?  And what exactly is trivial about mathematics?  I am failing to see a "tight proof".

 

The way I'm using words in this context is “profound” involves matters of mind and life and love, i.e.,  the big issues that come up  in everyday life with people.

I’m using “trivial” for the more elementary things like matter, super simple matters like Hydrogen, math, numbers, and the things of hard core science. These issues have been dealt with efficiently in recent centuries, BECAUSE the human element has been systematically stripped out as a major theme in the scientific method.

There seems to be a huge gap between these two worlds, but it may be filled someday with future developments brain science. However some leaders in the field have a few doubts about this possibility.

I had a life long interest in Godel’s Theorem because it seems to bridge this gap in some ways. The elements of the theorem are all “trivial” elements of set theory and the topic mostly is mere numbers. However, with an odd twist, the theorem seems to say something “profound” about the world of mathematics and it’s completeness and/or consistency.

Proofs in the human area are IMO not so tight and applicable. I am have not spent a lot of time in this area, and it is here that I have asked for examples of tight proofs. I suspect they don’t exist.

Proofs in science and math are plenty tight and their applications clear, but they seem to me to always involve ideas that are not so profound in the human area.

My interest in Godel and its possible bridging abilities has diminished in recent years as I have become more familiar with it’s details. It’s still a super interesting area of thought, but I now have less expectations it will help with any breakthroughs in consciousness research.

 

 

[So_crates]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

Proofs in the human area are IMO not so tight and applicable. I am have not spent a lot of time in this area, and it is here that I have asked for examples of tight proofs. I suspect they don’t exist.

 

1 hour ago, So_crates said:

While the can't prove a negative myth gives fuel to the reason for our legal system, it isn't true--you can prove a negative.

How?

Well, you can prove you didn't commit a crime by proving you were somewhere else other than the crime scene.

Other ways in symbolic logic include:

 

If A then not B

A

Therefore not B

 

If not A then B

B

Therefore not A

 

A or not B

Not A

Therefore not B

 

A and not B

A

Therefore not B

 

AND

negating a negation creates a positive, i.e,

 

Not not A=A

Another term for symbolic logic is prepositional calculus. Among its many uses is constructing arguments and checking their validity and soundness. You don't get much tighter than the proofs in my above quote.

However, guess what? If you doubt tight proof exist, you'll never find them. Why? What did PLAF claim about negative believing?

Also, your one of those people that has a tendancy to refuse to see anything outside of your opinions. You want everyone to validate your reality, yet you refuse to validate theirs.

Edited February 20, 2018 by So_crates

[Mike]

41 minutes ago, So_crates said:

 

Another term for symbolic logic is prepositional calculus. Among its many uses is constructing arguments and checking their validity and soundness. You don't get much tighter than the proofs in my above quote.

However, guess what? If you doubt tight proof exist, you'll never find them. Why? What did PLAF claim about negative believing?

Also, your one of those people that has a tendancy to refuse to see anything outside of your opinions. You want everyone to validate your reality, yet you refuse to validate theirs.

I think we all have that tendency.  Peeking outside of our comfortable opinions is not the norm, but a skill that can be learned.

I admit that HERE, in the past I did not do that, because I was on a mission that I did not want to be distracted. I've aborted that mission, and have contented myself in what partial accomplishments did come from it.

As far as the tight arguments go, I was only asking for examples because I seek learning in that area. It was not to win an argument.

It's been my experience that the tightest proofs are all directed away from human life and spirituality. It there are tight proofs elsewhere I want to know about them. So far I know of none.   ....maybe Plato and Aristotle, but all my learning there was over 50 years ago and has faded.

I hope you're joking about negative believing and finding proofs. IF you were serious, we should start a thread in Doctrinal on it. I do not know all there is about believing, but what little I do know assures me that that law of believing is not about that kind of believing.  I am still working on the details of how believing works, both in print and in my life.

[So_crates]

5 minutes ago, Mike said:

I hope you're joking about negative believing and finding proofs. IF you were serious, we should start a thread in Doctrinal on it. I do not know all there is about believing, but what little I do know assures me that that law of believing is not about that kind of believing.

So confession of belief yeilds recieving confession is false?

Confess with your mouth and believe with your heart is false?

And what did you confess with your mouth?

I have asked for examples of tight proofs. I suspect they don’t exist.

[Mike]

8 minutes ago, So_crates said:

So confession of belief yeilds recieving confession is false?

Confess with your mouth and believe with your heart is false?

And what did you confess with your mouth?

I have asked for examples of tight proofs. I suspect they don’t exist.

I've never thought to apply "confession of belief yields receiving of confession" to these kinds of matters, like math or science or philosophy.  When I am looking at the promises of God, then I start thinking that way. 

I found that a lot of abuse of the law of believing occurred both in my life and I suspect in the lives of others in the ministry.    That law is intimately bound up with God and His Word and His promises. 

There are corresponding principles in life that look like the law of believing, but are weak by comparison and have plenty of exceptions.  Things like "Positive thinking get positive results"  seem to work somewhat, but are more tendencies than laws.

I think we all (and I know I) tended to merge these two ideas into a tangled mess. I'm still straightening it out for myself.

[Twinky]

On 2/3/2018 at 6:08 PM, Twinky said:

I do not want Mike to feel under any pressure at all, but if he cares to share about the understanding he's now gaining about the hurt that had been caused, I'd be pleased to share his journey with him.  As I think would many of us here.

Mike: you are now claiming to "like learning."  And for some obscure reason you think proofs are not possible in the (shall we call it?) metaphysical area. 

This thread is basically for YOU to show how YOU are learning - in precisely that metaphysical area of life - your understanding and empathy of PEOPLE.  How YOU understand now about the hurt that has been caused.  I am STILL WAITING for you to share any genuine expression of empathy, understanding, care, concern, for the people whose lives have been so very damaged.  and for the ongoing hurt and damage, that lingers now, perhaps decades after their involvement with TWI has ceased. 

Perhaps if you actually "put yourself in the shoes of" some of the victims, you'd begin to understand and begin to get some of the "proofs" that you seek.

If you can't empathise with the hurt coming through in the written stories here from the victims, then perhaps you could get alongside some victims in real life.  Get out and help at a homeless centre; work with victims of abuse; work with people with barely enough money to live on and who have severe debt problems; there are many ways to get involved with real people.  Talk with people, and find out what has happened in their lives.  I warn you, it takes time to work with damaged or vulnerable people and receive sufficient trust so that they will let you in and share the whys and wherefores of their current situation, and it'll be a painful journey for you.