New Here

[unhealthytruthseeker]

Hello, I am, as you can surely read, "unhealthytruthseeker," a handle which I use everywhere on the internet. It refers my desire to possess truth even if possessing such truth would be mentally unhealthy.

About me:

I am a recent college graduate with a degree in physics and mathematics, and I'm going to graduate school in the spring in order to take up physics. My eventual goal is to work in the area of theoretical physics, and my current interests span abstract algebra and it's physical applications, interpretations/implications of quantum theory, extensions to the standard model, cosmology, and several other things. I'm also interested in most areas of pure mathematics and several important areas of philosophical discourse. I may never know everything, but I can sure as hell try.

Religiously speaking, I'm a full-on metaphysical naturalist. Further, I verge on strong atheism. While I acknowledge that you technically cannot absolutely, totally disprove god, I also recognize that one cannot absolutely, totally prove ANYTHING outside of so-called "analytic" truths like mathematics and formal logic. I think it rather strange that we're perfectly willing to say that we know we have computers and we know that we're on the internet without absolute, total proof of the matter, but we're incapable of bringing ourselves to say that, to the extent that anything non-analytic can be known at all, we can know whether or not god exists. I don't understand the epistemological inconsistency. I also reject the classical, but incorrect myth that one cannot prove a negative. There are many negatives which can be proven. I can prove that there are no two integers a and b such that a/b is the square root of two, for example.

Nonetheless, I don't want to ramble too much. That's just a little bit about who I am and what i do.

 

[WarK]

Hello

Just a word of warning, don't accept cake from strangers...

 

[Gnug215]

Hi, I'm Gnug215, and welcome to the boards, unhealthytruthseeker.

So... now that we aren't strangers, would you like some cake? We have loads in our chatroom. No, really!

 

[Squawk]

Hi, and welcome. It would seem our points of view are somewhat aligned.

I disagree on proof a negative. I'd suggest the saying is simply employed too broadly, that it needs to be given constraints. In particular, constrain it to existence postulates pertainining to objects or phenomena with a physical manifestation.

Also, free cake in chat.

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

Hi, I'm Gnug215, and welcome to the boards, unhealthytruthseeker.

So... now that we aren't strangers, would you like some cake? We have loads in our chatroom. No, really!

What's in this cake? Is it some kind of Jim Jones flavor aid shit? Or is it a hallucinogenic drug or something? Have I just joined a cult?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I'm going to like you, it seems.

Welcome to the forums.

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

Hi, and welcome. It would seem our points of view are somewhat aligned.

I disagree on proof a negative. I'd suggest the saying is simply employed too broadly, that it needs to be given constraints. In particular, constrain it to existence postulates pertainining to objects or phenomena with a physical manifestation.

Also, free cake in chat.

Well, I would make the distinction between "falsifiable in principle" and "falsifiable in practice." Most positive existence claims are falsifiable in principle, but unfalsifiable in practice. If the existence of something were to have ANY effect on the universe at all, then the complete absence of that effect would function as strong evidence against that thing's existence. Consider the lack of geologic markers for a world flood that WOULD be there if such a thing occurred.

Of course, except for ludicrous notions that have no effect on anything at all, every positive existential claim has some marker that would necessarily be there if the thing exists. The only reason why such things are often unfalsifiable in practice is because we can't check the whole universe for the absence of these marks. Thus, specific claims like a global flood happening here are falsifiable in practice, whereas claims like unicorns existing somewhere in the universe are unfalsifiable in principle, but not in practice.

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

I'm going to like you, it seems.

They all think that at first.

By the way, I have a little Youtube account with a few poorly-done videos on various subjects. However, I've learned that I'm not a good video person, and that I make my best cases in a textual medium.

 

[Squawk]

Pretty much agree entirely. Absense of evidence may not be, in a strict sense, evidence of absense, but the nature of the evidence looked for, and not found, leads extremely strongly to conclusions of absense.

For reference, my position is similar to that of your own, leanings to what may be called (to my dislike) strong atheism. I'll state I have no belief in a deity, then go further and proclaim that no deities exist. Atheist, anti-theism (not sure about anti-theist, some strange conotations there) etc. I dislike notions of an atheist movement, I prefer to think of a rational movement, but sadly the two do not always intersect.

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

Pretty much agree entirely. Absense of evidence may not be, in a strict sense, evidence of absense, but the nature of the evidence looked for, and not found, leads extremely strongly to conclusions of absense.

For reference, my position is similar to that of your own, leanings to what may be called (to my dislike) strong atheism. I'll state I have no belief in a deity, then go further and proclaim that no deities exist. Atheist, anti-theism (not sure about anti-theist, some strange conotations there) etc. I dislike notions of an atheist movement, I prefer to think of a rational movement, but sadly the two do not always intersect.

I prefer to call myself a metaphysical naturalist, as it makes more sense to define myself by what I am than by what I am not.

I would also point out that "absolute proof" and "absolute disproof" are terms that only belong in a math class. Notions of knowledge and proof in science are coherent, but they aren't tautologies.

 

[Squawk]

Ok are you me reincarnate? (and am I dead to make that possible?)

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

Ok are you me reincarnate? (and am I dead to make that possible?)

Maybe your another universe's version of me? Or maybe we just have similar ideas. Nah, that's too easy!

 

[Squawk]

Ok are you me reincarnate? (and am I dead to make that possible?)

Or maybe we just have similar ideas. Nah, that's too easy!

Couldn't possibly be that. Much more likely to be a government conspiracy of some kind. /me gets out the tinfoil hat.

 

[Noth]

Welcome, SquawClone

There is chat in the cake.

 

[nasher168]

Proof

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Hrm.....

With an Army like that, I wonder what the temperature on Mars is right about now.

Perhaps I should think about installing a proximity detector to that ship?

 

[Squawk]

You people have far too much time on your hands, bloody funny though.

 

[unhealthytruthseeker]

You people have far too much time on your hands, bloody funny though.

I just graduated and I'm not getting into graduate school until the spring semester. Of course I have way too much time on my hands. I'm positively drowning in it. I've been able to use that time lately to hit the books harder than ever.

 

[nasher168]

You people have far too much time on your hands, bloody funny though.

Damn straight!
...although you can tell where I got bored and just shift-dragged the parrot image across the ranks.

 

[televator]

Hi, I'm Gnug215, and welcome to the boards, unhealthytruthseeker.

So... now that we aren't strangers, would you like some cake? We have loads in our chatroom. No, really!

What's in this cake? Is it some kind of Jim Jones flavor aid shit? Or is it a hallucinogenic drug or something? Have I just joined a cult?

Whaaa...? No such thing! No sir. *Quick, hide the coke and the birthday hats!* ...The cake is strictly real in a very literal sense. I promise. Welcome! :mrgreen: