Irrefutable proof that you saw something?

[godelian]

Look around you.

You may, for example, see a chair or a table or something else. Now take a piece of paper and write down an irrefutable argument that you did see what you saw. Will the verifier of your argument consider it to be irrefutable?

No, the verifier won't.

What you have seen is true (to you) but unprovable (to others).

In other words, the physical universe is entirely Godelian, i.e. true but not provable.

The abstract Platonic universe of mathematical objects, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly Godelian but not entirely. Some of it, is both true and provable.

True but not provable, is the norm, and not the exception.

[Impenitent]

puddy tat

-Imp

[Age]

Look around you.

You may, for example, see a chair or a table or something else. Now take a piece of paper and write down an irrefutable argument that you did see what you saw. Will the verifier of your argument consider it to be irrefutable?

Yes the "verifier" will.

No, the verifier won't.

What you have seen is true (to you) but unprovable (to others).

And, what you believe is true (to you) but unprovable (to others).

Or, if you, still, want to believe it is true, then write down 'your irrefutable argument', present it to 'the verifying machine' of your choice, then present 'the results', to 'us' here.

If you do not do this, then this is a huge sign that 'your believed irrefutable argument' was, in fact, refuted.

In other words, the physical universe is entirely Godelian, i.e. true but not provable.

But, like most of your beliefs they are only 'true', to you, but not in fact True, at all.

And, if you, still, can not distinguish the actual difference between 'the two', then, surely by 'now', you would know what to do, right?

The abstract Platonic universe of mathematical objects, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly Godelian but not entirely. Some of it, is both true and provable.

But, only what is provable, in Life, is True. The rest is, still, up for up for 'questioning'.

True but not provable, is the norm, and not the exception.

But, 'this', in and of itself, is False.

[godelian]

Or, if you, still, want to believe it is true, then write down 'your irrefutable argument', present it to 'the verifying machine' of your choice, then present 'the results', to 'us' here.

If you do not do this, then this is a huge sign that 'your believed irrefutable argument' was, in fact, refuted.

Again, you completely fail to understand the difference between true and provable. It is not because a claim would be unprovable that it would be false. It could obviously still be true.

But then again, I can prove that jsCoq will not accept physical observations as proof. It will only accept proof for theorems that you try to prove from a theory for which he has a copy. jsCoq does not have a copy of the theory of the physical universe, i.e. the Theory of Everything. So, it won't accept proof that is derived from it.

ChatGPT: How to express in a Coq proof that Coq will not prove theorems from theories for which he has no copy?

Code: Select all

(* Coq will only prove theorems from accessible 
theories. If some theory T is not imported or defined, 
we can't derive theorems from it. *)

(* Suppose P is a proposition from an 
unknown theory. *)
Parameter P : Prop.

(* Suppose we do NOT import any axiom or
 definition that would allow proving P. *)

Goal P -> P.
Proof.
  intro H.
  exact H.
Qed.

Goal P. (* Try to prove P with no assumptions *)
Abort.  (* This cannot be completed unless
 P is assumed or proven from something. *)

(* Thus, unless the theory defining P is loaded and
 gives a proof or axiom, Coq cannot prove it. *)

You can copy this proof into the jsCoq window to prove that jsCoq will not accept proof from a theory to which he has no access, including the Theory of Everything.

[Age]

Or, if you, still, want to believe it is true, then write down 'your irrefutable argument', present it to 'the verifying machine' of your choice, then present 'the results', to 'us' here.

If you do not do this, then this is a huge sign that 'your believed irrefutable argument' was, in fact, refuted.

Again, you completely fail to understand the difference between true and provable. It is not because a claim would be unprovable that it would be false. It could obviously still be true.

But then again, I can prove that jsCoq will not accept physical observations as proof. It will only accept proof for theorems that you try to prove from a theory for which he has a copy. jsCoq does not have a copy of the theory of the physical universe, i.e. the Theory of Everything. So, it won't accept proof that is derived from it.

ChatGPT: How to express in a Coq proof that Coq will not prove theorems from theories for which he has no copy?

Code: Select all

(* Coq will only prove theorems from accessible 
theories. If some theory T is not imported or defined, 
we can't derive theorems from it. *)

(* Suppose P is a proposition from an 
unknown theory. *)
Parameter P : Prop.

(* Suppose we do NOT import any axiom or
 definition that would allow proving P. *)

Goal P -> P.
Proof.
  intro H.
  exact H.
Qed.

Goal P. (* Try to prove P with no assumptions *)
Abort.  (* This cannot be completed unless
 P is assumed or proven from something. *)

(* Thus, unless the theory defining P is loaded and
 gives a proof or axiom, Coq cannot prove it. *)

You can copy this proof into the jsCoq window to prove that jsCoq will not accept proof from a theory to which he has no access, including the Theory of Everything.

Once again 'this one' has completely and utterly missed what has been said, and 'the point' meant.

[godelian]

Or, if you, still, want to believe it is true, then write down 'your irrefutable argument', present it to 'the verifying machine' of your choice, then present 'the results', to 'us' here.

If you do not do this, then this is a huge sign that 'your believed irrefutable argument' was, in fact, refuted.

Again, you completely fail to understand the difference between true and provable. It is not because a claim would be unprovable that it would be false. It could obviously still be true.

But then again, I can prove that jsCoq will not accept physical observations as proof. It will only accept proof for theorems that you try to prove from a theory for which he has a copy. jsCoq does not have a copy of the theory of the physical universe, i.e. the Theory of Everything. So, it won't accept proof that is derived from it.

ChatGPT: How to express in a Coq proof that Coq will not prove theorems from theories for which he has no copy?

Code: Select all

(* Coq will only prove theorems from accessible 
theories. If some theory T is not imported or defined, 
we can't derive theorems from it. *)

(* Suppose P is a proposition from an 
unknown theory. *)
Parameter P : Prop.

(* Suppose we do NOT import any axiom or
 definition that would allow proving P. *)

Goal P -> P.
Proof.
  intro H.
  exact H.
Qed.

Goal P. (* Try to prove P with no assumptions *)
Abort.  (* This cannot be completed unless
 P is assumed or proven from something. *)

(* Thus, unless the theory defining P is loaded and
 gives a proof or axiom, Coq cannot prove it. *)

You can copy this proof into the jsCoq window to prove that jsCoq will not accept proof from a theory to which he has no access, including the Theory of Everything.

Once again 'this one' has completely and utterly missed what has been said, and 'the point' meant.

You cannot prove to jsCoq that you saw something. I have just proved it.

[Age]

Again, you completely fail to understand the difference between true and provable. It is not because a claim would be unprovable that it would be false. It could obviously still be true.

But then again, I can prove that jsCoq will not accept physical observations as proof. It will only accept proof for theorems that you try to prove from a theory for which he has a copy. jsCoq does not have a copy of the theory of the physical universe, i.e. the Theory of Everything. So, it won't accept proof that is derived from it.

ChatGPT: How to express in a Coq proof that Coq will not prove theorems from theories for which he has no copy?

Code: Select all

(* Coq will only prove theorems from accessible 
theories. If some theory T is not imported or defined, 
we can't derive theorems from it. *)

(* Suppose P is a proposition from an 
unknown theory. *)
Parameter P : Prop.

(* Suppose we do NOT import any axiom or
 definition that would allow proving P. *)

Goal P -> P.
Proof.
  intro H.
  exact H.
Qed.

Goal P. (* Try to prove P with no assumptions *)
Abort.  (* This cannot be completed unless
 P is assumed or proven from something. *)

(* Thus, unless the theory defining P is loaded and
 gives a proof or axiom, Coq cannot prove it. *)

You can copy this proof into the jsCoq window to prove that jsCoq will not accept proof from a theory to which he has no access, including the Theory of Everything.

Once again 'this one' has completely and utterly missed what has been said, and 'the point' meant.

You cannot prove to jsCoq that you saw something. I have just proved it.

I never ever even thought you could. Let alone said you could absolutely anywhere.

What is 'it', exactly, which you think or believe you are arguing against, here?

[godelian]

Once again 'this one' has completely and utterly missed what has been said, and 'the point' meant.

You cannot prove to jsCoq that you saw something. I have just proved it.

I never ever even thought you could. Let alone said you could absolutely anywhere.

What is 'it', exactly, which you think or believe you are arguing against, here?

If it were possible to prove that you saw something, then jsCoq would happily verify and accept your proof.

[Age]

You cannot prove to jsCoq that you saw something. I have just proved it.

I never ever even thought you could. Let alone said you could absolutely anywhere.

What is 'it', exactly, which you think or believe you are arguing against, here?

If it were possible to prove that you saw something, then jsCoq would happily verify and accept your proof.

'This one', literally, can not see, nor hear, anything else but what it is believing, here.

Once again, I have never even thought that it was possible. Let alone said it was possible absolutely anywhere.

So, if what you are arguing against is, 'it is possible to prove that you saw some thing', then the only one 'you' are arguing against, here, is "your" 'self'.

[Impenitent]

one plank of wood becomes two

irrefutable

unless you can't count

-Imp

[Ben JS]

From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/to-know/37706
-

Know - To regard as true beyond doubt
Doubt - A lack of certainty
Certain - Established beyond doubt or question + Capable of being relied on

To know is to have confidence in the reliability and integrity of something.
I don’t like the word, I prefer to say believe.

Believe - To expect or suppose + To have confidence in the truth or value of something + To credit with veracity

I suppose I don’t like that definition of know.
I know when I can’t comprehend any possible circumstance that the known is incorrect.

For example, ‘I think, therefore, I am’
[EDIT: I = awareness. Now I'd rather say 'Awareness is', courtesy to JSS for clarifying].
Or 2 + 2 = 4.
The first, it’s impossible for it to be false,
and the latter, is defined that way - it’s abstract.
There’s nothing that could discredit it.

If it’s possibly false, then I wouldn’t say know.

I believe that every time I tap a lettered key on my keyboard, a letter will be displayed on my monitor.
I wouldn’t say I know that a letter will be displayed -
perhaps my keyboard disconnected, the wiring broke, the browser froze, or there was a software error.
However, I don’t need to know that a letter will be displayed, I just need to believe it for the desired result to be possible.

It’s simply a question of risk vs reward. We don’t really need to know anything, rather, be prepared and willing to gamble.
[...]
+
Examine - To observe carefully or critically; inspect + To test or check the condition or health of

We can always examine, and re-examine a proposition. Examination is a wise habit.
We don’t need to doubt something, in order to examine it.

Sure - Impossible to doubt or dispute + Bound to come about or happen; inevitable

To say I am sure, appears to satisfy what I wanted 'know' to express.

Proof - The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true

Therefore, to prove something, means using any evidence or argument, to compel one’s belief.
It’s whatever the individual requires in order to accept, which is relative to the individual.

The conclusion from this,
is you cannot force proof upon another -
as they can deny / not accept any & all evidence.
(refusing to acknowledge / accept any space for proof to stand)

The power belongs to the 'verifier', as acceptance relies on their action.

But, the OP talks of irrefutable proof.
There are types of proofs that are irrefutable,
but you still cannot force an irrefutable proof upon another.
There is a blurry line somewhere about what a reasonable amount of proof is though -
such that to deny after a certain point, becomes unreasonable.
-

So, I think I agree with OP.

(My spam also explains why I use the word 'believe' lots, and 'know' very little.)

[Age]

From: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/to-know/37706
-

Know - To regard as true beyond doubt
Doubt - A lack of certainty
Certain - Established beyond doubt or question + Capable of being relied on

To know is to have confidence in the reliability and integrity of something.
I don’t like the word, I prefer to say believe.

Believe - To expect or suppose + To have confidence in the truth or value of something + To credit with veracity

I suppose I don’t like that definition of know.
I know when I can’t comprehend any possible circumstance that the known is incorrect.

For example, ‘I think, therefore, I am’
[EDIT: I = awareness. Now I'd rather say 'Awareness is', courtesy to JSS for clarifying].
Or 2 + 2 = 4.
The first, it’s impossible for it to be false,
and the latter, is defined that way - it’s abstract.
There’s nothing that could discredit it.

If it’s possibly false, then I wouldn’t say know.

I believe that every time I tap a lettered key on my keyboard, a letter will be displayed on my monitor.
I wouldn’t say I know that a letter will be displayed -
perhaps my keyboard disconnected, the wiring broke, the browser froze, or there was a software error.
However, I don’t need to know that a letter will be displayed, I just need to believe it for the desired result to be possible.

It’s simply a question of risk vs reward. We don’t really need to know anything, rather, be prepared and willing to gamble.
[...]
+
Examine - To observe carefully or critically; inspect + To test or check the condition or health of

We can always examine, and re-examine a proposition. Examination is a wise habit.
We don’t need to doubt something, in order to examine it.

Sure - Impossible to doubt or dispute + Bound to come about or happen; inevitable

To say I am sure, appears to satisfy what I wanted 'know' to express.

Proof - The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true

Therefore, to prove something, means using any evidence or argument, to compel one’s belief.
It’s whatever the individual requires in order to accept, which is relative to the individual.

The conclusion from this,
is you cannot force proof upon another -
as they can deny / not accept any & all evidence.
(refusing to acknowledge / accept any space for proof to stand)

The power belongs to the 'verifier', as acceptance relies on their action.

But, the OP talks of irrefutable proof.
There are types of proofs that are irrefutable,
but you still cannot force an irrefutable proof upon another.
There is a blurry line somewhere about what a reasonable amount of proof is though -
such that to deny after a certain point, becomes unreasonable.

Any proof is the reasonable amount needed.

'Proof', unlike 'evidence', can not refuted, nor even just denied logically nor reasonably.

By definition 'proof' is irrefutable, just like a 'fact' is irrefutable.

'Evidence', however, may be refutable. The difference between the two is one has the possibility to be refuted, while it is an impossibility to refute the other.

-

So, I think I agree with OP.

Is there a human being who agrees that one can 'force' another to accept or agree with absolutely any thing?

If yes, then who are 'you', exactly?

And, what will 'you' use to back up and support what 'you' agree with and accept, here?

(My spam also explains why I use the word 'believe' lots, and 'know' very little.)

[Ben JS]

And, what will 'you' use to back up and support what 'you' agree with and accept, here?

I don't require to support anything I say,
as I'm not here to convince anyone to agree.
I am expressing my belief,
and it is on others how they react.

Makes it easier for me.

[godelian]

And, what will 'you' use to back up and support what 'you' agree with and accept, here?

I don't require to support anything I say,
as I'm not here to convince anyone to agree.
I am expressing my belief,
and it is on others how they react.

Makes it easier for me.

Yes, that is a "witness deposition", if it concerns a fact. It is certainly considered "evidence" but not of the "irrefutable" kind. By the way, evidence generally does not need to be irrefutable. Most evidence actually isn't -- scientific evidence isn't either -- and that is perfectly fine.

[Age]

And, what will 'you' use to back up and support what 'you' agree with and accept, here?

I don't require to support anything I say,

Of course you do not. Just like no one is required to agree with and accept irrefutable proof presented to them.

as I'm not here to convince anyone to agree.

No one asked you to 'convince' any one of any thing.

Either you have some thing that can back up and support what one agrees with and accepts, or you do not.

I am expressing my belief,
and it is on others how they react.

Of course and obviously it is always on adult human beings how they react.

Makes it easier for me.

Again, it is like some people just do not realize that 'this forum' is a 'philosophy forum' and that absolutely every thing one says and/or claims is up 'for scrutiny'.