Your opinion on the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagisaki

Not when it involves killing another person.

I could, but I would need to make a summary of every person who's been born.

 

That's not quite true either. What if by being born, you're say, the 190,043,492'th person in line, entitled to the British throne? Then, war is declared, those people all die because of some surprisingly destructive explosion...suddenly, you're King of England, and it's wartime.

What do you do?

It's improbable, but not impossible.

 

It's true, but still corrupt. We can't help it because we think about ourselves and are afraid to die, which is all the cause of corruption.

And Desert Warrior: It may not be very inmoral, but it is still inmoral since you're killing somebody.

And just because I can't prove something doesnt mean it's not true.

 

I'm not quite sure I see your point here, can you reiterate?

Sounds like you're saying merely existing implies corruption...

Or, perhaps that our fear clouds our actions, and thus in that sense we are 'corrupted' towards our own safety. There are people who lived and died in selfless ways however, such as Father Maximillian Kolbe (who's kind of like a role-model for me)...but even his decisions were ultimately swayed by human psychology.

So yeah, I need a bit more on that idea...but I think in either case, this is a separate discussion in its own right.

Very true! That's how every scientific principle is...unprovable, yet possibly true.

But unfortunately, just because something's not provably-false does not make it true either :0.

Unless I'm way off the mark, then it sounds kind of like you have the exact same belief I do: That the human mind is imperfect, and that there will always be unprovable truths, and unprovably-false falsities.

Have you ever read Godel, Escher, Bach by Douglas Hofstadter by any chance?

 

Yeah, you kinda got it. Except for the last part. But you admitting that you need a bit more on that idea makes up for that! You're great! [/quote]

Well, if you completely prove something right then of course it cant be wrong!

Yes! You are great. I think I've never been this nice to anyone.

No, I have not.

 

It's a very good book, it's a bit technical as it's a mathematics book, aimed at a less mathematically educated audience (such as undergraduate math students, or people with an interest in proof).

Such questions as truth and provability are the problems dealt with by logicians...and unfortunately, the short answer is that nothing is completely provable...not in science, not even in Mathematics!** All we can do is show that "given some assumptions, this is true." But there are always unprovable assumptions...in math, they're labelled as axioms. A famous theorem in Mathematics has shown this to be the case...but don't worry I'm not just blowing steam, I can go into detail if you're interested.

It just wouldn't really wouldn't fit in this topic...I've discussed this with M_R for quite some time and couldn't convince him, but it's all in Godel Escher Bach. If you're interested, I'll start a Truth and Provability thread, and I could introduce everyone to the idea of a formal system, a formal derivation, consistency, completeness, etc.



__________________
**In particular, note that if Mathematics is inconsistent...that is, some false statement in math exists (but has yet to be discovered) then all of physics, chemistry and much of biology would need to be discarded, and started from scratch with the new, improved mathematics (which is obtained by modifying current mathematics).

Though of course, I'm a believer in the consistency of mathematics.

 

Interesting...I have to say that I agree and understand everything you have said. Maybe I will buy this book.