frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Do We Create Our Own Truths?

2



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @ZeusAres42
    I think you are equivocating the mathematical definition of irrational with the everyday use of the term that is meant to mean crazy. And in which case it would not work anyway; math is designed to be sensible, and not insane. To the best of my knowledge, there is no unhinged law of mathematics.

    The mathematical grievance is there is not term adopted as standard for the practice of assembling a irrational linear equation by accident or intentionally...so the best match to existing mathematical grievances is used. Pick a better connection to established justice and I will make all necessary corrections to my own work ZeusAres42. 

    Sides of an equation - Wikipedia


  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @NomeClature

    I will repeat myself in a different way as you comment is so foolish it needs to be addressed as many times as needed to set facts straight. The circle is visibly flat on one of three sides, flat on two sides that are not visible. We can agree a sphere looks round but will never be round in geometry.


    Spheres are round, my good friend.

    No, for lack of understanding people call them round as they are creating their own truth?

    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    I will repeat myself in a different way as you comment is so foolish it needs to be addressed as many times as needed to set facts straight. The circle is visibly flat on one of three sides, flat on two sides that are not visible. We can agree a sphere looks round but will never be round in geometry.

    Oh John, you're truly not the brightest, are you?

    A sphere is a set of points in three-dimensional space equidistant from a point called the center. The surface of a sphere is perfectly round.

    https://mathbitsnotebook.com/Geometry/3DShapes/3DSpheres.html


  • @Dee
    So why did you not even attempt to address my original response?
    I did, in case you actually read my argument, I related the same logic of 1 + 1 = 2 back to verifiable matters of fact through the example with cars, with ultimately has the equation 10 + 1 = 11, which has a very similar logic to the statement 1 + 1 = 2.
    The validity of 1+ 1 = 2 falls into the category of relations of ideas  like "A triangle is a three-sided figure " this is provable by the mere operation of thought or conceptual analysis
    What if I say that 1 + 1 = 3, 4, or 11? Who are you to say that my operation of thoughts is somehow wrong, and yours is somehow right? Similar to the statement, "a triangle is a three-sided figure", who are you to say that I am wrong if I am to say that a triangle is a 4-sided shape?
    How did you verify belief in a god is valid through observation? 
    You're backtracking, you said, and I quote:
    "To say 'I believe in god' falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations, so how do you go about proving both claims share equal validity?"
    You directly addressed that the statement "I believe in god' falls under matters of fact as it is making a claim about the world rather than pure abstract thought, and thus, it can only be verified through observation.
    I did say you were attempting to make a case for radical skepticism or else you're  just trolling  
    I didn't really have a name for these ideas prior to this debate, but yes, radical skepticism is a good way of putting it.
    Ultimately, true knowledge is unobtainable as all knowledge is based on some sort of axiom, which ultimately relies on a belief, and is thus illogical, and should thus be disregarded from a logical standpoint. Any true knowledge would have an infinite amount of non-repeating reasons to support it the way I see it.
    Well you said "
    I think you misunderstand what I meant in this debate as a whole. My argument is that although you cannot live whilst rejecting logic, it should be acknowledged that our own system of logic is ultimately founded on arbitrary and irrational forms of axioms and beliefs, and thus logic should logically be disregarded as a system purely based on belief. For that reason, anyone can make their own system of logic and beliefs, and who are we to say that they are wrong? Whilst they may not live well, who's to say that our goal is even to live well in the first place?

  • MineSubCraftStarvedMineSubCraftStarved 148 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @Nomenclature
    premises are true
    But what makes any premise true? If I were to say that 1 + 1 = 3 on the premise that for every equation, there is always a value of 1 added to the result, what would make than any less correct than the premise that no additional value(0) is added?
  • @MayCaesar
    And basic rules of logic itself are pretty much objective. "A is A" and "not A is not A" is something that must be accepted to be true for any statement to be either true or false and never both or neither. Simply this requirement - the ability to conclude that a statement is either true or false - is sufficient to build the entire body of formal logic.
    Why can't a statement be both true and false, at the same time? If I say that 1 =/= 1, who are you to say my logic system is incorrect? What if my system of logic says that such conditions are fluid, and as such, 1 may equal 1 at one point, and at another point 1 might signify a different value, what makes this not objective and the other statement objective?
    Currently established rules of logic and mathematics are not absurd or arbitrary. Mathematics is a self-contained field in which everything that can be logically derived is true by design. If you choose a different set of axioms, you will arrive at a different set of conclusions, and those conclusions will be true within the scope of that self-contained field.
    This is more or less the point I am trying to get at. Logic is fundamentally an arbitrary concept, why? Because logic falls under a number of axioms, all of which operate under systems of beliefs by the user, my system of math can be completely different from yours. When you say mathematics is not arbitrary, its ultimate axioms are arbitrary, thus making the whole of mathematics nothing more than a human creation, and arbitrary extension of thought.
    Similarly, the statement, "I believe in god because the universe had a beginning, and god was that beginning," falls under a similar problem. The belief that the universe had to begin, and that beginning had to be god, is ultimately based on arbitrary axioms, or beliefs. And thus, logically, should be treated as valid as mathematics.
    1+1=2 is not a consequence of the axioms of mathematics, but a consequence of definitions of these numbers coupled with inherent properties of sets deriving from definitions of sets.
    The inherent properties and their definitions are ultimately themselves axioms. The statement 1 = 1 could function as an axiom, to say that statement is true takes a level of faith as an axiom serves as an unprovable premise, and thus a belief.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved
    But what makes any premise true?

    Buddy, this is developing into a situation where every time I answer your question, you write back, "but why?"

    The premise is 1 + 1. The conclusion is 2. If the premise is true, the conclusion cannot be false. 

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    I did, in case you actually read my argument, I related the same logic of 1 + 1 = 2 back to verifiable matters of fact through the example with cars, with ultimately has the equation 10 + 1 = 11, which has a very similar logic to the statement 1 + 1 = 2.

    Please try and address the argument you keep ignoring 6 times now you refuse to address .....

    I read your argument , you have refused and keep refusing to address what I keep saying ....So in reality, saying "I believe 1 + 1 = 2," is just as valid and true a statement as "I believe in God."?

    Well I'm afraid and no offence  intended but how much thought have you given this?

    The validity of 1+ 1 = 2 falls into the category of relations of ideas  like "A triangle is a three-sided figure " this is provable by the mere operation of thought or conceptual analysis

    To say "I believe in god" falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations , so how do you go about proving both claims share equal validity?


    So again how do you go about proving god if you say the clams have equal validity?



    What if I say that 1 + 1 = 3, 4, or 11? Who are you to say that my operation of thoughts is somehow wrong, and yours is somehow right? 


    Because it's can be demonstrated that I'm right you admitted this in your 11 example by claiming " Take for example the statement, "I have 10 cars, I add one car to the 10, now I have 11 cars.", this is a matter of fact as it can be verified through individual observation. 


    They're your exact words so you know one way as to how we can demonstrate the truth of a clam but you're pretending otherwise, you're definitely trolling now 


    Similar to the statement, "a triangle is a three-sided figure", who are you to say that I am wrong if I am to say that a triangle is a 4-sided shape?


    If you want to call a square a triangle knock yourself out , remarkable you know 10 + 1 = 11 but now pretend a square could be a triangle 


    You're backtracking, you said, and I quote:

    "To say 'I believe in god' falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations, so how do you go about proving both claims share equal validity?"

    You directly addressed that the statement "I believe in god' falls under matters of fact as it is making a claim about the world rather than pure abstract thought, and thus, it can only be verified through observation.


    Right so again 7 times now you avoided answering ..........


    "To say 'I believe in god' falls under matters of fact being claimed about the world and is only veritable by observations, so how do you go about proving a god?


    I didn't really have a name for these ideas prior to this debate, but yes, radical skepticism is a good way of putting it.


    You need to read a bit more on the topic you never heard of 


    Ultimately, true knowledge is unobtainable as all knowledge is based on some sort of axiom, which ultimately relies on a belief, and is thus illogical, and should thus be disregarded from a logical standpoint. Any true knowledge would have an infinite amount of non-repeating reasons to support it the way I see it.


    Got ya, that's just great and the final nail in your coffin so let's use your 'logic' against your own argument .....


    1. Nothing can be trusted, or
    2. Nothing is certain, or
    3. There are no universal truths, or
    4. Some other such thing...

    Note, all of the above are self-contradictory. Thus radical skepticism is self-contradictory.


    Nothing is certain.......except of course for this very statement...

    Nothing can be trusted... eh.. except except of course for this statement...

    There are no universal truths... except of course  for this truth...


    You're welcome 



    I think you misunderstand what I meant in this debate as a whole. 


    No I didn't I tried several times to get you to answer simple questions you refused and you do not address answers to your questions , you just keep asking the same ones , I'm convinced now you're trolling


    You told me how you and I can verify the claim there are 11 cars outside then you claim 10+1 may not be 11 at all , you can work  out 10 +1 then cannot work out 10 + 1 or 1+1 , so the next question is why are you even on a debate site as every belief is irrational which going by your logic includes yours , right ?


    My argument is that although you cannot live whilst rejecting logic, it should be acknowledged that our own system of logic is ultimately founded on arbitrary and irrational forms of axioms and beliefs, and thus logic should logically be disregarded as a system purely based on belief. For that reason, anyone can make their own system of logic and beliefs, and who are we to say that they are wrong? Whilst they may not live well, who's to say that our goal is even to live well in the first place?


    I reject all of that as nonsense and it should logically be disregarded as a system purely based on belief. For that reason, I can make my own system of logic and beliefs, and who are we to say that I'm wrong?  See what I did there?


    In your worldview if you go into a store to but 3 mobile phones and the seller hands you 1 why would you object if he said 1 was in fact 3?

    Who are you to say he's wrong ?


    You're arguing about race on another post and claiming the racist is wrong in his views , who are you to say he's wrong?


    You're saying logic should be rejected who are you to say it's wrong?



    I just used your own line of argument to beat your own argument regards race with Bogen , remarkable the way you embrace rationality , reasoning and logical processes when it suits you and you very definitely say Bogen is wrong , who are you to say so?

  • @Nomenclature

    A sphere is a set of points in three-dimensional space equidistant from a point called the center. The surface of a sphere is perfectly round.

     You really need to read your own link...

    Spheres are NOT polyhedra

    Spheres and Hemispheres - MathBitsNotebook(Geo - CCSS Math)

    We know that a polygon is a flat, plane, two-dimensional closed shape bounded by line segments. Common examples of polygons are square, triangle, pentagon, etc. 
    The shortest distance between points on any surface is called a geodesic. In a plane, a straight line is a geodesic. On a sphere, a great circle is a geodesic.

    Oh John, you're truly not the brightest, are you?

    I did find a solution to a 4000 year old grievance according to your Wikipedia link on Pi. Maybe I'm just better then you at finding some things?

    Pi - Wikipedia

     meaning that it cannot be a solution of an equation involving only sums, products, powers, and integers. The transcendence of π implies that it is impossible to solve the ancient challenge of squaring the circle with a compass and straightedge.

    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    John, if you can explain to me exactly which part of the word, round, you are having difficulty understanding, I'll see if I can break it down even further for you. 


  • @Nomenclature
    John, if you can explain to me exactly which part of the word, round, you are having difficulty understanding, I'll see if I can break it down even further for you. 

    The intersection of a plane with a sphere is a circle (or a point if tangent to sphere).
    Spheres are NOT polyhedra
    All cross sections of a sphere are circles. (All circles are similar to one another.)
    The shortest distance between points on any surface is called a geodesic. In a plane, a straight line is a geodesic. On a sphere, a great circle is a geodesic.

    Spheres and Hemispheres - MathBitsNotebook(Geo - CCSS Math)

    : made of light straight structural elements mostly in tension
    : the shortest line between two points that lies in a given surface

    The exact location is at the cross section of all spheres, as it is at that intersection of a plane and sphere there is a circle not the round sphere itself........a sphere is a ball.

    Nomenclature
  • John_C_87 said:
    @ZeusAres42
    I think you are equivocating the mathematical definition of irrational with the everyday use of the term that is meant to mean crazy. And in which case it would not work anyway; math is designed to be sensible, and not insane. To the best of my knowledge, there is no unhinged law of mathematics.

    The mathematical grievance is there is not term adopted as standard for the practice of assembling a irrational linear equation by accident or intentionally...so the best match to existing mathematical grievances is used. Pick a better connection to established justice and I will make all necessary corrections to my own work ZeusAres42. 

    Sides of an equation - Wikipedia



    It has been demonstrably noted that the practice of assembling an irrational linear equation falls within the confinements of all the elements and all the law of averages that this relates to being fallen on all categories of superficial and artificial rhetoric, and reverence, to a certain degree concordantly ergo vis-à-vis.
    Nomenclature



  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @John_C_87
    a sphere is a ball.
    Balls are round, John. 

    Ball: a round or roundish body or mass.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ball





    Dee
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature

    Balls are round, John. 

    Not in John's world Nom 
    NomenclatureJohn_C_87
  • @Dee

    A sphere is often said to be round in my world as well...


  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87

    A sphere is often said to be round in my world as well...

    "Often" , so some of your extended family are still undecided on the issue .....I wonder why that could be ? Any ideas?


    Nomenclature
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @Nomenclature
    Balls are round, John. 
    The intersection of a plane with a sphere is a circle (or a point if tangent to sphere).
    Round but not flat circles are flat.
    Tangent Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
    : meeting a curve or surface in a single point if a sufficiently small interval is considered
    Sphere 3-D
    Circle 2-D

    You demonstrate to have a lack of depth of field.


    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Sphere 3-D
    Circle 2-D

    Space has three dimensions, John. If something is round in three dimensions it's a sphere.

    Dee
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    John_C_87 said:
    @ZeusAres42
    I think you are equivocating the mathematical definition of irrational with the everyday use of the term that is meant to mean crazy. And in which case it would not work anyway; math is designed to be sensible, and not insane. To the best of my knowledge, there is no unhinged law of mathematics.

    The mathematical grievance is there is not term adopted as standard for the practice of assembling a irrational linear equation by accident or intentionally...so the best match to existing mathematical grievances is used. Pick a better connection to established justice and I will make all necessary corrections to my own work ZeusAres42. 

    Sides of an equation - Wikipedia



    It has been demonstrably noted that the practice of assembling an irrational linear equation falls within the confinements of all the elements and all the law of averages that this relates to being fallen on all categories of superficial and artificial rhetoric, and reverence, to a certain degree concordantly ergo vis-à-vis.
    Which side of the equation of one plus one equals three is wrong? Is it faith that we chose the value after the equal sign?  
    (a) The side with the 1+1?
    (b) The side with 3?
    How do you check?
    1 + 1 = 2 or 2 + 1 = 3 How do you test were the mistake was made?
    ZeusAres42
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    Which side of the equation of one plus one equals three is wrong? 

    Surprisingly, that's actually a fair question. I'm not sure why it matters, but nevertheless either the premise or the conclusion could be false.

    ZeusAres42
  • John_C_87 said:
    John_C_87 said:
    @ZeusAres42
    I think you are equivocating the mathematical definition of irrational with the everyday use of the term that is meant to mean crazy. And in which case it would not work anyway; math is designed to be sensible, and not insane. To the best of my knowledge, there is no unhinged law of mathematics.

    The mathematical grievance is there is not term adopted as standard for the practice of assembling a irrational linear equation by accident or intentionally...so the best match to existing mathematical grievances is used. Pick a better connection to established justice and I will make all necessary corrections to my own work ZeusAres42. 

    Sides of an equation - Wikipedia



    It has been demonstrably noted that the practice of assembling an irrational linear equation falls within the confinements of all the elements and all the law of averages that this relates to being fallen on all categories of superficial and artificial rhetoric, and reverence, to a certain degree concordantly ergo vis-à-vis.
    Which side of the equation of one plus one equals three is wrong?

    Since I never made a comment to you about this equation being right or wrong it is of no relevance to me.


    Nomenclature



  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @Nomenclature

    Space has three dimensions, John. If something is round in three dimensions it's a sphere.

    This has never been the argument of this debate and become such when GR was described to the idea of 1 + 1 = 3. The focus in this debate is in dealing with do we create our own truth. I say yes. A circle is not a ball it is maybe at best a drawling made of a ball, and that is a big maybe. You have a hard time describing round, circle, and sphere as a self-evident truth and are not always equal and interchangeable. Like many I am aware of how round, spheres, and circles are drawn using mathematics in computer programming.

    The perfect circle - Giotto's O and how to prove your craftsmanship – Business of Software

    Giotto took a canvas, dipped his brush in red paint, pinned his arm to his side and drew a perfect circle with his hand. He grinned and said “Here’s your drawing”.


    Nomenclature
  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @ZeusAres42
    Since I never made a comment to you about this equation being right or wrong it is of no relevance to me.
    Okay, if you say you did I'm not make a comment......

  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @Nomenclature

    Surprisingly, that's actually a fair question. I'm not sure why it matters, but nevertheless either the premise or the conclusion could be false.

    But! Is the truth on both sides or are the lies on both sides until we test for location of the error?

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    This has never been the argument of debate
    It was you who brought the matter up, John. I was literally replying to your own post.


    Dee
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 Emerald Premium Member 2673 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    John_C_87 said:
    @Nomenclature

    Surprisingly, that's actually a fair question. I'm not sure why it matters, but nevertheless either the premise or the conclusion could be false.

    But! Is the truth both sides are wrong until we test for location of the error?


    Absolutely. The defendant on trial must be executed before we can prove his innocence.




  • John_C_87 said:
    @Nomenclature

    Surprisingly, that's actually a fair question. I'm not sure why it matters, but nevertheless either the premise or the conclusion could be false.

    But! Is the truth both sides are wrong until we test for location of the error?


    Absolutely. The defendant on trial must be executed before we can prove his innocence.


    Your logical fallacy is a false analogy with a satirical reference! Oh, dear. Slap on the hand then I guess.




  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @John_C_87
    No, sorry that is not what makes a truth self-evident.

    Yes it is, John. If the premise that the world is round is true, then the conclusion the world is not flat is self-evidently true.

    The transition started here ......and was started by you Nomenclature...

     Over a premise of a round world being a self-evident truth. By calling the world round it is never automatically a sphere shaped, circles are round yet lay flat, pitch and rest at an angle, and cross a vertical plane and appear as a straight line. We then began to move on to the principles of geometry where the fact a round circle is a difference to an oval circle. I can point out how wrong Pi is by saying a diameter is still just a chord in a sphere as well as circle. Spheres in computer graphics are made up of planes created by two 90 degree angles which are then deformed and scaled.


    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @John_C_87
    The transition started here ......and was started by you Nomenclature.

    For God's sake John. That's exactly why I explained to you that the Earth exists in 3 dimensional space. You told me that wasn't the argument of debate, and now you're telling me it is the argument of debate. Make up your confused mind, John. Things which are round in 3 dimensional space are spherical. 

    You honestly write some of the most pointless replies I've ever read. There's literally no argument here. The Earth is round in 3 dimensions so it's spherical. If the Earth was drawn on a piece of paper it would exist in 2 dimensions and be a circle.

  • @Dee
    So again how do you go about proving god if you say the clams have equal validity?
    That's the thing, you can't. You can only prove the existence of god in so far as you can prove that you have 10 fingers(observation), or that 1 always equals to 1(mathematics). This is because the existence of god is an axiom, or belief, similar to belief in observation or belief in basic mathematical axioms.
    They're your exact words so you know one way as to how we can demonstrate the truth of a claim but you're pretending otherwise, you're definitely trolling now 
    The belief that 10 + 1 = 11, is well, a belief. It is impossible to truly ever demonstrate the truth of a claim because they would all ultimately lead to one or more axioms, and thus would rely on belief, and therefore be unprovable. As I stated previously, logically speaking, any statement requires an infinite amount of reasoning to support itself before it can be considered absolute truth.

    Nothing is certain.......except of course for this very statement...

    Nothing can be trusted... eh.. except except of course for this statement...There are no universal truths... except of course  for this truth...
    But if you don't believe in logic, why should you believe in the logic that contradictions invalidate your position? The belief that contradictions invalidate an argument is ultimately one of many logical axioms, and as an axiom, it can be disregarded as unfounded as a universal truth that is true for everyone.
    You told me how you and I can verify the claim there are 11 cars outside then you claim 10+1 may not be 11 at all , you can work  out 10 +1 then cannot work out 10 + 1 or 1+1 , so the next question is why are you even on a debate site as every belief is irrational which going by your logic includes yours , right ?
    Because I don't believe that 10 + 1 can ever equal 12. However I acknowledge the fact that this is based on irrational beliefs and not much else. What we deem to be logical and not logical is purely based on our systems of belief.

    I reject all of that as nonsense and it should logically be disregarded as a system purely based on belief. For that reason, I can make my own system of logic and beliefs, and who are we to say that I'm wrong?  See what I did there?

    You can make your own system of logic and beliefs, and then I can have my own system of logic and beliefs, and our two systems may conflict and oppose each other. And we may both believe that the other's system is wrong, however in reality neither is right and neither is wrong, both are simply belief systems, and are thus irrational.

    In your worldview if you go into a store to buy 3 mobile phones and the seller hands you 1 why would you object if he said 1 was in fact 3?

    Who are you to say he's wrong ?
    I say he's wrong out of my own belief that there were in fact 3 phones that I bought, rather than 1. Of course, it impossible to truly know who is right as both statements serve as fundamental admissions of belief, and thus have no logical basis.

    You're arguing about race on another post and claiming the racist is wrong in his views , who are you to say he's wrong?

    You're saying logic should be rejected who are you to say it's wrong?
    I do believe in the current widely accepted theory of logic, but I accept it out of a matter of belief. I simply acknowledge the fact that logic may be different for different people because of different belief systems and axioms. I believe that logic can be rejected, or modified by an individual if that individual has a different belief system.
    My claims of Bogan being incorrect is ultimately based on logic, true. But if he were to claim that he believes racism is correct, and that all contradictory statements are wrong, I would have no ability to logically argue with him any further, and at the very least I could not convince him of any other belief.
    Why?
    Because his logic would be formed on a different set of axioms, and thus there would be no way to determine who is more right, as what ultimately makes his beliefs less valid and more unreasonable than my beliefs?
    Nomenclature
  • @Nomenclature
    But what makes the premise true? If my premise would be that 1 + 1 simply describes a range of percentages of probability, with a 50% chance for 2, a 25% chance for 3, a 12.5% chance for 4, etc, etc, what makes this any less true than the statement that 1 + 1 always equates to 2?
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @MineSubCraftStarved
    But what makes the premise true?

    Nothing makes the premise true. It's either true or not true.

    If my premise would be that 1 + 1 simply describes a range of percentages of probability, with a 50% chance for 2, a 25% chance for 3, a 12.5% chance for 4, etc, etc

    Gibberish. If the premise 1 + 1 is true, then the conclusion 2 can't be false. I've explained the exact same thing to you now 3 times.

    MineSubCraftStarved
  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @MineSubCraftStarved

    This is going nowhere so let's take one statement you made and see if it helps clarify what you're getting at .......


     But if you don't believe in logic, why should you believe in the logic that contradictions invalidate your position? 

    But if you believe  certainty is impossible to acquire you would have to be certain that it is, right? 


    The belief that contradictions invalidate an argument is ultimately one of many logical axioms, and as an axiom, it can be disregarded as unfounded as a universal truth that is true for everyone.


    Radical skepticism should either be in doubt of itself, or affirm itself.

    So which is it?

    Affirming skepticism is a contradiction, hence skepticism cannot be maintained according to your arguments

  • John_C_87John_C_87 Emerald Premium Member 864 Pts   -   edited January 2023

    For God's sake John. That's exactly why I explained to you that the Earth exists in 3 dimensional space. You told me that wasn't the argument of debate, and now you're telling me it is the argument of debate. Make up your confused mind, John. Things which are round in 3 dimensional space are spherical. 

    Exactly! Don't make me laugh!.... I have to question the understanding of precision here as it has already been proven there is no regard for precise value in what you are talking about. You approximate, opening up a debate using round to describe 3-D space precisely on faith? Whereas the earth is three-dimensional the word describing a earth as round is not three dimensional and is a perception of two dimensional space. Exact the earths equator and earth itself can be argued as being oval.

    1 + 1 = 3 shares the same issue as General Relativity as it is simply corrected in a second way not represented here. 1 + 1 ≠ 3, or 1 + 1 < 3, and 1 + x = 3 When we make an open claim of something is to be held as a self-evident truth we must then describe the axiom of logic which is self-evident.

    1 + 1  = 3 when the person writing 1 + 1  = 3 does not know how to write 1 + x = 3 and the witnesses sees x as one letter and writes it as such. I am holding this truth as self-evident by the creation of a clear connection to logic. 

    1 + 1 = 3 shares the same issue as General Relativity as it is simply corrected in a second way not represented here. 1 + 1 ≠ 3, or 1 + 1 < 3, and 1 + x = 3 When we make an open claim of something is to be held as a self-evident truth we must then describe the axiom of logic which is self-evident.

    1 + 1  = 3 when the person writing 1 + 1  = 3 does not know how to write 1 + x = 3 and the witnesses sees x as one letter and writes it as such. I am holding this truth as be self-evident by the creation of a clear connection to a logic. The equation is not self-evident on its own just like the earth called round does not mean it is a Ellipsoid as a point of fact. You are creating your own truth.....that does not connect to the facts like thew world is not a sphere it is ellipsoid and just close enough to be called a sphere if we disregard the Idea of exact & exactly


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -  
    ZeusAres42 said:

    @MayCaesar Great piece. I would also like to add that 1+1=3 is actually possible depending on the parameters involved but the truth-value will not change; it will not be crazy and it will make perfect sense as to how and why 1+1=3 is the case. Of course, 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples and will never be 3 apples, however, not everything in math or science for that matter relies on common sense arithmetic rules like this, eg:

    It's Common sense that the world is flat. It isn't.
    It's common sense that we are the center of the universe. We aren't.
    It's common sense that we see the world like we are looking through a camera lens. We aren't.
    It's common sense that we hear the world like we are listening to a radio. We don't.
    It's common sense that the sun rises and sets. It doesn't.
    It's common sense that objects are solid. they aren't.
    It's common sense that time passes at the same rate everywhere. It doesn't.
    It's common sense that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. They don't.
    It's common sense that human memory works like a tape recorder. It doesn't.
    It's common sense that there is only one law of addition. There isn't.


    I would like to push back on both of these points, although the argument you made is definitely not without a reason.

    First, in modern mathematics all objects and operations including numbers are defined through the set theory. In essence, every object is a member of a class of objects (a set), and the objects that are unique members of a given class are the ones we are talking about here, including numbers. For such objects, given their definitions, certain equalities are inevitable. Given how the set of natural numbers, the set of integer numbers, the set of rational numbers and the set of real numbers are defined, 1+1=3 is a false statement. From the set theory perspective, 1+1 is equivalent to taking the first member of the ordered set of natural numbers and moving one position to the right, which contains number 2. It is impossible to obtain 3 in such a way.
    However, in many cases mathematicians do what is called "abusing notation" (they say it when they try to sound cool and important). This is when we use notation that, strictly speaking, is incorrect, however in a particular context makes certain sense and makes for convenient and concise notation. In those cases 1+1=3 may be right, or, at least, not wrong.
    Let us denote by n an equivalence class (a fancy term for a set of objects that are members of the same set) of all closed figures with the total perimeter n. By addition, "+", let us denote an operation of putting two such figures together in a higher-dimensional space. In that case we can take two 2D-triangles of perimeter 1 and "add" them together in order to form a 3D-pyramid, and that pyramid may have perimeter 3. In this case 1+1=3 is not exactly an equality, but it is a partial case of some more general equality. In fact, 1+1=3 is not false, 1+1=2 is not false, and 1+1=x is not false for an infinite number of values x. It makes sense to talk about the set of all solutions to equation 1+1=3 in this context.

    Second, "common sense" is one of those strange terms that are supposed to be intuitively understandable, yet have no concrete meaning. What a person sees as "common sense" depends on their knowledge and experience. To one person the idea that 1 kg of water should take up more volume than 1 kg of ice seems like common sense - after all, we know that solid objects are generally heavier than liquid objects around us - yet to another, one who has delved into solid state physics, it is the other way around, as their intuition is based on a deeper understanding of the underlying properties of matter.

    What I do not disagree with is that in mathematics often very counter-intuitive (for most people) ideas happen to be true. One that caused me a couple of sleepless nights at the time was Vitali set. It is a set that demonstrates that on the space of all possible sets in space the concepts of "distance", "area", "volume" and the like cannot be defined without generating contradictions, and the space must be severely restricted for such a definition to be sensible. Vitali set is one of those things that mess with your brain, and even decades after running into them for the first time one struggles grasping it intuitively.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -  
    MineSubCraftStarved said:

    Why can't a statement be both true and false, at the same time? If I say that 1 =/= 1, who are you to say my logic system is incorrect? What if my system of logic says that such conditions are fluid, and as such, 1 may equal 1 at one point, and at another point 1 might signify a different value, what makes this not objective and the other statement objective?
    Because that is what logic is: it is classification of statements into "true" and "false" based on causal connections between them. If a statement is both "true" and "false" at the same time, then it is not a logical statement.
    Now, there are certain fun fields such as "fuzzy logic" in which "true" and "false" are not the only possible states a statement can be in - but, perhaps ironically, "fuzzy logic" itself is built upon the foundation of regular logic.
    Any logical system that contains a single contradiction is broken, and it has been proven in many different ways that a single contradiction in a logical system makes every possible statement simultaneously true and false, which makes the system unusable.

    MineSubCraftStarved said:

    This is more or less the point I am trying to get at. Logic is fundamentally an arbitrary concept, why? Because logic falls under a number of axioms, all of which operate under systems of beliefs by the user, my system of math can be completely different from yours. When you say mathematics is not arbitrary, its ultimate axioms are arbitrary, thus making the whole of mathematics nothing more than a human creation, and arbitrary extension of thought.
    Similarly, the statement, "I believe in god because the universe had a beginning, and god was that beginning," falls under a similar problem. The belief that the universe had to begin, and that beginning had to be god, is ultimately based on arbitrary axioms, or beliefs. And thus, logically, should be treated as valid as mathematics.
    No, logic does not fall under any axioms: all of it can be derived from the mere requirement that each statement is either true or false, not both and not neither. That does not mean that only one logical system is possible - in fact, a countable number of them is possible (perhaps even uncountable, but if so, I cannot prove it) - but that does mean that logic is not at all an arbitrary concept.

    Mathematics builds upon a set of axioms that cannot be determined uniquely, indeed. That means that different versions of mathematics are possible - however, those versions are not arbitrary. The axiom of union is a natural application of the logical "A is A" to the set theory on which the whole of modern mathematics is built, and you cannot do away with this axiom without getting in some serious trouble. Can you build a mathematical system without it? Perhaps. But it will be a much more convoluted system than anything anyone has created so far. One of the requirements in mathematics is that the set of the axioms is as simple and concise as possible, and the more convoluted it becomes, the more messy and impractical the whole thing gets. It is like with cars: you surely can design a car with quadratic wheels, but that would be a poor design, and the wheels in all modern cars being round is not just some arbitrary decision of some random engineer, but a consequence of basic requirements in car design such as energy efficiency and structural stability.

     "I believe in god because the universe had a beginning, and god was that beginning" is not really a statement, it is just a definition. It is like me saying, "I exist, so let me call me Gandalf". I have not said anything of substance, I just introduced an arbitrary term to describe something that has already existed.
    1+1=2 is a different statement: it is a factual statement, one that can be verified and found to be true or false. You cannot find a definition to be true or false: a definition is a definition, it is what it is, it is a wordplay.


    MineSubCraftStarved said:

    The inherent properties and their definitions are ultimately themselves axioms. The statement 1 = 1 could function as an axiom, to say that statement is true takes a level of faith as an axiom serves as an unprovable premise, and thus a belief.
    The law of identity is not an axiom, but an inherent property of any logical system, as I explained in the first paragraph. It is not provable or unprovable, but it is a premise without which no logical system is possible. If you want to talk about logic at all, you have to accept the law of identity - and if you refuse to accept it, then whatever you are trying to construct is going to be completely meaningless and useless. Anything that violates the law of identity would necessarily lead to "true" being equal to "false", which contradicts the definitions of these terms for they are defined exactly in opposition to each other.

    As an analogy, consider the following statement: "man = woman". What does it say? It really says that "man" and "woman" is the exact same entity. But if it is the exact same entity, then all you are saying is that you are calling that entity two different words. The entity is still the same, and you can use "man" and "woman" interchangeably. And, on the other hand, if "man" and "woman" are different entities, then they are not equal, and the statement "man = woman" is false.
    What you are trying to do here is to make it so whether "man = woman" was true was determined at a whim of whoever is talking about this statement. So you will have someone who says, "man = woman", and someone else who says, "man =/= woman", both being neither right or wrong. It seems to me that in this case the statement "man = woman" is just meaningless: if it can be whatever you want it to be, then it is a fantasy, not a real statement about reality. Statements about reality are verifiable and testable, while fantasies are arbitrary and untestable.
  • @MayCaesar
    No, logic does not fall under any axioms: all of it can be derived from the mere requirement that each statement is either true or false, not both and not neither. That does not mean that only one logical system is possible - in fact, a countable number of them is possible (perhaps even uncountable, but if so, I cannot prove it) - but that does mean that logic is not at all an arbitrary concept.

    I may misunderstand what you are saying here but aren’t you using the principle of a mathematic Boolean to describe a necessity for an introduction of fix equation when we say fuzzy logic? All axioms are logical, or they are presumed to be true, which is the very point of the use of a scientific method being applied in situations of algebra Boolean. Abstracts produce sums which require rules to bring consistency in outcome.


  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @John_C_87

    John, I'm finished with this discussion because you have no clear point of contention, you're contradicting yourself every couple of posts, and I'm having to repeat simple things to you continuously. Your replies make no sense, don't address anything I've written and offer no clear refutation to anything.

    Have a nice day.
  • Then point is what it has started out to be in the forum we as people make up our own truth, Time, Pi, the idea of a Female Presdient of the United States of America, abortion as only a crime of murder are all made up truths...
  • Okay better exsample...of the world making up a truth.

    A female President, it is discrimination to say a women cannot be a President of a single united Constitutional state of law without introduction of crime? (a) Discrimination (b) Presadera both choices are true, and neither is a lie, both choices have been created by a creator.


  • @Dee
    But if you believe certainty is impossible to acquire you would have to be certain that it is, right? 
    Not necessarily, I can say that it is possible that certainty can be possible. Although of course, I would have to be certain that certainty is only a possibility. This is a contradiction, however, what if I believe that logic can function even with contradictions? What if I say that 1 + 1 = 2 is a true statement and that 1 + 1 = 3 at the same time is also as true a statement? As stated previously, logic ultimately relies on the belief of the user, for this reason, what can be declared logic is up to the user, so contradictions can be valid.

    Radical skepticism should either be in doubt of itself, or affirm itself.

    So which is it?
    Affirming skepticism is a contradiction, hence skepticism cannot be maintained according to your arguments
    Radical skepticism should be in doubt of itself. Why? Because all knowledge is built on a belief, and thus an axiom, then all knowledge is irrational and cannot be determined as different beliefs can have different knowledge regarding the same instance. This ultimately leads to the conclusion that the statement I just described, is also built on an axiom that all knowledge is built on a belief, thus radical skepticism invalidates itself. So, therefore, nothing is true, including this statement. So the only knowledge that can be derived is only from your own belief, whatever you believe can be true, and who's to say that you are more wrong than another person?
  • MineSubCraftStarvedMineSubCraftStarved 148 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @MayCaesar
    I don't have enough time to send anything today sadly. I'll send my argument to you tomorrow.
  • BarnardotBarnardot 521 Pts   -  
    @Nomenclature ;Spheres are round, my good friend.

    So is the picture of your avitar is a sphere is it like it jumps out of your pc and rolls a round your desk.

  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @Barnardot
    So is the picture of your avitar is a sphere is it

    That's a circle because it exists in two dimensions, not three. 

    And it's avatar, you illiterate hillbilly.

  • DeeDee 5395 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @MineSubCraftStarved


    Not necessarily, I can say that it is possible that certainty can be possible. Although of course, I would have to be certain that certainty is only a possibility. This is a contradiction,
     
    Yes it is a contradiction so why are you saying ' not necessarily ' ?


    however, what if I believe that logic can function even with contradictions?

    Then you're not talking about logic ,prove it with practical real world examples?



    What if I say that 1 + 1 = 2 is a true statement and that 1 + 1 = 3 at the same time is also as true a statement

    Well no then I'm afraid you're an id-ot  or insane as you can do the first simple calculation but not the second , seriously?

    But you actually don't believe that and don't live your life that way , no offence but i believe you're just being deliberately argumentative and what is your aim?

    Is it  to say you there can be no certainties?

    We live our lives based on our beliefs and for me I'm not reliant on absolute certainties but only degrees of certainty 

    As stated previously, logic ultimately relies on the belief of the user

    As incorrectly stated you mean. No , that's not true ,1+ 2 equals 3 this is demonstrable  and repeatedly so and no one has ever proved otherwise ,now you can pretend otherwise but you're then either insane , or pretending or playing this game we all do growing up as ,"prove me wrong" and every time you meet an objection you keep repeating " well prove me wrong" 

    or this reason, what can be declared logic is up to the user, so contradictions can be valid.

    Tell me a real world logial system that works that's reliant on each individuals personal interpretation of logical rules?



    BTW you keep using the term axiom here is the definition of such you keep using the term incorrectly .....

    a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true



    Radical skepticism should be in doubt of itself. Why? Because all knowledge is built on a belief, and thus an axiom, then all knowledge is irrational and cannot be determined as different beliefs can have different knowledge regarding the same instance.

    You obviously don't know what the term axiom means ,the rest of your statement makes no sense at all how can something regarded as being established be irrational?

    This ultimately leads to the conclusion that the statement I just described, is also built on an axiom that all knowledge is built on a belief, thus radical skepticism invalidates itself


    Your statement isn't an axiom it's your opinion 

    . So, therefore, nothing is true, including this statement. So the only knowledge that can be derived is only from your own belief, whatever you believe can be true, and who's to say that you are more wrong than another person


    But you just said ,,"nothing is true' that includes your own beliefs so how is that deriving knowledge?

    Tell me your definition of knowledge?

    Tell me your alternative system of logic that you think is equally valid to the one we use?

    Your whole argument seems to be that we need logical systems that are 100 per cent certain for all time and in all cases or radical sceptics will be upset 

    Your postion lacks consistency you say we have no real grounding for our beliefs yet you exclude yourself by saying your beliefs are valid for you which is incoherent as how can you validate them if you admit you've no grounding for them?


    You agree you live your life like the rest of us regarding evauating and making logical decisions yet  then demand certainties , radical scepticism cannot be falsified because we cannot have absolute certainty , so what? 

    No one claims they need absolute certainties in life only degrees of certainty so the point of your argument is lost on me as can you tell me what the practical advantage is to pretending to hold such views that have zero application in the real world?


  • @Dee
    Then you're not talking about logic, prove it with practical real-world examples?
    Logic is simply defined as a particular way of thinking, reasoning, and a way to form conclusions.
    Furthermore, let's take the following image:
    Arty News  The Story Of Two Apples A Good Life Lesson
    What if I say there are both two and three apples in the image above? And on two separate occasions, I count 2 and 3 apples. Let's then go further to say that this would align with my logic that math is simply a set of approximations for a given value, rather than a definite unchanging result, so there would be 50% chance that I would count 2 apples, and a 25% chance I count 3.
    If my logic leads me to fundamentally different conclusions, why does your logic, rationally speaking, have to be more valid than mine, besides a simple belief that it just is?
    Is it to say there can be no certainties?
    That is what I have been saying.
    Tell me a real-world logical system that works that's reliant on each individual's personal interpretation of logical rules.
    The one that I have been describing.
    a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true
    What makes any statement self-evidently true? All axioms ultimately fall under beliefs of self-evident truth, which is what belief really is. Take for instance the reality that you are sitting down right now typing in English, while you may believe that you are typing in Mandarin, whilst being in space and agreeing with my argument. Reality is ultimately subjective and bound to a user's interpretation of the world.
    Tell me your definition of knowledge.
    An accurate, complete, and unfalsifiable understanding of an application, method, thought, or fact.
    Tell me your alternative system of logic that you think is equally valid to the one we use?
    Any system of logic that can be created is as valid as the one we use since logic is derived from belief. What is the basis of logic besides belief in it? There is nothing special about our current system of logic.
    For an alternative system of logic, I would propose this:
    At each instance, the value of each mathematical problem is an arbitrary approximation, with there being a bell curve of the value any given number can be.
    Furthermore, in this logic system, a value can be both true and false simultaneously. For instance:
    At this moment, I may be standing on Mars, and at the same time I may be on Venus, and at the same time I would be on Earth. An object can exist in multiple places within space and at the same moment in time. Therefore, in this system of logic, contradictions are allowed.
    Your position lacks consistency you say we have no real grounding for our beliefs yet you exclude yourself by saying your beliefs are valid for you which is incoherent as how can you validate them if you admit you've no grounding for them?
    You misunderstand my position. I concede that we have no logical grounding for our beliefs, and our own logic. However, I can choose to believe anything I want, and who am I or you to say that my belief is wrong? I believe in logic, however, I believe in it with the understanding that logic is an ultimately arbitrary concept, which has no basis in this world besides my own belief in it.
    This is the ultimate purpose of this debate, of whether or not we create our own truths. The answer is yes, we do create our own truths as any belief is ultimately created and chosen by us, including logic.
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved
    What if I say there are both two and three apples in the image above?

    What if I say you're writing total unadulterated nonsense? This isn't quantum physics. Either there are two or there are three apples. There can't be both two and three apples simultaneously any more than I can be in New York and Bangkok simultaneously. 

  • @MayCaesar
    Because that is what logic is
    Logic is defined as simply a mode of thinking regarding reasoning, argumentations, and conclusions, logic can be defined as anything and is really just a way of thinking abstractly about the world. If I say that in my form of logic, a value can be both true and false at the same time, who are you to say I am wrong?
    Logic is not necessarily based on the belief that a statement can be true or false. Take for instance gravity, gravity is derived first and foremost from the observable attraction of objects to one another. Although the effect of gravity has been measured with a great deal of accuracy up to this moment, why does that mean that if I drop an apple, it will fall?
    It would be typically said, that if an event happened plenty of times before, why would it happen again? Why does an event happening consistently for an extended period of time mean that it will continue to happen? Sure, the chance of the apple falling is probably low, but it is never zero. Unless it has been tested an infinite amount of times, and it has been observed that the apple has never dropped!
    Any logical system that contains a single contradiction is broken
    The logic that contradiction invalidates a statement is ultimately based on the belief that a statement must be either true or false, which is itself not based on anything, and thus fundamentally arbitrary.
    No, logic does not fall under any axioms: all of it can be derived from the mere requirement that each statement is either true or false, not both and not neither. That does not mean that only one logical system is possible - in fact, a countable number of them is possible (perhaps even uncountable, but if so, I cannot prove it) - but that does mean that logic is not at all an arbitrary concept.
    But what makes the requirement that each statement be true or false not an axiom? After all, it is a 'self-evident truth', has no reasoning to support it, and serves as a premise. Since it has no support, premise, or reasoning, it is ultimately a form of belief, thus arbitrary. So therefore, since it is an arbitrary belief, I can choose any system of logic to be more correct than the one we currently have.
    Since there are multiple systems of logic, what makes one system of logic more right than another? What makes our system of logic the correct one?
     "I believe in god because the universe had a beginning, and god was that beginning" is not really a statement, it is just a definition. It is like me saying, "I exist, so let me call me Gandalf". I have not said anything of substance, I just introduced an arbitrary term to describe something that has already existed.
    1+1=2 is a different statement: it is a factual statement, one that can be verified and found to be true or false. You cannot find a definition to be true or false: a definition is a definition, it is what it is, it is a wordplay.
    Ultimately, the differentiation is unnecessary as 1 + 1 = 2 can also be broken down into definitions. This is because you can define 1 as half of two(1 = 2*1/2), and when one number is added to another number of the same value(1 + 1), the value of the number is multiplied by two(1 * 2). And since 1/2 multiplied by 2 is 1 ((1/2*2) * 2), you get the result of two ((1/2*2) * 2 = 2).
    These are all definitions and premises on which you may base an argument. Similar to how the belief in god may also serve as a definition when defining god as the start of the universe.
    The law of identity is not an axiom, but an inherent property of any logical system, as I explained in the first paragraph. It is not provable or unprovable, but it is a premise without which no logical system is possible.ц
    By definition, if it is unable to be falsified or proved then it is an axiom or a self-evident truth. Since it is an axiom, it is founded on belief. And since it is founded on belief, it is arbitrary as it has no rational basis.
    Statements about reality are verifiable and testable, while fantasies are arbitrary and untestable.
    The reliability of observation from which you may determine whether or not a testable premise is true or not(such as an apple being added to another apple, akin to 1 + 1 = 2) is ultimately based on the subjective perception of the user. Does a person suffering from schizophrenia have as valid and verifiable observations(that can be testable) regarding their observations of the world around them? Indeed, what gives credence to the validity of any observation? After all, what may be one thing to you, might be something else to another person. So how can observation be objectively determined?
    Nomenclature
  • MineSubCraftStarvedMineSubCraftStarved 148 Pts   -   edited January 2023
    @Nomenclature
    What if I say you're writing total unadulterated nonsense? This isn't quantum physics. Either there are two or there are three apples. There can't be both two and three apples simultaneously any more than I can be in New York and Bangkok simultaneously. 
    I do agree that most of my analogies to me and most other people do not appear to be the most rational. But that is ultimately based on an extension of belief. Rather than truly objective facts. Sure, the view I described might be insane, but your view of the world logically may be just as mental, if not more. As stated in a previous post, observable reality can change between the observer, so what may seem like two apples may be three apples to another person, so who is more correct?
    Nomenclature
  • NomenclatureNomenclature 1245 Pts   -  
    @MineSubCraftStarved
    Sure, the view I described might be insane

    Lol. Well, at least you can admit it, which is more than most other people on this site are capable of doing.

    observable reality can change between the observer, so what may seem like two apples may be three apples to another person

    The number of apples in a single frame of reference doesn't change between the observer. Perceptions of reality can change, certainly, but not reality itself.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch