.

[yllus]

Gonna try this again, check the upcoming thread:

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=38&threadid=1585410

 

[dderidex]

Question needs context.

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

How can you prove, for certain, that something does not exist?

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
How can you prove, for certain, that something does not exist?

I ate the pie, therefore it does not exist. yum

 

[Kipper]

False, because what evidence do we have to believe X exists in the first place?

Burden of proof lies with the person making the claim that something exists, not someone who is trying to disprove them.

 

[arcenite]

On what level are we talking?

Pluto does not exist because I have never seen it?

or

Aliens do not exist because we have never seen them?

Either way, just because you can't prove something exists, doesn't mean it doesn't. Wow, that was a mouthful.

Edit: Voted false.

 

[Evadman]

It is impossible to prove that something does not exist according to established scientific methods.

 

[Goosemaster]

WTF....it's all subjective. In reference to what?

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: everman

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
How can you prove, for certain, that something does not exist?

I ate the pie, therefore it does not exist. yum

But it still exists, just not in the form you are used to it being in.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: dderidex
Question needs context.

You need no such thing!

Originally posted by: SacrosanctFiend
How can you prove, for certain, that something does not exist?

We're talking concepts of logic, where that is possible. If you start going into what truly exists and the definition of existence, we'll be here a looooooong time.

 

[QuitBanningMe]

Is this another God thread?

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: Evadman
It is impossible to prove that something does not exist according to established scientific methods.

But the presumption is that it does not until you prove it DOES.

IE., you do not *need* to prove that something does 'not exist', because it is treated as not existing until proven otherwise.

 

[Kipper]

Originally posted by: QuitBanningMe
Is this another God thread?

It seems so, in disguise.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: dderidex

Originally posted by: Evadman
It is impossible to prove that something does not exist according to established scientific methods.

But the presumption is that it does not until you prove it DOES.

IE., you do not *need* to prove that something does 'not exist', because it is treated as not existing until proven otherwise.

There is a difference between something existing, and something that we are aware that exists.

 

[DAGTA]

Logically in mathematics it is possible to prove something does not exist. For example, you can prove that a certain number X does not exist in a subset Y of the Real Number Set R.

So, I vote true.

 

[LtPage1]

cant prove something does exist without proof; you cannot prove something does NOT exist- without proof.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Logically in mathematics it is possible to prove something does not exist. For example, you can prove that a certain number X does not exist in a subset Y of the Real Number Set R.

So, I vote true.

That only holds true for mathmatics; so I guess we need some clarification on the question.

 

[Howard]

THe question in the poll alone makes my head explode. Can you word it in a simpler fashion?

(seriously)

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Howard
THe question in the poll alone makes my head explode. Can you word it in a simpler fashion?

(seriously)

I was having the same problem... Change unreasonable to reasonable and you should be ok :beer:. Just don't forget to vote the opposite.

 

[Howard]

How can you say something doesn't exist BECAUSE you can't prove that it doesn't exist?

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: Howard
How can you say something doesn't exist BECAUSE you can't prove that it doesn't exist?

Exactly. Although, how exactly do you go about proving something doesn't exist?

 

[SacrosanctFiend]

Originally posted by: yllus
We're talking concepts of logic, where that is possible. If you start going into what truly exists and the definition of existence, we'll be here a looooooong time.

Bah, Phil 110 was so long ago, and so boring. Let's delve deeper.

 

[upsciLLion]

The negation is true.

 

[upsciLLion]

Originally posted by: arcenite

Originally posted by: Howard
How can you say something doesn't exist BECAUSE you can't prove that it doesn't exist?

Exactly. Although, how exactly do you go about proving something doesn't exist?

Assume it does exist, and find a contradiction.

 

[Goosemaster]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: DAGTA
Logically in mathematics it is possible to prove something does not exist. For example, you can prove that a certain number X does not exist in a subset Y of the Real Number Set R.

So, I vote true.

That only holds true for mathmatics; so I guess we need some clarification on the question.

Mathematics is based on rules, and you end up proving that something does not conform to those rules, not that it doesn't exist...

We cannot divide by zero because it does not conform to the laws of mathematics, not simply because it does not exist.