Proving the website is false would be tricky

Date: 2011-02-04 12:15 am (UTC)
The assertions that it makes seem to mostly be that the tree octopus exists, and that it is in danger of going extinct.

To prove the second part false, I would have to prove that the tree octopus is not in danger of becoming extinct. That is, I would have to prove the nonexistence of threats to the tree octopus's continued existence.

To prove the first part false, I would have to prove that the tree octopus does not exist.

The simple way to prove nonexistence, assuming I can correctly identify things, is to look at all things, and if none of them can be identified as the thing that I am looking for, then I have proven that the thing does not exist. This will take an impractically long time, even if I just look at all the things in the Pacific Northwest.

Brute force being out, I must resort to something more clever. For example, I could assume the existence of the tree octopus and then derive a contradiction. Unfortunately, I don't have a handy proof that reality is logically consistent, nor do I have an example of something that is observed to be true, yet could not be true in a reality that includes tree octopi.

If someone could prove that, for example, the existence of tree octopi would result in all cheesecakes failing to set, and I had observed a set cheesecake, then I would know there were no tree octopi (or that something was wrong in the calibration of my cheesecake durometer).

The tautological case of "In a reality with tree octopi, there would be tree octopi" falls apart because I can't check all the things to see if at least one of them is a tree octopus, as above. Cases like "In a reality where there are tree octopi, there are no tree salmon" have a similar problem, because I have to check everything to make sure it isn't a tree salmon. In fact, even the cheesecake example fails because I cannot be certain that no cheesecake anywhere ever will never set without checking all of them.

In other words, disproof by looking at everything fails because I'm lazy, and disproof by finding contradictory properties of the observed system fails because I'm ignorant (of the properties of the system) AND lazy (about checking said properties).

But then, this only applies to those of us limited by inconveniences like mortality and the laws of physics. If I didn't have these problems, I could simply Go and Look, and then Reveal to you all The Way and The Light, A Truth for the Ages.

Of course, whether you believed me is up to you.

Further attempts at proof or disproof can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
Just remember to replace all instances of "God" with "tree octopus".
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

athelind: (Default)
athelind

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

November 2019

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
101112 13141516
17 181920212223
24252627282930

Tags

Page generated Jun. 24th, 2025 04:58 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios