A challenge

Post Reply New Topic

Here's a challenge all right to all the people here.

How about you all try to prove that the internet exists. Go on, try it.

See, you can't can you?

Yeah, acting so high and mighty but when someone asks you a simple question you can't answer.

Wiped the smile of off your face there eh? EH? Yeah.

I, like, totally won, yeah.

And now I am off to heckle a puppy. The b*stards can't bark properly.









I hope this is not necessary but
[*heavy sarcasm*]

Thank you for this, burnse.

Well, I cannot absolutely prove that the internet(as a network between other individuals possessing computers) exists, however, it seems probable that it does.

Let us assert the facts we know:

1) I exist
2) I am receiving data that is clearly not coming from me

Let's then assert that which seems pretty darn clear:

1) Empirically, I receive data not coming from me through a device called a computer
2) Other people have computers which "send" and receive information(send is quoted and receive is unquoted for good reason)

Finally, let's give other facts that strongly point to the internet

1) People claim to send data from their computers through the internet
2) People respond to data sent from your computer through the internet
3) Most sources of information deny that phenomenon as complex as found the internet could be created by a non-human.

Now, if we accept 1 and 2 from the known, and 1 or 2 from the pretty darn clear, along with any point from 1-3 from the facts strongly pointing to the internet, then the internet is proven, as opposed to it being a conspiracy theory or an advanced computer program.


Yes, yes you did. Go skepticism!

Now, let us examine the regress argument:

1. Suppose that P is some piece of knowledge. Then P is a justified true belief.
2. The only thing that can justify P is another statement – let's call it P1; so P1 justifies P.
3. But if P1 is to be a satisfactory justification for P, then we must know that P1.
4. But for P1 to be known, it must also be a justified true belief.
5. That justification will be another statement - let's call it P2; so P2 justifies P1.
6. But if P2 is to be a satisfactory justification for P1, then we must know that P2
7. But for P2 to count as knowledge, it must itself be a justified true belief.
8. That justification will in turn be another statement - let's call it P3; so P3 justifies P2.
9. and so on, ad infinitum.

Now, let us take anything accepted as true, and then put it in the place of P. Can you then prevent it from being found baseless according to the regress argument? Doesn't this mean that nothing can be proved? If nothing can be proved, then even the statement "nothing can be proved" can't be proved. We have killed all knowledge, including the knowledge by which we could ever claim "we have killed all knowledge". Great, ain't it?

They can't. I think you should beat it with a metal rod.

If you look, you have bookmarks, are those bookmarks real?
they seem to take hard drive space,
the information came from somewhere,
and "you" are the one who made them,
I am sure there is a logical proses and reason to how it works.
And Since you made the bookmarks you obviously believe their real,
therefore your question stands without true argument.

Let me see whether I got this right. You're posting on an ONLINE FORUM, for everyone to see, and what you're asking from us is a demonstration of the existence of the very thing that allowed you to make that question in the first place?

Internet? What's that?

I invented the Internet; therefore, it exists.

Isn't that the inner netting of swim trunks? Of course I can prove it exists; I have some at home.

How can you know the Internet exists?
and how can you know the Internet doesn't exist?

I could say that my belief of the existence of the Internet consists on some factors, one important factor is my cognition and the ability to perceive and interpret things in my brain from my environment, if I was extremely mentally challenged that I would perceive some of the environment very poorly or if I was a feral child, I would not know and comprehend what Internet is and if it exists, I could say that it would not exist for me. In my own universe, there would not be such a thing, because I wouldn't know about it, I wouldn't even understand it. Faith could be another issue.

On the other hand, this is also related to the 'Prove reality exists' thread, in which, if reality is an illusion then this would apply here as well.

With this thread, I remembered this other interesting question:
If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound?

I would say that it is likely so.

1) Sound is the result of physical activity that effects air particles.
2) A tree falling should impact the air particles whether or not people are around.
3) Therefore a tree falling in the forest should make a sound whether or not people are around.

Not only that, but I imagine that some form of test has been done to show that sound exists due to tree falling even if people are not physically within the area. Now, it can be argued that human recording devices and their monitoring may have an impact on the existence of sound, but if we go that far, then the hypothesis "no people no sound" becomes so untestable to be just an act of pure skepticism.

According to those definions, we need organs capable of detecting vibrations, sending the signals to the brain and the brain making the interpretation of what is perceived.

We could argue that in this case, sound is what we take for the result of our capability as living beings of hearing rather than the vibrations themselves, which are produced when something crashes or a tree falling down, in which case, if a tree falls, it would produce vibrations in the air, but if no living being is there then those vibrations would not be perceived by a hearing organ and interpreted in the form of sound as we know it, even though we can record it, we need someone to listen to it, later.

Which is one way to look at it.

Well, the issue is the definition of sound. Like you said, 2 definitions with one not dependent upon being heard, and the other dependent upon being heard.

If a man speaks, and there is no woman to correct him, is he still wrong?

If a + b = c then what does z + e = ?

1)Fnord invented the internet
2)Fnord is Al Gore

Damn, that's scary.

It was back around 1980, I was attending university, and several of us (students, professors, and government types...) were discussing the impending evolution of the ArpaNet. I thought that a more modern name was in order, and since it was an INTER-agency, INTER-disciplinary, and INTER-national network for the INTER-change of new ideas, I suggested that we call it the INTER-network - or InterNet, for short. Within a year, people were referring to it as the Internet.

Therefore, I invented the Internet!

You're welcome.