Unknown magic sites in starting provinces?

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
[QB]

quote:

---

Graeme Dice
Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown.

That's just flat wrong... there are known and unknown prehistoric plants which do not exist.

---

If the plants do not exist, then there is no information on them, so your statement that they can be known of unknown is nonsensical.

There is nothing in your post except for your opinions of the english language. Some are correct and some are wrong.

My post is not "opinion". It is a clear explanation of how the language works on this issue. Since you have not pointed out which parts are wrong, and have completely ignored my arguments I am quite happy to accept your concession that you are wrong about this issue.

I only edit my Posts to correct a mistake or add an important phrase instead of creating new Posts. Update the webpage more frequently.

Editing your own Posts is a despicable debating tactic, and the fact that you do so shows what a useless person you are. I should not have to check your Posts multiple times just to make sure that you aren't changing their content.

Once again you have no documentation for your statement. Backup YOUR STATEMENT(your words) with documentation:
"Something which does not exist cannot be either known or unknown. "

The evidence has already been provide in this very thread. I suggest you read and understand the latest post by Jaif.

[jaif]

"If something does not exist, then that means that there is absolutely no way to obtain information on it."

Of course you can; you can derive information through deduction or induction. Not all knowledge is experience.

Which is a sad thing, oft-times.

-Jeff

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Graeme Dice I have searched many places on the internet yet could not find anything to backup your words.

So what? The internet is not an authoritative resource.

You say it's nonexistent only but thats only your opinion.

No, that's not just my opinion, that's the nature of the matter. A plant that never existed cannot have any information about it.

And actual information and knowledge can be obtained from prehistoric plants based on many unique findings such as impressions left in stone. This is only some of the information which helps identify the plant and thus classified as known and nonexistent.

You are once again dodging the point. You have just outlined types of evidence about the plant. This makes it fall into the Category of existent with evidence. Thus the idea of its existence is known, and the plany physically exists. You are also once again trying to ignore the difference between an idea and an object, which Jaif has already pointed out with his two definitions.

[Graeme Dice]

Originally posted by jaif:
"If something does not exist, then that means that there is absolutely no way to obtain information on it."

Of course you can; you can derive information through deduction or induction. Not all knowledge is experience.

So how do you derive information about something that does not exist? Information is experience or it is nothing more than random noise. If your knowledge is not based on some kind of measurement of the world, then it is no more lilely to be correct than picking an answer at random.

[Darryl]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Supreme Court Document :
KNOW THE PRINCIPAL TO BE NONEXISTENT
object: "the principal"

The object is known as nonexistent

Originally posted by NTJedi:
University of Mississippi
http://home.olemiss.edu/~weiming/654p.htm

�As to the nonexistent value, it is just the negative value of unknown value, since in fact it is known to be nonexistent. The predicate expression���

"Known to be nonexistent" and "known as nonexistent" are different phrases from "Known and nonexistent". Please post the examples of "known and nonexistent" that you have found. You posted examples of a phrase that you changed to support your argument.


Also, there are 2 different application of the word "nonexistent" being used here. NTJedi, your prehistoric plants example uses the term nonexistent in reference to something with once did exist, but no longer does. The game example of a copper mine uses the word nonexistent to refer to a specifc physical thing which does not exist in a particular province and never did in that province before it appeared. "Nonexistent" referring to something that is extinct, and "nonexistent" referring to something which never did exist is semantics, using the same word to describe 2 different concepts. Most people, for example, would regard dinosaurs differently than they do draconians, because despite both being "nonexistent", the "nonexistence" of dinosaurs is different from the "nonexistence" of draconians.

Also, as Graeme said NTJedi, the term "unknown" adds nothing to the phrase "unknown and nonexistent" as the phrase "known and nonexistent" is nonsensical. That phrase can be applied to anything which anyone can think up. Seriously. Name one thing that doesn't exist that "known and nonexistent" does not apply to (using the line of reasoning you've used in this thread with the copper mine being "known and nonexistent").

[GavinWheeler]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.

Maybe you could lead the way by apologising to me?

Reminder: you told me to go to school, told me that any scientist would agree with you, and told me again to go to school to learn about diamond deposit formation. Having been shown that these various comments were all way off base, where is your apology?

For that matter, forget apologies - just drop this ridiculous argument by attrition, already.

[Peter Ebbesen]

Originally posted by NTJedi:
Despite all this actual physical proof I seriously believe PeterEbbesen or Graeme Dice lack the honor to apologize for being wrong and rude.

I will apologise for being rude. No matter how wrongheaded I consider your tactics, and I consider them very wrongheaded, that does not excuse my rudeness.

I will not apologise for being wrong, however, for the simple reason that I do not consider myself to be wrong. There is to my mind a significant difference between the General and the Specific (and likewise between a Concept of an object and an Object), and that difference remains no matter how many times you attempt to equate an object with knowledge about the object and how many times you equate the current nonexistence of something that once existed with the nonexistence of something that never has existed.

From you, NTJedi I would like an apology for insulting the intelligence of all the readers by using arguments such as "all scientists agree..." when they manifestly do not (as several of the people who oppose you here qualify as scientists). I do not ask you to apologise for being wrong, though I consider you to be so, merely for insulting our intelligence.

[ March 21, 2004, 22:44: Message edited by: Peter Ebbesen ]

[jaif]

"So how do you derive information about something that does not exist? Information is experience or it is nothing more than random noise. If your knowledge is not based on some kind of measurement of the world, then it is no more lilely to be correct than picking an answer at random."

First off, nobody said all knowledge is "correct". That's not part of the dictionary definition: as long as you believe the idea in your head, it's "knowledge".

Let's put this another way: I know about centaurs. There are no real centaurs: they don't exist, it's just an idea in my head (and in many peoples).

As for basing knowledge on experience, of course that's generally the root. However, the human mind is able to combine ideas and make obscure connections to come up with "new" ideas. I put new in quotes because there's a huge philosphy debate on what's really "new", and I shudder to go down that road because it's really boring.

All that said, I agree entirely with this '..."known and nonexistent" is nonsensical. That phrase can be applied to anything which anyone can think up.' I was playing a game of semantics, but it boils down to what he says here; you can believe whatever you want.

Finally, NTJedi, as an outside observer I do have to say that I agree with the others that your argument style is rather insulting. Just look up the meanings of the words involved in a dictionary, and then take an english course where past tense, present tense, etc are explained. Spending pages debating common english words and using slippery sematical differences is just a baby game.

"God is love."
"Love is blind."
"Ray Charles is blind"
"Ray Charles is God"

See? Playing with words just leads to nonsense (though fun nonsense, in this case).

-Jeff

[Zapmeister]

First off, nobody said all knowledge is "correct". That's not part of the dictionary definition: as long as you believe the idea in your head, it's "knowledge".

I heartily disagree. Knowledge is the awareness of a set of facts. Facts are premises which are correct (otherwise they're fallacies).

If you "believe an idea in your head" it's a belief if there's some empirical reason to hold it, or a faith otherwise. Not knowledge.

Regarding the original topic, I think the most salient point was made by whoever pointed out that Akashic Record will not detect the sites prior to the event, proving their non-existence, and it's meaningless to speak of knowledge of non-existent entities.

[jaif]

I beg to differ - I *know* many fallacies. Knowledge is the sum of a person's experiences, intuitions, and deductions. Facts are things which are 'true'; they're the 'ideal' while knowledge is how close we get to the ideal (or not).

-Jeff