How Do You Prove Something Doesn't Exist?

[Grand_Arcana]

You can't.

The closest you can get to doing so would be to logically excluding it, like how since dogs are mammels, it's logically impossible that there is a dog that is a fish.

The issue is that even in those cases it's not 100%. (One could argue that a dog IS a fish, as there is no clear line that seperates a fish from a tetrapod, or a teterapod from a amphibian, or a a amphibian from a reptilomorph, etc)

That's not how it works. Yes, dogs and fish have a Common Ancestor, but their lineages diverged long ago to yield two creatures with very distinctive genomes and phenotypes. To say a dog is a fish is like saying a human is a bird, or that you and your distant cousin are the same person.

Even saying that a triangle must always have internal angles equaling 180 degress isn't necessarily true.

Yes it is. If there is a triangle that doesn't, please don't keep it to yourself. It would make you a rich man.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

There is no way. ANYTHING could be true. ANYTHING you can think of could exist.

It's a question of probability.

 

[Kilo24]

You can prove that something does not exist if it contradicts some essential laws of logic.

By the laws of aerodynamics, bumblebees shouldn't be able to fly.

Which are not essential laws of logic. Math is rife with such laws (axioms is a better term, but still probably not the proper one), but science is usually much further from them - especially as it moves towards the softer sciences. These scientific theories are validated by evidence, and a single exception to the law invalidates that version of the law entirely.

And, also, that quote is bunk.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" -Socrates

Nothing is provable.
As long as we base our knowledge on epistemological evidence and allow society's prejudices to cloud our judgement, truth is nonexistant. However, we have no other realistic, objective way of seeing the world. Therefore, this argument is meaningless. In fact, all arguments are meaningless. Nothing can ever be proven for sure.

I exist, and I am conscious.

The only evidence you can put forth of that is your belief in it. Also, define conscious.

nah, it's self-evident. If I did not exist, I could not believe I existed. If I were not conscious, I could not believe I were conscious. It's the ever-popular cogito ergo sum

Conscious meaning aware, so I'm not a thoughtless rock.

Consiousness is a quality that implies an awareness of the outside world, which, by no other way than empirical evidence, cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, you have no proof of your consciousness.

Also, simply because you believe that you exist means nothing to me when you say it. There is simply a lack of evidence besides your word.

 

[conmag9]

For the most part, you can't. There are some cases in formal logic where you can do so though, but that requires assumptions (axioms) to work.

 

[dyre]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" -Socrates

Nothing is provable.
As long as we base our knowledge on epistemological evidence and allow society's prejudices to cloud our judgement, truth is nonexistant. However, we have no other realistic, objective way of seeing the world. Therefore, this argument is meaningless. In fact, all arguments are meaningless. Nothing can ever be proven for sure.

I exist, and I am conscious.

The only evidence you can put forth of that is your belief in it. Also, define conscious.

nah, it's self-evident. If I did not exist, I could not believe I existed. If I were not conscious, I could not believe I were conscious. It's the ever-popular cogito ergo sum

Conscious meaning aware, so I'm not a thoughtless rock.

Consiousness is a quality that implies an awareness of the outside world, which, by no other way than empirical evidence, cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, you have no proof of your consciousness.

Also, simply because you believe that you exist means nothing to me when you say it. There is simply a lack of evidence besides your word.

Nope. Consciousness can also mean any level of awareness. And being aware is a prerequisite to believing things.

And of course it means nothing to you. It's a proof that only applies to the self.

So basically, you have proof that you exist (assuming you're not a figment of my imagination, a false perception or w/e), and I have proof that I exist.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

There is no way. ANYTHING could be true. ANYTHING you can think of could exist.

It's a question of probability.

Probability based on... what? For instance, there either is a God (as christians see Him) or there is not a God (as christians see him), there either is an outside world or there is not, etc. How are either of the 2 possibilities any more or less likely? What is that based on?

 

[ImperialSunlight]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" -Socrates

Nothing is provable.
As long as we base our knowledge on epistemological evidence and allow society's prejudices to cloud our judgement, truth is nonexistant. However, we have no other realistic, objective way of seeing the world. Therefore, this argument is meaningless. In fact, all arguments are meaningless. Nothing can ever be proven for sure.

I exist, and I am conscious.

The only evidence you can put forth of that is your belief in it. Also, define conscious.

nah, it's self-evident. If I did not exist, I could not believe I existed. If I were not conscious, I could not believe I were conscious. It's the ever-popular cogito ergo sum

Conscious meaning aware, so I'm not a thoughtless rock.

Consiousness is a quality that implies an awareness of the outside world, which, by no other way than empirical evidence, cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, you have no proof of your consciousness.

Also, simply because you believe that you exist means nothing to me when you say it. There is simply a lack of evidence besides your word.

Nope. Consciousness can also mean any level of awareness. And being aware is a prerequisite to believing things.

And of course it means nothing to you. It's a proof that only applies to the self.

So basically, you have proof that you exist (assuming you're not a figment of my imagination, a false perception or w/e), and I have proof that I exist.

Awareness requires another object (seperate from the self), physical or mental to be percieved. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that one is conscious because no percieved object can be proved to be real by any means.

In regards to belief in the self, my point is that cognito ergo sum has no place in philosophical debate because it proves nothing. Even if you were but a figment of my imagination, you would still say that you believe you exist to maintain the ruse.

 

[guntotingtomcat]

There is no way. ANYTHING could be true. ANYTHING you can think of could exist.

It's a question of probability.

Probability based on... what? For instance, there either is a God (as christians see Him) or there is not a God (as christians see him), there either is an outside world or there is not, etc. How are either of the 2 possibilities any more or less likely? What is that based on?

God is unlikely but possible. Categorically claiming that there is no God makes no sense, because there might be.

By the same token, claiming to understand the nature of the force of creation behind the infinite universe equally makes no sense, because there are literally limitless possible ways the existence could have begun.

The point is that the only sensible claim to make is that 'there might be a God, but there probably isn't'. To say anymore is nothing but speculation.

The same is true of anything that may or may not exist. If you have never seen one, and there is no evidence that such a thing is real, then it probably isn't. Unicorns, for example.

 

[dyre]

"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing" -Socrates

Nothing is provable.
As long as we base our knowledge on epistemological evidence and allow society's prejudices to cloud our judgement, truth is nonexistant. However, we have no other realistic, objective way of seeing the world. Therefore, this argument is meaningless. In fact, all arguments are meaningless. Nothing can ever be proven for sure.

I exist, and I am conscious.

The only evidence you can put forth of that is your belief in it. Also, define conscious.

nah, it's self-evident. If I did not exist, I could not believe I existed. If I were not conscious, I could not believe I were conscious. It's the ever-popular cogito ergo sum

Conscious meaning aware, so I'm not a thoughtless rock.

Consiousness is a quality that implies an awareness of the outside world, which, by no other way than empirical evidence, cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, you have no proof of your consciousness.

Also, simply because you believe that you exist means nothing to me when you say it. There is simply a lack of evidence besides your word.

Nope. Consciousness can also mean any level of awareness. And being aware is a prerequisite to believing things.

And of course it means nothing to you. It's a proof that only applies to the self.

So basically, you have proof that you exist (assuming you're not a figment of my imagination, a false perception or w/e), and I have proof that I exist.

Awareness requires another object (seperate from the self), physical or mental to be percieved. Therefore, it is impossible to prove that one is conscious because no percieved object can be proved to be real by any means.

In regards to belief in the self, my point is that cognito ergo sum has no place in philosophical debate because it proves nothing. Even if you were but a figment of my imagination, you would still say that you believe you exist to maintain the ruse.

I don't think awareness requires an outside object. I'd say I'm fairly aware in dreams, despite the lack of separate objects around me.

As for cogito ergo sum having no place in philosophical debate, I'd hardly say Socratic ignorance has more of a place. It proves even less!

 

[derelict]

i've often thought of this and the only possible way i can think of is to meet the person who made said thing up, like in Fable when the Oracle tells you Avo and Skorm don't exist because they were invented by a trader, anyone think of any other way?

Add a qualifier: 'This doesn't exist here.'

Works well enough.

 

[ntw3001]

It doesn't make sense to prove that something doesn't exist, but if one can't prove that it does, why is it significant? If it has no notable, measurable effect, it really doesn't matter if it's there or not.

 

[jovack22]

Take higher mathematics if the topic interests you.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

There is no way. ANYTHING could be true. ANYTHING you can think of could exist.

It's a question of probability.

Probability based on... what? For instance, there either is a God (as christians see Him) or there is not a God (as christians see him), there either is an outside world or there is not, etc. How are either of the 2 possibilities any more or less likely? What is that based on?

God is unlikely but possible. Categorically claiming that there is no God makes no sense, because there might be.

By the same token, claiming to understand the nature of the force of creation behind the infinite universe equally makes no sense, because there are literally limitless possible ways the existence could have begun.

The point is that the only sensible claim to make is that 'there might be a God, but there probably isn't'. To say anymore is nothing but speculation.

The same is true of anything that may or may not exist. If you have never seen one, and there is no evidence that such a thing is real, then it probably isn't. Unicorns, for example.

The problem is that if you ask a question like: "Is the christian God real?"
then you have the problem that there is no logical reason to believe that no is any more likely than yes. If you include all forms of Gods, there are many thousands of possibilities. This makes the chances that any of the possibilities are true equally unlikely. As such, it is equally unlikely that there is a god, there are many gods, there are gods and goddesses, there are no gods, etc. Meaning that to say it is improbable that God exists is meaningless because the chances of no gods existing are equally low.

 

[ChicagoTed]

I proved a guy I know didn't get laid at an anime con so it can't be that hard so I would say in a irl setting simply turn columbo but game wise simply google it.

 

[Whispering Cynic]

The only way to prove something (A) *doesn't* exist is to present something else (B) that precludes the existence of A. B should contradict some basic principle of A, thus making it impossible.

Example: a meatbag claims the sunspots on our Sun are areas so cold that there are icebergs of water ice in them (that actually happened to me, my high school biology teacher claimed this was so). We may *know* this to be false, but to ultimately disprove this claim and prove that icebergs on sun really do not exist you would need to reliably assess the surface temperature of a sunspot area (which is established to be 3000-4000 Kelvin if memory serves). The rest of the procedure should be obvious...

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

You can't.

The closest you can get to doing so would be to logically excluding it, like how since dogs are mammels, it's logically impossible that there is a dog that is a fish.

The issue is that even in those cases it's not 100%. (One could argue that a dog IS a fish, as there is no clear line that seperates a fish from a tetrapod, or a teterapod from a amphibian, or a a amphibian from a reptilomorph, etc)

That's not how it works. Yes, dogs and fish have a Common Ancestor, but their lineages diverged long ago to yield two creatures with very distinctive genomes and phenotypes. To say a dog is a fish is like saying a human is a bird, or that you and your distant cousin are the same person.

Even saying that a triangle must always have internal angles equaling 180 degress isn't necessarily true.

Yes it is. If there is a triangle that doesn't, please don't keep it to yourself. It would make you a rich man.

What I was saying is that you can't say a dog isn't a fish, because we still have no fine defination of the line between say reptiles and mammals.

It's really just an example.

As for the triangle, draw one on flat, uninflated ballon.

Then blow the ballon up. Bam.

 

[pwnzerstick]

If there was a device which could detect and identify every single particle in every dimension, then you could have it detect if any collection of particles in existence match what you are trying to disprove.

 

[William Ossiss]

I'm just going to say Schrodinger's cat, and allow you to do what you will with it.