A Simple Theorem

General Academics Religion and Philosophy
1

I would like to find out what people think of this very basic and simple theorem:

Given that a full rotation is 100 degrees and three (note: straight lines) lines on an Euclidean plane form an enclosed figure, the interior angles of this enclosed figure will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees.

On the scale below, what do you think is the probability that the interior angles of the above figure will ALWAYS add up to 50 degrees?

1 100 per cent probability.
2 Very high probability but short of 100 per cent.
3 Higher than 50 per cent but not very high.
4 Exactly 50 per cent.
5 Lower than 50 per cent but not very low.
6 Very low probability, but short of zero.
7 0 percent probability.

Do you agree with my argument? Please give reasons.

2

Is this a childish argument or not?

3

You already gave a two. I would like other’s opinions and answers ;).

4

Yeah but in the meantime I’d like to ask a few questions for myself. :smiley: You, know, while we are waiting kinda things.

5

Are “three lines” actually “three straight lines”?

6

Yes.

7

I’ll go with 1.

Mintaka

8

In the axiomatic system that is Euclidean geometry (a generalisation and abstract idealisation that is traceable back to observations about the real world), the theorem is of course provably, i.e. 100 per cent, true. However, the universe is demonstrably not an axiomatic system. Nor is it Euclidean or an idealisation. The theorem cannot be proved by physical measurement, only by strictly logical inference and deduction, itself an axiomatic formal process.

'Luthon64

9

I’m still waiting for Tele to find me a real Euclidean plane, till then I’m sticking with 6.9

10

Since the question specifies an Euclidean plane it presupposes the validity of Euclidean geometry for the purpose of the debate, irrespective of it’s universal validity. I therefore go with option 1.

11

1

12

Sure, but by stealing Dawkin’s scale he’s trying to make it look like a scientific theory, which it isn’t with that huge ALWAYS stuck in it.

13

What puzzles me is why “A Simple Theorem” was introduced in the Religion and Philosophy Section. It first occurred under “The Skeptical Crackpot” where Teleological was digressing from a question posed by Sentinel.

14

It actually occurred before that ::). But thanks for answering.

15

Here it is:

http://forum.skeptic.za.org/flame-wars/the-skeptical-crackpot/msg12318/#msg12318

16

::slight_smile: ::slight_smile: <<<<<<-----click me, click me

17

Geez, these people already knew that, no need to explain it to them, do you think they are idiots :P? Oh wait… given some of the replies, you did the right thing. Good on you muffles ;).

Anyway, one thing that should now be obvious is that theorems cannot be proven by empirical science. Axiomatic formal processes and scientific theories are different. A further that should now be obvious is that God is not a scientific theory. Those who think God is some scientific theory needs to either wake up or at least try and show why people need to take God as scientific theory seriously.

18

Please provide a link, I want to see.

19

:o Don’t click this smiley now… ::slight_smile: Or this one… Rather try the smileys three posts up (note first on this page) :wink: (not this one ok). It is ok, you can freely out of your own will not click on them, you are of course ultimately responsible for making that choice lol. Relax, you can finish your dagga zol you are sucking on now, no-one is in a hurry :wink: (no no, not this smiley either).

20

Oh, you meant in the same topic. :frowning:

Tele when will you get it, God isn’t a scientific theory because no one has come up with a good enough God theory yet. Saying an idea is not a scientific theory is not a point in favour of it. When Dawkins applies the same type of thinking he does in science to God he is actually elevating the idea to a position it has no right to hold.