How do you fight the "You can't prove anything" argument

Not really, Godel incompleteness theorem does the same. Basically you cant prove anything, not even this theorem, in fact, if I prove the theorem it would be false then

Just hit them with the "you can't prove that nothing can be proved" paradox.

doubting facts does not diminish them, only the doubter. In an infinite universe there is an infinite set of facts, so the universal doubter diminishes themselves to approaching infinite irrelevance. It is a stance that renders itself functionally useless.

It's not an argument, it's an observation.
All of empirical science is based on an inductive reasoning process, not a deductive argument. You could claim you can things are "probably" true though.
Don't get started up on "least false" sophistry, that's just semantics.

>how can i make someone accept my argument without proof

lie and pretend you have proof and if questioned

>In an infinite universe
Except that's not true at all.

>you cannot prove to someone who adheres to universal doubt that you can prove things.

Or to somebody who believes all evidence contrary to their position is fake.

>lie and pretend you have proof and if questioned

Or just say "it is not my job to educate you, educate yourself."

ask them to prove it

yeahp basically this
you have to fight retardation with retardation

as long as you know they're wrong your argument doesn't need to make any sense, the objective at that point should just be to keep your nuts on their forehead

this user gets it

that's the crazy of humans. We really need to take a stance "unless proven otherwise, it could be true" but that makes every edge lord lose their shit at the idea people can believe in their skygod and really what mommy/daddy issues have you got to let that upset you?

God COULD be true, but I don't get why people think God could be true but those same people would laugh at the idea of advanced invisible intangible aliens that have lived among us to study us since we stood upright.

sure wouldn't be with "that's correct"...i don't want to get trolled.

You can't because that statement is correct.

"How can you know that?"

By pointing out that this is a fallacy because it can be applied to anything. "You can't PROVE God doesn't exist, therefore he exists!" "Oh, yeah? Well you can't PROVE that God doesn't not exist, therefore, he doesn't exist!" The same fallacy works both way, and for any other argument you can possibly imagine. It's a non-argument.

Inter subjectivity OP. You have to agree with the other person on some basic principles before proving anything.
Now, I do have to wonder how it would work out with the most basic logic (and, or, implies, equals).

go waste your time doing something better than engaging in a nonintellectual argument with an opponent even dumber than you are

Shut up, retard.

prove that you cant prove anything

realize it's true

>What is a working assumption?
>What are axioms?

you can prove existance

I'm not OP, but I'm pretty sure existence is presupposed. Even Descartes' cogito is trivial. The use of the first person pronoun in the antecedent 'I think' is deictic, presupposing the existence of a subject. Thus, 'I think therefore I am' is completely tautological once the pragmatics of natural language are taken into consideration.

I think you misunderstand the argument, therefore you are.

Maybe we're both misunderstanding each other. My point is that the use of a first (or second) person pronoun serves as a means of domain restriction in natural language. If you say 'I think you misunderstand the argument', you've restricted your domain of discourse to one which already includes you and I as its members, in other words, you are presupposing our existences. Saying 'I think therefore I am' is as strange as uttering 'His children went to the beach, therefore he has children'.

"Maybe YOU can't."

Okay then I'll humour you.

Lets restrict our domain of discourse to one where either something exists or nothing exists. It is broken logic to suggest that nothing exists, for else whatsoeth doth ponder.

tldr; he certainly does have children if they in fact did go to the beach.

This girl defeated Shinichi Mochizuki by slicing off his head with her katana in a one on one duel on top of a volcano and basically fuck you

This doesn't have to do with logic as much as it does have to do with natural language semantics. If you understand lambdas, here is what 'I' could be taken to mean.

[math][\![ \text{I}]\!] = \lambda p: (\exists x |x \text{ is the speaker}).p=1 [/math]

There are objectively true statements, if false there would be a paradox.

No 'I' cannot read the notation.

You don't fight it, you just ignore it. It doesn't matter, it doesn't mean anything, it's just something people say to justify their retarded belief of the flat earth theory and creationism.

I don't deal with provable statements, only disprovable ones.

If it's not disprovable, it's irrelevant.

still hung up on that chick huh?

it's alright, I have fantasies too

In this case you'd be simply deepening your own retardation in order to avoid thinking.

The only people who are affected by the impossibility of proving anything are zealots that have abandoned the idea that they might be wrong. Others will just accept it and move on doing what they believe to be the best course of action. They have to. Abandoning everything just because conclusive proof is impossible results not only in stagnation of science but one's untimely death as well.

Maybe one day we'll fit a multiverse to a model and find that there is an average permutation for the superverse. Or some other statistical topology. We will then be able to compute at the speed of time and find that our axioms are consistent to one another.

The statement is similar to an axiomatic system containing 1 axiom:

Axiom 1: (Law of No Consequence)
There are not logical statements which follow from this statement.

Such an axiomatic system is trivial and cannot be studied. If someone argues that this is true, then you have fundamentally different axiomatic systems from one another and so the debate is useless.

I can't tell if reading fundamentals of math texts has made me a better mathematician or not.

> Even if it cannot be proven, this does not necessarily mean that it is false

Yes, but it does mean that it is meaningless.

I accept it as the truth, ultimately you cannot prove anything. It's just a fact that every computational machine must accept, learn to deal with, and move on. You do not have access to veritable absolute truth. You never have, you never will. Just how it works. That is the truth, and the truth will set you free.

Because I accept the truth I can make the next logical step and generate arguments that show my perception of reality is more likely accurate to the source. If the person refuses to acknowledge an objective substrate of any sort, it's up to you whether you bail or not. Your experience of reality, context, and yourself, is created solely via memory, ie, state. Every logical framework is composed of relative truths, and at its base, always, is the mind and senses. They cannot be reduced further because doing so requires using they themselves, and hence, you create a circular self referential truth. It is logically impossible to get around this, for any machine.

Pretty much, to "fight" that argument, you stop existing in denial and embrace it. Then you can interfacing meaningfully on a level that's not your ontological and epistemological hackjob vs theirs. ie, about the core substance.

>I accept it as the truth, ultimately you cannot prove anything.

If your friend records a video of you getting punched in the face for being retarded then that's proof you got punched in the face.

Possibility of false memories or incorrect understanding of the memory, right up the chain to the nature of CGI and cameras themselves.

Memory is the creator of reality. There is nothing else.

Op here, forgot i made this thread.

I tried to put axioms into the conversation with the person i was arguing with, then she told me that i "can't prove the axioms", to which i said that they aren't things that are proven, but accepted.

Then she asked if i can prove that.

Semantics

You can't combat that position the same way you can't combat the brain in the vat position. You just have to accept it because it shouldn't change how you live your life.

OP said "how do you fight the argument that..." Simply pointing out that something is logically consistent is not an argument that it's true.

This is the only right answer.

Logical people in science communities rarely understand this, but you don't fix stupid by simply explaining yourself.

You fix stupid by insulting them, publicly shaming them, or even outright attacking them.

Stoop to their level and be a LOT better at it.

did you try

We cannot assess the truth-value of a statement without proving it. Therefore we cannot know whether the statement "you can't prove anything" is true without proving it; clearly you cannot prove that this statement is true because then you would be engaged in contradiction. So no, it isn't logically consistent.

>she
That explains it. Don't try arguing with females about these things

No it doesn't. They state that a system capable of arithmetic is either incomplete or inconsistent

You can't, you realize it's a red herring, however, and you move on. Ultimately, pragmatism is the primary driver of our beliefs. It does us no good to act like nothing is true.

Even if nothing exists, the illusion of it does. Even if you don't believe in my fist I can still punch you in the face

>to which i said that they aren't things that are proven, but accepted.
They are not accepted, they are the basis of reasoning. You assume they are true and then show the consequences of them being true. If you say "1+2 = 3" then this is not an universal truth, it's just a truth under the common axioms

>Even if you don't believe in my fist I can still punch you in the face
Prove it

see

You know that piece of metal could've been sent to the moon later with better technology and without humans on it, right ? It doesn't prove anything, thinking that it does only shows how much of a brainlet you are.

>no proof