What's more probable?

RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
What's more probable?

A simple thing having always existed?

A complex thing having always existed?

And why?

Not the same question as "A simple thing popping into existence? A complex thing popping into existence?"

(Background: I'm watching some interview between Dawkins and some other guy.. so the question sort of formed.) 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: "Is there something

Quote:

"Is there something that exists more efficiently than nothing?"  

That I would expect to exist before nothing did Eye-wink

Can nothing be efficient? In order to be efficient, doesn't there need to be an objective to which it is working towards?

I don't understand the question.  Or why it was directed at me. Smiling

 

Quote:
Would you consider the rules simple or complex?

Complex when compared to checkers.  Simple when compared to the rules of the universe. Smiling


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Complex when

Quote:
Complex when compared to checkers.  Simple when compared to the rules of the universe. Smiling

Mastery of chess or checkers is far more complex a thing than knowing the rules.

Quote:
Can nothing be efficient? In order to be efficient, doesn't there need to be an objective to which it is working towards?

If there is something that is more efficient than nothing then being that something would be a preferred state to being nothing. Also changing from nothing to that something would create waste/excess energy Smiling  

I addressed it to you as this is your thread and I thought you might enjoy pondering the idea.  

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Mastery of chess or

Quote:
Mastery of chess or checkers is far more complex a thing than knowing the rules.

You're question wasn't about the mastery of the game.. but of, specifically, the rules.

The rules of chess are complex in comparisson to checkers.  Yet, the rules of chess are simple in comparisson to the rules of the universe (or.. some other.. game.. with lots of rules). 

Quote:

If there is something that is more efficient than nothing then being that something would be a preferred state to being nothing. Also changing from nothing to that something would create waste/excess energy Smiling  

I addressed it to you as this is your thread and I thought you might enjoy pondering the idea. 

Ah.  In that case.  Much obliged.

I would agree then, that nothing is the most efficient thing.  However, since there is something, we could never had had nothing, because in the creation of something would've been inefficient-- and the universe is never inefficient in it's objectives..... or is it?! Hmm.........

Interestinginteresting. 

 


wavefreak
Theist
wavefreak's picture
Posts: 1825
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
How can nothing be

How can nothing be effecient? "Nothing" has no properties. And efficiency implies properties.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote:   The

Cernunnos wrote:
 

The laws of physics are not complex. They are simple. I like to think of them as the simplest principles that explain the observations we make - some only relating to mathematical observations.

How do I say this?

 

The laws are complex. We as humans can only scramble to put our best foot foward and try to comprehend them.  

 

If it was simple physicists would be out of the job. 

 

Even if we come up with a 'simple theory of everything',  it would be the result of the anaylsis of complex laws.

 

Quote:
 

Cpt wrote:
Cernunnos, yes c is constant in an inertial frame of reference. I knew that. I don't see how that applies to my point.

You said c was constant. Then you back it up saying special relativity says c is constant. I explained:

How special relativity limits the consistancy of c to a particular limiting case.

How general relativity makes the speed of light a consequence of spacetime. i.e. spacetime forces light to travel in curved lines necessitating a change in velocity.

You said the mechanism that defines speed c as complex. I explain how it is a simple consequence of the fundamental geometry of spacetime.

 

space-time itself is complex: See: black holes,  Einstien-Rosen bridges etc....

 

 

Quote:

The very fact you want the laws of physics to be complex is deeply troubling, one would almost be forced to consider that you have a belief in physics rather than an understanding of it. The laws have to be simpler than what they explain or understanding how something is would be easier without them! 

 I have been studying physics for quite some time.


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
You're question wasn't about the mastery of the game.. but of, specifically, the rules.

I said what I did because I thought you missed my point. I asked both about the complexity of the game and the rules. This was to demonstrate that simple rules that any child can grasp can create a game too complex for any adult to fully master. Besides I was not looking for answers I thought they were obvious.

Why all the talk about checkers? It's the same principle simple rules more complex game.

Studying physics kinda works backwards, observe the complex universe to determine simple rules...if you insist simpler rules but I don't like it Smiling

Discovering these laws is very complex and is what keeps physicists up at night and employed. Moreso now when mind boggling techniques and technology are required to make the required observations.

Cpt_pineapple - You study physics, I have too. I would even go as far as saying I have a better understanding of the universe than Isaac Newton, the person I consider to have produced the greatest feat of human intellect in history. My meager mind is in no way capable of the insight and brilliance of the scientists of his ilk. Yet we today are able to stand on the shoulders of giants - those before us have enabled physics to reach the minds of many by the reduction of the complex grandeur of the cosmos to succinct elegant laws. To understand why fat women attract need no longer cause bewilderment one may merely apply Newton's law of universal gravitation - phwoar!

Black holes are an implication of general relativity, they were predicted before they were discovered. They have only three properties mass, charge and spin. Working out the results of say black holes colliding is extremely complex (due to the huge changes in the shape in nearby spacetime) this does not make the laws complex they merely allow such complexity.

Quote:
I would agree then, that nothing is the most efficient thing. However, since there is something, we could never had had nothing, because in the creation of something would've been inefficient-- and the universe is never inefficient in it's objectives..... or is it?!

For an inefficient reaction to occur you have to add energy to the system. It may well be the nature of the universe that nothing wait for it....does not exist....or that nothing would decay (decrease in magnitude) to something....here I let myself dance away from fact to idyllic fantasy Eye-wink

...tra la la

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Discovering these

Quote:

Discovering these laws is very complex and is what keeps physicists up at night and employed. Moreso now when mind boggling techniques and technology are required to make the required observations.

 

 I agree. I think this is due to the complexity of the laws.

 

Cernunnos wrote:

Studying physics kinda works backwards, observe the complex universe to determine simple rules...if you insist simpler rules but I don't like it Smiling

 

Isn't that my point? Perhaps I am reading too much into your post.

 

Quote:


Cpt_pineapple - You study physics, I have too. I would even go as far as saying I have a better understanding of the universe than Isaac Newton, the person I consider to have produced the greatest feat of human intellect in history.

  I am gald you brought Newton up, it reminded me of something.  Newton brought the formula F=GMm/r^2. It obviously was a huge stepping stone in understanding physics. However he never eleaborated why two masses should attract.

It is only now with particle accelerators capable of high energies that we are able to closly study the gravitational force. I think it requires a distance of something like 10^-13m and an energy of 250GeV to tap into. (I remembered that at the top of my head and could be wrong).

However, my point is that laws may seem simple with our current understanding, but there are more complicated implications beneath the surface which we may never know. I am not saying to give up, but I am being realistic. 

 

 

Quote:

My meager mind is in no way capable of the insight and brilliance of the scientists of his ilk. Yet we today are able to stand on the shoulders of giants - those before us have enabled physics to reach the minds of many by the reduction of the complex grandeur of the cosmos to succinct elegant laws. To understand why fat women attract need no longer cause bewilderment one may merely apply Newton's law of universal gravitation - phwoar!

 Silly, skinny women attract far more men  Smiling

 

Quote:

Black holes are an implication of general relativity, they were predicted before they were discovered. 

 

Got me there, they were predicted by relativity.

 

Quote:

They have only three properties mass, charge and spin. Working out the results of say black holes colliding is extremely complex (due to the huge changes in the shape in nearby spacetime) this does not make the laws complex they merely allow such complexity.

 

I'll try to explain this more. The laws are complex and allow for complex things to happen. What we do is take the simple ones and study form them. This is how our understanding evolved. The understanding started simple (Things are hot things fall down etc....)  then moved to the more complex. (Relativity, particle physics etc...). However, relativity and particle physics still applied to ancient times, long before they were discovered. 

 As the Rev pointed out, things did start with energy. How this energy turned into matter is rather complex (see: particle physics). However the laws were still there to allow for the protons and electrons etc to form.

 

 

 



Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

It is only now with particle accelerators capable of high energies that we are able to closly study the gravitational force. I think it requires a distance of something like 10^-13m and an energy of 250GeV to tap into. (I remembered that at the top of my head and could be wrong).


 

 

 I think it's the weak force I was thinking of -_-

[edit clarity] 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As the Rev pointed out, things did start with energy. How this energy turned into matter is rather complex (see: particle physics). However the laws were still there to allow for the protons and electrons etc to form.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The laws started complex and ended complex. While the laws change (seperation of the forces), the mechanism is complex perhaps more so than after.

Now I see Cosmic devolution, you believed in Cosmic Creationism (same as biological Creationism )

Although all the evidence is not in, it is all pointing towards cosmic evolution unified theory ect, simplification where all the laws combine into one simple law,

Which you reject, as you believed it started with one extremely complicated law

? is this correct


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As the Rev pointed out, things did start with energy. How this energy turned into matter is rather complex (see: particle physics). However the laws were still there to allow for the protons and electrons etc to form.

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The laws started complex and ended complex. While the laws change (seperation of the forces), the mechanism is complex perhaps more so than after.

Now I see Cosmic devolution, you believed in Cosmic Creationism (same as biological Creationism )

Although all the evidence is not in, it is all pointing towards cosmic evolution unified theory ect, simplification where all the laws combine into one simple law,

 

Doesn't this prove my point? All the forces combined, hence making something complex since a complex thing is composed of less complex compents. While the forces themselves are complex on their own, a unification of them would be more complex, since the unification is made of of relativly simpler parts.

 

Quote:
 

Which you reject, as you believed it started with one extremely complicated law

? is this correct

 

See above.  


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

All the forces combined, hence making something complex since a complex thing is composed of less complex compents. While the forces themselves are complex on their own, a unification of them would be more complex, since the unification is made of of relativly simpler parts.

Cpt_pineapple Smiling

Unification is tracing the evolution of the forces back to a primordial universe, were they were unified, big bang, like tracing mankind's DNA evolution back to the primordial sludge, big yuck

Using your reasoning the primordial sludge would-be more complicated than any life now present, "unification DNA would be more complex, since the unification DNA is made of of relativly simpler part"

" a unification of them would be more complex, since the unification is made of of relativly simpler parts"

Can you not see this ?


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

All the forces combined, hence making something complex since a complex thing is composed of less complex compents. While the forces themselves are complex on their own, a unification of them would be more complex, since the unification is made of of relativly simpler parts.

Cpt_pineapple Smiling

Unification is tracing the evolution of the forces back to a primordial universe, were they were unified, big bang, like tracing mankind's DNA evolution back to the primordial sludge, big yuck

Using your reasoning the primordial sludge would-be more complicated than any life now present, "unification DNA would be more complex, since the unification DNA is made of of relativly simpler part"

" a unification of them would be more complex, since the unification is made of of relativly simpler parts"

Can you not see this ?

 

The only problem Rev, is that the primordial soup didn't always exist. 

The complication of life is explain through natural selection which took the randomness out, do you have an equivalent to physics? 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

The only problem Rev, is that the primordial soup didn't always exist.

 Neither did the universe space time matter as you so eloquently demonstrated in another thread consequently, with no time matter or space, there are no laws to govern that which does-not exist, primordial universe once matter has formed so can time space and a simple law, which evolves into other more complicated laws, as matter itself evolves, this is the unification theory, evolution

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The complication of life is explain through natural selection which took the randomness out, do you have an equivalent to physics?

Natural selection, exactly the same principles, there's sill randomness as in biological evolution, Black holes, unstable particles, strange spooky take your pick

Evolution is demonstrated in physics by creating more complex matter with energy

Or by reducing matter to energy

The same evolutionary principles are true with the laws themselves, Bose Einstein Condensation, super cooled low energy state, or particle accelerators super heated high energy states


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

 

The only problem Rev, is that the primordial soup didn't always exist.

Neither did the universe space time matter as you so eloquently demonstrated in another thread consequently, with no time matter or space, there are no laws to govern that which does-not exist, primordial universe once matter has formed so can time space and a simple law, which evolves into other more complicated laws, as matter itself evolves, this is the unification theory, evolution

 

I mean OUR universe space-time didn't always exist. IWhether or not there were others is still up in the air...err...space.

 

Quote:
 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

The complication of life is explain through natural selection which took the randomness out, do you have an equivalent to physics?

Natural selection, exactly the same principles, there's sill randomness as in biological evolution, Black holes, unstable particles, strange spooky take your pick

Evolution is demonstrated in physics by creating more complex matter with energy

Or by reducing matter to energy

The same evolutionary principles are true with the laws themselves, Bose Einstein Condensation, super cooled low energy state, or particle accelerators super heated high energy states

 

The energy couldn't convert to matter without laws.

B-E is only high energy states, and is complicated. If anything the laws got simplier, not more complicated. 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Here's a simple question,

Here's a simple question, Rev

 

What is more complicated? High energy physics or low energy physics? 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Here's a simple question, Rev

 

What is more complicated? High energy physics or low energy physics?

For your entertainment the, particle Zoo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_zoo

They haven't reached absolute zero yet and it is unlikely that they ever will, but if they did, nothing would probably happen that's pretty simple, but more complicated than nothing as you still have completed particles (ish) although they are very confused

High energy physics although I don't believe they've reached high enough states of energy/temperature were quarks and electrons combine or break down to there constituent parts they have reached high enough temperatures for the laws to start to combine high energy physics should end up with one form of matter and one law again pretty simple but more complicated than nothing and less complicated than complicated particles

Look's like High energy physics to me Smiling


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote:

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

A simple thing having always existed?

A complex thing having always existed?

And why?

Not the same question as "A simple thing popping into existence? A complex thing popping into existence?"

(Background: I'm watching some interview between Dawkins and some other guy.. so the question sort of formed.)

God is by definition necessary, so your argument is invalid. By the way, what's it matter if it's probable or not? Can't you understand that probability does not equal proof?

John 3:16.

Peace. 

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Rev_Devilin

Rev_Devilin wrote:
Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Here's a simple question, Rev

 

What is more complicated? High energy physics or low energy physics?

For your entertainment the, particle Zoo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_zoo They haven't reached absolute zero yet and it is unlikely that they ever will, but if they did, nothing would probably happen that's pretty simple, but more complicated than nothing as you still have completed particles (ish) although they are very confused High energy physics although I don't believe they've reached high enough states of energy/temperature were quarks and electrons combine or break down to there constituent parts they have reached high enough temperatures for the laws to start to combine high energy physics should end up with one form of matter and one law again pretty simple but more complicated than nothing and less complicated than complicated particles Look's like High energy physics to me Smiling

 

Glad you concede high energy physics is complicated. Our universe is going through a 'cool down' period since the Big Bang. Guess what that means?

As for particle formation vs high energy. I'd say high energy trumphs particles, since high energies can do some funky stuff to particles. Particles form at high energies (Hence the problem locating the Higgs Boson since it's so heavy). You may think this contradicts my point, however note that the high energy mechanism used to create these particles, is not simple. You may have a simple formula E=mc^2, put the actual mechanism is far more complicated. 

 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo wrote: A

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

A simple thing having always existed?

A complex thing having always existed?

And why?

Do you mind if I just skip ahead to the end and say that you can't assign a probability to an incoherent concept?

Thanks, that will save me time.  

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Do you mind if I

Quote:

Do you mind if I just skip ahead to the end and say that you can't assign a probability to an incoherent concept?

Thanks, that will save me time.

Isn't eternal or infinity incoherent concepts? I guess that was my original points.  How can I or someone assign a probability to the of an "eternal simple thing" or an "eternal complicated thing."

Thanks Tod, for clearing that up. Smiling 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

God is by definition necessary, so your argument is invalid.

Your own claim here is logically invalid.

1) "God' is an incoherent term, seeing as it attempts to denote an 'entity' that violates basic ontology.

2) Your assertion relies on using 'existence' as a predicate. A basic blunder in logic known for centuries, yet unknown to presuppers, seeing as you'd all actually have to have read something in logic to know this. You're all still stuck in the 18th century on David Hume (although NONE of you have ever actualy read him either)

A proposition is said to be a necessary proposition if it's negation necessarily entails a contradiction. Please explain how, in your view, saying "god does not exist" leads to a contradiction. Unless you equate  your 'god' with existence itself (and thereby leave theism altogether for Spinozian pantheism) you'll find this task more than a bit challenging...

Waiting.

Quote:

By the way, what's it matter if it's probable or not?

If we are unable to assign a probability because of an internal contradiction, then the claim is rendered meaningless.

Again, you'd know this if you actualy took a course in logic 101.

Presuppers: good for comic relief.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:
Quote:

Do you mind if I just skip ahead to the end and say that you can't assign a probability to an incoherent concept?

Thanks, that will save me time.

Isn't eternal or infinity incoherent concepts?

Depends what you mean by 'infinity'. I don't see how a potential infinity would be 'incoherent'. We don't need to count for infinity to define what we mean by infinity - i.e. we can give a finite formula that would generate an infinity, ergo we can have coherence for the concept of infinity, at least a potential one.

Quote:

How can I or someone assign a probability to the of an "eternal simple thing" or an "eternal complicated thing."

Thanks Tod, for clearing that up. Smiling

Smiling

If a term is contradictory, we can't assign it a probability other than zero. The opposite goes for a tautology: they get a probability of 1.

The rest of the inductive world falls somewhere in between.

The 'probability for god' games that arise now and then aren't taken seriously in academia, seeing as the first presumptions needed to get them off the ground are already the very points under debate.

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't see how a

Quote:
I don't see how a potential infinity would be 'incoherent'.

I don't see how any posit such as: "Matter and energy have always existed" speak to anything other than something eternal (infinitly existant, or something of the like).

Not.. "potentially."

 

Quote:
we can give a finite formula that would generate an infinity, ergo we can have coherence for the concept of infinity, at least a potential one.

The "coherence" for the concept of "infinity" in mathematics is merely one that states that it's so large as to dwarf all other numbers into insignificance.

It doesn't change the fact that infinity, in real, practical terms, is incoherent.

Yah sure.  4/infinity = 0.  1million/infinity = 0.  lim 4/0 = infinity.

But what does that mean.

IF something is infinite.. what does that mean?  That it is not finite-- what does that mean?  Real things are finite.. if they were not, how could they exist?

Isn't this the very argument you use against one who uses the term "supernatural"?

 

Quote:
The rest of the inductive world falls somewhere in between.

Fine.  I'm not saying that it does not fall at 0, 1, or somewhere in between.  But, how does one decide what its probability is if there is no ontology for it, what are its properties, what are its limits, what is its positive definition?

Quote:
The 'probability for god' games that arise now and then aren't taken seriously in academia, seeing as the first presumptions needed to get them off the ground are already the very points under debate.

 Agreed.  But.. "probability for any eternal thing" is what I'm getting at.

 But perhaps you're getting at something else. 


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2843
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
RhadTheGizmo

RhadTheGizmo wrote:

Quote:
I don't see how a potential infinity would be 'incoherent'.

I don't see how any posit such as: "Matter and energy have always existed" speak to anything other than something eternal (infinitly existant, or something of the like).

Not.. "potentially."

Has matter existed eternally into an eternal future already? I must have missed that. Please, you guys need to call me at home if I'm not around for these happenings... Smiling

Sorry.

I'd not defend the claim from that point of view anyway, as I don't see matter/energy of our universe as eternal, at least not in its present form. In addition, there are workable ex nihilo accounts for energy:

http://www.rationalresponders.com/common_cosmological_misconceptions

So we need not posit a universe without beginning or end.

RRS disagrees on this matter: some hold that matter/energy has always been here, (at least in some form) whereas others, like myself, look either to an Edward Tryon startup to our universe or something akin to Brane theory.

Quote:
we can give a finite formula that would generate an infinity, ergo we can have coherence for the concept of infinity, at least a potential one.

Quote:

The "coherence" for the concept of "infinity" in mathematics is merely one that states that it's so large as to dwarf all other numbers into insignificance.

Is that actually how a mathematician would define an actual infinity? Lemme take a look around and see what links I can find on this...

Quote:

It doesn't change the fact that infinity, in real, practical terms, is incoherent.

Well, I really don't know either way, all I can say is that a potential infinity seems coherent, based on the fact that we can have a finite formula (one we can understand) that can generate potential infinities.

Quote:

Yah sure. 4/infinity = 0. 1million/infinity = 0. lim 4/0 = infinity.

But what does that mean.

Yeah, I know, I remember my reactions to first seeing these mathematical problems too.... very odd, counter intuitive.

Quote:

IF something is infinite.. what does that mean? That it is not finite-- what does that mean? Real things are finite.. if they were not, how could they exist?

I've pondered that before. I'd say that one thing we might be able to say that something 'eternal' like 'time' means that there isn't anymore time at all... i.e. it would have to be a qualitative difference, right? But does that mean that causality is then ruled out? Puzzling.... and probably way of target...

Quote:

Isn't this the very argument you use against one who uses the term "supernatural"?

Sounds similar, yes. Actual infinity appears to obliterate any limits, ergo it appears to fall into incoherence.

Quote:
The rest of the inductive world falls somewhere in between.

Quote:

Fine. I'm not saying that it does not fall at 0, 1, or somewhere in between. But, how does one decide what its probability is if there is no ontology for it, what are its properties, what are its limits, what is its positive definition?

No ontology - no meaning - no way to assign probability.

What form of probability would you even begin with?

Let's go through it together:

Classical Approach

The classical definition describes probability as a set of possible occurrences where all possibilities are 'equally likely' - but a problem arises from this definition. For example, how do you define "possibility" here - is the possibility of 'god' 50/50 or 1/10, 1/100? On what basis do you even begin?

Frequentist Approach

The 'frequency' is the probability for a given event, that is determined as you approach an infinite number of trials. For example, as with the central limit theorm, you could learn what a probability might be for the roll of a 7 on a pair of dice, after rolling them for a large number of trials. But we can't apply this method to singular cases. 'One case probabilities' are "nonsense" to the frequentist.

 

Subjective probability

Here, probability is held to be the degree of belief in an event, fact, or proposition. 1) We can more carefully assign a probability to a given situation. 2) We can apply this to method 'one case events'. 3) This manner of defining probability gives us very natural and intuitive interpretations of events that fits with our use of the word "probably", circumventing the problems of frequentism. Most importantly, it allows us to rationally adjust our beliefs "inductively" by use of probability theory.

But is the question of 'god' an inductive one?

 I just see no way to approach the situation honestly. Yes, some theists attempt an argument based on subjective probability, and we do get to avoid problems over one's initial estimate (as the starting point doesn't matter) but in the end, we return to same old coherency problem - i.e. the debate should really rest as to whether we can start the process in the first place.

 

Quote:
The 'probability for god' games that arise now and then aren't taken seriously in academia, seeing as the first presumptions needed to get them off the ground are already the very points under debate.

Quote:

Agreed. But.. "probability for any eternal thing" is what I'm getting at.

But perhaps you're getting at something else.

You've raised a good question, neither of us are mathematicians, perhaps one will show up and lead us both into the light on this matter. I think the 'probability of  an eternal thing' first requires that we decide whether we mean potential or actual infinity, and then, a perusal of some laymen friendly mathematical discussion of infinities.

 

"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
It is a common mistake to

It is a common mistake to treat infinity like a number. That is something that you can use operands on. Infinity is incoherent from this perspective.

infinity + infinity = infinity,

therefore

infinity = 0.

Gibberish. 

Infinity does have a coherent use in identifying an object in a sequence that converges to infinity. 

Take for example the Fibonacci sequence:

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21...

where the next number in the sequence is the sum of the last two.

It should be clear that this set of numbers is not limited and their length can be correctly denoted by the term infinity and the sequence can be said to converge to infinity. Note this object inifinity is still not part of a number system (can not operate on it).

An interesting observation on the Fibonacci sequence can be seen when taking the term 'n' and dividing it by the previous term 'n-1'.

1/1 = 1,

2/1 = 2,

3/2 = 1.5,

5/3 = 1.666...

8/5 = 1.6.

Here it can be seen that the resultant numbers are converging. As the length of the Fibonacci sequence is infinite so is the length of this converging sequence. The number this sequence is converging to is the Golden Ratio (1.618...). This ratio is produced when a unit of length is divided into two parts, where the ratio in length between the smaller and larger part is equal to the ratio between the larger and the original lengths. This ratio is clearly an irrational number and infinite in its decimal expansion.

Here we have two sequences one that tends towards infinity the other towards the Golden Ratio, this brings us to the algebra;

4/infinity = 0, and 1,000,000/infinity = 0.

The standard form for a statement such as these is

1/infinity = 0.

Here the infinity does not refer to a number (I have already explained how that is fallacious) but to a sequence that tends towards infinity.

If you take the reciprocals of the Fibonacci sequence they will tend towards 0 (as says the equation)

1/1 = 1,

1/2 = 0.5,

1/3 = 0.333...

1/5 = 0.2,

1/8 = 0.125. 

Hence the statement 1/infinity = 0. 

The final statement

lim 4/0 = infinity, should be written

if lim x -> 0  then 4/x = infinity

where x is a function that approaches or "gets close" to 0. The equation has to be defined as such as divinding by 0 is not a valid mathamatical operation. A sequence that tends towards 0 would be

1, 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, 0.0001...

 

I read the part of the original question "have always existed" to coincide with the instance of time. Eternal and infinite have very different meanings. Eternal strictly deals with emcompassing all events and this does not necessitate an infinite amount of time.

I think the question is adequately answered by stating that even if you assign the probabilty of eternal existance of a complex thing and a simple thing as equal, there are more scenarios relating to simple things existing before any given complex thing. As a complex thing is made up of simpler things. This is really a case of combinatorics and requires no evidence from the universe.

When the data from cosmology is taken into account I find that a complex creator is pushed into the realm of the supernatural. That is it would have to exist outside our frame of time. An aternative would be to say that the universe as a whole was the complex creator/God.

 

 

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It is a common

Quote:
It is a common mistake to treat infinity like a number.

The mistake is treating it as if it can define anything which actually, materially, exists.

 

Quote:
Infinity does have a coherent use in identifying an object in a sequence that converges to infinity.

No doubt infinity has a coherent use in mathematics..  but I'm not sure this applies to the issue at hand.

 

Quote:
Eternal strictly deals with emcompassing all events and this does not necessitate an infinite amount of time.

Anyone who claims that something can "encompass all events" and yet not be "infinite in time" is talking nonsense.. IMO.

We are all of the opinion that "something cannot come from nothing."

Therefore, something must have always existed.. or "encompassed all events."

If this be true.. it is "infinite in time" for it must, necessarily, run infinitely into the past.  Of course.. once again.. this is all utter nonsense except for the purpose of pontification.  What does "infinitely into the past" even mean?

But.. obviously it's necessary.. because if it was not, then at some point something did not exist.

Quote:
I think the question is adequately answered by stating that even if you assign the probabilty of eternal existance of a complex thing and a simple thing as equal,

There is a big difference, IMO, to state that the probability is equal and the probability cannot be determined at all. 

 

Quote:
When the data from cosmology is taken into account I find that a complex creator is pushed into the realm of the supernatural. That is it would have to exist outside our frame of time. An aternative would be to say that the universe as a whole was the complex creator/God.

 


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I'd not defend the

Quote:
I'd not defend the claim from that point of view anyway, as I don't see matter/energy of our universe as eternal, at least not in its present form.

Yes.. but I don't feel the issue is based upon this.  Whether it is this matter/energy or some other form of it.. it must still be "eternal" or "infinitely have existed into the past" in some sense.

Quote:
Well, I really don't know either way, all I can say is that a potential infinity seems coherent, based on the fact that we can have a finite formula (one we can understand) that can generate potential infinities.

I would agree that "potential infinity" seems coherent (if I'm understanding what you mean correctly).  But with regards to existence in the past of something, is it not necessarily infinite? Not "potentially" so?

Quote:
i.e. the debate should really rest as to whether we can start the process in the first place.

I think you put this wonderfully. 

Quote:
You've raised a good question,

I believe this is the first time you've ever said this to me Tod.  Heh.

Quote:
neither of us are mathematicians, perhaps one will show up and lead us both into the light on this matter. I think the 'probability of  an eternal thing' first requires that we decide whether we mean potential or actual infinity, and then, a perusal of some laymen friendly mathematical discussion of infinities.

Hopefully. 


Rev_Devilin
Rev_Devilin's picture
Posts: 485
Joined: 2007-05-16
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Glad you concede high energy physics is complicated.

cough

Rev_Devilin wrote:

pretty simple but more complicated than nothing

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Our universe is going through a 'cool down' period since the Big Bang. Guess what that means?

laws that didn't exist in the primordial universe have evolved, the speed of light is slowing down, we are slowly decaying into chaos, tax's are going up, and so on Smiling

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

As for particle formation vs high energy. I'd say high energy trumphs particles, since high energies can do some funky stuff to particles.

High energy makes particles, high energy is not more complicated than the particles it creates, complication comes from building upon simplicity E=mc^2

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Particles form at high energies (Hence the problem locating the Higgs Boson since it's so heavy)

Higgs Boson

wikipedia

"The Large Hadron Collider, currently under construction at CERN, is expected to be able to confirm or deny the existence of the Higgs boson in most circumstances. "

" Higgs boson (fiction)

Mentions of the Higgs boson (sometimes referred to in popular articles as the 'God particle', after the not entirely serious title of a book by Nobel laureate Leon Lederman), occur in some works of fiction. These references mostly imbue it with fantastic properties, and of the actual theory of the particle only its unknown mass is capitalized upon. An example is the 2002 film Solaris. "

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

You may think this contradicts my point,

Smiling your point being that cosmic evolution must be untrue, and your cosmic creationist ideas must be true, although all the evidence points towards evolution, you are only excepting pieces of scientific evidence and taking them out of context, rather than embracing the whole context, your argument's are following the same lines as the anti-Darwinian lunatics, despite all the evidence your personal ideas must be true because you believe them, ? why try to understand physics when you reject the conclusions

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

however note that the high energy mechanism used to create these particles, is not simple. You may have a simple formula E=mc^2, put the actual mechanism is far more complicated.

E=mc^2 beautiful simple poetic, this is when you know our understanding of physics is correct, because natural physics is simple, it evolved from simplicity itself, yet you refuse to accept this, because you know better than Einstein,Hawking,Richard Feynman the list is enormous

Richard Feynman "you can recognize truth by its beauty and simplicity. When you get it right, it is obvious that it is right...The truth always turns out to be simpler than you thought."

Hawking "if we do discover a complete theory it should in time be understandable in broad principles by everyone, not just a few scientists"

Albert Einstein" The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction"

They have understood that the complexity of physics is built upon the simplicity of physics

? would you like some more names some more quotes

? or I can take you through the mechanism to show its foundation in simplicity

 

 


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote: The mistake is

Quote:
The mistake is treating it as if it can define anything which actually, materially, exists.

I am saying it is not even a number, this is even more abstract than saying not material...can't you just agree with me? 

Quote:
No doubt infinity has a coherent use in mathematics..  but I'm not sure this applies to the issue at hand.

I did all that stuff specifically for you. You wrote the equations down and I have explained them as best I can. You seemed to be treating infinity like a number...gosh.

Later I say that I do not accept we are dealing with infinity in this issue. I figured it was required to show how infinity is coherent to show how we are not dealing with infinity.

 

Quote:
Anyone who claims that something can "encompass all events" and yet not be "infinite in time" is talking nonsense.. IMO.

If you read what I said you would see I gave time a start. Then I say eternal means from that point onwards, infinity requires endlessness. Thus for all of time past (have always existed) does NOT mean infinity! If you do some research you will find that many quote the age of the universe to be around 12-16 billion years. Time and the events that have caused time are finite. 

This is the SI definition of time

"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

I hope you see we require an event or a universe to allow for time.

When you disagree with me either I am talking nonsense or you have missed the point. Even now I admit uncertainty over both.

Quote:
There is a big difference, IMO, to state that the probability is equal and the probability cannot be determined at all.

If we are to say that an object had infinite existence I agree that its probabilty can not be determined. However my approach is to say

"what is more likely to have existed to instantiate time something complex or simple ".

I say that we need no evidence from the universe to provide some ideas about the issue. If a complex thing is proposed to have been first this very proposal creates contingent scenarios that the very parts that make it up came before it. The same is not true for a fundamental simple thing. Hence for a complex thing to be a more probable initial thing of our universe, it is required that it is more likely than the simple things that make it up or is necessary to exist for the simple things to exist.

As I state if considered of equal chance a simple thing is therefore more probable. I do not have the expertize or data to nullify that an initial complex thing may in fact be the definitive case, yet I am able to suppose that a simple thing is more probable.

There is another issue that the thing that began it's existence  simultaneously with the commencement of time may no longer exist. However it does help to consider the conservation of energy...even if only in the form of potential energy. 

 

 

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


RhadTheGizmo
Theist
Posts: 1191
Joined: 2007-01-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:

Quote:
I am saying it is not even a number, this is even more abstract than saying not material...can't you just agree with me?

Yes. Smiling

Quote:
I did all that stuff specifically for you. You wrote the equations down and I have explained them as best I can. You seemed to be treating infinity like a number...gosh.

Heh. If that's the impression you got.. I apologize. Thankyou, however, in anycase for clearing it up because I know I left it rather unclear.

Quote:
Later I say that I do not accept we are dealing with infinity in this issue. I figured it was required to show how infinity is coherent to show how we are not dealing with infinity.

This is something that I must disagree with.. it is used coherently.. I'm not sure you can deduce from that that it is, itself, coherent.

Quote:
If you read what I said you would see I gave time a start.

Hm.. how can time have a start?

Quote:
Thus for all of time past (have always existed) does NOT mean infinity! If you do some research you will find that many quote the age of the universe to be around 12-16 billion years.

I have never seen this time quoted. I have seen the time quoted for what we perceive now as the universe.. 6.4 billion.. but never one person say, emphatically, that time or the Universe (meaning, everything, in any form, in general, ever!) has only existed for 12-16 billion years.

What was before that? Nothing? That would seem to go against the commonly accepted premise.. "from nothing comes nothing."

Quote:
Time and the events that have caused time are finite.

This is the SI definition of time

"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom."

I hope you see we require an event or a universe to allow for time.

When you disagree with me either I am talking nonsense or you have missed the point. Even now I admit uncertainty over both.

Yes, I realize what the SI unit of time is. Yes, I realize that some theories hold that time is, effectively, finite.

Yet, still, I fail to understand how this makes sense.

I don't mean to attack you directly.. I mean, literally, that it seems nonsensical to me to say that "time" has not existed infinitely into the past.

Without time there can be no change, therefore how could time have ever come about itself (def. a change) if it did, in fact, at one point not exist?

(The premise for this statement is that change, of anytype, requires time.)

Quote:
I say that we need no evidence from the universe to provide some ideas about the issue. If a complex thing is proposed to have been first this very proposal creates contingent scenarios that the very parts that make it up came before it. The same is not true for a fundamental simple thing. Hence for a complex thing to be a more probable initial thing of our universe, it is required that it is more likely than the simple things that make it up or is necessary to exist for the simple things to exist.

I can understand this.