If I define a circle to be inside of me, I am outside of it.
I love you, Mangled. You should come 'round more.
Take into account that it is scientifically proven: Any system of axioms is either incomplete or inconsistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems)
Hmm... just because gods can't be proved nor disproved doesn't mean that they don't exist. The answer is unknowable. If you believe that they don't exist then you're just as presumptuous as those who say that they do.
Hmm... just because gods can't be proved nor disproved doesn't mean that they don't exist. The answer is unknowable. If you believe that they don't exist then you're just as presumptuous as those who say that they do.
Yes. It is unknowable. Therefore shouldn't be believed or even considered. For sake of efficiency.
Yes. It is unknowable. Therefore shouldn't be believed or even considered. For sake of efficiency.I'll stop considering it if you define and prove the need for efficiency in a way that seems reasonable to me.
You want to do away with theism for the wrong reasons then. It's a pretty rude and close-minded argument to say that it shouldn't be considered just because it's unknowable. It's still an interesting topic and everyone is free to play around with the thought, just like what goes on inside black holes, what caused the Big Bang and whether FTL-travel is possible.
I'll stop considering it if you define and prove the need for efficiency in a way that seems reasonable to me.
On another note, the spacing in your topic post seems rather inefficient...
People who are already religious will likely not turn to atheism/agnosticism when given scientific evidence that god exists--they're not going to want to give up the person (imaginary friend, or what have you) they look to for help and consolation.
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
Missed you Mangled*
You want to do away with theism for the wrong reasons then. It's a pretty rude and close-minded argument to say that it shouldn't be considered just because it's unknowable. It's still an interesting topic and everyone is free to play around with the thought, just like what goes on inside black holes, what caused the Big Bang and whether FTL-travel is possible.
Rude? It's rude to dismiss theism? Is it rude to dismiss warewolfs? Why does religion get this special exception where any word said against it is mean and nasty? It's legitimate criticism. Religious people are just like these imbeciles who call critics 'haters' because they simply can't take criticism. They have to dismiss it as being hateful.
Close-minded?
Religious people are by definition THE most closed minded people in existance. Their standards of perception are set permanently at 'insanity'. That's a huge generalization, I admit, but overall I would define someone unwilling to change their ideas and opinion regardless of how much reality conflicts with them as being batshit insane.
Closed mindedness = Belief no matter what. Not cynicism or skepticism or ridicule.
I wasn't defending only theism, but rather the general case where everything that's unknowable shouldn't be expunged from our minds, never to be discussed or thought of again. So yes, I do find it close-minded to dismiss werewolves, provided that there isn't evidence to dismiss them.
I used the word rude because you seemed to want to change theists from one belief to another.
Wasn't quoted as the only one! Feel so sad... :(
But theism does not endeavour to discover and find answers.
Neither does atheism then. Both extremes are holding a belief.
I just disapprove of your way of combating religion by making unsubstantiated claims yourself. Each religion has an abundance of holes to chip away at, but disproving gods is impossible.
I never mentioned atheism. [...]
What unsubstanciated claims? WAREWOLVES!?!?!
Neither are provable
Nor disprovable
It is the nature of non-existent things.
Atheism is not holding a belief, it's holding a disbelief.
No proof to either counter or support theism, therefore gods are non-existent? Sounds like atheism to me.
I guess we have different definitions of atheism then. I always thought of it as the belief in the non-existence of gods. Since gods can't be disproved using the scientific method, it requires a belief to hold that claim.
Do you believe in warewolves?
Warewolves can't be disproved using the scientific method.
1 - Warewolf example already given. Is it efficient to consider that any concievable non-existant being could exist? No it's not. It's most efficient to presume unless there is any evidence that none of them exist. No exceptions. Especially mythical men who look like santa-clause and are proclaimed by poorly educated people to have created the universe.I still think it's quite interesting to think about how such stuff could possibly exist without us knowing about it, as a fun thing to do when i'm bored, to keep my mood and brain activity up; in this case I can't really see your argument working.
2 - It's called dramatic pacing.Quite messy to use it like this in a post, don't you think? I wont keep arguing against it though; matter of personal preference.
Take into account that it is scientifically proven: Any system of axioms is either incomplete or inconsistent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorems)
The link I posted clearly states that your claim is not scientifically correct.
Incomplete means that there is always something not included in your set of knowledge.
Your "Yes." sounded like you either didn't bother reading or understanding it even though you're hooding under rationality.
I still think it's quite interesting to think about how such stuff could possibly exist without us knowing about it, as a fun thing to do when i'm bored, to keep my mood and brain activity up; in this case I can't really see your argument working.
Dick-swinging under the guise of rationality is ridiculous, spend your time thinking about things that matter.
Alright, it was described in a too simplified way. However, showing up MY mistake does not have an impact on the message, for I am convinced that the conditions are met. Here we have an "effective method" to decide about facts and existance.
Even if I am mistaken and this theorem can not be used, still the phrase Mangled started with is narrow minded and can never be true for everything. It means shaping the reality according to your knowledge and denying anything you don't know about. Our knowledge is far more limited than reality is.
Well, I'm not agreeing with mangled at all. This thread is pretty pointless. I am completely unimpressed with Mangled's stance on this subject, as it seems to lack any real originality or respect for the subject matter given. This is why I'm with Rai-Dei. I don't think there's necessarily anything wrong with exploring religious thought, but it tends to attract people like mangled. The type of personality that thrives on spitting out another person's ideas to one-up another individual. I think Rai-Dei put it fine and there's nothing really more to add.
However, I did not mean to sleight your opinion by correcting you. I believe you to have more respect for the underlying issue at hand than mangled, however you were still misleading and I simply wished to clear it up. I do not believe we can apply Godel's theorem here as we have little clue to what axiomatic system Mangled is using other than it depends on classical two valued logic, which Godel's theorem relies on anyway as well. I also think you have not quite understood the definition of completeness, at least this is what I want to say, as it doesn't depend on the total knowledge of all things, simply what the truths the formal system can generate which must be provable under that system. Your definition makes it impossible for any system to ever be complete, which makes the definition kind of useless in this sense.
I just wanted to clear this up because I feel this type of thinking leads to less creativity and ultimately a lesser understanding of logic's underpinnings.
Exploring religious thought obviously attracts people like you too. Here you are! One-upping me!
However, I agree with everything you said here.
See Smegma, you are not so daft. But maybe you have an inferiority complex?
I don't think we agree with quite everything in this post, implicitly. I just feel your point could have been conveyed a bit better and explored more, in fact its a very interesting thing to think about. Its still a bit pointless as trolling threads like these could be spent on better discussion or even just thinking by yourself.
I want them to question their beliefs and I feel ridiculing them is a perfectly acceptable way of going about this. If I can make just one religious person feel like they are stupid for what they believe in then I've done my job.... I don't know what to say to that. But John Wooden would: "Why is it so hard for us to realize that we cannot antagonize and positively influence at the same time?"
What do you take me for? :-*Angst that should've died out after puberty while still attempting to prove your mind on a dying forum, a forum generally inhabited by 13-15 year old's who are fixated on pwning. I wonder if you fear a more competent audience?
Werewolf doesn't have an "a" in it.
QuoteWhat do you take me for? :-*Angst that should've died out after puberty while still attempting to prove your mind on a dying forum, a forum generally inhabited by 13-15 year old's who are fixated on pwning. I wonder if you fear a more competent audience?
Validation victory. If you are argued with here, you assume the other is less intelligent/less enlightened than yourself, proving mastery. If you're agreed with here, you eat it up, building yourself as some sort of rational seer. A win-win of a miniscule and pathetic proportion.
QuoteWhat do you take me for? :-*Angst that should've died out after puberty while still attempting to prove your mind on a dying forum, a forum generally inhabited by 13-15 year old's who are fixated on pwning. I wonder if you fear a more competent audience?
Validation victory. If you are argued with here, you assume the other is less intelligent/less enlightened than yourself, proving mastery. If you're agreed with here, you eat it up, building yourself as some sort of rational seer. A win-win of a miniscule and pathetic proportion.
Don't lash out your anger on me but when i see those kind of topic , I'm like How can they bother arguing so much and writing essays when most people don't even bother reading it or just want to express their point..
Well those were my 2 cents :D
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4cjopl0Zf1qgglejo1_400.jpg)Hah, didn't know that Natan is know somewhere else than in Poland. I spoke to him on his convent and his a cool guy :P
Don't lash out your anger on me but when i see those kind of topic , I'm like How can they bother arguing so much and writing essays when most people don't even bother reading it or just want to express their point..
Well those were my 2 cents :D
(http://[meme image])
:D
Well, you can end this debate with a short mathematical example
Lets say x is a proof that god exists and y is a proof that god doenst exist.
set x=1
set y=-1
and lets say, c is the value of this debate and this c is the summary of x and y
c=x+y
c=1+(-1)=0
the value of this debate is equal 0
Threads like this serve a great purpose. If we can't discuss core beliefs with different minded people then why live in society at all? The internet is an amazing machine that lets us communicate with millions of people and thousands of viewpoints. Why not take every advantage and find every single view on life possible. Neither party has to radically change their way of thinking but all parties can understand each others way of thinking a little more at least. My two cents.Actually, discussing without any facts is useless. Both sides present their arguments on the level of "belief" and don't deliver any proof of the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being. Atheists and theists are very stubborn on this topic.
wouldnt it make you wonder if the world was functioning according to the rules of a belief that 500 years ago there were living gnomes that are masters of the universe and they told the people how to live and to praise them but decided never to give a material proof of their existance because its just about the belief. The rules of the gnomes forbid you from eating cookies every second day, having sex naked or eating plants, while you're ought to go to gnome statuettes each morning and pay money to human representatives of the gnome church to praise their name.I totally agree with you. But in my opinion the social structures of religions is another topic which is highly debatable and it should be on debate. But the matter of this discussion is the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being. Its common, that these questions like "social structures" and "hierachies" of a religion drafts out the discussion of the main topic. :D
fuck that, i'd want to eat cookies everyday and social standards and pressure on this matter would annoy me, just as much as it's annoying regarding any dominant religion nowadays
Threads like this serve a great purpose. If we can't discuss core beliefs with different minded people then why live in society at all? The internet is an amazing machine that lets us communicate with millions of people and thousands of viewpoints. Why not take every advantage and find every single view on life possible. Neither party has to radically change their way of thinking but all parties can understand each others way of thinking a little more at least. My two cents.
Actually, discussing without any facts is useless. Both sides present their arguments on the level of "belief" and don't deliver any proof of the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being. Atheists and theists are very stubborn on this topic.
wouldnt it make you wonder if the world was functioning according to the rules of a belief that 500 years ago there were living gnomes that are masters of the universe and they told the people how to live and to praise them but decided never to give a material proof of their existance because its just about the belief. The rules of the gnomes forbid you from eating cookies every second day, having sex naked or eating plants, while you're ought to go to gnome statuettes each morning and pay money to human representatives of the gnome church to praise their name.
fuck that, i'd want to eat cookies everyday and social standards and pressure on this matter would annoy me, just as much as it's annoying regarding any dominant religion nowadays
I totally agree with you. But in my opinion the social structures of religions is another topic which is highly debatable and it should be on debate. But the matter of this discussion is the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being. Its common, that these questions like "social structures" and "hierachies" of a religion drafts out the discussion of the main topic. :D
wouldnt it make you wonder if the world was functioning according to the rules of a belief that 500 years ago there were living gnomes that are masters of the universe and they told the people how to live and to praise them but decided never to give a material proof of their existance because its just about the belief. The rules of the gnomes forbid you from eating cookies every second day, having sex naked or eating plants, while you're ought to go to gnome statuettes each morning and pay money to human representatives of the gnome church to praise their name.I totally agree with you. But in my opinion the social structures of religions is another topic which is highly debatable and it should be on debate. But the matter of this discussion is the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being. Its common, that these questions like "social structures" and "hierachies" of a religion drafts out the discussion of the main topic. :D
fuck that, i'd want to eat cookies everyday and social standards and pressure on this matter would annoy me, just as much as it's annoying regarding any dominant religion nowadays
Actually, discussing without any facts is useless. Both sides present their arguments on the level of "belief" and don't deliver any proof of the existence or non-existence of an omnipotent being. Atheists and theists are very stubborn on this topic.
Werewolves.
Darkmatter, DarkenergyYou think that dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence) and dark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence) are on the same level as werewolves?
If you cant see the irony in my post... then I cant help you ^^Darkmatter, DarkenergyYou think that dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence) and dark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence) are on the same level as werewolves?
If you cant see the irony in my post... then I cant help you ^^Darkmatter, DarkenergyYou think that dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence) and dark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence) are on the same level as werewolves?
You guys call yourselves the "Soldat Forum's Intellectual Elite" but for me you guys seem to be bunch of wannabe "smartguys" who fail at trolling ;D. I'm out.
If you cant see the irony in my post... then I cant help you ^^
If you cant see the irony in my post... then I cant help you ^^That's not very nice...
You guys call yourselves the "Soldat Forum's Intellectual Elite" but for me you guys seem to be bunch of wannabe "smartguys" who fail at trolling ;D. I'm out.
Narrow minded? Because I bash religion and human mythology?
Sweet Gandhi's tits! I decide to return to the good ol' Soldat forums after what may have been years, and the top thread is Mangled's troll-eism? This can't be a good sign.
Sweet Gandhi's tits! I decide to return to the good ol' Soldat forums after what may have been years, and the top thread is Mangled's troll-eism? This can't be a good sign.
Eh Mangled's keeping this place alive. This is the first active thread in a while.
Eh Mangled's keeping this place alive. This is the first active thread in a while.Nothing would be alive without the God! :'(
Isn't non-existence evidence of not existing?
edit: the stupidity in this thread makes my head hurt.
Exactly. You bash other people's beliefs based on your own beliefs. A pot and a kettle or whatever.
You greatly show disrespect to other people's views which you can't share for being superior to them(which you aren't afraid to show either, after all you're rational!), regardless if their beliefs make them actually happy.
Sweet Gandhi's tits! I decide to return to the good ol' Soldat forums after what may have been years, and the top thread is Mangled's troll-eism? This can't be a good sign.
Eh Mangled's keeping this place alive. This is the first active thread in a while.
Nothing would be alive without the God! :'(
So... there isn't an absence of evidence anymore?Isn't non-existence evidence of not existing?Yes. Werewolves.
edit: the stupidity in this thread makes my head hurt.
Besides, you do realize that the universe may be infinite? which would mean warewolfs do exist somewhere.
However, comparing a physical being with a spiritual being is pretty bad to begin with.
If everything unknowable is not to be believed, then you'll have no explanation for how you exist.
As explained in Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager), even if there is no afterlife, one who dedicates themselves to Gods will(imaginary or not) will be satisfied when they look back on their lives, and if there is an afterlife, well, then there's more pleasure to come.
You're underestimating the value of infinite. We do not know if there are other gravitational rules far away from us, or a ton of other elements.Besides, you do realize that the universe may be infinite? which would mean warewolfs do exist somewhere.
However, comparing a physical being with a spiritual being is pretty bad to begin with.
As clearly stated on multiple occasions, the nature of non-existent things means there is no evidence that can either prove or disprove them. As only existent things can impact reality in a tangible way that provides evidence.
The universe may be infinite. But you have made a poorly conceived assumption that infinity means that something of any certainty can occur. Werewolves, by our definition, are humans that can shape-shift into a wolf-like form during a full moon. They are purely a product of human mythology along with god, ghosts, vampires, fairys, angels etc.
Note the fact that the majority of mythical creatures are anthropomorphic, including most depictions of God.
That's a pretty sure-fire indication that they are merely products of human imagination.
If no evidence can be found, the suspect is assumed to be innocent.
If everything unknowable is not to be believed, then you'll have no explanation for how you exist. A universe without any god is as unknowable as a universe with one. Why should one be favored over the other? Perhaps you're sick of missionaries knocking on your door. Perhaps you're sick of the Salvation Army too.
As explained in Pascal's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager), even if there is no afterlife, one who dedicates themselves to Gods will(imaginary or not) will be satisfied when they look back on their lives, and if there is an afterlife, well, then there's more pleasure to come.
You're underestimating the value of infinite. We do not know if there are other gravitational rules far away from us, or a ton of other elements.
Why should I respect other people's views?First of all, it is polite to do so. It is also often a requirement for a meaningful, constructive discussion and very useful in our day-to-day commuication.
People are morons.All people? You? All the other people? Certain people? Who? For what reason?
I should respect the beliefs of people who don't believe in evolution? People who believe the Earth is 6000 years old? People who believe in the afterlife?Yes, at least to the extent that the lack of respect isn't visible. What is there to prove that afterlife doesn't exist?
How can I respect anybody who ignores reality in favour of fantasy?
It makes them happy?Not necessarily, but in many cases it does. In case you're actually interested in challenging your own ignorant mind, you might want to take even a peek at for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness
No, it makes them complacent and stupid and ignorant and intolerant and bigoted and irrational and arrogant.
Respecting their beliefs would just be patronising in my eyes. I am doing the only decent thing by being honest with them.If you consider outright insults and disrespectful behavior "the only decent thing" and "being honest" then I'm afraid it only speaks of your ability to tolerate difference, different views and opinions. How do you make friends with people? Heck, how does one with such attitue even get along with different people?
This is why it's invalid.
Infinite means that everything that is possible (not restricted to our scientific laws) has or will happen.
it is not, unless you mean the definition of "infinite". Then yes, that is a completely wrong definition of the word Infinite.QuoteInfinite means that everything that is possible (not restricted to our scientific laws) has or will happen.Is also completely wrong.
Your conjecture is still conjecture.Not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
I could just as well use your same conjecture to argue that there are moons elsewhere in the universe that are made of cheese.
It's not only conjecture, but it's baseless conjecture that only serves to propose a counter-argument to an argument that is grounded in fact.
This is why it's invalid.
1 - There's no evidence that they do exist.
2 - There's no evidence that they don't exist.Quotelater on you say this:Meaning, you've created evidence to prove that something does not exist. However, now there is evidence, that the said thing doesn't exist. So, it no longer fits into your formula to rule out that something does not exist.Isn't non-existence evidence of not existing?Yes. Werewolves.
edit: the stupidity in this thread makes my head hurt.
Therefore, it's a paradox.
it is not, unless you mean the definition of "infinite". Then yes, that is a completely wrong definition of the word Infinite.
In 1 second all possibilities for that second have happened. Infinity means there's no end, which also means that there are infinite copies of our galaxy (etc).
if it is possible, it will happen.Quoteit is not, unless you mean the definition of "infinite". Then yes, that is a completely wrong definition of the word Infinite.
In 1 second all possibilities for that second have happened. Infinity means there's no end, which also means that there are infinite copies of our galaxy (etc).
No, I mean your stance that given any X with a Probability P(x) such that P(x) > 0, given an infinite amount of attempts does necessarily mean that that even WILL occur.
This is a false statement
No, not necessarilyyes, necessarily.
Okay then. One counter example:Well, you'd also have infinite of reset points, so it is very likely.
Imagine you are a dot on a grid in three dimensional space and can move in 6 (up, down, left, right, back, forward) directions. Now to determine your move, you roll a fair die, each side corresponding to 1 direction. Assuming you start at some arbitrary origin, what is the probability that you will reach your starting point after an infinite amount of moves?
What do you mean reset? I mean, you start at point A and move from there, whats the probability you reach A after an infinite amount of moves.your comparison is bad. there are infinite starts of the big bang, timespace did not exist before it (assumingly), so afaik there's no origin of the big bang.
I'll tell you, its not 1, which is what you said it should be with your statement.
Pff, censorship advocates... Gotta hate them.
Why should I respect other people's views?First of all, it is polite to do so. It is also often a requirement for a meaningful, constructive discussion and very useful in our day-to-day commuication.
QuoteHow can I respect anybody who ignores reality in favour of fantasy?
First I talk about respecting views of other people. Then, you proceed to talking about respecting the other people in general. Fantastic. Well done. Why should one not respect someone who would ignore reality in favor of fantasy if they feel happier that way? Or even why should one not respect such view/belief?
In case you're actually interested in challenging your own ignorant mind, you might want to take even a peek at for example here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_happiness
I'll leave it for you to learn about the subject. Shouldn't be too hard task, if you're genuinely interested rather than just boasting your own self-centric beliefs. Remember, being self-critical towards one's own beliefs is one of the most important traits people can have in pursue for truth, evidence and reality. Are you capable of questioning you views and beliefs? Are you capable of admitting being wrong if proven so? Are you capable of changing your views based on facts contradcting with your own beliefs?
QuoteNo, it makes them complacent and stupid and ignorant and intolerant and bigoted and irrational and arrogant.
First, this doesn't exclude happiness. Second, these are just your own disrespectful, generalized beliefs about people you don't even know. Third, considering your attitude towards other people based on what they believe in, I'd personally consider you as being quite fitting to the list of adjectives you just mentioned. Or can you honestly not see your high-horse elitist attitude towards certain kind of people who you don't even know? How is this not 1) ignorant 2) arrogant 3) intolerant 4) stupid?
If you consider outright insults and disrespectful behavior "the only decent thing" and "being honest" then I'm afraid it only speaks of your ability to tolerate difference, different views and opinions. How do you make friends with people? Heck, how does one with such attitue even get along with different people?
Yea, the problem with induction sure is invalid. While were at it, so is the problem of knowledge
Not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
As we do not know if the universe is inifinite, and there is no way of telling if it is infinite if it actually is infinite.
Does this mean that the size of the universe doesn't exist? We cannot prove that it is infinite, nor can we prove that it isn't infinite (if the case is that it actually is infinite).
How is warewofls doesn't exist fact? It is a fact that they do not exist here, but that doesn't rule out their existence elsewhere.
Without conjunctures there would be no science.
Meaning, you've created evidence to prove that something does not exist. However, now there is evidence, that the said thing doesn't exist. So, it no longer fits into your formula to rule out that something does not exist.
Therefore, it's a paradox.
your comparison is bad. there are infinite starts of the big bang, timespace did not exist before it (assumingly), so afaik there's no origin of the big bang.
Now, I'm not too sure about these things, but what mangled has said so far is just out right dumb. That is the whole reason of my comments.
So long as induction and knowledge aren't the same thing I don't think that's a problem.
My point is that you are simply dismissing a valid concerning with the wave of a hand.
My points has nothing to do with the big bang, it has to do with saying that your statement about infinite occurrences isn't necessarily true.So you're only counting with a part of the infinite? big bang gave birth to infinite space and matter. In my logic, there wasn't just 1 thing that started at point A.
So you're only counting with a part of the infinite? big bang gave birth to infinite space and matter. In my logic, there wasn't just 1 thing that started at point A.
Obviously all of this is far from certain, as nobody knows very much about the universe.
At Mangled:That is true, but that isn't covering the whole.
Do you think you've solve all our philosophical problems?QuoteSo you're only counting with a part of the infinite? big bang gave birth to infinite space and matter. In my logic, there wasn't just 1 thing that started at point A.
Obviously all of this is far from certain, as nobody knows very much about the universe.
Oh my goodness man, I'm merely pointing out that just because you have an infinite amount of occurrences doesn't mean all things possible necessarily occur.
At Mangled:
Do you think you've solve all our philosophical problems?
I've solved all of mine. That's what matters to me. But I'm always interested in new ones, I don't think there is any limit to how much one can learn.
Lots of religious people solved all of theirs too, you see, but as we can find out from this thread, agreeing with each other often means accepting some basics and I have a feeling I don't accept yours as they assume too much.
Lots of religious people solved all of theirs too, you see, but as we can find out from this thread, agreeing with each other often means accepting some basics and I have a feeling I don't accept yours as they assume too much.
Are you assuming that mine assume?
point is that you made an argument that a single instance won't make everything happen.
with infinite instances everything will happen.
your example was of one instance.point is that you made an argument that a single instance won't make everything happen.
with infinite instances everything will happen.
No, my point says after infinite moves (instances), a single state won't necessarily occur.
If it doesn't, you'd be the first with that information and the chance to make it public. Although, yes I am, I wish it didn't but I still think it does.
But it was with an infinite amount of moves, which is the point....
If you've solved all philosophical questions you have, you're very dull and arrogant. If you're acting arrogant for self-amusing purposes you are an arrogant person.If it doesn't, you'd be the first with that information and the chance to make it public. Although, yes I am, I wish it didn't but I still think it does.
Maybe we can probe this further. Sometimes I like to act more arrogant than I really am, for self-amusing purposes. In fact my entire presence on this forum is for self-amusement purposes, to be honest.
ginn, listen to Smegma, you don't know what you are talking about.
Maybe we can probe this further.
If you've solved all philosophical questions you have, you're very dull and arrogant. If you're acting arrogant for self-amusing purposes you are an arrogant person.
The point remains though, since your claim was anything that can occur, will occur, given infinite time. This isn't necessarily true.Yes, true.
Moss have you ever read anything from this (http://lesswrong.com/) site?
What do you mean reset? I mean, you start at point A and move from there, whats the probability you reach A after an infinite amount of moves.
I'll tell you, its not 1, which is what you said it should be with your statement.
What do you mean reset? I mean, you start at point A and move from there, whats the probability you reach A after an infinite amount of moves.
I'll tell you, its not 1, which is what you said it should be with your statement.
Just out of curiosity, why not? I think myself to be math-saavvy, but I don't quite understand this. At any given point in 3-dimensional space, you have some compound probability P(X) to reach your origin, which is a product of P1, P2, P3 ... PN, where P1 is the probability that you will move from your current position to location 1, then from there to location 2, etc. where location N is your origin. Of course, these trajectories (and therefore, their corresponding probabilities) are dependent on your location, so every time you move, P(X) will change.
Actually, never mind. I just realized that I'm confusing probability for empirical likelihood. "1 out of 100" != 1%. I understand now what you mean: although the number of attempts will increase the probability that you will arrive at your desired result, at infinity the probability that you will not still exists (though is infinitesimal).
we do not know if the atoms in another part of the universe is built up in the same way or not. Infinite means that everything that is possible (not restricted to our scientific laws) has or will happen.There is evidence suggesting that the laws of physics do not change as one moves through space. There is no evidence suggesting the other way around.
So ruling out the existence of warewolfs is very arrogant.
Just out of curiosity, why not? I think myself to be math-saavvy, but I don't quite understand this. At any given point in 3-dimensional space, you have some compound probability P(X) to reach your origin, which is a product of P1, P2, P3 ... PN, where P1 is the probability that you will move from your current position to location 1, then from there to location 2, etc. where location N is your origin. Of course, these trajectories (and therefore, their corresponding probabilities) are dependent on your location, so every time you move, P(X) will change.
Actually, never mind. I just realized that I'm confusing probability for empirical likelihood. "1 out of 100" != 1%. I understand now what you mean: although the number of attempts will increase the probability that you will arrive at your desired result, at infinity the probability that you will not still exists (though is infinitesimal).
On the contrary any single move, with the right angle and distance would take you back to A anyway. Therefore the probability is constant because at any point your next move ALWAYS has a 1/∞ chance of taking you back to A.
The probability is constant
Huh. Reminds me of my writing. All of everything, this one time. It vaguely representated prose written in a sardonic manner. Agile words dodging the subjects of divinity. Well. You know everything about the oneness, the likelihood of hindsight.
"...for it might end, you know," said Alice to herself, "in my going out altogether, like a candle. I wonder what I should be like then?" And she tried to fancy what the flame of a candle is like after the candle is blown out, for she could not remember ever having seen such a thing.
I also take to my greatest humorous delight the fact that there exists an "intellectual group" within the Soldat Forums.
Please, gentlemen, now....