There is so much bullshit in the world these days. Sometimes I laugh at all these stupid philosophical and religous issues that create problems.
Okay, to begin with you have to agree that ANYTHING is POSSIBLE! As we don't know much about this earth and universe, so all our theories are just that...theories. Okay I have one too...
Everyone talks about God...Satan etc etc and all the nonsense. But does God really exists?
Maybe millions of millions of years back, when there was nothing on this earth, a spaceship has landed carrying "species" much more intelligent and powerful! They saw the situation and using their formula's, created life here.
Then humans were also created and they realized unlike the animals and other species they created, humans had the intelligence to think and these Extra terrestrials wanted to control them. The main leader then gave messages to different people, including christ, buddha etc. Maybe the person who we call satan, was the counterpart of this leader also wanted his influence on earth so he decided to create another religion of his own and must have gave some mysterious messages to a person in a cave who now runs one of the biggest violent religions of the world...Maybe this is all this, an extra terrestrial magic!
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
| Okay, to begin with you have to agree that ANYTHING is POSSIBLE! |
Yes. But not anything is probable. Most things are so amazingly and ludicrously unlikely that the chance of them happening is so infinitessimally small that we can safely say they are impossible. True, they are not literally impossible, but they're so close to it that it's a very safe approximation.
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
| As we don't know much about this earth and universe, so all our theories are just that...theories. Okay I have one too... |
*sigh* "It's just a theory..." -_- Maybe a simple reference will help: http://wilstar.com/theories.htm
We know a lot about the universe, thank you. We may not know everything, but we already use devices on a daily basis that harness and control many of the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, even devices that take into account physics that most people think are fanciful, like quantum tunnelling.
Just because you don't know how your camera cellphone really works doesn't mean that everyone lives in a fog of confusion about the nature of the universe.
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
| Everyone talks about God...Satan etc etc and all the nonsense. But does God really exists? |
That depends on how you define "God".
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
Maybe millions of millions of years back, when there was nothing on this earth, a spaceship has landed carrying "species" much more intelligent and powerful! They saw the situation and using their formula's, created life here.
Then humans were also created and they realized unlike the animals and other species they created, humans had the intelligence to think and these Extra terrestrials wanted to control them. The main leader then gave messages to different people, including christ, buddha etc. Maybe the person who we call satan, was the counterpart of this leader also wanted his influence on earth so he decided to create another religion of his own and must have gave some mysterious messages to a person in a cave who now runs one of the biggest violent religions of the world...Maybe this is all this, an extra terrestrial magic! |
Such a scenario is possible, but hardly likely. The aliens would have had to plant an enormous amount of red herring evidence to make it look like we evolved from lower life forms, and that all of our modern religions evolved ideologically from more primitive beliefs, all in order to hide their interference. One would think they would have also have done a better job at planting religions, because most religions have changed considerably in the last few thousand years - just because a religion has the same name and general trappings as one that existed a thousand or more years ago does not mean that is actually anything even remotely similar in practice. Indeed, modern followers don't really follow the actual teachings of Christ and/or Guatama particularly closely - they're not particularly effective means of control.
You can't function in the world living under the assumption that anything is equally possible - to exist effectively we have to be aware of the general probability of something happening, and act on that. The chance of me walking through a wall is so remote that there's no real point in trying it. The chance of me dying if i stop breathing too long is so high that there's no real point in not breathing.
That's true in the physical world in order to live and stay healthy, so why isn't it true in the mental world to stay sane and rational? Doesn't it make sense that to think and reason effectively, you have to be aware of the general probability of something being true, and base your knowledge on that? In which case, given the wild improbability of this alien scenario, because of the complete non-existence of any evidence to support it and the vast amounts of evidence to dispute it, doesn't it make sense to reject it?that is a weird thought for sure. Well, everyuthing is possible but i wouldnt bet on your theory. But nice to read your post. It was quite different from what i have been reading lately.
I was totally into this when I was 13.
These aliens are actually from a planet that exploded to from the asteroid belt. They escaped their dying planet and fled to earth to live the last of their years as "prophets'. Sodom and Gomorrah were actually destroyed by a nucleur blast because they refused to acknowledge their alien overlords. On the otherhand, chances are the prophets were all a little wacked.
The entire field Quatum Mechanics is about possibilities. Waves show the chance that a particle will move in particular direction. A lot of ships in sci-fi books move by manipulating the chance that a group of particles will move in a particular direction (HHGttG particuarly).
I think it is the same way people came up with theories.. even now.. somebody come up with something.. some people support it.. they become a group.. there generations will belive it.. and according to their life styles.. the theories and stories change.. it ust evolves into something else.. may be what we call as relegions today.. who knows..what was it like.. in the begining..
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
| ANYTHING is POSSIBLE! |
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
| As we don't know much about this earth and universe, so all our theories are just that...theories. |
I think these two assumptions are quite contradictory.
With your second assumption (the one about our ignorance and naivety) in place, it's wrong, "perhaps", to assert your first belief with words like "is".
| MadeinIndia wrote: |
| Okay, to begin with you have to agree that |
I don't, I'll still disagree with the idea that everything is possible.
When you begin debating the other side, you'll soon find out that the only definite logic behind such assertion is the indefinite "if". | indi wrote: |
| Yes. But not anything is probable. Most things are so amazingly and ludicrously unlikely that the chance of them happening is so infinitessimally small that we can safely say they are impossible. True, they are not literally impossible, but they're so close to it that it's a very safe approximation. |
I have nothing to do with this discussion. But too many times I have seen believers arguing along the lines of - not anything is probable.....so infinitessimally small, that we can safely say they are impossible.
Mathematically, and hence subjectively, you are wrong indi. Why, because as the Universe expands indefinitely, cosmic bodies and system are created at a rate of billions per second - this means that cosmic anomalies - deviation from normal behaviour from that of the rest of the universe (which could be anything you can imagine ) are not only possible - but highly probable. - Nothing can be infintessimally small.
Ofcourse anomalies in 'small' closed systems such as a man in a closed room, or throwing three dice in a casino, or entire societies on a single planet cannot throw up great possibilities of anything "ludicrous" since in a such closed system further sub-systems/closed-systems are not being born. However it is safe to say, that the matter of God is not part of a closed system.
Therefore, what madeinindia says, although juvenile and crudely written, is very much probable if viewed from the universes point of view 
- and it is easy to grasp how probably this is when you close your eyes and think that billions of galaxies are being created every second - BILLIONS. These galaxies have further Billions of probabilities within them.What's a couple of billion times a couple of billion?
. There are bound to singular anomalies among a billion possibilites - just 1 irregularity amongst a billion. And a couple of billion chances for that to happen, happens every second. Think about it. | i_am_mine wrote: |
| indi wrote: | | Yes. But not anything is probable. Most things are so amazingly and ludicrously unlikely that the chance of them happening is so infinitessimally small that we can safely say they are impossible. True, they are not literally impossible, but they're so close to it that it's a very safe approximation. |
I have nothing to do with this discussion. But too many times I have seen believers arguing along the lines of - not anything is probable.....so infinitessimally small, that we can safely say they are impossible.
Mathematically, and hence subjectively, you are wrong indi. Why, because as the Universe expands indefinitely, cosmic bodies and system are created at a rate of billions per second - this means that cosmic anomalies - deviation from normal behaviour from that of the rest of the universe (which could be anything you can imagine ) are not only possible - but highly probable. - Nothing can be infintessimally small.
Ofcourse anomalies in 'small' closed systems such as a man in a closed room, or throwing three dice in a casino, or entire societies on a single planet cannot throw up great possibilities of anything "ludicrous" since in a such closed system further sub-systems/closed-systems are not being born. However it is safe to say, that the matter of God is not part of a closed system.
Therefore, what madeinindia says, although juvenile and crudely written, is very much probable if viewed from the universes point of view - and it is easy to grasp how probably this is when you close your eyes and think that billions of galaxies are being created every second - BILLIONS. These galaxies have further Billions of probabilities within them.What's a couple of billion times a couple of billion? . There are bound to singular anomalies among a billion possibilites - just 1 irregularity amongst a billion. And a couple of billion chances for that to happen, happens every second. Think about it. |
I'm afraid you don't understand the nature of limits. Just because the number of attempts become very, very large, that does not mean that it literally becomes infinity. And even if it does - even if you want to take the limit as the number of chances becomes infinity - you have to consider the symmetric case, as the probability of something happen approaches 0. As the probability becomes infinitely small for ridiculously improbable events, you can still end up with a chance of occurance that is essentially 0, regardless of number of attempts.
Your argument can be interpreted mathematically in one of two ways.
The first way to interpret your argument is to figure out the expected number of times that something might happen, and see how close it is to 0. You know that the number of times you can expect something to happen is the probability of it happening each attempt (P) × the number of times you attempt it (N), right? The probability of getting heads on a fair coin is 0.5, so with 10 tosses, you can expect 5 heads (0.5 × 10). The first interpretation of your argument, mathematically, is that as N tends to infinity, as long as P is finite, no matter how small, the result of N × P will be large (possibly infinite). Not necessarily. Because you can also take the limit as P tends to 0, in which case the limit of N × P could be infinity, 0 or a finite number, large or small. Now, it's true that P can never be 0 for any event that is possible... but then again, N can never be infinity in a finite universe. Therefore, it is very easy to have P so small that even if N is immense, say a googolplex, the result of N × P is still functionally zero (P could be one over a googolplex squared). Thus, even in a functionally (but not literally) infinite universe, you can still end up with the probability of something happening being functionally (albeit not literally) 0.
The second way to interpret your argument is to figure out the probability of something happening at least one time after N tries, and see if it is pretty much 0. You can use the binomial distribution for that:
where 
Make k 0 and that reduces to (1 - P)^N. Now if N is infinite and P is finite, then the limit of that is 0, as you argued, which means that everything with a finite probability happens at least once in an infinite universe. Or does it? What if you take the limit as P tends to 0 at the same time that you take the limit as N tends to infinity? Once again, the result could be 1, 0, or anything in between. In the real universe, N can never be infinity and P will not be 0 for anything that is possible. But as big as you make N, you can make P smaller even faster. The end result may not be analytically 1, but it can be infinitessimally close to 1, in which case the probability of the event occurring is still functionally 0.
i suggest you review limits, i_am_mine, and apply them symmetrically (that is, to both the number of attempts and the probability of success). In a finite universe - no matter how large - you can always have the probability of a possible event being functionally (albeit not literally) 0. That means that there could be events that are so ridiculously improbable they can be practically considered impossible. | Indi wrote: |
That's true in the physical world in order to live and stay healthy, so why isn't it true in the mental world to stay sane and rational? Doesn't it make sense that to think and reason effectively, you have to be aware of the general probability of something being true, and base your knowledge on that? In which case, given the wild improbability of this alien scenario, because of the complete non-existence of any evidence to support it and the vast amounts of evidence to dispute it, doesn't it make sense to reject it? |
note: my arguments refer largely to subconcious as well as concious activity.
i would argue against rejecting it because if you start flat out rejecting things(which can't be prevented anyway, but i think it best to avoid as much as possible), you start to place a lot of restriction on what information you recieve and how you interpret it. and you start to build a very restricted model of the universe(again it's always gonna happen, IMO best to avoid).
instead i would think it better to aknowledge its possibility, while also aknowledging your percieved lack of probability. that way if more information comes your way promoting the matter, you might increase percieved probability, as opposed to ignoring it.
| Indi wrote: |
The first way to interpret your argument is to figure out the expected number of times that something might happen, and see how close it is to 0. You know that the number of times you can expect something to happen is the probability of it happening each attempt (P) × the number of times you attempt it (N), right? The probability of getting heads on a fair coin is 0.5, so with 10 tosses, you can expect 5 heads (0.5 × 10). The first interpretation of your argument, mathematically, is that as N tends to infinity, as long as P is finite, no matter how small, the result of N × P will be large (possibly infinite). Not necessarily. Because you can also take the limit as P tends to 0, in which case the limit of N × P could be infinity, 0 or a finite number, large or small. Now, it's true that P can never be 0 for any event that is possible... but then again, N can never be infinity in a finite universe. Therefore, it is very easy to have P so small that even if N is immense, say a googolplex, the result of N × P is still functionally zero (P could be one over a googolplex squared). Thus, even in a functionally (but not literally) infinite universe, you can still end up with the probability of something happening being functionally (albeit not literally) 0.
|
the current major finite universe model only states the universe is finite within a restricted time period, even if you go by big crunch after everything gets condensed again, it is perfectly reasonable to think that it would all eventually become unstable and blow up again.
thus it is perfectly reasonable to presume that the universe is infinite.
also i_am_mine used an indefinitely expanding universe model which would be infinite by nature.
| Indi wrote: |
We know a lot about the universe, thank you. We may not know everything, but we already use devices on a daily basis that harness and control many of the most fundamental building blocks of the universe, even devices that take into account physics that most people think are fanciful, like quantum tunnelling.
|
i tend to believe we know very very little about the universe, as our calculations/models are all based on a very small percentage of the universe. also the more we find out, the more we realise we don't know.
| Indi wrote: |
Such a scenario is possible, but hardly likely. The aliens would have had to plant an enormous amount of red herring evidence to make it look like we evolved from lower life forms
|
actually, i've seen very little evidence that we evolved from lower life forms, i've been told about lots of evidence, and i've been told that top brains belive it, and it seems pretty valid to me and i believe in it.
but it wouldnt be a far stretch to think that at the start of the scientific revolution, when we started to deem only things which we "proved" to be correct, that these "aliens"decided to start planting evolution into our minds so as to lead our "where do i come from" questions away from finding out about them. | psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
That's true in the physical world in order to live and stay healthy, so why isn't it true in the mental world to stay sane and rational? Doesn't it make sense that to think and reason effectively, you have to be aware of the general probability of something being true, and base your knowledge on that? In which case, given the wild improbability of this alien scenario, because of the complete non-existence of any evidence to support it and the vast amounts of evidence to dispute it, doesn't it make sense to reject it? |
note: my arguments refer largely to subconcious as well as concious activity.
i would argue against rejecting it because if you start flat out rejecting things(which can't be prevented anyway, but i think it best to avoid as much as possible), you start to place a lot of restriction on what information you recieve and how you interpret it. and you start to build a very restricted model of the universe(again it's always gonna happen, IMO best to avoid).
instead i would think it better to aknowledge its possibility, while also aknowledging your percieved lack of probability. that way if more information comes your way promoting the matter, you might increase percieved probability, as opposed to ignoring it. |
You can't function as a human being unless you "flat out" (to use your words) reject some possibilities. Consider the possibility that you are the only conscious being in all the universe, and the rest of us are all automotons that exist solely to serve and worship you. Now try to function in society and see what happens. Consider the possibility that some god has grown displeased by this world and you have been selected to kill every living being so that he can start over, and if you don't accomplish that within a certain time limit, you will be the one to suffer infinitely. See how long you survive while believing that.
It is impossible for all possible things to be true, because some are mutually exclusive. Part of existing for intelligent beings is deciding which of any mutually exclusive set is the correct one, and acting on it. That means rejecting the others.
But that rejection doesn't mean absolute rejection. Of course you still acknowledge the possibility that you were wrong to reject that particular item - you'd be an idiot otherwise, because you know you're not omniscient, so you can be wrong. And if evidence comes up that changes the probabilities, then you reassess.
In fact, i can challenge the entire argument directly to show how it fails. You suppose "anything is possible". i point out that that claim means that it is impossible for "not everything is possible" to be true. Thus you have to reject one or the other. QED.
| psiclops wrote: |
the current major finite universe model only states the universe is finite within a restricted time period, even if you go by big crunch after everything gets condensed again, it is perfectly reasonable to think that it would all eventually become unstable and blow up again.
thus it is perfectly reasonable to presume that the universe is infinite.
also i_am_mine used an indefinitely expanding universe model which would be infinite by nature. |
Big crunch model: the universe is not infinite, the cosmos (or macroverse, or whatever you want to call it) is infinite. Each universe that gets created is finite. Thus while it is true that within the cosmos, everything will and must happen, in any given universe, such as ours, that is not true.
Infinite expansion model: working on the same assumptions you use to arrive at the theory of infinite expansion, after enough expansion, the universe will die of heat death - after which nothing will be possible except photonic "bubbling" - which means that although the universe is literally infinite, it puts an upper bound on the functional lifetime of the universe - the amount of time within which stuff can actually happen. Thus you end up with a finite universe again.
But, regardless of all this, once again, if you accept the possibility that the universe is infinite, that means you're rejecting the possibility that it is not. Both can't be true.
| psiclops wrote: |
| i tend to believe we know very very little about the universe, as our calculations/models are all based on a very small percentage of the universe. also the more we find out, the more we realise we don't know. |
That's a cop-out. While it is true that we can only model and understand what we can observe, our understanding of what we can observe is very, very good. Not perfect, not by a long shot, but very good. In recent years, we have found that predictions that we have been able to test have been very often accurate - far more so than at any other time in history - which implies that we're starting to get very close. Even the fact that we realize the limitations of our knowledge means that our knowledge is greater than when we did not.
The plain fact is that you can keep saying "there is more to the universe than what we can observe" until the end of time and never be proven wrong. It's a safe, empty statement. In other words, a cop-out.
If we can never observe it, then as far as we're concerned it is the same as it not existing, because it has no effect on us. If things really do exist that we can never observe, whatever happens to them is fundamentally meaningless to us. They are functionally outside out our universe, outside of our sphere of existence. Talking about them is about less useful than discussing fairy tales.
| psiclops wrote: |
actually, i've seen very little evidence that we evolved from lower life forms, i've been told about lots of evidence, and i've been told that top brains belive it, and it seems pretty valid to me and i believe in it.
but it wouldnt be a far stretch to think that at the start of the scientific revolution, when we started to deem only things which we "proved" to be correct, that these "aliens"decided to start planting evolution into our minds so as to lead our "where do i come from" questions away from finding out about them. |
You're free to believe that if you like, but it's a slippery slope to start down.
Why? Because there is a thing called parsimony, which is a fundamental component of the scientific method for the simple reason that it is absolutely necessary. Without parsimony, literally anything can be possible, and you can't even narrow it down to what's probable. In other words, you can't arrive at a conclusion, and you can't function.
i mean, why stop there? You've gone so far as to assume the existence of aliens that you've never seen, with an agenda of hiding themselves from us that you have no evidence for. Why not keep going?
Why not think that that the aliens manifest themselves in this world as clouds, and they watch over us like that. That's why things always seem better on a cloudless day, because they're not watching over you and interfering. Oh, and the reason they are doing all of this is because in their world, humans are considered to be candy, like gobstoppers. They're actually farming us for their upcoming celebration, which is a lot like our christmas, only they decorate cheese sculptures instead of trees, and Santa Claus rides a flying carpet pulled by chickens, from which he drops thermonuclear devices on bad alien kids.
Pretty ludicrous, huh? The funny thing is, without parsimony, there's absolutely no reason to say your theory is more likely than mine.
Now, you say "it wouldnt be a far stretch" to jump to that conclusion, but you're wrong. Any violation of parsimony is an infinitely far stretch. Consider two theories. One has one unsupported idea, the other has two. How much more unbelievable is the first one, compared to the second? Twice as unbelievable, because there are two things that are unproven (2 ÷ 1 = 2). Now consider two other theories. One has no unsupported ideas, the other has one. How much more unbelievable is the first one, compared to the second? Infinitely unbelievable (1 ÷ 0 = ∞).
Once again, rejection is not absolute rejection, because that's just absurd. But rejection is necessary, and unavoidable. And if you disagree, you're rejecting assumptions right there. ^_^ | Indi wrote: |
| psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
That's true in the physical world in order to live and stay healthy, so why isn't it true in the mental world to stay sane and rational? Doesn't it make sense that to think and reason effectively, you have to be aware of the general probability of something being true, and base your knowledge on that? In which case, given the wild improbability of this alien scenario, because of the complete non-existence of any evidence to support it and the vast amounts of evidence to dispute it, doesn't it make sense to reject it? |
note: my arguments refer largely to subconcious as well as concious activity.
i would argue against rejecting it because if you start flat out rejecting things(which can't be prevented anyway, but i think it best to avoid as much as possible), you start to place a lot of restriction on what information you recieve and how you interpret it. and you start to build a very restricted model of the universe(again it's always gonna happen, IMO best to avoid).
instead i would think it better to aknowledge its possibility, while also aknowledging your percieved lack of probability. that way if more information comes your way promoting the matter, you might increase percieved probability, as opposed to ignoring it. |
You can't function as a human being unless you "flat out" (to use your words) reject some possibilities. Consider the possibility that you are the only conscious being in all the universe, and the rest of us are all automotons that exist solely to serve and worship you. Now try to function in society and see what happens. Consider the possibility that some god has grown displeased by this world and you have been selected to kill every living being so that he can start over, and if you don't accomplish that within a certain time limit, you will be the one to suffer infinitely. See how long you survive while believing that.
|
i did say in my post that it wasnt possible to not reject things, i just think conciously rejecting possibilities is not a good idea, unless you are trying to force a particular belief system on yourself, in which case it is required.
you'd have to be pretty stupid to go out on a killing spree just because you randomly thought to yourself "gee maybe god wants me to kill everyone"
if you have no evidence to support a model, you're hardly going to use it as your main model of life.
| Indi wrote: |
It is impossible for all possible things to be true, because some are mutually exclusive. Part of existing for intelligent beings is deciding which of any mutually exclusive set is the correct one, and acting on it. That means rejecting the others.
|
who mentioned anywhere all things being true?
| Indi wrote: |
But that rejection doesn't mean absolute rejection. Of course you still acknowledge the possibility that you were wrong to reject that particular item - you'd be an idiot otherwise, because you know you're not omniscient, so you can be wrong. And if evidence comes up that changes the probabilities, then you reassess.
|
this is exactly what i am saying should be done.
| Indi wrote: |
In fact, i can challenge the entire argument directly to show how it fails. You suppose "anything is possible". i point out that that claim means that it is impossible for "not everything is possible" to be true. Thus you have to reject one or the other. QED.
|
no i don't, just cause you say i do doesn't make it so.
paradoxes aren't the end of everything, contradictions happen in reality, specially when dealing with infinity. in fact it is impossible for a formal system to exist without at least one contradiction.
also it is quite possible for not everything to be possible, you even demonstrated an example of it yourself. it's also possible (and i think) that that's not the case.
| Indi wrote: |
| psiclops wrote: | the current major finite universe model only states the universe is finite within a restricted time period, even if you go by big crunch after everything gets condensed again, it is perfectly reasonable to think that it would all eventually become unstable and blow up again.
thus it is perfectly reasonable to presume that the universe is infinite.
also i_am_mine used an indefinitely expanding universe model which would be infinite by nature. |
Big crunch model: the universe is not infinite, the cosmos (or macroverse, or whatever you want to call it) is infinite. Each universe that gets created is finite. Thus while it is true that within the cosmos, everything will and must happen, in any given universe, such as ours, that is not true.
|
i don't see why it's not the same universe, but regardless that's just semantics, it does nothing to reduce the infinite possibilities.
| Indi wrote: |
Infinite expansion model: working on the same assumptions you use to arrive at the theory of infinite expansion, after enough expansion, the universe will die of heat death - after which nothing will be possible except photonic "bubbling" - which means that although the universe is literally infinite, it puts an upper bound on the functional lifetime of the universe - the amount of time within which stuff can actually happen. Thus you end up with a finite universe again.
|
good point, although the '‘fine structure constant’ is slowly increasing(yes, which will itself cause the end of functionality). if it is also tru that other constant are also changing(and maybe even possibly if they're not) there may be other combinations that lead to other functionalities which we may be headed for. although the finiteness of the universe is actually irrelevant to the original post(although quite interesting and i would love to discuss further in the science and nature forum) as the question is not about the possibility of it occuring somewhere else at some other time, but on this planet and now.
| Indi wrote: |
But, regardless of all this, once again, if you accept the possibility that the universe is infinite, that means you're rejecting the possibility that it is not. Both can't be true.
|
no it doesn't that would be "accepting that fact that the universe is definately infinite", it is perfectly reasonable to accept that both are a possibility.
| Indi wrote: |
| psiclops wrote: | | i tend to believe we know very very little about the universe, as our calculations/models are all based on a very small percentage of the universe. also the more we find out, the more we realise we don't know. |
That's a cop-out. While it is true that we can only model and understand what we can observe, our understanding of what we can observe is very, very good. Not perfect, not by a long shot, but very good. In recent years, we have found that predictions that we have been able to test have been very often accurate - far more so than at any other time in history - which implies that we're starting to get very close. Even the fact that we realize the limitations of our knowledge means that our knowledge is greater than when we did not.
|
The plain fact is that you can keep saying "there is more to the universe than what we can observe" until the end of time and never be proven wrong. It's a safe, empty statement. In other words, a cop-out.
[/quote]
yes but IMO it's better than going, well it's worked for everything we've seen so far so it's definately true, let's never question it again.
| Indi wrote: |
If we can never observe it, then as far as we're concerned it is the same as it not existing, because it has no effect on us. If things really do exist that we can never observe, whatever happens to them is fundamentally meaningless to us. They are functionally outside out our universe, outside of our sphere of existence. Talking about them is about less useful than discussing fairy tales.
|
theres a difference between having never observed something, and never being able to observe something.
| Indi wrote: |
| psiclops wrote: | actually, i've seen very little evidence that we evolved from lower life forms, i've been told about lots of evidence, and i've been told that top brains belive it, and it seems pretty valid to me and i believe in it.
but it wouldnt be a far stretch to think that at the start of the scientific revolution, when we started to deem only things which we "proved" to be correct, that these "aliens"decided to start planting evolution into our minds so as to lead our "where do i come from" questions away from finding out about them. |
You're free to believe that if you like, but it's a slippery slope to start down.
Why? Because there is a thing called parsimony, which is a fundamental component of the scientific method for the simple reason that it is absolutely necessary. Without parsimony, literally anything can be possible, and you can't even narrow it down to what's probable. In other words, you can't arrive at a conclusion, and you can't function.
|
it's only there to let you arrive at probable conclusions, not definite ones.
| Indi wrote: |
i mean, why stop there? You've gone so far as to assume the existence of aliens that you've never seen, with an agenda of hiding themselves from us that you have no evidence for. Why not keep going?
Why not think that that the aliens manifest themselves in this world as clouds, and they watch over us like that. That's why things always seem better on a cloudless day, because they're not watching over you and interfering. Oh, and the reason they are doing all of this is because in their world, humans are considered to be candy, like gobstoppers. They're actually farming us for their upcoming celebration, which is a lot like our christmas, only they decorate cheese sculptures instead of trees, and Santa Claus rides a flying carpet pulled by chickens, from which he drops thermonuclear devices on bad alien kids.
Pretty ludicrous, huh? The funny thing is, without parsimony, there's absolutely no reason to say your theory is more likely than mine.
|
because i have no evidence of such, and it serves me no purpouse to believe such a thing. and i never assumed the existence of aliens. i just said that it's not a stupid thing to think.
| Indi wrote: |
Now, you say "it wouldnt be a far stretch" to jump to that conclusion, but you're wrong. Any violation of parsimony is an infinitely far stretch. Consider two theories. One has one unsupported idea, the other has two. How much more unbelievable is the first one, compared to the second? Twice as unbelievable, because there are two things that are unproven (2 ÷ 1 = 2). Now consider two other theories. One has no unsupported ideas, the other has one. How much more unbelievable is the first one, compared to the second? Infinitely unbelievable (1 ÷ 0 = ∞).
Once again, rejection is not absolute rejection, because that's just absurd. But rejection is necessary, and unavoidable. And if you disagree, you're rejecting assumptions right there. ^_^ |
1/0 != ∞, divions by 0 are undefined, infinity is a complex concept. besides that your math is incredibly oversimplified, and wrong. a supported idea does not equal a definite truth for one. so the zero in your equation is not zero because you don't take into account the chances of your supported ideas being wrong.
i already stated rejection is unavoidable, we're recieving far too much information to process all of it, i just think it silly to remove the thought of pissibilities, because that leads to locking in a BS(belief system/bullshit) and you may miss out on a lot. | psiclops wrote: |
you'd have to be pretty stupid to go out on a killing spree just because you randomly thought to yourself "gee maybe god wants me to kill everyone"
if you have no evidence to support a model, you're hardly going to use it as your main model of life. |
So you believe that it's possible that you were put here to end all life? You claim you have no evidence to support it, but what evidence do you have to contradict it?
| psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
It is impossible for all possible things to be true, because some are mutually exclusive. Part of existing for intelligent beings is deciding which of any mutually exclusive set is the correct one, and acting on it. That means rejecting the others.
|
who mentioned anywhere all things being true? |
No one. Read more carefully.
| psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
But that rejection doesn't mean absolute rejection. Of course you still acknowledge the possibility that you were wrong to reject that particular item - you'd be an idiot otherwise, because you know you're not omniscient, so you can be wrong. And if evidence comes up that changes the probabilities, then you reassess.
|
this is exactly what i am saying should be done. |
Of course, it's the only thing that makes any sense. Rejecting possibilities doesn't mean absolute rejection because that's just irrational. But you have to reject some possibilities to continue living. It's finitely possible that if you don't drink a bottle of drain cleaner in the next sixty seconds, you will explode. You have to choose whether to act on that possibility and reject the oppositite (that you don't need to drink drain cleaner to survive), or reject that possibility and act on the opposite. You can't not reject something. It's impossible.
You're hiding behind semantics, using "reject" in the absolute sense when that contradicts everything i've written about it. i'm using it in the rational sense all the time. In the case above, you don't need to absolutely reject the possibility that you will die if you don't drink drain cleaner - you can still admit that it's finitely possible, as i did above - but you do reject it every day, as i do every day, when you decide that it's probably not true and choose not to drink.
| psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
In fact, i can challenge the entire argument directly to show how it fails. You suppose "anything is possible". i point out that that claim means that it is impossible for "not everything is possible" to be true. Thus you have to reject one or the other. QED.
|
no i don't, just cause you say i do doesn't make it so.
paradoxes aren't the end of everything, contradictions happen in reality, specially when dealing with infinity. in fact it is impossible for a formal system to exist without at least one contradiction.
also it is quite possible for not everything to be possible, you even demonstrated an example of it yourself. it's also possible (and i think) that that's not the case. |
This is not just a stray contradiction. The basis for the entire supposition is logically flawed. There are an infinite number of contradictions. In fact, every non-contradiction generates an infinite number of contradictions.
Do you say that the statements "everything is possible" and "nothing is possible" can both be true at the same time? If no, then bam, "anything is possible" is contradicted. If yes, then the possibilitiy that there are no contradictory statements that are true does not exist, and bam, once again "anything is possible" is contradicted.
Hey, try this: "in fact it is impossible for a formal system to exist without at least one contradiction." In other words, there is something that is not possible? So "anything is possible" is not true? Bam again. It's a no-win game.
| psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
But, regardless of all this, once again, if you accept the possibility that the universe is infinite, that means you're rejecting the possibility that it is not. Both can't be true.
|
no it doesn't that would be "accepting that fact that the universe is definately infinite", it is perfectly reasonable to accept that both are a possibility. |
So basically, you think that "anything is possible" means that it's possible that not everything is possible.
| psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | The plain fact is that you can keep saying "there is more to the universe than what we can observe" until the end of time and never be proven wrong. It's a safe, empty statement. In other words, a cop-out.
|
yes but IMO it's better than going, well it's worked for everything we've seen so far so it's definately true, let's never question it again. |
Which would be an absolute rejection. Which i've already said is irrational, and which has been what i've been saying from the very beginning (just read my first post in this thread - just the first paragraph). You have defined "rejection" as absolute, despite everything that i've written about it. You're arguing based on your own definition of the word.
Why don't you go stick your finger in an electric socket? i mean, right now. Why don't you go do it? You know that it's possible that you will survive. It's possible it might feel really good. It's possible that it might make you super intelligent. So why don't you?
Because you have considered the probabilities of those possibilities, and realized that they are very low, far lower than the probability of dying. Thus you have decided to act (or not act) based on that possibility, effectively rejecting the others regardless of how appealing their results (feeling good and super intelligence) may be.
Once again - and i can't believe i actually have to say this explicitly because the idea is so absurd - this is not an absolute rejection. But it is a rejection of some possibilities in favour of others.
| psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
If we can never observe it, then as far as we're concerned it is the same as it not existing, because it has no effect on us. If things really do exist that we can never observe, whatever happens to them is fundamentally meaningless to us. They are functionally outside out our universe, outside of our sphere of existence. Talking about them is about less useful than discussing fairy tales.
|
theres a difference between having never observed something, and never being able to observe something. |
It is the difference between being functionally non-existent, and being functionally non-existent until observed. In other words, no difference until the new interaction is observed, at which point you've learned something new, so you reassess your knowledge.
But assuming something exists before you have any evidence for it or any reason to even believe it exists is a waste of time. It doesn't help you at all. And since there's an infinite amount of things that could possibly exist that you have no evidence for, you end up being infinitely credible. Which is fine if you just want to survive, i guess, but no good if you actually want to understand the universe.
| psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: | Why? Because there is a thing called parsimony, which is a fundamental component of the scientific method for the simple reason that it is absolutely necessary. Without parsimony, literally anything can be possible, and you can't even narrow it down to what's probable. In other words, you can't arrive at a conclusion, and you can't function.
|
it's only there to let you arrive at probable conclusions, not definite ones. |
You're back on absolutes again. No one said anything anywhere about definite conclusions. That's the domain of religion, and i don't go there.
All i've been saying, from the start, is that some things are so improbable that you have to rule them out in order to function. And - once again, i can't believe i have to say this - that does not mean that you rule it out absolutely. It just means that you assume it's not possible (NOT ABSOLUTELY -_-) and live based on that assumption until you find new evidence. Parisomy is a tool that helps you select which possibilities you should accept and reject (NOT ABSOLUTELY... good grief).
| psiclops wrote: |
| because i have no evidence of such, and it serves me no purpouse to believe such a thing. and i never assumed the existence of aliens. i just said that it's not a stupid thing to think. |
It's not a stupid thing to think, but it limits your living functionality because it creates a belief without basis that does not help you survive better.
| psiclops wrote: |
| Indi wrote: |
Now, you say "it wouldnt be a far stretch" to jump to that conclusion, but you're wrong. Any violation of parsimony is an infinitely far stretch. Consider two theories. One has one unsupported idea, the other has two. How much more unbelievable is the first one, compared to the second? Twice as unbelievable, because there are two things that are unproven (2 ÷ 1 = 2). Now consider two other theories. One has no unsupported ideas, the other has one. How much more unbelievable is the first one, compared to the second? Infinitely unbelievable (1 ÷ 0 = ∞).
Once again, rejection is not absolute rejection, because that's just absurd. But rejection is necessary, and unavoidable. And if you disagree, you're rejecting assumptions right there. ^_^ |
1/0 != ∞, divions by 0 are undefined, infinity is a complex concept. besides that your math is incredibly oversimplified, and wrong. a supported idea does not equal a definite truth for one. so the zero in your equation is not zero because you don't take into account the chances of your supported ideas being wrong.
i already stated rejection is unavoidable, we're recieving far too much information to process all of it, i just think it silly to remove the thought of pissibilities, because that leads to locking in a BS(belief system/bullshit) and you may miss out on a lot. |
My math is only wrong because i simplified it so much for the sake of brevity, because i didn't really think that i actually had to write out:
| Code: |
<math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML">
<apply>
<eq/>
<apply>
<limit/>
<bvar>
<mi>x</mi>
</bvar>
<lowlimit>
<mn>0</mn>
</lowlimit>
<mfrac>
<mn>1</mn>
<mi>x</mi>
</mfrac>
</apply>
<infinity/>
</apply>
</math> |
Furthermore, you completely misunderstood everything i wrote. There's nothing in there at all about being right or wrong. Read it again and see. It was just a qualitative analysis of believability based on counting the number of unsupported assumptions - it doesn't even take into account the quality of the assumptions. It's just a very simplistic definition of what happens to believability when you include unsupported assumptions, based on the trivial idea that the more unsupported assumptions a theory has, the less believable it is. That's all. All i did was show that the difference between 1 and 2 unsupported assumptions does not really affect believability that much - because if you can make 1 assumption, it's not that great a stretch to make 2. But it's making that first unsupported assumption that causes all the problems.Or, maybe God just exists as we believe.
But maybe you're right.
The truth is - it's not known. And it is not fact. I cannot prove to you anything, but one day it will be fact. After we die, there will be fact, and I will NOT be on the sucky end of that deal.
| Indi wrote: |
| psiclops wrote: | you'd have to be pretty stupid to go out on a killing spree just because you randomly thought to yourself "gee maybe god wants me to kill everyone"
if you have no evidence to support a model, you're hardly going to use it as your main model of life. |
So you believe that it's possible that you were put here to end all life? You claim you have no evidence to support it, but what evidence do you have to contradict it?
|
the fact that i don't get the urge to kill people.
| Indi wrote: |
It is impossible for all possible things to be true ...
|
| psiclops wrote: |
who mentioned anywhere all things being true? |
| Indi wrote: |
No one. Read more carefully.
|
what?
| Indi wrote: |
You're hiding behind semantics, using "reject" in the absolute sense when that contradicts everything i've written about it.
|
no i'm not thats why i said in my very first post:
| psiclops wrote: |
instead i would think it better to aknowledge its possibility, while also aknowledging your percieved lack of probability. that way if more information comes your way promoting the matter, you might increase percieved probability, as opposed to ignoring it.
|
and also it does not contradict everything you've said:
| Indi wrote: |
You can't function as a human being unless you "flat out" (to use your words) reject some possibilities.
|
besides, pretty much this entire conversation has become one of semantics.
| Indi wrote: |
Do you say that the statements "everything is possible" and "nothing is possible" can both be true at the same time? If no, then bam, "anything is possible" is contradicted. If yes, then the possibilitiy that there are no contradictory statements that are true does not exist, and bam, once again "anything is possible" is contradicted.
|
no it's not, we could be wrong about their contradiction.
| Indi wrote: |
Hey, try this: "in fact it is impossible for a formal system to exist without at least one contradiction." In other words, there is something that is not possible? So "anything is possible" is not true? Bam again. It's a no-win game.
|
Hey, try this: all forms of communication between humans are automatically preceeded with an AFAIK, even including this sentence.
| Indi wrote: |
| psiclops wrote: | | Indi wrote: |
But, regardless of all this, once again, if you accept the possibility that the universe is infinite, that means you're rejecting the possibility that it is not. Both can't be true.
|
no it doesn't that would be "accepting that fact that the universe is definately infinite", it is perfectly reasonable to accept that both are a possibility. |
So basically, you think that "anything is possible" means that it's possible that not everything is possible.
|
yeah.
| Indi wrote: |
Which would be an absolute rejection. Which i've already said is irrational, and which has been what i've been saying from the very beginning (just read my first post in this thread - just the first paragraph).
|
and that would be:
| Indi wrote: |
Yes. But not anything is probable. Most things are so amazingly and ludicrously unlikely that the chance of them happening is so infinitessimally small that we can safely say they are impossible. True, they are not literally impossible, but they're so close to it that it's a very safe approximation.
|
so saying that something is impossible, does not reject it's possibility?
| Indi wrote: |
Why don't you go stick your finger in an electric socket? i mean, right now. Why don't you go do it? You know that it's possible that you will survive. It's possible it might feel really good. It's possible that it might make you super intelligent. So why don't you?
|
i already stated this. for the same reason i'm not about to go on a killing spree.
| Indi wrote: |
Once again - and i can't believe i actually have to say this explicitly because the idea is so absurd - this is not an absolute rejection. But it is a rejection of some possibilities in favour of others.
|
i can't believe i have to say this again. but here we go: this is what i'm saying should be done.
| Indi wrote: |
But assuming something exists before you have any evidence for it or any reason to even believe it exists is a waste of time. It doesn't help you at all. And since there's an infinite amount of things that could possibly exist that you have no evidence for, you end up being infinitely credible. Which is fine if you just want to survive, i guess, but no good if you actually want to understand the universe.
|
it's not a waste of time, it can actually be quite intersting, also many philosophies(dealing with the power of belief) find it quite a usefull tool to achieve certain goals. and i believe spending amounts of time under different belief systems is gonna give you a whole lot more understanding of the "universe"(aka, everything, not your restricted use of the term) than spending your whole life in one.
| Indi wrote: |
And - once again, i can't believe i have to say this - that does not mean that you rule it out absolutely. It just means that you assume it's not possible (NOT ABSOLUTELY -_-) and live based on that assumption until you find new evidence. Parisomy is a tool that helps you select which possibilities you should accept and reject (NOT ABSOLUTELY... good grief).
|
if you're going to make such a big deal about you not meaning absolute rejection, perhaps you shuoldn't try to prove impossibilities to me in the same thread:
| Indi wrote: |
Do you say that the statements "everything is possible" and "nothing is possible" can both be true at the same time? If no, then bam, "anything is possible" is contradicted. If yes, then the possibilitiy that there are no contradictory statements that are true does not exist, and bam, once again "anything is possible" is contradicted.
|
| Indi wrote: |
Furthermore, you completely misunderstood everything i wrote. There's nothing in there at all about being right or wrong. Read it again and see. It was just a qualitative analysis of believability based on counting the number of unsupported assumptions - it doesn't even take into account the quality of the assumptions. It's just a very simplistic definition of what happens to believability when you include unsupported assumptions, based on the trivial idea that the more unsupported assumptions a theory has, the less believable it is. That's all. All i did was show that the difference between 1 and 2 unsupported assumptions does not really affect believability that much - because if you can make 1 assumption, it's not that great a stretch to make 2. But it's making that first unsupported assumption that causes all the problems. |
but you've already made the first unsupported assumption that the science you've been taught is correct/other scientists conclusions are correct
if you argue the fact that you've been taught it is the supporting idea, then well, the fact that you thought of aliens on another planet also supports the idea that they're there. and thus your maths is still wrong, because the low limit of zero isn't there.I have to agree with MadeinIndia. Anything might be possible, but it isn't probable, and really, that's what matters.
ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE! ONLY IMPOSSIBLE THING: BEING GOD!
