rulerofthisuniverse writes:
I was talking about when you said, "How should we determine whether something is possible? A. If it’s not impossible." etc.
It's interesting how you have changed the subject. But Proof by contradiction works if there are only two opposites. But what I meant was if you can prove that something is possible, then you have proved that its NOT impossible as well.
I think you’ll find that I wasn’t changing the subject; I was attempting to develop the argument. Using your very own reasoning, there are only two possibilities/opposites - you can either run at 100mph or you can’t. Please explain to me how proof by contradiction helps me to determine that possibility?
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
You have already admitted you not very good at maths so I'm afraid it is you who doesn't understand that everything your saying goes right along with my thesis. Oh and by the way my brother IS a Mathematician so I think I trust him to understand probability better than you. Oh and it's the NO-GOD space that needs a specified outcome.
Yip, I certainly learned something here - never use self-deprecation as a means of communicating with somebody who has no concept of humility or the ability to not take one’s self too seriously.
I’m sorry, but the whole point of your thesis was to ”scientifically prove’ god, so that would make YES-GOD a specified outcome regardless of what you believe.
We’ll come back to you brother in a moment. In the meantime, there’s a third option - you don’t have to trust anybody, you can choose to read up on probability theory and figure things out for yourself.
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
Well let me explain why I said what I said. What you are describing is a moving value that tends to zero, in Mathematics this is seen as an arbitrarily small number, or a cognitive infinitesimal. As the probability curve is ever decreasing, at some point the coin will flip to the opposite side, thats just the way it is.
The probability curve does indeed tend towards zero,
but it never actually reaches zero. The definition of ”arbitarily’ in my dictionary is
based on personal choice or chance, rather than reason. By your own admission then, the idea that a value is too small to count is a subjective judgement - making it up as you go along. If only somebody could help you see that this is symptomatic of your whole thesis - subjective, wishful thinking, making it up as you go along.
Let’s examine what probability theory actually has to say about this. It says that for any given outcome, the sum of the probabilities must always equal 100% - when we flip a coin there is a 50% chance of a head and a 50% chance of a tail. If we flip the coin twice, the number of possible outcomes increases to four, each having a 25% chance of occurring, once again resulting in a sum of probabilities of 100%. Further, in the coin-flipping scenario you have chosen for your thesis, because the initial probability is 50/50, all probabilities thereafter have an equal chance of occurring. So in the case of an infinite number of flips, we get the equation (100% / infinite flips) x infinite flips = 100%. This can be simplified to say 100% = 100%. It’s not me who says that, it’s probability theory.
How does this compare with what you and your brother tell me? According to you, there is 0% chance of an infinite number of heads being flipped. Probability theory tells us that the chance of any of the infinite sequences occurring are equal, so based on that, you are telling me, the sum of probabilities for an infinite number of coin flips equates to 0% x infinite flips = 0%, not 100%. This is in direct conflict with what probability theory tells us, so it looks like you may want to sit down with your brother again and see if you can’t get your stories straight.
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
Actually is is impossible to flip an infinite number of heads, as I said in my thesis, "To calculate the chances it would be equal to, half multiplied by itself, an infinite number of times. This of course is an impossible number, making the probability an impossibility. This is a perfect example of how some possibilities, while still being possible cannot actually exist as a reality".
Whilst this is essentially the same point as the last, it does give us an opportunity to explore ”proof by contradiction’. In your thesis you say the following, “For example you can take a whole number as a possibility space and then add one, and you can theoretically do this forever.”
So let’s start with something we can probably agree upon. Theoretically there are an infinite number of integers. So in the coin flipping scenario, we can keep on flipping it forever, the number of possible outcomes doubling with each flip - 2, 4, 8, etc. Each sequence of possible outcomes will have a reciprocal decimal - 2 & 0.5, 4 & 0.25, 8 & 0.125, etc. When we multiply the number of possible outcomes with its reciprocal decimal we always get 1, or unity.
If you wish to assert that some numbers are so large that they produce reciprocal decimals that are so small as to be considered zero, then these numbers when multiplied by their reciprocal decimals must also equal zero, which means that they cannot exist. You therefore do not have the infinite number of possibilities you claim exist in your thesis. This then becomes a ”proof by contradiction’, your assertion of possibilities being so small as to be non-existent precludes the possibility of an infinite number of possibilities existing.
rulerofthisuniverse writes:
I agree that your explanation is nonsense, as you don't explain what a YES or NO-SUNLIGHT possibility is in the first place. Where as a YES and NO-GOD possibility space was clearly defined in my thesis, and I explained why a YES-GOD space has influence on other spaces. REMEMBER we are talking about GOD not sunlight.
For once you’re right; I have not defined what I mean by YES or NO-SUNLIGHT possibilities. I would probably prefer to use the term YES or NO-SUNLIGHT conditions in any case.
Put plainly, these two conditions refer to whether any part of the natural world as we know it comes into contact with sunlight. An underground cave into which no sunlight can penetrate would be a NO-SUNLIGHT condition. YES-SUNLIGHT conditions would apply to any part of the globe onto which the sun shines during the day. During the hours of darkness, these same YES-SUNLIGHT conditions will become NO-SUNLIGHT conditions.
In your thesis you assert, “As we have seen above, any NO-GOD possibility space has little bearing or influence on any other possibility space”. As per usual, this is wholly unsubstantiated by anything other than your imagination. It can be shown, on the other hand, that the NO-SUNLIGHT condition has a very great bearing or influence on the nature of reality. Further, we do not need to imagine sunlight, or no sunlight, because we can observe and measure both these conditions and the effects they have on reality.
So let’s discuss the nonsensical notion that a NO-GOD possibility cannot affect anything. You are proposing this as someone who believes in a god. So what you are effectively saying is that if there is no god, nothing else changes. In other words the nature of reality would be exactly as we see it today. That being the case, what exactly do you imagine your proposed god has contributed if reality is unaffected by its existence?
As an example, I would expect a creationist to say the possibility of NO-GOD would profoundly affect many of the other possibilities. They would expect the possibility of life on earth and even the very existence of the universe itself to be greatly reduced as a result of the NO-GOD possibility. Indeed I would expect a creationist would refuse to even accept the possibility of a NO-GOD, so profound would be the implications all away along the “line scale of possibility spaces”. Yet you seem oblivious to this.
Let’s try to break this down into smaller steps so you might have a chance of understanding it. You assert that the NO-GOD possibility “could be placed ANYWHERE as it is only one possibility in an infinity of other possibilities, and this particular space wouldn't have much, if any, affect on any other space.” This allows us to formulate a very simple equation,
x -
y =
x, where
x represents the composition of the possibility spaces and
y represents the possibility of your god existing or not. Using your favoured ”proof by contradiction’ method, we can then formulate the YES-GOD possibility as
x +
y =
x, as you have already determined that
x must equal zero, or
very close to zero. The result of the two equations is identical - the existence or otherwise of your god makes no difference to the other possibility spaces. So applying your ”proof by contradiction’ argument to your own premise results in what you like to call an “internal inconsistency”, i.e. you cannot substantiate your “overwhelming mathematical advantage” claim for the YES-GOD possibility over the NO-GOD.
In reality, the effect on what may or may not be possible might be profoundly affected by whether or not a god existed and by the nature of what that god might amount to. This would fall under the category of
conditional probability. However, we can only start to apply the principles of conditional probability
after we have established one or more conditions to be true or false.
It’s unclear to me whether you are familiar with conditional probability. On the one hand your arguments and reasoning are almost childlike, reducing the possibility that you are able to deal with the complexity of conditional probability - this is me applying conditional probability to try to deduce what you may be capable of given the abilities you have so far displayed. On the other hand, the unsubstantiated contrivances that appear in “The Realms of Possibility” section of your thesis hint at somebody who needs to ”load the deck’ in their favour for their argument to prevail.
See, this is the problem with everything you have done. Despite your claims to be ”scientific’ in your search for ”truth’, you have very clearly started with your conclusion and worked your way backwards through various contrived conditions, developing your own ”logic and rationale’ system along the way, whilst carefully avoiding any references to anything that exists in actuality, thereby negating the need for you to produce any ”hard’ evidence.
You haven’t even attempted to suggest otherwise. The very first sentence of your thesis reads, “The purpose of this essay and thesis is to determine the definite existence of a supreme intelligence. To find absolute evidence for the existence of God . ”. So the existence of your god was determined before you started, but because you wanted to classify your ”proof’ as ”scientific’, you had to pay lip service to the possibility that god
might not exist. Hence we see the hopeless contrivances contained within “The Realms of Possibility” -
there’s your NO-GOD, but it can’t affect anything, so let’s discount it.
Before finishing, I thought it might be fun to explore the
possibility that your thesis might have any validity, using the same thought processes you have used to ”prove’ your god.
The thesis actually starts where this thread started, discussing definitions. The thesis is very clear on what is required, “The first thing that needs to be done in this discussion is the defining of terms and words. These must be agreed upon by all parties.” I’ll repeat, “
These must be agreed upon by all parties.” Or what? Or the thesis has no validity is the only reasonable answer; given the weight it places upon them. This is no doubt why we had to wait 179 posts before getting to see the masterpiece.
So let’s look at the possibility spaces in light of the YES-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY, NO-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY evidence. In your own words, the NO-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY possibility has an “overwhelming mathematical advantage” based on our empirical observations of the thread thus far. Following on from that, the NO-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY possibility must be “MAXIMALLY PROBABLE” . and given that condition, this allows us to replace the words “God” and “YES-GOD” in you thesis to read, “This means that at the most fundamental level
no validity is really the ONLY POSSIBLE POSSIBILITY, and that any possibility that becomes actuality must therefore be a
NO-AGREEMENT/VALIDITY space by necessity.”
So regardless of whether we use conventional rationale or your
rationale, we see that your thesis has no validity whatsoever.
™ Version 4.2