Originally posted by no1marauderAnd as I patiently explained to jaywill, your error is in the labeling. Why are you labeling each event required to generate the universe with the label "1" ? After questioning jaywill he admitted that he was willing to relabel them "9" or any other given number. In your case it could be anything from "1" to "1 million", thus changing the probability a million fold. But even then, he couldn't explain why the label had to be the same for each event. But rather than admit his mistake, he has simply gone quiet on the subject.
Let's say you have a million sided die. To get the universe we have, you have to roll a "1" 200 times in a row (for example).
Does the fact that you roll "1" 200 times in a row suggest that there is something funny (non-random) about the die?
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think that human life is highly improbable - as is every other property of the universe that is not a direct result of whatever laws are part of existence. In fact, the result of any random event or series of events is improbable almost by definition.
So you think human life is just as probable as improbable?
Though it must be noted that there can be processes that result in convergence. For example, if there were some changes to certain events in the early universe before the formation of stars and galaxies, the formation of stars and galaxies would still be probable, and the evolution of life (but not humans) might have been too.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDoes the South Pole exist?
Does the South Pole exist?
In the dimension consisting of the lines of longitude, does it have a beginning?
What is further south than the South Pole?
How would you apply your thoughts on time to prove that the surface of the Earth is infinite?
South Pole can exist because of a frame of reference, without it you
have nothing. The surface of the earth is not infinite, it can be
measured.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou want a direction of up and down you need a reference point,
Why do you come to that conclusion? Why must an event preceed itself?
you have a reference point you have direction, you have an event
take place you have a reference in time with which there can be
stated there is a before said event, during said event, and after
said event. You want to deny this, or is this going to be like the
words don’t mean anything discussion with design?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't deny it. The normal usage of the word event does imply a before the event, an at the event and and after the event.
You want a direction of up and down you need a reference point,
you have a reference point you have direction, you have an event
take place you have a reference in time with which there can be
stated there is a before said event, during said event, and after
said event. You want to deny this, or is this going to be like the
words don’t mean anything discussion with design?
Kelly
We already had that discussion with knightmeister and for that reason decided to not call the initial point of the universe an event as the label did not fit well.
But your post is in response to the question "Why must an event preceed itself?", which you are not answering, are you?
Originally posted by KellyJaySo without a frame of reference a point on the earth surface ceases to exist? Will I also cease to exist if my frame of reference goes missing?
South Pole can exist because of a frame of reference, without it you
have nothing. The surface of the earth is not infinite, it can be
measured.
Kelly
From what I remember my discussion surrounding the South pole was in answer to knightmeisters apparent claim that a dimension cannot be finite, and his related claim that the beginning (or start or initial point) of a dimension does not exist, or is not part of the dimension.
Do you disagree with him by accepting that the surface of the earth as measured using lines of latitude and longitude is 2 dimensional surface that is finite and that the longitude dimension is also finite and has a beginning at the south pole with nothing further south than the south pole, and that the south pole is part of the longitude dimension?
Do you have any logical argument relating to the time dimension that cannot be equally applied to the longitude dimension and if so, what property of time are you using that the longitude dimension does not posses?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhy must an event preceed itself? Explain, I do not understand what
I don't deny it. The normal usage of the word event does imply a before the event, an at the event and and after the event.
We already had that discussion with knightmeister and for that reason decided to not call the initial point of the universe an event as the label did not fit well.
But your post is in response to the question "Why must an event preceed itself?", which you are not answering, are you?
you are asking here, I was not part of that conversation so I may be
missing some information on this topic.
This sounds a little like 'design' all over again, you have an event,
event being something that occured, yet you cannot call it that
because it does not fit well with your logic.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere is no up and down without a frame/point of reference, and we
So without a frame of reference a point on the earth surface ceases to exist? Will I also cease to exist if my frame of reference goes missing?
From what I remember my discussion surrounding the South pole was in answer to knightmeisters apparent claim that a dimension cannot be finite, and his related claim that the beginning (or start or initial poin ...[text shortened]... ion and if so, what property of time are you using that the longitude dimension does not posses?
do have one as soon as you have anything that occurs along a time
line, once an event occurs there is a before, during, and after.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhiteheadTime is not a circle in my opinion; time flows as a progression
So without a frame of reference a point on the earth surface ceases to exist? Will I also cease to exist if my frame of reference goes missing?
From what I remember my discussion surrounding the South pole was in answer to knightmeisters apparent claim that a dimension cannot be finite, and his related claim that the beginning (or start or initial poin ...[text shortened]... ion and if so, what property of time are you using that the longitude dimension does not posses?
of events, that I’d liken to an endless straight line more so than
a circle. I didn’t know you had beliefs along the thinking of
reincarnation.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell you were replying to the post weren't you? From what I remember, knightmeister claimed that the beginning of the universe which we labeled t=0 must preceed itself. I did not see how he made that conclusion and questioned it. My question is the post you replied to.
Why must an event preceed itself? Explain, I do not understand what
you are asking here, I was not part of that conversation so I may be
missing some information on this topic.
This sounds a little like 'design' all over again, you have an event,
event being something that occured, yet you cannot call it that
because it does not fit well with your logic.
Kelly
Not at all. We have something, we initially called it an event, but realized after some discussion that it did not fit well with that word and so stopped using that word. So no, we do not have and event, and no something did not occur.
Our stance is the correct one, rather than what knightmeisters tried to do which was calling something by a word then using the definition of the word to make claims about the something as if a dictionary can instantiate fact.
The same applies to the 'design' discussion. The fact is that we do not believe that life is a result of intelligent forethought. Whether or not we choose to label life 'design' will not change that fact one single bit. If we do choose to label it 'design' and are clear about what we mean, then there should be no problems. I personally think that the dictionary fails to capture the full meaning (in every day English) of the word, and that there is nothing wrong with talking about say 'the design of a volcano' even though it is quite clear that no intelligent entity was involved (as far as the speaker is concerned).
Originally posted by KellyJayDid I say time was a circle? Which post was that?
Time is not a circle in my opinion; time flows as a progression
of events, that I’d liken to an endless straight line more so than
a circle. I didn’t know you had beliefs along the thinking of
reincarnation.
Kelly
Or are you simply trying to avoid the questions? Sadly knightmeister did the same, and it lowered my estimation of him.
I have a degree in Maths because I was good at it because my mind thinks in abstracts. I try to deconstruct an argument and get it into an abstract form.
From what I could understand of knighmeisters claim, the abstract form of it is that dimensions are necessarily infinite. If I misunderstood him, then I would like him to clarify what property of time he is using in his argument that is not common to all dimensions.
If I did not misunderstand him, and my abstract form is correct, then one counter example suffices to prove him wrong. Simple logic.
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]Just so I understand, and I am admitting I don't think I do just yet.
Well you were replying to the post weren't you? From what I remember, knightmeister claimed that the beginning of the universe which we labeled t=0 must preceed itself. I did not see how he made that conclusion and questioned it. My question is the post you replied to.
[b]This sounds a little like 'design' all over again, you have an event,
event bein e clear that no intelligent entity was involved (as far as the speaker is concerned).
Big Bang occured, but it isn't being called an event?
I understand you think life is the outcome of an aimless, thoughtless,
directionless process without needs or desires to get anything right,
wrong, to improve life or end it, and you want to use the word 'design'
as a description to it. Yes, to me if I understood your views on not
calling the Big Bang an event, I'd say that and design are right up
there with the word selection being used in a process that doesn't
have intent in it too. For a process that does not suppose to have
design by intent in it, it sure has a lot of terms that speak to design
with intent.
Kelly
Originally posted by twhitehead"Do you disagree with him by accepting that the surface of the earth as measured using lines of latitude and longitude is 2 dimensional surface that is finite and that the longitude dimension is also finite and has a beginning at the south pole with nothing further south than the south pole, and that the south pole is part of the longitude dimension?
Did I say time was a circle? Which post was that?
Or are you simply trying to avoid the questions? Sadly knightmeister did the same, and it lowered my estimation of him.
I have a degree in Maths because I was good at it because my mind thinks in abstracts. I try to deconstruct an argument and get it into an abstract form.
From what I could understand ...[text shortened]... my abstract form is correct, then one counter example suffices to prove him wrong. Simple logic.
Do you have any logical argument relating to the time dimension that cannot be equally applied to the longitude dimension and if so, what property of time are you using that the longitude dimension does not posses?"
When you started down this path of reasoning it seemed to me you
were. I will stand corrected if you point out what you really meant.
I'm missing your point on time with longitude and latitude. How are
you likening this to time? You have something that doubles back on
itself, a circle and you are applying that to something that as near as
I can tell, has never repeated itself in any fashion.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWe are not calling the very first point on the timeline an event. ie t=0.
Just so I understand, and I am admitting I don't think I do just yet.
Big Bang occured, but it isn't being called an event?[/b]
The Big Bang usually refers to a period starting at t=0 and continuing on from there characterized by rapid expansion of space which is obviously full of events.
I understand you think life is the outcome of an aimless, thoughtless,
directionless process without needs or desires to get anything right,
wrong, to improve life or end it, and you want to use the word 'design'
as a description to it.
Correct.
Yes, to me if I understood your views on not
calling the Big Bang an event, I'd say that and design are right up
there with the word selection being used in a process that doesn't
have intent in it too. For a process that does not suppose to have
design by intent in it, it sure has a lot of terms that speak to design
with intent.
Kelly
You have mentioned one term so far. What are the others?
But as pointed out before, words and dictionary definitions, do not make reality, nor do they necessarily indicate the intended message of the speaker.
Do you dispute my claim that in ordinary every day English it would not be out of place to refer to the structure of a volcano as its 'design'? Do you hold that such usage 'speaks to design with intent'?
Regarding the initial point of time, t=0, it would not be normal English usage to call it an event. If we take the point in time t=2008-10-22 12:00 pm GMT it is not an event. It is a state. The word event implies a change in state over time and thus does not refer to a single point in time. To call a single point in time an event does not fit well. To do so, would not be wrong, but unless it is made clear that the word is being used in a non-standard way, it could be misleading. To go a step further and use its standard meaning to make claims about something that was labeled in a nonstandard way is pure fallacy.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]Before the Big Bang, something, the singularity was there correct?
We are not calling the very first point on the timeline an event. ie t=0.
The Big Bang usually refers to a period starting at t=0 and continuing on from there characterized by rapid expansion of space which is obviously full of events.
[b]I understand you think life is the outcome of an aimless, thoughtless,
directionless process without needs or des ng to make claims about something that was labeled in a nonstandard way is pure fallacy.
Kelly