Originally posted by DoctorScribblesHere is where I am stuck. I would think definitions would provide information; that is,
(Such knowledge does not constitute information; it follows deductively from the definition of a deck of cards. Definitions do not constitute information, and deduction can never yield additional information.)
given the traditional deck (which I assumed, unlike #1), why wouldn't the definition of a deck (that there
are 52 cards comprising 13 numerical/face cards of 4 suits) constitute information?
Let me see if I can give a more pointed example. I own an unusual die. It has many faces, but I
am not going to tell you how many. On its many faces are several random, non-sequential
and non-repeating numbers, but I am not going to tell you how many. If I roll it, what is the
chance that it will be a 73? What is the chance that it will be above 73?
This question, for which you have no information, is unanswerable. You can't give a probability
for this because you don't even know if it has a 73 or what the range of numbers on the die are
over how many sides.
Now, if I further define the die (it has 75 sides and the non-sequential numbers on it are between
15 and 515) you have more information, which would allow you to give something of a probability.
If I mention that there is a 73, then you can give a definite probability for the first question,
and if I define the die's sides, then you can give a definite probability for the second.
I am certain that I am using 'information' and 'definitions' incorrectly here, so could you explain
how my question reflects a confused understanding of these terms and help with explaining the
proper usage of the same?
Thanks,
Nemesio
4 edits
Originally posted by XanthosNZThe question is why people thought the earth was flat. When one looks around it appears flat as opposed to round thus they concluded that the earth was flat. It was nothing more than an illusion. However, even though the illusion was not real, it was real to them. When you compare believing in God to the tooth fairy it is like saying that the earth is triangular in shape. Unless someone has a personal experience that convinces them that the earth is triangular in shape or that the tooth fairy exists they will consider such notions as pure bunk. Then again, perhaps this is why it is so hard for atheists to make the seperation since they seem to have never exerienced such things for themselves. At best such experiences could be deemed an illuision of some kind by atheists and therefore should not be compared to a world of fantasy and the tooth fairy.
I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. The fact that people thought the earth was flat WAS evidence that the earth was flat?!
I find a great deal of debate on these threads as to speculating what is reality/illusion. Either way, however, such experiences are evidences for your belief system even if such evidence is not based upon reality. Then again, if an illusion is part of your reality it is real to you and helps shape the reality around you so is it really an illusion as far as your own reality it concerned? Or perhaps everything around is pure illusion and we convice ourselves otherwise, who is to say? I am not saying that I percieve that everything is pure illusion, however, I am saying that we all have elements of illusion that we buy into such as the belief of the existence or nonexistence of God or the belief that one has free will verses one who does not have free will.
I say choose your illusion/reality. Choices for either are based upon percieved evidences.
3 edits
Originally posted by NemesioFirst, I would recommend the book called Decoding the Universe.
Here is where I am stuck. I would think definitions would provide information; that is,
given the traditional deck (which I assumed, unlike #1), why wouldn't the definition of a deck (that there
are 52 cards comprising 13 numerical/face cards of 4 suits) constitute information?
Let me see if I can give a more pointed example. I own an unusual these terms and help with explaining the
proper usage of the same?
Thanks,
Nemesio
http://www.amazon.com/Decoding-Universe-Information-Explaining-Everything/dp/067003441X
It's an accessible and engaging introduction to information theory.
Let me see if I can give a more pointed example. I own an unusual die. It has many faces, but I
am not going to tell you how many. On its many faces are several random, non-sequential
and non-repeating numbers, but I am not going to tell you how many. If I roll it, what is the
chance that it will be a 73? What is the chance that it will be above 73?
This question, for which you have no information, is unanswerable. You can't give a probability
for this because you don't even know if it has a 73 or what the range of numbers on the die are
over how many sides.
I have no information, but the questions are not unanswerable because you have in fact described a well-defined die. Given my information, which is to say none, the probability of the first event is 0; the probability of the second is .5. That is, there does not exist a sufficiently great n such that I would accept a wager paying n:1 against an equally uninformed person that the die will roll a 73. However, I would accept a wager paying m:1 against an equally uninformed person that the die will roll greater than 73 for any m greater than 1. For example, if somebody who knows as much about the die as I do is laying me 10:1 that it rolls greater than 73, I'm taking it.
Do you agree or disagree that the latter wager has a positive expected value for me? If you agree, then you must conclude that the probability of rolling greater than 73 under my information is .5. If you disagree, then I can give a proof. I think once we settle this, we'll be well on the way to resolving the remaining confusion.
10 edits
Originally posted by NemesioDefinitions describe the possible states of a system being studied.
Here is where I am stuck. I would think definitions would provide information; that is,
given the traditional deck (which I assumed, unlike #1), why wouldn't the definition of a deck (that there
are 52 cards comprising 13 numerical/face cards of 4 suits) constitute information?
Information is an observation that distinguishes which state the system is in.
Let's say no1 is running the show and has amassed a box of various sorts of decks of cards. We draw one at random from the box, peek at its top card and observe that it is a 7. This constitutes information: we now know that the drawn deck is not a pinochle deck; that is, we can distinguish this deck from all non-pinochle decks. Here, the system under study, effectively defined by the physical amassing of decks, has these possible states: the drawn deck is a standard deck, the drawn deck is a pinochle deck, the drawn deck is an Uno deck, the drawn deck is an Old Maid deck, etc.
Similarly, in my example of the shuffled standard deck, the system is defined by my denotation that I intended to be well-understood. If we were in person, it could defined by me brandishing a real standard deck and saying "Consider this deck." And the possible states of that system are all possible shuffles. The system under study here is not what sort of deck I have, but rather the order of its cards.
So, the best way to reconcile the two notions is that a system to be studied comes into being with its definition. Information comes into being upon observation of that well-defined system. It is a notional mistake to discuss information about some system without first having that system being well defined. Even though it is great fun, it doesn't make sense to engage in daily disputes on the likelihood of God existing if we cannot agree on what the term God denotes.
A good way to remember the distinction is the cliche "an informed voter." All voters, informed or uninformed can see who's running when they read the ballot. However, an informed voter is one who can distinguish among the candidates in deciding which is likely to be better. An uninformed voter has a probability of .5 of voting for what would be his preferred of two candidates. An informed voter has a greater probability of voting for what would be his preferred candidate.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1maraudersince i can't see him who cares who created him, no one did anyway as he/it was the begining. There had to be a begining. I can see the universe (at least the part of it on Earth), thus the question what created what you see? You want to argue against the existence of God because you think it's an easy debate, no proof of a God. But, you cannot make an intellectual argument for the presence of the universe without a begining, and the begining would have to be created by something. This debate is beyond your scope #1.
What created the God you don't see?
1 edit
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenThe same stupid, self-contradictory argument has been made by theists here many times. "Everything must been created by something else but the thing I say doesn't have to be created by something else". Boring. If you are going to claim an eternal God one can just as easily claim an eternal something else.
since i can't see him who cares who created him, no one did anyway as he/it was the begining. There had to be a begining. I can see the universe (at least the part of it on Earth), thus the question what created what you see? You want to argue against the existence of God because you think it's an easy debate, no proof of a God. But, you cannot m ...[text shortened]... and the begining would have to be created by something. This debate is beyond your scope #1.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenIt may be that the universe has no beginning and that it was not "created." You don't solve the problem by saying "god" did it. You just push the problem back one more step. How was your god created? If you can say that your god is eternal and with no beginning, and that he created the universe, then I can just as easily cut out the middle man and say the universe is eternal and has no beginning.
since i can't see him who cares who created him, no one did anyway as he/it was the begining. There had to be a begining. I can see the universe (at least the part of it on Earth), thus the question what created what you see? You want to argue against the existence of God because you think it's an easy debate, no proof of a God. But, you cannot m ...[text shortened]... and the begining would have to be created by something. This debate is beyond your scope #1.
Even if the universe did have a beginning, it does not automatically follow that your particular god did it. It could have any number of causes.
Originally posted by no1marauderlike what? Basically you're saying you don't know...You would prefer thinking the creation of the universe was some kind of accident, or better yet, you just don't want to acknowledge the existence of a God. Give me an example of what you think could of created the universe that is as likely as God.
The same stupid, self-contradictory argument has been made by theists here many times. "Everything must been created by something else but the thing I say doesn't have to be created by something else". Boring. If you are going to claim an eternal God one can just as easily claim an eternal something else.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenThe Big Bang.
like what? Basically you're saying you don't know...You would prefer thinking the creation of the universe was some kind of accident, or better yet, you just don't want to acknowledge the existence of a God. Give me an example of what you think could of created the universe that is as likely as God.
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenIf you're referring to the Christian God of the Bible, pretty much anything as he's an insane creation of semi-savages.
like what? Basically you're saying you don't know...You would prefer thinking the creation of the universe was some kind of accident, or better yet, you just don't want to acknowledge the existence of a God. Give me an example of what you think could of created the universe that is as likely as God.
I lean to a non-dualist view i.e. everything is part of the Eternal Consciousness - there is no God.
Originally posted by rwingettno begining? what kind of point is that? Obviously there was a begining unless you believe the universe has been here forever, which a. science has proven is not the case and b. does not make any logical sense.
It may be that the universe has no beginning and that it was not "created." You don't solve the problem by saying "god" did it. You just push the problem back one more step. How was your god created? If you can say that your god is eternal and with no beginning, and that he created the universe, then I can just as easily cut out the middle man and say the u ...[text shortened]... t automatically follow that your particular god did it. It could have any number of causes.
And to your second point, which is more logical to you? That the universe existed "always" with no begining? Or that a supreme being created the universe? You basically think life as we know it, the sun rising every date, and all the other perfections of the universe are simply an accident? I guess that is a intellectually lazy answer..
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsen"Goddunnit" is an intellectually lazy answer.
no begining? what kind of point is that? Obviously there was a begining unless you believe the universe has been here forever, which a. science has proven is not the case and b. does not make any logical sense.
And to your second point, which is more logical to you? That the universe existed "always" with no begining? Or that a supreme being c ...[text shortened]... ctions of the universe are simply an accident? I guess that is a intellectually lazy answer..
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderlol. that says alot about you and now i understand why you usually make no sense. So consciencness created the universe. Did it create matter out of thin air? Who created the thin air to make the matter with.. you're funny.
If you're referring to the Christian God of the Bible, pretty much anything as he's an insane creation of semi-savages.
I lean to a non-dualist view i.e. everything is part of the Eternal Consciousness - there is no God.