Any logic hounds out there? Is this a true statement?

See #144

 

Well, when mass gets added to a black hole, the black hole becomes more massive.

Over huge amounts of time, physicists say that black holes radiate their energy and gradually evaporate - this all contained within our universe.

I see your point about how it would affect the OP quote if energy could leave our universe. That's one of those issues where one can postulate anything. (Not at all meaning to deprecate your postulate). The answer a physicist would give to your idea would not be that it is impossible, but they would ask for a detailed description.

Anyway, I don't know what it would mean if energy could leave our universe while it's still the case that our universe is infinite as per the OP quote.

 

I've seen it and replied to it.

 

The truth, no matter how it conflicts with your alternative view of reality, is not a "petty insult." In fact, all I did was ask you to have the tact to not reply with petty insults; but your offering of some baseless, personal criticism of me, is apparently beyond your capability.

In response to your charge, that my request for you to abstain from petty, personal digs, was, in itself, a "petty insult," I will offer a partial list of examples, from that thread. You are, of course, welcome to show that the list of my insults towards you, exceeds your own offenses.

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑
Oh, I'm not having any trouble with words. But, you, most certainly are.
Your writing is verbose, your articulation sloppy, and your syntax is horrific.

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑
I apologize for the insults, but bombastic writing, horrific syntax, verbosity, bothers me. I will try hard to contain my frustration with your writing style.

Patricio Da Silva said: ↑
Wouldn't 'premise' be better? Why use a lesser used word when a more common word will do?

But, bombasts do that, too often. No, Rachel does it, rarely.

Anyway,

You are pettifogging the debate.



Patricio Da Silva said: ↑
With #2, this is the unicorn region, stuff we imagine, fancy, which is not real.

Yes, I do realize this might be difficult to understand for some people...

I guess it might be able to be said, in your defense, that you didn't so much riddle me with a profusion of criticisms, as just repeat the same ones...ad nauseum.

It's hard to see how any of those tangents of yours, has anything to do with your thread's topic. Most amusing to me, are your blatantly passive- aggressive ones, which begin by apologizing for something, then immediately return to offending (purportedly to provide extenuating circumstances, by way of excusing your words, since they are, in truth, my fault). Likewise, in your post that starts off by offering a bi-poster, non- insult pact, you prove that you are an inveterate practitioner of the Parthian shot.

There is more material, in this vein, but it would involve very long digressions, on your part, that I feel would overly tax the readers' attention, and interest. But, I will gladly post them, if you want to challenge me on which one of us is the verbose wind-bag.

 

Well, I'm not hunting for the reply. If you want me to respond, provide # or link.

 

No, you've proven that in spades.

1. Horrific syntax.
2. Verbosity
3. Egregious overuse of boldface type.
4. Bombastic writing style.

When someone attempts to write with eloquence, but whose intellectual capacity is not up to the task, bombastic writing is often the result.

In short, you are a phony.

And, I do not pretend to be eloquent, nor do I strive for it.

I might, on occasion, but if it happens, it wasn't intended. I write
like I speak. I think everyone should do that. Even Buckley writes
like he speaks, as does Maddow.

It's obvious you try to be eloquent, though you fall far short of the mark.

I know eloquent writing when I see it. It's wonderful, when it is achieved.

 

Why would I want you to respond? You are the one who wanted me to respond. I told you I already did.

You can now do whatever you want.

 

When I see the state of your math skills, and analytic abilities, adding to your already noted challenges with language, I almost feel sorry for you. But I'll bite, once more, in attempting to elucidate the obvious.

You claim that the tossing of dice, can represent "limitless possibilities," in reality, by using a "limitless number of dice." Then you conclude, in no interpretable way, that there could still, only be a " limited number of combinations." Have I misread what you lay out, in the quote, above (in any tangible, meaningful way)?

So a good practice-- if I may be allowed to suggest something to you, after all your "suggestions," about my writing, about meditation techniques, and sundry other topics-- is for one to try out any theoretical concept, with a real life scenario. Using your own example, the "thrower," has an infinite number of dice. By the definition of "infinite," your statement that there could then be a limited, or finite, number of possible results, is false, on its face. Can you not recognize this?

Let me give you an actual example from life, which should require less imagination, on your part. How many digits are there, in the numeric equivalent of the very basic value, known as π? That there is no end to the expressing of that one, simple value, should show you the feasibility of there being no end to the number of possibilities. Just as no device can arrive at that final digit of π, no dedicated mechanism, much less any randomly- operating one, could fulfill all possibilities, if they were truly, "infinite." This is the meaning of that term, which I believe you told me, yourself, was your definition of "infinity." By any chance, did you ever look into the mathematician- philosopher-- who I previously spoke of, to you-- Zeno?


One more example, for good measure. This one uses only six dice, like the original, and has the aim of arriving at a roll of 6 sixes. I can see a way you might be conceiving of this. As I think Will Readmore recently posted, as long as there is any possibility of something, no matter how remote, the application of an infinite number of opportunities, must eventually bring it to pass. So, you may be thinking, even if the number of spots on any side of a die, are constantly in flux, and have infinity as the set of their potential options, because one of those limitless options IS a result of 6 sixes, that, with infinity, it will occur. This is incorrect. It is possible, certainly, that it may occur, but there could be no mathematical certainty to this ever occurring, that is, not before the end of eternity.

By stipulating "infinity," as you take it to mean, you are setting up a situation akin to an "unstoppable," force, meeting an "immovable," object. The result, is unpredictable. Not "inevitable."

 

And this is your reply, to my contesting of your allegation, that I have been the one, prone to insulting you?

Priceless.

I will only note that I had provided quotes of your lodging at least 18 insults, against me. You, in contrast, provide 0, to support your first contention of me (in this thread) as well as any of your other, petty insults, added here.

As I do not-- nor am I aware of anyone else, who does-- consider you an authority on any of my supposed flaws, on which you opine, this makes your post only, as the expression goes, so much sound & fury, signifying nothing.

Except, of course, it does signify how reliable are your allegations, from the person who has responded as you have, to my polite request-- and, as you demonstrate, my obviously warranted one-- that you not reply, in accordance with your recent custom, with petty insults.


My challenge, BTW, on the "verbose, wind-bag," charge, stipulated the producing of each other's posts, in support of our opinions. Apparently, you have no proof, or else you are so bloated, of Ego, as to imagine that your declaration that someone is an horrifically bad writer, or is "a phoney," should be taken as truth, simply because it had come from your special mind. Sorry but, since hypocrisy is a cheap, and plentiful, commodity, I see no indication of anything special, there.

 

No it's not about being infinite, it's about existing. You said anything that could be is inevitable if things are infinite. It isn't true because even if there are other copies of me, each of us has our own limited realities which are real in themselves.

It depends on how you define it. I'm starting to see you meant it differently than how I took it. But generally there are multiple things that could happen - that are possible, but some of these things are mutually exclusive once one happens. This does not negate the fact that the thing now impossible was once possible. It was possible, but not inevitable, even given infinite time. Could be something like losing virginity. You can only do it once, but there were millions of people it could have been with. But once it happens, you can no longer "lose your virginity" to somebody else even if it was once possible for you to.

But sure if you're talking about a highly unlikely thing eventually happening with enough trials, that's just standard statistics. Can a coin be tossed as heads a million times in a row? Given infinite trials, you inevitably would, an infinite number of times in fact.

 

Your rebuttal hasn't convinced me you are correct.

 

If there are other copies of you,. then it will be because nature allows it, and if nature allows it, it is possible. and if there is an infinite amount on time, other copies of you are inevitable. My postulate, therefore, you have not falsified. Your 'limited reality' does not affect the veracity of the postulate. Not as far as I can tell, so I'm not seeing the contradiction you are asserting.

The statement 'all that is possible' is inclusive of variable and multiple things, i.e., it's a given.

That which nature allows will always allow it. Your statement doesn't make sense ( to me ).

the statement says 'all that is possible'. It is impossible to lose your virginity more than once. Viola, the statement is still true. The statement only includes the possible. It is possible to lose your virginity, therefore, given (assuming your) infinity, it is inevitable you will lose it. If you are going to say you are finite, thus it is possible you'll never lose your virginity, you still have fulfilled the 'all that is possible' statement. But, the statement doesn't set itself to be applied to anything finite, so all living things into infinity must be included. If you don't lose your virginity, another living creature will, eventually.

Your last statement proves the postulate, which can be extrapolated to life.

How so? Because there are an astronomical number of factors that need to be in place for life to occur. I think most will agree on that point.

Whatever that number is, it is still a number, and the coin metaphor can therefore be extrapolated to life.

How so? Because all numbers, compared to infinity, are infinitesimal.

If doesn't matter how many dice, how many coins, we toss into infinity because given infinity, the possible (determined outcome) is inevitable.

I formulated the postulate to refute the notion that life happens by intelligent design.

If infinity is not true, it suggests intelligent design is possible.

if infinity is true, we already know life is possible, then given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable, and thus we eventually get life and this squashes the notion of intelligent design.

Since it is more logical that there is no intelligent designer, (astronomy and astrophysics don't point to the notion of intel design, they point more to randomity) this tells me it is more likely that infinity is true (since life exists which proves it is possible), that the real 'god' is merely the statement;

Given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

If we agree that there is no intelligent designer,
and we know that life is possible, then it must
be true that it was inevitable, and the only fact that
can make it inevitable is infinity.

Therefore, infinity is reality.

Therefore, given infinity, all that is possible, is inevitable.

 

YOU - are an assortment of matter and energy -- that one day got into the configuration we call YOU That much we know.. I Think therefor I am. That indeed you do exist means there was a finite probabilility - prior to your existence - of the matter and energy structuring itself into you.

Does this mean you will exist again ? .. In an infinite time .. all finite probabilities repeat - infinitely .

There is no saying what that probability is .. it may be quite good .. structured into the system .. complex structures arise naturally out of Chaos .. least according to Chaos Theory .. and personal experience . quorum sensing in bacterial populations .. and the complex structures those folks build .. you prehaps being one of them. .. but that is another story.

While it seems you got the existence equation correct .. "infinite existence" .. your comments about God and intelligent design are all wrong.

The above postulate does not refute intelligent design. nor does infinity not being true suggest intelligent design possible .. nor does infitity being true suggest intelligent design is possible nor not possible.

Regardless of whether or not infinity is true .. we know life is possible ..

 

Well, okay. Make your case. Or don't.

 

It does not refute it directly. But, among a number of empirical observations of life and the universe in general one can use to refute intelligent design, cannot one weave the postulate into the larger and more robust argument that supports the contention that God is not an intelligence (i.e., no intelligent designer) ?

 

I'm looking for convincing falsification, that's all.

If I'm not convinced of the attempt to falsify, I will address points raised to that end, 'state my case', as it were.

 

Wittgenstein was a logic hound and would say....

"3.02 The thought contains the possibility of the state of affairs which it thinks. What is thinkable is also possible.
3.03 We cannot think anything unlogical, for otherwise we should have to think unlogically.
3.031 It used to be said that God could create everything, except what was contrary to the laws of logic. The truth is, we could not say of an “unlogical” world how it would look."
---Wittgenstein, Tractatus (pdf.)

To say that all that is possible is inevitable could be interpreted as teleologically deterministic unless there is some kind of mediating principle between potentiality and actuality such as with Aristotle, Spinoza, Hegel, or Marx. If we think "infinity" isn't the our concept of the infinite only finite? Adorno, a member of the Neo-Kantian anti-humanist branch of Marxism, argues that there is no true full totality, only a partial totality in a nod to the Kantian thing-in-itself (Negative Dialectics, p. 5)(pdf.).

Christian theologian Paul Tillich writes of infinity....
"The basic structure of being and all its elements and the conditions of existence lose their meaning and their truth if they are seen as objects among objects. If the self is considered to be a thing among things, its existence is questionable; if freedom is thought to be a thing among things, its existence is questionable; if freedom is thought to be a quality of will, it loses out to necessity; if finitude is understood in terms of measurement, it has no relation to the infinite. The truth of all ontological concepts is their power of expressing that which makes the subject-object structure possible. They constitute this structure; they are not controlled by it (Paul Tillich in Systematic Theology, vol. I, p. 168; italics added)(pdf.)."

 

That existence can be shown mathematically to be eternal - assuming time is infinite .. does not refute intelligent design .. nor do the empiracal observations -- none of which you mention .. none which support the contention that God is not an intelligence.

These observations do not confirm or deny the existence of God .. nor tell us who made the rules of the universe.

 

What is the logic that you think proves intelligent design?

 

In my opinion, anything is possible in the abstract, (it's called imagination) but in nature, no. Nature allows what it allows, which is not mediated by thought. Nature mediates us, we do not mediate it.

That doesn't ring true. In semi conscious states, I've thought things that seemed perfectly logical, until I fully awakened, and realized they were not logical at all.
The radio personality Phil Hendry is a sleep walker, he once told the story that he once walked in his sleep, to the kitchen, and opened his refrigerator door and urinated into it. It seemed perfectly logical to him when he did it, but then he awakened and wondered what the hell he was doing.

To my mind, the concept of God, the creator of all things, is not logical whatsoever.

In my opinion, the human mind cannot comprehend infinity, or rather, the mind is extremely annoyed by it. I'm positing 'infinity' freed from the human lens. It seems to me, that the mediating principle between potentiality and actuality is whatever nature allows, noting that that cannot be known, in toto. I'm positing that principle, given infinity, all that is possible (i.e., whatever nature allows), is inevitable is the determinant for life, and, as such, life has no purpose (if we remove the human lens). Based on that proposition, it doesn't appear to be 'teleologically deterministic' ( if I understand the phrase, correctly).

The quote by Tillich doesn't appear to falsify my postulate. Yes,no?

 

There is no logic that proves intelligent design .. what logic states is that we can not prove or refute ID.

 

I accept that, always have. That being said, all we can do is postulate our reasons, scour the landscape for whatever morsels of logic, life's examples and empirical observations, that lend support to why we believe what we believe, which is all I believe I did in the OP (the God is not intelligent thread, this one is in support of it, indirectly), noting that I am always on the look out for more compelling arguments than my own. Now, I might not necessarily agree with a rebuttal that purports to be more compelling, but I am on the lookout, nevertheless.

Given the above, in my opinion, there is more empirical evidence which suggests that intelligent design is not the basis for life, than there isn't.

A google search brought me this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

[Eugene] Scott and [Glenn] Branch say that intelligent design is an argument from ignorance because it relies on a lack of knowledge for its conclusion: lacking a natural explanation for certain specific aspects of evolution, we assume intelligent cause

 

Good .. so we agree that there is no "proof" either way .. but to be sure "Proof" is a silly word to using to begin with ... we should be talking more along the lines of evidence ..

1 "Evidence of God" - requires first that God be defined. What kind of God we talking about here ?
2 "Evidence of ID" - a related but separate question .. in this case the God would need be of a more powerful variety .. but still must be defined in context.

I submit that the ability to manifest the will in to physical reality .. outside one's own physical body .. would be a "Godlike Power" Notice that humans have this power .. but only within the confines of own body .. would we be able to move a chare with the will .. rather than just being able to wiggle pinky .. that would be a God-like power.

Now we can begin looking for evidence ... that such a thing might exist .. and from there . should we find such a thing .. ponder whether that thing could be powerful enough to do Creation ..

I sumbit that I can provide all of the above .. should you agree with the definition of God.

 

If you can prove (er, provide evidence) your definition of God, I'd like to see what you come up with. Fire away.

I"ve given my treatise on my view of 'God' (I'm more of a pantheist, than theist or deist) in the "God is not intelligent' thread.

 

Well -- this would fit right into the pantheist but also support for not "monotheist" .. but a Most High and/or Two of sorts.

1) we exist - I drink therefor I am -- but the elementals organizing into complex structure - such that awareness is achieved - is one thing. manifesting a thought into physical reality is quite another.

This is a difficult distinction .. but without which .. we can not proceed further. do you understand the difference ?

at some point a thought has to figure out how to manifest itself into physical reality ... this is not a chicken and egg .. as the thought must proceed the action .. the action can not proceed the thought

So .. never mind how awareness arose .. it just did .. The real question is how did that awareness that arose .. manifest itself into physical reality .. There was a day when the will had not jumped into physical reality - not been able to make the leap ........ way back in the primordial ooze .. when the first thought aroze .. or at least a will of sorts.

Humans can manifest the will within their own body .. can adjust breathing .. and so on .. through force of will .. What these mortals can not do however, is manipulate matter/ energy .. outside this framework - external to their own body ..

Now without going into too much depth .. what is the difference -- within the chemical electrical continuum . which does not stop at the edge of your skin . .. just a different chemical composition .. .waves in your head permiate out - into the ether..

If we look back along the continuum .. we see a path .. perhaps the path forward includes the ability to extend outwards .. the will being able to effect some slight manipulation .. kinda like what machines are able to do in reading a persons expressions .. perhaps thoughts down the road ... would that not be a way to make the jump .. in a hot-wired way .. but .. worthy of thought. . perhaps the future holds no such ability.

Seems to me .. we are finding more evidence of "Spooky Action at a Distance" .. but I promised not too much depth.

The ability to make the jump would be "Godhood" of a sort .. the more ability ..the more powerful the God .. of which there could be many .. and of which I have given no "defacto proof" .. but found some footprints in the dust

but now on to Bigger things .. The Really Big All Powerful Creator Level God(s)

A human is able to direct will within body. If the Universe - this particular one - is the body of a "Really High God" .. and it is 1) Aware 2) able to manifest its will into physical reality within its body .. that would be a God.. Gaia style or some such thing..

myself I like the duality idea .. same as the ancients .. Where there are two main forces .. but not of "Good vs Evil" so much .. and this is not how the ancients viewed it .. more of a battle between chaos and order .. and depending on which side one is on .. something is good or bad .. root for one side or the other .

Now .. are there secondary forces that descend from "are born out of" the primary .. how could it be otherwise ?