Philosophy Now Forum

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:51 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:43 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:39 pm
What is the chance of having the life if the volume granted is zero?

Hello? The SOURCE OF YOUR DATA.

That needs to be empirical data. Frequentism is based on actual empirical data.Otherwise we're talking about Bayesian statistics.

Come on. The chance for having the life in the zero volume is zero.

So you have no empirical data, right? This is based on reasoning only.

That's the difference between frequentist probability (about/based on empirical data--namely, iterations of a scenario), and Bayesian probability (based solely on reasoning, and often largely on intuition).

I don't buy that Bayesian probability tells us anything aside from telling us about someone's psychological states, assumptions, biases, etc..

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:54 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:51 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:43 pm

Hello? The SOURCE OF YOUR DATA.

That needs to be empirical data. Frequentism is based on actual empirical data.Otherwise we're talking about Bayesian statistics.

Come on. The chance for having the life in the zero volume is zero.

So you have no empirical data, right? This is based on reasoning only.

That's the difference between frequentist probability (about/based on empirical data--namely, iterations of a scenario), and Bayesian probability (based solely on reasoning, and often largely on intuition).

I don't buy that Bayesian probability tells us anything aside from telling us about someone's psychological states.

So in your opinion, the chance for having the life in zero volume is finite. There is no other option.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:56 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:54 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:51 pm
Come on. The chance for having the life in the zero volume is zero.

So you have no empirical data, right? This is based on reasoning only.

That's the difference between frequentist probability (about/based on empirical data--namely, iterations of a scenario), and Bayesian probability (based solely on reasoning, and often largely on intuition).

I don't buy that Bayesian probability tells us anything aside from telling us about someone's psychological states.

So in your opinion, the chance for having the life in zero volume is finite. There is no other option.

No, I'd say if there's nothing obviously there's no chance.

If there's something where any sort of matter is interacting via chemical reactions, there's an unknown chance, where the relationship to volume is unknown.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:09 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:56 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:54 pm

So you have no empirical data, right? This is based on reasoning only.

That's the difference between frequentist probability (about/based on empirical data--namely, iterations of a scenario), and Bayesian probability (based solely on reasoning, and often largely on intuition).

I don't buy that Bayesian probability tells us anything aside from telling us about someone's psychological states.

So in your opinion, the chance for having the life in zero volume is finite. There is no other option.

No, I'd say if there's nothing obviously there's no chance.

If there's something where any sort of matter is interacting via chemical reactions, there's an unknown chance, where the relationship to volume is unknown.

You of course cannot have any chemical in zero volume. So the chance of having the life is zero.

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:28 pm God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:48 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:28 pm God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...

That leads to pantheism.

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:28 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:48 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:28 pm God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...

That leads to pantheism.

How do we get to "reality is boundless therefore the greatest doesn't exist"?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:37 pm How do we get to "reality is boundless therefore the greatest doesn't exist"?

Because that's what "boundless" means.

For any bounded (finite) conception there's always a bigger bounded (finite) conception. Ad infinitum.

Given recursion theory ALL proofs relativize

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:28 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:48 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:28 pm God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.

In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...

That leads to pantheism.

So?

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:37 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:28 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:48 pm

In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...

That leads to pantheism.

How do we get to "reality is boundless therefore the greatest doesn't exist"?

What?

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:54 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:37 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:28 pm
That leads to pantheism.

How do we get to "reality is boundless therefore the greatest doesn't exist"?

What?

I'm asking him for the justification for the bit in quotation marks.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:16 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:54 pm

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:37 pm

How do we get to "reality is boundless therefore the greatest doesn't exist"?

What?

I'm asking him for the justification for the bit in quotation marks.

Thanks. Yes - it would seem the case that if reality is boundless then it is 'the greatest'...

VVilliam wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 2:38 am

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 9:16 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:54 pm

What?

I'm asking him for the justification for the bit in quotation marks.

Thanks. Yes - it would seem the case that if reality is boundless then it is 'the greatest'...

Because of what? Whether we're using greatest in strictly a quantitative sense or whether we're using it in a sense with a "better" connotation, what justifies that if reality is boundless it's greater than if it's bounded? In the quantitative sense, we can say, "Well, there's more reality, then," which is fine, but at the same time, we can say, "Well, there are less bounds, too." And the "better" sense is subjective--there's nothing that says that more reality is better than more bounds aside from individual preferences.

Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:45 am Because of what? Whether we're using greatest in strictly a quantitative sense or whether we're using it in a sense with a "better" connotation, what justifies that if reality is boundless it's greater than if it's bounded? In the quantitative sense, we can say, "Well, there's more reality, then," which is fine, but at the same time, we can say, "Well, there are less bounds, too." And the "better" sense is subjective--there's nothing that says that more reality is better than more bounds aside from individual preferences.

You sure went out of your way there to blur the semantic difference between "greater" and "better".

VVilliam wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 8:54 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:28 pm

VVilliam wrote: ↑Mon Mar 22, 2021 11:48 pm

In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...

That leads to pantheism.

So?

Pantheism is incoherent since there are parts that are not part of the whole/God.