No, I'm saying that atheists in general would not say that because it's not true and shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works — T Clark

Ok, does that mean you concur (with what I said)? Why?

"I don't know" is a legit answer. @Harry Hindu once edified me as to what probability actually is - (the mathematics of) ignorance



Yup, theism and atheism converge (but also diverge) when it comes to determinism. :up:

Genetic mutations are random, at the very least probabilistic, to the extent the correlation between them and mutagen exposure < 1. Someone (@jgill ?) could shed more light on the matter.

Karma, an intriguing concept.

Alice is an archetype and what does she possess?

Mr. Anderson is mad of course, but shhh, don't tell anyone! :cool:

It's difficult, mi amigo, only to the degree one lacks scientific and historical literacies, applied numeracy, intellectual integrity (i.e. humility to admit "I/we don't know") and, last but not least (as per Einstein), imagination. :fire: — 180 Proof

:cool:

Don't hold your breath, amigo. :smirk: — 180 Proof

:smile:

Pepe (Asterix in Spain)

God has been equated with chance (re Marcus du Sautoy/mathematician). The Greeks had a goddess of luck (Fortuna). However the Greeks never, to my knowledge, equated Fortuna to a creator deity. Why is that? If the link between chance and creation is as obvious as you say it is (god = personification of fluke), why didn't the Greeks make the connection?

To clarify, creation requires a cause and chance can't be a cause (it isn't physical, it's a concept) and while I'm not certain whether whatever the actual cause of the unverse should be called god and worshipped, I don't think chance is adequately explanatory; chance in this case is merely descriptive.

This is facile and untrue. It shows a lack of understanding of how the universe works at a fundamental level. — T Clark

Are you saying atheists are making facile and untrue statements? Well, go on then, edify us/them as to the true state of affairs.

Ill formed is anther way of saying it's the wrong question.

But here your fallacy is black-or-white. — Banno

So I'm asking the wrong question, eh mate? Do you mean to say that it's nonsensical/incoherent to inquire into a cause for the universe? How so?

As for black-and-white fallacies, what, pray tell, are the other alternatives to god (creator) and chance in re how the universe came to be?

Please read my reply to 180 Proof.

I like 180 Proof's stance on the issue - stick to the facts, reject all claims inconsistent with the facts, speculate at your own risk! Construct a weltanschauung as free of woo-woo as possible. Alas, easier said than done!

Numbers are not tangible, tangible meaning 'able to be touched'. What makes them the subject of direct experience is that anyone can count, and practically everyone learns arithmetic. — Wayfarer

Every time you hold a tennis ball in yer hand, you're feeling its mass (0.056 kg) × acceleration due to gravity
(9.8 ms^-2) = weight (0.56 N), which is a number?! :chin:

Danke for the clarification. I made the same mistake ... twice (I have another thread on modal realism, it's equally hopeless).

Wonderful! What I find interesting is you removed truth from the equation. That's a grandmaster move in me book mon ami. What is the criterion for truth?

I get the gist of your Enformationism and I for one would gladly subscribe to your channel and I believe I am.

@180 Proof, for my money, has one gripe against your theory viz. the fact that it seems impossible to retain design (Enformy, teleology, etc.) without a designer implicit. So thought you try valiantly to distance yourself from religion, it comes off as incoherent at best or deception at worst.

Another thing, please take this as constructive criticism, your theory relies on controversy (dueling physicists) rather than solid facts - its home is in the darkness of our ignorance rather than the light of our knowledge. Given your caliber, I'm expecting a first class response from you.

You know the so-called hard problem of consciousness, as I understand it, boils down to the inability of scientific methods/instruments to access, a necessary step towards an explanation of consciousness, the first-person/subjective (what it is like ... to be a bat?) aspect of consciousness.

However, take a look at a fact that's analogous but doesn't elicit a similar woo-woo like response. According to Hubble the universe is expanding in such a way that the farthest objects (galaxies) from us are receding away the fastest. Scientists say that at some particular distance/time, the light from far, far away galaxies won't be able to reach us because space is expanding at a tremendous rate. These galaxies too, like the first-person, subjective facet of consciousness, are forever beyond science. This, however, doesn't imply these galaxies are nonphysical.

What justification is there then to conclude nonphysicalism from the hard problem of consciousness? I see none at all.

I watched the trilogy, only twice though; still haven't figured out how it all hangs together.

If what Leibniz and Descartes presented are apologies of sorts, are you seeking for something else? — Paine

Nyet, just a follow up comment to yours.

Hi, long time no see. What makes numbers more tangible than ideas like god, souls? Also, you already know that God is synonymous with $\infty$, a number presumably. Mathematicsl Paltonism half-implies the existence of God ($\infty$). What sayest thou?

Gracias. You're right. Apologies, I believe I posted in haste (makes waste).

Yes Leibniz has been credited as the first to propose possible worlds; Descartes is mentioned in the Wikipedia article as a possible influence.

Gracias for the comment. I concede yer point.

Excepting contradictions, am I correct in saying any other kind of proposition is true ... in some possible world? The very idea of it could've been different (contingency) contains the seed of possible worlds.

You should read Max Tegmark's Multiverse theory.

It resonates strongly here. — Shawn

I will if possible. Currently I'm involved in another more earthly project. Danke.

Yes, but how do you mesh modal realism with Godel's Incompleteness Theorems? — Shawn

I'd have no choice, based on how possible worlds are defined.

Gödel's theorems? Math is axiomatic, oui?

Something like that, yes.

Good point. That statement is self-contradictory. Also, sheep could have wings (it's possible) i.e. there has to be at least one more possible world than this our own, contradicting your claim that there's only one possible world. :smile:

Yep, that's something that seems possible.

There is more than one world or there are many worlds.

I've rediscovered an old philosophical technique, it's called List Method. It's illustrated below:

1. Definitely exists: The Eiffel tower, The Uluru rock (Down Under), Mammoth caves (USA), Joe Biden, Vladimir Putin

2. May/may not exist: Spirits, leprechauns, Santa Claus.

3. Definitely does not exist: A married bachelor, and other self-contradictory objects.

To me religion is the personal journey of growth of an individual. The growth being the unveiling of deeper levels of reality. — TheMadMan

Lovely!

Ok. It's just that after the worldwide trans phenomenon, the ability of straight peeps to tell man from women has been brought into question. The onus then naturally falls on trans folk to edify and enlighten us (if it isn't just a "felt account"). I've watched a few video interviews of trans people and they seem as confused as everybody else.

So by religion you mean something else. Pray tell what that is.

@180 Proof is of the view that religion is puerile (childish) - some of us then, I presume, never outgrow our childhood (imaginary) friend aka god. The corollary then is we grow up and face the world/reality with courage and not be/stay Peter Pans, forever wrapped up in a fantasized security blanket aka god.

This just a hunch but since having a male/female body isn't what a man/woman is (as per trans folks), the obvious next step in solving the mystery is to ask trans people what a man/woman is. They would know right?

@Andrew4Handel :up:

@Banno, would you be so kind as to leave a comment. I have a feeling you'll take this discussion forward.

On the face of it, you're flip-flopping between two definitions of man/woman. It's an interesting fallacy you commit, there should be a name for it (it's that awesome).

:up: I :pray: for god.

What is it exactly, do you suppose, that we want from God? We pray ... for what?

I was thinkin' the same thing, but not exactly in a Nietzschean sense. He did declare God is dead and I suppose we could interpret it in the way you've done. Any lines in Nietzsche's books/essays that could be read as humans having, well, consumed God?

:up:

I'm confident you won't agree but, IME, as a passion, or existential commitment, "hope" (i.e. magical / wishful / group thinking ~ make believe) is so much easier than courage (i.e. defiantly joyful living) in the face of adversity (facticity). Disbelief is, and has always been, defiant and never easy conformity like "belief in gods/God". After all, it's the crutch of religion that, in the medium-to- long-term, cripples "the human spirit" (i.e. catastrophizes our histories), even as its homilies pacify our near-term anxieties. To put away childish things for good once childhood ends, Gregory, takes (metaphysical) courage. :fire:

(NB: "Religious martyrs", by most sympathetic accounts, have always exhibited many acute symptoms of psychosis and are much more compulsively delusional than hopeful or courageous.) — 180 Proof

What draws people to religion? Is it just a verbal pledge of a safety net to catch a believer's fall? Religions tend to be factually barren and yet, people by the millions end up believing in one god or another and even diehard atheists sometimes admit to having doubts about their own beliefs or lack thereof. Scientists like Albert Einstein were deists; perhaps deism is nothing more than the dying embers of theism, the last gasp of breath one sucks in as one passes on.

God made us (re Christianity) in His image. I don't what's the deal with Hinduism - Vishnu took, as per vedic sources, the form of fish and a boar, and Ganesha has an elephant head (pace Xenophanes).

:lol: Well, for the sake of all standup comedians out there, I hope so!

Danke!

It's taking shape, most definitely! :up:

@Cuthbert, @jgill

What do you know of subjective probability? We use words like "likely", "unlikely" and I've been trying to map those words onto actual numerical values. I intuit the following where P stands for probability.

Certain: P = 100%
Highly likely: $100\% \gt P \geq 75\%$
Likely: $75\% \gt P \gt 50\%$
Neither likely nor unlikely (50/50): P = 50%
Unlikely: $50\% \gt P \gt 25\%$
Highly unlikely; $25\% \geq P \gt 0\%$
Impossible: P = 0%

Are these reasonable numerical values we can assign to these notions?

The Drake Equation

$N = R_* \cdot f_p \cdot n_e \cdot f_l \cdot f_i \cdot f_c \cdot L$

N = number of civilizations in our galaxy we could come into contact with

R_* = rate of star formation = 3/year (in our galaxy)

f_p = fraction of stars that have planets = 25% (unlikely)

n_e = the average number of planets per star that can support life = 1 (from our own solar system)

f_l = fraction of planets that could support life and have evolved life = 25% (unlikely)

f_i = fraction of planets with life that develop intelligent life = 25% (unlikely)

f_c = fraction of planets that have intelligent life and develop civilizations that emit detectable signals = 25% (unlikely)

L = the length of time for which civilizations emit detectable signals = 99 years (earth estimate, radio broadcasting began in 1923)

N (for our galaxy) = $3 \cdot 25\% \cdot 1 \cdot 25\% \times 25\% \times 25\% \times 99 \approx 1$

We should have found ET. We're not trying hard enough!

The best female trait (as a man) - they can be as bad or even worse than men. Just saw a probably bogus video of a woman yakuza boss in an airport. :fear:

Those aren't male or female traits but gender stereotypes. You shouldn't confuse the two. That said, it is correct that male gender stereotypes are valued more than female ones. It reinforces biases as people try to conform their behaviour to what's expected and the end result is a lot of sexism even from people who don't intend it. — Benkei

:up:

After what scientists say is roughly a 10¹⁰⁰ years, the average temperature of our universe will be a but a few points above -273^o K.

That's actually quite clever. I suggest you examine justification more closely.