That's your, biased, version of events. My recollection is that no-one had any valid counter arguments. — Devans99
If people show I'm wrong, I admit it and change my position
- If no-one shows I'm wrong, I continue to press my argument
Give me a link to where I was proved wrong about the math and I'll demonstrate to you that I was not. — Devans99
What method are you using to assess whether someone has successfully shown you you're wrong? — Isaac
I use deduction and induction — Devans99
- I argue for things I think are greater than 50% likely to be true.
- I argue against things I think are less than 50% likely to be true. — Devans99
I carefully consider everyone's counter arguments and adjust my probability estimates accordingly. — Devans99
One can deduce anything from any premises. I'm asking you how, in cases where others have deduced something different, you determine which is correct - your deduction or theirs? — Isaac
Arguing is the statement of your case and counter-case, it's not, in itself, a method of determining right cases from wrong. — Isaac
Another way of looking at the issue. How did you learn maths? You must, at some point, have faced the necessity to be told something is the case which didn't, at that time, seem to you to be the case. Why did you decide to follow along with what your teacher was telling you, until such time as you understood it? — Isaac
Sometimes there are logical errors in the actual deduction — Devans99
mostly it is bad axioms that undermine arguments — Devans99
We have to accurately express our faith in our axioms. — Devans99
I have a degree in maths. — Devans99
In general, if I don't understand, I ask — Devans99
... or find out some other way. — Devans99
I started at 50%/50% before taking any of the evidence into account. — Devans99
God is timeless and finite. — Devans99
3017amen's God is an abstraction. A fairly radical departure from most religions that comes to mind. That's assuming the assertions here. — jorndoe
Isn't this stuff old territory? Already covered in your old threads, @Devans99? (If so, it hasn't become better with age.)
(Besides, both "deliberate" and "act" are loaded, indicating where you started rather than where you ended.)
You somehow wish to show an "atemporal deliberate act" of a unique, thinking, living superbeing deity...? :D
Here atemporal is inert and lifeless at best.
with strangely "atemporal causes", I'd sort of expect an infinite universe
So demonstrate this atemporal change, it's your argument (and presumably you don't want to add more appeal to ignorance or special pleading).
How do you determine a logical error, in cases where your interlocutor claims there is no error? How do you determine who is correct? — Isaac
How do you determine that an axiom is bad? — Isaac
No. We don't. We may well have a degree to which we believe in an axiom, it does not follow that we have to express it, what would be the purpose? — Isaac
I wasn't asking about your qualification, I was asking about the means by which you acquired it. We're you born knowing all maths, or were you taught some of it? If the latter, then on what grounds did you believe your teachers prior to you yourself understanding the concept? — Isaac
Ask whom, and on what grounds do you believe what they have to say? — Isaac
What is this other way? — Isaac
If part of your own conscious existence (intelligence) is both physical and metaphysical, and the idea of intelligence is both physical and metaphysical, then could it be reasonably inferred that intelligence is behind the cause of the universe including your own conscious existence?
In other words, explain how consciousness emerges from complete chaos? — 3017amen
And that was the first mistake. If you're going for Bayesian estimates, you can't just say X and !X are 50/50. At the start of a game of Clue(do), the probability of the culprit being Col. Mustard or not Col. Mustard is not 50/50. — Kenosha Kid
If he's timeless, he's eternal. The inflaton field is also timeless btw insofar as its value doesn't change with time. — Kenosha Kid
The important or consistent part to that is : 1. it defies logic/LEM which is fine. 2. yet it is still within the realm of logic (logical possibility) because of abstract mathematical truth's existing (which describe the laws of nature/existence) being logically possible. — 3017amen
Nonetheless, God is “timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation ” — 3017amen
How can we reasonably infer from the fact that intelligence is in the universe that it is also "someplace" outside of he universe? — Ciceronianus the White
Ditch your hidden premise thus heading towards determinism; entertain abstract objects (which does not deny atemporality by the way). — jorndoe
Banno mentioned the edge-free universe — jorndoe
's merely a mechanical process. I can't remember all the details, modus ponens and so on. — Devans99
If the axiom has a high probability of being true, I adopt it. If not, I reject it. — Devans99
How can you possibly quantify your level of belief in an axiom if it is not with a percentage? — Devans99
stuff I did not understand, I assigned a 50%/50% probability to - unknown. — Devans99
I believe I have a proficient grasp of these areas. — Devans99
Belief cannot stem from what others say, only from strong conviction in a small set of axioms, and the act of deducing the required results, can we actually say we believe something. Other people make mistakes or may even try to deliberately mislead you (eg organised religion) - you have to think it through for yourself to have knowledge. — Devans99
God is both timeless and within time (temporal/a-temporal) all at the same time — 3017amen
It's not the name of the process I'm interested in here. It's the fact that others will consider themselves to have gone through the same, or an equally valid, process. I'm interested in what's behind your reasoning in asking other people for their comments, knowing all along that you possess all you need to determine that you have the right answer. — Isaac
But how can you possibly assess the probability of an axiom being true? To do that you must assess the soundness of the factors leading to it, in which case it's a conclusion, not an axiom. — Isaac
I wasn't criticising the means of measurement, I was asking about your motive for telling everyone what measurements you give it. As I said above, I you want critique or analysis of your method for deriving that probability, then it's not an axiom, it's a conclusion. — Isaac
No you didn't. You did not proceed through your mathematics education acting as if it were equally likely that your teachers were wrong as it was that they were right. That's just a silly thing to claim. — Isaac
What gives you cause to believe that? — Isaac
Do you not make mistakes then? How would you know if you had without the knowledge held by the community against which to check it? — Isaac
Yes. Twice now. — jorndoe
. Because when we naturally use our sense of wonder (the Kantian 'all events must have a cause') axiom, then we naturally default to regressive reasons that invoke Anthropology, and the other way around. Causation leads us to inferences about ourselves, our self-awareness, our existence, our consciousness, and other Anthropic theories of existence, etc.. — 3017amen
I am using a methodology of my own inventing with that calculation. Take a look - its perfectly reasonable. The approach is to first assume 50%/50% for an unknown, boolean question. — Devans99
The word 'eternity' has two meanings: infinite in time or external to all forms of time. The first is impossible — Devans99
Do you see what's gone wrong here? And why? — Kenosha Kid
Actually they're the same. An object, let's consider for simplicity a 3D object, that is timeless: f(x,y,z)... not time. Now let's consider a 3D object in time that is always identical to itself at any given time: f(x,y,z,t)=f(x,y,z,T)=f(x,y,z). A thing that is eternally identical to itself at any time is timeless. The inflaton field is such a thing. It is forever expanding, but at every time and position is homogenous. — Kenosha Kid
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.