I don't see how this follows. How does the number of configurations of things make something more likely than nothing? — Harry Hindu
Exactly. What came before determines what comes after. How does nothing begat something? — Harry Hindu
Then not something isn't necessarily nothing. — Harry Hindu
"nothing" is just an idea — Harry Hindu
To say that there is no way of knowing indicates that we are definitely talking about ourselves and not some objective feature of reality. I guess the question is, how do we determine if probabilities are objective or subjective? — Harry Hindu
That’s right. There’s no way of knowing. Nothing to do with either subjectivity or objectivity. It’s not as if there’s an unknown cause, but that events on this level are truly unpredictable. That is the basis of Einstein’s objection about ‘God playing dice’. But unfortunately for Einstein, and Harry, there’s no way in which ‘things truly are’ — Wayfarer
How does one select one at random? If we knew all the pre-existing conditions, like the position of the balls vs. your hand. If you knew all the pre-existing conditions, you'd know which ball you'd pick. It only seems random because you're ignorant if all the pre-existing conditions.It's basic probability theory. Imagine 10 differently coloured balls in a bag, You select one at random. — Kenosha Kid
I'm asking, how is something randomly chosen? — Harry Hindu
But you just showed that NOT one bachelor does not equal nothing, but one of something else. You're moving the goal posts.Something is at least ONE. Mathematically Something >= 1. If that's true not something < 1 and that's ZERO and ZERO's nothing. It appears that something has a quantitative definition and so, I suppose, should everything and nothing. — TheMadFool
Does this mean that your imagination is nothing?That out of the way, it needs to be pointed out that nothing in the metaphysical sense refers to the absence of physical stuff, — TheMadFool
That's odd, because you seem to be saying that the way things truly are is that Einstein and I are wrong.But unfortunately for Einstein, and Harry, there’s no way in which ‘things truly are’ — Wayfarer
And I'm telling you that you are wrong. — Harry Hindu
If you have five pigs in a pen and I steal all of your pigs, you don't have nothing. Air now fills the space where the pigs were. You have yet to show that not something necessarily means nothing. You have yet to show that nothing is anything more than an idea. What does the scribble, "nothing" refer to?Something is at least ONE. Mathematically Something >= 1. If that's true not something < 1 and that's ZERO and ZERO's nothing. It appears that something has a quantitative definition and so, I suppose, should everything and nothing. — TheMadFool
Its your thought experiment with words that already assume what your thought experiment is trying to prove.Uh huh. Well if you want to demonstrate rather than insist on it, be my guest. But since it's not relevant, don't expect a rapt audience. — Kenosha Kid
Its your thought experiment with words that already assume what your thought experiment is trying to prove. — Harry Hindu
If you have five pigs in a pen and I steal all of your pigs, you don't have nothing. Air now fills the space where the pigs were — Harry Hindu
you didn't answer the question — L'Unico
Discourse and ideas are still about something, even when talking and thinking about nothing. Zero is just another concept about the quantity of something. 0 what? 0 is meaningless unless you are talking about the number of something.Domain of discourse. — TheMadFool
Discourse and ideas are still about something, even when talking and thinking about nothing. Zero is just another concept about the quantity of something. 0 what? 0 is meaningless unless you are talking about the number of something — Harry Hindu
I just dont see whats so difficult in explaining your use of terms . Random is a term that assumes that your choices are probable, so you didnt really do much thinking in your thought experiment. Just saying.The thought experiment sought to prove nothing. It was meant as an illustration. Ill-advisedly, perhaps, given that it is generally impossible to determine from your responses whether you've understood anything or not. Alternatively, I could just response: go and read some basic probability theory, but you'd probably question your text book's existence :D — Kenosha Kid
Domain of discourse. — TheMadFool
Except when the mechanics of probability and randomness are what are being questioned.And I'm telling you: the mechanics of a thought experiment are irrelevant to the thought experiment. That's what makes it a thought experiment. — Kenosha Kid
I should also add that discourse in one domain should not contradict the discourse in another domain. All knowledge must be integrated. — Harry Hindu
I just dont see whats so difficult in explaining your use of terms . Random is a term that assumes that your choices are probable, so you didnt really do much thinking in your thought experiment. Just saying. — Harry Hindu
This is typical KK. Are you and Banno long lost twins?I've just learned from experience how to spot a patented HH derailment and don't think this thread is an appropriate place to explain why thought experiments don't need exhaustive blueprints. If you're interested in learning about probability theory, go and do so. — Kenosha Kid
It's not just that. Nothing is an imaginary concept. Nothing is actually something - an idea.Problem is if there were nothing there'd be no probability, and once there is probability there is already something. — Janus
Why don't you learn about epistemological probability. — Harry Hindu
Then probabilities are tools for discussing the early universe? Are probabilities useful for discussing how the early universe actually was, or how we believe it was? How do you tell the difference?We're discussing statistics, not epistemology. That is, we are discussing probabilities as they might still apply even in the absence of holders of beliefs, the sorts of probabilities applicable in discussing the early universe, for instance. — Kenosha Kid
Using this example, there are far more configurations of god than of not-god, making the existence of god more likely over time.You are right that there are far more configurations of things than of nothing, making something more likely over time. — 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.