Math does not accept you to "choose" anything. You need to calculate it. If you "choose" a number, you don't even know basic math. Period. — Christoffer
Outside of that, maybe you should actually invest time in investigating physics and discover that linear and circular isn't binary choices for explaining time — Christoffer
How can you reach that estimate? And if it's only an estimate, how can you make a probability conclusion if your probability is based on just an estimate? You need solid numbers for calculating the probability, but you use only an estimate, so your probability is based on variable estimates about something without any data in support of it. Are you unable to see how hollow this calculation is? — Christoffer
You cannot assume 50% because no data support either to have that number as a probability. You fail at basic math here. I can add any kind of fantasy concept and change the numbers: tesseract linearity, there... now you have 33,3333333333333% and your calculation fails. You have no data in support of your probability, your logic fails. — Christoffer
Rounded up from what? Why is this number 1% and not 1,1%? Explain how you ended up with exactly 1% We want to see the actual mathematical calculation that made you end up at that exact number. — Christoffer
You need to explain how you calculated 50% in the first place and how you can apply the chances of circular time to be 50%, which has no data in support of that number.
You essentially need to explain how you can apply 50% to a concept that does not have any data in support of it. A boolean distribution cannot be used as a foundation for a probability of something to be true. That is so fundamentally un-scientific in its logic that it's absurd. — Christoffer
Here's a test for your appliance of 50% to circular time. Tell your calculation to a physicist actually working on time-related physics and see how they react to your concept. If they don't laugh at it I will be surprised. — Christoffer
Ok, so you will not commit to that. Will you commit to admitting that you do not know why they disagree with you? — DingoJones
1%
12,5%
Explain, now, or just stop trolling. — Christoffer
Your numbers don't relate to anything other than your own invented logic. — Christoffer
I already told you. Im not interested in that right now. Im trying to find out why you think everyone disagrees with you, and rejects what you are saying as nonsense.
Are you willing to commit, barring someones declaration of strong atheism, that your position is that ALL the people saying the exact same thing about your “probability” basis and its lack of validity lack the comprehension to grasp your argument? — DingoJones
You started a troll thread based on percentages you made up in your head and you're pretending it's fortifying claims that have no foundation in reality — whollyrolling
I disagree with your “math” and views on probability (specifically the way you conjure probability out of thin air, and do not understand the logic you refer to in your arguments).
So, im curious as to why you think I disagree. — DingoJones
So, anyway, what else do you enjoy doing in your spare time besides trolling this philosophy forum? You're a fan of St. Thomas Retardus, I gather. — S
Ok, well Im not a strong atheist and I have no problems with where your views lead.
So what is your explanation for me? Why do you think I disagree with you, since its not the reasons you stated? — DingoJones
"So you admit your axiomatical system of the world includes 'magic can happen'?
— Devans99
Yes, I said that with absolute sincerity. You accurately represented the argument I never provided. — S
Going around in circles with you again with regard to your failed logic — S
Everything else is balderdash. — Terrapin Station
Same could be asked of youThen why are you here? — Christoffer