Tell me what you think it means for evidence to imply a 50% chance that someone is guilty. — Michael

I am trying to combine separate pieces of evidence into a combined probability estimate:

1) We have a completely independent first piece of evidence. If this piece of evidence was presented on its own, it would imply a 50% chance of guilt.
2) Then another completely independent second piece of evidence implies separately a 25% chance of guilt.

So [1] by itself implies a 50% chance he is the killer. And [2] separately implies a 25% chance he is the killer. The question is how do you combine these into a single probability estimate?

It is clear the combined probability estimate must be higher than the 50% alone we have for the first piece of evidence. I can see no other way of doing the calculation than:

50% guilty + 50% innocent X 25% = 62.5% guilty.

Think about it geometrically, we can represent the 50%/50% probability space as a square - half of it marked guilty, the other half marked innocent.

We then take the 50% innocent and say well actually we have evidence that he is 25% likely to be guilty - so we take 25% of the innocent half of the square and add it to the 50% guilty part of the square - giving 62.5% guilty.

Thank God you're not a juror. This is crazy. — Michael

Well at least I have a clue how to combine separate pieces of evidence into an overall probability estimate - you seem to have no idea whatsoever.

Me personally? Zero, since only possible causes should be included and God has not been shown to be even possible. — Kenosha Kid

Thats just bonkers - spacetime cannot have existed forever - so how exactly do you have it a 'not a creation'?

So why doesn't the first piece of evidence (the finger prints on the knife) replace the initial, uninformed probability of 50% guilt based on lack of any evidence one way or the other? — Michael

1) There is an initial estimate of 50%/50% based on the fact that people at trials are 50% likely to be guilty.

2) Then the initial estimate is adjusted to reflect the first piece of evidence.

3) Then that estimate is adjusted to reflect the first piece of evidence

So no piece of evidence replaces any prior piece of evidence - that would not be combining probabilities into a single estimate - instead the probability estimate is adjusted in the light of subsequent evidence.

And do you even know what it means to say that the evidence suggests a 50% chance of guilt? It means that it is equally likely that there is an innocent explanation as there is for a guilty explanation, and as such cannot be used to either prove guilt or to prove innocence. — Michael

'prints on the knife' implies a 50% chance someone is guilty. The fact that there are 'prints on the knife' does not imply a 50% chance of innocence.

Think what you are saying - there are prints on the knife so we can increase the probability estimate he is innocent - that's clearly wrong.

The fact that there are 'prints on the knife' does not imply a 50% chance of innocence.

Saying "the probability of God creating the universe is 50/50" is identical to saying: "there are precisely two ways the universe can have been created". Not knowing the possible means of the universe being created is not leave to invent the non-fact that there were precisely two. It sounds like this has been explained to you before. — Kenosha Kid

I assigned an initial probability estimate of 50% / 50% to the question 'is the universe a creation?'.

Let me ask you, what initial probability estimate would you yourself assign to this question?

In my example the initial distribution is 90% the dice roll is > 1 and 10% the dice roll = 1 and the first piece of evidence (the red ball) is 50% likely that the dice roll = 1, so using your reasoning above there's either 10% + 90% x 50% = 55% probability that dice roll = 1 or 90% + 10% x 50% = 95% probability that dice roll = 1 (which one is it exactly? Do I multiply the 50% by the 10% chance of 1 or the 90% chance of not 1)? — Michael

Its really not related - the first piece of evidence - the probability of 10% because it is a 10-sided die, is replaced completely by the second piece of evidence - the probability of 50% because of the red ball - so we have a probability of 50% that it was a one.

My method is for combining separate, unrelated pieces of evidence into a single probability estimate.

The example you have given does not require any combining of probabilities - the second piece of evidence overlaps and supersedes the fact that it is a 10-sided die.

So that is inventing the "fact" that it is binary. That is mathematically invalid. — Kenosha Kid

Its a binary question, we have no data on the likely distribution of the answer space, which of the following initial assumptions is most reasonable:

1. Assume a 0% chance that the universe is a creation
2. Assume a 100% chance that the universe is a creation
3. Assume 50% / 50%

If you go for [1] or [2], then you are biasing one way or the other based on no evidence. We really can't do that for 'is the universe a creation?' - we have no evidence - we can't for example say that 90% of known universes are actually creations - there is only one universe we know of - and we don't know whether it's a creation or not - so 50% / 50% is the only reasonable assumption.

Then with my calculation, I adjust this initial estimate to allow for the evidence we do have, which gets me to about 95% likely that the universe is a creation.

We roll a 10-sided dice. If it rolls a 1 or a 2 I will place a red ball in a box.

Before you check the box you consider that the initial probability that the dice rolls a 1 is 10%.

You check the box and find a red ball. You know from this that there's a 50% chance that the dice rolled a 1 and a 50% chance that the dice rolled a 2.

Do you then add the initial 10% to this second 50% using your method to come up with some new likelihood that it rolled a 1? Or do you just accept that it's 50%? — Michael

This does not really seem related to my calculation. My calculation is for combining separate pieces of non-overlapping evidence that support a particular conclusion into a single, combined probability estimate.

That's precisely the point. You cannot just say "Since we do not know if it is this guy, the probabilities are 50/50". And yet that is exactly how you proceeded. — Kenosha Kid

We have no data on the distribution of the answer space for 'was the universe a creation?' - so assuming it is normally distributed (50%/50%) is correct.

I'm not criticising relativity, but QM seems immature - a work in progress. And as you say, the two are incompatible anyway. So any theories that combine relativity and QM to give us insights into the early universe are highly speculative (to say the least).

I'd bet my house on causality, can't say the same for quantum cosmology.

Consider the boolean question 'will the die come out as a six?'.

Obviously there is a 1 in 6 chance it will.

Contrast that to the 'is he guilty?' question, where we start with a 1 in 2 (50%) chance of guilt/innocence.

So boolean questions have an answer distribution space inherent within them - and we have to take that distribution into account when combining with other probabilities - it is not always the same distribution.

I'm not saying that the evidence increases the chances of him being innocent. I'm saying that your method entails this. This is why your method doesn't work. The way you add probabilities like this is nonsense. — Michael

My method certainly does not entail this - and you clearly do not understand my method - just because you don't understand it, does not mean that its nonsense.

If we have no other evidence that a knife that suggests 50% guilt then there's a 50% chance of guilt, and that's it. We don't "add" it to the initial 50/50 assumption based on no evidence to somehow derive a 75% chance of guilty is, again, nonsense. — Michael

No. If we are considering a question with a 90% / 10% initial distribution of probabilities then we can't just ignore that distribution and start at 50%.

Why do you think extrapolation sufficiently far back is increasingly problematic, and why we cannot extrapolate to a singularity (of infinite density and temperature)?
Because once things become sufficiently small, quantumatics become increasingly pronounced, and we have no established unification. — jorndoe

BTW, if you really believe that science has completely accurately determined the Big Bang right back to just after the Plank era (just after the singularity) - then you need to see a shrink!

Those numb nuts could not even work out that time has a start! Why should I believe they have the BB absolutely correct to the Nth level of detail?

Uh, yes? Guilt and innocence are a dichotomy. If something shows 50% chance of guilt then ipso factor it shows 50% chance of not guilt, i.e. innocence. — Michael

You are getting confused:

- 'prints on the knife' make it 50% likely he is guilty
- If we assume we have already established that the is a 50% chance he is guilty
- Then there is a 50% chance that he is innocent
- But the 'prints on the knife' evidence in no way increase the chances of him being innocent

Nope.
Why do you think extrapolation sufficiently far back is increasingly problematic, and why we cannot extrapolate to a singularity (of infinite density and temperature)?
Because once things become sufficiently small, quantumatics become increasingly pronounced, and we have no established unification. — jorndoe

I'm with Einstein on this issue - God does not play dice. The apparent randomness of QM is just due to our lack of understanding.

Rejection by title-reading? :D As mentioned earlier, these ideas have been expounded upon to some extent by Hartle and Hawking. — jorndoe

Yes, by representing time as a complex number - that's drivel - time does not have a real and complex component - it is a single, linear, dimension-like degree of freedom.

This calculation makes no sense. Let's say that the first piece of evidence says that he is 50% likely to be guilty. We don't then say 50% guilty + 50% innocent x 50% = 75% chance he is guilty. We just say that he is 50% likely to be guilty. As above, we can use your logic to say that because the first piece of evidence says that he is 50% likely to be innocent then 50% innocent + 50% guilty x 50% = 75% chance he is innocent.

Your reasoning leads to the contradictory conclusion that there is a 75% chance he is guilty and a 75% chance he is innocent. — Michael

Your math is wrong. Assume the initial distribution is 50% guilty/ 50% innocent, and the first piece of evidence is 50% likely that he is guilty:

1) 50% guilty + 50% innocent x 50% = 75% chance he is guilty
2) 50% innocent + 50% guilty x 50% = 75% chance he is innocent

The problem is [2] - if we think a piece of evidence indicates that he is guilty (50% chance), then that piece of evidence can in no way INCREASE the likelihood he is innocent.

What you are doing wrong is you are deriving from the fact that 'prints on the knife' indicate that he is 50% guilty that it also implies there is a 50% chance that he is innocent - the fact that there are fingerprints on the knife does not at all increase the chances he is innocent.

I've already pointed out that your reasoning leads to contradictory conclusions. That's a mathematical fact that can't be refuted by suggesting a hypothetical situation where innocent people are predominantly found guilty. — Michael

I don't follow you - I see nothing contradictory at all about the method I am using.

If you disagree with my method, maybe you can explain how I should do this calculation?

- Lets ignore the initial distribution of the answer space for now
- Lets assume that the first piece of evidence says 50% guilty
- Lets assume that the second piece of evidence says 25% guilty
- What is the combined likelihood of him being guilty?

My method give 50% guilty + 50% innocent X 25% guilty = 62.5% guilty.

What method would you suggest I use instead?

This calculation makes no sense. Let's say that the first piece of evidence says that he is 50% likely to be guilty. We don't then say 50% guilty + 50% innocent x 50% = 75% chance he is guilty. We just say that he is 50% likely to be guilty. As above, we can use your logic to say that because the first piece of evidence says that he is 50% likely to be innocent then 50% innocent + 50% guilty x 50% = 75% chance he is innocent.

Your reasoning leads to the contradictory conclusion that there is a 75% chance he is guilty and a 75% chance he is innocent. — Michael

But what happens if 90% of people accused of murder actually turn out to be innocent? Then your logic says the first piece of evidence is that he's 50% likely to be guilty. Well, that seems no good - it seems we cannot ignore the fact that 90% of accused turn out to be innocent - we have to use 90% as our starting point:

10% guilty + 90% innocent X 50% = 55% guilty.

You see I hope how this combines the initial probability distribution we know (that 90% of people accused of murder actually turn out to be innocent), with the first piece of evidence.

Yes, it must, which is why your calculation in 5) is wrong. If the first piece of evidence means he's 75% likely to be guilty then he's 75% likely to be guilty after considering one piece of evidence. The calculation you do in 5) to derive a likelihood of 87.5% makes no sense, as shown by the fact that this calculation entails the contradictory conclusion that he's 37.5% likely to be guilty. — Michael

The first 'piece of evidence' to consider is that 'is he guilty?' is an unknown boolean question. So we should start with the assumption of 50% guilty / 50% innocent to reflect this. IE our evidence is that we are assuming the chances that he is guilty/innocent are normally distributed. This is evidence of a sort and I think it has to be built into the overall calculation.

Then we apply the individual pieces of evidence on top of the starting point. If there is a 50% chance that he is innocent and we have a piece of evidence that says he is 75% likely to be guilty, we reduce the innocent % and increase the guilty %: 50% guilty + 50% innocent X 75% = 87.5% chance he is guilty.

This method then gives a way of combining multiple independent pieces of evidence into a single consolidated probability estimate.

I see your point about whether we should start at 50% guilty or 75% guilty. I am not totally sure on this question. But whichever point we start at, it makes little difference to the results of the calculation - either way, the probability of the universe being a creation comes out very high.

If 4) means that it is 75% likely he is guilty then it means that it is 25% likely that he is innocent.

If we then use your logic in 5) we have 50% guilty + 50% innocent x 25% = 62.5% chance he is innocent.

So your reasoning leads us to the contradictory conclusion that there is an 87.5% chance that he is guilty and a 62.5% chance that he is innocent.

It should be obvious from this that you're calculating probabilities wrong. — Michael

You have that wrong - if we start at a 50% chance that he's guilty - and assess the first piece of evidence means he's 75% likely to be guilty - then the chances he's innocent must go down, and not up as you have calculated above.

Indefinite Causal Order in a Quantum Switch (Goswami, Giarmatzi, Kewming, Costa, Branciard, Romero, White; APS; Aug 2018)

(also ... the Casimir effect, virtual particle pairs, quantum fluctuations, radioactive decay, spacetime foam/turbulence, the "pressure" of vacuum energy, Fomin's quantum cosmogenesis (successors), Krauss' relativistic quantum fields, ...) — jorndoe

These are all micro effects - according to everything we know, all macro effects have causes. The origin of the universe is a macro question - huge amounts of matter.

I suspect all micro effects have causes too - its just our physics is not unto the job of identifying them.

I am not familiar with everything you listed, but: the Casimir effect has an alternative explanation that does not involve quantum fluctuations. Virtual particles / quantum fluctuations are caused by fluctuations of the underlying field. Radioactive decay is caused by activity within the nucleus as I already explained. Suspect the same sort of thing applies to the other phenomena you listed.

No. (FYI, the link is the earliest reference in the literature I know of.) — jorndoe

Finite and unbounded is plainly impossible. I'm not even going to waste my time reading that link.

I linked to the Stanford article on supertasks, which clearly explains what they are and how they are not logically impossible. In the face of that your insistence is fractious. — Banno

That Stanford article is wrong. I will explain the problem fully in a separate post later.

Well, no. "Every action has a cause" is not one of Newton's laws, nor is it implied by them. — Banno

Both Newton's 2nd and 3rd law describe matter (=cause) acting upon matter (=effect). So Newton's laws are the embodiment of causality.

Neither. This is a loaded question. — Banno

You seem to have disregarded the LEM! - not acceptable in my book. 'The Big Bang has a cause' is either true or false not both true and false at the same time.

This is a description of your personal psychological state. — Banno

And yours. And all of ours. We all believe in causality.

In my thesis, I interpret the baseline nothingness as the normal state of Ontology (BEING), which is also the eternal state of Logos, the Enformer. An act of Creation (Enformation, Causation) causes the neutral state to transition into positive-but-transitory existence (real, actual, Energy), which soon dissipates into (unreal, potential, Entropy). I go further to imagine fast oscillations (lightspeed) as Energy, and slow oscillations as Matter — Gnomon

'Nothing' is an interesting concept:

Space is expanding - 'nothing' can't expand - so space must be 'something' (substantivalism) rather than nothing (relationism). I imagine spacetime maybe like some sort of finite block, maybe surrounded by, and expanding into a wider, timeless, universe. That wider universe is also finite and surrounded by 'nothingness'.

I imagine 'nothingness' as no space, no time, no dimensions - just absolute nothing. It cannot be said to be infinite because it has no dimensions and does not exist.

I am unsure if any matter/energy was actually created - the conservation of energy seems very well respected by nature. It seems more like the container of spacetime has a start (the Big Bang / start of time), so that container was somehow created / initiated. But some or all of the matter/energy must of come from outside spacetime - a seed of matter/energy must at least be planted within spacetime to generate the rest of the matter/energy. Or otherwise, all the matter/energy is sourced externally to spacetime.

The Copernican principle, otoh, is something we want to hold on to if we can. — Enai De A Lukal

Fine tuning does not run contrary to the Copernican principle - it says the whole universe (or even whole multiverse if you prefer) was tuned for life and is packed full of life - all those exoplanets we have discovered.

We know from Godel and related work that any system advanced enough to explain arithmetic must either be incomplete or inconsistent. — Banno

Self-referential statements are pathological entities that should not be allowed anywhere near maths or logic. Godel was wrong. I might do a separate post to discuss this at some point later.

We know you believe time must have a start, that you want time to have had a start. The problem is of course that the evidence and logic of the matter doesn't tell us firmly either way: again, hence scientific models of both varieties remaining viable. — Enai De A Lukal

I've already proved time has a start to you! Did you not read my reply? Once again:

- The past is either a finite number of days long, or greater than all finite number of days long
- Nothing can be greater than all finite numbers; they go on forever
- So time has a start

Please kindly read and properly consider the above proof.

Supertasks or infinite sequences may strike you as conceptually difficult to imagine or grasp, but if they do not entail a contradiction, then they are not logically impossible. If you claim that something is logically impossible, stating why it is implausible or weird is not sufficient: show us where it involves a contradiction. — Enai De A Lukal

Supertasks are impossible. I'll do a separate post to discuss this in the coming weeks.

Your hands are full at the moment. I don't want to distract you from better discussions. Au revoir. — TheMadFool

Mad Fool: I like to hear from you too!

No, I'm not talking about the mere gathering of other people's thoughts. I'm talking about the judgement of them. How do you know they are wrong? Even when obviously intelligent and knowledgeable people, basically the vast majority of the mathematics community, have told you you're wrong, you still consider yourself to be right, so their conclusions, arguments and demonstrations have had no effect on you whatsoever. — Isaac

1) Mathematics defines points to have zero length.
2) How many points are there on a line segment length one?
3) Line length / point length = 1 / 0 = UNDEFINED.
4) That can’t be correct. Euclid, Cantor and co MUST all have it wrong.

I will explain the implications of the above result in upcoming posts.

I feel we should concentrate on the God issue with this thread.

I have no objection to you doing this, of course, you can do what you like, but I am a) very interested in why you would then consult the very community you've already decided you will reject the wisdom of the moment it doesn't suit, and b) slightly annoyed that you're being so evasive about this, which makes me suspect you're motives are hidden and disingenuous. — Isaac

a) I don't reject others wisdom. I consider their points carefully and adjust my position if required.
b) I can't explain all my ideas in one post. Please bear with me - I will cover it all eventually.

Can you justify this without personal incredulity? Otherwise you may as well cut out the middleman and say: "I personally can't conceive of a universe without an intelligent creator, therefore the intelligent creator exists, and we call him God". This actually has the benefit of having only one fallacy. — Kenosha Kid

As I already pointed out to you, eternal inflation theory mandates a first cause.

As to why eternal inflation theory is wrong, I will have to do a separate post on it in the coming weeks; don't want to crowd this already busy thread with other loosely related issues.

Yes, and it ain't how Bayes intended. Utter nonsense put forward by Stephen Unwin, creationisms most willing idiot. It's an argument ab rectum. — Kenosha Kid

Just because you don't understand something, does not mean it's wrong.

Aside from pulling these probabilities out of thin air, the way you've added them together like this makes no sense at all. — Michael

I'll explain my method:

1) Assume we have a trial and someone is accused of murder.
2) Before hearing any evidence, we assign a neutral 50% guilty, 50% innocent, probability outcome.
3) The first piece of evidence is finger prints on the knife.
4) We assess that [3], on it's own, means it is 75% likely he is guilty.
5) That gives 50% guilty + 50% innocent X 75% = 87.5% chance he is guilty after considering one piece of evidence.
6) The second piece of evidence is blood on his cloths
7) We assess that [6], on it's own, means it is 50% likely he is guilty.
8) That gives 87.5% guilty + 12.5% innocent X 50% = 93.75% chance he is guilty after considering two pieces of evidence.
9) You can obviously continue adding as many separate, non-overlapping, pieces of evidence to get a better estimate.

I can't quite work out how to extend this method to take into account negative evidence. Any ideas?

There are many varieties of 'black' in the real world — A Seagull

You could use discrete or fuzzy true values:

- The question 'Is the cat is light, medium or dark black?' maps to a trinary kind of truth value.
- 'What are the chances the cat is pitched black?' maps to a fuzzy truth value.

Do you see what's gone wrong here? And why? — Kenosha Kid

What are you talking about! With that stupid game, say there are 10 characters, then the probability of each being the killer is 1 / 10 = 10%. That has absolutely nothing to do with my probability calculation - have you read it?

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

Thats a nice argument.

- time has a start - so spacetime is a subset of a wider environment. So its not possible for the object to have the same status as a timeless object - it is restricted in the dimension of time by the start of time. Eternal inflation is a very funny joke - eternal is impossible in time - where eternal inflation takes place. Those nuts think infinity is possible - It's all finite.

- unless, either eternalism or growing block theory is true. In that case everything, in some unknown way, classes as timeless and eternal (but finite), but to maintain the only idea we have about how stuff actually happens, it has to support something like causality, which implies everything cannot be co-eternal, so maybe glowing block? But its a tricky question.

I like to think that we are aware of only one form of reality - that of spacetime. So possibly or maybe or likely there are many other forms of reality - states of existence that may not even involve space-like or time-like constructs - such realities would exist no time and no distance from our universe.

You can map some questions to statements which have binary (maybe trinary , etc...) truth values:

Is the cat black?

Maps to:

The cat is black (with a truth value of true or false).

Yes. Twice now. — jorndoe

I don't call those answers.

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?

I cannot. So I conclude that timelessness, as bizarre as it may sound, is almost certainly a real concept.

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

Say each of us has a 10% probability of getting a given question wrong. If there are two of us, then we double check: 10% X 10% = 1%. And so on.

With my posts, I am searching for evidence supporting or undermining of my ideas.

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

Well that's partly deduction and partly induction. An axiom has to be logically acceptable - not lead to any contradictions (eg ∞+1=0 implies 1=0). But there also has to be supporting empirical evidence too (where are these actually infinite things? There are no examples in nature at all).

So for example, have I ever experienced a phenomena that did not have a cause? No. So I have a large sample size of empirical data that 100% points to the existence of a timeless first cause.

Then these are bizarre research reports from niche QM researchers questioning causality. No-one actually understands QM so what value actually should I place in such reports? Virtually none, in comparison to the evidence of my own senses.

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

Some knowledge stems from definitions. We can define 1+1=2 and then knowledge of the rest of the natural numbers is deduced from that definition. A definition is a concrete type of axiom, upon which we can depend.

But the majority of knowledge stems from inductive axioms - it is very likely that such and such - I'm 90% certain of X, and so forth.

So to clearly communicate most of what we class as knowledge, we must also express a level of confidence. I'm 97.3% convinced there is a timeless first cause and so on...

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

I understood nearly all of it. I waded through all the proofs too. But some things I did not get. The things I did not get, I've since revisited.

What gives you cause to believe that? — Isaac

I think I understand it better than most mathematicians. Both of the axiom of infinity and the axiom of choice are wrong. There are as a result large sections of maths that are complete marsh gas.

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

Thats why I'm here - to get your thoughts on these ideas.

You still have not answered the puzzle question!

Ditch your hidden premise thus heading towards determinism; entertain abstract objects (which does not deny atemporality by the way). — jorndoe

Whats wrong with determinism? We know of no other way to get things done except causality. Randomness is just not possible - we can't do it with computers or maths - so it very likely does not exist - its determinism all the way.

Banno mentioned the edge-free universe — jorndoe

Finite yet unbounded. Is that some sort of joke?

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

I have an attachment to the LEM! I am not convinced we can build logical states of existence without it.

Nonetheless, God is “timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation ” — 3017amen

The problem with this argument is the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Anything in time withers and dies. God would not enter time in my opinion. He would stay external. Spacetime maybe implemented as growing block theory, meaning we (humans) would have an eternal presence. But can we re-experience anything? I have a few ideas around this.

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

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. Then that percentage is adjusted by weighing in individual pieces of evidence. So with that type of approach, it is actually correct to start with the assumption of 50%/50%.

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 word 'eternity' has two meanings: infinite in time or external to all forms of time. The first is impossible, with the second, something can be external to time but finite. The simplest model (although it does not work) is to assume that 4d spacetime is mapped onto 4d space and there is some 4d object - the first cause - adjacent to the position of spacetime within the larger 4d space. There is nothing to stop this 4d object from being finite - indeed it must be.

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

It's merely a mechanical process. I can't remember all the details, modus ponens and so on.

How do you determine that an axiom is bad? — Isaac

Axioms most usually represent our inductive level of belief in a certain statement of fact. If the axiom has a high probability of being true, I adopt it. If not, I reject it.

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

How can you possibly quantify your level of belief in an axiom if it is not with a percentage?

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

I stuff I did not understand, I assigned a 50%/50% probability to - unknown. Since then, I have had a chance to revisit the areas of maths that are relevant to my interests and I believe I have a proficient grasp of these areas.

Ask whom, and on what grounds do you believe what they have to say? — Isaac

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.

What is this other way? — Isaac

Internet is wonderful.

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

I have a degree in maths. I swallowed infinity hook, line and sinker just like everyone else. Its only after years of thinking about it that I realised I made a mistake.

In general, if I don't understand, I ask or find out some other way. So I don't 'follow along with things' I don't understand - I understand them, although I admit that QM is presenting a major challenge!

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

Sometimes there are logical errors in the actual deduction, but mostly it is bad axioms that undermine arguments. Some people believe in some f**king crazy shit:

- Infinity
- Something from nothing
- Continua

I do not fall for that sort of thing - its just f**king magic! - completely impossible. So my axioms are different from some people, and hence I deduce different results.

Arguing is the statement of your case and counter-case, it's not, in itself, a method of determining right cases from wrong. — Isaac

We have to accurately express our faith in our axioms. I assess my faith in the axiom of causality is almost certain (97.3% maybe). From that I deduce a timeless first cause with the same level of certainty (97.3%).

What method are you using to assess whether someone has successfully shown you you're wrong? — Isaac

- I use deduction and induction (abduction not so much)
- 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.
- I carefully consider everyone's counter arguments and adjust my probability estimates accordingly.

Issac, I am a very simple sort of fellow:

- 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.

Five people rebutted that maths. They all told you where the error was. You refused to believe them. That's the point. If you're just going to refuse to believe anyone telling you that you've made a mistake, and you already know you're going to do that, because you did it five months ago, exactly the same way, then it is disingenuous of you to post on a discussion site. Start a blog. — Isaac

That's your, biased, version of events. My recollection is that no-one had any valid counter arguments.

You still have not replied to my puzzle question - again:

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?

This supposed "pyramid" might exist "outside time" as well. There may be a first cause that is responsible for a second cause (which is also outside time) and then this second cause may be responsible for the creation of time and space and matter. — Michael

Fair enough, but the first cause is indirectly responsible for the creation of spacetime.

Which one, if either, is intelligent? Which one, if either, is benevolent? Which one, if either, fine-tuned the universe? Which one, if either, is God? Your cosmological argument doesn't answer any of these questions which is why it fails to do what you claim it does. — Michael

- If the second cause is intelligent, then it was evolved which implies it had a fine tuned environment which implies the first cause was intelligent.

- If the second cause is not intelligent, the fine tuned nature of our environment implies the first cause was intelligent.

How would the first cause create time and space and matter and consciousness? Creating a second intelligent cause that doesn't require a fine-tuned environment might in fact be simpler than creating an entire, ordered universe. — Michael

Spacetime is some sort of growing container that would have to be seeded with matter from outside spacetime to cause the Big Bang and the expansion of space (expansion of the container). So at least some matter came from outside spacetime. Maybe all of it or the initial seed of matter somehow created all the rest of the matter in spacetime. Eternal Inflation theory has it like that (2nd way).

I'm not that sure how the actual container of spacetime was created. Very loosely speaking, I imagine some sort of device - a gravity bomb of sorts. Again this is similar to Eternal Inflation theory (its a bit of anti-gravity material rather than a bomb though).

Consciousness evolved.

We are so complex that it is just not possible to design an intelligent entity (30 billion neurons or so we have, just in our brain). The only way a first cause could create intelligent entities is with evolution - brute force - God maybe playing Conway's Game Of Life with the universe.

But isn't timelessness eternity? Just as a formality. — 3017amen

I imagine timelessness as a state outside time - completely atemporal. A timeless thing is never created and never destroyed - it has permanent atemporal existence - it just IS.

But as the timeless thing is outside the passage of time, it does not need to be infinite to exist eternally; it can suffice with finite dimensions.

The problem with this is how does change happen without time? The timeless thing has to at least be able to express change within spacetime. Maybe it is non-sequential somehow in nature? This is where I am stuck.

I don't think there is a way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?) — 3017amen

The way out I think is to have a first cause that is timeless and finite.

No-one rebutted that maths! Its fine! Tell me where the error is please.

I'm listening but none of your counter arguments are persuasive.