Devans99
1.1k

Perhaps if there were other universes (not sure why scientists say there are other universes) where the laws of physics are different then i think the above might not be the case. — christian2017


The laws of math should be invariant across all such universes.

I am of the opinion if there are other universes, they will be like this one. They are all made of the same stuff, go through the same processes and end up at the same temperature/density so all universes should end up similar. — Devans99

Why is it that you stray off the path of this thread so often...and discuss matters that are off topic with others...

...and yet tell me I cannot...and refuse to answer my questions that are closer to being on issue than this stuff you are discussing right now?

christian2017
47
↪Devans99


if i add 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 that is 4. If i do the same thing again that is 8. If i die tommorow and never do this process again and at the same time have never heard of the term 12 i might conclude that `12 doesn't exist. The problem is our ability to testify what we believe is true is limited by our time on this earth. Infinte is not necessarily a fake construct its just we personally only have a limited time to testify to the things we hold to be true. If the universe keeps expanding i believe it is certainly possible that it could expand to twice as big, three times as big, 4 times as big and so on. — christian2017

As I see it...what we "believe" is nothing more than what we blindly guess about the unknown.

Anyone can make a guess at any time...nothing wrong with guessing. I do it all the time...and I imagine most people do it often also.

I always refer to my guesses...as guesses.

Some people call their guesses "beliefs."

Terrapin Station
8.2k

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa


Libertarians set up systems that can't lead to anarchy. At least not without some sort of revolution that would result in an anarchy, but then any political approach could just as well lead to that. Not that an anarchy can be sustained, anyway, but imagining that it could be. — Terrapin Station

There has to be some reason besides looking at the issue and coming up with this. No sure what it is yet...but I suspect it has to do with confirmation bias.

I used to be a "straight U.S.-party-styled Libertarian," and I was for a number of years. I no longer consider myself that. I call myself a "libertarian socialist" now. But I understand Libertarianism well. I was very involved with the party formally for a while, to a point where I actually carted Harry Browne around to some media appearances during one of his presidential runs.

Well...that may be the reason.

Terrapin...it is my opinion that the ONLY place libertarianism can lead...is to chaos and anarchy.

We are not going to agree on this issue.

Terrapin Station
8.2k

I am not talking about anyone named God. — Frank Apisa


I said "it." Are you not talking about anything named God? — Terrapin Station

You said, "God is supposed to be."

I am not talking about anyone...or anything...named God.

If you are saying that no gods exist...

...I still thank you for sharing your blind guess about that.

In fact, I wonder if you are correct or not.

NKBJ
706

By the way...to the best of our knowledge...no life exists except on planet Earth...not even in our system...which has billions of bodies circling the sun. — Frank Apisa


See my above link. — NKBJ

Okay...they are in the process. When they answer my question about sentient life on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...get back to me.

YOU telling me how to make sense...is like Chris Christie telling me how to stay thin, N. — Frank Apisa


If you're gonna start getting snarky and insulting with me, I'm also gonna go on my merry way.

Then either stop the nonsense about me not making sense...or be on your way. Because if you show me a lack of respect...I WILL return the favor.

Terrapin Station
8.2k

C'mon, man. When you look at your desk...there is no evidence that there is life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. What makes you suppose that is evidence that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets? — Frank Apisa


Life on other planets isn't supposed to be omnipresent, is it?

God is supposed to be.

If we're talking about a non-omnipresent God, I'm point out the lack of evidence of it in the locations where we're supposed to find it. — Terrapin Station

I am not talking about anyone named God. If you are saying that certain gods do not exist...SAY THAT!

If you are arguing that no gods exist...fine.

I do not mind you sharing your blind guesses about the REALITY.

In fact, I thank you for them.

NKBJ
704

What you "assume"...you assume. I have NOT said anything about that. I, like most people, assume all sorts of things.

But what you assume about sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether any sentient beings live on any of those planets.

So why did you mention it? — Frank Apisa


Your post doesn't really make sense....but I'll try to wean as much out of it as I can.

I assume there is life on other planets because there is plenty of reason to believe there is. For example, life evolved on this planet, so clearly it's possible for it to happen. You multiply that possibility by the number of inhabitable planets and you get a pretty decent likelihood.

You have no precendent for the existence of gods. Not one. There's not a single reason or piece of evidence to believe they might exist. — NKBJ

YOU telling me how to make sense...is like Chris Christie telling me how to stay thin, N.

In any case...the nonsense you posted above does not impact on my question...which talks about the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...not the universe.

By the way...to the best of our knowledge...no life exists except on planet Earth...not even in our system...which has billions of bodies circling the sun.

Wean that!

Harry Hindu
1.8k

This is the problem with libertarianism. We either let everyone do whatever they want without interference at all, or we somehow organise to have people's actions constrained by reference to some objective. If we choose the second option then which objective is 'right' becomes nothing more than a matter of preference. — Isaac

This is the most common illogical argument made against libertarianism. The fact that you make it tells me that you aren't really informed enough for me to have this discussion with you.

Libertarianism isn't letting everyone do whatever they want. That is anarchy. Libertarianism is the belief in limited govt. not no govt.

So a Libertarian would be just fine with laws that stop others from infringing on other people's rights. — Harry Hindu

And libertarians want to define what "limited government" is!

I, and many others, do not want libertarians anywhere near that decision.

So...that has to be decided at the ballot box,

How have the libertarians been doing on the national scene?

How about state-wide?

How about local?

Terrapin Station
8.2k

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa


Libertarianism has nothing to do with anarchy. Again, if you want to critique something, it might help to understand it first. — Terrapin Station

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy.

Libertarians cannot see that...or refuse to acknowledge it.

Are you a libertarian?

Terrapin Station
8.2k

There is NO evidence to suggest no gods exist. — Frank Apisa


Sure there is. For example, when I look on my desk right now, I can't find any gods. — Terrapin Station

C'mon, man. When you look at your desk...there is no evidence that there is life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. What makes you suppose that is evidence that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets?

NKBJ
703

That DOES NOT EVEN logically lead to...it is more likely that no sentient beings exist on any of them...than that at least one has sentient life. — Frank Apisa


In day to day life you continually make choices and live according to that very logic. You don't have any proof that your neighbor/parent/spouse isn't a Korean imposter sent to kill you when you least expect it. Therefore you assume they aren't. You don't have any proof that people turn into pink unicorns when you're not looking, but I bet you still assume they don't.

I mean.... There's an infinite, incomprehensible number of things that we can't (currently) prove don't exist or happen, and yet we're all perfectly safe in assuming that absent any proof that they DO exist or happen, they don't. — NKBJ

What you "assume"...you assume. I have NOT said anything about that. I, like most people, assume all sorts of things.

But what you assume about sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether any sentient beings live on any of those planets.

So why did you mention it?

Devans99
1.1k

Whether or not matter is discrete is still in contention...and probably will be for a very long time. — Frank Apisa


Are you suggesting a never-ending faberge egg style arrangement with an unending sequence of smaller and smaller sub-atomic particles?

Or are you suggesting we will discover a sub-atomic particle that is continuous (IE infinity divisible)? — Devans99

I am not suggesting anything, Devans.

I am stating as an absolute fact that the question of whether matter is discrete or continuous...has not been answered absolutely. And then I am speculating that it will be a LONG TIME before it is...if ever.

whollyrolling
29
↪Frank Apisa


I don't "know" whether or not I exist either, but evidence strongly suggests to me that I do, and until such a time as evidence is presented to the contrary, I'm confident to call it "knowledge" of my existence. There is nothing to interfere with my "knowledge" that gods don't exist. — whollyrolling

I understand what you are saying. You blindly guess there are no gods.

There is an abundance of evidence to suggest that they don't and none to suggest that they do. — Wholly

There is NO evidence to suggest no gods exist...that cannot be used to suggest that gods do exist.

It seems absurd to assert that something no one has ever experienced, that there's no evidence of, that there's no way to demonstrate, exists.

Respectfully, Wholly...that is illogical.

We have absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that any sentient life exists on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. None whatsoever. No one on this planet has ever experienced "sentient life on any of those planets"...but that does not logically lead to "therefore no sentient beings exist on any of those planets." That DOES NOT EVEN logically lead to...it is more likely that no sentient beings exist on any of them...than that at least one has sentient life.

christian2017
34
↪Frank Apisa


i think you agree with the OP you just wrote it better. Just my opinion. — christian2017

I do agree with the OP.
Thanks.

whollyrolling
28
I know that gods don't exist as confidently as I know that I exist. In answer to your question, I'd have to say that more people believe in gods than don't, so most people are unwilling to admit that they don't know whether the gods they "believe in" exist or not. — whollyrolling

You do not KNOW that no gods exist.

You blindly guess that none do...just as the majority you mentioned blindly guess that at least one does.

Devans99

A Koch snowflake always has a finite perimeter length, the process that produces them is an example of Potential Infinity. If a Koch snowflake existed in reality it would have a finite perimeter (because matter is discrete). Does not matter how far you expand the snowflake, it still has a finite perimeter. — Devans99

Whether or not matter is discrete is still in contention...and probably will be for a very long time.

Atoms were once thought to be the ultimate smallest thing.

Using "matter is discrete" as part of the argument for "the universe is finite" is essentially using a guess...which allows for the possibility that the universe IS infinite. (But of course, we all already realize that.)

I am about as happy and content as anyone I know.

Way too much use of the words "believe" and "belief" in the OP and in the responses. In a discussion about whether any gods exist...the words "believe" and "belief" are just disguises for "blind guesses."

Some people make a blind guess that at least one god exists...some make a blind guess that none exist.

No big deal there.

What does become annoying are people who blindly guess that it is more likely that there is a GOD than that there are none...or people who blindly guess that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

They always are the toughest to get along with.

For me:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

↪Frank Apisa
Well it is impossible for the universe to be infinite in size:

- Size is a number
- Infinity is not a number
- So the universe is not infinite in size — Devans99

Size is not always a number.

We talked about that.

But take the word size out if you must.

Are you saying it is impossible for the universe to be infinite?

You've been on both sides of that question...I'm just wonder if you want to stick with one side or the other.

tim wood
2.1k

If you are saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to be infinite (and eternal)...you are defying logic. — Frank Apisa


I don't think so. I think what you mean is unbounded. As the surface of a sphere is unbounded - but by no means infinite. So yes. The universe is not infinite. And that is logic, not a defiance thereof. Perhaps you're confusing logical possibility with conceivable possibility - anything is conceivable.

Stop for a moment and think bout what "infinite" means. — tim wood

If you are saying it is impossible that the universe is infinite...you are simply sharing a blind guess about the reality.

To assign it logic is an absurdity.

But...even if the point were conceded...where do we go from there.

— Devans99

Cop out...but I understand.

tim wood
2.1k

I am sure everyone will agree that it is POSSIBLE that the universe is finite...just as it is POSSIBLE that the universe is infinite — Frank Apisa


Can you offer any understanding - yours or anyone else's that is not itself fantastical - of just how the universe could be actually infinite?

Keeping in mind that an infinite universe necessarily has infinite yous responding to infinite mes on his thread, with other infinities of you and me in slight variations from this, and so on, & on, & on....

To reduce infinite to possibility is an abuse of "possibility." Just as it would be to assert that it's possible for you to be other than you are. Conceivable, maybe. Possible, how? — tim wood

By just being what IS, Tim.

IF the universe is infinite...however that is...IS.

If you are saying it is IMPOSSIBLE for the universe to be infinite (and eternal)...you are defying logic. Of course it is POSSIBLE. And, if the probability or likelihood were a gazillion to 1 against...it remains POSSIBLE.

And if that happens to be infinite...it just IS.

Are you arguing that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the universe is infinite? If so, the burden of proof would fall on you...not me.

Devans99
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa
This thread is just about if the universe is infinite in size or not. Whether the universe was created would be a separate thread. — Devans99

But you have already responded to my question...

...and it appears all you are aiming at is that it is possible that the universe is finite.

I am sure everyone will agree that it is POSSIBLE that the universe is finite...just as it is POSSIBLE that the universe is infinite.

So...all this haggling seems to be unnecessary.

Why not just agree that it is possible the universe is finite...and that it is possible that the universe is infinite?

There doesn't seem to be anywhere to go with resolving the unresolvable.

↪Frank Apisa
It would add weight to the general arguments against infinity if we could establish the universe has a finite size.

The fact that its impossible to create something infinite (you would never finish) is in itself suggestive the universe is finite (the universe is a creation - there is a start of time). — Devans99

In other words you are saying that if you are correct in this argument of yours (and you may well be correct)...then it is possible the universe was created!

Why not just say that?

Of course it is possible the universe was "created."

It is also possible the universe was not "created."

Hell...everyone would be agreeing with you.

Are you sure that is where it will lead?

And if so...are you satisfied with that?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. Lemme try again:

Devans...exactly what would happen if everyone here deferred to you in this...and agreed that there is no way the universe can be infinite?

What would result? What would be the logical inferences?

Devans99
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa
Well reasoned counter argument :( — Devans99

Devans...exactly what would happen if everyone here deferred to you in this...and agreed that there is no way the universe can be infinite?

What would result? What would be the logical inferences?

Would that, as you suggest, imply that it was created?

And if it was created...what would you be suggesting about that CREATION?

Bitter Crank
7.5k

In my opinion, Libertarians are full of shit. — Frank Apisa


This demonstrates an admirable economy of expression. — Bitter Crank

Thank you.

Terrapin Station
8.1k

Specifically, what do you see as the major difference between "as little government as possible"...and "the smallest government sustainable?" — Frank Apisa


The rest of my post was part of my answer.

The idea of the latter is to non-arbitrarily have the smallest government that won't lead to additional organized control via force or threat of force. The former, in the context in which you employed it, referred to the current situation in someplace like Somalia, which has nothing at all to do with libertarianism. — Terrapin Station

One...Somalia, the Australian Outback, the Amazon Basin...ALL have everything to do with libertarianism.

Libertarianism ultimately leads to chaos and anarchy.

You can have all the small government you want...but most Libertarians will never even consider moving to where it is. They want to provide us all with chaos and anarchy.

Okay...lucky for you guys we live in a society that allows those sentiments.

Good luck with it.

[img]

Terrapin Station
8.1k

One of the objects of libertarianism...is as little government as possible. — Frank Apisa


The objective is the smallest government sustainable, so that more government or control doesn't arise in its wake. — Terrapin Station

Specifically, what do you see as the major difference between "as little government as possible"...and "the smallest government sustainable?"

That doesn't amount to libertarians wanting no government... — Tarrapin

I never suggested Libertarians want no government.

...or wanting some arbitrarily small government. — Tarrapin

Wanting "the smallest government sustainable"...IS some arbitrarily small government!

Also, libertarians see government as organized, non-voluntary control, which isn't limited to formal or official governments per se. — Terraipin

In my opinion, Libertarians are full of shit. That is more important than how they view governments.

It helps to understand what you're going to critique before you critique it, but when does anyone ever take that advice on the Internet? — Terrapin

It also helps to make sense when one defends something like libertarianism...but when does anyone take that advice on the Internet?

yupamiralda
22
↪Frank Apisa


"But it certainly is Libertarian heaven."

Oh, "certainly", is it? — yupamiralda

One of the objects of libertarianism...is as little government as possible.

Damn near none there.

But, I will concede that the Australian Outback...and the Amazon Basin both have even less government.

Interesting comments.

I'd prefer not to go to Somalia either.

But it certainly is Libertarian heaven.

Devans99
1.1k

The 'size' of the universe" MAY not be a number at all. — Frank Apisa


Thats a contradictory statement - size is always a number. — Devans99

"Size" is NOT always a number.

"Large" IS NOT a number. Neither is "narrow." Both are sizes.

The UNIVERSE, Devans, MAY be infinite. Use that as a number...or a size...or whatever. But get off your nonsense that you KNOW it cannot be infinite.

Your need to get to "the universe is not infinite" is astounding...and futile.

Your pontifications are used gratuitously in order for you to arrive at "the universe is not infinite" which you need for wherever you ultimately want to go.

Can you truly not see that? — Frank Apisa


If we adopted your approach to philosophy and science which seems to consist of 'I don't know' and 'its unknowable' I think progress would grind to a halt.

That is not so at all...and we touched on this earlier.

Both disciplines can proceed with dispatch...without the nonsense of pontificating...which, by the way, was what held up science and philosophy not many centuries ago.

You are positive that the universe cannot be infinite and eternal...because you are determined that it has to be a creation...and has to have a creator.

That is not science nor philosophy. It is charletanism.

Devans99
1.1k
↪Isaac
The universe could just be finite in time and space. That is a nice simple model that fits the facts.

I don't think it's the case that we need some 'number' other than infinity to describe the universe. The size of the universe is a number, numbers have fixed values, so the size of the universe is a finite number. — Devans99

Devans...are there any days where you are not pontificating?

"The 'size' of the universe" MAY not be a number at all. It MAY be infinity.

What we humans call "the universe" MAY itself be infinite.

We do not know.

Your pontifications are used gratuitously in order for you to arrive at "the universe is not infinite" which you need for wherever you ultimately want to go.

Can you truly not see that?

Thank you for your lengthy response, ZhouBoTong. (Is there a shorter name I can use and still show respect?)

Rather than respond to the entire post...I will take this in stages, because I think the issue is important. Perhaps we can discover where we agree and where we are in substantial disagreement.

Atheist is a descriptor...almost always self-assigned. Here, people are attempting to assign it to me as a result of (supposed) definition...and I am opposing that effort. (We'll get to the definition of both "atheism" and "believe" later.)

In my experience, one of the key (essential) elements of a person using "atheist" in any form (atheist, strong or explicit atheist, weak or implicit atheist, agnostic atheist)...is because the individual feels either certainty that no gods exist; has a "belief" (something less than certainty) that no gods exist; or has an opinion that "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one exists."

Does this differ from your experience?

Have you ever encountered any person who identify themselves using the word "atheist" who is totally uncertain of the existence of gods,,,and does not see the likelihood of "no gods" as being greater than the likelihood of "at least one?"

S
8.9k

There is no "u" in thanks. — Frank Apisa


Okay, thunks. — S

Yer Velcomb.

S
8.9k

Thanks. — Frank Apisa


No u! — S

There is no "u" in thanks.

S
8.9k

I am simply telling you I am not a theist nor an atheist. — Frank Apisa


Yes, you've already made it crystal clear to everyone that you do not identify as either. Congrats. — S

Thanks.

S
8.9k

In the name of baby jesus this is getting SO tiresome.
Not believing in at least one god is what atheism means! You have just declared you are not an atheist by describing your atheism!
Help me Odin, Zeus, Thor, Oprah, Hubberd...fucking anyone take my hand and guide me to where something so simple can be understood! Fuck!
Is it just the internet?! Please oh holy god of holyness, tell me its just the internet and this isnt what passes for a critical thinking person in the world at large.
Phew. Done. Carry on, sorry you had to be the back breaking straw frank, but THINK about what you are saying! — DingoJones


Forget your logic. He simply does NOT like BEING CALLED an ATHEIST. Or a THEIST. It TRIGGERS him.

AND DON'T ACCUSE HIM OF SHOUTING!!! HE'S JUST EMPHASISING!!!!!!!111!!!!!!1!!ONE!! — S

Someone IS being triggered, S...YOU.

Don't let me get to you so easily.

And call me anything you want. I am simply telling you I am not a theist nor an atheist. I also am not a Martian...but if you want to call me a Martian...go for it. I'll just tell you I am not.

↪Frank Apisa


What, exactly, do you expect boldly forwarding straw men to accomplish? — Terrapin Station

I do not understand your question.

If you are taking issue with something I wrote...tell me what it is and we can discuss it.