Comments

  • Can something be ''more conscious'' than we are?
    Something could be "conscious of more" than we are.
  • Postmodern Philosophy : what is it good for?
    Postmodernism is good for showing what not to do. ;)
    Might have some utility in literary commentary I s'pose.
  • 0.999... = 1
    This is what I disagree with. Instead, I think that one divided by nine is an impossible procedure, provable by induction. — Metaphysician Undercover

    And yet 1 is deductively provable.
    ↪InPitzotl
    even went through the troubles of outlining the start of a proof by induction. Thus, your disagreement ain't right.

    What we can't do here, is write down 0 decimalpoint and endless 1s on paper. And we don't have to, because we can reason about 1/9 nonetheless as shown, like we can for other numbers.

    Is writing down 0 decimalpoint and endless 1s on paper the whole of your troubles/denial here?

    (Don't confuse/equivocate base 10 algorism, decimal representation, and numbers; it so happens that 1/2 = 0.5base 10 (decimal) = 0.222...base 5, artefacts of procedures.)
  • 0.999... = 1
    So, @Metaphysician Undercover, am I to understand that you agree (or understand) that

    1. the arithmetic procedure gives 0 decimalpoint and endless 1s (provable by, say, mathematical induction, reductio, whatever)

    2. say, , and

    ?
  • 0.999... = 1
    I'm sure my intuition is quite different from yours — Metaphysician Undercover
    Hmm... No pattern recognition...? Odd.

    Doesn't the second statement directly imply the falsity of the first? — Metaphysician Undercover
    Nope. Arithmetic works fine regardless of notational conventions.

    Intuitions and conventions aside ...
    We can prove that all the procedure does here is give us 0, decimal point, followed by endless 1s.
    And we can prove that without writing down 0, decimal point, followed by endless 1s — it's an artefact of the procedure, and the proof involves mathematical induction and such.
    Doesn't really matter much whatever anyone makes of it, that's how the arithmetic works.
    We can prove things about switching 1/9 to decimal form without doing it (↑ stands on its own).
    You understand...?

    I wonder, do you ever balance checkbooks, file taxes, etc? :)


    (Side note: like @fishfry, I don't know if intuitionist mathematics blocks anywhere, but offhand I kind of doubt it.)
  • 0.999... = 1
    ↪Banno
    :D
  • 0.999... = 1
    I don't see your point. — Metaphysician Undercover

    It would seem so. Your comments are still off topic.

    Back to the topic here:
    We can prove that all the procedure does here is give us 0, decimal point, followed by endless 1s.
    And we can prove that without writing down 0, decimal point, followed by endless 1s — it's an artefact of the procedure, and the proof involves mathematical induction and such.
    Doesn't really matter much whatever anyone makes of it, that's how the arithmetic works.
    That was the topic brough up, though we can prove more than just that (repetend length is 1).

    But, proof or not, this should be intuitively clear. You understand? If yes, then you're free to suggest a means to communicate this unambiguously, or you can follow typical conventions like .
  • Systemic racism in the US: Why is it happening and what can be done?
    ↪StreetlightX
    , FYI, you can link directly to twitter as well, nifty

  • 0.999... = 1
    The "unending 1s" indicates that there is a remainder — Metaphysician Undercover
    P2. No matter how many 1s you write — Metaphysician Undercover

    You misunderstand — this is about the procedure, not about writing.
    Go back, think about the procedure instead.

    In fact, we can go much further, though it requires some abstract thinking, e.g.: Repeating decimal (Wikipedia)

    Hm regarding abstract thinking, in analogy: suppose we want to prove p; then by some other means we find that we can prove that p can be proven; well, then we're done with our initial task (unless we're curious).
  • 0.999... = 1
    As a matter of representing numbers, wouldn't most be fine with 9/9 = 9 × (1/9) = 9 × (0.111...) ? — jorndoe

    So, @Metaphysician Undercover, I picture you sitting down with a piece of paper and a pen, and start writing out 1/9 using the simple mathematics you were taught in early elementary school, subtraction remainders repeat all that... 0.1 ... 0.11 ... 0.111 ... and, presumably, you catch on after a short while. "My god, it's full of 1s." (Is Strauss appropriate here?)

    It's a fairly simple procedure (incidentally, one that I've had to implement on a computer to calculate digits of π, like many before me).

    The interesting part is now what we can prove about that procedure without even keep running it: following the procedure just results in unending 1s.

    Kind of dull I suppose, repetitive, something that most elementary schoolers catch on with quickly, but, anyway, the proof sure saves a bit of paper, so we'll then just write that as "0.111...".

    Conversely, once we take the opposite approach, rewriting this result concisely as a sum and a limit, we can also prove that we end up with 1/9 — consistency within the mathematics. (y)

    By the way, if you really want something more concise about the numbers themselves, a constructive approach, then maybe check the doc Michael posted, looks neat to me anyway.
  • Does Philosophy of Religion get a bad rep?
    Are you sure about that? What's a synthetic a priori proposition ? — 3017amen

    Yep, no gods in any logic courses that I recall.

    Maybe that word, "God", is just so watered down that it can be made to match anything for the occasion? Or maybe Banno was right?

    I stand corrected , it's more than 75%. — 3017amen

    So, still not substantiated.

    Of course I was right. — Banno

    Seems confirmed. Caught in the act. Bullshitting for the occasion or lying. Either way ... well, have a good weekend y'all.
  • Does Philosophy of Religion get a bad rep?
    I can appreciate some of this stuff,
    ↪Wayfarer
    .

    Does not the truth of things speak for itself if we are open to it? — Dharma and Religion - वेद Veda

    The Bible, the Quran, and Craig downright denies pluralism, however.
  • Does Philosophy of Religion get a bad rep?
    Check all these nifty numbers ...
    If you study enough philosophy, you will see that 90% of all domain's invoke or posit God's existence — 3017amen
    over at least 75% of the philosophical domains invoke God's existence [...] It's invoked in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and contemporary philosophy — 3017amen
    It's invoked in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and contemporary philosophy.
    True or false? This is really philosophy 101.     — 3017amen
    God is posited in 75% of philosophical domain's — 3017amen
    Cosmology, metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics logic , existentialism and epistemology/conscious existence.
    All of those domains at some juncture, posit God as the standard axiomatic criterion.     — 3017amen
    90% ... 75% ... must be a study rounding up the statistics somewhere ... where'd ya' get'em all from, 3017amen?
    Some random spot checking on the IEP and SEP sure doesn't come to 3/4 let alone 9/10. (haven't checked answersingenesis.org :wink:) I don't recall having taken a logic course that posit any gods either.
    Maybe that word, "God", is just so watered down that it can be made to match anything for the occasion? Or maybe Banno was right?
    Either way, let's see the statistics. Proof, please. Set the record straight. (y)
    (FYI, here are other numbers, that are substantiated.)
  • Feature requests
    Can we get a drinking coffee emoji? — darthbarracuda

    It's implicit. ;)
  • Does Philosophy of Religion get a bad rep?
    End of grade Tests. What kids in my school from grades 3-8 at the end of the
    school year. We just finished ours after 3 days.

    Man, I can't wait till those fucking eogs are over!     — Urban Dictionary: eog
  • Does Philosophy of Religion get a bad rep?
    I ceased replying for a while because my interest in philosophy is distracting me of what I should be doing-- study my physics and chemistry exams! — DoppyTheElv

    Philosophy can be a rabbit hole, should prolly' get back to your exam prep. ;)

    But I have to ask. What should someone get from these statistics? That theism is a bad/irrational wordview to have? — DoppyTheElv

    The stats aren't all that important. Religious (dis)beliefs or absence thereof is personal, something people have to figure out on their own accord. Anyone is free to believe whatever (just not free to do whatever). Scour the literature, spot the crud. ;) Offhand guess, you'll learn more from physics and chemistry.


    ↪3017amen
    , just pointing out your raving, something ir/religious alike might do.
  • Does Philosophy of Religion get a bad rep?
    Here's a real statistic, FYI:

    5kpjumyqe2t7034y.jpg

    What do philosophers believe? » Appendix 1: Detailed survey results (Bourget, Chalmers; Springer; Dec 2013)

    I suppose, next, 72.8% of academic philosophers are "fanatical atheists", @3017amen. :roll:
    Give it up, raving on with mis/disinformation doesn't do anyone any favors.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    Can you disprove the existence of unicorns for me please? — Devans99

    They do exist — in children's stories and fantasies.
    Unless that's what your god is supposed to be, the onus probandi still remains in your court (along with the increasing fallacy-count).

    Have you been there then? Which holiday agency was that? — Devans99

    The other day. A dull place. Inert and lifeless. Half a star out of five.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    Feeling so special that you think the universe was fashioned with you in mind is self-elevation and personification.

    As an aside, you can never prove that God does not exist! — Devans99

    There's that fallacy once again, repeated unabated as if never having been pointed out before.
    Comments suggests you started out with the divine fallacy.

    Start over. Try something more defensible. (Could at least respond to prior replies.)


    (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).
    ...
  • Does Philosophy of Religion get a bad rep?
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    analogy to causation — 3017amen

    "Seek the thread and you shall find."

    (sorry, too lazy to start finding the links to the comments)
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    @Devans99, you don't get to brush established theories aside with a hand-wave because they don't accommodate your belief.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    Hello, @Devans99?
    As (also already) mentioned, your and my belief don't matter; sorry, but we don't get to tell it all what it is, rather we adjust our belief accordingly.
    Quantumatics and relativity are established (already posted an example).
    You're free to keep re-re-repeting your assertions, call the subject matter experts names, and dismiss established theories with a hand-wave, none of which make your belief so.
    If that's the extent of your investigation, then maybe the opening post is sort of not really in good faith? :-/
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    The origin of the universe is a macro question — Devans99

    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.

    Finite and unbounded is plainly impossible. I'm not even going to waste my time reading that link. — Devans99

    Rejection by title-reading? :D As mentioned earlier, these ideas have been expounded upon to some extent by Hartle and Hawking.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    I do not believe in random — Devans99
    I don't call those answers. — Devans99

    Whatever you or I believe has little bearing on the truth of the matter. Our beliefs are the adjustable parts, and so we adjust our beliefs to it all, we don't adjust it all to our beliefs. No manner of repetition here can somehow compel it all to be so.

    I cannot. — Devans99

    And yet you've been presented with alternatives to your assertions, a few of them by now.

    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, ...)

    And you still haven't responded to a number of other points (though you have re-re-repeated your beliefs a few times).

    ymeei3jpm2a7drz6.png

    Finite yet unbounded. Is that some sort of joke? — Devans99

    No. (FYI, the link is the earliest reference in the literature I know of.)
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    You still have not answered the puzzle question! — Devans99

    Yes. Twice now.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    God is both timeless and within time (temporal/a-temporal) all at the same time — 3017amen

    @Devans99 wants to show an atemporal god "outside" it all.
    One that strangely acted deliberately and timelessly to create the universe.
    Nonsense, yes, I know, but that seems to be @Devans99's belief...err aim.
    So that's the topic here.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    Already mentioned a couple options,
    ↪Devans99
    :
    Ditch your hidden premise thus heading towards determinism; entertain abstract objects (which does not deny atemporality by the way).

    Banno mentioned the edge-free universe. Others have been pointed out, including in your old threads.
    Isn't this stuff old territory? Already covered in your old threads, @Devans99? (If so, it hasn't become better with age.)

    You haven't responded much.

    (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).
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    You have no idea what atemporal could be. Just because all the change we know of is within time, does not imply that change is impossible without time: — Devans99

    We can say what atemporal is not. Atemporal as "outside" it all would also be nowhere and nowhen, not even simultaneous with whatever.
    So demonstrate this atemporal change, it's your argument (and presumably you don't want to add more appeal to ignorance or special pleading).
    I'm almost inclined to just say it: "Devans99's God Almost Certainly Does Not Exist". :D Start over. Try something more defensible.

    By the way, you forgot to add your extra premise(s) when you repeated 1-3. Seems like hard determinism, which, incidentally, has further implications.
    And I did give an example, which now was raised by:

    But here's the irony, mathematical truths that describe the laws of nature are eternal unchanging truth's.
    So we have within our grasp a sense of eternity which doesn't make it impossible.     — 3017amen

    3017amen's God is an abstraction. A fairly radical departure from most religions that comes to mind. That's assuming the assertions here.

    Isn't this stuff old territory? Already covered in your old threads, @Devans99? (If so, it hasn't become better with age.)
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    I do not believe in random — Devans99

    Another hidden premise to be added to 1-3? Revise the argument? Anything else to add?

    deliberate act as the only possibility — Devans99

    Why?

    (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. Or perhaps just an abstract object if you want to go all Platonista. Neither admit such lavish personification.

    Anyway, with strangely "atemporal causes", I'd sort of expect an infinite universe.

    Start over. Try something more defensible.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    rules will be wide open
    all philosophical domains will be argued     — 3017amen

    :D

    Swiftly abandoning a lost cause (pun intended), I guess.

    As an aside, probably not everyone knows Banno's technical sense of bullshit: On Bullshit
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    There is a debating feature on this forum. It does not get sufficient use.

    I would be happy to enter into a formal debate with anyone who is willing to defend the argument in the OP.     — Banno

    (y) Invite @Devans99 right over.

    I see ...
    Debate Proposals
    Debate Discussion
    But not in the more formal format.
  • 0.999... = 1
    Couldn't see this merged thread. Maybe it went missing or was cancelled or something.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    Timelessness — Devans99

    The closest in the literature seems to be abstract objects.
    Labeling those "deities" or "God" would be a radical departure from religions though.

    We only know [...] You are ruling out [...] — Devans99

    No, you're ruling in by way of appeal to ignorance, for one.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    Was conscious existence caused from chaos? — 3017amen

    Still ignoring comments unabated as if non-existent.
    And how the heck would I know?
    But we do know some things, and "atemporal mind" ain't it (by all available evidence it's incoherent nonsense).
    Having been answered, are you going to stop ignoring comments?
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    Stick to the topic at hand,
    ↪3017amen
    . (Are you going to just keep ignoring comments unabated as if non-existent?)
    By the way, nothing here is about whatever you or I believe or not. (Unless things go full-metal psych'ceramics I guess.)
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    ↪3017amen
    , 1-3 just repeats your belief, 4-5 adds more of your belief outside the opening post, and all ignores the interlocutors unabated as if non-existent (including shifting the burden of proof, arguing from ignorance, gap-filling, special pleading).

    How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence? — 3017amen

    (yep, including shifting the burden of proof again)

    I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there? — 3017amen

    With nothing more to say (and keeping fallacies alive and well), you've abandoned philosophy for one.
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    Or is the whole of you argument "God did it"? — Banno
    Is the whole of your argument God didn't do it? — 3017amen
    pathetic — Banno

    And answering the question with that question is particularly pathetic in this instance.
    Without the likes of @3017amen having started talking about — proclaiming — their imagi..."otherworldly" friends, this wouldn't have come up in the first place.
    So, shifting the burden of proof.

    Lost count among the promoting comments here...
    Sleight of hand (covering up arguing from ignorance), gap-filling for the occasion, special pleading.
    Did I miss any?

    I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there? — 3017amen

    This thread isn't a poll/vote, so we kind of expect a bit more than just "I agree".
    You agreeing doesn't make it so.
  • 0.999... = 1
    The sorry fact is, that we cannot either describe or simply cannot understand infinity as clearly as we would want. — ssu
    Sure, yet we do know some things at least, and can reason to some extent if careful.
    Don't just ∞ × ∞ - ∞ - 7 + ∞ / ∞ + 3 / ∞, for one.
    The amount of naturals isn't a natural, for another.
    Maybe ∞ could be said to be a quantity that's not a number.


    Much ado about very little. : — jgill
    (y) (I'd hit "Like", but this will have to do)
    Actually, that's a good lot of philosophy right there. ;)


    Saw something fly by about adding zeros, but:
  • God Almost Certainly Exists
    Time is [...] — Devans99

    Doesn't really address anything. You want me to start coming up with things for the occasion as well?

    I fail to see any other alternatives to timelessness: FACT - time has a start. FACT: the start of time was caused by something external to time. FACT: change can somehow take place outside of time. — Devans99

    Start over. Try something more defensible.
Home » jorndoe