How sure are you?

[Lestat]

Some of us converse with each other on these forums to the point where we know most of each other's stance on things. Yet I'm not sure if this has ever been asked before. I thought it would be interesting to gather this data about some of my fellow SMP members. For instance, most of you would know that I am an atheist, but might be surprised to learn that I allow as much as a 15% chance for some sort of god!?

I'm not even sure it is legitimate to ask for confidence levels. I don't claim mine to be of much significance to others. I do hope that if some of you feel I'm way off, you might explain your reasoning so I can adjust if appropriate. So....

How sure are you about your beliefs?

I am +85% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am +99% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are wasting their time.

I am over 70% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track.

Now admittedly, these are little more than guesses from someone with little formal education in any of these areas. I am basing this upon evidence as I see and understand it. Feel free to ask me about this evidence. Also, feel free to correct me about my confidence levels. They are certainly subject to change as I become more and more knowledgeable about things.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
I am 0% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am +99% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are wasting their time.

I am over +99% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thats me

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am 0% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am +99% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are wasting their time.

I am over +99% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track.

[/ QUOTE ]


Thats me

[/ QUOTE ]

Awesome.. This is why I posted the question. I'm terrible at assessing math questions.

So I am wrong to place any certainty on there being NO god? Can I say I think there's a 15% probability that there IS a god?

[soon2bepro]

If you're not basing your estimation on religions, then what do you mean when you say "some sort of god"?

The concept only exists because of religions imo :/

So define "god" and we'll be able to tell you how far off you are.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
I am +99% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are wasting their time.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind this.

I'm not a Christian, however I'm well familiar with the various doctrines and tenets. But my sister is a practicing Christian and frankly I can't find anything wrong with what she's doing.

A brief overview of her religious life:
>She goes to church every Sunday.
>She prays every night for the people she loves. She is pretty sure it helps, but at worse she feels its a good thing to think good thoughts about people you care about everyday.
>She also give thanks everyday. Not because of any particular religious dictate, but because she feels it helps her to keep her mind on the good things she has and not become obsessed with what she doesn't have.

As far as doctrines go:
>She believes Jesus died for our sins. And believes this helps her to appreciate sacrifice for others and the value of it. Along with the overall approach of not judging others to harshly, and forgiveness.
>Creation. She has a hard time believing that it happened in six days, and no real understanding of the big bang, but feels it doesn't really matter too much how it started - we're here now and need to make the best of it.
>Origin of Life and/or evolution. Pretty much the same approach as creation. Doesn't really matter how we got here.

So on a couple of issues I could say she's ignorant about them. But so what. She's not ignorant about the things that are important to her and her life. She has a successful business and two daughters that matter most to her. And the things she doesn't know don't seem to be effecting those aspects of her life.

I'm not saying she's a saint or doesn't have any faults, but I think she is an average representation of a large number of Christians I'm familiar with.

With all that said, I have have a hard time understanding why there is so much effort at portraying the average Christian as some ignorant, vile, despicable creature that needs to be eradicated from society. I just don't get it.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're not basing your estimation on religions, then what do you mean when you say "some sort of god"?

The concept only exists because of religions imo :/

So define "god" and we'll be able to tell you how far off you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often when I talk about there being a god, I am referring to some type of creator. It doesn't even have to be purposely. It could be a 5th dimensional being sneezing. And it certainly doesn't have to be a caring or intervening god. I believe this is much more probably than a god of a specific religion.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">With all that said, I have have a hard time understanding why there is so much effort at portraying the average Christian as some ignorant, vile, despicable creature that needs to be eradicated from society. I just don't get it. </font>

Wow... You're reading between lines that don't even exist! Where did I say anything about your sister being an ignorant, vile, despicable creature that needs to be eradicated from society?

Was this a joke?

All I said was that I'm 99% sure she's wasting her time practicing religion.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you're not basing your estimation on religions, then what do you mean when you say "some sort of god"?

The concept only exists because of religions imo :/

So define "god" and we'll be able to tell you how far off you are.

[/ QUOTE ]

Often when I talk about there being a god, I am referring to some type of creator. It doesn't even have to be purposely. It could be a 5th dimensional being sneezing. And it certainly doesn't have to be a caring or intervening god. I believe this is much more probably than a god of a specific religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religions aren't to blame for assigning awe of the unknown to gods. Early ones, if you know your prehistory, began as a pantheon explaining effects and happenings in the natural world. As man understood nonlinear thinking and the use of words as a method to enterain other people, he learned to embellish to invoke emotional reactions.

"The mammoth was this biiiig!"
"No way!"

So on and so on.

Anyway, the more we know of the physical Universe, the less the religions of the early centuries have legitimacy as far as their writings can be relied on as absolute fact. Instead, what's left is a concept of a monotheistic God, in most religions, the Grand-daddy of them all.

The creation of the Universe can also be seen as the ultimate grandfather paradox.

It depends on your personal definition of a god, as far as my personal opinions go, the probability of an ultimate supreme being that was self-aware at the moment of the triggered singularity (whatever it was) is close to zero.

As for the probabilty of a self-emergent entity that emerged at the same time, I guess an invented term would be concurrent causality... Probably slightly better than 50%.

The other concept I have thought of is that this is a oscillatory rerun, or a logical series of unfolding Universes, with older Omega civilizations (read: Older than this Universe, and capable of some degree of manipulation of information and harmony between the multiverses) having some sembelance of control over the creation of Universes. This would probably make up another third.

The remaining 1/6 I'd ascribe to this being the first, original Universe, without no precursors.

The older I get, the more information I absorb inasofar as learning about quantum theory, esoteric mathematics, and like John said earlier in another thread, thinking about nothing, the last principle for a younger me had a probability of 100%. Then it was 50/50 with the first concept, and the first concept began to gain ground.

And the second concept is fairly new, I'd say 2, 3 years now, and it is gaining and reducing 3 day by day, yet keeping 1 in a steady state. I can't predict how I will be thinking and judging things accordingly over the next year, never mind the next decade, but it has reawakened my appetite for knowledge, and for life.

As for religions, they are not a waste of time, if you see them as paying ritual worship to notable figures in the past that tried to send huge messages to their own species.

For Jesus of Nazareth, his ultimate message was about love and helping his fellow man.

For Buddha, it was accepting the immutability of constant change, and understanding and accepting that suffering is the human condition, and to fight the causes is futile, instead you should ease it by working with the causes on a counter.

Even Caesar, from his adolescence, was the Pontifex Maximus of Rome, and he was deified after his death. He had no direct male heirs, so Octavian stepped into his role as a raw, untested teenager.

There's more. Much, much more. But all at its own pace.

[Prodigy54321]

1) 98% sure that there isn't a god of any kind (by "god" I mean a supernatural being, generally like what religions consider a god to be..not just someone who created the universe)

2) I'm not sure what you mean by "waste of time" in the second one

if the next one was..."how sure are you that a specific religion (known of course) is not accurate"...I would place it about 99.8%...chrisianity would probably be the highest probability at about .2% likelihood on my list (probably showing my biases because of what I have been exposed to the most)

3) it really depends on specific parts of evolutionary theory..for the general statement "Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track." I'd put it at about 99%..I'm probably thinking of it more generally that you are though.

these are pretty ill thought out guestimations

[soon2bepro]

So, now define "being".

[Lestat]

Very interesting about the unfolding of universes. Would this be dimensional? I also place "faith" in higher dimensions.

About the waste of time thing. Since you're the second one who seems to have misunderstood me, I must've hastily worded it.

I don't mean to say that all religions and everything that has emerged from them has been a waste of time. I just meant that practicing religion in this day and age is. I guess if you meet your future wife in church, or derive social pleasure out of going, it's not a waste of time.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
So, now define "being".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Any being or thing? I simply mean a creator. Something that caused our universe into existence.

[FortunaMaximus]

I didn't misunderstand, actually. Just showing even if most of the rituals are a waste of time, the core values aren't, necessarily, because it is a net gain for man to subscribe to those values. There's just too much fat and not enough meat where the approaches are concerned today. The pomp and circumstance is beyond ridiculous.

But I agree, we're long overdue for a serious paradigm shift in pure rationality. I guess the only way to do that is to keep breeding atheists and making more inroads in science.

Dimensionality is such an insufficient catch-all. I'll see if I can articulate it in English sometime tonight, but it'll take a bit of time yet. But as far as your faith goes, I'm fairly sure your concept and mine are at least on similar pages. We'll see.

[luckyme]

99.9999...% sure there is no god of the type a xtrian or other cult would recognize.

100% sure religious people are wasting their time as far as the part of their life they focus on the religion ( they may do the odd good deed in a religious format, so for the rest of us it isn't a total waste, but they could do the same thing more often if they didn't have to waste so much time in church).

I'm 100% sure that things evolve. What the exact process is in each case can be investigated but we wouldn't have to keep modifying treatment if the little blighters would stay the same. "theory of evolution" is an umbrella for a lot of processes, so I also agree with it but only in the broadest, loosest sense.

I'll 99% sure that being religious makes one susceptible to being manipulated into doing or causing to occur some pretty vile actions that a realistic approach to life would prevent.

luckyme

[ojc02]

I am [100 - 1/(3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!)] percent sure that there is no God and that all those people are wasting their time.

I'm almost as sure that evolution is correct but you do have to allow for the possibility that there is some other non-god mechanism (though I highly doubt it).

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So, now define "being".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know. Any being or thing? I simply mean a creator. Something that caused our universe into existence.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if our existence started with a "first cause", this would fit your idea?

In this case my estimation is about the same as yours, about 15%. Mostly because I think in order to rationalize a "first cause" you have to go outside determinism, or even outside of our reality, so it's not as likely as Aristotle puts it (it was him with the first cause, right?).

[FortunaMaximus]

Being: Awareness of one's existence.

Not self-awareness. Subtle difference.

[soon2bepro]

On your other estimations:

1) I am 0% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are wasting their time. -----&gt;&gt; I think it's good for many (95% sure of this, but this doesn't mean I'm 5% sure it's a total waste of time). As others proposed in this thread.


2)I am over 20% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track. ---&gt; Though I must say with our current understanding of reality, it's 99.99% the best theory on the matter.

[soon2bepro]

define awareness?

You can easily see where this is going.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
define awareness?

You can easily see where this is going.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah. I don't mind though. Capability of locomotion and rudimentary planning, even if it is instinctive.

[soon2bepro]

On Locomotion: Every particle in the universe is in movement. And animals don't "move by themselves", they use the same fundamental physical laws, not to mention that they need external sources of energy to be able to move. So what's missing here is the will aspect. Now that's what you have to define /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

On rudimentary planning: Obviously the same applies. Define will.

[FortunaMaximus]

The will to survive is an inherent pre-existing evolutionary condition. It's only inviolable by lemmings and humans.

In the case of lemmings, it may be encoded population control or a mutation gone awry. Comedy or tragedy, it's an odd anomaly in our biosphere.

As for humans, this may be an enviromental effect or the logic of conscious thinking is exposing some intristic properties that emerge over time.

To survive, you need to eat. To eat, for the proper nutrition for some animals, you take life.

And those other living elements do not surrender easily. Deer run damn fast and are able to defend themselves in an head-on attack with a single wolf.

A pack of wolves can take down a single deer, and do so to eat and survive. To do that takes cooperation and nonverbal teamwork. Geometry, ballistics, anatomy. Wolves could tell you of those mathematical and biological elements involved in a hunt.

They, however, are unable to verbalize those concepts or bring them onto paper. They are just aware of the fundamental physical laws, they just don't think about them. They just do.

The pleasure centers of a wolf's brain reward it with exhiliration and reinforces the will by making the hunt not only a necessity but something to be enjoyed. It's primal, but it's an awesome, horrific, glorious sight to see this hunt.

Because as omnivores, we take pleasure out of seeing this performance, we're able to write about it, talk about it, feel it.

[soon2bepro]

You haven't defined will. Or you meant will to survive?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
You haven't defined will. Or you meant will to survive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try this. Sit absolutely still. Don't breathe, don't move. Period. Is it will that keeps you rooted and determined? Is it still will when you feel an urge to move and indulge it?

Perhaps it's random particles in motion that causes you to move against your own will.

[51cards]

I am 100% that supernatural beings don't interact with nature. Anything that interacts with nature is natural which is the same as not supernatural.

I like 100-[1/3!!!!!!!!!!!]% for evolution being the right idea to explain why matter is aranged like it is right now (in the shape of plant and animals).

I am 100% sure that it isn't quite right to say that the religious are "wasting their time". What does wasting time mean? Is there a correct way to use time? I am however 100% sure they are wrong about the rewards they will get. For example they may get peace of mind and a social group, but they won't get blessed by God or eternal life.

John, does your sister think I'm going to hell? If yes, then some might call that despicable. Not me though, I think she is a collection of atoms following the laws of physics perfectly. If no, then it might not be right to call her a Christian. My parents, who call themselves Christians, would say she isn't for whatever that's worth.

Good thread, IMO.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I am +45% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am +5% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are wasting their time.

I am over 99% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bocablkr]

How sure are you about your beliefs?

I am 100% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am 100% sure that all people who practice religion are wasting their time (if the intent is to get them to heaven).

I am 100% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track. This doesn't mean that it is 100% correct in its present form.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]

I am +85% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am over 70% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track.
.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I ask what ideas you have for the 15% of the time there is no God, but evolution is incorrect?

[soon2bepro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You haven't defined will. Or you meant will to survive?

[/ QUOTE ]

Try this. Sit absolutely still. Don't breathe, don't move. Period. Is it will that keeps you rooted and determined? Is it still will when you feel an urge to move and indulge it?

Perhaps it's random particles in motion that causes you to move against your own will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or rather "will" is a term for classifying one sort of particles in (so far) unpredictable motion

[FortunaMaximus]

Huh. Will = Brownian motion? Perhaps.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
How sure are you about your beliefs?

I am 100% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am 100% sure that all people who practice religion are wasting their time (if the intent is to get them to heaven).

I am 100% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track. This doesn't mean that it is 100% correct in its present form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unjustified certainty ftw. If you don't believe in God, how on earth can you believe anything is 100% reliable, much less a human being? Hell, there's a &gt;0% chance that a spectacular brain malfunction is responsible for all your beliefs, and the world as you know it doesn't even exist in the first place.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How sure are you about your beliefs?

I am 100% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am 100% sure that all people who practice religion are wasting their time (if the intent is to get them to heaven).

I am 100% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track. This doesn't mean that it is 100% correct in its present form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unjustified certainty ftw. If you don't believe in God, how on earth can you believe anything is 100% reliable, much less a human being? Hell, there's a &gt;0% chance that a spectacular brain malfunction is responsible for all your beliefs, and the world as you know it doesn't even exist in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mad, I am sorry if you are uncertain in your beliefs - it doesn't mean others can't be certain. By the way, are you 100% certain of anything?

[CityFan]

Surely your "will" is just an illusory manifestation of predictable biochemical responses?

If a lion chases a healthy adult wildebeest, do you think the wildebeest is going to run away? I do. I'm 100% certain. The wildebeest is not exercising some kind of "choice", it is behaving as every other wildebeest would behave, without exception.

I don't see any "will" there.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How sure are you about your beliefs?

I am 100% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am 100% sure that all people who practice religion are wasting their time (if the intent is to get them to heaven).

I am 100% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track. This doesn't mean that it is 100% correct in its present form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unjustified certainty ftw. If you don't believe in God, how on earth can you believe anything is 100% reliable, much less a human being? Hell, there's a &gt;0% chance that a spectacular brain malfunction is responsible for all your beliefs, and the world as you know it doesn't even exist in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mad, I am sorry if you are uncertain in your beliefs - it doesn't mean others can't be certain. By the way, are you 100% certain of anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pray tell, why would a logical, inquisitve thinker assign something a 100% certainity? Curious.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How sure are you about your beliefs?

I am 100% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am 100% sure that all people who practice religion are wasting their time (if the intent is to get them to heaven).

I am 100% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track. This doesn't mean that it is 100% correct in its present form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unjustified certainty ftw. If you don't believe in God, how on earth can you believe anything is 100% reliable, much less a human being? Hell, there's a &gt;0% chance that a spectacular brain malfunction is responsible for all your beliefs, and the world as you know it doesn't even exist in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mad, I am sorry if you are uncertain in your beliefs - it doesn't mean others can't be certain. By the way, are you 100% certain of anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pray tell, why would a logical, inquisitve thinker assign something a 100% certainity? Curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I came up to you and said "hey, look here, I've got a biased coin" then tossed it one hundred times in front of you and it came up heads every time* would you really assign a non-zero probability to it in fact being a fair coin?

*disregarding the fact that even a biased coin would be unlikely to produce this result.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How sure are you about your beliefs?

I am 100% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am 100% sure that all people who practice religion are wasting their time (if the intent is to get them to heaven).

I am 100% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track. This doesn't mean that it is 100% correct in its present form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unjustified certainty ftw. If you don't believe in God, how on earth can you believe anything is 100% reliable, much less a human being? Hell, there's a &gt;0% chance that a spectacular brain malfunction is responsible for all your beliefs, and the world as you know it doesn't even exist in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mad, I am sorry if you are uncertain in your beliefs - it doesn't mean others can't be certain. By the way, are you 100% certain of anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pray tell, why would a logical, inquisitve thinker assign something a 100% certainity? Curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is precisely because I am a logical thinker that I can be 100% certain there is no god. Don't confuse 100% certainty with something being correct. It is only a measure of my own personal doubt level, which in this case is zero. My own level of certainty has no bearing on whether the original premise is correct.

I repeat, is there anything you are 100% certain of?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I repeat, is there anything you are 100% certain of?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
If I came up to you and said "hey, look here, I've got a biased coin" then tossed it one hundred times in front of you and it came up heads every time* would you really assign a non-zero probability to it in fact being a fair coin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Because there's no such thing as zero probability. Find a better example.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]


I am +99% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are wasting their time.


[/ QUOTE ]

Most are wasting their time. The leaders of the religious right are enjoying heaven on earth.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Mad, I am sorry if you are uncertain in your beliefs - it doesn't mean others can't be certain. By the way, are you 100% certain of anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

No thoughtful person is 100% certain of anything.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Surely your "will" is just an illusory manifestation of predictable biochemical responses?

If a lion chases a healthy adult wildebeest, do you think the wildebeest is going to run away? I do. I'm 100% certain. The wildebeest is not exercising some kind of "choice", it is behaving as every other wildebeest would behave, without exception.

I don't see any "will" there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if you define "healthy" based on running from a lion. Even in this case there's a nonzero probability of the wildebeest becoming "unhealthy" just as the lion gives chase. Definitional constructs don't qualify as certainty, they qualify as definitional constructs. Given that Y has property X, I'm 100% certain that Y has property X.

Probability isn't a useful concept in these cases.

Now, if you aren't defining "healthy" based on running away, you're just plain wrong.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If I came up to you and said "hey, look here, I've got a biased coin" then tossed it one hundred times in front of you and it came up heads every time* would you really assign a non-zero probability to it in fact being a fair coin?

*disregarding the fact that even a biased coin would be unlikely to produce this result.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh... There is definitely a very nonzero probability of this. I'm not sure what you're getting at here - maybe you just don't understand what probability is. There's a nonzero probability that the biased coin will spontaneously vanish due to quantum randomness, and then reappear. There's a nonzero probability that the coin will vaporize in midair. There's a nonzero probability that the coin will fly out the window, cruise along to China, land on the tip of a dog's nose, and turn into a tulip. This is based on what we know of science - it's possible all our physics are complete hogwash, but according to our physics all of this is very possible. In fact physics and chemistry are based on the fact that there are nonzero probabilities of such things happening.

There's a 1/(2^100) chance of a perfectly normal coin landing heads 100 times in a row on any given trial. If I initially believe there's a 50% chance you're lying, and I adapt my certainty proportionate with your results, for example reducing the probability of a lie from 50% to 25% after the first head, then the total probability after 100 flips that the coin is a normal coin is 1/(2^101). (That's half of what it would be without your prior claim.)

1/(2^101) is a specific rational number, and is the very essence of a nonzero number. Keep in mind that in math how far from zero the number is doesn't affect its properties - just because this number seems "really close" to zero to you doesn't mean it's any closer to being zero than a number that seems "very far" from zero to you. In the sciences such quantities frequently depend on things like units and expectations. In both cases, it's ridiculous to call this a zero probability. It's not even rare enough to qualify as a "scientifically impossible" situation, and even that is an apocryphal and informal designation.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mad, I am sorry if you are uncertain in your beliefs - it doesn't mean others can't be certain. By the way, are you 100% certain of anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

No thoughtful person is 100% certain of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am 100% certain the sun will rise tomorrow. Does that mean it will - no. Am I certain it will - yes. Sorry if that makes me unthoughtful /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mad, I am sorry if you are uncertain in your beliefs - it doesn't mean others can't be certain. By the way, are you 100% certain of anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

No thoughtful person is 100% certain of anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am 100% certain the sun will rise tomorrow. Does that mean it will - no. Am I certain it will - yes. Sorry if that makes me unthoughtful /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it helps you sleep at night. There's no harm in that.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I am 100% certain the sun will rise tomorrow. Does that mean it will - no. Am I certain it will - yes. Sorry if that makes me unthoughtful /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Being thoughtful isn't all it's cracked up to be. Humans seem programmed to believe something is certain even when it clearly isn't. It helps them act, because considering all the contingencies is typically not viable.

But certainty is illogical.

[bocablkr]

Is it difficult living such an uncertain life?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How sure are you about your beliefs?

I am 100% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am 100% sure that all people who practice religion are wasting their time (if the intent is to get them to heaven).

I am 100% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track. This doesn't mean that it is 100% correct in its present form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unjustified certainty ftw. If you don't believe in God, how on earth can you believe anything is 100% reliable, much less a human being? Hell, there's a &gt;0% chance that a spectacular brain malfunction is responsible for all your beliefs, and the world as you know it doesn't even exist in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mad, I am sorry if you are uncertain in your beliefs - it doesn't mean others can't be certain. By the way, are you 100% certain of anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think madnak could make the argument that even if you THINK you are 100% certain of any thing, there is certainly some error in your own ability to judge your judgment.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I think madnak could make the argument that even if you THINK you are 100% certain of any thing, there is certainly some error in your own ability to judge your judgment.


[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think madnak could make the argument that even if you THINK you are 100% certain of any thing, there is certainly some error in your own ability to judge your judgment.


[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm...I thought about that when I wrote it. I can go two ways, one being to claim that there is 'by definition' some error, the other being to admit I was wrong and simply assert that there is a ridiculously high chance there is some error. The latter seems more obviously true, the former more intuitive. Huh.

EDIT: Also, if I had omitted certainly would you have simply bolded 'is' instead?

[bocablkr]

Hawk,

What percentage of certainty would you say to the belief that a flying spaghetti monster created the Universe? Are you 100% certain he did not or some degree less than that?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Hawk,

What percentage of certainty would you say to the belief that a flying spaghetti monster created the Universe? Are you 100% certain he did not or some degree less than that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely some degree less than that. I am on shaky ground with this subject though, I'll freely admit. The only things I would assign '100% probabilities' to are, as previously mentioned, things which are tautologically true or things which are self-contradictory. But even this is not really an answer. Am I 100% certain that logic is universally applicable? I am as certain as I can be but I've already claimed that that is less than 100%. So where does that leave me?

I do not find the old saw that I cannot be 100% that I am not 100% sure very convincing, however.

[bunny]

I am ~5% sure there is a god of some kind.

I am more than 95% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are not wasting their time. (But this is a misleading claim in many ways, since even if there is no God, practising religion has benefits imo).

I am over 95% sure the Theory of Evolution is on the right track.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you're getting at here - maybe you just don't understand what probability is.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, that's not the case. Please don't patronise me mathematically or I'll be forced to pull out my qualifications.

What I'm driving it is the fact that, given a certain amount of evidence, a rational human beings will simply accept something as true, even with the knowledge that through quantum physics there is a negligible positive probability of it being false.

Example: I have a red sweater. I put it in the closet. Ten seconds later, I do not assing a 10^(-800) probability of it now being blue. I am aware that its entire structure could thoeretically have changed through an unlikely sequence of quantum events, or even through some kind of divine intervention. For all I know, it could now be a cat.

Such knowledge is simply not useful to me though. I assign a 100% probability that the sweater is still red. I know it's not mathematically correct but nevertheless, that is how I deal with the world.

Perhaps my coin example was a bit lame, but it illustrates my point: there comes a point where the human mind will accept something as true without further question, unless proved otherwise. Those who claim they do not do that are liars.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Surely your "will" is just an illusory manifestation of predictable biochemical responses?

If a lion chases a healthy adult wildebeest, do you think the wildebeest is going to run away? I do. I'm 100% certain. The wildebeest is not exercising some kind of "choice", it is behaving as every other wildebeest would behave, without exception.

I don't see any "will" there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if you define "healthy" based on running from a lion. Even in this case there's a nonzero probability of the wildebeest becoming "unhealthy" just as the lion gives chase. Definitional constructs don't qualify as certainty, they qualify as definitional constructs. Given that Y has property X, I'm 100% certain that Y has property X.

Probability isn't a useful concept in these cases.

Now, if you aren't defining "healthy" based on running away, you're just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This wasn't a post about probabilities though, it was a post about will. Please accept the illustration regardless of its flaws.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I repeat, is there anything you are 100% certain of?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[ QUOTE ]
If I came up to you and said "hey, look here, I've got a biased coin" then tossed it one hundred times in front of you and it came up heads every time* would you really assign a non-zero probability to it in fact being a fair coin?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Because there's no such thing as zero probability. Find a better example.

[/ QUOTE ]

If we want to pedantic, how do you defince a probability of the existence of God? High-school probability is based on the concept of counting equally likely outcomes - it makes no sense in this context. An axiomatic development of probability actually proceeds in an analogous way.

The principle of Bayesian inference, usually used by the likes of DS to argue against a Christain God, is a better approach. However, it depends on somehow assigning a prior probability to God's existence in the absence of all observations. Just how exactly does one assign that probability? In the absence of any information at all, is it more likely that God exists, or not? Is the prior probability of his existence 1/2? 1/10? 1-10^(-9999999)? It makes a big difference to the conclusion.

Mathematically, there is absolutely such thing as a zero probability. Your argument seems to be that "in the real world" there is not. I say, in the real world, you can't go around assigning prior probabilities to different models of relaity.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Mathematically, there is absolutely such thing as a zero probability.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Find a better example.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't pedantism v. ivory tower logic.

Construct a sustainable argument without fallacy or invoking previous discussions or conditional probability.

Axiomatic mathematics is all-inclusive and generally conditional on a pre-assumed absolute.

If I was asking for real-world examples, I would have taken the stand that it is a logical assumption to take the probabilities as effectively zero. Not zero, but you can assign it a floating value of zero and not worry about inconsistency, because if this occurence takes place, it can be perceived as miraculous because of the nature of its probability.

Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not convinced. Yes, David's argument contains a flaw based on a priori assumpton of probabilistic values? So what? That doesn't make the answer incorrect, but it doesn't remove the vital element of a margin of error, which he and other theorists taking this approach can never get rid of effectively to turn it into a law.

So. Find a better example. If you do, I'm malleable to a changing of opinions. It's my nature.

[Tubes]

[ QUOTE ]
It is precisely because I am a logical thinker that I can be 100% certain there is no god.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you 100% certain that that you are a logical thinker?

[David Sklansky]

"However, it depends on somehow assigning a prior probability to God's existence in the absence of all observations. Just how exactly does one assign that probability? In the absence of any information at all, is it more likely that God exists, or not? Is the prior probability of his existence 1/2? 1/10? 1-10^(-9999999)?"

It's 1/2. Period.

[CityFan]

[ QUOTE ]
If I was asking for real-world examples, I would have taken the stand that it is a logical assumption to take the probabilities as effectively zero. Not zero, but you can assign it a floating value of zero and not worry about inconsistency, because if this occurence takes place, it can be perceived as miraculous because of the nature of its probability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't quite decipher your post. Do you agree with the above quote, or not?

I believe that it is rational (or sensible) human behaviour to do exactly what you describe. In other words, to accept an approximate model or set of alternative models of reality as absolutely exhaustive, and work on the assumption of 100% probability.

Are we in agreement, or not? All the rest is waffle.

[Lestat]

So in the absence of any information it's 50/50 whether there is such thing as a god? Either a). there is, or b). there isn't?

Could we say the same thing about FSM?

It sucks going through life as bad at math as I am. But I always suspected that I shouldn't be TOO sure about the fact that there isn't a god. I guess that was just blind luck.

[Lestat]

Very intersting post for me CityFan. Thanks.

I think you're correct. I shouldn't assign a probability for the existence of any god. I'm not sure where that leaves me however.

[FortunaMaximus]

Insignificant nonzero values can take on the properties of zero. That's all I was saying.

But without reducing discussions into semantic quibbles, yes, I'm fine with assuming that specific point, as long as I get some blueberry syrup for the waffle.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it difficult living such an uncertain life?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only where unrealistic hopes are concerned. Uncertainty is a strong adaptation given my life circumstances.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think madnak could make the argument that even if you THINK you are 100% certain of any thing, there is certainly some error in your own ability to judge your judgment.


[/ QUOTE ] /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's entirely possible I'm wrong and you're right. I consider that likelihood to be so small that it's not worth stumbling over.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I am ~5% sure there is a god of some kind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oy!

[ QUOTE ]
I am more than 95% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are not wasting their time. (But this is a misleading claim in many ways, since even if there is no God, practising religion has benefits imo).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But do you think those benefits are exclusive to religion? And would you agree that religion has costs as well?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Surely your "will" is just an illusory manifestation of predictable biochemical responses?

If a lion chases a healthy adult wildebeest, do you think the wildebeest is going to run away? I do. I'm 100% certain. The wildebeest is not exercising some kind of "choice", it is behaving as every other wildebeest would behave, without exception.

I don't see any "will" there.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true if you define "healthy" based on running from a lion. Even in this case there's a nonzero probability of the wildebeest becoming "unhealthy" just as the lion gives chase. Definitional constructs don't qualify as certainty, they qualify as definitional constructs. Given that Y has property X, I'm 100% certain that Y has property X.

Probability isn't a useful concept in these cases.

Now, if you aren't defining "healthy" based on running away, you're just plain wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

This wasn't a post about probabilities though, it was a post about will. Please accept the illustration regardless of its flaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

To your earlier post - if you choose to consider something certain, I'm fine with that. I suppose I should have recognized that context from the start. More on that later. But logically there's no certainty. Also, while I might wager my life that the sweater still exists, there are things I wouldn't wager.

But in terms of this, you're defining will in such a way as to make it mutually exclusive with determinism. That's just tautological. Biology is all about emergence - why can't free will arise from biochemical interactions?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
It's 1/2. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be treated as 1/2.

Edit: Also, it can't go too far. You can't use that probability - that's very important. For example, the probability that god exists is treated as 1/2. The probability that a spaghetti-god exists is treated as 1/2. The probability that a spaghetti-god wearing a tophat exists is treated as 1/2.

The difference between the probability that any kind of god exists and the probability that a spaghetti-god wearing a tophat exists is 0. Therefore if God exists, he must be a spaghetti-god and must wear a tophat.

This is the kind of conclusion your careless reasoning gets to, David. You can't treat any "A or not-A" as a 50/50 proposition. Or at least, when you do, it's more a "placeholder" for an undefined probability, and its use is limited. It's similar to treating the slope of a vertical line as being "infinity." Useful placeholder, not actually practical.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I am more than 95% sure that all people who practice religion (whichever one it is), are not wasting their time. (But this is a misleading claim in many ways, since even if there is no God, practising religion has benefits imo).

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. But do you think those benefits are exclusive to religion? And would you agree that religion has costs as well?

[/ QUOTE ]
No and yes. But with regard to the first I think there are some people for whom religion is the best way of achieving those benefits. With the second I meant that the benefits outweigh the costs. (Of course, I have the unpopular view that religion does not entail abandoning rationality - if this were indeed the case then I would regard it as a net cost I think...)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I was asking for real-world examples, I would have taken the stand that it is a logical assumption to take the probabilities as effectively zero. Not zero, but you can assign it a floating value of zero and not worry about inconsistency, because if this occurence takes place, it can be perceived as miraculous because of the nature of its probability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't quite decipher your post. Do you agree with the above quote, or not?

I believe that it is rational (or sensible) human behaviour to do exactly what you describe. In other words, to accept an approximate model or set of alternative models of reality as absolutely exhaustive, and work on the assumption of 100% probability.

Are we in agreement, or not? All the rest is waffle.

[/ QUOTE ]

Choose a random number from the series of all real numbers. What is the probability that this number does not include the digit "3" in its decimal notation?

Another way. Assume that temperature is continuous. What is the likelihood that the temperature is exactly 70 degrees?

Finally, assume the universe is continuous and random. What is the probability that any specific event will happen?

Actually the probability can be described with a limit that approaches 0. Thus my annoyance when people suggest that such a limit is equal to 0. Here you're suggesting it's not. So, which is it?

I'm with Fortuna on this one - it has the properties of 0, but it isn't really 0. If it were 0, no event could happen - see Zeno's paradoxes.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
...it has the properties of 0, but it isn't really 0...

[/ QUOTE ]
Surely this isnt meaningful?

EDIT: It sounds suspiciously to me like .9999... has the properties of 1 but isnt really 1 (with apologies for flogging dead horses..)

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
If we want to pedantic, how do you defince a probability of the existence of God?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's subjective to some degree. It's not just math, it's a combination of empirical harmony and mathematics. Mathematically nothing has any probability - nothing at all. So I suppose it's really an argument about how to restrict the situation. I don't think it's justfiable to limit the context such that there's a 0 probability of God, or even that there's a 0 probability that a sweater will become a cat. However, I do believe in a context limited such that we can speak of certain probabilities - but the assumptions I accept aren't based on observation but on parsimony.

But I think a 0% or 100% is invalid in any case. Particularly where God is concerned, as there's no restrictive basis. If you insist on saying there's a 50% chance of heads and a 50% chance of tails for a coin flip, I can handle that. Here if the coin lands on edge it can at least be written off as invalid, a "redo" perhaps. But with God...? There's no context such that the existence of God becomes irrelevant, as a freak occurence in a coin flip.

I object to the use of 100% probability in this case for the same reason I object to the choice of 13 when someone is asked to pick a number between one and ten.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...it has the properties of 0, but it isn't really 0...

[/ QUOTE ]
Surely this isnt meaningful?

EDIT: It sounds suspiciously to me like .9999... has the properties of 1 but isnt really 1 (with apologies for flogging dead horses..)

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

[David Sklansky]

I simply answered City Fan's question. Assuming he meant by "no observations" that there was no information.

[Lestat]

"Wasting time" was a poor choice of words. Of course if one befefits socially or behaves properly because they wouldn't otherwise unless told to do so by a religion, it's a good thing.

I basically just meant barking up the wrong tree.

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's 1/2. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be treated as 1/2.

Edit: Also, it can't go too far. You can't use that probability - that's very important. For example, the probability that god exists is treated as 1/2. The probability that a spaghetti-god exists is treated as 1/2. The probability that a spaghetti-god wearing a tophat exists is treated as 1/2.

The difference between the probability that any kind of god exists and the probability that a spaghetti-god wearing a tophat exists is 0. Therefore if God exists, he must be a spaghetti-god and must wear a tophat.

This is the kind of conclusion your careless reasoning gets to, David. You can't treat any "A or not-A" as a 50/50 proposition. Or at least, when you do, it's more a "placeholder" for an undefined probability, and its use is limited. It's similar to treating the slope of a vertical line as being "infinity." Useful placeholder, not actually practical.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this was where I erred. Why can't you place a probability on FSM, FSM wearing a top hat, Christian God, Volcano God, etc. etc., because now you have information to distingiush between a finite number of gods. Now it might be infinite; i.e. FSMa, FSMb thru FSMaab, etc. etc., but at least you have something to work with.

God or no god is just absent of any info whatsoever, so 50/50. Then again, I could be wrong. I struggle here, because I'm terrible at math.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
"However, it depends on somehow assigning a prior probability to God's existence in the absence of all observations. Just how exactly does one assign that probability? In the absence of any information at all, is it more likely that God exists, or not? Is the prior probability of his existence 1/2? 1/10? 1-10^(-9999999)?"

It's 1/2. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

This must be false.

If this were correct, I would expect 2 of the following to exist, since there is no observational evidence of any of them existing: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God. Specifically it would be more probable that at least one of them exist than it would be that none do. Clearly, it is much more probable that none of them exist.

This is the problem with assigning a priori probabilities to unobserved hypothetical things that are not required to explain any observed phenomena.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"However, it depends on somehow assigning a prior probability to God's existence in the absence of all observations. Just how exactly does one assign that probability? In the absence of any information at all, is it more likely that God exists, or not? Is the prior probability of his existence 1/2? 1/10? 1-10^(-9999999)?"

It's 1/2. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

This must be false.

If this were correct, I would expect 2 of the following to exist, since there is no observational evidence of any of them existing: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God. Specifically it would be more probable that at least one of them exist than it would be that none do. Clearly, it is much more probable that none of them exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think absence of any information is different from absence of evidence. Surely DS would claim there was a lot of evidence contrary to their existence, not that there was no information regarding them.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
"Wasting time" was a poor choice of words. Of course if one befefits socially or behaves properly because they wouldn't otherwise unless told to do so by a religion, it's a good thing.

I basically just meant barking up the wrong tree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am glad this was corrected, as it made no sense to me as originally written. Spending time playing poker, making love, watching one’s child play soccer (or cricket, chez), working on a cure for cancer, arguing with the wife about what color the walls should be repainted - - are these things wasting time or passing time? What is the difference between wasting time and passing time?

Does the answer - if such things are wasting time or passing time - depend on (or change) if God exists or not?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"However, it depends on somehow assigning a prior probability to God's existence in the absence of all observations. Just how exactly does one assign that probability? In the absence of any information at all, is it more likely that God exists, or not? Is the prior probability of his existence 1/2? 1/10? 1-10^(-9999999)?"

It's 1/2. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

This must be false.

If this were correct, I would expect 2 of the following to exist, since there is no observational evidence of any of them existing: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God. Specifically it would be more probable that at least one of them exist than it would be that none do. Clearly, it is much more probable that none of them exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think absence of any information is different from absence of evidence. Surely DS would claim there was a lot of evidence contrary to their existence, not that there was no information regarding them.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is not a single piece of evidence against the existence of the unobservable.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"However, it depends on somehow assigning a prior probability to God's existence in the absence of all observations. Just how exactly does one assign that probability? In the absence of any information at all, is it more likely that God exists, or not? Is the prior probability of his existence 1/2? 1/10? 1-10^(-9999999)?"

It's 1/2. Period.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

This must be false.

If this were correct, I would expect 2 of the following to exist, since there is no observational evidence of any of them existing: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, God. Specifically it would be more probable that at least one of them exist than it would be that none do. Clearly, it is much more probable that none of them exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think absence of any information is different from absence of evidence. Surely DS would claim there was a lot of evidence contrary to their existence, not that there was no information regarding them.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, there is not a single piece of evidence against the existence of the unobservable.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree - but I dont think DS does.

EDIT: He's certainly claimed before that there is evidence against God, if I interpret him right.

[Tubes]

[ QUOTE ]
No, there is not a single piece of evidence against the existence of the unobservable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Including the luminiferous aether.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I think this was where I erred. Why can't you place a probability on FSM, FSM wearing a top hat, Christian God, Volcano God, etc. etc., because now you have information to distingiush between a finite number of gods. Now it might be infinite; i.e. FSMa, FSMb thru FSMaab, etc. etc., but at least you have something to work with.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if it's infinite, you don't. And the problem is that it is infinite. In more ways than one. See, for every category you can think of, I can think of subcategories. And for most subcategories of God you can think of, I can think of supercategories. It's like asking "what's the smallest real number?" You can't do it.

If you say that there are two doors, A and B, and behind one door there's a prize, but you have no information about which, then you assume a 50% of door A and a 50% chance of door B. This is presumably what David was referring to. Now if you have doors C and D behind door A, and doors E and F behind door B, same situation, there's a 25% chance for each door.

That is, with a finite number of options, only one of which is correct, and without any information, the probability of any one option being "the" option is 1/n, where n is the number of options. In other words, each option must be considered equally likely.

What if door A has doors C and D behind it, but door B stands alone? Now, knowing this, we say that there's a 66% chance door A contains the prize, and a 33% chance door B contains the prize. This is, again, assuming no information at all. And of course, if doors E and F lie behind door C, but door D has only one room behind it, then there's a 75% chance the prize lies behind door A, and a 25% chance it lies behind door B. And so on.

Now, continue this to infinity - as I said, for any "door" there are multiple doors behind it - ad infinitum. What happens to the probability as the number of doors approaches infinity? The probability approaches zero. That's what we call a limit, and is what Fortuna meant when he talked about a number "like 0."

Some might say that the probability of any door is 0, but that doesn't make a lot of sense. Infinity zeroes don't add up to 1, and a range of probabilities must add up to 1. (Because some outcome must happen - remember that even the outcome "none of these outcomes happen" has a probability of 0 in this case!) Thus, it's probably best to say that in this case, there is no useful information to be had about the situation.

However, it can be useful to pretend that there's a 50/50 chance of any given thing, just as a "placeholder" or in order to say that "if A, then... but if not A, then..."

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> arguing with the wife about what color the walls should be repainted - </font>

This most definitely is a waste of time. I learned my lesson the hard way while married. Now I stay out of it and let my gf paint the walls in a polka-dot stripe if she wants.

But you do bring up an interesting philosophical point. What is wasting time? I often think this is a waste of time (time spent posting on here). I justify it, because I play poker while typing. What about watching TV? I consider this a HUGE waste of time! I guess my question is:

Should we (as humans) always be productive? Or, how much of our time should be productive? What IS productive?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
are these things wasting time or passing time?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither. Those are the things that give time practiality. They soothe the mind and they occupy the matter. So in this context, time matters, as you are building something out of nothing but what's already there. If there's a preference bias inherent in that, so be it.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> This is the problem with assigning a priori probabilities to unobserved hypothetical things that are not required to explain any observed phenomena. </font>

Which basically means, assume non-existence until given evidence to think otherwise? It's an honest question, because I'm terrible at math.

So we're back to what constitutes evidence. Obviously, some people believe they have enough hearsay evidence to assign a high probability on things such as god, religion, etc. I guess if you believe the evidence, fine. But for atheists, it's best to simple assume non-existence until shown otherwise without getting into probabilities?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Not if it's infinite, you don't. And the problem is that it is infinite. In more ways than one. See, for every category you can think of, I can think of subcategories. And for most subcategories of God you can think of, I can think of supercategories. It's like asking "what's the smallest real number?" You can't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a hierarchy of infinites, you can define both sets and subsets and still have room and a base to relate the finite with the infinite.

But the paradox is, you can't define a finite set against an infinite set by ratio. You can, however, define a finite set on a ratio against a single infinity.

So a single infinity cannot exist, but the whole set is complete and will always be. All future expansions and relations will be carried within the set in a continual infodensity, with expounding internal growth.

Oops. I'm not certain what I just did there.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
But for atheists, it's best to simple assume non-existence until shown otherwise without getting into probabilities?

[/ QUOTE ]

At its core, atheism removes pollution bias from an accurate assessment of the probability of theistic entities.

Just because the Greeks discovered mathematically the curvature of Earth in the 5th c. B.C. wasn't enough for the practialists of Europe. So Columbus had to sail by royal command to establish the first inroads into proving this theory, even if the theory had been discredited by then.

After that, of course, Magellan.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> This is the problem with assigning a priori probabilities to unobserved hypothetical things that are not required to explain any observed phenomena. </font>

Which basically means, assume non-existence until given evidence to think otherwise?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I don't assume non-existence; I simply don't postulate existence.

This distinction may seem subtle or even semantic, but I think it is important.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
…But you do bring up an interesting philosophical point. What is wasting time? I often think this is a waste of time (time spent posting on here). I justify it, because I play poker while typing. What about watching TV? I consider this a HUGE waste of time! I guess my question is:

Should we (as humans) always be productive? Or, how much of our time should be productive? What IS productive?

[/ QUOTE ]


Right. My thinking has been:

If God exists then X. (What is X is the only question then? Everything else falls into place once X is know.)

If he does not exist, then is there any difference between wasting time and spending time? I say there is no difference under this scenario. Others seem to thing differently and I can’t for the life of me figure out what that difference is.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not if it's infinite, you don't. And the problem is that it is infinite. In more ways than one. See, for every category you can think of, I can think of subcategories. And for most subcategories of God you can think of, I can think of supercategories. It's like asking "what's the smallest real number?" You can't do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a hierarchy of infinites, you can define both sets and subsets and still have room and a base to relate the finite with the infinite.

But the paradox is, you can't define a finite set against an infinite set by ratio. You can, however, define a finite set on a ratio against a single infinity.

So a single infinity cannot exist, but the whole set is complete and will always be. All future expansions and relations will be carried within the set in a continual infodensity, with expounding internal growth.

Oops. I'm not certain what I just did there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure I 100% follow. You're saying that infinities lead to paradoxes and therefor can't exist, but many of our assumptions about the universe require them to?

And what do you mean by defining a finite set on a ratio against a single infinity?

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither. Those are the things that give time practiality. They soothe the mind and they occupy the matter. So in this context, time matters, as you are building something out of nothing but what's already there. If there's a preference bias inherent in that, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is the difference between man and God (for those of us who believe). God builds (built) things out of nothing, period.

But getting to your point. In this context you are saying these things matter because they soothe the mind? Valium does that.

Why bother trying to cure cancer? (If you are correct then I think the only answer is Ego.)

[FortunaMaximus]

The ratio is infinite/finite = defined infinite. But it's an infinity that can be defined singly. I don't know. Some [censored] flew out of my head.

Multiple infinities can exist, but the paradox is that in an infinite set, the progression is internal expansion. The setitself never expands, because it doesn't have any numerical basis for existing, and is an artificial bracket.

Hmm. That there is no ultimate set, and all finite sets and infinite sets are relational to each other. And the number of relations themselves are infinite.

And because there is no ultimate superset, it is not the theortical superset that is incomplete, but that the properties necessary for completeness are not required, just a concession to continual growth and expansion.

The Emperor wears no clothes, but can sire an infinite number of Emperors, and each Emperor has a finite reign, and each successive Emperor can sire yet another infinite succession. It isn't a paradox, just a misapplication of causality.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Neither. Those are the things that give time practiality. They soothe the mind and they occupy the matter. So in this context, time matters, as you are building something out of nothing but what's already there. If there's a preference bias inherent in that, so be it.

[/ QUOTE ]


That is the difference between man and God (for those of us who believe). God builds (built) things out of nothing, period.

But getting to your point. In this context you are saying these things matter because they soothe the mind? Valium does that.

Why bother trying to cure cancer? (If you are correct then I think the only answer is Ego.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the methods for soothing and the cure for cancer matters to man. If it matters to man, he feels an imperative to cure it. Maybe it's nothing more than an urge to live longer.

No, not out of nothing, but infinite potentiality that resided in the zero-state of nothingness.

The zero is neither positive or negative. It is not infinite. Two zeroes have no more real value than one, but two zeroes occupy more space and take more time. Why?

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
…But you do bring up an interesting philosophical point. What is wasting time? I often think this is a waste of time (time spent posting on here). I justify it, because I play poker while typing. What about watching TV? I consider this a HUGE waste of time! I guess my question is:

Should we (as humans) always be productive? Or, how much of our time should be productive? What IS productive?

[/ QUOTE ]


Right. My thinking has been:

If God exists then X. (What is X is the only question then? Everything else falls into place once X is know.)

If he does not exist, then is there any difference between wasting time and spending time? I say there is no difference under this scenario. Others seem to thing differently and I can’t for the life of me figure out what that difference is.

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT, It's only wasting time if you think of it that way. If you're doing something that you value, it matters to you, and God doesn't need to have a say in it. As others on here have said, all meaning is self-referential.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue">No. I don't assume non-existence; I simply don't postulate existence. </font>

You don't postulate existence in the same way you don't postulate an eagle dropping a tortoise on your head when walking down the street?

I think I see the subtle difference and agree it's important.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Multiple infinities can exist, but the paradox is that in an infinite set, the progression is internal expansion. The setitself never expands, because it doesn't have any numerical basis for existing, and is an artificial bracket.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean our understanding of the set is as an expansion? To me, "expansion" indicates the passage of time, or at least some element of flow. But an infinity is static, not flowing. Do you mean it expands over some interval?

[ QUOTE ]
And because there is no ultimate superset, it is not the theortical superset that is incomplete, but that the properties necessary for completeness are not required, just a concession to continual growth and expansion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not required for what? I mean, I can see where the concept has applications. For example, I've always been of the opinion that no one being can see all that there is - just as no one set can contain all other sets. And that seems to resonate here. But it's hard to follow.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How sure are you about your beliefs?

I am 100% sure there isn't a god of any kind.

I am 100% sure that all people who practice religion are wasting their time (if the intent is to get them to heaven).

I am 100% sure the Theory of Evolution is legitimate and on the right track. This doesn't mean that it is 100% correct in its present form.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unjustified certainty ftw. If you don't believe in God, how on earth can you believe anything is 100% reliable, much less a human being? Hell, there's a &gt;0% chance that a spectacular brain malfunction is responsible for all your beliefs, and the world as you know it doesn't even exist in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mad, I am sorry if you are uncertain in your beliefs - it doesn't mean others can't be certain. By the way, are you 100% certain of anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Pray tell, why would a logical, inquisitve thinker assign something a 100% certainity? Curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is precisely because I am a logical thinker that I can be 100% certain there is no god. Don't confuse 100% certainty with something being correct. It is only a measure of my own personal doubt level, which in this case is zero. My own level of certainty has no bearing on whether the original premise is correct.

I repeat, is there anything you are 100% certain of?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well done "bocablkr" you have nailed it with: "Don't confuse 100% certainty with something being correct. It is only a measure of my own personal doubt level, which in this case is zero. "

There are an infinitude of hypothetical absurdities, and it is impossible to even contemplate them in the first place, let alone explicitly entertain the idea that they exist. Therefore it must be that for almost all hypothetical absurdities, ones measure of ones own personal doubt level (doubt of non-existence), should be exactly zero.

And if you choose to, or are persuaded to, contemplate some hypothetical absurdities, without any good reason, there is a big danger that it is an arbitrary choice, and that you are completely wasting your time. This is especially true for hypothetical absurdities, such as "gods", that have very obviously been concocted and fabricated by other human beings.

And, by the way, although personal doubt levels are not the same as objective probabilities, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the existence probability of (at least) almost all hypothetical absurdities is also exactly zero (and in fact mathematical consistency forces this).

[RJT]

ev,

[ QUOTE ]
RJT, It's only wasting time if you think of it that way. If you're doing something that you value, it matters to you, and God doesn't need to have a say in it. As others on here have said, all meaning is self-referential.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. From my perspective wasting time and passing time become the same (assuming God does not exists.) Valium seems much easier to me - I’ll let you guys work on the cancer.

RJT

[evolvedForm]

Human will is different from animal will because it involves consciousness. Your will would not be the same as it is if you had lower order consciousness. Forgetting the attempt to objectivize us for a second, think about how different we would be without consciousness.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
There are an infinitude of hypothetical absurdities, and it is impossible to even contemplate them in the first place, let alone explicitly entertain the idea that they exist. Therefore it must be that for almost all hypothetical absurdities, ones measure of ones own personal doubt level (doubt of non-existence), should be exactly zero.

And if you choose to, or are persuaded to, contemplate some hypothetical absurdities, without any good reason, there is a big danger that it is an arbitrary choice, and that you are completely wasting your time. This is especially true for hypothetical absurdities, such as "gods", that have very obviously been concocted and fabricated by other human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intellect is powerful, but it doesn't really go anywhere without imagination. I don't think it's a waste of time to consider things that probably don't exist in reality. And you might be surprised at the direct, practical applications of contemplation on such matters. Learning to connect A, B, and C absurd concepts in the mind can help you connect X, Y, and Z relevant concepts in reality.

[ QUOTE ]
And, by the way, although personal doubt levels are not the same as objective probabilities, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the existence probability of (at least) almost all hypothetical absurdities is also exactly zero (and in fact mathematical consistency forces this).

[/ QUOTE ]

We say "the limit as n approaches infinity is 0." No resembles, but is. At the same time, the infinitesimals have been now been given a rigorous treatment.

At minimum, if the sum of all the respective probabilities is 0, I don't think it's reasonable to say that the situation can be analyzed according to probabilistic terms in the first place.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]

ev,

[ QUOTE ]
RJT, It's only wasting time if you think of it that way. If you're doing something that you value, it matters to you, and God doesn't need to have a say in it. As others on here have said, all meaning is self-referential.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. From my perspective wasting time and passing time become the same (assuming God does not exists.) Valium seems much easier to me - I&amp;#8217;ll let you guys work on the cancer.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

Would I take an easy out? I don't know. Part of me doesn't want my own suffering to end until I've helped others to alleviate theirs. Another part of me is suffering a lot and just wants it to end, anything to make it stop.

The second part is relatively easy to explain, but the first part has greater control. So what is it that matters more to me than my own suffering? I don't know. A basic drive to feel that my life has meaning? Simple compassion? Some sort of felicitous misdirection of fear or anger? Pride? A genuine desire to suffer?

I can be an atheist without being able to explain my every motivation from start to finish.

[Double Down]

ONly read some of this thread so far, but I think before sending out a survey of what % certainty one believes or disbelieves in God, we should come to some sort of consensus of what your definition of "God" is.
I am 100% that there is a God, but my definition of God is probably very different from the Judeo-Christian God that is argued about incessantly in this forum.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
we should come to some sort of consensus of what your definition of "God" is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Distilled to pure logic, an entity capable of making absolute probability judgments and determinations, who has no problem entwining causality knots.

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
Multiple infinities can exist, but the paradox is that in an infinite set, the progression is internal expansion. The seti tself never expands, because it doesn't have any numerical basis for existing, and is an artificial bracket.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]


You mean our understanding of the set is as an expansion? To me, "expansion" indicates the passage of time, or at least some element of flow. But an infinity is static, not flowing. Do you mean it expands over some interval?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. There is no pace of expansion, at least not a measurable one, because there is no outside observable point. All intervals are internal and contigent on a multiple of observers. It isn't necessarily a pure expansion, because there are oscillatory effects, when you account for variable infinities that have properties for contraction and expansion. It's like trying to explain the concept of a spherical parabola when the basis of reference is simply linear. It isn't simple duality, but mutliplicity. The only pure checks and balances are in the growth of the information, not the density gains.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And because there is no ultimate superset, it is not the theortical superset that is incomplete, but that the properties necessary for completeness are not required, just a concession to continual growth and expansion.

[/ QUOTE ][ QUOTE ]
Not required for what? I mean, I can see where the concept has applications. For example, I've always been of the opinion that no one being can see all that there is - just as no one set can contain all other sets. And that seems to resonate here. But it's hard to follow.

[/ QUOTE ]

Self-contained resonance. Hmm. A superset suggests a contained limit, and such an artificality is not necessary. The system does not need to be enclosed, as it isn't set on a plane with preset coordinate matrices. In its development, it creates its own medium. Ouroboros, only the snake grows as it eats itself.

Hmm. As it consumes and comes to new conclusions, the whole (?) grows and finds new conclusions, and the process repeats itself, sometimes in similar ways, but also in different ways, and is capable of doing both at simulatenously, if only because there is room to do so. And it is not duality, but multiplicity. There is no primary reference point, but a flux of reference points that feed off each other and the growth continues and creates recursive interconnections.

Since the space isn't three-dimensional, but x-dimensional, attempts to create an analogy for a medium of infinite information space will always fall short within a three or four dimensional network.

Quick question: In brief, what is the ambiguity that leads string theory to define in both 10 or 11 dimensions, and why was the older models with 26 dimensions discredited?

Aside: This may well be conceptual gibberish, but initution tells me it isn't, not quite.

[thylacine]

madnak said:[ QUOTE ]
thylacine said:[ QUOTE ]
There are an infinitude of hypothetical absurdities, and it is impossible to even contemplate them in the first place, let alone explicitly entertain the idea that they exist. Therefore it must be that for almost all hypothetical absurdities, ones measure of ones own personal doubt level (doubt of non-existence), should be exactly zero.

And if you choose to, or are persuaded to, contemplate some hypothetical absurdities, without any good reason, there is a big danger that it is an arbitrary choice, and that you are completely wasting your time. This is especially true for hypothetical absurdities, such as "gods", that have very obviously been concocted and fabricated by other human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Intellect is powerful, but it doesn't really go anywhere without imagination. I don't think it's a waste of time to consider things that probably don't exist in reality. And you might be surprised at the direct, practical applications of contemplation on such matters. Learning to connect A, B, and C absurd concepts in the mind can help you connect X, Y, and Z relevant concepts in reality.

thylacine said:[ QUOTE ]
And, by the way, although personal doubt levels are not the same as objective probabilities, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the existence probability of (at least) almost all hypothetical absurdities is also exactly zero (and in fact mathematical consistency forces this).

[/ QUOTE ]

We say "the limit as n approaches infinity is 0." No resembles, but is. At the same time, the infinitesimals have been now been given a rigorous treatment.

At minimum, if the sum of all the respective probabilities is 0, I don't think it's reasonable to say that the situation can be analyzed according to probabilistic terms in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

I basically agree with you. I can't be bothered typing some long post, but I'll say:

(1) Imagination, contemplation, hypotheticalizing etc. is important, but you have to be selective about what you spend your brain on. You don't want to waste your time on absurdities (but you have to figure out if/when that is happening) and that certainly means not getting dragged too much into serious consideration of the wacky ideas of religious nutcases. Debating them is another matter, though that seems futile too. Keeping them out of schools is not futile though.

(2) I know about cardinal numbers, ordinal numbers, real and surreal numbers, and about `paradoxes' in set theory, logic and measure theory, and all kinds of other problems with assigning probabilities in the first place. So I certainly agree when you say "I don't think it's reasonable to say that the situation can be analyzed according to probabilistic terms in the first place." I think I was making that point, amongst others.

@#$%^&amp;* I typed a long post after all.

[FortunaMaximus]

And a good one too. There's a thin balance between hypotheses and postulates that come out of nowhere and completely deranged statements. You know, you can't classify scientists as a homogenous brew. Some simply approach the subject differently, with different developmental rigor. Someone like me would rather be wrong 98 times if the other 2 times it actually produces something viable. That doesn't mean I'm going to toss all 100 ideas into a discussion. There are also eminently capable scientists and mathematicians who can detect the gaps and hone in on them. It's a nice feedback system, and only negative if ego and emotion comes into play, inducing bias.

Again, nice post, thylacine. Concur.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
(1) Imagination, contemplation, hypotheticalizing etc. is important, but you have to be selective about what you spend your brain on. You don't want to waste your time on absurdities (but you have to figure out if/when that is happening) and that certainly means not getting dragged too much into serious consideration of the wacky ideas of religious nutcases. Debating them is another matter, though that seems futile too. Keeping them out of schools is not futile though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I figure if I'm interested in it, then it's not a waste of time. In most cases I'm interested in "respected" things, so that's not a huge problem. And I agree that some things have a pull that's... different. Not just religion, either - television is a great example of something that I'm not remotely interested in, but that still has a kind of seduction.

But generally, if I choose to put my time into something, then I'm getting something out of it. Maybe not something that most people would consider worthwhile, but I define my values by my actions. I don't feel a need to "be vigilant." I don't watch tv, I don't eat meat, etc. But I notice that when it was only when I relaxed and let myself do "whatever" that it became easy to "resist" such things. The pull they had was at its strongest when I was trying to actively resist.

"You have no power over me."

[arahant]

Shoot...i got to this one late.
99.999999999% sure there is no 'god'
100% sure people practicing religion are NOT wasting time (because it has other benefits, and what the hell else are they going to do?)
99.9999999999% sure evolution is on the right track. I figure that 10% of potential gods would try to trick us about it.

[CORed]

No God: 50%

I think many people derive some social or psychological benefit from practicing religion, even though I'm about 99% sure that all religions are wrong (even if there is a God).

I'm 99% sure that the theory of evolution is substantially correct, if you do not consider hypotheses of the origin of life in it. I don't think science has a clue about how you get from non-living matter to life. However given bacteria or something similar, the theory of evolution satisfactorily explains how we got from them to the vast array of living things, including us, on the planet Earth today.

[JimNashe]

% of No God = % of No Thor = % of No Santa Claus

% of Evolution being substantially correct = 99%, and if proven wrong the new theory will be to Evolution like The theory of general relativity is to Newton's laws. (i.e. relegate the old theory to being a special case of the new theory)