why I'm an atheist...

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]

It is so odd that you rate me after I laid such waste to your "3 conditions" agrument by attacking the "facts" pillar.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're flattering yourself. You identified a very special theoretical condition where David's criteria MIGHT NOT apply.

[ QUOTE ]
I answered the question no one even thought to ask.

[/ QUOTE ]

No one else seemed quite so motivated to challenge a model that was basically self-evident. The AI analogy is an interesting bit of esoterica, but it isn't the sledgehammer you purport it to be.

[David Sklansky]

"You're flattering yourself. You identified a very special theoretical condition where David's criteria MIGHT NOT apply."

That gets you into the top ten.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
You're flattering yourself. You identified a very special theoretical condition where David's criteria MIGHT NOT apply

[/ QUOTE ]
The burden is on him as it is his proof. I showed several escapable paths. It is for him to shut the door. Note, I did not say "disprove". I said, "This statement cannot be accepted as always true without further qualification"

Sorry Dominic

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
My take:
God defined by religons = 0% chance of being correct
ID or some force out there = Unlikely but too soon to tell. There are just way to many unknowns. Our true understanding of the basic foundations of the universe is zero."


[/ QUOTE ]

The existence of unknowns does not increase the likelihood of the existence of that for which there is zero evidence.

However, this probably doesn't affect your position as the second best poster in SMP.

[Utah]

[ QUOTE ]
The existence of unknowns does not increase the likelihood of the existence of that for which there is zero evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]I will have to think about that statement as it is very interesting. I would say there is some evidence in that there is order in the universe and it is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, you get into some tricky things with definitions.

However,I am more interested in the logic piece. Can you explain more? Lets say there is a case for which we know absolutely nothing about. So, to start, solution set = {all possible solutions}. We know the solution is in there because the set is infinite but we have no evidence because we havent started examining yet. Are you saying that all the possibilities are 0%. How does that jive with the fact that the solution exists within the set? What am I missing here?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
I will have to think about that statement as it is very interesting. I would say there is some evidence in that there is order in the universe and it is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But, you get into some tricky things with definitions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not my thing, but I would have to think extropic processes have the potential, at least, to overtake the widespread effects of entropy.

It'd be a violation already, wouldn't it?

Unless extropy is just a non-existent concept.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
However,I am more interested in the logic piece. Can you explain more? Lets say there is a case for which we know absolutely nothing about. So, to start, solution set = {all possible solutions}. We know the solution is in there because the set is infinite but we have no evidence because we havent started examining yet. Are you saying that all the possibilities are 0%. How does that jive with the fact that the solution exists within the set? What am I missing here?

[/ QUOTE ]
Don't think you're missing anything. if there's an infinite number of equally likely solutions then their probability cannot be >0 as then the sum of the probabilities will be >1.

chez

[David Sklansky]

You are right. Borodog's wrong. For instance suppose you travelled to distant planet where lots of inhabitants played poker and some played it well. There is no evidence that any of them read my book. So you initially assume that the good players are either very smart or that they "evolved" into good players by hitting upon the right play and "surviving".

Further investigation reveals none are smart enough to calculate game theory bluff frequencies. Yet they do it. Further investigation shows that they evolved these plays a lot quicker than it seems they should. Those facts increase the probability that they somehow read my book regardless as to whether there is any evidence of it.

In order for Borodog's statement to be right he would have to change his "zero evidence" to "zero probability".

[Lestat]

You have just moved you from world's most renowned poker authority, to universally renowned.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
That gets you into the top ten.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just don't tell me txag or NotReady are ahead of me.