Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 11-05-2011, 03:22 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (11-05-2011)
  #302  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:04 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Why in the world are you acting like a parasite David? Why can't you start another thread on quantum mechanics and Tegmark instead of feeding off of this thread?
Reply With Quote
  #303  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:05 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
peacegirl. We spent two pages last night going over this one premise in an orderly fashion. That is the very definition of taking it seriously, and already you are telling me to re-read Lessans muck and that I don't understand.

You aren't cut out for this level of discussion. Take it to the woos.
You are soooo wrong and soooo arrogant I don't even know where to start.
Reply With Quote
  #304  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Kael, this is exactly why I have to post this section. There is no other way. If you can't grasp this concept from the horse's mouth (because it's a very difficult concept to grasp), then to expect me to explain this in my own words is going to be a disaster, as it has been in the past.
I'm ok with quotes, if you would be willing to quote just the specific passage where he states the observation, or "proof", as you put it. Re-posting pages of stuff that many have already waded through just to be told we must not understand it because we still disagree and should wade through it again is simply being obtuse and extremely rude.
At this point I could give a *$($( what you think Kael. Either stay because you want to learn something, or leave. It does not matter to me either way.
Reply With Quote
  #305  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:10 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kael View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Kael, this is exactly why I have to post this section. There is no other way. If you can't grasp this concept from the horse's mouth (because it's a very difficult concept to grasp), then to expect me to explain this in my own words is going to be a disaster, as it has been in the past.
I'm ok with quotes, if you would be willing to quote just the specific passage where he states the observation, or "proof", as you put it. Re-posting pages of stuff that many have already waded through just to be told we must not understand it because we still disagree and should wade through it again is simply being obtuse and extremely rude.
Or her constant repetition of the same behavior over and over and over again because she is unable to learn from her experiences simply means she is mentally ill.
Reply With Quote
  #306  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:12 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Why in the world are you acting like a parasite David? Why can't you start another thread on quantum mechanics and Tegmark instead of feeding off of this thread?
lol, peacegirl, I am responding directly to the copypasta you posted from Teh Great Man's book, in which we are treated to a probabilities analysis that is absolutely incorrect. Too bad, you posted the shit!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (11-05-2011)
  #307  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:17 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Why in the world are you acting like a parasite David? Why can't you start another thread on quantum mechanics and Tegmark instead of feeding off of this thread?
Whoops! Another indication of mental illness. She is her father's daughter.
Reply With Quote
  #308  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Anything can happen if the premises are correct. Even Henry Penny could be right when she said "the sky is falling." :chin:
Reply With Quote
  #309  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:24 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
peacegirl. We spent two pages last night going over this one premise in an orderly fashion. That is the very definition of taking it seriously, and already you are telling me to re-read Lessans muck and that I don't understand.

You aren't cut out for this level of discussion. Take it to the woos.
You are soooo wrong and soooo arrogant I don't even know where to start.
Again, she is unable to learn from her experiences.
Reply With Quote
  #310  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:32 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Anything can happen if the premises are correct. Even Henry Penny could be right when she said "the sky is falling." :chin:
peacegirl, you are just parading your ignorance of yet another field, probability and statistics, and your father's ignorance as well. You have no idea how much ridicule you are exposing your father to. Sooner or later if you keep it up it will go viral as a meme and "Lessans" will become synonymous with "know-nothing." ie., "That guy sure is a Lessans."
Reply With Quote
  #311  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:41 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Very good David, but you have your own agenda, so please back off in order for me to explain this discovery without more static which only makes it harder for everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #312  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Anything can happen if the premises are correct. Even Henry Penny could be right when she said "the sky is falling." :chin:
peacegirl, you are just parading your ignorance of yet another field, probability and statistics, and your father's ignorance as well. You have no idea how much ridicule you are exposing your father to. Sooner or later if you keep it up it will go viral as a meme and "Lessans" will become synonymous with "know-nothing." ie., "That guy sure is a Lessans."
That would be ashame wouldn't it, but that should stop me from expressing myself? Eventually, what is true will win out whether we're here to see it or not, so I'm not worried.
Reply With Quote
  #313  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:53 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Very good David, but you have your own agenda, so please back off in order for me to explain this discovery without more static which only makes it harder for everyone.
No, peacegirl, I have no agenda (except accuracy) and this is not static. You posted some copypasta about probabilities meant to support Lessans' claims. I and others are showing you that it's wrong. So if this is intended as support for Lessans' claim, which it must be since you posted it, it has the unfortunate defect of being incorrect. Nor is this opinion; you and the writer just don't understand probabilities.

Hey, peacegirl, Fred throws a million darts and gets one bull's eye. So the odds against him getting a bull's eye are astronomical, a million to one.

How many bull's eyes should we expect Fred to get if he threw an infinite number of darts?

Last edited by davidm; 11-05-2011 at 05:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #314  
Old 11-05-2011, 04:56 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Very good David, but you have your own agenda, so please back off in order for me to explain this discovery without more static which only makes it harder for everyone.
peacegirl, you have no interest in explaining anything. Not that your mental illness would allow you to anyway. And that same illness makes you incapable of learning from your experiences so that you might tailor your message to your audience. That same inability to learn makes it impossible for you to comprehend that Lessans is his own worse opponent. Quoting his work or even publishing it is the same as discrediting it. It is like opening up your garbage pail to the light of day and proclaiming it's contents to be great delectables. One might find them delicious if they had the mental facilities of a fly. Your mental illness has reduced your mental faculties to that of a fly.

Get help peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (11-05-2011)
  #315  
Old 11-05-2011, 05:00 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Anything can happen if the premises are correct. Even Henry Penny could be right when she said "the sky is falling." :chin:
peacegirl, you are just parading your ignorance of yet another field, probability and statistics, and your father's ignorance as well. You have no idea how much ridicule you are exposing your father to. Sooner or later if you keep it up it will go viral as a meme and "Lessans" will become synonymous with "know-nothing." ie., "That guy sure is a Lessans."
That would be ashame wouldn't it, but that should stop me from expressing myself? Eventually, what is true will win out whether we're here to see it or not, so I'm not worried.
peacegirl, after ten years of this nonsense (if you were not mentally ill), that alone should stop you from expressing yourself.

Ideas are not people. People compete with people but ideas compete with ideas. And so far Lessans ideas loose every time. People interact with you not because they find something in Lessans ideas of interest. No, they see the freak show and gawk at its absurdity.

You need to get help peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
  #316  
Old 11-05-2011, 05:08 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

That is one of the many things she does not get, that ideas compete with ideas. For her it's all personal, all Lessans, and so she thinks it's the same for us -- that we "worship" Einstein, for instance, and that's why we think relatvity theory is correct and contradicts Lessans. It's funny and tragic at the same time.

Lessans' ideas are contradicted by reality, peacegirl. It's not Lessans' v. Einstein or us, it's his ideas vs. reality. Reality wins, his ideas lose. Simple as that.
Reply With Quote
  #317  
Old 11-05-2011, 05:14 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
That is one of the many things she does not get, that ideas compete with ideas. For her it's all personal, all Lessans, and so she thinks it's the same for us -- that we "worship" Einstein, for instance, and that's why we think relatvity theory is correct and contradicts Lessans. It's funny and tragic at the same time.

Lessans' ideas are contradicted by reality, peacegirl. It's not Lessans' v. Einstein or us, it's his ideas vs. reality. Reality wins, his ideas lose. Simple as that.
Of course, but this conflicts with peacegirl's delusions. So until she gets help, pointing it out will just **whoosh** right over her head.

Everything else is just gawking at a freak show.
Reply With Quote
  #318  
Old 11-05-2011, 06:24 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Very good David, but you have your own agenda, so please back off in order for me to explain this discovery without more static which only makes it harder for everyone.
No, peacegirl, I have no agenda (except accuracy) and this is not static. You posted some copypasta about probabilities meant to support Lessans' claims. I and others are showing you that it's wrong. So if this is intended as support for Lessans' claim, which it must be since you posted it, it has the unfortunate defect of being incorrect. Nor is this opinion; you and the writer just don't understand probabilities.

Hey, peacegirl, Fred throws a million darts and gets one bull's eye. So the odds against him getting a bull's eye are astronomical, a million to one.

How many bull's eyes should we expect Fred to get if he threw an infinite number of darts?
The probability of a world that meets such exact criteria for survival by a throw of darts is so farfetched it's nonsensical.
Reply With Quote
  #319  
Old 11-05-2011, 06:25 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
That is one of the many things she does not get, that ideas compete with ideas. For her it's all personal, all Lessans, and so she thinks it's the same for us -- that we "worship" Einstein, for instance, and that's why we think relatvity theory is correct and contradicts Lessans. It's funny and tragic at the same time.

Lessans' ideas are contradicted by reality, peacegirl. It's not Lessans' v. Einstein or us, it's his ideas vs. reality. Reality wins, his ideas lose. Simple as that.
You wish it was that simple. Then you could have all the worlds that are within your fantastical illusion.
Reply With Quote
  #320  
Old 11-05-2011, 06:28 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
That is one of the many things she does not get, that ideas compete with ideas. For her it's all personal, all Lessans, and so she thinks it's the same for us -- that we "worship" Einstein, for instance, and that's why we think relatvity theory is correct and contradicts Lessans. It's funny and tragic at the same time.

Lessans' ideas are contradicted by reality, peacegirl. It's not Lessans' v. Einstein or us, it's his ideas vs. reality. Reality wins, his ideas lose. Simple as that.
You wish it was that simple. Then you could have all the worlds that are within your fantastical illusion.
:pat: :halftroll:
Reply With Quote
  #321  
Old 11-05-2011, 06:29 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
Very good David, but you have your own agenda, so please back off in order for me to explain this discovery without more static which only makes it harder for everyone.
No, peacegirl, I have no agenda (except accuracy) and this is not static. You posted some copypasta about probabilities meant to support Lessans' claims. I and others are showing you that it's wrong. So if this is intended as support for Lessans' claim, which it must be since you posted it, it has the unfortunate defect of being incorrect. Nor is this opinion; you and the writer just don't understand probabilities.

Hey, peacegirl, Fred throws a million darts and gets one bull's eye. So the odds against him getting a bull's eye are astronomical, a million to one.

How many bull's eyes should we expect Fred to get if he threw an infinite number of darts?
The probability of a world that meets such exact criteria for survival by a throw of darts is so farfetched it's nonsensical.
Parading your ignorance again, are we? It's a thought experiment, peacegirl, just like your father's "God turning on the sun." Thought experiments don't have to be physically possible. This is a simple question in probability/math that can be worked out by a calculation. So, what's the answer, peacegirl?
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 11-05-2011, 06:34 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

cont...Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 43-53

His questions were
predictable coming from a superficial understanding of man’s nature
and represent the confusion many people feel when the issue of
determinism comes up.

“Isn’t it obvious that we must have standards of some kind so that
a child can be taught the difference between right and wrong, good
and evil? Supposing all individuals in a society are told that it is
wrong to steal (I hope you’re not going to tell me this is right), yet
certain ones deliberately ignore this and take what belongs to someone
else; isn’t it obvious that we must blame them because they were
warned in advance that if they should steal they will be punished? Are
you trying to tell me there is no such thing as a standard of right and
wrong?”

“If you know the difference between right and wrong, and you also
know that a person cannot be blamed or punished for what he does
because his will is not free, isn’t it obvious that we are given only one
alternative and that is to prevent the desire to do what is wrong from
arising which then makes it unnecessary to blame and punish? Just
as long as man has this safety valve of blame and punishment, he
doesn’t have to find the solution to this doing of what is wrong.
Parents can be very careless and excuse themselves by blaming their
children; and governments can be careless and excuse themselves by
blaming their citizens while plunging the entire world into war.”

“But supposing they are not careless and they are doing everything
in their power to prevent children and citizens from doing what is
wrong so that blame and punishment are not necessary, what then?
Are we not supposed to blame and punish them for our own
protection when they do something wrong?”

“That’s just the point. Once it is discovered through
mathematical reasoning that man’s will is definitely not free, then it
becomes impossible to blame an individual for what he is compelled
to do; consequently, it is imperative that we discover a way to prevent
his desire to do the very things for which blame and punishment were
previously necessary, as the lesser of two evils.”

“This new world which looks good, sounds good, and seems
theoretically possible in its blueprint form so far (since you haven’t
shown me yet how to rid the world of war and crime — two most
important items), it may be just another dream, and even if it isn’t,
it took the Greeks two millennium to convince mankind that the
earth was a sphere. Even today, there are still some people who don’t
believe it, so how do you expect people to listen to something that not
only sounds impossible, but is so far removed from contemporary
thought?”

“This is the stumbling block I am faced with.”

“Are you telling me that this discovery, whatever it is, will prevent
man from desiring to commit murder, rape, start a war, annihilate 6
million people, etc., is that right?”

“That’s correct. The corollary, Thou Shall Not Blame, when it
is extended does not mean that we will be forced to condone what
hurts us, but we will be shown how to prevent these evils by
mathematically extending the corollary. And the amazing thing is
that both sides of this equation are correct. Christ said, “Turn the
other cheek” and Durant said, “This is impossible.” Just think about
this for one moment. Would you believe that both principles are
mathematically correct?”

“How is that possible?”

“God made the reconciliation of these two principles the time
when He would reveal Himself to all mankind. But to get here you
can see what had to be done first since the paths leading up to this
understanding were camouflaged with layers upon layers of words that
concealed the truth.”

“Is proving that man’s will is not free the key to open the door and
your second discovery?”

“Of course not; I just told you that the fiery dragon must be killed
to get the key. First, I must prove that man’s will is not free so we
can come face to face with the fiery dragon (the great impasse of
blame), and I will prove it in a mathematical, undeniable manner.
Then I shall jab him in the right eye, then the left, then I shall cut
out his tongue. I took fencing lessons for the job. And finally I shall
pierce him in his heart. Then when I have made certain he is dead.”

“I thought you killed him already.”

“I did, but there was a dragon for each person, so instead of giving
everybody a sword; steel is high these days, I shall slay him so the
whole world can see he is dead.”

“Do you mean to tell me there is absolutely no way all evil can be
removed from our lives without knowledge of your discovery?”

“That’s absolutely true.”

“Then your discovery must be the most fantastic thing ever
discovered.”

“It truly is because God is showing us the way at last. However,
before I show how it is possible to resolve the implications, it is
necessary to repeat that I will proceed in a step by step manner. This
dragon has been guarding an invisible key and door for many years,
and this could never be made visible except for someone who saw these
undeniable relations. If, therefore, you would like to learn that Man
Does Not Stand Alone as Morrison understood from his scientific
observations; that God, this Supreme Intelligence, is a mathematical
reality of infinite wisdom, then what do you say we begin our voyage
that will literally change the entire world. We are not interested in
opinions and theories regardless of where they originate, just in the
truth, so let’s proceed to the next step and prove conclusively, beyond
a shadow of doubt, that what we do of our own free will (of our own
desire because we want to) is done absolutely and positively not of our
own free will. Remember, by proving that determinism, as the
opposite of free will, is true, we also establish undeniable proof that
free will is false.” So without any further adieu, let us begin.

The dictionary states that free will is the power of
self-determination regarded as a special faculty of choosing good and
evil without compulsion or necessity. Made, done, or given of one’s
own free choice; voluntary. But this is only part of the definition
since it is implied that man can be held responsible, blamed and
punished for doing what is considered wrong or evil since it is believed
he could have chosen otherwise. In other words, it is believed that
man has the ability to do other than he does, if he wants to, and
therefore can be held responsible for doing what he is not supposed to
do.

These very words reveal the fallacy of this belief to those who have
mathematical perception: Man is held responsible not for doing what
he desires to do or considers right, better or good for himself under
his particular set of circumstances, but for doing what others judge to
be wrong or evil, and they feel absolutely certain he could have acted
otherwise had he wanted to. Isn’t this the theme of free will? But
take note. Supposing the alternative judged right for him by others
is not desired by himself because of conditions known only to him,
what then? Does this make his will free? It is obvious that a great
part of our lives offers no choice; consequently, this is not my
consideration. For example, free will does not hold any person
responsible for what he does in an unconscious state like hypnosis, nor
does it believe that man can be blamed for being born, growing,
sleeping, eating, defecating, urinating, etc.; therefore, it is
unnecessary to prove that these actions, which come under the normal
compulsion of living, are beyond control.

Supposing a father is desperately in need of work to feed his
family but cannot find a job. Let us assume he is living in the United
States and for various reasons doesn’t come under the consideration
of unemployment compensation or relief and can’t get any more
credit for food, clothing, shelter, etc., what is he supposed to do? If
he steals a loaf of bread to feed his family the law can easily punish
him by saying he didn’t have to steal if he didn’t want to, which is
perfectly true. Others might say stealing is evil, that he could have
chosen an option which was good; in this case almost any other
alternative would have sufficed.

But supposing this individual
preferred stealing because he considered this act good for himself in
comparison to the evil of asking for charity or further credit because
it appeared to him, at that moment, that this was the better choice of
the three that were available to him — so does this make his will free?
It is obvious that he did not have to steal if he didn’t want to, but he
wanted to, and it is also obvious that those in law enforcement did not
have to punish him if they didn’t want to, but both sides wanted to do
what they did under the circumstances.

In reality, we are carried along on the wings of time or life during
every moment of our existence and have no say in this matter
whatsoever. We cannot stop ourselves from being born and are
compelled to either live out our lives the best we can, or commit
suicide. Is it possible to disagree with this? However, to prove that
what we do of our own free will, of our own desire because we want to
do it, is also beyond control, it is necessary to employ mathematical
(undeniable) reasoning. Therefore, since it is absolutely impossible
for man to be both dead and alive at the same time, and since it is
absolutely impossible for a person to desire committing suicide unless
dissatisfied with life (regardless of the reason), we are given the ability
to demonstrate a revealing and undeniable relation.

Every motion, from the beating heart to the slightest reflex action,
from all inner to outer movements of the body, indicates that life is
never satisfied to remain in one position for always like an inanimate
object, which position shall be termed ‘death.’ I shall now call the
present moment of time or life here for the purpose of clarification,
and the next moment coming up there. You are now standing on this
present moment of time and space called here and you are given two
alternatives, either live or kill yourself; either move to the next spot
called there or remain where you are without moving a hairs breadth
by committing suicide.

“I prefer...” Excuse the interruption, but the very fact that you
started to answer me or didn’t commit suicide at that moment makes
it obvious that you were not satisfied to stay in one position, which is
death or here and prefer moving off that spot to there, which motion
is life. Consequently, the motion of life which is any motion from
here to there is a movement away from that which dissatisfies,
otherwise, had you been satisfied to remain here or where you are, you
would never have moved to there.

Since the motion of life constantly
moves away from here to there, which is an expression of
dissatisfaction with the present position, it must obviously move
constantly in the direction of greater satisfaction. It should be
obvious that our desire to live, to move off the spot called here is
determined by a law over which we have no control because even if we
should kill ourselves, we are choosing what gives us greater
satisfaction, otherwise, we would not kill ourselves. The truth of the
matter is that at any particular moment the motion of man is not free
for all life obeys this invariable law.

He is constantly compelled by his
nature to make choices, decisions, and to prefer of whatever options
are available during his lifetime that which he considers better for
himself and his set of circumstances. For example, when he found
that a discovery like the electric bulb was for his benefit in comparison
to candlelight, he was compelled to prefer it for his motion, just being
alive, has always been in the direction of greater satisfaction. During
every moment of man’s progress he always did what he had to do
because he had no choice. Although this demonstration proves that
man’s will is not free, your mind may not be accustomed to grasping
these type relations, so I will elaborate.

Supposing you wanted very much of two alternatives A, which we
shall designate something considered evil by society, instead of B, the
humdrum of your regular routine; could you possibly pick B at that
particular moment of time if A is preferred as a better alternative
when nothing could sway you from your decision, not even the threat
of the law? What if the clergy, given two alternatives, choose A,
which shall now represent something considered good, instead of B,
that which is judged evil; would it be possible for them to prefer the
latter when the former is available as an alternative?

If it is utterly
impossible to choose B in this comparison, are they not compelled by
their very nature to prefer A; and how can they be free when the
favorable difference between A and B is the compulsion of their
choice and the motion of life in the direction of greater satisfaction?
To be free, according to the definition of free will, man would be able
to prefer of two alternatives, either the one he wants or the one he
doesn’t want, which is an absolute impossibility because selecting what
he doesn’t want when what he does want is available as an alternative
is a motion in the direction of dissatisfaction.

To give you a more familiar example, let us imagine that a woman
has a special business meeting to attend and must quickly choose
between two dresses because she is running late. If both dresses are
undesirable, she is compelled to select the dress that is the least
undesirable of the two, therefore her final choice in this comparison
is the better alternative. Obviously, she has other options; she could
leave both dresses and wear something from home, continue to shop
and call in late, etc.

This is a hypothetical situation for the purpose
of showing that once she decides to buy a dress as a solution to her
problem, she is compelled to prefer the one that gives every indication
of being the best possible choice. It is true that her choice will be
influenced by many variables such as price, quality, color, etc., but
regardless of the factors that contribute to her final decision she is
compelled, by her very nature, to pick the dress that is the most
preferable after weighing the pros and cons. For instance, if cost is an
important consideration she may desire to buy the less expensive dress
because it is within her price range and though she would be happier
with the more expensive dress, she moves in the direction of greater
satisfaction by picking the dress that appeals to her the least. This is
where people get confused. Moving toward greater satisfaction does
not mean that we are always satisfied. It just means that when
comparing the options that are available to us, we are choosing [what
we believe to be] the best alternative under our particular
circumstances.

[Note: This does not mean that we have considered
all possible options; only those that have come to mind or have been
brought to our attention at any given moment in time. Nor does it
mean that our choices are unlimited, for the availability of choices
depends on a myriad of cultural, economic, and social factors]. After
coming home and trying on the dress, she may have a change of heart
and wish she had splurged on the more expensive dress. She may
decide to go to the store to make an exchange, or she may decide to
just keep the dress even though she isn’t that happy with her choice.
Each moment offers a new set of options but always in the direction
of greater satisfaction. I will now put the conclusive proof that man’s
will is not free to a mathematical test.

Imagine that you were taken prisoner in war time for espionage
and condemned to death, but mercifully given a choice between two
exits: A is the painless hemlock of Socrates, while B is death by
having your head held under water. The letters A and B, representing
small or large differences, are compared. The comparison is
absolutely necessary to know which is preferable. The difference
which is considered favorable, regardless of the reason, is the
compulsion of greater satisfaction desire is forced to take which makes
one of them an impossible choice in this comparison simply because
it gives less satisfaction under the circumstances. Consequently, since
B is an impossible choice, man is not free to choose A. Is it humanly
possible, providing no other conditions are introduced to affect your
decision, to prefer exit B if A is offered as an alternative?

“Yes, if this meant that those I loved would not be harmed in any
way.”

“Well, if this was your preference under these conditions, could
you prefer the other alternative?”

“No I couldn’t, but this is ridiculous because you really haven’t
given me any choice.”

“You most certainly do have a choice, and if your will is free, you
should be able to choose B just as well as A, or A just as well as B. In
other words, if B is considered the greater evil in this comparison of
alternatives, one is compelled completely beyond control to prefer A.
It is impossible for B to be selected in this comparison (although it
could be chosen to something still worse) as long as A is available as
an alternative. Consequently, since B is an impossible choice, you are
not free to choose A for your preference is a natural compulsion of the
direction of life over which you have absolutely no control.”
The definition of free will states that good or evil can be chosen
without compulsion or necessity despite the obvious fact that there is
a tremendous amount of compulsion. The word ‘choice’ itself
indicates there are preferable differences otherwise there would be no
choice in the matter at all as with A and A.

The reason you are
confused is because the word ‘choice’ is very misleading for it assumes
that man has two or more possibilities, but in reality this is a delusion
because the direction of life, always moving towards greater
satisfaction, compels a person to prefer of differences what he
considers better for himself and when two or more alternatives are
presented he is compelled, by his very nature, to prefer not that one
which he considers worse, but what gives every indication of being
better for the particular set of circumstances involved. Choosing, or
the comparison of differences, is an integral part of man’s nature, but,
to repeat, he is compelled to prefer of alternatives the one he considers
better for himself, and even though he chooses various things all
through the course of his life he is never given any choice at all.
Although the definition of free will states that man can choose good
or evil without compulsion or necessity, how is it possible for the will
of man to be free when choice is under a tremendous amount of
compulsion to choose the most preferable alternative each and every
moment of time?

“I agree with all this, but how many times in your life have you
remarked, ‘You give me no choice’ or ‘it makes no difference?’”

“Just because some differences are so obviously superior in value
where you are concerned that no hesitation is required to decide which
is preferable, while other differences need a more careful
consideration, does not change the direction of life which moves
always towards greater satisfaction than what the present position
offers. What one person judges good or bad for himself doesn’t make
it so for others especially when it is remembered that a juxtaposition
of differences in each case present alternatives that affect choice.”

My friend, still believing he could prove that man can move in the
direction of dissatisfaction, offered the following example.
“Let us imagine that of two apples, a red and a yellow, I prefer the
yellow because I am extremely allergic to the red, consequently my
taste lies in the direction of the latter which gives me greater
satisfaction. In fact, the very thought of eating the red apple makes
me feel sick. Yet in spite of this I am going to eat it to demonstrate
that even though I am dissatisfied — and prefer the yellow apple —
I can definitely move in the direction of dissatisfaction.”

“Do you honestly think this proves freedom of the will? Isn’t it
obvious that regardless of the reason you decided to eat the red apple,
and even though it would be distasteful in comparison, this choice at
that moment of time gave you greater satisfaction otherwise you
would have definitely selected and eaten the yellow? The normal
circumstances under which you frequently ate the yellow apple in
preference were changed by your desire to prove a point, therefore it
gave you greater satisfaction to eat what you did not normally eat in
an effort to prove that life can be made to move in the direction of
dissatisfaction. Consequently, since B (eating the yellow apple) was
an impossible choice at that moment, you were not free to choose A.”
Regardless of how many examples you experiment with, the results
will always be the same because this is an invariable law.

From
moment to moment, all through life, man can never move in the
direction of dissatisfaction, and that his every motion, conscious or
unconscious, is a natural effort to get rid of some dissatisfaction or
move to greater satisfaction, otherwise, as has been shown, not being
dissatisfied, he could never move from here to there. Every motion of
life expresses dissatisfaction with the present position. Scratching is
the effort of life to remove the dissatisfaction of the itch; as urinating,
defecating, sleeping, working, playing, mating, walking, talking, and
moving about in general are unsatisfied needs of life pushing man
always in the direction of satisfaction. It is easy, in many cases, to
recognize things that satisfy, such as money when funds are low, but
it is extremely difficult at other times to comprehend the innumerable
subconscious factors often responsible for the malaise of
dissatisfaction.

Your desire to take a bath arises from a feeling of
unseemliness or a wish to be refreshed, which means that you are
dissatisfied with the way you feel at that moment; and your desire to
get out of the bathtub arises from a feeling of dissatisfaction with a
position that has suddenly grown uncomfortable. This simple
demonstration proves conclusively that man’s will is not free because
satisfaction is the only direction life can take, and it offers only one
possibility at each moment of time.
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 11-05-2011, 06:38 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Oops! No answer to my question, more copypasta!
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 11-05-2011, 06:39 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
I either saw him, or saw someone with the same thinking, talking about that exact thing on a pop-sci TV show. He had the math and everything and demonstrated that if space is expanding, we would never be able to travel to find out double.
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 11-05-2011, 07:03 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Funnily enough, Max Tegmark addresses this issue in the paper I linked to earlier. I'll quote the bits later.

Basically, this: we have empirical evidence that the universe is spatially infinite (it could be different -- finite but unbounded, for example).

In a spatially infinite universe, (assuming a random and more or less uniform distribution of matter, for which we also have evidence) by chance alone, anything that can happen, will happen, no matter how long the odds.

More: in a spatially infinite universe, anything that can happen, will happen (no matter how long the odds) an infinite number of times.

It follows that there are an infinite number of inhabited planets in the universe.

More: it follows that there are an infinite number of planets in the universe that are near or essentially identical copies of the planet earth, each one of which has a copy of each one of us.

Tegmark then goes on to work out the calculations and tells you how far you would have to travel in space to meet your nearest identical copy.
I either saw him, or saw someone with the same thinking, talking about that exact thing on a pop-sci TV show. He had the math and everything and demonstrated that if space is expanding, we would never be able to travel to find out double.
You're right about the expansion, we couldn’t visit our counterparts even in principle, unless the expansion slows and then reverses.

I'd like to post the relevant bits from Tegmark but it has multiple superscripts to denote exponentiality, even more than one for the same number, and I don't see a way to do superscripts in this software. :sadcheer:

Apropos of that expansion, incidentally, is something I pointed out to peacegirl in the other thread, and which she ignored: it means what we call the universe is the observable universe, and not the whole universe (which is very likely infinite). The fact that we can only see some 14 billion light years across is yet another refutation of real-time seeing, obviously.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.94104 seconds with 14 queries