Total posts: 241
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Why does it matter?
Honestly, I don't have a good answer to this question. If you aren't interested, then you don't need to participate in this discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Supply us the definition of 'exist' you wish us to employ in this thread.
In the past, I have attempted to bring up the issue of a lack of meaningful definitions of "exist." The response to this was that the question was stupid and everyone knows what "exist" means. All arguments to the contrary were deemed irrelevant. So I'll be honest with you, this is a more subtle way to bring up the same topic, so you tell me, without using similar words such as "real," (unless you intend to define them separately) how would you define "exist?" Then we can work with that definition.
Created:
Posted in:
A few questions to ponder and discuss:
- Does the past exist?
- Does the future exist?
- Do abstractions exist?
- Do thoughts exist?
- If something will never be observed, does it exist?
- If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Are you sure that's enough?And is that the point at which matter ceases to exist?
He was making a joke.
0.9 = nine tenths.Therefore ten tenths = 1.0.99 = 99 hundredthsTherefore a hundred hundredths = 10.999 = 999 thousandths.Therefore a thousand thousandths = 1And so on.
What's your point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Certainly to a large extent, but there is still some significant randomization.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Does 0.9 = 1?No because the difference is significant.Does 0.99 = 1?No because the difference is still significant.So how many 9's are required to make the difference insignificant?
You seem to be holding the following common misconception: That 0.99999... = 1 because the difference is so small that it is insignificant. 0.99999... is exactly equal to 1. They are the same number. No rounding is happening, nor is anything being approximated. We generally would intuit a decimal like 0.99999... to be a number ever so slightly less than one, but such a difference would have to be infinitesimal, and infinitesimals do not exist in the real numbers thanks to the Archimedean property.* I suppose in a sense, 0.99999... = 1 because the difference is so small that it can't even exist!
This proof isn't exactly my favorite, since it doesn't provide any intuition on what 0.99999... and other such decimals are defined to be, but it does demonstrate something else valuable that other proofs cannot: Any reasonable definition of 0.99999... (where 0.99999... is at least 0.999...9 for any finite string of nines, and is no more than 1) must have 0.99999... = 1. This is important because it shows that this is not a quirk in the way we define infinite decimals like 0.99999..., but a quirk in the real numbers themselves.
*If you aren't sure why this implies that infinitesimals can't exist, if a positive infinitesimal is defined as a number greater than zero but less than 1/n for every natural number n, (which 1 - 0.99999... would be if it were positive) than if x is a positive infinitesimal, x < 1/n for every natural number n, and so 1/x > n for every natural number n, a violation of the Archimedean property.
A bonus more technical note if you're interested:
In other number systems like the surreal numbers, there are infinitesimals. It is not true, however, that 1 - 0.99999... is an infinitesimal in this context. Rather, all decimals retain their original values when extending like this, we just also add new numbers which cannot be represented as decimals. How we denote numbers is of course a matter of convention, but as the algebraic argument (see my original post) demonstrates, if we want decimals to satisfy certain nice algebraic properties, we must have 0.99999... = 1. For that matter, number systems like the surreals aren't used as often because by getting rid of the Archimedean property, we also have to give up completeness, which is really important for calculus to work the way it does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
There is a weak sort of free will in that, as modern theoretical physics asserts, everything in the universe is non-deterministic. This is, however, merely random noise. Basically, you have as much free will as a computer program with the occasional input from random.org.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
Thank you for informing me. I had assumed otherwise given that this can be disproved empirically with a simple simulation, even if one doubts the mathematical logic. It would appear that this is just another instance of people rejecting a concept because they find it counterintuitive without any consideration that they might be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Intelligence_06
Because whenever something is fundamentally glitchy in mathematics, we just redefine the system itself. Check Russell's paradox.
Yep, pretty much. It isn't even known if our current set of axioms (ZFC) is consistent or not! Maybe someone will discover a contradiction and we'll have to start from scratch again. (For anyone who is going to call me out on this, no, I'm not contradicting myself. Regardless of consistency, everything we have proven thus far within ZFC is known to be a theorem in ZFC.)
We also had disputes on what "infinity" is, resulting eventually in the ideas such as "aleph null" and "aleph one".
I don't think this is entirely correct. There were certainly disputes, and the discovery of the existence of multiple different "sizes of infinity" was part of it, but I wouldn't call it a result of it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I really wouldnt wish to be atheist again. I enjoy talking with God and praying. I dont see why would someone want to be an atheist.Like, where is justice in the world without God?
It isn't exactly the easiest thing to force yourself to believe in something that you are confident was false. I sometimes miss the excitement I used to feel on Christmas Eve thinking that Santa was coming. That doesn't mean I can just make myself believe in Santa to experience it again. I know Santa is not real, and there isn't much I can do to change that. For that matter, even though I sometimes miss those Christmases, I am satisfied that I have knowledge that I did not have then. I am happy with the less exciting truth, rather than a pleasant falsehood.
Applying all of this to God, for one thing, atheists do not want to be theists because we prefer knowing the truth to a pleasant delusion, and for another, even if we wanted to be theists, we couldn't. There is your answer for why so many people are atheists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
You seem to think that because infinitely many steps are required, those infinitely many steps cannot be completed. It may defy human intuition, but there is no real reason that this should be impossible. Every time you move from one location to another, you complete these infinitely many steps in a finite amount of time. I have already shown an exact calculation which demonstrates this:
If you must travel 1 meter and you are going 1 m/s, the first 1/2 meter will take you 1/2 second, the 1/4 meter after that will take you 1/4 second, etc. The result is that it takes you 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 1 second to complete all infinitely many steps.
If you have an argument as to why this is invalid, or why infinitely many steps cannot be completed in a finite amount of time, please share it. I have fulfilled my BoP by demonstrating this is possible, but you have failed to give any reason why it shouldn't be. Instead, you continue to say things like "It literally takes infinite amount of individual steps that you cannot possibly make." without backing up your claim as to why "you cannot possibly perform" these infinitely many steps.
Created:
Posted in:
As promised, I will now cover some of the more technical details of the topics I listed in the original post.
0.99999... = 1:
For those familiar with limits, infinite decimals like this are defined using an infinity sum, which is in turn defined by a limit. For example, saying that π = 3.141592... is the same as saying that π = 3 + 0.1 + 0.04 + 0.001 + 0.0005 + 0.00009 + 0.000002 + ..., where this infinity sum is defined as the limit of the sequence of partial sums 3, 3.1, 3.14, 3.141, 3.1415, 3.14159, 3.141592, .... Similarly 0.99999... by definition represents the sum 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ..., or equivalently, the limit of the sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, .... For any ε > 0 we can choose a number in this sequence which is less than ε away from 1, so by the definition of a limit, and in turn by the definition of 0.99999..., 0.99999... = 1. Many complain that this definition should not be accepted, as under any reasonable definition, 0.99999... is infinitesimally different from 1. This, however, would violate the Archimedean property, which would in turn force us to give up the defining property of the real numbers: That they are completely ordered. Here is a useful resource: https://personal.math.ubc.ca/~cass/courses/m446-05b/dedekind.pdf
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12:
The usual algebraic "proof" of this assumes that the sum is a real number, and then demonstrates that it must be -1/12. (Here is the video which includes this "proof" and made this sum popular if you are curious: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-I6XTVZXww) While this is of course invalid since the sum diverges, it does demonstrate that if this sum were to have a real value, it would have to be -1/12. This becomes meaningful in the context of summation methods, where due to the algebraic properties they must satisfy, this particular sum can only ever be assigned the value -1/12. One such summation method is Ramanujan summation. (Technically this is not a "summation method" in the usual sense, because it depends not only on a discrete sequence, but on a function defined on all complex numbers, but it is still the same concept.) Ramanujan summation also applies to series such as 1 + 4 + 9 + 16 + ... and 1 + 8 + 27 + 64 + .... (Which are assigned 0 and 1/120 respectively.)
Infinity:
I mentioned in my first post that infinity is well defined, but its definition may vary by context. Here is the definition in set theory. In other areas things are a bit more complicated. Calculus never actually uses infinity directly. Rather, it is a stand-in for that something increases without bound. For example "as x -> ∞" really means "as x increases past any given finite number." Algebraic structures such as the Riemann sphere or the surreal numbers often include their own distinct notion of an "infinite element."
The Sleeping Beauty Paradox:
Everything was covered in my first post.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I forgot to add you as a mention on the above post, but it was in response to you.
Created:
Posted in:
I wasnt talking about Zeno's paradox.I was talking about each step being twice shorter than the former.
That's Zeno's paradox of the arrow. Here's a link if you doubt me: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Arr
Perhaps you thought I meant Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise?
Duration of a step is irrelevant, as long as each step is twice shorter than the former. You will literally never reach the destination.
"Never" is a word relating to time. "Never" would suggest that it would require an infinite amount of time, but as I have already demonstrated at does not.
Example:Destination is 4 meters away.First step is 1 meter.Second is 0.5 meters.Third is 0.25 meters.Fourth is 0.125 meters.
This is exactly what I thought you meant. This is Zeno's paradox of the arrow.
There is no step at which you reach the destination.
There is no individual step at which you reach the destination, but there is also no last step. Once all infinitely many steps have been completed, which as I have already demonstrated is possible in a finite amount of time, you will reach your destination.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Zeno's paradox is easily resolved: There may be infinitely many steps in the process, but each one takes a decreasing amount of time. If you must travel 1 meter and you are going 1 m/s, the first 1/2 meter will take you 1/2 second, the 1/4 meter after that will take you 1/4 second, etc. The result is that it takes you 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + ... = 1 second to complete all infinitely many steps.
Created:
Posted in:
I'm currently a bit low on time, but I will be sure to post the promised more technical details later today.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
While the coin will land heads in half of all trials of the experiment, it will have come up heads in only one third of the instances of Sleeping Beauty waking up. This is the discrepancy in how the two sides interpret the question. I must agree that considering "Sleeping Beauty has just woken up." to be given information is the more reasonable interpretation of the original question, but the "halfer" position cannot be discredited entirely, since the original wording is somewhat ambiguous. After all, maybe it is just a matter of whether or not sleeping beauty can get it right, rather than how many times she gets it right.
Created:
Posted in:
Many things are "debatable." Certainly when it comes to art many things are up to interpretation. Even in science, there may be reasonable controversy. A certain set of available data may seem to suggest multiple different underlying facts. Math, however, is unique. By those who know it well, it is sometimes referred to as a sort of logical game. It has certain rules, and when applied in the right sequence, those rules can lead to much more complex things. Nothing is left to interpretation. Everything is known for certain. Even so, controversy manages to sneak in, especially among those who are less experienced. When people run into certain counterintuitive concepts, they often assume that mathematicians must surely be mistaken. In this post, I will cover a few of these areas of controversy, and then discuss how they come about, and what is actually true. I will try to keep this at a level that everyone should be able to understand, but for those who want the more technical details, I'll be covering them in a second post.
0.99999... = 1:
This is undoubtedly the most notorious area of controversy in math. There are numerous debates on this on DART alone. Many people see this counterintuitive fact for the first time and assume it must be wrong. In reality, due to a flaw in our decimal system, not every number has a unique representation. Nothing magical is happening, these are just two different ways to represent the same number, not unlike 1 + 1 and 2. One could reasonably ask what defines a decimal representation of a number, and I will cover that in my second post. For the less mathematically inclined, if you are willing to accept that 0.99999... is a well-defined quantity, and that 10(0.99999...) = 9.99999..., the following argument should be enough to convince you that 0.99999... = 1 is a logical necessity:
x = 0.99999...
10x = 9.99999... = 9 + 0.99999... = 9 + x
9x = 9
x = 1
1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... = -1/12:
This sum clearly diverges to infinity. What is really meant by this statement is that if we extend the notion of summation to divergent series like this one, we will get -1/12. (I'll discuss how this "extended notion" works in my second post.) Unfortunately, many people take the clickbait thumbnails a little two literally, and start arguing against this, even though there is nothing to argue about.
Infinity:
A significant number of people are now saying that infinity must be purged from mathematics, because it is not truly a valid concept. Here are the main three points of contention that I have seen:
1. Infinity does not exist in the real world.
Infinity is a tool for math which is useful for the real world. No one is claiming that infinity "exists" in a physical sense. This would be like pointing out that in the real world, there are no perfect geometric figures, so we should not use geometry.
2. Infinity is not a well-defined concept.
I'm not really sure where people get the idea that infinity is not well-defined. Perhaps it is because there are multiple different definitions for depending on the context, but in every context that it is used, it is very well-defined.
3. Infinity leads to paradoxes.
Every paradox out there, even seemingly "sharp" paradoxes like the liar's paradox, are simply things which humans find it difficult to understand. Just because something is difficult for humans to understand does not make it invalid.
The Sleeping Beauty Paradox:
This simple paradox is widely debating even among (in fact, especially among) professionals. The paradox goes as follows: Sleeping Beauty is put under anesthesia on Sunday. A coin is then flipped. Regardless of its outcome, she is awoken on Monday and asked to guess the outcome of the coin toss. Then, if the coin landed tails, she is put back to sleep and looses all memory of being awoken on Monday. She is then awoken on Tuesday and asked to guess the outcome of the coin toss. You're Sleeping Beauty and you have just woken up. What is the probability that the coin landed heads?
The "halfer" position:
Clearly the answer is 1/2. A coin flip is always 50-50.
The "thirder" position:
Monday and heads, Monday and tails, and Tuesday and tails are all equally likely. If Sleeping Beauty is told it is Monday, the coin could have landed heads or tails with equal probability, and if she is told that the coin landed tails, it could be Monday or Tuesday with equal probability. Because of this, the answer is 1/3. This comes down to the fact that she is woken up twice when the coin lands tails, and only once when it lands heads. Given information can affect a probability, and in this case we are given that Sleeping Beauty has just woken up.
In reality, the controversy here is not because of the math, but because of ambiguous wording. What is meant by "You're Sleeping Beauty and you have just woken up?" Is it irrelevant, (as the "halfer" sees it) or is it intended to convey the given information "Sleeping Beauty just woke up?" (as the "thirder" sees it)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
I have a question for you:
What is an objectively true statement but a statement which is true by definition?
Also, you continue to insist that because the definitions are not fully and universally agreed upon, that makes these results not "100% certain." When I claim that 1 + 1 = 2, I am making a claim about my definitions of 1 and 2, no more, no less. If someone else disagrees on what those definitions should be, then they don't actually disagree with me on the statement that I am asserting, but rather, they disagree with me on whether what I call 1 and 2 should be called 1 and 2. Those are two different kinds of disagreement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
“Generally accepted”, as opposed to “universal or absolute” acceptance, which is to say the definition is not accepted with100% certainty.
Definitions are arbitrary anyway, so I'm not sure why this is a point of contention. The point is that 1 + 1 = 2 is known with 100% certainty for the objects that most mathematicians use the symbols 1 and 2 to describe.
Yep, “Certainty in a formal system isa matter of definition”. BTW, I’m 100% certain Sherlock Holmessmoked a pipe.
I'm not sure what your point is.
It took Russell and Whitehead 360pages to define and give meaning to the terms “1”, “+”, “=”, “2” and to lay thelogical foundation from which they could consider 1+1=2 to be proven. They couldn’t have been more tedious, andwent off on a lot of tangents, apparently they themselves didn’t believe theywere there until page 362, I think most mathematicians think they hadn’t adequately defined "addition" yet, many believe it as actually took them 379 pages.
Exactly. The proof that 1 + 1 = 2 was rather short, it's just that prior to that things like "1" and "2" weren't even defined yet.
Then ZFC and Godel came along andsquashed Logicism like a bug.
Did they? I'm not sure why there are so many misconceptions about Gödel's incompleteness theorem. All it says is that in any formal system F which contains basic arithmetic, there exists a statement A such that neither A nor its negation is a theorem in F. That's it. It doesn't mean that math is broken or anything like that. Math studies theorems and their proofs, most commonly within ZFC, but also within PA and other formal systems, and is in turn merely an extension of basic logic.
So...in your proof you considered the proof to already be inplace?
No. What?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@sadolite
Numbers are infinite so 1+1 can never equal 2. Math, like everything else can ultimately be reduced to semantics. 1+1=2 when it comes to paychecks, hours worked and taxes, that you can be sure of. You can argue 1+1 doesn't equal 2 and you would be right when you reduce it to semantics.
What is your argument? You say that 1 + 1 = 2 can be argued against, but you don't provide any way to argue against it other than that "numbers are infinite, so 1 + 1 can never equal 2," which is a non-sequitur.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@oromagi
- Traditionally, don't proofs for 1+1=2 rely on Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory or the Peano axioms?
Yes. This one can be done within ZFC or PA. Observe that I did not defined 0, s, or =. In ZFC, 0 is defined to be the empty set, sn is defined by n U {n}, and = is defined axiomatically. In PA, all three are defined axiomatically. (In case you didn't know, "defined axiomatically" means that they aren't actually defined. Instead, their meaning comes from axioms.)
Math can prove some things with certainty, cannot possibly prove other things, and can improve the probability of other things without certainty.
Precisely. Math can prove mathematical facts with certainty, no more, no less. These mathematical facts in turn apply to reality, where knowing things with 100% certainty is effectively impossible, but math can still help to improve our certainty. I must say, this is my favorite response of anyone yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sidewalker
The definition I used is the one that is generally accepted by mathematicians. For that matter, it doesn't really matter of the definitions are agreed upon, because that point is that 1 + 1 = 2 for the objects that I am using 1 and 2 to describe. Symbols and terminology are human constructs, but it is possible to prove things about the objects that they represent with 100% certainty. In fact, every mathematical statement can be reduced to a tautology. Axioms are never thought of as objectively true, but rather the resulting theorems can be seen as combinations of those axioms. It is objectively true that 1 + 1 = 2 follows from the axioms of ZFC. Since 1 and 2 are defined within ZFC, this is what we mean by 1 + 1 = 2.
Bertrand Russell started the Mathematica Principia with a proof that 1+1=2, it took him 360 pages.
I'm afraid that that is a myth. He did not spend 360 pages proving 1 + 1 = 2, he proved 1 + 1 = 2 360 pages in. The pages prior to that built up the foundations of Principia Mathematica. In my proof I considered those foundations to already be in place.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
We know work is a negative because people want to reach the end goal of work, not be stuck in a state of work.
This is a non-sequitur. Your premise that people only do work to reach an end goal is true, but your conclusion is false. The anticipation of and active progress towards an end goal creates a positive affect, not a negative one.
You may find the completion of mathematics problems to be positive (which they are), but they are always proceeded by the negative feelings of not having them complete -- it's zero sum.
Using this example, yes, I want to solve the problem, but I enjoy the process of solving, just as I am happy once it is done. In fact, I am happier when I have a difficult problem to work on then when I don't.
Do you enjoy it more when you are hungry? Do you enjoy it more when you are full?Clearly, starving people feel far better when eating than someone who is full who is eating.Therefore, the positive affect is built out of the negative affect that proceeded it.
Everything here is true, but it does not follow that the positive affect cannot be any greater than the negative affect.
Also, your dinner still comes at the price of work to get/make it, so there is that negative affect involved, too.
While I acknowledge that many people are not satisfied with their job, many enjoy their work.
If dissatisfaction were the ideal state, then no one would be trying to escape it.
I never said that it was an ideal state, but trying to escape it is likely one of the fastest routes to a miserable life, whereas if you are able to find joy in striving towards the next goal, it is possible to live a happy life.
Yes, work can produce positive affect, but it's built out of negative affect. You need the negative affect to escape in order for work to become satisfying.
I'm not sure what you mean by the negative affect "escaping."
This is quite silly when we could simply blast people with dopamine hits that don't require the negative affect from dissatisfaction beforehand.
How practical would that be? Speaking from experience: When you regularly receive an excessive amount of dopamine, you will begin to feel demotivated when it comes to actual work. Soon enough, all of that work begins to make you miserable. You wind up with three options: Continue to be miserable, stop doing the work and let your life collapse around you, or give up the dopamine hits. I chose the third option, and today I am a very a happy person.
To summarize:
If you do not expect complete satisfaction in life, and you know what your passion is, you can find joy in striving to achieve your goals. A happy life follows this simple pattern:
- Set a goal that you are passionate about.
- Find joy in working towards it.
- Complete it, and experience a feeling of accomplishment.
- Experience a brief period of satisfaction.
- Repeat.
At no point in this process do negative affects outweigh positive affects.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
Define "pile of sand" mathematically. Is it not a math term? Then it is outside of the scope of this topic. You'll need to find a counterargument that doesn't simply rely on flaws in the English language. (i.e. what counts as a pile, what counts as one pile, etc.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I don’t know why you’re bothering to debate this other than for a damaged ego.
Oh don't worry that was the last chance I was going to give you not to do that whole cherry-picking what you respond to. Actually, I'm a nice person: I will respond to you again, just not until you actually respond to what I wrote. I trust that you can figure that out without me continuing to constantly point out what specifically you blatantly ignored and/or misrepresented.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Oh look! You're continuing to respond to only the parts of my posts that are easy to target out of context! Perhaps we could have an actual discussion of you could not do that! Let me spell things out:
What you would like to imagine I said:
Yeah, I do believe that, and zedvictor4 defended it!
What I actually said (word for word!):
What kind of accusation is that? It is completely baseless, irrelevant to this discussion, and not even really a criticism, given that it can be argued that beliefs don't exist, as pointed out by zedvictor4.
The part you ignored (isolated):
What kind of accusation is that? It is completely baseless, and irrelevant to this discussion.
So in case the above isn't clear enough: I don't believe that, I don't know why I think you do, and it doesn't matter anyway.
While were at it, (don't continue to cherry-pick what you respond to by responding only to this part) I can actually defend zedvictor4's argument. It doesn't depend on any dichotomy, false or otherwise. Key word: depend. It did include a dichotomy, but I don't think it was intended to be interpreted as a strict dichotomy. The point is that there is a reasonable notion of existence under which thoughts do not exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
You may be interested in this, based on our recent discussion.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll start things off with this simple little example:
1 is defined as s0. (sn means "the successor of n")
2 is defined as s1.
Addition is defined as follows:
a + 0 = a for any a by definition.
a + b for b > 0 is defined recursively by a + sb = s(a + b).
With definitions out of the way:
1 + 1 = 1 + s0 = s(1 + 0) = s1 = 2
Do you accept this proof as providing 100% certainty that 1 + 1 = 2? Why or why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
It is an interesting study to see how much information of an early variety is around for many of our well-known historical figures. Along with the closest said documents to the time that such people ACTUALLY lived. One of the best testimonies for the NT scriptures is the sheer bulk of such material and also how early or close it was to the original writings. Whereas, with Plato and other famous philosophers, we have far less and all of the earliest manuscripts are from times that are much later than even the NT writings. I provided some of this material earlier in another post. I will dig around and see if I can find it again. You might find it interesting.
I would find that interesting. I acknowledge that the people of the New Testament almost definitely existed, but I also feel that there is insufficient evidence for many of the miracles/supernatural phenomena.
For the record, I take the view that even math can't prove 100%. Yes, I know the theory says it can. Yet the theory doesn't take into account presumptions. I accept it has "in theory" the view that it can. Yet there are difficulties even with that view. And I am sure that you have seen them and perhaps even discounted them. Nevertheless, they exist and are relevant especially, when we are talking about truth, and understanding the source of such truth. And applying axioms which by definition are circular arguments that can't be proven.
Would you like to debate this sometime? I would certainly be open to it.
The question of evidence for unicorns is an intriguing one. Why do you think one requires a different standard to the other?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. (This website by sheer coincidence also uses the example of a unicorn.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
What kind of accusation is that? It is completely baseless, irrelevant to this discussion, and not even really a criticism, given that it can be argued that beliefs don't exist, as pointed out by zedvictor4.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
To be more accurate:
I made a challenge intending to prove a point, which you attempted to dismantle. I provided a counter-argument, and you blatantly ignored it, substituting arguments with things like "Besides the point? Interesting." My challenge may or may not be foolproof, but it certainly hasn't been dismantled yet.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Like it or not Last-Thursdayism exists as a belief within your hypothetical world. You can’t escape that fact.
Did you read a single word of what I actually wrote? I literally acknowledged that Last-Thursdayism is of no importance to the real world:
Unlike Last-Thursdayism, the concept of existence has legitimate importance.
Key word: Unlike. This entire paragraph that you quoted was about the concept of existence, and not Last-Thursdayism. The above is the only time it is mentioned. Please read the paragraph, and then try responding again. (Hint: If your response is about how Last-Thursdayism doesn't exist/isn't important, then your response isn't relevant to what I wrote.)
Besides the point? Interesting.
Okay, so this kind of thing counts as an argument? Interesting. Seriously though, this isn't about whether or not people believe this, so yes, that is besides the point, and you made absolutely no effort to defend your second sentence, which was the following baseless assertion:
You’re trying to make this into a debate, in which you can’t win.
Am I trying to make this into a debate? No, it already is a debate. This is literally a debate cite. As to the second part of your statement, is this a debate I can't win? I don't see why that would be the case, and I will remind you once again, you have made no effort to explain this. You simply say "No, you can't win!" and call it quits. That's not an argument.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
By some strange coincidence, immediately after posting, I read the following in the novel The Awakening by Kate Chopin:
And being devoid of ambition, and striving not toward accomplishment, she drew satisfaction from the work in itself.
I felt like that was worth commenting on. It would appear that Kate Chopin also understands that work itself can generate positive affect.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Organizing surprises takes planning and work, both of which generate negative affect in humans.
That's an assumption that isn't always true. For example, they may feel excited about surprising their friend as they work and plan. There are many situation in which work can be enjoyed, most notably, when you are passionate about something. I am passionate about math. When I do math, I feel experience a positive affect from working on it, and a positive affect from finding a solution. No need for any sort of negative affect.
If the negative affect is minimal, then the positive affect is also minimal.
That's simply false. In my example, by the time a eat dinner, my hunger is minimal to the point of being unnoticeable, but I still enjoy my dinner to a very noticeable extent.
However, the issue with the human condition is that we're designed to be motivated, not satisfied, so once our basic needs are met, we quickly begin to ask again 'what next?'
...and being able to live a happy life despite that is a sign of good mental health, not delusion. Working hard may ironically be one of the best ways in which one can constantly experience a positive affect with relatively low negative affect. This is because not only does the result of one's labors generate a positive affect, but so does the work itself. In this way, the fact that we are never satisfied is a blessing, as it is what allows us to generate more positive affects for ourselves.
In other words, humans have a psychology that is designed to produce negative affect at all times.
Being someone who experiences the human psychology every day, I cannot say this is entirely true. For example, I am not experiences a negative affect right now. I enjoy discussing this stuff, and I am content as I type this.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
My answer is as useful as the belief of Last-Thursdayism. Is that better?
No. Unlike Last-Thursdayism, the concept of existence has legitimate importance. Under your definition of existence, everything imaginable or even so much as theoretically definable exists. Basically, you have rendered "exist" meaningless. Allow me to give an example of how damaging this is: Did you drive to work yesterday, or did you walk? Simple question, right? Well, it effectively means this: Did there exist a point in time yesterday at which you drove to work, or did there instead exist a point in time at which you walked? So this question would be rendered meaningless. That question, and so many others.
For it to be a belief, there would need to be people (hypothetical or not) believing it.You’re trying to make this into a debate, in which you can’t win.
What? Okay, your first sentence here is a matter of semantics, and is entirely beside the point. As to your second sentence, I have no idea where you got that from.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So in conclusion, existence is a completely arbitrary label.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Last-Thursdayism isn’t a useful concept.
You're deflecting.
The people who believe in Last-Thursdayism.And I didn’t know I had to prove or disprove said belief.
You thought that this was about the people who believe in Last-Thursdayism? This was in my original post:
Last-Thursdayism is a belief (which, to my knowledge, no one actually holds)
Why would this discussion be about some non-existent group of people? It's about the belief itself.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If it is reasonable to accept that you exist, then it is also reasonable to accept that Bob the spherical camel exists.
But is it just as reasonable to accept Bob the spherical camel and reject the Bible as it is to accept the Bible and reject Bob the spherical camel? Please answer this specific question.
God thinks, therefore God exists. I dont think you can prove that you think, or that your thoughts exist.Therefore, God's existence is equally true as your existence.
You seem to have ignored what I said next:
but I'm also tempted to say "suppose I don't." I'm sure you have some sort of rebuttal to "I think therefore I am," so why don't we just skip it? I don't exist. I am not real. So what?
So tell me, what are the consequences of me not existing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Existence defined: A state of beingDefinition explained: It covers everything that isn’t absent.
I'm thinking of a unicorn right now. Does it exist?
If you said "yes":
Existence as defined by you is then not a very useful concept. Anything and everything imaginable or even theoretically definable exists.
If you said "no":
But it is not absent! It isn't absent from my mind! I anticipate that you will respond with "but it is absent from external reality." What is "reality?" Awfully hard to define reality without "exist" (or something synonymous to it) isn't it?
If you said "It exists in your mind, but not outside of it.":*
I'm looking at a computer screen right now. Does it exist outside of my mind? I see it, but that is still within my mind. Does anything exist outside of the mind? If not, then existence as defined by you is not a very useful concept. Anything and everything imaginable will exist within the mind, but not elsewhere. If so, then what does that mean? That it exists in external reality? What is "reality?" Awfully hard to define reality without "exist" (or something synonymous to it) isn't it?
They exist in a state of believing in Last-Thursdayism.This was a pretty easy challenge.
Who is "they?" Also you haven't disproven or for that matter proven Last-Thursdayism.
*If you noticed that I repeated myself word for word here, I was assuming that you would only read the one which corresponds to your response to my question, so I didn't want to say "as I said in the section," but rather, I wanted to keep everything in the same place.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Please answer the question. Why is it true that you exist?
Why is it true that I exist? Well. I'm tempted to say "I think therefore I am," but I'm also tempted to say "suppose I don't." I'm sure you have some sort of rebuttal to "I think therefore I am," so why don't we just skip it? I don't exist. I am not real. So what?
If "you exist is true" is not relevant to the Bible being true, then Bible being true is not relevant to Bob being true.
None of those have any sort of inherent relevance to each other. You still have yet to answer my question: Do you or do you not agree the accepting Bob the spherical camel and rejecting the Bible is just as reasonable as accepting the Bible and rejecting Bob the spherical camel?
Why do you believe it is true that you exist?
Once again, suppose I don't. I want to see where you intend to go with that.
Created:
Posted in:
Sure, but that seems separate from the argument you are making about God.
Yes, certainly. Both are relevant to my original post, though.
And I'm arguing that that's impossible. The Christian god is defined as being absolutely certain of his power—it's impossible to be 100% certain of something that is false.
But this isn't the Christian God. We just can't tell the difference between it and the Christian God.
God is defined as existing outside of time, so his existence is not an event, chronologically speaking.
That wasn't the only argument I used for the existence of an event with no cause.
I've got issues with that assumption, but it feels largely tangential to what we're discussing.
The "assumption" the modern science is accurate? What's wrong with it? I used it for my argument, and I used it effectively.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So how is accepting that "it is true that you are real" different from accepting that "Bible is true"?
What? How is that relevant? What is that even intended to mean? Also, do you or do you not agree the accepting Bob the spherical camel and rejecting the Bible is just as reasonable as accepting the Bible and rejecting Bob the spherical camel?
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
It does for humans, overall. Whilst the individual receiving the surprise did not have the preceding negative affect, the person organizing the surprise did.
Why is this a necessity?
Although, you appear to be onto something.For example, if a non-human constantly organized random surprises for humans, this could be argued as a net positive because there isn't a sentient creature to experience the negative affect involved in organizing the surprises. VR simulating surprises to humans would also fulfill this requirement, too. Albeit, if enough surprise events are given, humans may become accustomed to them and expect them, so there are diminishing returns involved.
It doesn't just have to be "surprises." There are plenty of things that bring joy to us without a negative affect preceding it. For that matter, there are cases where the negative affect is minimal to the point non-existence. For example, when I eat dinner, I usually have yet to reach the point of noticeable hunger. I anticipate that you will argue that the net affect is still negative, but the world has gone from a zero sum game to a positive sum game in this recent era of human existence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvskMHn0sqQ. It is no longer the case that what benefits me is necessarily harmful to someone else.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Yes. Same applies to anything, including your existence and mine.So either God exists either nothing does.
Whoops, there was a typo. This shouldn't change anything though!
So then rejecting the Bible and rejecting Bob the spherical camel is no better or worse than rejecting Bob the spherical camel and accepting the Bible. I'm glad we agree.
I meant to write "accepting."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Savant
This is getting to the point that I'm not sure what relevance it has to Last Thursdayism.
I used the Alice and Bob scenario to challenge the well-defined nature of "exist." You rejected it. I am now challenging that rejection.
This seems to be an argument that God could be lying about his power or just insane. In that case, it's simply skepticism towards the existence of the Christian god rather than an argument that he would be susceptible to Last Thursdayism.
Not lying, just not as powerful as He thinks He is.
That said, the only argument designed to prove God with 100% certainty (Ontological) would argue that God cannot lose his power. Kalam argues that events require causes, so adherents to it would argue that God cannot lose his power without cause.
At least one event didn't have a cause. Otherwise nothing would exist, including God. Not to mention that quantum mechanics proves that the universe is non-deterministic, so there are causeless events occurring right this second.
Christians posit that God probably exists currently with x, y, an z attributes. Your initial argument seemed to be that if such a god does exist, he can lose his power. But now you simply seem to be casting doubt on such a God existing in the first place. So I think that this is a different argument than the one you started with.
No, it isn't different, it was a clarification of my original argument. Also, when did I cast doubt on such a God existing? If I did, it was unintentional, and not relevant to my argument.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Wouldnt such restriction be just as good as any other restriction?
So then rejecting the Bible and rejecting Bob the spherical camel is no better or worse than rejecting Bob the spherical camel and accepting the Bible. I'm glad we agree.
Created:
-->
@Kaitlyn
Overall, I don't think human life can be argued as acceptably good. Negative affect is a prerequisite to positive affect, at least in humans (probably other sentient creatures, too). A drink of water doesn't feel good (positive affect) without first being thirsty (negative affect). In other words, you're always going to have more instances of negative affect than positive affect.
If I am not expecting a birthday party, and someone surprises me with one, did a negative affect precede that positive affect?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Critical-Tim
You have convinced me that solipsism has its importance.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
If you reject all of those as basis for your logic, you cannot prove that anything exists. So either God exists either nothing does.
I don't reject them. No, I'm not just saying that for the sake of argument, I legitimately don't reject them. Regardless, don't you think that there should be some restriction of their use? Unless, that is, you accept the existence of Bob the spherical camel.
Created: