OT: An Existential Dilemma

[guybrush threepwood]

Originally posted by Gandalf Parker:

quote:

---

Originally posted by guybrush threepwood:
Actually, taken to the limit this deterministic picture of the rolling dice is not really true either due to the ways of quantum mechanics. Of course, quantum mechanics and existentialistic discussions is a whole other can of worms...

Totally. It undid the big bang, AND all the arguments used to "debunk" just about anything religious or supernatural. FUN fun fun.

---

Not sure exactly what you mean. But I think the main arguments (to me at least) against religious/supernatural stuff is that there is not really any convincing reason FOR them, in the sense that less far-fetched explanations usually presents them self (to be brief).

(also, there is nothing inherent in the principles of science about determinism...)

[Varadail]

I feel pretty wierd after writing a three pages long monologue ...

[ May 25, 2004, 17:08: Message edited by: Varadail ]

[Gandalf Parker]

Originally posted by guybrush threepwood:
Not sure exactly what you mean. But I think the main arguments (to me at least) against religious/supernatural stuff is that there is not really any convincing reason FOR them, in the sense that less far-fetched explanations usually presents them self (to be brief).

Well often the scientific invistigation rested with "matter and energy cannot be created, only converted" so it looked for the source or result. Their new "creation of the universe" theory bloew that out. And Quantum now puts as 4 in 11 dimensions. As we are to the 3d creatures, much less the 2d and 1d.. could reflect on our ability to understand 5,6,7,8,9,10 (11 is a special case). The whole thing makes your head hurt but it will be interesting to see where it goes and what things will shift from "bunk" into scientific.

[Stormbinder]

Originally posted by Zen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

The nuclear physicist, given all appropriate data, can calculate the exact probabilities to this existantial question.

Only on a certain level.

---

That is correct. Quantum phisic is not nearly as neat as phisicists would like it to be. Can drive person crazy.

Still it illustrates that the question of existance or not existance of physical objects can be scientifically approached, with certain degree of success, in pure probability field, which was the point of my example.

[PvK]

Originally posted by Zapmeister:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
While it is true that we could all be Norfleet, it is perhaps more likely that... It's possible. Just not very likely.

Hmmm. Someone with more education in this area may care to correct me, but I believe that the above statement is untrue for a rather esoteric reason.

That reason is that the words "likely" and "possible" imply a probabalistic treatment of an existential question, which is invalid.

It is meaningless, for example, to conclude that there is a 60% chance that there is a god. Either there is a god or there isn't - there's no 60% about it.

The same applies to questions of historical fact. You can't say that its likely that the Great Flood occurred, because it has already either happened or not. What you can describe is your uncertainty in the matter, which is different (being a statement about your knowledge rather than about the alleged event).
...

---

Yes, the first was a statement of uncertainty, and the second a statement of odds. It's still useful to think of hypotheses as having a "chance" of being correct, based on what knowledge you have and how sure you are about each element of a hypothesis.

You can also apply the same logic and language to uncertainty about past events about which you have imperfect evidence.

Conversely, you can take probability and express it as uncertainty that something will happen. So, if you insist I say that we all not being Norfleet is something our victim can be very certain is not true, then I can compare that degree of certainty to the extreme certainty that I will lose the Dom II challenge I described.

PvK

[ May 25, 2004, 19:21: Message edited by: PvK ]

[PvK]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PvK:
While it is true that we could all be Norfleet

Fortunetly for humanity, it is not physically possible. Unless you are playing with possibility that Norfleet have some god-like powers. In this case you would have one seriously sick in the head god, assuming 1/4 what he have been telling us about himself on this forum is true.

---

Hence my Cthulu reference.

PvK

[PvK]

Originally posted by Stormbinder:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zapmeister:
[qb] ...
It is meaningless, for example, to conclude that there is a 60% chance that there is a god. Either there is a god or there isn't - there's no 60% about it.

I am not an expert there myself but I believe that what you said about invalidness of probabalistic approach to an existential question such as wether the god exist or no, is correct.
...

---

It's only valid if you insist on mistakenly taking it literally, as if I were asserting that it is true that there is an actual chance involved in whether something is true or not.

But that's just misunderstanding my expression. I may say "chance", but I mean in terms of a perspective with imperfect knowledge, and I am talking about uncertainty rather than asserting that reality is constantly reinventing itself around the observer's viewpoint like a dream or an annoyingly programmed game like GTA3 (where you can catch it doing it simply by turning around ).

PvK