Paradox of existence: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Metaphysics and Epistemology » Paradox of existence » Paradox of existence

Paradox of existence

Page: 1 2 3

Paradox of existence

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/24/08 - 09:49 PM:	#26
I think you're stuck in the wrong thread. I never posited an all-knowing transcendent being in conversation with you here, which you show so much passion in arguing against. I just love your choice of words, "wild and whimsical untestable imagination." XD You try SO HARD to make theists look ridiculous. You know by saying things like that, you don't convince them otherwise but you just frustrate the lot of them? It's easier to speak objectively without throwing insults like that around. That aside, back to the point. One of our observations of reality must be violated in order to allow the existence of the universe, and so you say causality. That may very well be possible, but your reasons that lead to this conclusion aren't very convincing to me. It's testable that fire is indeed hot; even if the necessity is untestable, we accept this as fact. Causality is the same way. Just because you say the necessity of fire being hot is untestable, does not make it probable that fire can be cold. If anything, it opens up a very slight possibility, hardly worth mentioning.
_____________________ "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/24/08 - 10:09 PM:	#27
Firstly, I was talking about your second premise. Second, it is just a fact that it is wild and whimsical imagination. If it is not based on observation or evidence, if it is untestable, and unfalsifiable and was just pulled out of your head oneday, then what is it? If not wild and whimsical imagination. I am not trying to convince theists anything. I am merely stating the facts as I know them. Causality is no an observation, it is an inference. An event precedes another event only in conceptual space, not in actuality. Once one event has happened, it is over, the following event is happening in reality, while the previous one now only exists in our minds. We infer causality, it requires pattern seeking minds. I explained the two ways in which it is observer dependent already. We observe events, we infer causal relations between events. That all aside, even if causality was an observation, how do you observe the necessity of it? It is only "violated" if you take the unevident and untestable position that it is fundamental and a necessity of interation between events in the universe. I completely agree that it is more than reasonable, it is in fact unreasonable to doubt that fire is hot, if even we can't say that it necessarily is. Though we can test and observe, and understand the relation between fire and heat, to develope comprehensive theories of combustion, and reasons why it is incredibily unlikely that we could have heatless fire. This is not true of causality, not only does it not apply on the subatomic scale (something you consistently ignore because you don't like the sounds of it) but there is no reason to infer that things must relate that way, nor is heat reliant on our observation. The sensation of heat on our skin is subjective and reliant on our being present, but heat itself is not. Causality is reliant on an observer being present, it is not something that occupies reality without the presents on a mind to infer a causal relation. I am not presenting a controversial argument to try to convince you, just go read about special relativity, and quatum mechanics. I'm merely regurgating what I've read about physics. I am not inventing ideas I think could be true, and presenting them as fact, that would be absurd. Edited by Wosret on 04/24/08 - 10:14 PM
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/24/08 - 10:36 PM:	#28
Wosret wrote: (something you consistently ignore because you don't like the sounds of it) Because you definitely know how my mind works well enough to know that. I've readdressed that issue many times in the other thread, I just thought I'd stop being redundant. Also, I figured if my proposition didn't make you happy enough then Tisthammerw had a whole new argument for you. I'm not hiding behind him by any means, just saying. Go back and read the fifth paragraph of my first post in the other thread.
_____________________ "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/25/08 - 12:43 AM:	#29
You mean this? A house does not build itself, just like the universe didn’t begin to exist uncaused. It has been argued that in quantum physics, subatomic particles have appeared to “pop” in and out of existence, uncaused, violating the rule that something cannot come from nothing. This however is only one theory in my eyes. We have sent particles back in time before; perhaps these particular particles travel back and forth through time on their own, appearing visible to us only for a short period of time. This would appear to us as though they were “popping” in and out of existence, but that is only a matter of speculation. It is the ramblings of an ignoramus. The first part need not be addressed, merely underlined (to borrow from Chrisopher Hitchen's quite ingenious response to an idiotic statement). So much wrong with the second sentence that it is sad. Firstly it has not been argued, it has been observed. Secondly, there is no rule that something can't come from nothing. That is just something some people choose to believe because it sounds right to them, it is no rule. It is not a theory, it is an observation. Sent particals back in time? Time travel is ruled at as impossible by our current understanding of physics. I have no idea where you got that from. Observation, not speculation. Also, you can attempt to ad hoc anything away. Ad hoc arguments are worthless, they are just someone inventing scenarioes in which they aren't wrong. Everyone is the ruler of their own hypothetical world. I'm done here. It is clear that nothing can come of this.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 04/25/08 - 07:40 AM:	#30
J.D. wrote: Exactly, that's why if we assume that all of our perceptions are actually true, then existence would be impossible. It contradicts itself. How have you perceived that an infinite past is impossible?

Benkei
Self-hating Dutchman

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2004
Location: Netherlands
Total Topics: 44
Total Posts: 1664

Posted 04/25/08 - 08:10 AM:	#31
There are several cosmological theories that do not require a "beginning", even apart from the difficulties of speaking of beginnings when there was no time to consider anyways. In that respect Paul Davies' boook, the Mind of God could be intersting.
_____________________ We all warm ourselves on fires we did not kindle. We all drink from wells we did not dig. - ancient Celtic saying

geisteswiesenschaftn
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 04/27/08 - 09:30 PM:	#32
Does the universe have a center? Does its center move or is it stable? I think these would be good indicators of whether time and space are congruent or not. It time and space are not trued, then we must find an entirely new model of physics. True [23. to make true; shape, adjust, place, etc., exactly or accurately: to true the wheels of a bicycle after striking a pothole] But I don't understand why it is difficult (or less readily acceptable) to believe that time is sequential because there is a here and a now and something follows and something precedes. But this could not go on forever. There is something apart from time, ergo apart from existence, even above existence itself. Edited by geisteswiesenschaftn on 04/27/08 - 09:44 PM

geisteswiesenschaftn
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 04/27/08 - 09:43 PM:	#33
Wosret wrote: You mean this? It is the ramblings of an ignoramus...Firstly it has not been argued, it has been observed. Secondly, there is no rule that something can't come from nothing. That is just something some people choose to believe because it sounds right to them, it is no rule. It is not a theory, it is an observation...Observation, not speculation. Also, you can attempt to ad hoc anything away. Ad hoc arguments are worthless, they are just someone inventing scenarioes in which they aren't wrong. Everyone is the ruler of their own hypothetical world. I'm done here. It is clear that nothing can come of this. I'm wondering then. If a thing appears to pop in and out of existence, does that necessarily mean it does? Perhaps the answer is that we just have not yet observed its causes for hiddenness or any other explanation for that matter. Isn't it also speculation that it pops in and out of existence? Isn't it still a theory as well? Not that I'm supporting the other guy, but your argument has its flaw too. Just because we have not observed a thing yet does not mean that it does not exist/happen/have cause.

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/28/08 - 09:01 AM:	#34
I cover that on the thread that it came from. Of course that is possible that there are forces at work that we can't detect of observe, but just assuming that is the case in order to salvage your hypothesis is departing from evidence. If you take the position that there is always just an invisible undetectable force at play than you have made your hypothesis unfalsifiable. No matter how many observed apparently uncaused events occure, it will never work as evidence against your hypothesis, while all the observed caused events work as evidence in your favor. Taking such a position you might as well not run tests or take observations if you are going to reject the ones that don't support your conclusions. Absolutely any problem or observation that conflicts with your favored conclusion can be ad hoc'ed away, that however is not how science is done.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Wosret
Yuri ga daisuki desu!

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Mar 29, 2007
Location: New Brunswich Canada
Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 1745

Posted 04/28/08 - 09:08 AM:	#35
geisteswiesenschaftn wrote: Does the universe have a center? Does its center move or is it stable? I think these would be good indicators of whether time and space are congruent or not. It time and space are not trued, then we must find an entirely new model of physics. True [23. to make true; shape, adjust, place, etc., exactly or accurately: to true the wheels of a bicycle after striking a pothole] But I don't understand why it is difficult (or less readily acceptable) to believe that time is sequential because there is a here and a now and something follows and something precedes. But this could not go on forever. There is something apart from time, ergo apart from existence, even above existence itself. No, the universe doesn't have a center, the universe isn't a thing. The universe is the word we use to describe everything that exists. It is defined as all things known and supposed to exist. This sentence: "There is something apart from time, ergo apart from existence, even above existence itself." is unintelligible.
_____________________ "cute girls really should stick with other cute girls, hm?" - Morinaga Milk

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 04/28/08 - 11:15 AM:	#36
Two rather simple problems with an infinite universe. Given infinite time and infinite space filled with infinite stars, an infinite amount of light would have turned the night sky bright (of course there would be no observer, he'd have been singed before attaining conscious thought). Given infinite time, every possible event (no matter how unlikely) will occur (if X=infinity and Y=very large finite number) X (1/Y) = X. This would include the end of time. The physical universe is finite, both in time and space. It began, it will end. Deal with it.
_____________________ It is what it is.

J.D.
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 72

Posted 04/30/08 - 07:41 PM:	#37
Wosret, the way you present yourself just pushes my buttons. "Clearly, your argument is illogical. I am quite sure I'm right. If you think otherwise, you are simply wrong." You say stuff like that all the time. It gets annoying talking to someone THAT full of themselves. CLEARLY you see that the way you speak is egotistical, and frankly annoying. CLEARLY you see that your arguments are always presented over again with the same holes as before. CLEARLY you see that it is an ineffective method, because rather than debating the points people are too busy defending their own dignity which you continuously attack. Lastly, you CLEARLY must see, that it is your OWN method which causes things to go in circles, getting you frustrated as well as the opposing party. So why do you continue? Now, for your argument... I'll say again, in response to YOUR "ramblings of an ignoramus". If you are going to pick at speculation and be so technical about things, then don't make exceptions for those technicalities for your own good, and don't speculate in order to prove other speculations wrong. For the record, if you must know, I heard that on the Science Channel, and I don't particularly remember every word. All I know, is that they at least THINK if nothing else, that they successfully sent these particles back in time, or maybe it was forward. Also, it's often been quoted, "ex nihilo nihil fit"; from nothing, nothing comes. It's speculation yes, but it's rational. From nothing, nothing comes, I mean how can you argue against it without using irrational speculation? The subatoms do some strange stuff, sure, but that's still speculation. We don't understand them yet, irregardless of whether or not you think you have them all figured out. EDIT: Actually, here. http://www.virtualsciencefair.org/2004/abde4a0/pu... -"Experimentally we have sent particles forward in time using accelerators, and have proven time shifts and forward time travel." If you see me as an "ignoramus" then why must you attempt to prove it to me anyway? You'd be better off shutting up and letting me ramble, I mean according to you I don't need your help to look ignorant, right? I'm not intelligent at all, so let the idiot spout nonsense and make an ass of himself. Your responses themselves tell me that you feel it necessary to defend your position, so I can also assume that you see enough intelligence in my replies to see them worth responding to. In other words, stop making statements like this, they're useless and annoying. Actually you won't need to make any more statements at all, I'm done here. I mean, CLEARLY nothing can come from this. Edited by J.D. on 05/02/08 - 12:36 PM. Reason: IE keeps on messing with the edit page
_____________________ "I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind." -René Descartes, Cogito ergo sum

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 206

Posted 05/03/08 - 11:39 PM:	#38
Absolutely Relative wrote: Given infinite time and infinite space filled with infinite stars, an infinite amount of light would have turned the night sky bright (of course there would be no observer, he'd have been singed before attaining conscious thought). First define what you mean by universe. Is "universe" only the matter/energy created in the one Big Bang that we know about, or (if there are multiple Big Bangs in higher dimensions that we have no access to, creating mass/energy which is not in contact with the Big Bang mass/energy in our dimensions) then isn't this higher dimensional plane the true "universe" (ie "all that there is"). Your argument assumes that stars existed throughout the entire history of this "infinite time". But we know that mass/energy was "created" in a Big Bang approximately 15 billion years ago - there was no source of electromagnetic radiation prior to the Big Bang that we either know about or that we have access to. In other words, all the radiation falling on earth is no more than 15 billion years old. Hence your argument falls flat on its face. Recall also that it has been shown that the known universe is expanding and it seems that this expansion is accelerating. It follows that there is a cosmic "event horizon" beyond which we cannot see (ie light from beyond that event horizon will never reach us, even in an infinite timescale) - given these facts, your conclusion that an infinite universe in an infinite timescale entails a bright night sky is incorrect. Absolutely Relative wrote: Given infinite time, every possible event (no matter how unlikely) will occur (if X=infinity and Y=very large finite number) X (1/Y) = X. This would include the end of time. This would be true only IF there is an end of time. If there is NO end of time (ie the end of time does not exist), then the end of time will never occur, even in an infinite timescale. Absolutely Relative wrote: The physical universe is finite, both in time and space. It began, it will end. Deal with it. Your logic is unfortunately faulty
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/04/08 - 12:33 AM:	#39
Without mass/energy what was in this 'universe'? Was it simple emptiness? Without mass/energy how is the passage of time measured (even independent of an observer)? If it cannot be measured, how does it exist? If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding from, if it had no beginning? What occurred when the universe was at that point? What occurred 1 second before that? Is your assertion that the universe has already been expanding forever? Do you assert that the universe has a beginning but no end? If we choose a random point between 0 and infinity, the chance that we choose a finite number approaches zero as we approach infinity. Thus that without an end cannot have a beginning and vice-versa.
_____________________ It is what it is.

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 206

Posted 05/04/08 - 02:10 AM:	#40
Absolutely Relative wrote: Without mass/energy what was in this 'universe'? Was it simple emptiness? Without mass/energy how is the passage of time measured (even independent of an observer)? If it cannot be measured, how does it exist? If the universe is expanding, what is it expanding from, if it had no beginning? What occurred when the universe was at that point? What occurred 1 second before that? Is your assertion that the universe has already been expanding forever? Do you assert that the universe has a beginning but no end? We first need to agree what we mean by "universe". Is the "universe" restricted to whatever emerged from the one Big bang that we know about? There is a theory that what we call our universe is just one in a (potentially infinite) number of similar universes, each of which is created in a self-generating way (see http://www.dhushara.com/book/quantcos/inf/inflat....). (sorry, for some reason my html linking does not work on here - this url should end in inflat.htm) If this view is correct, then we could say the true "universe" is the entire collection of contained "individual universes", of which ours is just one. Such a "universe" could conceivably have no beginning, and no end. Absolutely Relative wrote: If we choose a random point between 0 and infinity, the chance that we choose a finite number approaches zero as we approach infinity. Thus that without an end cannot have a beginning and vice-versa. What does this have to do with "every possible event will occur .... ....This would include the end of time."? IF "the end of time" does not exist, it follows that "the end of time" is NOT a possible event - hence your conclusion is incorrect. Infinite time would only result in possible things happening - it does not allow the impossible to happen. (oh, and by the way, infinite time does not even guarantee that EVERY possible event will happen. imagine that a train of events becomes stuck in a loop and keeps recurring, like some recurring real numbers - the full decimal expansion of 20/7 for example contains the number sequence 857142, recurring infinitely. Thus we have an example of an infinite string of numbers, but nowhere in that string of numbers will we find the digit 3. This disproves your assertion that "every possible event will occur" in any infinite string of events) Edited by reincarnated on 05/04/08 - 02:35 AM
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/04/08 - 11:00 AM:	#41
True enough, if you are speaking of a meta-universe (universe of univeres) then an infinite existence is feasible, since this would exist outside of the restraints of space/time that our universe is in. 20/7 is a poor comparison to the inevitability of random events in an infinite universe, it is not effectively random. Pi would be a better example, and pi has 3's. As I was formulating this argument I realized that pi has a beginning but no end- point by default [goalie scores on own goal].
_____________________ It is what it is.

geisteswiesenschaftn
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 05/04/08 - 05:48 PM:	#42
Absolutely Relative wrote: Given infinite time, every possible event (no matter how unlikely) will occur (if X=infinity and Y=very large finite number) X (1/Y) = X. This would include the end of time. Errr. So, X (1/Y) = X?? howz that possible?. That would mean (1/Y) = X/X, X/X=1, 1/Y=1, 1=1xY, 1/1=Y, 1=Y. But here, 1 is not the VERY LARGE FINITE NUMBER YOU SAID THAT IT WAS. But also, what if Y happened not to be 1. I mean, you're not solving for Y anyway, you're solving for X, so say Y = A VERY LARGE FINITE NUMBER 5 billion. You're statement would read 1 = 5 billion, and that also doesn't make sense.

geisteswiesenschaftn
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 5

Posted 05/04/08 - 06:08 PM:	#43
Wosret wrote: No, the universe doesn't have a center, the universe isn't a thing. The universe is the word we use to describe everything that exists. It is defined as all things known and supposed to exist. Um. So I am reading that you say the Universe is the 'whole of existence'. Well, then i'll make it more intelligible for you. Is there a center to this whole of existence which is named the Universe. Wosret wrote: This sentence: "There is something apart from time, ergo apart from existence, even above existence itself." is unintelligible. Maybe for some. For me, it has an intelligent meaning. THE universe, the collection of "all things" as you say, is neither eternal nor infinite, otherwise you could not say "ALL THINGS" for "all things" would be equally unintelligible. There are certain accidents and properties to the universe, if that were not true, we wouldn't be having a conversation. For example, The Universe is bound in time. if time were not the property of existence, then nothing could move and nothing could change. Even the Greeks knew better than that. Also, in all existence, there is nothing distinct from the Universe, all things are a part of the universe's whole, just as my liver is not distinct from by human personage. But, having these properties, it is thus necessarily limited. To be limited, it has to be limited by something greater than itself.

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/04/08 - 06:10 PM:	#44
Infinity math is a little different. I had to use the 'X' because it is a little difficult to roll an '8' on its side. I can see why you wanted to use the X [infinity] as an ordinary variable, but you can't. Infinity can be divided any number of times and still remain infinity. No matter how low the probability, everything will happen: [infinity] * 1/10^1,000,000,000 = [infinity]. In your equation you state that X/X=1. When X=infinity, [infinity]/[infinity] does not equal 1. It's unfortunate; life would be so much more interesting if it did.
_____________________ It is what it is.

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 206

Posted 05/04/08 - 07:54 PM:	#45
Absolutely Relative wrote: 20/7 is a poor comparison to the inevitability of random events in an infinite universe, it is not effectively random. This assumes random events - how do we know the universe is random? If determinism is true then there may be some events which never occur even in an infinite timeline (ie "you cannot get there from here").
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/05/08 - 12:08 AM:	#46
Absolutely Relative wrote: Given infinite time, every possible event (no matter how unlikely) will occur (if X=infinity and Y=very large finite number) X (1/Y) = X. This would include the end of time. Why does that prove that given infinite time, every possible event will occur? To be clear, I'm not asking why infinity * a finite number = infinity. I'm asking how that shows that if time is infinite, then every possible event will occur. Edited by 7 on 05/05/08 - 12:14 AM

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 206

Posted 05/05/08 - 12:41 AM:	#47
7 wrote: Why does that prove that given infinite time, every possible event will occur? To be clear, I'm not asking why infinity * a finite number = infinity. I'm asking how that shows that if time is infinite, then every possible event will occur. I believe that Absolutely Relative's argument is based on probability. If an event E has a non-zero probability of occuring then given an infinite timeline it WILL occur. I believe this is what AR means by a possible event. I have two issues with this argument - (1) Impossible events clearly have zero probability. But how do we know whether any particular event has non-zero probability or not? (2) The argument falls down if the world operates according to deterministic laws. In this case events either will happen or they will not - probability is not relevant. This is illustrated by the 20/7 example (deterministic recurring decimal).
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

reincarnated
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 30, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 206

Posted 05/05/08 - 12:43 AM:	#48
7 wrote: Why does that prove that given infinite time, every possible event will occur? To be clear, I'm not asking why infinity * a finite number = infinity. I'm asking how that shows that if time is infinite, then every possible event will occur. I believe that Absolutely Relative's argument is based on probability. If an event E has a non-zero probability of occuring then given an infinite timeline it WILL occur. I believe this is what AR means by a possible event. I have two issues with this argument - (1) Impossible events clearly have zero probability. But how do we know whether any particular event has non-zero probability or not? (2) The argument falls down if the world operates according to deterministic laws. In this case events either will happen or they will not - probability is not relevant. This is illustrated by the 20/7 example (deterministic recurring decimal).
_____________________ �If one pays attention to the concepts being employed, rather than the words being used, the resolution of this problem is simple.� (Stuart Burns)

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/05/08 - 01:03 AM:	#49
I believe that Absolutely Relative's argument is based on probability. If an event E has a non-zero probability of occuring then given an infinite timeline it WILL occur. I don't agree with that argument. The probability that some event will happen might be x (where x is non-zero) relative to some set of circumstances, and it might be true that if those circumstances held for an infinite period of time, then the event would inevitably occur. But why can't they hold only for a finite interval? Who says that when the interval ends, that the world will align the same way again later? That is to say, take an event e and assign it the non-zero probability x given conditions abc and 0 otherwise. Say that conditions abc obtain only for a finite amount of time. Why are we justified in assuming that given enough time, those conditions will obtain for another period sometime later? That seems to me like thinking that because 1=1 and the natural numbers are infinite, if we only go on long enough, some other number n will = 1. Edited by 7 on 05/05/08 - 06:33 AM

7
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 23, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 116

Posted 05/05/08 - 01:06 AM:	#50
Maybe a concrete example will help to illustrate my point. The probability that I will grow to a height of 7 feet is non-zero. I could develop a glandular problem that causes radical growth. But once I am dead, the probability becomes 0, regardless of how far time extends past my death.

Page: 1 2 3

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.