Page **3** of **7**

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:22 pm**

by **bahman**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:10 am

bahman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:20 am

Nope.

Logically, it is always possible for something greater than whatever is the greatest to exists, note infinite regression.

To stop infinite regression one will have to introduce the idea of the ontological God, i.e.

God is an entity than which

NO greater can exists.

But as I had proven, the imperative ontological God is empirical-rationally impossible to be real.

My point was about a reality which is bounded. I however think that the reality is unbound. So, here I accept my error in the previous post.

Reality is a "thing" -whatever that is, as such it cannot be unbounded.

Unboundedness if assigned to anything, e.g. reality in this case is an impossibility.

Thus Wittgenstein's "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be

silent."

Literally, it mean one need to just shut-up and

resist the tendency to say something [thus within bound] on this point.

I have argued this tendency is actually psychological within your own mind rather than there is an unbounded reality or the Absolute.

Note there are those within spirituality who cultivate artful skills to manage and modulate such a psychological tendency and thus free themselves of this burdensome tendency/yearning to reify the impossible.

The absolute then exist if the reality is bounded. Moreover reality cannot be bounded because if it is bounded then it is bounded with something else. That simply leads to infinite regress.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:36 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:22 pm

The absolute then exist if the reality is bounded. Moreover reality cannot be bounded because if it is bounded then it is bounded with something else. That simply leads to infinite regress.

The problem with "infinite regress" is not the

regress part. Regress is just recursion. We have computer science to help us out with this.

The problem with "infinite regress" is the

infinite part.

Either way you have a dilemma on your hands, but at least a choice exists. Choose your problems.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:10 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:36 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:22 pm

The absolute then exist if the reality is bounded. Moreover reality cannot be bounded because if it is bounded then it is bounded with something else. That simply leads to infinite regress.

The problem with "infinite regress" is not the

regress part. Regress is just recursion. We have computer science to help us out with this.

How could you resolve the problem of infinite regress using computer science?

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:36 pm

The problem with "infinite regress" is the

infinite part.

Yes.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:36 pm

Either way you have a dilemma on your hands, but at least a choice exists. Choose your problems.

I have no problem. The reality is unbound and there is no absolute.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:16 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:10 pm

I have no problem. The reality is unbound and there is no absolute.

2nd law of thermodynamics disagrees.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:10 pm

How could you resolve the problem of infinite regress using computer science?

You establish sane upper and lower bounds on fundamental quantities.

Such that your computational models (wave equations) can be solved in 'acceptable' time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limits_of_computation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complexity_class

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:27 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:16 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:10 pm

I have no problem. The reality is unbound and there is no absolute.

2nd law of thermodynamics disagrees.

Second law of thermodynamics puts a limit on age of the universe, no size of the universe.

I will read that. I however don't think that you can deal with infinity using computer.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:29 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:27 pm

Second law of thermodynamics puts a limit on age of the universe, no size of the universe.

It puts a limit on amount of energy. That's a bound on the amount of mass.

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:10 pm

I will read that. I however don't think that you can deal with infinity using computer.

You can't. That's why they are

finite state machines

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:39 pm**

by **Logik**

P.S your conception of unbounded universe is one of infinite volume but finite mass.

For all practical purposes (and for as long as you and I are made out of matter) that's a bounded universe.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:46 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:29 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:27 pm

Second law of thermodynamics puts a limit on age of the universe, no size of the universe.

It puts a limit on amount of energy. That's a bound on the amount of mass.

You either have nothing or something unbound. We have something, therefore the amount of energy is unbound if the distributions of energy is almost uniform. How the second law of thermodynamic could possibly put a limit on amount of energy in the universe? Moreover, people thinks that Big Bang starts from a point. This is of course fallacious.

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:29 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:10 pm

I will read that. I however don't think that you can deal with infinity using computer.

You can't. That's why they are

finite state machines

Ok.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:48 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:46 pm

You either have nothing or something unbound

False dichotomy.

You either have nothing or something.

It's either bound or unbound.

Bounded nothing. Finite volume. No mass.

Unbounded nothing. Infinite volume. No mass.

Bounded something. Finite volume. Finite mass.

Unbounded something. Infinite volume. Finite mass.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:57 pm**

by **Logik**

If you are struggling to conceptualise any such geometric objects, do some homework on Topos theory/Homotopy.

It's mind-bending stuff.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:46 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:48 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:46 pm

You either have nothing or something unbound

False dichotomy.

You either have nothing or something.

It's either bound or unbound.

Bounded nothing. Finite volume. No mass.

Unbounded nothing. Infinite volume. No mass.

Bounded something. Finite volume. Finite mass.

Unbounded something. Infinite volume. Finite mass.

That (bold part) is not possible considering the fact that equilibrium state is the uniform state (in large scale) and we observe finite density.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:46 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:57 pm

If you are struggling to conceptualise any such geometric objects, do some homework on Topos theory/Homotopy.

It's mind-bending stuff.

I read all those stuff long time ago. I forget it all.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:27 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:46 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:48 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:46 pm

You either have nothing or something unbound

False dichotomy.

You either have nothing or something.

It's either bound or unbound.

Bounded nothing. Finite volume. No mass.

Unbounded nothing. Infinite volume. No mass.

Bounded something. Finite volume. Finite mass.

Unbounded something. Infinite volume. Finite mass.

That (bold part) is not possible considering the fact that equilibrium state is the uniform state (in large scale) and we observe finite density.

You assume that mass is uniformly distributed even across the unobservable universe.

It doesn’t have to be.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:28 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:27 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:46 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:48 pm

False dichotomy.

You either have nothing or something.

It's either bound or unbound.

Bounded nothing. Finite volume. No mass.

Unbounded nothing. Infinite volume. No mass.

Bounded something. Finite volume. Finite mass.

Unbounded something. Infinite volume. Finite mass.

That (bold part) is not possible considering the fact that equilibrium state is the uniform state (in large scale) and we observe finite density.

You assume that mass is uniformly distributed even across the unobservable universe.

It doesn’t have to be.

I said at equilibrium.

### Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong

Posted: **Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:35 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:28 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:27 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:46 pm

That (bold part) is not possible considering the fact that equilibrium state is the uniform state (in large scale) and we observe finite density.

You assume that mass is uniformly distributed even across the unobservable universe.

It doesn’t have to be.

I said at equilibrium.

Yes but the universe is not in equilibrium. You have never observed equilibrium.

Heat death is the equilibrium state.