Page 4 of 7

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:37 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:35 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:28 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:27 pm
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.
Do you have anything at heat death?

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:10 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:37 pm Do you have anything at heat death?
Quantum particles. Scattered.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:12 pm
There's actually another problem with your unbounded conception.

You cannot calculate density given infinite volume, if you have (somehow) managed to calculate density, you have necessarily assumed finite volume.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:14 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:10 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 9:37 pm Do you have anything at heat death?
Quantum particles. Scattered.
What is the density of stuff at that point? Zero?

Moreover, there is no center for the universe, therefore the distribution of mass in large scale should be uniform. This means that amount of mass is unbound once we accept that the universe is unbound.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:16 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:12 pm There's actually another problem with your unbounded conception.

You cannot calculate density given infinite volume, if you have (somehow) managed to calculate density, you have necessarily assumed finite volume.
The density is simply zero when we have infinite volume and finite amount of mass.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:18 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:16 pm The density is simply zero when we have infinite volume and finite amount of mass.
It was you who claimed that we observe "finite density"...

What quantity for volume did you use to calculate the density of that which we observe?

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:21 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:18 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:16 pm The density is simply zero when we have infinite volume and finite amount of mass.
It was you who claimed that we observe "finite density"...

What quantity for volume did you use to calculate the density of that which we observe?
The density is finite in large scale (observation). There is no center for the universe also (observation). The volume of universe is unbound. Therefore the amount of mass is also unbound.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:50 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:21 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:18 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:16 pm The density is simply zero when we have infinite volume and finite amount of mass.
It was you who claimed that we observe "finite density"...

What quantity for volume did you use to calculate the density of that which we observe?
The density is finite in large scale (observation). There is no center for the universe also (observation). The volume of universe is unbound. Therefore the amount of mass is also unbound.
If the volume of the universe is infinite (unbound), the observable universe accounts for 0% of the sample-space.

Such observation carries no evidentiary weight as far as probability theory is concerned.

It is a hasty generalization fallacy.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:06 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:50 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:21 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:18 pm
It was you who claimed that we observe "finite density"...

What quantity for volume did you use to calculate the density of that which we observe?
The density is finite in large scale (observation). There is no center for the universe also (observation). The volume of universe is unbound. Therefore the amount of mass is also unbound.
If the volume of the universe is infinite (unbound), the observable universe accounts for 0% of the sample-space.
Yes.
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:50 pm Such observation carries no evidentiary weight as far as probability theory is concerned.
There is no problem for such a probability theory which deal with infinite volume. You can always regularize and then re-normalize things. Physicists do this all the time. Of course mathematicians do not accept this.

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

Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:10 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:06 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:50 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:21 pm
The density is finite in large scale (observation). There is no center for the universe also (observation). The volume of universe is unbound. Therefore the amount of mass is also unbound.
If the volume of the universe is infinite (unbound), the observable universe accounts for 0% of the sample-space.
Yes.
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:50 pm Such observation carries no evidentiary weight as far as probability theory is concerned.
There is no problem for such a probability theory which deal with infinite volume. You can always regularize and then re-normalize things. Physicists do this all the time. Of course mathematicians do not accept this.
Ugh. It is an error in reasoning. You can regularise and normalise as much as you want - it is invalid use of probability.

People make errors in reasoning all the time.
It doesn’t make it OK.

You can’t make any inferences about the unobservable universe based on the observable part.

Because it is infinitely bigger than the parts you have seen! Probability theory does not work unless you have an unbiased sample.

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

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:05 am
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:10 am
bahman wrote: Tue Jan 08, 2019 2:44 pm
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.
If reality is bounded, then it cannot be absolute because absolute = totally unbounded.

Reality-as-it-is is conditioned [not bounded as in the case of a boundary] simultaneously with the human condition.

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

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 6:29 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:05 am If reality is bounded, then it cannot be absolute because absolute = totally unbounded.
So you conceptualize absolution as infinity?

I guess that is one way to avoid committing yourself in the physical realm...

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

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:57 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:10 pm
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:06 pm
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:50 pm
If the volume of the universe is infinite (unbound), the observable universe accounts for 0% of the sample-space.
Yes.
Logik wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:50 pm Such observation carries no evidentiary weight as far as probability theory is concerned.
There is no problem for such a probability theory which deal with infinite volume. You can always regularize and then re-normalize things. Physicists do this all the time. Of course mathematicians do not accept this.
Ugh. It is an error in reasoning. You can regularise and normalise as much as you want - it is invalid use of probability.

People make errors in reasoning all the time.
It doesn’t make it OK.

You can’t make any inferences about the unobservable universe based on the observable part.

Because it is infinitely bigger than the parts you have seen! Probability theory does not work unless you have an unbiased sample.
Could we agree that the chance for appearance of stuff at the beginning in any give point was same? If yes, then we expect the uniform distribution of stuff in large scale.

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

Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:05 am
bahman wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:22 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:10 am
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.
If reality is bounded, then it cannot be absolute because absolute = totally unbounded.

Reality-as-it-is is conditioned [not bounded as in the case of a boundary] simultaneously with the human condition.
There is an absolute in the sense that there is nothing better than Him.

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

Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:22 am
bahman wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:59 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:05 am
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.
If reality is bounded, then it cannot be absolute because absolute = totally unbounded.

Reality-as-it-is is conditioned [not bounded as in the case of a boundary] simultaneously with the human condition.
There is an absolute in the sense that there is nothing better than Him.
Note I had argued an absolute, i.e. absolutely absolute* is transcendental and an impossibility. * i.e. totally unconditional.
Therefore Him as absolute is an impossibility to exists as real.

Note, there are empirical absolutes, e.g. absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, absolute-whatever-empirical, thus such absolutes are empirical possibilities.
God is a logical transcendental absolute [not empirical absolute] therefore impossible to exists are real empirically.