Page **5** of **7**

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

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:30 am**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:57 pm

Could we agree that the chance for appearance of stuff at the beginning in any give point was same?

I don't even know how to begin agreeing to this.

Given that the universe is infinite in volume, and points have no volume, then the number of possible locations for a point to appear anywhere is ∞/0. I don't know how to divide by 0.

But suppose that you figured it out. The probability of a point appearing in any particular location is p=1/(∞/0).

But lets suppose that points have some non-zero volume V, then the probability-space is ∞/V.

so p=1/(∞/V) = 1/∞ =0

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:57 pm

If yes, then we expect the uniform distribution of stuff in large scale.

This is a non-sequitur. I have no idea how to calculate a distribution from 0 or undefined probability.

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

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:27 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 7:30 am

bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:57 pm

Could we agree that the chance for appearance of stuff at the beginning in any give point was same?

I don't even know how to begin agreeing to this.

Given that the universe is infinite in volume, and points have no volume, then the number of possible locations for a point to appear anywhere is ∞/0. I don't know how to divide by 0.

But suppose that you figured it out. The probability of a point appearing in any particular location is p=1/(∞/0).

But lets suppose that points have some non-zero volume V, then the probability-space is ∞/V.

so p=1/(∞/V) = 1/∞ =0

If the chance at any given point is equal then it means that any equal volume has the same amount of mass.

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

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:03 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:27 pm

If the chance at any given point is equal then it means that any equal volume has the same amount of mass.

Eh?

If the universe is unbounded, and there is only one it and, it has infinite volume. I don't understand what you mean by "any equal volume".

Within that infinite volume there is a mass.

The mass appeared wherever it appeared, and we are observing it wherever we are observing it because of the antrhopic principle.

There is no way to determine if the mass is evenly distributed beyond the observable universe.

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

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:21 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:03 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:27 pm

If the chance at any given point is equal then it means that any equal volume has the same amount of mass.

Eh?

If the universe is unbounded, and there is only one it and, it has infinite volume. I don't understand what you mean by "any equal volume".

Within that infinite volume there is a mass.

The mass appeared wherever it appeared, and we are observing it wherever we are observing it because of the antrhopic principle.

There is no way to determine if the mass is evenly distributed beyond the observable universe.

I mean if you choose any equal volumes then the amount of mass in each should have been equal at Big Bang.

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

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:03 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:21 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:03 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:27 pm

If the chance at any given point is equal then it means that any equal volume has the same amount of mass.

Eh?

If the universe is unbounded, and there is only one it and, it has infinite volume. I don't understand what you mean by "any equal volume".

Within that infinite volume there is a mass.

The mass appeared wherever it appeared, and we are observing it wherever we are observing it because of the antrhopic principle.

There is no way to determine if the mass is evenly distributed beyond the observable universe.

I mean if you choose any equal volumes then the amount of mass in each should have been equal at Big Bang.

So volume was finite at the Big Bang?

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

Posted: **Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:03 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:21 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:03 pm

Eh?

If the universe is unbounded, and there is only one it and, it has infinite volume. I don't understand what you mean by "any equal volume".

Within that infinite volume there is a mass.

The mass appeared wherever it appeared, and we are observing it wherever we are observing it because of the antrhopic principle.

There is no way to determine if the mass is evenly distributed beyond the observable universe.

I mean if you choose any equal volumes then the amount of mass in each should have been equal at Big Bang.

So volume was finite at the Big Bang?

No. Consider two volumes at Big bang. The amount of mass in each volume should be the same if they have the same size.

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

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:32 am**

by **Veritas Aequitas**

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm

No. Consider two volumes at Big bang. The amount of mass in each volume should be the same if they have the same size.

You post as if you have a PhD is AstroPhysics.

If you are not, at least provide the relevant references.

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

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:55 pm**

by **bahman**

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:32 am

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm

No. Consider two volumes at Big bang. The amount of mass in each volume should be the same if they have the same size.

You post as if you have a PhD is AstroPhysics.

If you are not, at least provide the relevant references.

I have a PhD in condensed matter physics but I study cosmology and particle physics to good extend. What I am trying to say here is related to transnational symmetry at the beginning.

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

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:39 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm

No. Consider two volumes at Big bang.

To consider two volumes is to divide the universe into two equal parts.

∞/2 = ∞

You are still working with infinities...

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm

The amount of mass in each volume should be the same if they have the same size.

And you are still unjustifiably

assuming a uniform distribution.

But like any good scientist you must account for the possibility that your assumption is false and consider if any evidence supports the alternative.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says entropy increases with time so if the heat death of the universe is maximum entropy (e.g uniform distribution of matter through the volume of the universe) then at minimum entropy (e.g Big Bang) matter needs not be uniformly distributed.

If matter was uniformly distributed at the beginning and at the end then you are contradicting thermodynamics.

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

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:47 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:39 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm

No. Consider two volumes at Big bang.

To consider two volumes is to divide the universe into two equal parts.

∞/2 = ∞

You are still working with infinities...

No. You can always consider a finite volume inside an infinite volume.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:39 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm

The amount of mass in each volume should be the same if they have the same size.

And you are still unjustifiably

assuming a uniform distribution.

No. What could possibly make two points different from each other?

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:39 pm

But like any good scientist you must account for your assumption AND for the alternative hypothesis: which being "matter was not uniformly distributed during the Big Bang".

The 2nd law of thermodynamics says entropy increases with time so if the heat death of the universe is maximum entropy (e.g uniform distribution of matter through the volume of the universe) then at minimum entropy (e.g Big Bang) matter needs not be uniformly distributed.

Yes, there was small quantum fluctuations otherwise nothing could move.

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

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:50 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:47 pm

No. You can always consider a finite volume inside an infinite volume.

You explicitly said two volumes of the "same size" did you not? I am sure you did...

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm

No. Consider two volumes at Big bang. The amount of mass in each volume should be the same if they have the

same size.

If you consider a finite volume inside an infinite volume they do not have the "same size".

The finite volume is infinitely smaller than the infinite volume!

Since a finite volume inside an infinite volume are not the "same size" then the amount of mass in each volume needs not be the same.

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

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:54 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:50 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:47 pm

No. You can always consider a finite volume inside an infinite volume.

You explicitly said two volumes of the "same size" did you not? I am sure you did...

Yes, I did.

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:50 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Fri Jan 11, 2019 8:13 pm

No. Consider two volumes at Big bang. The amount of mass in each volume should be the same if they have the

same size.

If you consider a finite volume inside an infinite volume they do not have the "same size".

Since a finite volume inside an infinite volume are not the "same size" then the amount of mass in each volume needs not be the same.

I meant to consider two finite same size volumes inside an infinite volume.

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

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:56 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:54 pm

I meant to consider two finite same size volumes inside an infinite volume.

It violates the anthropic principle.

If one of the finite volumes had zero mass - we wouldn't exist to observe it.

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

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:01 pm**

by **bahman**

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:56 pm

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:54 pm

I meant to consider two finite same size volumes inside an infinite volume.

It violates the anthropic principle.

If one of the finite volumes had zero mass - we wouldn't exist to observe it.

So, you mean that you cannot consider two finite size volumes? This doesn't make any sense to me.

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

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:08 pm**

by **Logik**

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Jan 12, 2019 7:01 pm

So, you mean that you cannot consider two finite size volumes? This doesn't make any sense to me.

*sigh*

I can consider two finite size volumes.

What I cannot

ASSUME is that each finite volume will have non-zero mass!

Scenario 1: Two finite size volumes: A and B.

A has zero mass.

B has zero mass.

Scenario 2: Two finite size volumes: A and B.

A has zero mass.

B has non-zero mass.

Scenario 3: Two finite size volumes: A and B.

A has non-zero mass.

B has zero mass.

Scenario 4: Two finite size volumes: A and B.

A has non-zero mass

B has non-zero mass.

We can definitely say that we do not live in Scenario 1, 2A or 3B, but beyond that you could be an inhabitor in any of 2B, 3A, 4A or 4B!

Only if you live in Scenario 4 can you assume uniform distribution of mass!

Even if you consider Scenario 2 to be equivalent with scenario 3, you still cannot reduce your uncertainty below 50%!

You either live in a universe with uniform distribution of mass (Scenario 4), or you don't (Scenario 2 and 3).