Re: The greatest imaginable is much less than the greatest possible -- Anselm fails
Posted: Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:23 pm
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
Yes, but one must observe a statistically significant part of of something to make useful general inferences.
(The ignore list must not be working to well. Or, some one just could NOT resist?)
That does NOT matter one bit.
Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pmLook! A tea cup on my desk!
Therefore the universe exists.
Lool! A Moon!
Therefore the universe exists.
Look! 10 planets in the Solar system.
Therefore the universe exists.
Look! 100 billion Galaxies!
Therefore the universe exists.
Look! Cosmic microwave background!
Therefore the universe exists.
Yes. I was surprised when I saw notifications from you.
It does. It is called statistical significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
The teacup exists. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
The moon exists. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
Then 10 planets exist. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
Then 100 billion galaxies exist. Any inferences beyond that is a guess.
Then the cosmic microwave background exists. Any inference beyond that is just a guess.
That's a rather long tautology. Let me shorten it for you.
All there is may exist.
Not necessarily so.
Who cares, and it does NOT matter one iota.
Again who cares? As that does NOT matter AT ALL to what is actually in question here.
You really take your own self to some far away thinking and imagining.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:26 pmLook! A tea cup on my desk!
Therefore the universe exists.
Look! A Moon!
Therefore the universe exists.
Look! 10 planets in the Solar system.
Therefore the universe exists.
Look! 100 billion Galaxies!
Therefore the universe exists.
Look! Cosmic microwave background!
Therefore the universe exists.
Look! Multiverses.
Oops....
Now we have to go and rename The Universe to "Universe 1". And argue over whose universe is better.
WHAT????
Well lets give it meaning.
LOLLogik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pmYes. I was surprised when I saw notifications from you.
Seems I missed the the confirmation box. So much for 100% certainty.
Let me fix it.
If that is what YOU can conclude, then so be it.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pmIt does. It is called statistical significance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance
Otherwise I can conclude that God exists because of the toenail on my left foot.
Incorrect.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 12:58 pmThe teacup exists. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
The moon exists. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
Then 10 planets exist. Any inferences beyond that are just a guess.
Then 100 billion galaxies exist. Any inferences beyond that is a guess.
Then the cosmic microwave background exists. Any inference beyond that is just a guess.
So, once again, you are totally incapable of answering two very simple clarifying questions or there could be some other reason? Or, maybe you are just to afraid to for what that will SHOW about YOUR BELIEFS if you did answer them honestly.
But 'we' are NOT. ONLY 'you' are "demoting". Because you are TRYING TO deflect away from the issue at hand and the very FACT that YOUR so called "challenge" has already been refuted and quashed.
LOL.
LOL
I never said I can justify my claims?Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:23 pmBut 'we' are NOT. ONLY 'you' are "demoting". Because you are TRYING TO deflect away from the issue at hand and the very FACT that YOUR so called "challenge" has already been refuted and quashed.
This is TWICE now that I have accepted YOUR "challenges", and did what you originally BELIEVED was impossible.
You are also so called "demoting" things, so that things will now fit in with YOUR BELIEFS.
Your BELIEFS are becoming obviously WRONG and FALSE but instead of just letting them go, you are TRYING anything to hold onto them and make them "work".
You may NOT be able to recognize and SEE what you are TRYING TO do, but it is obvious to Me.
LOL.
LOL
According to your OWN logic, you can NOT even justify your response here.
But please feel FREE to go ahead and TRY TO back up YOUR claim.
But REMEMBER if you can JUSTIFY your response/claim, then responses/claims CAN BE JUSTIFIED, which would falsify your OWN theory.
I KNOW this.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:49 pmI never said I can justify my claims?Age wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 1:23 pmBut 'we' are NOT. ONLY 'you' are "demoting". Because you are TRYING TO deflect away from the issue at hand and the very FACT that YOUR so called "challenge" has already been refuted and quashed.
This is TWICE now that I have accepted YOUR "challenges", and did what you originally BELIEVED was impossible.
You are also so called "demoting" things, so that things will now fit in with YOUR BELIEFS.
Your BELIEFS are becoming obviously WRONG and FALSE but instead of just letting them go, you are TRYING anything to hold onto them and make them "work".
You may NOT be able to recognize and SEE what you are TRYING TO do, but it is obvious to Me.
LOL.
LOL
According to your OWN logic, you can NOT even justify your response here.
But please feel FREE to go ahead and TRY TO back up YOUR claim.
But REMEMBER if you can JUSTIFY your response/claim, then responses/claims CAN BE JUSTIFIED, which would falsify your OWN theory.
That is ALL relative to the observer.
Relative how?
That's not what you said. You said that you have already justified your claim.
This is a violation of Cantor’s theorem.P1. ALL-THERE-IS is the Universe, Itself.
P2. If some thing exists, then
C. The Universe exists.
But they are thee observer, obviously.Logik wrote: ↑Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:15 pmRelative how?
That's not what you said. You said that you have already justified your claim.
Now you are saying that you have VALIDLY justified your claim.
Please explain their criterion for "valid justification" to the audience so that the audience can reach the same conclusion as the observer.