bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:39 pm
What is the chance of having the life if the volume granted is zero?
Hello? The SOURCE OF YOUR DATA.
That needs to be empirical data. Frequentism is based on actual empirical data.Otherwise we're talking about Bayesian statistics.
Come on. The chance for having the life in the zero volume is zero.
So you have no empirical data, right? This is based on reasoning only.
That's the difference between frequentist probability (about/based on empirical data--namely, iterations of a scenario), and Bayesian probability (based solely on reasoning, and often largely on intuition).
I don't buy that Bayesian probability tells us anything aside from telling us about someone's psychological states, assumptions, biases, etc..
Last edited by Terrapin Station on Sat Feb 20, 2021 4:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That needs to be empirical data. Frequentism is based on actual empirical data.Otherwise we're talking about Bayesian statistics.
Come on. The chance for having the life in the zero volume is zero.
So you have no empirical data, right? This is based on reasoning only.
That's the difference between frequentist probability (about/based on empirical data--namely, iterations of a scenario), and Bayesian probability (based solely on reasoning, and often largely on intuition).
I don't buy that Bayesian probability tells us anything aside from telling us about someone's psychological states.
So in your opinion, the chance for having the life in zero volume is finite. There is no other option.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 20, 2021 3:51 pm
Come on. The chance for having the life in the zero volume is zero.
So you have no empirical data, right? This is based on reasoning only.
That's the difference between frequentist probability (about/based on empirical data--namely, iterations of a scenario), and Bayesian probability (based solely on reasoning, and often largely on intuition).
I don't buy that Bayesian probability tells us anything aside from telling us about someone's psychological states.
So in your opinion, the chance for having the life in zero volume is finite. There is no other option.
No, I'd say if there's nothing obviously there's no chance.
If there's something where any sort of matter is interacting via chemical reactions, there's an unknown chance, where the relationship to volume is unknown.
So you have no empirical data, right? This is based on reasoning only.
That's the difference between frequentist probability (about/based on empirical data--namely, iterations of a scenario), and Bayesian probability (based solely on reasoning, and often largely on intuition).
I don't buy that Bayesian probability tells us anything aside from telling us about someone's psychological states.
So in your opinion, the chance for having the life in zero volume is finite. There is no other option.
No, I'd say if there's nothing obviously there's no chance.
If there's something where any sort of matter is interacting via chemical reactions, there's an unknown chance, where the relationship to volume is unknown.
You of course cannot have any chemical in zero volume. So the chance of having the life is zero.
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:28 pm
God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.
In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:28 pm
God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.
In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:28 pm
God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.
In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...
That leads to pantheism.
How do we get to "reality is boundless therefore the greatest doesn't exist"?
bahman wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 4:28 pm
God is defined as the greatest in all respects. Reality is boundless therefore the greatest does not exist. Therefore, there is no God.
In the case of the premise the 'greatest in all respects' must then have to be 'boundless reality' thus god is defined as boundless reality...
I'm asking him for the justification for the bit in quotation marks.
Thanks. Yes - it would seem the case that if reality is boundless then it is 'the greatest'...
Because of what? Whether we're using greatest in strictly a quantitative sense or whether we're using it in a sense with a "better" connotation, what justifies that if reality is boundless it's greater than if it's bounded? In the quantitative sense, we can say, "Well, there's more reality, then," which is fine, but at the same time, we can say, "Well, there are less bounds, too." And the "better" sense is subjective--there's nothing that says that more reality is better than more bounds aside from individual preferences.
Terrapin Station wrote: ↑Fri Mar 26, 2021 7:45 am
Because of what? Whether we're using greatest in strictly a quantitative sense or whether we're using it in a sense with a "better" connotation, what justifies that if reality is boundless it's greater than if it's bounded? In the quantitative sense, we can say, "Well, there's more reality, then," which is fine, but at the same time, we can say, "Well, there are less bounds, too." And the "better" sense is subjective--there's nothing that says that more reality is better than more bounds aside from individual preferences.
You sure went out of your way there to blur the semantic difference between "greater" and "better".