Do you have anything at heat death?
The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong
Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong
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.
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
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
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
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
If the volume of the universe is infinite (unbound), the observable universe accounts for 0% of the samplespace.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:21 pmThe 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.
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
Yes.Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:50 pmIf the volume of the universe is infinite (unbound), the observable universe accounts for 0% of the samplespace.
There is no problem for such a probability theory which deal with infinite volume. You can always regularize and then renormalize 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
Ugh. It is an error in reasoning. You can regularise and normalise as much as you want  it is invalid use of probability.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:06 pmYes.
There is no problem for such a probability theory which deal with infinite volume. You can always regularize and then renormalize things. Physicists do this all the time. Of course mathematicians do not accept this.
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.

 Posts: 4637
 Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong
If reality is bounded, then it cannot be absolute because absolute = totally unbounded.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:22 pmThe 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.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 6:10 amReality 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 shutup 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.
Realityasitis 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
So you conceptualize absolution as infinity?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:05 am If reality is bounded, then it cannot be absolute because absolute = totally unbounded.
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
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.Logik wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 11:10 pmUgh. 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
There is an absolute in the sense that there is nothing better than Him.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:05 amIf reality is bounded, then it cannot be absolute because absolute = totally unbounded.bahman wrote: ↑Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:22 pmThe 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.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 shutup 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.
Realityasitis is conditioned [not bounded as in the case of a boundary] simultaneously with the human condition.

 Posts: 4637
 Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am
Re: The greatest does not exist therefore Anselm ontological argument is wrong
Note I had argued an absolute, i.e. absolutely absolute* is transcendental and an impossibility. * i.e. totally unconditional.bahman wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 1:59 pmThere is an absolute in the sense that there is nothing better than Him.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Jan 10, 2019 5:05 amIf reality is bounded, then it cannot be absolute because absolute = totally unbounded.
Realityasitis is conditioned [not bounded as in the case of a boundary] simultaneously with the human condition.
Therefore Him as absolute is an impossibility to exists as real.
Note, there are empirical absolutes, e.g. absolute temperature, absolute monarchy, absolutewhateverempirical, thus such absolutes are empirical possibilities.
God is a logical transcendental absolute [not empirical absolute] therefore impossible to exists are real empirically.