the universe and space....?

Don't think for a second that "probability" is necessary in any way for "belief." A wild guess; something pulled out of thin air; a whim--all are more than adequate for almost all "beliefs."

Alas, that is not what my signature means. It is not commenting on why people believe what they claim to believe. It is commenting on our inability to be certain about the truth of our beliefs.

Deal with it![/quote]

0 Replies

Frank,
You wrote:
Don't think for a second that "probability" is necessary in any way for "belief." A wild guess; something pulled out of thin air; a whim--all are more than adequate for almost all "beliefs."

Deal with it!

My signature statement does not relate to what is necessary for people to believe what they do. It relates to what governs the truth of their beliefs.

Get over it!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

In actuality, you do not have "zero" data about the existence of SATOOU.

You know, for instance, that it MAY or MIGHT exist. That is something.

One more time:

The
only
thing
I
know
for
certain
is
that
I
don't
know
anything
else
for certain.

I'm looking for the data you claim I have!

You seem to think if you repeat that preposterous assertion often enough -- that the repetition will make it true.

Frankly, I think you stretch logic and reason to the breaking point to make it seem that it is so.

My guess is you know many things for certain.

I know I know many things for certain -- and I am an agnostic.

In any case, if you are not playing sophist here...

...you KNOW that what you call OOU MAY NOT BE ALL THERE IS TO EXISTENCE.

You also KNOW that IT MAY BE ALL THERE IS.

And I suspect you also KNOW that we really do not know which it is -- and that we really do not have enough information and evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

PERSONAL NOTE: If you would like to use the quote system we all use - the box in white above - it is a snap to learn and it beats doing all the quote stuff we had to do over in Abuzz.

You can get started by simply clicking the "quote" box at the top of the posting you wish to quote from - and eliminating anything you do not want to quote between the initial opening convention - and the ending. They both begin with the symbol [ and end with ].

If you wish to quote something in the middle of what you are writing, you can do it by just putting the symbol [ then the word quote then the symbol ]. (I couldn't actually do that, or it would show up as a quote!) To end the quote you put the symbol [ use the / write the word quote and end it with the symbol ].

Give it a test try. You'll love it.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Don't think for a second that "probability" is necessary in any way for "belief." A wild guess; something pulled out of thin air; a whim--all are more than adequate for almost all "beliefs."

Alas, that is not what my signature means. It is not commenting on why people believe what they claim to believe. It is commenting on our inability to be certain about the truth of our beliefs.

Deal with it!

[/quote]

"Certain" about the truth of our beliefs!!!!!!

Is this really Ican -- or just someone using his name?

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Frank,
You wrote:
Don't think for a second that "probability" is necessary in any way for "belief." A wild guess; something pulled out of thin air; a whim--all are more than adequate for almost all "beliefs."

Deal with it!

My signature statement does not relate to what is necessary for people to believe what they do. It relates to what governs the truth of their beliefs.

Get over it!

Another nice try -- but no cigar.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

In actuality, you do not have "zero" data about the existence of SATOOU.

You know, for instance, that it MAY or MIGHT exist. That is something.

Sorry, dummy here, does not know for certain that SATOOU MAY or MIGHT exist.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I know I know many things for certain -- and I am an agnostic.

Frank, I do not know for certain that anything I sense and perceive is an accurate representation of what is. I guess you suffer the same limitation whether you realize it or not.

PRELIMINARIES TO MY GUESS: We have discussed the word <googol>. For the benefit of others, it is the name of the number 1 followed by 100 zeros (i.e., 10^100). I coin another such word <troogol>. It is the number 1 followed by one-trillion zeros (i.e., 10^trillion). Now listen up, 1/googol = a googolth; 1/troogol = a troogolth.

I GUESS that the probability that you know for certain what you claim you know for certain is less than [1 minus a troogolth]. Yes, close to but not quite 1; not certain.

I do not know for certain that what I call OOU MAY NOT BE ALL THERE IS TO EXISTENCE. For all I know this MAY is impossible.

I do not know for certain that what I call OOU MAY BE ALL THERE IS TO EXISTENCE. For all I know this MAY is impossible.

Thanks for the personal note! (I don't know whether I did it right or not Rolling Eyes

)

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Thanks for the personal note! (I don't know whether I did it right or not )

You did it just fine. As you hone this method, you will come to love it. I KNOW that.

Quote:

quoting me:
Quote:
In actuality, you do not have "zero" data about the existence of SATOOU.

You know, for instance, that it MAY or MIGHT exist. That is something.

Sorry, dummy here, does not know for certain that SATOOU MAY or MIGHT exist.

Yeah, you do. But I can see that you will not be able to acknowledge that you do. So....live with your self-deception.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I know I know many things for certain -- and I am an agnostic.

Frank, I do not know for certain that anything I sense and perceive is an accurate representation of what is. I guess you suffer the same limitation whether you realize it or not.

No problem there. We are of one mind on that. But that does not eliminate the possibility (probability indeterminant) that we can know things here in the reality or the illusion, whichever it is.

Quote:

PRELIMINARIES TO MY GUESS: We have discussed the word <googol>. For the benefit of others, it is the name of the number 1 followed by 100 zeros (i.e., 10^100). I coin another such word <troogol>. It is the number 1 followed by one-trillion zeros (i.e., 10^trillion). Now listen up, 1/googol = a googolth; 1/troogol = a troogolth.

I GUESS that the probability that you know for certain what you claim you know for certain is less than [1 minus a troogolth]. Yes, close to but not quite 1; not certain.

Yeah, sure you do! But you are wrong. No problem, you are often wrong.

Quote:

I do not know for certain that what I call OOU MAY NOT BE ALL THERE IS TO EXISTENCE. For all I know this MAY is impossible.

Gimme a break. Even you in full denial can't think that makes any sense.

Quote:

I do not know for certain that what I call OOU MAY BE ALL THERE IS TO EXISTENCE. For all I know this MAY is impossible.

Same comment as above.

Do you want to continue this diversion into nothingness -- or do you want to get back to your point?

If you want to get back to your point, you really should consider including the possibility that OOU MAY NOT BE EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS.

It is the only logical way to handle this.

And please do not try to determine probability on this, because you can't -- unless you stack the deck.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, since you are pursuing this, I have to assume that you consider the question of whether or not the universe (or UNIVERSE) is finite or not -- to be significant to what you have to say here.

So I ask this question: If it is, as I am assuming, significant -- why on Earth would you arbitrarily ignore the fact that SATOOU may exist -- considering the fact that if it does, the question of whether or not the UNIVERSE is finite or infinite becomes even more complex and even more unanswerable.

Keep in mind (not that I need remind you) that I am of the opinion that we do not have nearly enough information to make any kind of meaningful statement about whether or not the UNIVERSE is finite or infinite.

If SATOOU is excluded from consideration -- all we are left with is OOU -- which, in effect, is all of the universe which we know exists and everything we can meaningfully infer exists -- WHICH BY DEFINITION is finite. (I am, of course, assuming we cannot infer infinity.)

Please re-read my last post to Bogowo. I acknowledge Mech's data that implies OOU is infinite. I guess that my preponderance of data that OOU is finite and Mech's much more limited data that OOU is infinite implies that it is more probable that OOU is finite than it is infinite.

So one could reasonably say that I here may gamble that OOU is finite and run the risk Shocked

that it is actually infinite. However, with Bogowo, I am exploring the question of purpose without resort to my alleged finitude of OOU.

I can infer infinity from (1 divided by zero) or from (absence of 1st cause). However, I have zero data whether or not there was a first cause.

I guess our discussions here will be more productive if we limit them to that for which we have some data. I infer you think all such discussion a waste of time if we ignore possibilities for which we have zero data. My problem with <possibilities> is that I am not competent to know for certain what is or is not possible. So for me discussion of possibilities for which I have zero data, while entertaining sometimes, is here a fruitless activity.

I grant you here and now that when we conclude this discussion we will not know for certain whether any of our guesses are true or not. But we will probably have some additional and useful insight, if some of our guesses are true. It's a gamble I want to take. I infer that others here want to take the same gamble. I promise I will not ever attempt to use force or deceit, or threaten to use force or deceit to convince you or any one else that you must believe the same as I do. So join the investigation. What's to fear? Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

I grant you here and now that when we conclude this discussion we will not know for certain whether any of our guesses are true or not.

Sure! But all my past associations with you indicate that you will be asserting that you have shown that the preponderance of the evidence points to whatever you want it to point to -- no matter what.

Quote:

But we will probably have some additional and useful insight, if some of our guesses are true.

We won't know if any of our guesses are true or not -- but if history is any indicator, you will assert that the preponderance of the evidence points in the direction you want it to point.

Quote:

It's a gamble I want to take. I infer that others here want to take the same gamble. I promise I will not ever attempt to use force or deceit, or threaten to use force or deceit to convince you or any one else that you must believe the same as I do.

Do whatever you want. It is a free forum. I have decided not to let things ride as I have in the past -- and I will challenge anything I see as inappropriate - when it first comes up. I will not put anything aside just because you ask that it be done in order to expedite matters.

Quote:

So join the investigation. What's to fear?

I have nothing to fear from joining the discussion -- and in case you hadn't noticed, I am in fact, am now a major component of it.

However, over the last two years I have had tens of dozens of discussions just like this one with you -- where you prevail on me to forgo some argument for the sake of moving on -- and end up with you coming to major conclusions based on the stuff I have forgone -- with you almost denying that the problem existed.

This is not going to happen again -- and definitely not here in A2K.

An example in point: You wrote:

Quote:

Please re-read my last post to Bogowo. I acknowledge Mech's data that implies OOU is infinite. I guess that my preponderance of data that OOU is finite and Mech's much more limited data that OOU is infinite implies that it is more probable that OOU is finite than it is infinite.

You have not provided a preponderance of data that OOU is finite -- you have speculated that way only by stacking the deck with a disregard of other POSSIBLE answers to many questions for which you simply arbitrarily decided answers.

Mech's data is every bit as compelling as your -- which is to say, it is not terribly compelling at all, because it supposes that we have reliable data on things that are still very, very speculative.

Do whatever you want with Bo. He is a very enjoyable and pleasant guy -- and a pleasure to discuss with. But I suspect he will not have much patience with the kind of thing you regularly do.

Who knows? I may be very wrong. I'll be watching -- and commenting where I see it necessary.

I'm delighted you are here, Ican. I think this is going to be fun.

0 Replies

Ican

Instead of doing things this way -- why not start a new thread devoted specifically to what you want to discuss with Bo. That way we will get some people involved who will not know about it otherwise.

0 Replies

Bogowo and everyone else,

What is your guess regarding the probability that a purposeful intelligent organism can evolve in a purposeless OOU?

I guess such is highly improbable, say a probability of less than a googolth.

What is your guess that the probability of such an evolution is enhanced by a large enough number of planets in OOU?

I guess there will probably be zero enhancement to the probability of such an evolution.

While your and my guesses may never agree, I nonetheless would like to know what your guesses are. I would like to follow that with such data and argument as we can muster to support our guesses.

0 Replies

Frank,
I don't want to start another forum just yet. Unlike Abuzz, able2know doesn't take longer loading times as the number of replies increases.

Our exchanges here so far have been useful in that you haven given me ample opportunity (and excuse) to explain my perspective, and, hopefully, ample opportunity (and excuse) for you to explain yours. Now that that's done, I'd like to move on to see where this discussion will take us from here.

0 Replies

Frank,
I don't want to start another forum just yet. Unlike Abuzz, able2know doesn't take longer loading times as the number of replies increases.

Our exchanges here so far have been useful in that you haven given me ample opportunity (and excuse) to explain my perspective, and, hopefully, ample opportunity (and excuse) for you to explain yours. Now that that's done, I'd like to move on to see where this discussion will take us from here.

Bogowo, Frank and everyone else,

What is your guess regarding the probability that a purposeful intelligent organism can evolve in a purposeless OOU?

I guess such is highly improbable, say a probability of less than a googolth.

What is your guess that the probability of such an evolution is enhanced by a large enough number of planets in OOU?

I guess there will probably be zero enhancement to the probability of such an evolution.

While your and my guesses may never agree, I nonetheless would like to know what your guesses are. I would like to follow that with such data and argument as we can muster to support our guesses.

0 Replies

I apologize for the redundant posts. I don't know why that happened.

0 Replies

Frank,
I think that we must make some assumptions. We started with Descartes, "I think therefore I am". I have never tried this but I think that I could prove that you are but that it could be "proven" only to my satisfaction, never to yours. Consequently (conversely) you could prove to your satisfaction that I exist but you could not prove it to my satisfaction.

So I think it fair that Ican uses probabilities, beliefs,thoughts, suspicions, hints in an attempt to come up with an understanding. And some cases I could accept, If enough data indicated it that something or other is probably true, real, valid or exists.

So back to the thread- Universe and Space. What is there in this conglomeration (that we can't prove exists) which is dependent upon Intelligence.

So far it seems as though "matter" exists regardless of any intelligence.
It also seems as though matter may also exist as energy.
So now we are kicking "time" around.
The state of the question now being--Does or will "time" exist independent of any intelligent perceptions.

So are there any indications that time is a valid concept. At least as much as rocks are? Rolling Eyes

One of my goals in philosophy is to come up with a personal view of the Universe that agrees a bit more with observations than at least a 1/2 dozen competing "Ultimate Answers".
Perhaps its destined to be a fruitless quest. But as Sam Brown once remarked " The Journey is the Best Part. (The Devil and Sam Brown) I forgot who wrote it.

I hope y'all come along on the trip. It looks like fun. Best of luck, M

0 Replies

BoGoWo, re your post of Aug 4 10:42, Paragraph addressed to me.

I don't see a beginning or an end as viable either. Matter of fact, at this point in time Confused

I would call it an impossibility!

0 Replies

JLNobody,

Re; "passive awareness",

Just to clarify , passive awareness doesn't come into being when one gains certain insights, or drops misconceptions etc., and then it (may or may not) just happens etc. Rather it is always already the case. I am it. And I don't do anything except observe. The "doings", the constant change of images, body sensations, other sensations, movement of thought etc. are not me.

And the seemingly contradictory point:

Since this "me", this awareness, cannot be observed, perceived, sensed or thought of, it cannot be distinguished from that which can and hence it appears to be 'one' with whatever arises, that is, in nondual awareness.

I think you have this understanding, but I thought I would emphasis this point.

mechsmith wrote:

Quote:

So far it seems as though "matter" exists regardless of any intelligence.

Of course the assumption in the above is that matter and intelligence are separate.

Another assumption is that 'matter' exists.

I personally cannot say I have ever perceived matter, nor do I think anyone else has, so I think it's existence is based in belief. Meaning it can't be defined, but go ahead and try, and while your at it define intelligence, Smile

ican wrote:

The
only
thing
I
know
for
certain
is
that
I
don't
know
anything
else
for certain.

If you don't know anything for certain except that you don't know anything for certain, then you don't know for certain that you are making the statement; you don't know for certain the nature of the being making the statement, consequently you cannot say one thing you know for certain is that you don't know anything for certain, for you simply don't know.

I don't know who or what I am.

I don't know who or what the universe is.

But I suspect/reason they are one and the same.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Bogowo and everyone else,

What is your guess regarding the probability that a purposeful intelligent organism can evolve in a purposeless OOU?

My guess that a purposeful intelligent organism CAN evolve in a purposeless OOU is exactly equal to my guess that a purposeful intelligent organism CANNOT evolve in a purposeless OOU. Sounds to me like a 50/50 proposition.

Quote:

I guess such is highly improbable, say a probability of less than a googolth.

I'm not sure of what "a probability of less than a googolth) means, but my guess is you are guessing that way because you want to come to the conclusion that INTELLIGENCE is required for humans to have evolved in this particular OOU-- which may or may not be purposeless.

I suggest, as respectfully as possible, that your guess is absurd.

Quote:

What is your guess that the probability of such an evolution is enhanced by a large enough number of planets in OOU?

I guess there will probably be zero enhancement to the probability of such an evolution.

I would not even hazard such a guess -- although I would be willing to toss a coin and let it decide my answer if that would be of help. (I suspect it wouldn't -- I was just trying to express my feelings about the question.)

Quote:

While your and my guesses may never agree, I nonetheless would like to know what your guesses are. I would like to follow that with such data and argument as we can muster to support our guesses.

Sounds good to me.

Start!

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Frank,
I think that we must make some assumptions.

Mech, I have no problems with assumptions. Making assumptions is a perfectly valid way to enter into a discussion. HOWEVER...

...I don't want to beat a dead horse, but...

...I am sure you will agree that if we were going to discuss the possibility of life elsewhere in this galaxy -- it would not be a good idea to make the assumption that since we know of no other life in the galaxy, we should disregard even the possibility of there being any other life -- and then proceed on to the discussion of whether or not there is life elsewhere with that being one of the criteria.

We would immediately have to come to the conclusion that there is no other life in the galaxy.

Well, one of the assumptions Ican wants to make is that what we see (and can reasonably infer) (OOU) is all there is; that we should disregard any comtemplation or consideration of something else besides OOU existing -- and he wants to do that in a discussion of whether the UNIVERSE is finite or infinite.

Essentially he is making an assumption that forces the finite conclusion.

That was the substance of my disagreement with Ican -- not that I am advocating that we not make assumptions.

Quote:

We started with Descartes, "I think therefore I am". I have never tried this but I think that I could prove that you are but that it could be "proven" only to my satisfaction, never to yours. Consequently (conversely) you could prove to your satisfaction that I exist but you could not prove it to my satisfaction.

Mech, I promise you that if we were in a sophistic discussion of what we can know and what cannot be known -- I could probably do a jouneyman's job of showing that we cannot know anything with certainty.

But that is for a different kind of discussion.

One of the other assumptions Ican wants to make is that I do not know what name I use when people ask for my name. He wants to assume that I do not know what address is written on my driver's licence. He wants to assume that I do not know what serial number I used while in military service.

That is bullshit -- for this discussion.

Ican want to establish that I am using probability to establish what my name is (and all those other things) -- so he can use (his version of) probability to show that there is a GOD -- and that the GOD endowed us with certain unalienable rights.

I, on the other hand, am interested in what almost all agnostics are interested in.

Are there any good arguments for the theistic position?

Are there any good arguments for the atheistic position?

Frankly, I see all of them as defective -- and Ican's is no exception. But Ican, as you well know, can get very, very, very detailed -- and further on into this discussion, it will be harder and harder to separate the wheat from the chaff.

I'm putting identifiers on everything right now.

By the way, I am pretty sure you realize all of this without my saying it -- but I wanted it down in black and white for other reasons.

0 Replies

since there is far too much going on here 4 me 2 grasp @ 1 go, i shall respond bit by bit, (appologies in advance)
______________

2 ican;

What is (my) guess regarding the probability that a purposeful intelligent organism can evolve in a purposeless OOU?

I guess such is FACT, the evidence 2 me is overwhelming that there is no purpose 2 anything, except, i hasten 2 add, the purposes we initiate!

What is (my) guess that the probability of such an evolution is enhanced by a large enough number of planets in OOU?

I 'know' (no guessing) there would obviously b a huge enhancement to the probability of any evolution conferred by a larger environmental spectrum in which life can develop.
______________

& this brings me to a general conceptual suggestion.

we (u all, not me, of course) seem to be doing a lot of navel gazing here about things which are not particularly 'space vehicle' level wisdom;

mech says he (i think) has not experienced matter; what's the 'matter'?

a quick trip on a roller coaster (not 2 mention bungee jumping) will convey sudden, strong, & convincing evidence that mass exists, & has a physical effect on other masses.
u will 'feel' the gravity of the situation! (& mass is close enough 2 matter on this planet 4 me).

unless everyone else here believes there is a devious & ignorant deity controlling all our perceptions, fooling us into ridiculous allusions, & generally participating in the chaos & meaninglessness in this universe, why can we not stop "tilting with windmills" "on the head of a pin", & begin to amass theories based upon the obvious, axiomatic evidence enveloping us, & hence proceed 2 the 'difficult', less obvious, questionable things, worthy of 'guesses' & 'opinions'?

0 Replies

the universe and space....?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know