Thought Experiment

[Captain Chaos]

That's basically the problem, pubmanager

With an infinite amount of time or an infinite number of trials, anything with a probability greater than 0 will eventually be true.

It's the "pre-supposing" that's the problem. If you craft X correctly, you can make it look like the infinite time/trials will mean it happens.

But it's pre-supposing that X is possible.

As a Thought Experiment, there is no possible discussion on this. It's not philosophical, it's introduction to probability.

There are two aspects that I believe warrant discussion, just to flesh out the idea and look for further avenues of inquiry.

Do the laws of physics of the outermost reality allow for a god-level being to exist?

When a god-level being comes into existence, do we cease to have independent trials? This could mean a supreme being helping to nurture our growth to godhood, or this could mean a supreme being preventing others from becoming that powerful. Or some other thing.


Also, no matter where exist in the outermost dimension of time, the number of time intervals (trial periods) preceding that moment will be infinite. Thus, if a self-sustaining supreme being did come into existence, the moment of its emergence will always lie in the past. I am not sure if this is the same thing as having always existed, but it is certainly a very similar concept.

[Fonceai]

Do the laws of physics of the outermost reality allow for a god-level being to exist?

Who knows? It would be purely guess work.

Even in this reality, one culture's technology taken for granted is another culture's godlike powers.

When a god-level being comes into existence, do we cease to have independent trials? This could mean a supreme being helping to nurture our growth to godhood, or this could mean a supreme being preventing others from becoming that powerful. Or some other thing.

You raise an interesting point... independent trials.

The domino example fails because it does not accurately represent independent trials.

Also, consider that when a god intends to create a universe, regardless of how many steps it takes to do so, it is no longer "independent".

Thus, if a self-sustaining supreme being did come into existence, the moment of its emergence will always lie in the past. I am not sure if this is the same thing as having always existed, but it is certainly a very similar concept.

As far as pure infinity is concerned, yes.

If you want to talk about subsets of infinity, then no.

In addition, consider that as soon as you get to the point where a preceding cause would be nonsensical, you deem a Cause #1. No matter how many things are in between that Cause #1, when you get to the end effect you were looking for, it is still finite.

---

Also, I suggest we hurry this discussion and get as much as possible in before 2pm EST

[Captain Chaos]

If you want to talk about subsets of infinity, then no.

I assume that the outermost dimension of time regresses infinitely.


How could a preceding cause be nonsensical?

[Kamehameha34]

Now now, shunyadragon...

If you can't accept the validity of the premises in the opening post you shouldn't be posting here.

I agree with your assessments.

And I can already see that Kame repeated what he said in the post before yours in the post immediately after yours.

Then maybe it would have done him well to read what I said in the post before his :confused:

You're not posing arguments, because your arguments have failed to prove relevant. I'm still in the process of explaining it to you, apparently.

I've explained how his arguments are invalid using existing points, and I don't need your commentary.

[Fonceai]

Nonsensical in preceding the intent to cause an effect desired.

If I intend to build a nuclear bomb, you can't blame the college the educated me in nuclear physics. You can't blame the manufacturers of the tools I used. You can't blame the Earth for containing radioactive material.

The same applies to a being intending to create a universe. It's nonsense to talk about infinite regression. If it turns out the being that creates the universe had parents, then would it make sense to cite the parents of the being as a cause of the creation of a universe?

[Fonceai]

@Kame

Your comments make no sense.

Sit still and read the dialog between myself and Captain Chaos. It's functional and respectful, and CC is able to actually ask me to elaborate on the nature of what I believe to be the flaws, and not just tell me I'm wrong.

[Kamehameha34]

Sit still and read the dialog between myself and Captain Chaos. It's functional and respectful

Then be respectful to all members, and don't fall back on condescension - the thing that started this tiff a while ago.

I'm not going to get into another argument about decorum.

...and CC is able to actually ask me to elaborate on the nature of what I believe to be the flaws, and not just tell me I'm wrong.

You said there was a contradiction, and didn't explain how. I clarified the best I could, seeing as you didn't provide anything for me to correct.

I actually pointed out in post #9 that you didn't explain how you thought it was contradictory.

[Kamehameha34]

Nonsensical in preceding the intent to cause an effect desired.

If I intend to build a nuclear bomb, you can't blame the college the educated me in nuclear physics. You can't blame the manufacturers of the tools I used. You can't blame the Earth for containing radioactive material.

The same applies to a being intending to create a universe. It's nonsense to talk about infinite regression. If it turns out the being that creates the universe had parents, then would it make sense to cite the parents of the being as a cause of the creation of a universe?

Cause doesn't necessarily incite blame. In the OP, I'm analyzing the cause of our universe's creation. I'm not looking to point a finger and say "it was you!"

Although we can't legally blame an arms manufacturer for a murder they didn't directly commit, we can say that the manufacturing of that firearm was one of the causes for the death of the victim, with said firearm.

[Fonceai]

we can say that the manufacturing of that firearm was one of the causes for the death of the victim, with said firearm.

No, you really can't say that.

And since you can't say that, you can't trace back infinite causes before the being who intends to create a universe.

If you think that is something you can say, then I won't even bother with you, because it's just plain nonsense to suggest it's legitimate.

I'm not looking to point a finger and say "it was you!"

You could have fooled me.

By inferring that one of the causes along the way was a being that intended to create a universe, that is exactly what you're doing.

[Kamehameha34]

No, you really can't say that.

Back that up.

You could have fooled me.

By inferring that one of the causes along the way was a being that intended to create a universe, that is exactly what you're doing.

How about you sit tight, and I tell you what I'm doing, mmk?

There's a difference between "deserving of blame" and "causual". Partly due to the fact that blame is largely subjective.

[Fonceai]

Back that up.

Do you blame the school your teacher went to for a bad grade you get in a class?

Do you blame the movie you were watching until 1 AM for falling asleep at school?

Back to your example... do gun manufacturer's get tried for every shooting?

How much common sense do I need to recite for you?

How about you sit tight, and I tell you what I'm doing, mmk?

Repeating my words like that belittles you.

Especially when you use words like "causual".

What the f*ck does that mean?

Illustrate for me the difference in "deserving of blame" and "causal", because they are exactly the same thing in this context.

[Kamehameha34]

Do you blame the school your teacher went to for a bad grade you get in a class?

Do you blame the movie you were watching until 1 AM for falling asleep at school?

Back to your example... do gun manufacturer's get tried for every shooting?

All of your examples are subjective.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're pursuing, but I know it's a bad idea to pursue it without objectivity.

Illustrate for me the difference in "deserving of blame" and "causal", because they are exactly the same thing in this context.

No, they're not. You're misinterpretting the context - "blame" isn't even relevant.

"Deserving of blame" is a concept that is completely subjective. Causality is the property of facilitating an effect. Let's look at the gun example:

The blame for shooting you would be on me, as per our justice system.

The cause for the shooting can be traced to before the actual pulling of the trigger.