patrick.net

Peter P says

You did not disprove the conjecture.

Pascal's Wager is based on the assumption that there is zero cost to belief in god, something that the Middle East has repeatedly demonstrated is not true. Hell, this assumption is even explicitly stated in the wager.

Given the enormous toll on life inflicted by belief in god throughout history, it is perfectly rational to disbelieve in the entity.

Dan8267 says

Moderate Infidel says

You cannot disprove or prove conjecture.

Sure you can. Example...

Conjecture: There are no even prime numbers.

Disproof: Two is even and a prime.

Prove "two".

According to wikipedia...

A conjecture is a proposition that is unproven.

But I guess it is not necessarily unprovable. (See Gödel's incompleteness theorems.)

Moderate Infidel says

Prove "two".

Read Principia Mathematica.

What do you guys think of the the axiom of choice?

It is a bizarre truth with counter-intuitive consequences.

Peter P says

Moderate Infidel says

Prove "two".

Read Principia Mathematica.

No. I won't.

Moderate Infidel says

Dan8267 says

Moderate Infidel says

You cannot disprove or prove conjecture.

Sure you can. Example...

Conjecture: There are no even prime numbers.

Disproof: Two is even and a prime.

Prove "two".

What the fuck does that even mean?

Peter P says

According to wikipedia...

Plato was taught by Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

Dan8267 says

What the fuck does that even mean?

He wants to know what the fuck "even" means.

Dan8267 says

Plato was taught by Barney the Purple Dinosaur.

I love you, you love me...

Anyone remembers Microsoft Barney?

Peter P says

What do you guys think of the the axiom of choice?

It's late and I'm a bit tired, but I did look up Axiom of Choice. You didn't have a specific question, but here are my initial thoughts on the subject.

From Vanderbilt Univeristy Math Department

Axiom of Choice. Let C be a collection of nonempty sets. Then we can choose a member from each set in that collection. In other words, there exists a function f defined on C with the property that, for each set S in the collection, f(S) is a member of S.

From Wolfram MathWorld: Collection and Wolfram MathWorld: Multiset, a collection is just an entity like a set but that can contain repeated elements.

The problem is how to "find" or determine the existence of a function, f, that satisfies the Axiom of Choice when C is the collection of all nonempty subsets of the real number line.

So here are my initial thoughts...

Who cares if C is a collection, i.e. multiset, instead of a set? If a function, f, satisfies the Axiom of Choice for a collection C than it would for the equivalent set C' with the repeats removed since the f would pick the same value for each instance of element X in C.

So, let's simplify and make C be a set of nonempty sets instead of a collection of nonempty sets.

Second thought. I take it that we are presuming that randomness cannot be defined as a function. I.e., you cannot let f mean, "pick a random element of the set". If we allowed that, than the random function would be sufficient.

Third thought. OK, C is the set of all nonempty subsets of the real numbers. Let X be any element of C, a particular nonempty subset of the real numbers. X can be partitioned into a set, P, of individual real numbers and non-overlapping opened and closed intervals of real numbers. There can be no element in X that isn't either a real number in P or a real number within an interval in P.

OK, so sort the elements of P like this:
1. The zero or one interval containing negative infinity as the lower end.
2. The individual real number or the individual real number at the lower end of an interval not containing negative infinity.
3. The zero or one interval containing positive infinity as the upper end if it was not already included in #1.

There are four cases.

1. X is the entire set of real numbers and P contains only one element, X. Pick zero.
2. P contains an interval N with negative infinity but not positive infinity, so the upper end has either a closed or opened end at a real number. Pick the integer i that is the maximum integer less than the upper end point of N. This integer must be in N and therefore a member of X.

3. P does not contain an interval with negative infinity but does contain an interval N with positive infinity. In this case, the lower end has either a closed or open end at a real number. Pick the integer i that is the minimum integer greater than the lower end point of N. This integer must be in N and therefore a member of X.

4. P does not contain any intervals with either negative or positive infinity. P may still contain an infinite number of intervals, but those intervals and the individual real numbers in P are still sorted and thus only countably infinite. This means they can be placed in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers (0, 1, 2, 3, ...). We could do that, but we only need to map the first (zeroth) element.

Let H be the set of all real numbers that serve as the upper end of an interval in X. (Remember, X contains no intervals with negative or positive infinity, so all intervals in X are closed or opened at a finite real number). Let L be the set of all real numbers that serve as the lower end of an interval in X. Let R be the set of real numbers in X that are not contained in an interval in P, i.e., the individual real numbers isolated from intervals. Finally, let Q be the intersection of sets H, L, and R. Q is basically any real number that is contained in P or any interval endpoint of P, and thus Q is composed of all of the boundaries and isolated elements of X.

Let n be the absolute value of the element of Q with the smallest absolute value. There is one and only one possible value of n, and it is positive.

If R contains n then f(X) returns n, else if R contains -n then f(X) returns -n, else X contains a closed or opened interval with n and/or -n as one of the two endpoints. (Actually, it must be opened at n or -n since neither n nor -n are members of X, but that's not really important to us). If X contains an interval with n as one of the two endpoints, then pick the average value of that interval, as the average value will be within the interval and thus a member of X. If X does not contain an interval with n as one of the two endpoints, then it must contain an interval with -n as one of the two endpoints. Pick the average value of the two endpoints for that interval. Of course, X could contain two intervals, one with n as and endpoint and one with -n as an endpoint, but our function can simply favor the endpoint with +n. Of course, X could contain an interval with both n and -n, but that doesn't matter either as we just need to pick a value and can do so using any interval.

The above algorithm will not only choose a value for any set X in C, but it will always choose the same value for any set X in C, so even if we turned C back into a multiset, our function would still pick consistent values for each occurrence of X in C, not that doing so was a constraint on the problem.

Now since we can use this function for any possible set X in C, we can use it over C when C is the set of all nonempty subsets of the real number line.

Finally, disclaimer: these are just my initial thoughts on the subject and I haven't gotten anyone to check them. Also, no bitching over minor typos. I'm writing this at 1:50 a.m.

Dan8267 says

Moderate Infidel says

Dan8267 says

Moderate Infidel says

You cannot disprove or prove conjecture.

Sure you can. Example...

Conjecture: There are no even prime numbers.

Disproof: Two is even and a prime.

Prove "two".

What the fuck does that even mean?

Exactly!

Dan, I was referring to the Banach-Tarski Paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

With that axiom, you can "cut" a sphere in the R3 space into a finite number of pieces and then reassemble them into TWO spheres that are identical to the first one.

Bap33 says

117 threads

I don't think so but that does not refute my statement.

An argument on how we can help but do so would be good.

I like to learn. Teach if you can.

Regards
DL

Peter P says

Dan8267 says

What the fuck does that even mean?

He wants to know what the fuck "even" means.

Your grammatical parsing skills are so 3leet..

Peter P says

With that axiom, you can "cut" a sphere in the R3 space into a finite number of pieces and then reassemble them into TWO spheres that are identical to the first one.

Topology is not one of my areas of expertise. No thoughts regarding it at this time.

What is a topologist?

Someone who cannot distinguish between a doughnut and a coffee cup.

(I know, it's a dumb joke, but I couldn't resist.)

Dan8267 says

Topology is not one of my areas of expertise. No thoughts regarding it at this time.

I think it is less about topology and more about "real" numbers.

Real numbers are really strange things and they do not represent real-life objects at the micro-level (Planck?).

Peter P says

No, they are not commanded by their God. Rather, a manmade religion.

Why should God care about human rights? It is a human concept.

Both religion and God are man made. How do you convey this message to people who breed like rabbits?
In some societies I would be instantly executed just for saying what I just said.

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

God, or religion, is the social contract, the moral code of ethics. Because by nature we humans are not ethical beings.

You can make millions of laws and you'll never have enough of them to run a successful and peaceful society if society has no morals

But if you get most folks to follow the same moral code of ethics and doing no wrong, you ease the burden.

Humans are not fully capable of making ethical decisions precisely becaused we are not self-caused.

There is always the non-free environmental context.

Peter P says

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

By that definition, there is no reason to believe:
1. that god is a sentient being. The non-sentient universe would meet the definition of god.
2. that god is omniscient or in fact knows anything.
3. that god is omnipotent.
4. that god is good or moral or even has any concept of right or wrong.
5. that god is not pure fucking evil.
6. that god is even aware of the existence of human beings.
7. that god would care about human beings if he were aware of their existence.
8. that god would want human beings to behave a certain way.
9. that god has every communicated with a human being via burning bush, telepathy, or any other way.
10. that one should listen to god.
11. that god's opinions on matters, if it has any, is worth more than Honey Boo Boo's.
12. that the god of Abraham is in any way the god of your definition.
13. that Jesus is/was god and/or the son of god.
14. that praying to god in anyway communicates with it.
15. that there is only one god. After all, if one entity can be self-caused, then why can't an infinite number of entities be self-caused?
16. that there is even one god. Perhaps the set of gods by your definition is empty.

In any case, the god you described does not have nearly as many properties as the god worshiped by the Judea-Christian-Islamic world. Their god is a highly interventionist god.

And I think everyone should follow his own moral code.

Dan, you are quite right. But one can choose to believe in his own version of God.

Religion/God do not provide humans with morals, least of all the ones operating the religion.
Humans are born with "morals"- it's the dysfunctional adults that fuck them up.
Any organization becomes just like the humans that run them - their prime directive is self preservation. This corrupts all organizations.
If God is the head of a religion then he is corrupt.

FortWayne says

God, or religion, is the social contract, the moral code of ethics.

Such a god is a philosophy, not a sentient benevolent being. It makes no sense to worship or pray to such a god.

Philosophy can be great, but it is not something to be worshiped.

The god you described is clearly not the god worshiped by the Judea-Christian-Islamic world. Why would you even use the word "god" to describe such an entity. The word "philosophy" is so much better.

FortWayne says

Because by nature we humans are not ethical beings.

For millennia, philosophers have debated whether man is basically good and society corrupts him or man is basically even and society and law must force him to be good. Both sides of this argument are wrong.

It is the nature of man to be nice when he expects the behavior to be reciprocated, and it is the nature of man to be mean when he expects that the behavior cannot or will not be reciprocated. This is also true for all other species and is an emergent behavior of the process of evolution.

For example, people behave very selfishly while driving because they do not expect to encounter the driver they cut off again and if they do, they expect neither one to know that they have encountered each other before. Therefore, people are mean while driving. The exact same people will behave nicely to each other when crossing paths while walking on the sidewalk or in a store because in such person-to-person contact, behavior is reciprocated.

Another example, you are much more likely to get fucked over by someone with whom you are engaging in a one-time business transaction like a car dealer or a realtor then you are to be fucked over by someone with whom you engage in repetitive business like your local grocery store or a restaurant. The possibility of repeat business provides a great incentive for a business to treat its customers fairly. The unlikeliness of repeat business, as in the case of buying a house, gives great incentive for a business to try to take maximum advantage of you. Again, expected reciprocation means niceness and expected lack of reciprocation means meanness.

Yet more examples can be seen in the difference between short-term mating strategies and long-term mating strategies in humans and other species.

Put simply, both good and evil behaviors are hardwired in our genetic code. As such, we do not need faith in some god or religious code to do noble things. In fact, reasoning and understanding are far better ways to promote acting on the nobler aspects of our being and structuring society to encourage these nobler aspects while discouraging the more base aspects. Reasoning and understanding exactly how good and evil are hardwired in our evolutionary history is the key to structuring our society to maximize good and minimize evil.

Peter P says

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

A clear logical fallacy.

There must be a thought existing to say something like --- I will create me --- but who is having that thought.

If you can answer that then you can answer, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Regards
DL

FortWayne says

God, or religion, is the social contract, the moral code of ethics. Because by nature we humans are not ethical beings.

I beg to differ and think that in a survival sense that morals are hard wired into our DNA. I offer these as an argument.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HBW5vdhr_PA

http://www.youtube.com/embed/Z-eU5xZW7cU

I have found no one who has refuted this as yet. I look forward to your attempt.

What we term morals and ethics are something we developed for peaceful co-existence between those of our species.

It is said that God was alone for a long time before creating and being alone, he would have no need or want to develop such as morals and ethics.

Regards
DL

Peter P says

Humans are not fully capable of making ethical decisions precisely becaused we are not self-caused.

There is always the non-free environmental context.

Please see the links above and comment.

Regards
DL

Moderate Infidel says

Religion/God do not provide humans with morals, least of all the ones operating the religion.

Humans are born with "morals"- it's the dysfunctional adults that fuck them up.

Any organization becomes just like the humans that run them - their prime directive is self preservation. This corrupts all organizations.

If God is the head of a religion then he is corrupt.

No argument on your first and last but I do not agree with your "it's the dysfunctional adults that fuck them up."

I think it is our selfish gene that just kicks in when we cannot just cooperate to survive and must compete. I think we must all compete and thus all create evil from the losers POV to these competitions.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin.

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that evil is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should all see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks for being available to us.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be. We all must do what some will think is evil as we compete and create losers to this competition.

Strangely, some religions seem to agree with me.

Theistic evolution.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/XXOvYn1OAL0&list=UUDXjzOeZRqLxhYaaEhWLb_A&index=9

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

Peter P says

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

A clear logical fallacy.

There must be a thought existing to say something like --- I will create me --- but who is having that thought.

If you can answer that then you can answer, what came first, the chicken or the egg?

Regards

DL

Ever heard of infinite regression?

Greatest I am says

I beg to differ and think that in a survival sense that morals are hard wired into our DNA. I offer these as an argument.

Our culture is a form of moral relativism. It is not surprising that we consider things most people do, innately or not, as "moral."

Besides, we cannot fully take moral responsibility if we do not set the initial conditions.

We not not totally "free" to make moral decisions because we react to "decisions" made by others.

Peter P says

God is not manmade. The concept and understanding of God is.

I think the most basic definition of God is that He was self-caused.

Who's definition? Science does not agree.

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Everyone is wrong a lot.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

It has, I agree, but that is no reason to believe everything religion says. If it's not proven by science, it should not be believed.

Bap33 says

Funny thing about Science, it's been wrong - alot - since it was first invented by man.

Science is a methodology. And as a methodology, no one has yet to find a fault with the scientific method. It is a self-correcting mechanism and has done more to advance understanding and reveal truth than any other human endeavor including and especially religion.

Science has cured diseases, gotten us to the moon, explained the cosmos and life itself, practically eliminated stillborn and childbirth deaths, increased food production a thousand fold, and improved the quality and length of life. We all have much to be grateful to science for.

The difference between the priest and the scientist can be summed up like this. The scientist learns from his mistakes and corrects them. The priest kills anyone who points out his mistakes and then turns his mistakes into dogma.

Thank You science......

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=wo_t5#/video/world/2013/01/04/pkg-chance-uk-safer-world.cnn

Science never proved anything. Empiricism creates as much false knowledge as blind faith.

Insistence of using science as the only source of truth is a dogma not dissimilar to any religion. Scientism is a religion.