• CableMonster
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    It was a simple question, if you dont want to give a clear answer, that is your decision.

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Alright, I addressed one aspect of your question. Let’s hit another. You inquired about probability.

      The probability of rolling a 6 on a standard 6-sided die is 1 in 6. 1 actual solution from 6 possibilities. 1 in 6.

      What’s the probability as we go to dice with more and more sides? The more possible solutions, the less likely any particular solution will occur.

      Rolling a 6 on 1d8 is theoretically 1 in 8, assuming we actually have a die, we actually roll that die, and we actually get a result. The chance of rolling a 6 on a 1d8 is less than 1 in 8 when “it landed in the campfire” is a possible outcome. That additional possibility doesn’t make it 1 in 9, though, because “it shattered when it hit the table” is another possible outcome. “A meteor came through the roof and destroyed the die before it landed”.

      The set of possible outcomes of throwing a 1d8 is only 1 in 8 when we exclude every possibility except a single number between 1 and 8.

      When we talk about the probability of the existence of a particular god, we can’t limit the set of possible solutions to a finite number. we aren’t just selecting between all of the gods ever actually conceived of by mankind, but all gods that can be conceived of, all gods that can’t be conceived of, and the complete absence of a god at all.

      The probability of god is one in an infinite number of possibilities.

      1/♾️

      Mathematically, this concept is indistinguishable from zero. That doesn’t actually mean impossible: it just means that the mathematical discipline of “probability” is not equipped to describe the selection of a single (or finite) solution from an infinite set.

      Asking the probability of of God is like asking the molecular formula of free speech, or the temperature of a vacuum, or how many kilograms are in a mile. The question is meaningless.

      My previous answer ignored the impossibility of your question, and attempted to address your intended meaning instead.

      When you can tell me the proper temperature for baking a pound of philosophy, I’ll answer your question directly.

      • CableMonster
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        1/♾️ = zero, its not just close to zero.

        You use too many words to answer the question. The question is not meaningless, literally I used the word guestimation, as in give it a wild guess. You writing an extremely long response to a question I can answer in a couple sentences doesnt make you look smarter, it just makes you kind of annoying.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          1/♾️ = zero, its not just close to zero.

          I didn’t say it was close to zero. I said it was mathematically indistinguishable from zero. “Mathematically indistinguishable from” and “=” are synonymous. Distinguishing between 0 and 1/♾️ would require the use of a tool other than mathematics. I do not know of a useful tool for addressing such a distinction. I do not think there is much utility in even considering such a distinction. I would say (and have said) that even contemplating such a distinction is meaningless.

          You understand the 1/♾️=0 concept by simple recitation, not by comprehension. When you actually comprehend the meaning of that concept, you will understand why your question is indeed meaningless.

          Asking for the probability of God’s existence is like asking for vernier calipers to measure an amp of electrical current. Probability is a very useful tool, but the “measurement” it provides is entirely irrelevant to the object we are trying to to measure. It’s the wrong tool for the job.

          • CableMonster
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 months ago

            “Mathematically indistinguishable from” and “=” are synonymous

            No, it is zero, this is not an argument, I am just telling you the answer to the math problem.

            And again, not answering the question doesnt make you look smarter, it makes you one of those annoying teens that think they are smart but dont have experience to know what actual smart people are.

            • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              I’m sorry you don’t like my answer to your question. What answer would you have preferred I given you?

              • CableMonster
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                An actual answer would be- “My guess is that the is W% chance there is a God, X% chance of pure evolution, Y% chance of simulation theory and Z% chance of this other one or something else”.

                When you do the thing where you write 20 paragraphs about simple concepts and pretend its deep, its just eyerolling.

                • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  And on what basis am I evaluating those possibilities? You suggested probability, mathematically, and yet you recognized that mathematically, W, X, Y, and Z are all zero.

                  You are standing at a welding table, with tool clamping your part to the bench, and you’re asking me to tighten it up for you. I keep telling you that the tool you’re using is a micrometer, not a C-clamp, and you keep calling me an idiot for not knowing how a clamp works.

                  I patiently explain that even if we ignore the idiocy of using an expensive, precision instrument for work holding, a micrometer is physically incapable of being tightened enough to secure your workpiece properly. And you tell me to shut up and crank it down.

                  I can think of three possible routes past this impasse. To stay with probability, we can find some way of limiting the infinite possibilities to a finite, (albeit unknown) number of possibilities, so that our probabilities are no longer 1/♾️, or “zero”. Or, we can abandon probability and delve into a field of mathematics that can accept infinities. Or, we can leave mathematics behind, and move to philosophy.

                  I look forward to your next ad hominem.

                  • CableMonster
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    Yeah I get it you keep a lot of words to convey very little meaning. I am fully able to use a micrometer, but you for some reason think its impossible, so you inability to do the task doesnt mean its impossible.

                    You are the one that erroneously has been using infinity not me. If you have no explaination for the existence of humans its fine, but then dont use math to pretend its relevent to this situation.