Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Luckily I would have had a line of defense for that argument.Master_Ghost_Knight said:I'm going to also make a point that if the universe had been an unbounded infinitely singly connect non-deterministic universe, then any definite state of the Universe would have zero probability. In that scenario not only would zero probably states occur all the time, all definitive events would have zero probability.
But as I have said, if this sort of thing isn't your hardcore field of interest, you would likely not have known enough to be able to make any inteligeable statement about this.
leroy said:so he_who_is_nobody he_who_is_nobody
Do you finally agree that events with zero probability don’t happen?
he_who_is_nobody said:leroy said:so he_who_is_nobody he_who_is_nobody
Do you finally agree that events with zero probability don’t happen?
I agree that Master_Ghost_Knight made a great argument for why this is not an example of that (why you could not is still beyond me). Whether or not it is a thing that happens, I am not in the business of making declarations like that. However, whether or not that is the case is trivial as well.
leroy said:he_who_is_nobody said:I agree that Master_Ghost_Knight made a great argument for why this is not an example of that (why you could not is still beyond me). Whether or not it is a thing that happens, I am not in the business of making declarations like that. However, whether or not that is the case is trivial as well.
Translation> Master_Ghost_Knight is an atheist and you are a theist, therefore I would listen to Master_Ghost_Knight and consider his points, and I will ignore you and reject by default any claim that you might make because theist are wrong by default.
Master_Ghost_Knight said:Sure, he was wrong, but you weren't right either. So be gracious and take the win.
he_who_is_nobody said:Right, it had nothing to do with Master_Ghost_Knight actually providing a logical argument and you could only provide nonsense. One has to wonder what color the sky is in your world.
.
Master_Ghost_Knight
This also means that some numbers must necessarily be harder to represent, requiring more matter (and energy) to do so, which also reduces the number of permutations that you would allow it to represent the same number.
Since energy is quite a limited resource to humans, there would be a bias for humans to be able to represent a very limited amount of small numbers, most of which represented only on the account of particular "representation shortcuts" that are able to provide numbers with a very peculiar meaning of interest (for example pi, irrational number, but ratio of diameter to perimeter of a circle, easy to represent because of shortcut).
Master_Ghost_Knight
I'm going to have to side with leroy on this one.
A human is on average far more likely to pick low numbers than to pick high one.
Master_Ghost_Knight said:Playing darts. The probability of throwing a dart at a target and have it land on an exact point on the target feels like it should be 0..
After all a point has 0 area and the world feels continuous, and in a continuous world you would be able to fit infinitely many points between 2 other points with a distance apart
leroy said:he_who_is_nobody said:Right, it had nothing to do with Master_Ghost_Knight actually providing a logical argument and you could only provide nonsense. One has to wonder what color the sky is in your world.
.
he didn't say anything different from what I said, at most Master_Ghost_Knight added an extra layer of complexity in his argument.
leroy said:Master_Ghost_Knight
This also means that some numbers must necessarily be harder to represent, requiring more matter (and energy) to do so, which also reduces the number of permutations that you would allow it to represent the same number.
Since energy is quite a limited resource to humans, there would be a bias for humans to be able to represent a very limited amount of small numbers, most of which represented only on the account of particular "representation shortcuts" that are able to provide numbers with a very peculiar meaning of interest (for example pi, irrational number, but ratio of diameter to perimeter of a circle, easy to represent because of shortcut).
how is that different from what I said about limit computer power, limited time etc
leroy said:Master_Ghost_Knight
I'm going to have to side with leroy on this one.
A human is on average far more likely to pick low numbers than to pick high one.
how is that different from what I said?
leroy said:why don't you simply admit that you rejected my comments by default because I am a theist? why don't you admit that you didn't even made an effort to understand the arguments that I presented?
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=185777#p185777 said:Master_Ghost_Knight[/url]"]Sure, he was wrong, but you weren't right either. So be gracious and take the win.
I guess that is why nobody plays darts.leroy said:which means that such an event cant happen.Master_Ghost_Knight said:Playing darts. The probability of throwing a dart at a target and have it land on an exact point on the target feels like it should be 0..
Just define the center point as the "hit point". Even if the tip doesn't have 0 Area, the center point does.leroy said:a dart cant hit a "single exact point with zero area." the dart has an area and therefore it would hit infinite many points.
Absolutely not! On a discrete Universe you can't have infinite points on a finite area.leroy said:this is true regardless if the universe is continuous or not.
he_who_is_nobody said:You mean besides him actually stringing all that into a logically coherent argument and not ignoring the fact that we can come up with short cuts for righting large numbers?
hackenslash wrote:Number 2 is funny. It's almost like somebody who claims an expertise in mathematics sufficient to undermine a core principle of how probabilities work has never heard of exponents...
leroy
Even with exponentials (or other short cuts) given my limited time, limited computer power etc. there is still a finite amount of numbers that I could have typed there, are still numbers that have so many digits that it would have been impossible to type.
he_who_is_nobody said:Beyond that, it is not my job to try and understand anything you say
Master_Ghost_Knight said:I guess that is why nobody plays darts.
Master_Ghost_Knight said:Absolutely not! On a discrete Universe you can't have infinite points on a finite area.
Well you are wrong. There is nothing that stops me from defining a "center point" of a dart even if a dart tip has an area, the tip may hit an area, however the "center point" of the tip will only match with 1 point on the board, and this is true simply because I can just define it.leroy said:My argument was that it is impossible to throw a dart and hit a specific “center point” and area that a dart hits would have infinite points, and therefore no definite central point.
leroy said:he_who_is_nobody said:You mean besides him actually stringing all that into a logically coherent argument and not ignoring the fact that we can come up with short cuts for righting large numbers?
In fact I did address the issue related to short cuts
hackenslash wrote:Number 2 is funny. It's almost like somebody who claims an expertise in mathematics sufficient to undermine a core principle of how probabilities work has never heard of exponents...
leroy
Even with exponentials (or other short cuts) given my limited time, limited computer power etc. there is still a finite amount of numbers that I could have typed there, are still numbers that have so many digits that it would have been impossible to type.
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=185793#p185793 said:he_who_is_nobody[/url]"]You mean besides him actually stringing all that into a logically coherent argument and not ignoring the fact that we can come up with short cuts for righting large numbers?
leroy said:he_who_is_nobody said:Beyond that, it is not my job to try and understand anything you say
Well that depends, what is your goal when you talk to theists in forums?
1 Win the argument, win the debate?
leroy said:2 learn from people with a different world view
leroy said:If your answer is “2” then yes you should make an honest effort to understand what the other person is saying.
leroy said:This is why I always ask for direct answers, I honestly what to understand the position of those who disagree with me.
leroy said:Beyond that, my arguments where
1 Humans can’t make completely random selections (and I provided multiple sources)
2 Some numbers are very large and are impossible to represent (which is what Master_Ghost_Knight said)
Implying that the scenario presented by Hack is an impossible scenario and therefore can´t happen.
No effort was needed, anyone with the willingness to understand would have understood.
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=185777#p185777 said:Master_Ghost_Knight[/url]"]Sure, he was wrong, but you weren't right either. So be gracious and take the win.
he_who_is_nobody said:Again, it is not my job to put your statements into a logically coherent argument. That is your job.
Leroy Wrote
My points
1 As I argued before, in the real world humans don’t make completely random selections, as the study that I quoted proves, some numbers are more likely to be selected than others (https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/shawnh ... andomness/................
2 Some numbers are very long (have too many digits) that are impossible to type (given that in the real world we have limited time, limited computer power etc.)
*this is to say that in the real world we dont have infinite options and selection of numbers is not completly random
3 And this article https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9966/1/ ... r_9966.pdf shows that even in the abstract world of math events with zero probability are still impossible.
Master_Ghost_Knight said:Well you are wrong. There is nothing that stops me from defining a "center point" of a dart even if a dart tip has an area, the tip may hit an area, however the "center point" of the tip will only match with 1 point on the board, and this is true simply because I can just define it.leroy said:My argument was that it is impossible to throw a dart and hit a specific “center point” and area that a dart hits would have infinite points, and therefore no definite central point.
Stating a mistake twice doesn't make it right.leroy said:Even if we assume that points exist; there wouldn’t be “a” center point; the dart would hit infinite many points and no point would be in the center.
leroy said:he_who_is_nobody said:Again, it is not my job to put your statements into a logically coherent argument. That is your job.
Care to spot my “logical incoherence’s”?
Leroy Wrote
My points
1 As I argued before, in the real world humans don’t make completely random selections, as the study that I quoted proves, some numbers are more likely to be selected than others (https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/shawnh ... andomness/................
2 Some numbers are very long (have too many digits) that are impossible to type (given that in the real world we have limited time, limited computer power etc.)
*this is to say that in the real world we dont have infinite options and selection of numbers is not completly random
3 And this article https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/9966/1/ ... r_9966.pdf shows that even in the abstract world of math events with zero probability are still impossible.
[url=http://www.theleagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?p=185777#p185777 said:Master_Ghost_Knight[/url]"]Sure, he was wrong, but you weren't right either. So be gracious and take the win.