If there were no emotions

[Darnoc]

Look, I have conceded the .00000000001% chance that we are wrong. But you miss one key point: The fact that we might be wrong does not mean that we are. Before you can reject the 99.99999% definite truth, you have to have a reason. So please, post you reasons that our reality isn't correct.

 

First question: How do you know the probabilty of our reality? Did you really calculate it or do you just say it so?

 

And as I said: The possibilites are like the different sides of a dice. It is the same probable that one side is chosen finally. There isn't a side for which it is more probable to fall. All six sides of a dice have the same probabilty.

 

Since we can not calculate the probability of our reality (because we do not know anything outside of what we think is reality), we must assume that all possibilities are the same probable.

 

And another thing: There is an infinite number of possible realities. Everyone of them is about the same probable to be the true one. It is the same probable when you say "reality is as we experience it" and when I say "Our reality is just an image produced by a computer and sent to our brain, we are all living in the matrix". There is no difference in probabilty.

 

So because everything is the same probable, you can not make a true statement about our reality, until we truly find the real reality (because everything is the same probable). I think reality is a lot more different than we think that it is. You think reality is like we think that it is. Both possibilities are the same probable.

 

No, this is not entirely true. You say the one possibility you think exists is the true one. I say the one you think is true is not the true one, I rather believe that one of the others is true. So, because there is an infinite number of possibilities, it is more probable that I am right. You are excluding all the possibilites, except the one you believe in. I exclude only one possibility and leave the rest. So my believe is more probable than yours.

[Eltiraaz]

And as I said: The possibilites are like the different sides of a dice. It is the same probable that one side is chosen finally. There isn't a side for which it is more probable to fall. All six sides of a dice have the same probabilty.

 

You said yourself in another debate that everything is predetermined, therefore there is a side on which the dice will fall, and there is nothing anyone can do about it.

 

You are excluding all the possibilites, except the one you believe in. I exclude only one possibility and leave the rest. So my believe is more probable than yours.

 

You're morphing your arguement. You have it exactly wrong. Speaking in terms of probability, Peregrines belief is infinatley more likely to be true. (But that doesnt stop me)

 

Your belief is God made the universe.

 

Peregrines belief is that the universe was created by itself, taking billions of billions of eons leaving room for infinite possibilities.

 

Think about it.

 

-------

 

When did this become a debate about probability? We are discussing whether religion would exist if human beings did not emotional intelligences.

 

You are picking at the threads of the arguement, and going horribly off topic.

 

 

EDIT - typos

[Peregrine]

First question: How do you know the probabilty of our reality? Did you really calculate it or do you just say it so?

 

Any rational person knows that the odds of our observed reality being correct are far greater than the odds of it being wrong. And even more one sided are the odds of our observed reality being significantly different from the real one.

 

And as I said: The possibilites are like the different sides of a dice. It is the same probable that one side is chosen finally. There isn't a side for which it is more probable to fall. All six sides of a dice have the same probabilty.

 

Wrong. The universe is not entirely random. If I observe something, my brain does not randomly pick an interpertation out of all the possibilities.

 

And another thing: There is an infinite number of possible realities. Everyone of them is about the same probable to be the true one. It is the same probable when you say "reality is as we experience it" and when I say "Our reality is just an image produced by a computer and sent to our brain, we are all living in the matrix". There is no difference in probabilty.

 

Wrong. Not all probabilites are equal. A possibility with evidence in its favor is far more likely than a possibility whose only justification is the fact that all possibilities have a nonzero probablility of being true.

 

So because everything is the same probable, you can not make a true statement about our reality, until we truly find the real reality (because everything is the same probable). I think reality is a lot more different than we think that it is. You think reality is like we think that it is. Both possibilities are the same probable.

 

No, they are not. My view is backed up by observable, repeatable evidence and facts. Yours is backed up only by your imagination.

 

No, this is not entirely true. You say the one possibility you think exists is the true one. I say the one you think is true is not the true one, I rather believe that one of the others is true. So, because there is an infinite number of possibilities, it is more probable that I am right. You are excluding all the possibilites, except the one you believe in. I exclude only one possibility and leave the rest. So my believe is more probable than yours.

 

Go study probability before you make stupid claims like this. But since I know you'd rather quote philosophy, I'll explain it for you:

 

I do not choose one single reality. I concede that my observations may be flawed. The rock I see might be different in position from what I think by .0001mm. And it could be off by .0002mm. Or .0001mm in a different direction. And so on for infinite tiny variations of my reality. Therefore I believe in infinite realities, even though none of them are measurably different from what I observe.

 

Meanwhile you believe there could be inifinite completely different realities as well.

 

Now, your theory sounds nice if you want to bluff someone who doesn't know math very well. But lets look at it a bit closer:

 

Infinity = Infinity

 

P(mine) = #mine / # total = infinite / infinite

 

P(yours) = #yours / #total = infinite / infinite

 

P(yours) = P(mine)

 

Therefore the odds of reality being one of my near-identical universes are just as good as the odds of reality being one of your completely different ones. So by purely random chance, you have already lost. But it gets even worse.

 

Now let's bring in the observed evidence. The odds are far better that what we observe is relatively close to reality than the odds of what we observe being completely different from reality. Therefore it is far more likely that reality is one of my near-identical universes than one of your massively different ones.

 

 

Concession accepted.

[Darnoc]

@Eltiraaz: Uhm, I do not know. I think I made a comment, Peregrin took it up, I replied and then we had it.

 

 

@Peregrin: OK, you math is convincing. But something you said is still not right.

 

Any rational person knows that the odds of our observed reality being correct are far greater than the odds of it being wrong. And even more one sided are the odds of our observed reality being significantly different from the real one.

 

Can you give me also a mathematical probability of our reality being true as we observe it? You say it is rational to believe that our reality is as it is. There is a reason for this: We are used to think of our reality to be true. So we jugde any other possibility from our point of view (which is "our reality is the true one and anything else has to be proven otherwise"). But since our point of view is not necessarily the true point of view, we can't gain an objective view concerning this matter.

 

OK, you will now say that I bring the same argument all the time and that it is still about 99.9999% probable that our universe is existing in the way we think it is. But you say it is the reality because you can observe it. I now say, any observation or knowlegde gained through observation can't be trusted, only knowlegde gained through reason and logic without the influence of the outside world (our senses) can be trusted. Our senses trick us all the time. The only thing we do in fact observe is information processed by our minds. We do not know if our eyes, our ears, our skin or anything else does exist. Only our brains could exist, floating in a tank and conected to a computer, which sends information towards our brain which makes us believe that such an outside world as we observe it now is existing.

 

I make it simple: Any information gained through empiric observation (through our senses) or what you call "common sense" can not be trusted. You can not base your believe on such an uncertain thing as empiric observation or "common sense". Your believe, in order to really gain any usable knowlegde, must only base on reason and logic.

 

Now, to come back to probability: Can you really calculate the probability of such a scenario? Can you give me any mathimatical, pure logical evidence that what I have said is not true or not as much probable as what you have said? When you think something is true, because you are used to believe that it is the truth doesn't make it any more probable. If I believe in a certain religion and any other person believes in this religion, this religion is still not more probable because I and the others believe in it. It is only more probable when you can give a mathematical, pure logical evidence that it is more probable.

 

If you can not calculate the probability of our reality being so as we think it is, then you can not say it is more or less probable. And as long as we can not think of any way of calculating this, everything I or anyone else says about reality is about the same probable, because we have no way to truly calculate this probability.

 

So, does such a calculation exist? Does any way exist of calculating the probality of our reality?

[Peregrine]

Can you give me also a mathematical probability of our reality being true as we observe it? You say it is rational to believe that our reality is as it is.

 

Fine: tell me the exact RGB values of the background of this page. The odds of you getting it close to right (describing a similar color) are far better than the odds of you calling it orange.

 

OK, you will now say that I bring the same argument all the time and that it is still about 99.9999% probable that our universe is existing in the way we think it is. But you say it is the reality because you can observe it. I now say, any observation or knowlegde gained through observation can't be trusted, only knowlegde gained through reason and logic without the influence of the outside world (our senses) can be trusted. Our senses trick us all the time. The only thing we do in fact observe is information processed by our minds. We do not know if our eyes, our ears, our skin or anything else does exist. Only our brains could exist, floating in a tank and conected to a computer, which sends information towards our brain which makes us believe that such an outside world as we observe it now is existing.

 

You have it backwards. Reason and logic are worthless without solid evidence to support them. I could argue with reason and logic that I might not exist. But observed reality says otherwise. The possibility is there (all things have nonzero probability), but the odds overwhelmingly favor my existence.

 

I make it simple: Any information gained through empiric observation (through our senses) or what you call "common sense" can not be trusted. You can not base your believe on such an uncertain thing as empiric observation or "common sense". Your believe, in order to really gain any usable knowlegde, must only base on reason and logic.

 

Except that you're now arguing "might be" instead of "is." The fact that something might be true does not make it true. You need evidence to support your conclusions, or they are worthless. Pure logic and reason can not provide this evidence.

 

Now, to come back to probability: Can you really calculate the probability of such a scenario? Can you give me any mathimatical, pure logical evidence that what I have said is not true or not as much probable as what you have said?

 

I just did. The probability of reality being extremely close to what we observe is equal to the probability of it being one of your fantasies. If we use pure probability that is. But as I said above, the closer to our observations a possible reality is, the more likely it is.

 

If I believe in a certain religion and any other person believes in this religion, this religion is still not more probable because I and the others believe in it. It is only more probable when you can give a mathematical, pure logical evidence that it is more probable.

 

I never said it is. Belief in a God is more common than belief in no God. But that has nothing to do with the truth: that there is no God.

 

If you can not calculate the probability of our reality being so as we think it is, then you can not say it is more or less probable. And as long as we can not think of any way of calculating this, everything I or anyone else says about reality is about the same probable, because we have no way to truly calculate this probability.

 

So, does such a calculation exist? Does any way exist of calculating the probality of our reality?

 

I just demonstrated it. Either show a flaw in my proof or concede the debate.

[Darnoc]

Fine: tell me the exact RGB values of the background of this page. The odds of you getting it close to right (describing a similar color) are far better than the odds of you calling it orange.

 

This is not about if this website is orange or gray. This is about if our reality, the way we think it is, is really true. I reformulate my question: Can you give me a purely logical probability of our reality being absolutely different from what we think?

 

For example, give me the probability (based on your logic; forget about anything you think is true and try to make a purely objective probability) of those three:

 

1. Reality exists as we think it is existing.

 

2. We are all connected to a super computer which makes us believe that reality exists.

 

3. Our universe, as we observe it, doesn't exist at all. We are only existing inside of the mind of a higher being.

[Peregrine]

I just answered your question! The smaller the difference from observed fact a possibility is, the higher the probability of it. A universe with small differences (you observed the wrong gray shade) is far more likely than one with major differences (you observe gray, the truth is orange).

 

Can you give me a purely logical probability of our reality being absolutely different from what we think?

 

Your question is by definition impossible. Definite probability requires facts and evidence, not mere "maybe it is" arguments.

 

1. Reality exists as we think it is existing.

 

1/infinite

 

2. We are all connected to a super computer which makes us believe that reality exists.

 

1/infinite

 

3. Our universe, as we observe it, doesn't exist at all. We are only existing inside of the mind of a higher being.

 

1/infinite

 

 

 

Of course all of that misses the point. Probability is by definition based on unarguable laws. You can't combine it with your "pure reason and logic." The two are so fundamentally different that any conclusion that involves both is worthless.

[Darnoc]

I just answered your question! The smaller the difference from observed fact a possibility is, the higher the probability of it. A universe with small differences (you observed the wrong gray shade) is far more likely than one with major differences (you observe gray, the truth is orange).

 

This is only true, as long as your observations are valid at all. With your way of thinking of probability, you accept as fact anything you observe. What you can not do. If our universe is not like we think it is, all your observations stop to be valid, because they are false observations. Your observations are only valid in a universe which posses the kind of reality we think it does. You can not apply this rule to anything completely different from what you think is reality.

 

So, what I want to say is the following: As you said, probality at all those scenarios I gave you is infinite. All are the same probable, because you can not apply this rule of observation. So you can not say that our reality is really as we think it is, because anything else is also the same probable. Ergo, we can not find any truth about how reality really is. Ergo, Kant was right.

[Peregrine]

Circular logic. We can not use our observations. Therefore all events are equally probably. Therefore our observations can be flawed. Therefore we can not use our observations.

 

I'm not suprised you've managed to prove Kant was right... you started with "Kant is right" as an initial condition of the proof!

[ThetaOrionis01]

Ergo, Kant was right.

Based on your previous posts about the nature of reality, please prove that Kant ever existed.

Since there is no proof that Kant ever existed, there is no proof that his philosophy ever existed either.

 

Now, if he never existed, he can't have been right.