• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Mathematics & Theology

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm losing sight of the forest through the trees here, I suppose thats one of the dangers of having a conversation stretched out over multiple days...

It is indeed. Or teaching (at least for unorganized persons like me). I've had students raise their hands halfway through a class to ask why I'm going over material I already covered.

To reiterate (mainly to remind myself) the arguement I put forth was sort of a mathematical version of the counter arguement to Pascal's wager: Suppose there is a countably infinite set composed of elements {p(no god),p(god 1),p(god 2),p(god 3),...,p(god n)....} where p(x) is the probability of god x. We know that the sum of the elements in the set must equal one via the axioms of probability theory. We further assume equiprobability of gods since there is no apparent criteria for distinguishing between them. Since there is an infinity of gods and we're assuming equiprobability, the probability of any one god p(god 1), p(god 2),...etc. is the limit as n goes to infinity of 1/n. Since the probabilities must sum to 1, p(no god) must equal one.
Here's your problem (as I see it anyway). Any probability function must integrate or sum to one (they are designed that way). Technically, that isn't always true (when you get into fuzzy probabilities or other more exotic set theories), but it's true here. Since we are assuming a countable infinity (I'll stick with your term rather than denumerable, as it's both less pretentious and clearer), our probability function is a discrete function rather than continuous. So normally it would be easy enough to determine probability values, particularly if we assume that all elements in our set have equal probablity values.

Unfortuantely, assuming both infinite elements and equal probability creates problems. The probability of selecting any single element is 1/n. However, as n is infinite, it increases without bound. Thus, no matter how high a value I choose for my denominator (1/billion, 1/googol, 1/googolplex) I can always go higher. Even though irrational numbers are not in our set, infinity changes everything assuming equal assigned probabilities. So while it is true that Sum(X from X1 to Xn)=1, the probabibility of any individual X (or element in the set, i.e., gods) is 1/n=1/infinity. Which means that the probability of any X value (and single element) is the limit of f(x)=1/n as n approaches infinity in one direction (there are no -n values). This limit is zero. So the probability of selecting any X value is zero. No matter how large I make n in the fraction 1/n, it will always be less than infinity.

So if I understand what you and Polyhedral are saying, its that all the terms (even the no god term) could be infinitessimal, yet still sum to 1?
Yes, Assuming that all values have equal probabilities, you are talking about an infinite sequence which sums to 1. An infinite set of discrete values need not have zero probablities for each value. For example, there's the classic 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16...+1/2^infinity=1. But if the probabilities are equal, then they are all 1/n=1/infinity.


My concern is whether a countably infinite series of infinitessimal terms is the same thing as an integral over an uncountable infinity.
It isn't. It's the summation of an infinite number of discrete values. However, as each probability is 1/n where n is infinity, no matter how small I make this fraction (and fractions constitutes a countable infinity), I can always make it smaller. It still has a limit at 0.

The Dirac funtion might be somewhat applicable. I'd suppose its like having a spike at each positive integer though with a value between 0 and 1.
I mentioned the dirac function because it isn't a function in the way the term is usually used. It's the limit of a series of functions. In this case, for each element in our set x, p(x)=1/n where n=infinity.
 

Reptillian

Hamburgler Extraordinaire
It is indeed. Or teaching (at least for unorganized persons like me). I've had students raise their hands halfway through a class to ask why I'm going over material I already covered.


Here's your problem (as I see it anyway). Any probability function must integrate or sum to one (they are designed that way). Technically, that isn't always true (when you get into fuzzy probabilities or other more exotic set theories), but it's true here. Since we are assuming a countable infinity (I'll stick with your term rather than denumerable, as it's both less pretentious and clearer), our probability function is a discrete function rather than continuous. So normally it would be easy enough to determine probability values, particularly if we assume that all elements in our set have equal probablity values.

Unfortuantely, assuming both infinite elements and equal probability creates problems. The probability of selecting any single element is 1/n. However, as n is infinite, it increases without bound. Thus, no matter how high a value I choose for my denominator (1/billion, 1/googol, 1/googolplex) I can always go higher. Even though irrational numbers are not in our set, infinity changes everything assuming equal assigned probabilities. So while it is true that Sum(X from X1 to Xn)=1, the probabibility of any individual X (or element in the set, i.e., gods) is 1/n=1/infinity. Which means that the probability of any X value (and single element) is the limit of f(x)=1/n as n approaches infinity in one direction (there are no -n values). This limit is zero. So the probability of selecting any X value is zero. No matter how large I make n in the fraction 1/n, it will always be less than infinity.


Yes, Assuming that all values have equal probabilities, you are talking about an infinite sequence which sums to 1. An infinite set of discrete values need not have zero probablities for each value. For example, there's the classic 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16...+1/2^infinity=1. But if the probabilities are equal, then they are all 1/n=1/infinity.



It isn't. It's the summation of an infinite number of discrete values. However, as each probability is 1/n where n is infinity, no matter how small I make this fraction (and fractions constitutes a countable infinity), I can always make it smaller. It still has a limit at 0.


I mentioned the dirac function because it isn't a function in the way the term is usually used. It's the limit of a series of functions. In this case, for each element in our set x, p(x)=1/n where n=infinity.

Ok, I see what you're saying now.

Hmm...so in terms of the Pascal's wager counter arguement, I'd suppose this would probably be an arguement in favor of agnosticism instead of atheism. Either that or it would be an arguement against the equiprobability of various gods existing...some being more likely than others. Perhaps, unless theres something I've missed.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Ok, I see what you're saying now.

Hmm...so in terms of the Pascal's wager counter arguement, I'd suppose this would probably be an arguement in favor of agnosticism instead of atheism. Either that or it would be an arguement against the equiprobability of various gods existing...some being more likely than others. Perhaps, unless theres something I've missed.
I'm not sure I'm familiar with the counter-argument to Pascal's wager you're refering to. But a simpler one is that, well, Pascal simplied a lot by leaving things out. The idea that it costs nothing to believe, but could result in eternal bliss, is simply false. Christianity has certain tenets that often run counter to desire.That's without getting into the plurality of of gods. If I recall correctly, Pascal's argument is pretty much "believing costs nothing, but might yield eternal bliss or nothing, so why not believe?" In reality, believing (in terms of following the tenets of Pascal's religion) costs a great deal, and therefore these costs must be weighed not just against eternal bliss, but the evidence for it. Even the various semi-(or pseudo-)scientific arguments for a "mind/creator" behind the universe (as well as most of the philosophical arguments), if accepted, only amount to deism. Not eternal bliss or heaven.
 

obi one

Member
I was talking with a professor earlier today and he said that later in the semester we were going to look at applications of Game Theory. He said you can use it to argue that the existence of God is unlikely, but that the existence of free will and precognition are probable. I was wondering what you all thought about this. I've never run across Game Theory before, so I don't know enough to weigh in on the issue. I know there are some mathematically minded forum members, have you ever seen such applications of Game Theory?

How about it everyone:

Is it possible to use mathematical arguements to draw conclusions about God and its probable properties?


Do God, free will, or precognition exist and would be willing to believe in these sorts of things someone could argue in their favor with advanced mathematics?

I don't think God thinks of himself as an "its", with physical properties. I think mathematical construct can be used to analysis God's temple, which is the Universe, with the inclusion of man and the earth.
Personally, I think that Scripture holds mathematical underpinnings of creation. An example would be the temple of God, in the form of the people of Israel, being made up of 3 patriarchs (Abraham, Issac & Jacob), 12 tribes, being divided into the 10 tribes of Israel and the 2 tribes of Judah. Mathematically, if you take 3 unit lenghs, unity, square root of 2, and tau, and from their proportions, you can produce 12 Platonic solids which can be combined into the building blocks of any structure. Such geodesic type of structures are easily identified in DNA chains. http://mountaintruss.yolasite.com/creation-math.php
 

Reptillian

Hamburgler Extraordinaire
I was talking with a professor earlier today and he said that later in the semester we were going to look at applications of Game Theory. He said you can use it to argue that the existence of God is unlikely, but that the existence of free will and precognition are probable. I was wondering what you all thought about this. I've never run across Game Theory before, so I don't know enough to weigh in on the issue. I know there are some mathematically minded forum members, have you ever seen such applications of Game Theory?

How about it everyone:

Is it possible to use mathematical arguements to draw conclusions about God and its probable properties?

Do God, free will, or precognition exist and would be willing to believe in these sorts of things someone could argue in their favor with advanced mathematics?

More on the OP:

I never got the exact arguements out of my professor, but as far as the "existence of God being unlikely" arguement from Game Theory...I think I see the basic reasoning. One could look at certain natural phenomena and human interaction as a kind of Game with human's seeking to do one thing, and nature (or God) seeking to do another.

An example is the Fishermen vs. The Ocean(Posiden) The fishermen have a rational strategy to maximize profit by catching fish. The Ocean(Posiden) has a rational strategy to keep the fish in the sea and maintain a healthy ocean. One can show that if Posiden is to win the game, or keep losses down, he should rationally play a certain way. Yet observation shows that The Ocean doesn't choose that strategy, but instead uses a non optimal one. This means that Posiden is either irrational, cares more about fishermen than the ocean, is playing a small part of a much larger game (i.e. losing the battle to win the war), or doesn't exist. The simplest explaination is that the ocean is not a rational being and Posiden doesn't exist.

A broader arguement could be constructed to show that God likely doesn't exist...the problem of evil seems to be of a similar type... Any thoughts?
 

A-ManESL

Well-Known Member
If his argument is qualitative, then how can it be based on probability? And if it's countably infinite, than the probability of any one thing happening is zero. And how do you assign probability values? Or rather, how did Dawkins?

I have not read the book but why should there be a uniform distribution for probabilities (probability for each elementary event =1/n). He may have used a non uniform distribution. One can easily assign non zero probability values in a discrete sample space. Eg consider A={1,2,...} and let S be the power set of A. (A,S) is now a discrete space and we can define the probability P(i)=1/2^i.
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
I have not read the book but why should there be a uniform distribution for probabilities (probability for each elementary event =1/n). He may have used a non uniform distribution. One can easily assign non zero probability values in a discrete sample space. Eg consider A={1,2,...} and let S be the power set of A. (A,S) is now a discrete space and we can define the probability P(i)=1/2^i.
{1,2,3...} is also discrete, which makes the results slightly more meaningful.
 

Nakosis

Non-Binary Physicalist
Premium Member
A broader arguement could be constructed to show that God likely doesn't exist...the problem of evil seems to be of a similar type... Any thoughts?

You're kind of left to construct a "God" which employs a rational strategy of which you imagine God to use.

Also in a game you need a winner/some kind of payout. A motivation for God.

You'd have to developed this God based on biblical references? That would take a little time and research.

It'd also be interesting to take an AI program and feed it all the information about God according to the Bible and see how the resultant God AI persona responds to questions, requests etc...

One could then do the same for the Jewish God and Muslim God and see if there was a consistency in responses.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I have not read the book but why should there be a uniform distribution for probabilities (probability for each elementary event =1/n). He may have used a non uniform distribution. One can easily assign non zero probability values in a discrete sample space. Eg consider A={1,2,...} and let S be the power set of A. (A,S) is now a discrete space and we can define the probability P(i)=1/2^i.
1) According to the posts I responded to, the probability of "selecting" any god was equally likely.
2) You have to specify if your "discrete sample space" ends. If A={1,2,...} and does not end, then the power set of A is an uncountable infinity.
 

Reptillian

Hamburgler Extraordinaire
I'm not sure I'm familiar with the counter-argument to Pascal's wager you're refering to.

Sorry, I didn't see this part...I was, if I remember correctly, referring to the counter arguement that there is no way to tell which god is the "correct" one in Pascal's wager. i.e...If six different religions say the same thing about the rewards, how do you decide which one is the correct one...


You're kind of left to construct a "God" which employs a rational strategy of which you imagine God to use.

Also in a game you need a winner/some kind of payout. A motivation for God.

You'd have to developed this God based on biblical references? That would take a little time and research.

It'd also be interesting to take an AI program and feed it all the information about God according to the Bible and see how the resultant God AI persona responds to questions, requests etc...

One could then do the same for the Jewish God and Muslim God and see if there was a consistency in responses.

Yeah, it would vary from god to god and would depend on what God's goal is...still, this approach might allow you to rule out the existence of some religion's gods.


No, because they aren't "parts." Each Person is fully God.

It depends...I mean I can say things like "my hand isn't me" but if I said "my cerebral cortex isn't me" that might be a bit more difficult to back up. Both are parts, but one might be considered "me". The comparison I often hear to describe the trinity is the phases of water. Liquid, Solid, Gas...all are water, yet different from each other. Still there would be properties that could be examined.
 

A-ManESL

Well-Known Member
1) According to the posts I responded to, the probability of "selecting" any god was equally likely.
2) You have to specify if your "discrete sample space" ends. If A={1,2,...} and does not end, then the power set of A is an uncountable infinity.

1. Okay
2. P(A) is the sigma algebra and it may be uncountable. The point is that A = the set of natural numbers is countable.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't see how you can map it to the reals, since it's not dense. I'd agree its uncountable, though.
Really? One of the exercises in the "preliminaries" section in Hubbard & Hubbard's Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, & Differential Forms asks the student to prove it. (question 0.6.8 "Show that P(N) has the same cardinality as R). I've been thinking I did it correctly for so long now.

At any rate, one method for showing how to map it is on wiki:

Cardinal Equalities

But the very notion of the power set (every possible combination of subsets) I would have thought suggests that the power set is indeed dense, and then there's the continuum hypothesis. Since, as you say, P(N) is uncountable, either it and R have equal cardinalities, or P(N) has a greater cardinality (or someone could have shown that there is indeed an infinite set with a cardinality greater than N but less than R).
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Really? One of the exercises in the "preliminaries" section in Hubbard & Hubbard's Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra, & Differential Forms asks the student to prove it. (question 0.6.8 "Show that P(N) has the same cardinality as R). I've been thinking I did it correctly for so long now.

At any rate, one method for showing how to map it is on wiki:

Cardinal Equalities

But the very notion of the power set (every possible combination of subsets) I would have thought suggests that the power set is indeed dense, and then there's the continuum hypothesis. Since, as you say, P(N) is uncountable, either it and R have equal cardinalities, or P(N) has a greater cardinality (or someone could have shown that there is indeed an infinite set with a cardinality greater than N but less than R).
But density is a property of topology, not size. You can't pick an item "between" any two sets of integers, although you can in the reals. (And the rationals, for that matter.) From that, I can't see how you map the two to each other.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
But density is a property of topology, not size.
Yes, but we're talking topology of 1-dimension for R, and P(N) basically creates a set like R out of N, because for any element n in N, there are an infinite number of elements within P(N) I can associate it with, such that if I did this for every n is an element of N, I would always (to borrow reptillian's use of the pigeonhole principle) be trying to cram an infinite number of pidgeons into every hole, exactly as I would with the reals.

You can't pick an item "between" any two sets of integers, although you can in the reals. (And the rationals, for that matter.) From that, I can't see how you map the two to each other.
Take away set notation (or, better yet, think of both sets from P(N) and elements of R as "points") and you basically have the reals. As you point out, you can pick a "between" for the rationals, and yet there is no one-to-one for this set with the reals. That is, any map from Q to R will involve cramming pidgeons. This is not true of P(N) or P(Q) and R.
 

A-ManESL

Well-Known Member
Not "may" (if A= the set of natural numbers). Is. P(A) can be put in a one to one with the reals. Which makes it uncountable.

Of course, it is in this case. By "may" I meant that an arbitrary discrete sample space can have a uncountable or countable sigma algebra, while having countable number of elements. At least that is the standard definition.
 
Top