The first cause argument

[leroy]

Take a uniform distribution in a volume. What is the probability of any point? It is *always* zero.

Taking a random treatment I found:
3.3 - Continuous Probability Distributions | STAT 500

Quote:
"Note! If Y is continuous P(Y=y)=0 for any given value y. Unlike the discrete random variables, the pdf of a continuous random variable does not equal to P(Y=y)."

In other words, every single point has probability zero. Yet, individual points are what happen.

Sure and I would argue that the event of selecting a random point can´t happen. (even assuming that points exist)

Any computer would have to ether limit the size of the sample to a finite number and/or make a non-random selection.

 

[leroy]

Points are what spacetime is composed of.



e.

not granted.

the total volum of the sum of any number of points woudl be zero.....given that space has a volume > than zero, space can the sum of "points"

 

[leroy]

But they are going 10 times as fast as the other.

In the infinity example, the velocities are different, but an infinite time span leads to the same (infinite) distance traveled.

In the infinity example, the velocities are different

I am confused, I thought both velocities where zero in both cases

 

[Polymath257]

I am confused, I thought both velocities where zero in both cases

And they are also ten times the other.

 

[Polymath257]

not granted.

the total volum of the sum of any number of points woudl be zero.....given that space has a volume > than zero, space can the sum of "points"

Volumes are only countable additive. Not uncountable so.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure and I would argue that the event of selecting a random point can´t happen. (even assuming that points exist)

Any computer would have to ether limit the size of the sample to a finite number and/or make a non-random selection.

Why would it need to be a computer doing it?

Probabilities can have continuous distributions (most do, in physics)... in which case every particular configuration has probability zero (the integral over a point is zero)

 

[Polymath257]

Sure and I would argue that the event of selecting a random point can´t happen. (even assuming that points exist).

All this to, what? Preserve the concept of first cause? Simultaneous causes?

Really?

 

[leroy]

And they are also ten times the other.

that is because ZERO is nothing

I don’t even see your point

How do you go from “And they are also ten times the other” to therefore the universe might be infinitely old?

 

[leroy]

Volumes are only countable additive. Not uncountable so.

soooo? so what? whats your point?

 

[leroy]

Why would it need to be a computer doing it?

Probabilities can have continuous distributions (most do, in physics)... in which case every particular configuration has probability zero (the integral over a point is zero)

Probabilities can have continuous distributions (most do, in physics)..

That is just a mathematical tool that scientists use to predict stuff

all events in the real occur within a limited number of probable results. … can you name an actual event in the real world that had a probability of zero and happened anyway?

Why would it need to be a computer doing it?

What other alternative do you suggest?

A guy selecting a random number from his head? A roulette in a casino? a monkey throwing dice? All examples that can actually occur in the real world are within a limited number of alternatives. Which is why the probability of a specific event is < than Zero and which is why such events can occure.

 

[leroy]

All this to, what? Preserve the concept of first cause? Simultaneous causes?

Really?

I have the same question………. All this to avoid the conclusion of the KCA? To avoid that the universe had a beginning?

 

[Polymath257]

I have the same question………. All this to avoid the conclusion of the KCA? To avoid that the universe had a beginning?

I simply do not know if it did or not. I allow for the possibility that it did and also for the possibility that it did not.

of the two, I think that it is slightly more likely that it did not, but that has not been determined as yet.

 

[Polymath257]

That is just a mathematical tool that scientists use to predict stuff

all events in the real occur within a limited number of probable results. … can you name an actual event in the real world that had a probability of zero and happened anyway?

Every single cumulative position of molecules in any room.

What other alternative do you suggest?

A guy selecting a random number from his head? A roulette in a casino? a monkey throwing dice? All examples that can actually occur in the real world are within a limited number of alternatives. Which is why the probability of a specific event is < than Zero and which is why such events can occure.

How about the universe selecting exactly when a uranium atom will decay?

 

[Polymath257]

soooo? so what? whats your point?

That there are uncountably many points in any non-zero volume. Volume y countably additive, so the volumes of the points added up don't give the volume of the total.

 

[Polymath257]

that is because ZERO is nothing

I don’t even see your point

How do you go from “And they are also ten times the other” to therefore the universe might be infinitely old?

You were claiming that having two planets, one moving ten times as fast as the other and ending up moving the same distance was a problem. I am pointing out an analogous situation with being at rest.

And, again, in dealing with infinities, ten times as much is the same as the original, so the one planet *also* went ten times as far.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I simply do not know if it did or not. I allow for the possibility that it did and also for the possibility that it did not.

of the two, I think that it is slightly more likely that it did not, but that has not been determined as yet.

..so it is more likely that a book has no author?
Funny that. I have never come across a book with no author.

A universe is a lot more sophisticated than a book, yet you argue that it is more likely that it caused itself.
I suppose people have to make such a claim if they want to believe that.

 

[Polymath257]

..so it is more likely that a book has no author?
Funny that. I have never come across a book with no author.

Books are social things, written by people to influence other people.

But, for example, the DNA in your body has no author and carries far more information than any single book.

Furthermore, all authors of books are also within the universe.

A universe is a lot more sophisticated than a book, yet you argue that it is more likely that it caused itself.
I suppose people have to make such a claim if they want to believe that.

Complexity isn't the way to determine design. Differences with what happens naturally is. The universe is complex, but based on relatively simple physical laws that act to increase complexity.

We don't know of any causes outside of the universe and there is no reason to think there could be. In fact, we don't know of *anything* outside of the universe and have no reason to think there could be.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..we don't know of *anything* outside of the universe and have no reason to think there could be.

Speak for yourself.
A mind is not physical, but a brain is.

You will say that a mind can't exist without a brain, yet it remains that it is not physical.
The mind is real.

 

[sayak83]

No, I haven't.
However, I don't believe that physical things are everlasting.
A man can have all the women and gold he desires in this world, but everybody has to die one day.
It is temporary.

I therefore conclude, that non-physical things are of more importance than physical things.
There would be no good reason for this physical universe to be everlasting.
G-d is able to create as many universes as He so wills.
Furthermore, they don't need to behave in the same way as this one.

The belief that this universe is eternal assumes no explanation of its existence is required.
That is just not good enough, I'm afraid.

Once again.
What you like to be the case need to be the case. You seem to believe things based on what you think you like and do not like. That is not how it works

 

[Polymath257]

Speak for yourself.
A mind is not physical, but a brain is.

You will say that a mind can't exist without a brain, yet it remains that it is not physical.
The mind is real.

The mind is a process of the brain. Sort of like a running program. It fully depends on and is determined by the physical brain.