/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.3482224]

You don't need science,god is the answer to all your questions.

[Anonymous No.3482230]

>>3482224
Science is a study of what god created. Are you saying i should ignore his creations.

[Anonymous No.3482237]

[Anonymous No.3482242]

>>3482230

fuck it,i'm not even going to try and troll.i can't stand saying god is the answer...

[Anonymous No.3482267]

Hello /sci/

I have spent the last 2 months debating youtube creationists on almost a daily basis and have come to the conclusion that creationists are in fact retarded people. It is my honest belief that creationists do not understand logic and reasoning at all, and actually possess a mental handicap which can be considered a form of retardation of the brains ability to understand basic logic such as objectivity and subjectivity.

Does anyone else feel the same way? Because I cannot see any other logical explanation for an fully formed adult who cannot understand the concept of "that which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".

[Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk No.3482277]

Hey, this reminds me of something...

"You don't need regulations. The free market is the answer to all of your problems."

Hmm.

[Anonymous No.3482295]

>>3482267
Creationism is wrong, but by your method of thinking, because you can't physically prove that a person has been neglected, abused and taken for granted, that nobody has abused them.

Your belief does not leave any room for the benefit of the doubt that the present state has been manipulated to appear as it is for the explicit purpose of getting around "if you can't prove it, never happened."

[Anonymous No.3482309]

>>3482295
>because you can't physically prove that a person has been neglected, abused and taken for granted, that nobody has abused them.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Again you are exhibiting the same level of mental retardation as a creationist, taking my line out of context to imply that I am arguing god doesn't exist.

The argument I gave was " that which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"

>can be dismissed
>can be

Doesn't mean "must be dismissed"!!

[Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk No.3482319]

>>3482309
>>3482295
Wrong.

There is evidence that people exist. There is evidence that people abuse other people. This makes a claim of abuse reasonable.

There is no evidence that gods exist. There is no evidence that gods have ever done anything. This makes creationism unreasonable.

[Anonymous No.3482343]

>>3482319
>There is no evidence that gods exist. There is no evidence that gods have ever done anything. This makes creationism unreasonable.

The creationist rebuttal to that is "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence".

HOW U GONNA DEAL WITH THAT.

[Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk No.3482351]

>>3482343
>Russell's Teapot

[Anonymous No.3482372]

>>3482343
Falsifiability does not make something true.
Can you test infinity. Have you seen an infinite amount of something. Why do you believe there are an infinite amount of numbers. That is unfalsifiable so are you saying we have no reason to believe it. But the falsifiable alternatives are incorrect.
The scientific rebuttal would be we haven't found the largest number yet. Doesnt prove the existence of infinity.

[Anonymous No.3482376]

>>3482351
According to Craigey boy there is sufficient evidence to suggest that there aren't any teapots orbiting the earth!!

HOW U GONNA DEAL WITH THAT?

[Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk No.3482386]

>>3482376
Seppuku.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3482390]

>>3482376
Russell's teapot is between Mars, and Earth, and is too small to be detected by any equipment. Its a thought experiment, even if we develop equipment capable of detecting a teapot IRL the argument still stands,

[Anonymous No.3482396]

>>3482224
God is an answer to all of my questions. It's also an entirely bogus answer. Sorry OP, I prefer truth in my answers.

[Anonymous No.3482401]

>>3482319
>There is no evidence that gods exist

hurp derp this depends on what you subjectivelly define "evidence" to be

lol

herp

[Anonymous No.3482410]

>>3482267
Ive always thought this. If someone does not use logic and reasoning to get to their current belief position, how can you expect to use logic and reasoning to get them out?

[Anonymous No.3482417]

>>3482372
I would seriously like to a rebuttal to this.

[Anonymous No.3482421]

>>3482410
Not all of them explicitly abandoned logic and reason and evidence. Some of them are just ignorant as to the evidence. Don't let the trolls on /sci/ fool you - a lot of them think that there beliefs are consistent with known evidence, when they are in fact not.

For some of the real nuts,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
is a good start.

[Anonymous No.3482425]

>>3482401
hurp derp this depends on what you subjectivelly define as God

if you take gos as dude sitting on cloud who created this planet 6500 years ago and populated it with two modern humans then this God soesn't exists, sorry.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3482427]

>>3482410
You make an emotional appeal to the benefits of using logic and reasoning.

[Axel the Possum No.3482429]

>>3482372
>>3482417

Easy. Numbers are artificial constructs created by humanity. None of them actually exist, they're just representations for something. The universe, for example, is infinite but it still has a definable size at a given moment, however immense it may be.

There are no actual infinites in nature. Infinity doesn't actually exist. It's just a convenient tool in the mathematical tool-set for when you don't need to bother with getting an actual number to get a result.

[Axel the Possum No.3482437]

>>3482429

To continue further, the idea that we have an infinite number of numbers IS falsifiable. The falsifiability test would be "We run out".

Something being falsifiable doesn't make it true, but it means that it definitely can be false and we have a way to test it. If we can't, we can't make any sort of claim on it. Something that isn't falsifiable is something that is outside testable reality.

So, while falsifiability may not mean something is correct, non-falsifiability means that something can't be scientifically tested and, therefore, is essentially useless as an explaination.

[Anonymous No.3482439]

>>3482421
good point, but what are you saying about dendrochronology? that it isnt a good method for finding out the age of trees?

>>3482427
Nope. Nothing emotional in my post, and I say nothing about the benefits of logic and reasoning.

[Anonymous No.3482442]

>>3482437
> So, while falsifiability may not mean something is correct, non-falsifiability means that something can't be scientifically tested and, therefore, is essentially useless as an explaination.

~brofist~

[sage No.3482450]

Most of your leading Creation Scientists are repressed homosexuals. They won't accept Evolution because then they won't have any excuse not to suck cock.
It's a fact. I have scientific evidence.

[Anonymous No.3482452]

>>3482425
>if you take gos as dude sitting on cloud who created this planet 6500 years ago and populated it with two modern humans then this God soesn't exists, sorry.

Oh, but thats' not what i mean by god at all. Belief in god just means the thing that caused the universe was intelligent. That's the only property I need to satisfy in order for creationism to be correct. And so what makes you think that you can subjectively say what is valid evidence for or against this claim? Why are scientific theories (i.e not facts) about the origin of the universe more probable than theories about intelligent design?

In order to be against creationism, you would have to prove that the thing that caused caused the universe was most likely *not* to be intelligent, by means of asserting a more likely cause for the universe.

How can you assert a more likely cause than intelligent design if you can't prove any alternative causes? The answer is you can't, so there is no reason to deny intelligent design as being just as likely as a naturalistic explanation.

[Anonymous No.3482454]

>>3482439
>good point, but what are you saying about dendrochronology? that it isnt a good method for finding out the age of trees?

That it's a good method for demonstrating that the Earth is older than 10,500~ years.

[Axel the Possum No.3482456]

>>3482442

Glad to be of service, Anon.

>>3482267

You're arguing with them on YOUTUBE, man. This is not a site known for its intellectual reparte.

[Krakengineer !!5XY+x7grkpt No.3482459]

>>3482439
You asked how to get someone to start using logic and reason when they cannot be convinced to do so with logic and reason based arguments. The answer is to use emotional appeals to convince them to use logic and reason first.

[Anonymous No.3482460]

>>3482267
First, you're running afoul of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory. Perhaps if you tried in real life as opposed to youtube...

[Anonymous No.3482461]

>>3482429
Bullshit.
If i a room is 30ft long, and i created section of half the room. The a section of half of the half and so on. How many sections will i when i've created every half possible.
Simply put. Infinity exist in the real world. There are an infinite amount of points between point A and point B given they are not at the same point in space.
>>3482437
>The falsifiability test would be "We run out"
More bullshit.
This is wrong on so many level. You cant test this.

[Anonymous No.3482469]

>>3482459
that would make sense.

[Anonymous No.3482470]

>>3482461
Forgot to add infinity exist within finite constructs.

[Axel the Possum No.3482471]

>>3482452

Just to be utterly fair here, if you claim to be purely scientific about it, and you say there's no evidence as to what created the universe, wouldn't you have to remain agnostic about it?

I mean, if there's something you know occurred (a universe being created, in this case), and you don't know what caused it, and you have no evidence, isn't saying "God did it" just falling into the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy?

I can say with equal levels of justification that the universe was born from a cosmic egg, or that it has always existed, or that it was, in fact, an enormous disco ball that was shattered by the Cosmic Mexican who thought it was a glass pinata.

If you have no evidence, you have to remain agnostic. If you have evidence, you can create a hypothesis.

So which is it? No evidence, and you're agnostic, or some evidence, and we can argue it?

[Anonymous No.3482472]

>>3482461
>>3482461
WHAT IS PLANCK LENGTH MOTHER FUCKER

CHRISTIANITY IS A SEXUAL RELIGION

[Anonymous No.3482474]

>>3482454
No its not. The earth was created yesterday with an appearance of age.

[Anonymous No.3482477]

>>3482474
And if they want to go through such contortions, then they are immune to rational argument. It is my educated belief / hope that most are not this stupid.

[Anonymous No.3482478]

>>3482461
not the guy you were talking to, but an infinity of infinitesimals is not the same as an infinity of finites.

[Anonymous No.3482480]

>>3482472
Has nothing to do with infinity or anything i mentioned.

[Anonymous No.3482481]

>>3482472
you are correct sir! They want Jesus to come inside them.

[Anonymous No.3482482]

>>3482471
>normous disco ball that was shattered by the Cosmic Mexican who thought it was a glass pinata.


I'm more than ok with this

[Anonymous No.3482484]

>>3482471
>I mean, if there's something you know occurred (a universe being created, in this case), and you don't know what caused it, and you have no evidence, isn't saying "God did it" just falling into the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy?

Isn't saying "natural processes did it" just falling into the nature-of-the-gaps fallacy?

[Anonymous No.3482487]

>>3482477
Its a completely rational argument. Science cannot prove mathematical concepts.

[Anonymous No.3482490]

>>3482478
I never said it was. My argument is that infinity exist and is unfalsifiable.

[Anonymous No.3482492]

>>3482480
If nothing can be smaller than planck length then how you gonna keep dividing it into infinitely smaller and smaller bits?

[Anonymous No.3482493]

>>3482487
I think you didn't correct follow the quote chain. I linked to dendrochronology, and explained that it's a good way to demonstrate that the age of the Earth is older than 10,500~ years.

Someone argued that they could just say the world was created yesterday with the appearance of being 10,500 years old.

I replied with:
>And if they want to go through such contortions, then they are immune to rational argument. It is my educated belief / hope that most are not this stupid.

And you replied with
>Its a completely rational argument. Science cannot prove mathematical concepts.

What does that have to do with anything?

[Sakurada !Jun.1bGALk No.3482496]

>>3482484
There is no fallacy. Every time we have come across such a gap before, natural processes were responsible. Therefore, it is only reasonable to suspect natural processes are responsible this time, too.

[Anonymous No.3482499]

>>3482461
>If i a room is 30ft long, and i created section of half the room. The a section of half of the half and so on. How many sections will i when i've created every half possible.
In practice: You will stop at milli/micro meter resolution.
In theory: You will stop at atoms/quark/strings/whatever the smallest building blocks are.
neither which is even remotely close to infinity.

>There are an infinite amount of points between point A and point B given they are not at the same point in space.
No there aren't.

[Anonymous No.3482501]

>>3482484
I prefer saying "I don't know".

[Axel the Possum No.3482506]

>>3482461

You're talking about Zeno's Paradox, or at least one of them. Thing is, that paradox fails in reality. Eventually, you reach an indivisible point, like an atom (or sub-atomic particles, or some even smaller quanta of reality if you're gonna get really crazy). No infinity there because, at some point, you reach a limit of how small you can go before the room becomes indistinct from the background that is the universe.

Also, you asked why someone can believe there's an infinite amount of numbers. Disregarding the fact that, as I said, numbers are artificial constructs created by humans, the easily tested version of their falsifiability is that we run out. If someone could bring about such a scenario or prove, somehow, that it would occur, then numbers clearly aren't infinite. That's a test of falsifiability.

[Anonymous No.3482507]

do you know the original translation of the Hebrew bible, says that God appeared moments after the creation of the universe, then he went on to create the earth.

[Anonymous No.3482514]

>>3482506

numbers are artificial constructs? Really? Are you really going to assert the fact that you have five fingers is merel a 'psychological fact' with no objective reality? If you BELIEVED you had four fingers, would you really have four fingers?

[Anonymous No.3482517]

>>3482492
More bullshit.
Half of a plank length is smaller than a plank length.
Maybe you dont understand why it implies. It goes along with the uncertainty principle. You cant measure anything shorter because of the limitation of light. Not that nothing can be smaller. The same way the uncertainty pricinples states that you cant know something. Not that it doesnt exist.
>>3482506
No it doesnt fail in reality. We fail at testing it. It is always distinguishable from a relative perspective of the half.

[Axel the Possum No.3482518]

>>3482484

If you want to put it that way, sure, if we have no evidence. If we have no evidence, we have to remain agnostic. If we've seen no evidence for supernatural beings, though, you'll find few people embracing the concept as likely.

As has already been said, if everything else is found to be caused by something natural, it's reasonable to assume this was too. It might not be, and, if there's no evidence to support this conclusion, naturalists must remain as agnostic as anyone.

It still makes intelligent design no more likely than my "Cosmic Mexican striking the discoball of Creation" example

[Anonymous No.3482519]

>>3482514
Math is an abstract thing to model the real world. You have five fingers. That is a falsifiable fact. "Five exists" is meaningless. It is not falsifiable - it's not even well defined. "Something with five somethings exists" is totally falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.3482521]

>>3482514
Fingers are not numbers. Who was talking about fingers? We were talking about numbers.

[Anonymous No.3482522]

>>3482517
>Half of a plank length
No such thing.

[Anonymous No.3482523]

>>3482501
By saying you don't know, you are admitting that it may be just as likely that the cause of the universe was intelligent. So creationism is just as acceptable as naturalism in your view.

You need to be able to provide a better alternative to creationism otherwise you are allowing creationism to be freely asserted.

That better alternative is of course quantum mechanics and the CMBR to support a theory that the singularity was a quantum fluctuation. The reason this argument is more plausible is because it's based on objective evidence, whereas intelligent design has no objective evidence.

imo, quantum mechanics is the only thing keeping intelligent design at bay.

[Anonymous No.3482524]

>>3482507
and there is a case in africa where one of the tribes worshipped a God that was formed from a Big Bang that created the earth, jizzed over it and created life.

isn't that just beautiful and possible, if you think that Gods sperm was a asteroid containing organic material.
how close those Africans had to a feasible answer to were life came form.

[Anonymous No.3482526]

>>3482519
>>3482521

You are both retarded, you know that, don't you? Even Wildebeests can COUNT.

[Anonymous No.3482528]

>>3482523
>By saying you don't know, you are admitting that it may be just as likely that the cause of the universe was intelligent. So creationism is just as acceptable as naturalism in your view.

I said I do not know. I did not endorse any probabilities as to whether it was intelligently designed or not. I do not know.

Also, the word "creation" usually refers to something a bit more ... naive. Not a deist god. I'm agnostic about deist gods. I'm an atheist about theist gods.

[Anonymous No.3482530]

>>3482524
If you guess enough, you're bound to be right occasionally.

[Anonymous No.3482531]

>>3482518
>It still makes intelligent design no more likely than my "Cosmic Mexican striking the discoball of Creation" example

Cosmic Mexican *is* intelligent design, lol.

[Anonymous No.3482535]

>>3482506
You cant test running out of numbers. Its unfalsifiable.
>>3482522
Just pointing out a plank length is 1.616252(81)×10−35 meters. Are you telling me you cant divide that in half. If you even read the post You'd know that it exist. Or are you saying and electron cant have a position and momentum at the same time

[Anonymous No.3482536]

>>3482531
>Cosmic Mexican *is* intelligent design, lol.
No, the mexican is not intelligent.

[Anonymous No.3482537]

>>3482523
>You need to be able to provide a better alternative to creationism otherwise you are allowing creationism to be freely asserted.

Also, nope. I do not allow factual claims to be asserted without evidence. Anyone who says that the universe was the cause of an intelligent agency is a retard. Anyone who says it is about equally retarded (ok, maybe a little less, but still pretty presumptuous).

[Anonymous No.3482539]

>>3482530
so come Christians have gotten in so wrong?

[Anonymous No.3482541]

>>3482539
English, do you speak it?

[Anonymous No.3482547]

>>3482535
>Are you telling me you cant divide that in half.
That's right.
Talking about things smaller than the planck length makes no physical sense, kinda like saying 1+2=potato
>Or are you saying and electron cant have a position and momentum at the same time
What does that have to do with infinity?

[Axel the Possum No.3482550]

>>3482514

A certain set of atoms exist that we call my fingers. We group them together and use the term "five" to refer to how many are in the group.

The number five doesn't actually exist. What exists is a collection of atoms. We identify them as a grouping, we use a number to describe how many there are in that grouping. The numbers themselves don't exist. What exists is the atoms.

Numbers are a human creation to describe a quantity or quality, like something's mass or speed. The numbers themselves are descriptors of something but do not themselves exist. That's why we have numbers like Graham's Number, which simply couldn't exist if written out.

>>3482517

Here's a question, then: Do you believe the universe exists as an infinite regression downward to smaller and smaller parts? If so, you're going to have provide some serious proof of this. If, however, there is some lowest point, for lack of a better term, the paradox doesn't exist in reality.

So, which is it: Do you believe the universe gets infinitely small and, therefore, there is no actual base to the universe (because if it recedes infinitely, there is no actual base; it's all built atop something else, which is atop something else, which is... etc.), or are you wrong?

[Anonymous No.3482551]

>>3482528
>I did not endorse any probabilities as to whether it was intelligently designed or not. I do not know

By saying you do not know, you are endorsing any possible explanation. Thus intelligent design is no less plausible than naturalistic explanation. Thus you can have no rebuttal to intelligent design.

[Anonymous No.3482552]

>>3482541
its my third language, and all i missed out was how, use in instead of it.
Any 5 year old can spot a missing word, and work out a spelling mistake.

not that i'm questioning your intelligence.

[Anonymous No.3482556]

>>3482551

Because I do not know does not mean I endorse explanations. Not knowing means specifically that I do not endorse any explanation.

Again, intelligent design does not (usually) mean deism. You're misusing the words.

[Anonymous No.3482559]

>>3482536
>No, the mexican is not intelligent.

That's a logical contradiction because mexican means a person from mexico, a person, a person possesses intelligence. IF he doesn't possess intelligence then you are arguing for naturalism.

[Anonymous No.3482561]

>>3482552
Read "Breaking The Spell" for one idea.

[Anonymous No.3482564]

>>3482547
You have no idea what a planck length. No where does it even implicate that things cant be smaller.
Quit bullshitting facts.
>>3482550
I have a mathematical proof.
>.99999999999 equals 1.
You just be able to see where I'm going with this. Are you going to say that 3/3 does not equal 1.

[Axel the Possum No.3482574]

>>3482523

I don't have to provide anything. If there's evidence, and I'd like to think we'll find it, we follow it where it goes. I won't make an artificial statement just because an idea seems to be implausible. If you have no evidence, your guesses are about as good as anyone's.

This doesn't give approval for Creationists to say their ideas are correct. If you have no evidence, you remain agnostic. That's just how it is. Don't let some emotional desire to tell idiots they're wrong keep you from being objective.

>>3482531

No, it's unintelligent design. He thought it was a pinata, remember?

Honestly, it was a joke example to point out how ludicrous the concepts for cosmic formation could get. Don't read into it too deeply. I don't want to end up with people asking "Well, then what created Cosmic Mexico?"

[Anonymous No.3482575]

AFAIK, electrons do have momentum and position at the same time. The probles in measuring them without modifing pne of them.

[Anonymous No.3482576]

>>3482559
>a person possesses intelligence
Not necessarily.
Also you're just arguing semantics now. For there to even be a mexican there have to be a Mexico, which obviously didn't exist prior to the creation of Mexico, but that wasn't the point.
It's a dude that looks like a mexican but possess no intelligence that created the universe.

[Anonymous No.3482577]

>>3482556
>>3482537

Ok, listen up. If you say that the cause of the universe is unknown, then any cause is theoretically possible. Now if any cause is possible, then you are not putting any weight towards either intelligent design or naturalism. So if intelligent design is no less likely than naturalism, then who's to say it's not MORE likely? Nobody, because it's a purely subjective interpretation! By saying you have no clue as to the cause of the universe, you are opening yourself up to subjective interpretation.

Now if you prefer objective interpretations then you would lean towards a naturalistic explanation as being most likely, and thus you would no longer be agnostic (i.e "not knowing").

[Axel the Possum No.3482578]

>>3482564

Answer my question, then I'll answer yours.

Are you saying that the universe has no base, or are you wrong?

[Anonymous No.3482579]

>>3482575
False.

http://www.stat.physik.uni-potsdam.de/~pikovsky/teaching/stud_seminar/Bell_EPR-1.pdf

[Axel the Possum No.3482583]

>>3482576

This is just spookily timed...

[Anonymous No.3482585]

>>3482577
>Ok, listen up. If you say that the cause of the universe is unknown, then any cause is theoretically possible.
Correct. I prefer the term "not yet demonstrated to be false with evidence".

>Now if any cause is possible, then you are not putting any weight towards either intelligent design or naturalism.
Yep.

>So if intelligent design is no less likely than naturalism,
No no. You just brought up the word "likely". I said I do not know. I do not know how likely one possibility is compared to the other.

>then who's to say it's not MORE likely? Nobody, because it's a purely subjective interpretation! By saying you have no clue as to the cause of the universe, you are opening yourself up to subjective interpretation.

Now if you prefer objective interpretations then you would lean towards a naturalistic explanation as being most likely, and thus you would no longer be agnostic (i.e "not knowing").

[Anonymous No.3482586]

>>3482576
>It's a dude that looks like a mexican but possess no intelligence that created the universe.

Then it's not a "dude", it's an object. It's a naturalistic explanation for the universe, i.e unintelligent design.

[Anonymous No.3482587]

>>3482564
>No where does it even implicate that things cant be smaller.
Yes it does.
>I have a mathematical proof.
>.99999999999 equals 1.
>You just be able to see where I'm going with this. Are you going to say that 3/3 does not equal 1.
I have no idea were you're going with this since we're talking about physical reality and not maths.

[Anonymous No.3482589]

>>3482578
I didnt say that nor imply that.
As with the mathematical example i pointed out. 1 is the ceiling. Same with the universe.

You question is illogical. The only way it would be logical is if .99999999... didn't equal 1 as its the same analogy.

[Anonymous No.3482591]

>>3482579

Bell's inequalities talk about entangled particles.

[Anonymous No.3482593]

>>3482577
>Ok, listen up. If you say that the cause of the universe is unknown, then any cause is theoretically possible.
Correct. I prefer the term "not yet demonstrated to be false with evidence".

>Now if any cause is possible, then you are not putting any weight towards either intelligent design or naturalism.
Yep.

>So if intelligent design is no less likely than naturalism,
No no. You just brought up the word "likely". I said I do not know. I do not know how likely one possibility is compared to the other.

>then who's to say it's not MORE likely?
I am. I am a militant agnostic in this regard. You do not have access to more relevance evidence than I do, and thus you do not know either.

>Nobody, because it's a purely subjective interpretation! By saying you have no clue as to the cause of the universe, you are opening yourself up to subjective interpretation.

[Anonymous No.3482597]

>>3482587
>Yes it does.
Where did you get this. What twisted definition are you using. Please enlighten me. I don't mind being wrong as I will have learned something new but as it stands now you response comes across as ignorant.

[Axel the Possum No.3482604]

>>3482589

My question has purpose. If the universe has some smallest quanta, then your example of Zeno's Paradox (infinite division) is incorrect. If the universe doesn't, it has no base since it's an infinite recession downwards to no smallest point.

So, if the universe has some smallest quanta, then physical reality refutes the paradox, no matter how many mathematical proofs you might have. You can't divide infinitely. If the universe has no smallest quanta, you're correct at the expense of insanity.

So, which is it: A universe built on an infinite recession (turtles all the way down, perhaps?), or you're wrong?

[Anonymous No.3482607]

Damnit. Third post. Maybe I'll get it right this time.

>>3482577
>Ok, listen up. If you say that the cause of the universe is unknown, then any cause is theoretically possible.
Correct. I prefer the term "not yet demonstrated to be false with evidence".

>Now if any cause is possible, then you are not putting any weight towards either intelligent design or naturalism.
Yep.

>So if intelligent design is no less likely than naturalism,
No no. You just brought up the word "likely". I said I do not know. I do not know how likely one possibility is compared to the other.

>then who's to say it's not MORE likely? Nobody, because it's a purely subjective interpretation! By saying you have no clue as to the cause of the universe, you are opening yourself up to subjective interpretation.
I am not. I am a militant agnostic in this regard. You do not have access to any more relevant evidence than I do, so you equally do not know. Any other answer is unacceptable.

[Anonymous No.3482608]

>>3482589
Are you saying the universe is cannot be mathematically modeled.
If so please you a trip so i can filter you.

[Anonymous No.3482613]

>>3482593
>No no. You just brought up the word "likely". I said I do not know. I do not know how likely one possibility is compared to the other.

That's where subjectivity comes in. Who are you to say that you cannot assess which one is more likely than the other? You can't. It's purely subjective how people interpret probabilities when anything is possible.

This is why we need to assert objectivity which then leads to naturalism as the most likely cause of the universe.

Which then leads us away from agnosticism.

[Anonymous No.3482614]

>>3482604
I disagree. That implies that .9999999... or 3/3 doesn't equal 1.
Before we can continue you are going to have to prove this wrong in order for you question to have purpose.

[Anonymous No.3482617]

>>3482613
Sorry, as I corrected else-thread, the answer is:
>I am a militant agnostic in this regard. You do not have access to any more relevant evidence than I do, so you equally do not know. Any other answer is unacceptable.

[Anonymous No.3482618]

>>3482586
>Then it's not a "dude", it's an object. It's a naturalistic explanation for the universe, i.e unintelligent design.
Uhm, yeah, that's what I've been saying.

[Anonymous No.3482620]

>>3482614
Please stop making an idiot of yourself. Whether the universe has a smallest quanta is entirely independent of the proof that 0.999... repeating equals 1.

[Anonymous No.3482629]

>>3482618
>>3482618
>Uhm, yeah, that's what I've been saying

So you agree then that it is more likely that the cause of the universe was unintelligent? Then you cannot be agnostic.

[Anonymous No.3482632]

>>3482620
.999999... is an infinite recession that equals 1.
Its a mathematical demonstration of the validity of the paradox. Just admit you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.3482635]

>>3482632
I will admit no such thing. Copypasta ahoy!

Copypasta:

Basic Real Analysis. Real Numbers are defined as the set of all cauchy sequences of Rational Numbers (or equivalently with Dedekind Cuts), with some additional rules for addition, equivalent, and so on. With that definition, then it readily falls out that 0.999... (repeating) equals 1.

So, brief recap of Real Analysis. The Real Numbers are defined as the set of cauchy sequences over Rational Numbers. If the sequence converges to a Rational Number, then define that Real Number represented by that cauchy sequence as equal to that Rational Number. Throw on some rules for addition, subtraction, and so on, and voila.

So, what should we define 0.999 repeating to mean? More generally, what should we define a decimal expansion to mean? The following definition of this notation follows quite readily:

0.abcdef...
= 0 . [a sub 1] [a sub 2] [a sub 3] ...
= lim as n -> inf of sum as i = 1 to n of [(a sub i) / 10^i]

That is a cauchy sequence of Rational Numbers, and thus it is also a Real Number.

0.999 repeating
= 0 . [9] [9] [9] ...
= lim as n -> inf of sum as i = 1 to n of [9 / 10^i]
= 1

Basic calculus. I love it.

[Axel the Possum No.3482645]

>>3482614

0.999... equalling 1 cannot be correct in reality if the universe has discrete quanta. This is fact and does not change that 3/3 equals 1. The alternative is that the universe is an infinite recession downwards.

So, does the universe have an (impossible, by my opinion) infinite recession downwards, or does it have discrete quanta? Answer me.

[Anonymous No.3482649]

>>3482597
In string theory it is the smallest possible physical size (ie, the size of the strings)
In loop quantum gravity, a planck area (lp*lp) is the smallest possible area in space.
And in general you cannot make any differences at distances smaller than a planck length, so every point "between" A and B (if A and B are 1 planck length apart) are considered the same, but I guess that takes us in a philosophical direction of what it means for something to be different/same.

[Anonymous No.3482651]

>>3482645
>0.999... equalling 1 cannot be correct in reality if the universe has discrete quanta.
Goddamnit. Just shut up both of you and take a Real Analysis class. Stop being retards.

[Anonymous No.3482652]

>>3482645
>0.999... equalling 1 cannot be correct
This wrong. You should feel bad for saying this.

[Anonymous No.3482660]

>>3482635
A calculus teacher would say you still have not proved it is a Caucky sequence

[Anonymous No.3482667]

>>3482660
Yeah? And? I didn't prove much of anything in that. Just a very basic outline of the idea and the actual definition of a Real Number and a decimal expansion.

[Anonymous No.3482673]

>>3482651
>>3482652
>IN REALITY
protip: real numbers do not exist in reality.

[Anonymous No.3482676]

>>3482673
That's my point and the other anon's point exactly.

[Anonymous No.3482681]

>>3482667
Btw, do you reach the same definition of Real numbers with Dedekind Cuts

[Anonymous No.3482683]

>>3482649
>(if A and B are 1 planck length apart) are considered the same
They are considered the same as we cannot distinguish between them. But they are not the same.
Thats the point of calculus. 0/infinity<1/infinty<infinitya/infinityb assuming b>a.
The size of strings is smallest physical size of one thing. I could go into red shifts and distorting of space time which is why it appears to be the same.

[Anonymous No.3482688]

>>3482673
Are you saying the universe cannot be mathematically modeled.
If so please use a trip so that I may filter you.

[Axel the Possum No.3482692]

Well, this was stimulating, but I've gotta get to work. It's been fun.

[Anonymous No.3482693]

>>3482688
We're saying that the existence of real numbers is not a falsifiable assertion. They do not exist in the real world. They are an incredibly useful tool in modeling the real world.

Also, material facts about the real world mean nothing regarding proofs in math. Math is not science. Math is not evidence based.

[Anonymous No.3482695]

>>3482683
>They are considered the same as we cannot distinguish between them.
>But they are not the same.
Ok, what is the definition of two things being the same?

[Anonymous No.3482709]

>>3482688
>Are you saying the universe cannot be mathematically modeled.
No, I'm saying you cannot construct the number 0.999..., or pi, or e or root 2 in nature.

[Anonymous No.3482718]

>>3482695
For starter, being the same.
If Point A is one planck length from Point B which is one Planck length from Point C........and so on. Point CCAD which is 6.1871539834134776012651492465283878999066977179301247×10^34 planck lengths away would be the same. Yet its 1 meter away.

[Anonymous No.3482727]

>>3482709

Just draw a perfect circle of radius 1

[Anonymous No.3482741]

>>3482718
No, I mean you have two points, A and B.
What does it mean for these two points to be the same point?
If they are not the same point, how would you quantity the differences?

[Anonymous No.3482743]

>>3482429


Infinity in it's purest and truest definition does NOT exist and cannot exist, because if it existed it would not be infinity.

[Anonymous No.3482750]

>>3482709
> construct the number 0.999...,
It equals 1. Of course i can construct it.

[Anonymous No.3482754]

why does a thread with
"You don't need science,god is the answer to all your questions."
has over 70 posts?
ARE YOU PEOPLE THAT STUPID?
Are 2 samefags enough to kill sanity in this boad?

[Anonymous No.3482757]

>>3482709
Yo seem to be misunderstanding the math behind it. .99999999 can be constructed as it converges to a number. root 2 does not.

[Anonymous No.3482763]

>>3482709
Did you really say e doesnt exist in the real world.
Did you really say that.

[Anonymous No.3482765]

>>3482757

Doesnt <span class="math">\sqrt[2][/spoiler] converge to <span class="math">\sqrt[2][/spoiler]?

[Anonymous No.3482777]

>>3482765
root 2 does not converge to a number in nature. Sorry for leaving that ambiguous.

[Anonymous No.3482788]

>>3482743
Infinity exist within finite spaces. Read the thread. It's what we are debating now.

[Anonymous No.3482796]

>>3482695
To have the same properties. But conceptionally its needs to exist in the same point in and space at the same time with the same properties which cant happen so technically nothing is the same.

[Anonymous No.3482814]

>122 posts and 21 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.