Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Problem with the Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
Posts
Another way to stretch the definition would be to count "infinite" as stretching across time, as well. Given that time is not, cosmologically speaking, fundamentally different from space, this would be entirely reasonable. So in your (very boring) universe, cell phones would exist. They would simply exist at a future point in time, just as you can say that bears exists at a different point in space from where you are. Would you say bears don't exist because there's not one in your lap?
...
Is telling a gay man to imagine a bear sitting in his lap a bad idea? Did I just turn you on, or something?
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Not-gravity means that masses are not attracted to each other. A universe without gravity would likely consist of nothing more than a bunch of hydrogen atoms floating through space. Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by not-gravity.
You know, like gravity. Only less so.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Based on current, general knowledge, more or less like free fall, on an individual scale.
Unless you mean things like stars not being able to form.
How are they even floating? Wouldn't floating still be a function of gravity?
Gravity can be loosely defined as "a force of attraction between objects of mass." Thus, not-gravity would be "not a force of attraction between objects of mass", or, no force. So... space?
Steam: DigitalArcanist | XBoxLive: DigitalArcanist | PSN: DigitalArcanist | Backloggery: Houn
Floating was perhaps a poor choice of word then. A bunch of hydrogen atoms moving through space.
"Floating" is a term used to describe something which is ignoring gravity. So imagine that everything ignores gravity. There you go. For a 2D version, stick a bunch of pennies on your table. Watch them. What are they doing? Nothing? Well, there you go.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
How are they even moving?
edit* and, inferentially, how did they even come to be without gravity?
The surface grammar of this statement--noun verb object--seems to imply that Being is a thing, and that it presences us. Or, in other words, I exist because I am being presenced by Being. Furthermore, the reason some other things do not exist is because they can't be presenced by Being.
This seems like an excessively complicated and undesirably theory of what exists and why. I am not sure what explanatory virtues are met by the introduction of a Being which presences everything--it does not seem to contribute any additional understanding over and above simply admitting the brute fact that things do exist. Furthermore, I find it preferable to explain why logically impossible things don't exist by just saying that they're logically impossible, rather than referring to a cosmic inability for Being to presence them. The concept of logical impossibility is on its own sufficient, when understood, to explain why there never have been and there never will be any round squares.
Of course, most people do not think that gravity is logically necessary, or the lack of gravity is logically impossible. So perhaps you are referring to nomological possibility--namely, the notion of possibility that refers to compatibility with physical law. But again, I do not see why saying that Being is only able to presence things in accordance with physical law sheds any additional understanding on the subject over and above merely saying that things only exist in accordance with physical law. And finally, we do often talk and think about things that are nomologically impossible, like Santa Claus, so I don't think that you are actually referring to nomological possibility when you talk about what being can and cannot presence, if you think that everything we talk about exists in some extended sense.
I think that there are a few important points. Namely, that Being itself is not a being, but rather is that presencing which beings themselves rely on. It is not merely that "Things exist," but that things exist only because there is being. Of course an analytic-adherent like yourself is going to view that as possibly irrelevant, along with other questions like "can there be Being without beings?" You are entitled to rejecting the questions, but I feel that you are thus ignoring the fundamental problems of philosophy (besides ethics -- I believe that ethics is the ultimate goal of philosophy, but that it need a sound metaphysics and epistemology to function). I refuse to say that "well existence just is" and I wish to see if we can possibly understand it.
Things like santa claus are hard because they border on impossibility. We can imagine time travel (like going back in time) but only by ignoring necessary laws of time and physics. We can also make star wars laser guns that shot little slow laser beams, but that is pure imagination-synthesizing, not existential possibility.
Fine. Imagine that same universe, but they wipe themselves out during the cold war. They never invent the cell phone, because they are all dead. The cell phone was still possible, in the normal sense, but it never exists anywhere in the space-time of that universe. If you say that the cell phone must consequently have actually been impossible in that universe, then all you've done is defined possibility in such a way that it's coextensive with actuality.
And who says a universe with infinite empty space isn't infinite? It's brimming with vacuum energy. We could even say it's full of dust, if you'd like.
Modern Physics, Sophmore year of college? Or do you need me to explain how space-time was discovered?
They are moving, presumably, because of kinetic energy given to them during that universes big bang. Hydrogen atoms do not require gravity to exist, their behaviour is governed by the strong and weak nuclear forces and eletromagnetism.
Technically there is a non-zero change that any object will spontaneously generate (if my understanding of QP is up-to-date). In other words, its entirely possible for a ham sandwich to magically appear in front of you... its just so improbable that it wouldn't occur in the lifetime of a galaxy. However, if there were infinite galaxies, even if the possibility was 1/10^google^google it would still be inevitable.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Gravity is in no way necessary for motion. If you are in deep space where the influence of gravity is negligible and you throw an object it still moves.
As for the second question, I am in no way an expert in big bang cosmology so I can't really answer that question (I couldn't answer it with gravity either). Also note that gravity isn't what holds atoms together. The strong nuclear force is what does that.
I think you perhaps have a different definition of gravity to me. My definition of gravity is the attractive force that masses exert on each other. I am claiming that this is in no way some kind of logical necessity and that a universe without this can be imagined.
Not so. Probability cannot lead to inevitability. No matter how many coins you flip, there remains the possibility of every one coming up heads.
I thought that kinetic energy was still only possible based on gravity, so I might be misunderstanding. Ultimately, I think that it is impossible to know a world of matter without gravity, but that could just be my ignorance of physics. Nevertheless, there are certain things like time and space and the laws of logic and existence which seem necessary.
Technically the probability of an infinite amount of coins coming up heads would be zero.
None of these things are necessary.
It's spelled "googol". Google misspelled it and the name stuck. Ooops.
It is fairly doubtful that we'll see completely eye-to-eye on this, because we're drawing from different schools of thought that are largely at odds about the validity of and answers to these questions. My skepticism of your position in this particular instance is largely based off of concerns in the Philosophy of Science over what counts as an explanation and what counts as an explanatory virtue.
I see your introduction of being as an explanation for existence as something akin to 19th century scientists' resort to a 'soporific essence' to explain why opium made people sleepy. Saying that opium has a soporific essence does not explain why it makes people sleepy--saying it has a soporific essence is just a restatement of the fact that it makes people sleepy, not an explanation for that fact. Similarly, I don't see your notion of being as contributing anything that could count as an explanation. Although, granted, I find the language in which it's presented to be somewhat impenetrable, and so I might not have your idea completely pegged down.
Similarly, I think that there is a point at which explanation comes to an end--there are some facts which are simply brute facts, and for which there is no further explanation possible. If there weren't such brute facts, then there would have to be an infinite regress of explanation, 'why' question after 'why' question, with no end. Not only does such a regress seem impossible to ever successfully answer, but it's implausible that it would be of serious interest. Hence, we accept brute facts. My suspicion is that "things exist" can be explained in terms of the origin of the universe and its physical laws, but that once you go into a certain amount of depth there, you're going to run into some brute facts. Why was the universe the way it was at t=0? It just was.
Well, that's a meaningless statement, really— you can't flip an infinite amount of coins. Practically, if you write a program to flip a coin until it comes up heads, there's nothing preventing it from running forever.
I don't think that "existence" has any explanatory value. In fact, it is necessary that we understand what existence means. We never seem to use "is" inappropriately. We know what existence means, we just describe it based upon an Aristo-Platonic tradition which has become apodictically true. We have a hard time discussing being. It cannot explain anything. Rather, ontology needs to be clarified. I think that the ontological argument results in problems which most people just gloss over. I'm interested in seeing how they account for the problems. I have some ideas, but mostly I don't think they are much better.
You looking at it through an epistemological lens, though. Because it seems like even at t=0, there is still some sort of Being which, again, presences whatever being resulted.
Incorrect. Technically, the limit of the probability of not hitting heads as the number of flips approaches infinity is 0. That is not the same thing at all, technically, as the probability being zero.
Except in an infinite universe, there will exist another planet exactly like our Earth, except we didn't wipe ourselves out before we invented the cell phone. There are infinitely many of them, in fact.
Then it's not empty, is it? As Pants implied, an infinite universe filled with vacuum energy is going to be spontaneously generating cell phones all over the damned place.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
And a probability is simply a limit so the distinction is pedantic.
ed with explanation
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In layman's terms, a coin flipped an infinite number of times will eventually hit heads. It's impossible to discuss things like this without making some semantic concessions, because in practice "an infinite number of coin flips" doesn't exist. If you can talk about something happening infinity times, you can talk about the zero probability of something not happening.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
What? Since when are probabilities limits?
Something like 70% of the total energy in the universe is supposed to be the energy of space itself. So there really is no such thing as "empty space"
Dark energy is confusing. I don't understand it.
A probability is the ratio of "successes" to number of trials as the number of trials approaches infinity. The difference in the expected result and from the true probability as the number of trials approaches infinity approaches zero for an infinite number of infinite trials. Therefore the probability of non-occurrence given infinite trials with a non-zero probability is zero.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
No. You cna't slip it "an infinite number of times" in the first place because "infinite" is not a number. The difference if logically and mathematically important, because it prevents you from making mistakes like thinking that a probability can ever equal an inevitability.
A coin flipped an infinite number of times will hit heads half the time. Jesus, people, have you never heard of the Law of Large Numbers?
Or, put another way
Think of space as an ocean?
Well when I say it's confusing I mean I could not tell you why space itself has such energy associated with it. I could say to think of space as an ocean but I could not tell you why you should think that.
From the same wiki page:
A coin flipped an infinite number of times will almost surely hit heads half the time. However, it is no less likely for each one to turn up heads than for any other specific sequence of heads and tails, and as any number of flips must result in some specific sequence, all heads remains a possibility into infinity.
What are the odds of God being flipped on his head in an infinite universe filled with cell phones from the 50s?
I think.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Perhaps certain things are necessary a priori. The Principle of Identity, for instance, seems to be necessary for existence to function. Time and space, likewise, are necessary for there to be existence.
And this could be something necessary a posteriori. It is not necessary that there be humans (as traditionally defined) but if there are humans, it is necessary that each human has a biological mother and father. (I'm a little shaky about explaining a posteriori necessity, so if you are interested, you should check out some of Kripke's stuff ) Again, santa claus might be considered something like "fictionally existential." There is no reason a unicorn can't be possible -- it just isn't. Something like Santa Claus is impossible (a being who delivers toys to every child in one night), but we meld together fictions to form him.
This is interesting to me, the idea of "brute facts," because I think that philosophy and science and any discipline concerned with knowledge is founded upon the acceptance of brute facts - with the hope of penetrating further and making them less...brutish?
What you are proposing is that, in the causal chain of existence, or in the explanatory chain of reality, in the long line of "why"s that exist behind all knowledge, there is a terminus. This is because the alternative is an infinite regress which, I agree, is untenable; plus it engenders yet another "why," as in "why is there an infinite regress?"
Accepting that terminus as a brute fact could mean two things, in my view, but I'm not sure which you support, and I'm not even sure which I believe.
1) An ontological claim: you could mean that existence, and whatever other fundamental brute fact you would posit, "just is," and there's nothing more to it; there's no explanation, there's no cause, there's no reason, there's nothing. It "just is." I find that enormously unsatisfactory, and essentially equivalent to pleading ignorance.
2) An epistemological claim: You could also mean that such a brute fact is beyond the horizon of human knowledge and human potential knowledge, including all scientific discovery or philosophical inquiry or whatever you want to try. This is unsatisfactory, but in a nice, pleasant way, a way that suggest humility and limitation. Nonetheless, it remains unsatisfying, as we are capable of "understanding" by proxy many things that we are not really equipped to conceptualize directly, like imaginary numbers, five or more dimensions, the mathematical consequences of nothingness and infinity, etc.
But how could one talk about anything without existence? If humans are creatures of language, whether by history or genetics, we still can only think and speak in terms of beings. Being is not something that "just is." Rather, Being leaves no definitive trace to allow itself to be discovered. Hence Derrideans who speak of the différenace within Being itself.