I don't see how this follows. How does the number of configurations of things make something more likely than nothing? — Harry Hindu

It's basic probability theory. Imagine 10 differently coloured balls in a bag, You select one at random. What is the probability it is the blue ball? 0.1. What is the probability it is a not-blue ball? 0.9. There is only one configuration of blue, but nine configurations of not-blue. Replace the concept of blue with the concept of nothing and the other nine colours with nine different somethings and repeat.

Exactly. What came before determines what comes after. How does nothing begat something? — Harry Hindu

Read on and find out.

Then not something isn't necessarily nothing. — Harry Hindu

Something is at least ONE. Mathematically Something >= 1. If that's true not something < 1 and that's ZERO and ZERO's nothing. It appears that something has a quantitative definition and so, I suppose, should everything and nothing.

"nothing" is just an idea — Harry Hindu

Nothing is not an idea. Nothing is not a thing, it can't be an idea because an idea is a thing. As I mentioned above, the concepts in question seem to be quantitative and so, nothing is the { }, the empty set, and numerically, nothing = n({ }) = 0 where n({ }) means the number of things in the empty set { }.

That out of the way, it needs to be pointed out that nothing in the metaphysical sense refers to the absence of physical stuff, the absence of particles, the 31 fundamental particles that, in various combinations, constitute all matter. The fundamental question of metaphysics seeks an explanation for the existence of matter and the nothing is meant here is the absence of matter, not necessarily the absence of space and time even thought both space and time are something in some sense.

To say that there is no way of knowing indicates that we are definitely talking about ourselves and not some objective feature of reality. I guess the question is, how do we determine if probabilities are objective or subjective? — Harry Hindu

Poor choice of words on my part. We know that some natural phenomena are probabilistic like radioactivity and quantum physics is what I should've said. My bad.

That’s right. There’s no way of knowing. Nothing to do with either subjectivity or objectivity. It’s not as if there’s an unknown cause, but that events on this level are truly unpredictable. That is the basis of Einstein’s objection about ‘God playing dice’. But unfortunately for Einstein, and Harry, there’s no way in which ‘things truly are’ — Wayfarer

:ok:

It's basic probability theory. Imagine 10 differently coloured balls in a bag, You select one at random. — Kenosha Kid

How does one select one at random? If we knew all the pre-existing conditions, like the position of the balls vs. your hand. If you knew all the pre-existing conditions, you'd know which ball you'd pick. It only seems random because you're ignorant if all the pre-existing conditions.

This all assumes that nothing is a possible option and MadFool has yet to show evidence that it is anything other than an idea.

How does one select one at random? — Harry Hindu

That is irrelevant to analogy.

I'm asking, how is something randomly chosen?

I'm asking, how is something randomly chosen? — Harry Hindu

And I'm telling you: the mechanics of a thought experiment are irrelevant to the thought experiment. That's what makes it a thought experiment.

Something is at least ONE. Mathematically Something >= 1. If that's true not something < 1 and that's ZERO and ZERO's nothing. It appears that something has a quantitative definition and so, I suppose, should everything and nothing. — TheMadFool

But you just showed that NOT one bachelor does not equal nothing, but one of something else. You're moving the goal posts.

That out of the way, it needs to be pointed out that nothing in the metaphysical sense refers to the absence of physical stuff, — TheMadFool

Does this mean that your imagination is nothing?


And I'm telling you that you are wrong.

But unfortunately for Einstein, and Harry, there’s no way in which ‘things truly are’ — Wayfarer

That's odd, because you seem to be saying that the way things truly are is that Einstein and I are wrong.

And I'm telling you that you are wrong. — Harry Hindu

Uh huh. Well if you want to demonstrate rather than insist on it, be my guest. But since it's not relevant, don't expect a rapt audience.

Something is at least ONE. Mathematically Something >= 1. If that's true not something < 1 and that's ZERO and ZERO's nothing. It appears that something has a quantitative definition and so, I suppose, should everything and nothing. — TheMadFool

If you have five pigs in a pen and I steal all of your pigs, you don't have nothing. Air now fills the space where the pigs were. You have yet to show that not something necessarily means nothing. You have yet to show that nothing is anything more than an idea. What does the scribble, "nothing" refer to?

Uh huh. Well if you want to demonstrate rather than insist on it, be my guest. But since it's not relevant, don't expect a rapt audience. — Kenosha Kid

Its your thought experiment with words that already assume what your thought experiment is trying to prove.

Its your thought experiment with words that already assume what your thought experiment is trying to prove. — Harry Hindu

The thought experiment sought to prove nothing. It was meant as an illustration. Ill-advisedly, perhaps, given that it is generally impossible to determine from your responses whether you've understood anything or not. Alternatively, I could just response: go and read some basic probability theory, but you'd probably question your text book's existence :D

By showing that the existence of something is more probable than the existence of nothing, you didn't answer the question. Even if the probability of something to exist was 0.0000001%, "something" could still win against nothing. And even if the probability was hugely in favor of something, the result could still had been that nothing exist. So this kind of analysis doesn't really provide a satiafying answer, and I doubt that even shows that "something" is more probable than nothing, since we are starting from the premise that every outcome is equiprobable. This premise it is not grounded in empirical observation, as ALL probability statements should be, but only on our complete ignorance about the subject.

If you have five pigs in a pen and I steal all of your pigs, you don't have nothing. Air now fills the space where the pigs were — Harry Hindu

Domain of discourse.

you didn't answer the question — L'Unico

Why not?

Something is at least ONE. So, the possibility of 1 thing or the possibility of 2 things...or the possibility of n things are all something

Nothing is just 1 of the possibilities

The probability of something = n/(n+1). As n approaches infinity and it does, n/(n+1) = 100%. It's goes without saying that something must exist.

Domain of discourse. — TheMadFool

Discourse and ideas are still about something, even when talking and thinking about nothing. Zero is just another concept about the quantity of something. 0 what? 0 is meaningless unless you are talking about the number of something.

Discourse and ideas are still about something, even when talking and thinking about nothing. Zero is just another concept about the quantity of something. 0 what? 0 is meaningless unless you are talking about the number of something — Harry Hindu

:up:

The thought experiment sought to prove nothing. It was meant as an illustration. Ill-advisedly, perhaps, given that it is generally impossible to determine from your responses whether you've understood anything or not. Alternatively, I could just response: go and read some basic probability theory, but you'd probably question your text book's existence :D — Kenosha Kid

I just dont see whats so difficult in explaining your use of terms . Random is a term that assumes that your choices are probable, so you didnt really do much thinking in your thought experiment. Just saying.

Domain of discourse. — TheMadFool

I should also add that discourse in one domain should not contradict the discourse in another domain. All knowledge must be integrated.

And I'm telling you: the mechanics of a thought experiment are irrelevant to the thought experiment. That's what makes it a thought experiment. — Kenosha Kid

Except when the mechanics of probability and randomness are what are being questioned.

I should also add that discourse in one domain should not contradict the discourse in another domain. All knowledge must be integrated. — Harry Hindu

But if our domain of discourse is pigs, it doesn't make sense to talk of sonar. Pigs, unlike bats, dolphins, whales and some birds, don't possess that ability. Category mistake?

I just dont see whats so difficult in explaining your use of terms . Random is a term that assumes that your choices are probable, so you didnt really do much thinking in your thought experiment. Just saying. — Harry Hindu

I've just learned from experience how to spot a patented HH derailment and don't think this thread is an appropriate place to explain why thought experiments don't need exhaustive blueprints. If you're interested in learning about probability theory, go and do so.

Problem is if there were nothing there'd be no probability, and once there is probability there is already something.

once there is probability there is already something. — Janus

exactly!

I've just learned from experience how to spot a patented HH derailment and don't think this thread is an appropriate place to explain why thought experiments don't need exhaustive blueprints. If you're interested in learning about probability theory, go and do so. — Kenosha Kid

This is typical KK. Are you and Banno long lost twins?

Why don't you learn about epistemological probability. Probabilities are simply degrees of belief.

Problem is if there were nothing there'd be no probability, and once there is probability there is already something. — Janus

It's not just that. Nothing is an imaginary concept. Nothing is actually something - an idea.

What about zero probability (ie. impossibility)? Is impossibility something? Like nothing, impossibility is a concept, not something that exists ontologically, as what is impossible, by definition, cannot exist.

Let's say that there is a probability that the sun rises tomorrow. What is that probability? How is it determined? Let's say that you assigned the probability 99%. When the sun rises tomorrow, is the probability still 99%? If not, what changed and why? What are we actually talking about when we talk about the probabilty of the sun rising tomorrow - our knowledge, or some objective feature of the sun?

Why do we only assign probabilities to future events, and not past ones or present ones, if probabilities were objective?

Why don't you learn about epistemological probability. — Harry Hindu

We're discussing statistics, not epistemology. That is, we are discussing probabilities as they might still apply even in the absence of holders of beliefs, the sorts of probabilities applicable in discussing the early universe, for instance.

We're discussing statistics, not epistemology. That is, we are discussing probabilities as they might still apply even in the absence of holders of beliefs, the sorts of probabilities applicable in discussing the early universe, for instance. — Kenosha Kid

Then probabilities are tools for discussing the early universe? Are probabilities useful for discussing how the early universe actually was, or how we believe it was? How do you tell the difference?

Why are probabilties applicable for discussing things that we don't know, or can't observe, and not applicable to things that we know or do observe? Seems to me that this distinction shows that probabilities are epistimelogical. What is the probability that the sun rose this morning? What is the probability that it will rise tomorrow?

If you are able to eliminate all doubt, would you still have probabilities? It seems to me that doubt/ignorance and probabilities go hand in hand. If you eliminated your doubt and there still exist probabilities, then did you really eliminate all of your doubt? It seems to me that doubt/ignorance and probabilities are inherently linked, or even one and the same, as probabilities are degrees of doubt/belief. If the probability of something occurring is 99%, then the probability of it not occurring is 1%. The 99% represents your belief, and the 1% represents your doubt.

You are right that there are far more configurations of things than of nothing, making something more likely over time. — Kenosha Kid

Using this example, there are far more configurations of god than of not-god, making the existence of god more likely over time.

It's not the possible number of configurations that exist that make something more likely than not. The possible configurations are all just manifestations of our ignorance of the actual configuration. It is pre-existing conditions that make something more likely than not, like the actual number of balls in a jar, which hand you used to choose a ball, how deep you push your hand into the jar, whether or not you had your eyes closed, etc.