Do you believe in Jim?

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Some people on some forums, are always saying in answer to a thread referring to God, "God doesn't exist so the question is irrelevant".
Which is all very fine but not very scientific.

There may or may not me E.T. races all over the Universe and on one planet in a galaxy, far far away there maybe a bloke called Jim.
He may have antenna and be blue but his name maybe Jim all the same.

Can you say that Jim exists?

the same question can equally be applied to God.

Does God exist?

Statistically, if he doesn't want to reveal himself, surely it must be 50:50 whether he exists or not.

If God where on the dark side of the moon(ie the side facing away from the Earth which I know is only dark part of the time) would you believe in that part of the moon and not God, even if you could see neither(ignoring the fact that there are now pictures of this part of the moon)?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
S
Does God exist?

Statistically, if he doesn't want to reveal himself, surely it must be 50:50 whether he exists or not.


No.

[jmercer]

Well, my name - or rather, my nickname - is Jim. And I know multiple other Jims.

Ergo, if one Jim exists, there is a possiblity of others existing. And since many other Jims demonstrably exist, there is sufficient proof to conclude that more Jims than we know of exist, since it is mathematically impossible to know of all the Jims in existence on this world alone.

Further, there is no reason I can think of that would preclude the existence of Jims on other planets - just not on all other planets. In conclusion, then, the answer to your poll is a logical "yes".

May the Jim be with you! ;)

However, I have not met anyone who was God. Nor do I have empirical knowledge of God. Therefore, if I were to apply the same criteria to that question, the answer would be "it is impossible to say without evidence" :D

[Beleth]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
There may or may not me E.T. races all over the Universe and on one planet in a galaxy, far far away there maybe a bloke called Jim.
He may have antenna and be blue but his name maybe Jim all the same.

Can you say that Jim exists?

the same question can equally be applied to God.Which God?

Does God exist?

Statistically, if he doesn't want to reveal himself, surely it must be 50:50 whether he exists or not.No. That's like saying "if you haven't been tested for HIV, surely it must be 50:50 that you have it."


If God where on the dark side of the moon(ie the side facing away from the Earth which I know is only dark part of the time) would you believe in that part of the moon and not God, even if you could see neither(ignoring the fact that there are now pictures of this part of the moon)? Nobody's ever argued that the far side of the Moon didn't exist.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Beleth
Nobody's ever argued that the far side of the Moon didn't exist.

Actually... I think some group did in the middle ages. I can't remember the details, it's been decades since I heard a comment like that...

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by Beleth
Which God?

No. That's like saying "if you haven't been tested for HIV, surely it must be 50:50 that you have it."




well before you open the envelope the chance of it being positive must be less than 1 and more than 0.

It would be like Schrodinger's cat(which is alive and dead at the same time), since you can't know, in a quantum world(where there maybe multiple universes) you do have HIV at the same time as you don't.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
well before you open the envelope the chance of it being positive must be less than 1 and more than 0.Ah, but that's quite different from saying that it's equal to 0.5.

[Rob Lister]

I would say that there is a very high degree of probability that Jim exists on some world, somewhere (for very broad interpretations of Jim). I would also say that there is a very low probability that God exists as a being or creature that we can comprehend (for most standard interpretations of God).

Jim is in.

God is out.

Jim is not self-contraditory*.

God is*.






*assumes certain rules of logic.

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
well before you open the envelope the chance of it being positive must be less than 1 and more than 0.

It would be like Schrodinger's cat(which is alive and dead at the same time), since you can't know, in a quantum world(where there maybe multiple universes) you do have HIV at the same time as you don't.

BEEEP.

wrong.

That is a flawed analogy.
If you are handed the envelope there is no uncertainty to what is inside. It is completely certain what is inside, maybe it isn't known to you what is inside, but that have nothing to do with Schrödinger's cat.

Schrödinger's cat state that you can't know what the status of the cat is, without defining it. That is, it can't be known till you test.

[TobiasTheViking]

Oh, and i would say, given the size of the universe, that it is improbable that there is no Jim out there somewhere.

I would also say that it is improbable that there is no God out there somewhere.

But that God would not have anything to do with the religions we have here on earth.. it would just be some entity that is known as God.. with no omniscent or omnipotent powers. (well, besides arthur c clarke's statement about magic :D).

The analogy about there being a Jim(some entity) out there, being somehow equalt to there being a God(omniscent & omnipotent entity that created the world the universe and everything) is wrong.

Sincerely
Tobias

[Rob Lister]

I would say that there is an 85% chance that TobiasTheCommie and DuckTapeFileMan are the same poster. I offer no odds as to whether or not his/her real name is Jim.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by Beleth
Ah, but that's quite different from saying that it's equal to 0.5.

OK, obviously not exactly 0.5 but more than zero. Somewhere in the range of 0 to1.


Mankind has its bulk of knowledge outside of which God may exist. To say that God exists=0 means that mankind knows everything which it clearly doesn't.

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I would say that there is an 85% chance that TobiasTheCommie and DuckTapeFileMan are the same poster. I offer no odds as to whether or not his/her real name is Jim.

wtf.. i contradicted him.

Oh, and unless DickTapeFileMan made the alias TobiasTheCommie 2-3 years ago(Registered a domain), upchurch can confirm that i'm not him.


What do you base it on?

Sincerely
Tobias

note: i'm not bothered, relax, though i am amused. :D

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by TobiasTheCommie
wtf.. i contradicted him.

Oh, and unless DickTapeFileMan made the alias TobiasTheCommie 2-3 years ago(Registered a domain), upchurch can confirm that i'm not him.


What do you base it on?

Sincerely
Tobias

note: i'm not bothered, relax, though i am amused. :D

Upchurch can indeed verify this. Do yo give him permission to do so?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
OK, obviously not exactly 0.5 but more than zero. Somewhere in the range of 0 to1.I can only base what you believe on what you post. You said that the chance of a bashful God existing must be 50:50. That's what I was taking to task; now that you have stepped away from that assertion, we can move on.

Mankind has its bulk of knowledge outside of which God may exist. To say that God exists=0 means that mankind knows everything which it clearly doesn't. And again I ask, which God are you referring to? Specifically, what are the defining characteristics of the God your statements pertain to? There are certain definitions of God that I have heard that I could say, Yes, I am certain that no entity exists that fits that definition.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
OK, obviously not exactly 0.5 but more than zero. Somewhere in the range of 0 to1.

Thanks for narrowing that one down for us. :rolleyes:

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by TobiasTheCommie
BEEEP.

wrong.

That is a flawed analogy.
If you are handed the envelope there is no uncertainty to what is inside. It is completely certain what is inside, maybe it isn't known to you what is inside, but that have nothing to do with Schrödinger's cat.

Schrödinger's cat state that you can't know what the status of the cat is, without defining it. That is, it can't be known till you test.


If you think that then I think that you haven't grasped the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment.

As long as the person who has the HIV test only has the test because they want to know rather than because they feel ill, the person exists in a quantum state of uncertainty as to whether they have HIV, PLUS and this is what I think that you are thinking of, they exist in a universe where the people who ran that test both think that they have HIV and that they don't.
If they either meet and ask these technicians or open the envelope to read the results this uncertainty collapses.

Such is the nature of our conscious interaction with the Universe.

Such is the quantum nature of consciousness.

And this is where God's power is derived.

This is why miracles require faith.

Faith allows God to intervene in your experience of reality and thus in reality it self.


Or at least this is my understanding of things.

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
Upchurch can indeed verify this. Do yo give him permission to do so?

I don't see that it matters, and i do find it amusing that he thinks i'm an alias.. but sure, for the matter of clarity, i grant him the permission, if he feels like it.

the alias should have been generated 3rd of the december 2003. so i guess if i were an alias, i should just have been really patient :D


I would still like to know why i sound like an alias(with 85% probability)

Sincerely
Tobias

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by Beleth And again I ask, which God are you referring to? Specifically, what are the defining characteristics of the God your statements pertain to? There are certain definitions of God that I have heard that I could say, Yes, I am certain that no entity exists that fits that definition. [/B]

well the God that made the Universe 15billion years ago of course.

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
If you think that then I think that you haven't grasped the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment.

As long as the person who has the HIV test only has the test because they want to know rather than because they feel ill, the person exists in a quantum state of uncertainty as to whether they have HIV, PLUS and this is what I think that you are thinking of, they exist in a universe where the people who ran that test both think that they have HIV and that they don't.
If they either meet and ask these technicians or open the envelope to read the results this uncertainty collapses.

Such is the nature of our conscious interaction with the Universe.

Such is the quantum nature of consciousness.

And this is where God's power is derived.

This is why miracles require faith.

Faith allows God to intervene in your experience of reality and thus in reality it self.


Or at least this is my understanding of things.

Hmm.. there may( i find this highly unlikely ) be two quantum states, where the client in one of them believes the letter says positive, in the other he believes it says negative, but in both of them, the content of the envelope will be the same. There is no insecurity in that.

I also believe Schrödingers cat wouldn't work on a macro level, though i may be wrong here.

I think the entire test with the cat is just a metaphor.

Sincerely
Tobas

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by TobiasTheCommie
I don't see that it matters, and i do find it amusing that he thinks i'm an alias.. but sure, for the matter of clarity, i grant him the permission, if he feels like it. As member privacy is rather important to me, I will be very carefull how I word this. I won't release any specifics, but TobiasTheCommie and DuckTapeFileMan lack a sufficient number of key indicators that those two accounts are used by a single person.

In other words, I am comfortably certain that this is not a case of sock puppetry.


eta: BTW, not that I think this is the case here, but sleeper-socks are not unprecidented on this board. We had a run with a commercial spammer not too long ago who we found just such an account that pre-dated all the ones we knew about.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
well the God that made the Universe 15billion years ago of course. And that's it?

Nothing about specially creating humans? Or sending prophets or sons to Earth to talk about His magnificence? No answering prayers, or performing miracles, or appearing to the faithful?

[DuckTapeFileMan]

I think the Schrödingers cat experiment is all about the knowing whether the cat is alive or dead.

Once you know the uncertainty collapses.

It is difficult to see how the cat thing can be anything other than a wild extreme but there maybe something to it on a macroscopic scale.

After all how can you ever "know" that the cat is either alive or dead. You need eyes to see and there must be a level of uncertainty that your eyes are faulty or that you are hallucinating or dreaming or plugged into a VR world run by aliens or any number of other possibilities.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by Beleth
And that's it?

Nothing about specially creating humans? Or sending prophets or sons to Earth to talk about His magnificence? No answering prayers, or performing miracles, or appearing to the faithful?

No.

[KingMerv00]

Theoretically, an omnipotent god could have any characteristics. Therefore, there are an infinite number of possible gods.

1/infinity = 0

The odds of you worshiping the correct god is zero.


Edit: tongue in cheek...well kinda.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
No. Okay then.

In that case, it just so happens that I do believe that a God of that type exists.

I can't say it with certainty - I can't say that I know a God of that type exists - but I can say that I believe that one exists.

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I would say that there is an 85% chance that TobiasTheCommie and DuckTapeFileMan are the same poster. I offer no odds as to whether or not his/her real name is Jim.

So... now you have it from upchurch.. Granted i could still be a plant from 3rd of december 2003, there really is no way i can prove i'm not.

But i would really like to know :D i find it highly amusing.

Sincerely
Tobias

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
I think the Schrödingers cat experiment is all about the knowing whether the cat is alive or dead.

Once you know the uncertainty collapses.

It is difficult to see how the cat thing can be anything other than a wild extreme but there maybe something to it on a macroscopic scale.

After all how can you ever "know" that the cat is either alive or dead. You need eyes to see and there must be a level of uncertainty that your eyes are faulty or that you are hallucinating or dreaming or plugged into a VR world run by aliens or any number of other possibilities.

Hmm... no.

It have nothing to do with anyone knowing the state.

For instance, you can setup the Schrödinger's Cat experiment.
Let it wait for an hour.

At this point we can't know if the cat is dead or alive. so (if we say this work on a Macro level, which i doubt), the cat will both be alive and dead.

So, after an hour we test the air inside the box, to see if the air is toxic.

We get the result. at this point the cat is either dead or alive(we don't know which, but it is no longer both of them).

When someone reads the paper, it is known what state it is in. But as soon as the air was tested, there were no longer two possibilities.

IAMAP(so someone correct me if i'm wrong, this is just how i interpret it)

Sincerely
Tobias

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by TobiasTheCommie
Hmm... no.

It have nothing to do with anyone knowing the state.



But what is knowing? Do you really know?;)

It must be a state of mind, perhaps it actually
is the collapse of uncertainty waves.

Perhaps it is self defining.

Knowing= the collapse of probability wave functions in the world/mind model.

There fore before you "know" whether the cat is alive or dead or before you know if there is poison in the box, then the cat is alive and dead at the same time.

Of course the explanation for this is that there are many Universes and that in some it is alive and in some it is dead it is just this uncertainty as to which Universe you are in is unresolved until the box is opened and there can only be one state.

[TobiasTheViking]

you missed my point... sorry if i didn't state it well enough..

The blood for the client that wants an HIV test is taken.

It is added to some... thing.. that can test the blood.

At this point we will have a mixture of states ( a wavefunction).

Once the test have been completed the wavefunction collapses.. EVEN if no human have looked at the result of the test.

The same with the cat.
As soon as the test is performed, the wavefunction collapses, and the system stop existing as a mixture of states and become one or the other.

Again, even if no human have looked at the result.


I still don't think there is a mixture of states with the HIV test, i think it is too big for there to be a wavefunction involved.

So.. my argument(just one last time in this post):

The test is made, the wavefunction collapses.
The scientist(or client) waits 24 hours, then looks at the result.
In those 24 hours there have NOT been a wavefunction, it collapsed as soon as the test was made. it does not collapse when the result is read, but when the test is made.

Sincerely
Tobias

sorry if i sound condensending, not the intend, just want to make sure we don't talk past each other again. :D

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
OK, obviously not exactly 0.5 but more than zero.


No. Lots of things about which we know nothing are impossible.

I could, for example, give you a sample and ask you to perform a pregnancy test on it. Unbeknowns to you, the sample was taken from a man.

Since you don't know that the sample was taken from a man, does that make the chance of him being pregnant "more than zero"? I should think not.

[TobiasTheViking]

haha :D

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan

Knowing= the collapse of probability wave functions in the world/mind model.


No.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by new drkitten
No.

no?

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
no?

no
adv.

1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I'm not going. No, you're wrong.
2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more.
3. Not: whether or no.

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=no)

[DuckTapeFileMan]

can you be sure of this information?:D

[DuckTapeFileMan]

I'm offering the DuckTape prize of 50pence for the first person that can prove behond doubt that "no" means Not: whether or no.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

no dictionaries will count. They are circumstantial.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
no
adv.

1. Used to express refusal, denial, disbelief, emphasis, or disagreement: No, I'm not going. No, you're wrong.
2. Not at all; not by any degree. Often used with the comparative: no better; no more.
3. Not: whether or no.

Source (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=no) Ten points!

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
no dictionaries will count. They are circumstantial. Dictionaries are circumstantial? Whaaa....?

[DuckTapeFileMan]

All right dictionarys are hearsay...

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
no dictionaries will count. They are circumstantial.
Could you clarify this? I would have assumed it was disallowing the use of dictionaries. However, this assumption relies upon the common usage of the word no, which, as it is the very thing under discussion here, must surely itself be disallowed from the formulation of the rules.

All right dictionarys are hearsay...
What are the wrong dictionaries?

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
Could you clarify this? I would have assumed it was disallowing the use of dictionaries. However, this assumption relies upon the common usage of the word no, which, as it is the very thing under discussion here, must surely itself be disallowed from the formulation of the rules.


What are the wrong dictionaries?


Dictionaries compiled by organic life forms using hearsay.-DISALLOWED

Dictionaries compiled by mathematics based upon statistical usage of words-ACCEPTED.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
Dictionaries compiled by organic life forms using hearsay.-DISALLOWED

Dictionaries compiled by mathematics based upon statistical usage of words-ACCEPTED.
I was unaware that mathematics went aound compiling things. Could it make me a nice cup of tea while it's at it?

[Z]

There is no Jim. There is only the awareness of being Jim. In truth, all awareness are had by/projected upon Hank.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
Dictionaries compiled by organic life forms using hearsay.-DISALLOWED

Dictionaries compiled by mathematics based upon statistical usage of words-ACCEPTED.

That's an interesting description of the process of compiling dictionaries.

It's wrong, of course.

First, mathematics doesn't compile dictionaries. Even mathematicians don't compile dictionaries. There are some lexicographers who are more statistical than others -- the Collins COBUILD dictionary is a good example, but the process is largely the same irrespective of who does it. Whether by hand or by machine, the lexicographer will compile a list of all the available uses of a word from a large sample of text (one area in which COBUILD differs from, for example, the Oxford English Dictionary is that the OED takes its sample mostly from works of recognized literary merit, while COBUILD comes mostly from the British National Corpus or something similar) and then categorize all the uses, almost always by hand.

But if you want to dig up a copy of COBUILD and post its definition of "no," so that we can see how the word's use in Birmingham differs from the Shakespearian, you're welcome to.

Otherwise, I simply suggest you stop digging yourself even deeper into a hole.

[DuckTapeFileMan]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I was unaware that mathematics went aound compiling things. Could it make me a nice cup of tea while it's at it?

you could ask, but it usually adds too much sugar.

[Mephisto]

my belief in Jim is a known-known-unknown (I believe Jim exists, I know Jim, I don't know all the Jims there are to know).
;)

[DuckTapeFileMan]

I suppose an equally important question is, "Does Jim believe in us?"

[Marquis de Carabas]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
I suppose an equally important question is, "Does Jim believe in us?"
I would agree that this is precisely as important a question.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
I would say that there is a very high degree of probability that Jim exists on some world, somewhere (for very broad interpretations of Jim). I would also say that there is a very low probability that God exists as a being or creature that we can comprehend (for most standard interpretations of God).

Jim is in.

God is out.

Jim is not self-contraditory*.

God is*.


*assumes certain rules of logic.

Why, thank you - you have my blessing. :D

Jim

[jmercer]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
There is no Jim. There is only the awareness of being Jim. In truth, all awareness are had by/projected upon Hank.

I'm sorry, but you have distorted my Jimnity, affronted my Jimliness, and frankly, have taken advantage of my Jimerosity. Unlike Rob, you do not have my blessing.

But never fear - should you recant and realize that Jim is everywhere, everywhen and utterly unique, you can be saved. :D

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Mephisto
my belief in Jim is a known-known-unknown (I believe Jim exists, I know Jim, I don't know all the Jims there are to know).
;)

My dear Mephisto. Have I not told you that to know Jim is to know all Jims? For we are united and pervasive! ;) :D

[jmercer]

Originally posted by DuckTapeFileMan
I suppose an equally important question is, "Does Jim believe in us?"

That depends. How much money are you planning on donating before I answer? ;)

[jmercer]

Originally posted by Marquis de Carabas
I would agree that this is precisely as important a question.

Not at all, my dear Marquis! It is infinitely more important that I believe in you than you believe in me! For after all... if we Jims stop believing in you, then you will be condemned to the mediocrity of (shudder) Sams... or perhaps Roy's... or even worse, mayhap a Jack or Tom!

[Piscivore]

I am the Son of Jim.

[TobiasTheViking]

Originally posted by Piscivore
I am the Son of Jim.

* TobiasTheViking crucifies Piscivore

Not any more you aren't.

HAHAHAHAHAHA.

And that's not even all.. i have crucified you.. in a field of crucified... METHODISTS.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAH

[c4ts]

Jim is my uncle. I usually see him in the summer when I visit my other cousins. He is an oceanographer who helped invent some kind of dredging method, the details of which are lost to me. Anyway, hail Jim!