You have not specified the order.
You are shifting the goalposts. Your post asked: “Do you accept the Universal Probability Bound?” and just that. Nothing at all about “specified”. The UPB is essentially useless, in that many events break it easily. Assembling the material for a single grain of sand breaks the UPB. How many grains of sand are there in the universe?
You are assuming a random shuffle. If you are not modelling a random process, then you cannot use a model based on random (name removed by moderator)uts. To take a specific example, what is the chance of finding a piece of DNA reading: “AAAAAAAAAA … AAAAA”, with over 100 A’s? A calculation assuming random (name removed by moderator)ut would be wrong, because there are processes involving Polyadenylation and retrotransposition that insert long stretches of “AAAAAA…” into DNA. Because the process is not random, you cannot use models, or calculations, based on an assumption of randomness. Hence your frequent recourse to the UPB is not always appropriate. You have to show, scientifically, that a random model is appropriate.
There is clearly no point in attempting to have a discussion with a person who is convinced his premise is “based on and in reality” - and all other interpretations are false.
The qualities of a person change but the person retains his or her permanent identity. Passports and driving licences are not issued to serial individuals.
It doesn’t make sense to refer to “we” if there are no selves.
Then it’s reasonable to believe the universe has the assigned purpose of sustaining those who assign purposes!
One uncreated Creator of the universe is a far more cogent and economical explanation than countless uncreated procreators.
So let me be clear: Because you are so adamant that your delineation of design is the only possibility, I should not communicate with you?
It is the philosophical justification for that"permanent identity" which we are talking about. You agree that the qualities change, and so are not permanent. If you remove all the qualities, then what is left? Show me any evidence for this “permanent identity” you claim exists after all the qualities have been removed.
Passports expire after a few years, so a new photograph can be used. Driving licences in the UK expire at various ages and new tests, such as eyesight, are needed.
You can never step in the same river twice. It is not the same river, and it is not the same you.
No. I am arguing on a philosophical level. Legally a chimaera is a single person; scientifically they are two separate people because they have two different sets of DNA. The scientific and legal concepts of a person are not the same.
Pragmatism only.
In your model of the universe maybe, but not in mine. Who or what assigned the purpose?
Why not one uncreated Creator-Creator?One uncreated Creator of the universe is a far more cogent and economical explanation than countless uncreated procreators.
Not at all. Simply asking a question as a starting point.
In fact, the person is the cart, the baggage, the “impedi-mentia.” Removing the cart, or qualities and attributes frees the horse. then you can train the horse of the mind to range the landscape without what keeps it on the worn path of habit and belief.
Save for God, which or whom, has no attribute or quality save Being.
OK, there were eonough objections to Jesus that He was crucified. Objections are objects, things you “throw,” if you look up the root. And we have, for the most part, been stoned with objectivism.
> Photographs and driving licences refer to **one **individual without whom physical and spiritual development wouldn't exist.
Ys, and that individual in essence has no attributes. The "physical and spiritual devlopment" are add-ons perceived onlyu in the realm of thre dimensionality as perceived by the human senses. Where are those for you when you are in deep sleep?
> Persons aren't rivers! You can't divide a person into bits like a material object.
You don't experience yourself as a river because you haven't allowed youself that paradigm. And yet, in the space-time continuum, the "person" can be "seen" as a worm somewhat but not really discreet from what appear at our very limited level as "boundaries." in fact, those "boundaries" are very arbitrary and pertinent only to a tiny fragment of the spectrum of scale.
> They both refer to an enduring entity.
No, they refer to the presentation to the senses of the underlying individual.
> Logic.
Yes, but low order logic and again not premised on the underlying reality.
> In any coherent model; otherwise assigners are unassigned!
Athey are to reality as such. Your model deals only with what is superficially available to senses even if augmented by instrumentation and mentation. And coherency does not imply reality, as validity may not imply truth except within the limits of the discription.
> The Assigner is the best available explanation.
That "Assigner" necessarily being a construct within your scope of ability to perceive and exerience, as much as is "person."
> Why not? That's an excellent definition of the Necessary, Supreme Being...
Yes, but you fell into Rossum's linguistic trap, as you appear to fall into many of your own. Your explanation of the supreme Being is limited to your perameters of mentality as they stand. It can't be optherwise. While your referent may BE, your explanation is not the BEING itself, and proportionally neither in the same feild or scale. In human terms, unless expereinced, "eternality" "allness" etc are all null appointers save in the sense of a model used to make the ineffable thinkable.
But there is a vast difference between a construct taken on because of a belief, and one explicated as a result of such an insight as has ben given to some Saints and Sages. Since those are coherent and uniform through all time and every other temporal difference, for all practical concerns, and even are congruent with the Teachings of Jesus and many Catholic mystics, I'll stick with that Way.Please justify that opinion.
Is nothing objective?
> Ys, and that individual in essence has no attributes. The "physical and spiritual devlopment" are add-ons perceived onlyu in the realm of thre dimensionality as perceived by the human senses. Where are those for you when you are in deep sleep?
I fail to understand how sleep affects the nature of reality.
> You don't experience yourself as a river because you haven't allowed youself that paradigm. And yet, in the space-time continuum, the "person" can be "seen" as a worm somewhat but not really discreet from what appear at our very limited level as "boundaries." in fact, those "boundaries" are very arbitrary and pertinent only to a tiny fragment of the spectrum of scale.
> No, they refer to the presentation to the senses of the underlying individual.
> Yes, but low order logic and again not premised on the underlying reality.
> Athey are to reality as such. Your model deals only with what is superficially available to senses even if augmented by instrumentation and mentation. And coherency does not imply reality, as validity may not imply truth except within the limits of the discription.
> That "Assigner" necessarily being a construct within your scope of ability to perceive and exerience, as much as is "person."
> Yes, but you fell into Rossum's linguistic trap, as you appear to fall into many of your own. Your explanation of the supreme Being is limited to your perameters of mentality as they stand. It can't be optherwise. While your referent may BE, your explanation is not the BEING itself, and proportionally neither in the same feild or scale. In human terms, unless expereinced, "eternality" "allness" etc are all null appointers save in the sense of a model used to make the ineffable thinkable.
> But there is a vast difference between a construct taken on because of a belief, and one explicated as a result of such an insight as has ben given to some Saints and Sages. Since those are coherent and uniform through all time and every other temporal difference, for all practical concerns, and even are congruent with the Teachings of Jesus and many Catholic mystics, I'll stick with that Way.
You are entitled to your opinion.So, shuffling three packs of cards together is “not a chance event”? Complete rubbish. The chances of assembling the molecules for a single grain of sand exceeds the UPB. Things that exceed the UPB happen all the time.
And the chances of that particular shuffle happening exceeds the UPB, yet we can shuffle the cards without any problem. The UPB does not prevent a barrier to something happening.
Good.I am glad we agree there is at least a place for the UPB.
A house is made of bricks. Remove all the bricks and what is left? There is no permanent “essence of house” present before the first brick is laid, not is there anything left after the last brick has been removed. There is no actual entity “house” that exists beyond the bricks used to construct it. The word “house” is merely a convenient abbreviation for “6,358 bricks arranged as described in the attached plan”.
And philosophers have still not settled on the answer, nor am I holding my breath waiting for them to agree.
Indeed, photographs pick out one temporal moment in a long series of temporal moments dhrough which the individual changes.
Part of a person is material. The non-material parts are all changing, and so can be time-sliced into different parts.
They both refer to a changing entity, and since it changes it cannot be enduring. Scientific observation shown cells dying and splitting – the body is constantly changing. Legally a person changes form being unable to give valid consent when a minor. As an adult they are legally able to give valid consent. I old age they may change again, and no longer be considered able to give a legally valid consent. The legal person changes, and hence cannot be permanent. Anything that changes cannot be permanent.
As soon as you use these words with capital letters, like “Assigner”, then I will call you on reification. I do not accept reification. Does the existence of beauty mean that there is a ‘Beautician’ (capital letter) who must be worshipped in perma-tan salons every Wednesday afternoon, and at the nail parlour every Saturday morning?
Not supreme. There is also the Creator-Creator Creator, who created the Creator-Creator.
Perfect.
> As soon as you use these words with capital letters, like "Assigner", then I will call you on reification. I do not accept reification. Does the existence of beauty mean that there is a 'Beautician' (capital letter) who must be worshipped in perma-tan salons every Wednesday afternoon, and at the nail parlour every Saturday morning?
That is Priceless!
.
> It is also worth pointing out that is the Creator is Necessary then everything that is created is also Necessary. Since created things are obviously not Necessary then the Creator is also not Necessary.
> Note the number of capitalised words there, as well.
Well said.Just a few; have to get to work. I know it is Sunday; but about what “day” can you not say: “This is the day the Lord hath made,” even if you don’t quite understand it in the usual way.
> According to that argument a person only changes twice in a lifetime - not every instant!
You appear to have misread the statement: cells are continually dying and being replaced, often in a changed way.
> Not necessarily! The Creator is Necessary because everything (and everyone) is contingent.
Contingency doesn't imply creation necessarily, onlyu in the creationist paradiagm, e. g. one permutaion-- "design."
> It is absurd to think the Creator has the same existential status as creatures.
You are assuming a creator, and you assume that the creator is distinct from creation.
> Don't you capitalise Enlightenment and Nirvana?
I sometimes do, as with other words, to distinguish popthought from what is far more accurate as pointing to something ineffable, or about experience. but not always.You will note I never use the word impossible. I use the word improbable.
The alternative is to believe that **no matter what happens **it may well be due to chance -. unless a reason to the contrary can be given…