Zero probability- further proof that nothing exists

[Alberti_Devoveo]

I cannot cross the room. First, I must walk half the distance, then half the remaining distance, then half the remaining distance,… so I can never entirely cross the room. Yet I DO cross the room and out the door.
You and I were created by God, to love and serve him.

Horray for Xeno’s paradox.

 

[JDaniel]

Let’s consider a non-crystalline substance, like glass. It is clear that a piece of glass could have an infinite number of possible shapes and sizes. Now, the probability of the existence of any given shape and size in a piece of glass is therefore:
1/Infinity= 0

Thus any given piece of glass has, literally, a zero probability.

Now, events and beings also evidently share the infinite possibility of variants, and, by the same reasoning, all things have a zero probability (1/Infinity), and are therefore not possible.

Therefore, nothing exists.

Qoeleth:

The only problem that I perceive, is that the numeral “0” may be rounded (up or down). Infinity may itself be “rounded” for such abstract, human thinkings. What is being called an “infinity” may be nothing more (or less) than a real, transfinite number. For example, it might be a “1” with a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion zeroes between it and the preceding decimal point. In other words, it’s very, very, very small, but not precisely zero.

A negative infinity, just like a positive infinity, does not actually exist - otherwise it would be the epitome (pinnacle) of nothingness. However, our experience tells us that things do appear to exist, therefore, what appears to be real to us cannot be a negative transfinite. It must be positive.

Nevertheless, I believe that what we perceive is only what God has us perceive, which, I guess, we call illusory.

God bless,
jd

 

[Cristiano]

Let’s consider a non-crystalline substance, like glass. It is clear that a piece of glass could have an infinite number of possible shapes and sizes…

This is false assumption thus the conclusions are false even if your logic might be true.

 

[shainski]

Well, if I saw something which my reason told me had a zero (or approaching zero) probability (like a unicorn riding a unicycle), I would then conclude that my senses deceived me. Applying the same principle, since each piece of glass is dictated by reason as having a zero probability, it would seem to make sense to conclude that my senses are deceiving me about that too. And about all things.

There is a huge difference between zero and “Or approaching zero”.

There is a huge difference between infinity and “approaching infinity”

and your example involving glass seems bizarre to me. Are you talking about naturally-occurring glass?

It would seem a probably close to zero that a naturally-occurring glass would take on the shape and size of a wine goblet, for example.

If you are talking about man-made glass structures, then the probability would be considerably higher than approaching zero if there was a desirability for a piece of glass in that size and shape (assuming it was rational and possible).

 

[Qoeleth]

If we assume determinism for a moment, then it doesn’t matter how many possible shapes something has. There will always be exactly 1 possible outcome of events (i.e. shaping some glass.) Everything would be fixed by choosing some initial conditions. Are there infinitely many possible starting conditions? Perhaps, but we must also the case where every possible starting condition exists.

So, perhaps the assumption that any thing other-than-reality is not, in fact, really a possibility at all. If the glass has one shape, it is then not ‘possible’ (in the real world), that it have another shape?

Am I understanding correctly?

 

[Qoeleth]

The “probability” of glass having any particular shape is zero, by your logic. However, the probability of a piece of glass having any possible shape is exactly one.

The of union of all possible shapes divided by the domain of all possible shapes equals one. Therefore, the glass has a shape.

I agree, it is certain the glass will have ‘some shape’. Therefore the sum of all proabilities (the proability of any particular shape) must equal one. Therefore the actually proability is not really zero.

Back to the drawing board…

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So, perhaps the assumption that any thing other-than-reality is not, in fact, really a possibility at all. If the glass has one shape, it is then not ‘possible’ (in the real world), that it have another shape?

Am I understanding correctly?

Sort of, we are using possible in 2 different senses. There is exactly 1 possible outcome for any action. Therefore, if we consider some specific “shaping” action, then there will be exactly 1 resulting shape. What future shapes there are is fixed, however we can describe what shapes are “possible” in the sense that we don’t actually know the future.

 

[Zosimus41]

You can say 2 - 2 = 0; and so you can negate quantity in so far as we understand zero to mean the absence of some kind of quantity. But you cannot describe an actual quantity as being as equal to the metaphysical concept of absolutely nothing. Nothing is not a quantity or a thing; but rather it is the negation of some possible quantity.

You cannot have a true objective irreducible object that has the quantity of -1, for example. It is simply one object.

I get what you have stated.

So how do you explain the mandelbrot set? or the julia set? when the equation becomes more than 2 it fractals to what scientist are calling infinity.

Thank you for your response.

 

[MPat]

Let’s consider a non-crystalline substance, like glass. It is clear that a piece of glass could have an infinite number of possible shapes and sizes.

As it has been noted, this is far from certain; you still have to demonstrate that this number cannot be finite.

Now, the probability of the existence of any given shape and size in a piece of glass is therefore:
1/Infinity= 0

Thus any given piece of glass has, literally, a zero probability.

Now, events and beings also evidently share the infinite possibility of variants, and, by the same reasoning, all things have a zero probability (1/Infinity), and are therefore not possible.

Therefore, nothing exists.

It is true that one divided by infinity is zero. But it doesn’t mean that if we have an infinite number of options, probability of each option is zero. For example, let’s take such experiment: we flip a coin until we get tails and count the coin flips. We have an infinite number of options - that is, there is nothing in the formulation that prevents an infinite series of heads. But probability that the series will be one flip long is not zero, but 1/2 (you might wish to read about Bernoulli distribution for more information). The error is in the unstated assumption that each option is equally likely.

Furthermore, if we take the frequentist approach to probability (I guess it could be discussed in some other thread of this forum), we have the glass take the specific shape one time out of one, meaning that the probability is one.

Finally, just because the probability of the event is zero, doesn’t mean that the event is impossible. When you have a “normal” continuous distribution (for example, “the” normal distribution), the probability of each event is zero, but some of them do happen.