tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-715339341803133734.post3455453830978513131..comments2017-03-18T13:40:54.923-05:00Comments on Maximum Entropy: Bayes' Theorem: All You Need to Know About TheologyTom Campbell-Rickettshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07387943617652130729noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-715339341803133734.post-12093368038679185982012-11-21T12:09:28.694-06:002012-11-21T12:09:28.694-06:00I see no problem. As you point out, the infinite d...I see no problem. As you point out, the infinite degrees of freedom used in fluid mechanics are a mathematical convenience. The crux of my argument is that a theory with infinite DOF will pay an infinite penalty when it tries to compete with any model with finite DOF, leading to P(omnipotence) strictly equal to zero, independent of any data. For a less than omnipotent deity, the probability is therefore not strictly zero, just practically indistinguishable from zero.Tom Campbell-Rickettshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07387943617652130729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-715339341803133734.post-92150331720591305122012-11-21T12:08:01.328-06:002012-11-21T12:08:01.328-06:00This comment has been removed by the author.Tom Campbell-Rickettshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07387943617652130729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-715339341803133734.post-44593215691965493532012-11-18T16:34:15.247-06:002012-11-18T16:34:15.247-06:00If there are indeed an infinite number of degrees ...If there are indeed an infinite number of degrees of freedom for any model then it is doomed to fail. However, if there are less than an infinite number of degrees of freedom then the model is possible (however unlikely). <br /><br />I take the example of fluid dynamics where the system of surface waves is a Hamiltonian system of inﬁnite number degrees of freedom mathematically (and in reality simply has a very high numer of degrees of freedom). In a fluid system, any one configuration is extremely unlikely. However, fluids do exist and definitely move. Their structure is such, however, that it is impossible to predict their movement unless reduced to a linear formula with limited degrees of freedom. <br /><br />I'm not sure if this is problematic for your argument and indeed I am not sure how one would use this to argue a case for God, I was just wondering what your thoughts were on this. Hanif Samadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00481552438049023013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-715339341803133734.post-36435096733324091972012-09-06T09:44:49.182-05:002012-09-06T09:44:49.182-05:00Thanks for those URLs, that looks really interesti...Thanks for those URLs, that looks really interesting, I'll have a good look when I'm a bit less busy.Tom Campbell-Rickettshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07387943617652130729noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-715339341803133734.post-43073642234380811562012-09-01T13:01:32.256-05:002012-09-01T13:01:32.256-05:00Interesting. I usually go the logical contradictio...Interesting. I usually go the logical contradiction route when presented with omniscience, but this Bayesian approach looks quite sturdy. I'll have to read it a few times to absorb it properly.<br /><br />It also matches with my own thinking. I've taken the Bayesian approach and tried to apply it to something more difficult: instead of disproving an omniscient or unfalsifiable god, I throw it at an arbitrary god:<br /><br />https://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club/browse_thread/thread/43a4551b1499ad22/b630f33df03ff5f4<br />https://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club/browse_thread/thread/73350821b188cd54/0c7ee56dfd4cb6c5<br /><br />I'm still quite a beginner at this Bayesian stuff, but it's encouraging that it keeps popping up all the time when arguing against the gods. Percy Shelly's attempt at a general-purpose argument also seems to rely on Bayesian inference, and yet it dates from 1811!<br /><br />http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~djb/shelley/necessity1880.htmlHJ Hornbeckhttps://groups.google.com/group/freethinkers-club/noreply@blogger.com