The study of chance.

[Byblos]

If you look at the least fine-tuned example (maximum deviation in the ratio of electrons to protons) it is mind-boggling to see that it is 1 in 10 ** 37 (to the power 37).

In other words, what science is telling us is that the probability of that happening is so infinitesimal that it can be considered virtually impossible.

Yet here we are.

By that probability either we are not here or the calculation is flawed.

And as you point out, here we are.

I am more inclined to consider a 3rd option, it is so on purpose. The impossible occured as it was intended.

[Blob]

I thought you might!

I take the second option.

Now what we need is a nihilist to post in favour of the first option (we don't exist) and we'd have the full spectrum of opinion.

[puritan lad]

The fundamental question here, is whether anything is simply a matter of chance, or whether 'chance' is merely our human perception of unpredictable results due to incomplete information. I agree with August - there is no chance in the coin toss; Newtonian physics allows us to predict the toss accurately if we can appropriately measure the variables.

Interesting. Now that I think it over, this would depend on ones definition of "chance". Is chance something that we can't calculate, or something that we don't know (even if it is knowable)? I would hold that flipping a coin is a fair way to determine, say, who gets the last cookie, simply because we don't know the results. There is a "chance" that I might get the cookie, and an equal chance that my opponent might get the cookie. The results of the coin flip (in most instances) are unknown to us.

However, if the result of the coin flip are calculated based on the height, velocity, angle, and angular momentum, and the coin tosser is skilled enough to replicate these calculated values, then of course the "chance" is really no longer a chance. That's a lot of trouble to go through for a cookie :)

[Byblos]

I thought you might!

I take the second option.

Now what we need is a nihilist to post in favour of the first option (we don't exist) and we'd have the full spectrum of opinion.

LMAO! Now that is funny.

[puritan lad]

Now what we need is a nihilist to post

Is that even possible? :)

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Perhaps the misunderstanding is on your part as in all of your examples the probability is repeated every time the roulette wheel is spun or lottery is conducted, thereby increasing the probability X number of times (X being the number of times the process is repeated).

In my reference, there's only one lottery, one spin of the roulette wheel, one chance and no other. What is the probability iin that case? Nill.

Yet here we are.

No I can take practically any example and multiply the probabilities until I get rediculous numbers, to make anything impossible.

Lets take your Great grandparents and the probability of everything that could have happened in their lives to have them meet, along with your 4 grandparents and parents and the chances that you could have been conceived are some 1 to 1 googlebazillion!
Yet here you are.

It doesn't matter if its the same variables or multiple the chances are only a calculation yet here we are!

All this does is prove your ability to calculate probabilities.
It doesn't make something impossible.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

When we don't do the measurements, what we mean by chance is that the unknown conditions over a multiple trials do not favor one way or the other.

So then there is not really something such as chance, just a lack of measurement?

We can calculate probability, but I think it can be logically assumed...
Given all the variables the outcome can be known.

The problem is we can never know all the variables, it is physically impossible.

So here we are.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

The fundamental question here, is whether anything is simply a matter of chance, or whether 'chance' is merely our human perception of unpredictable results due to incomplete information. I agree with August - there is no chance in the coin toss; Newtonian physics allows us to predict the toss accurately if we can appropriately measure the variables.

In the past there have been many things deemed as chance that were merely not yet understood. The appearance of comets for instance, were once thought unpreditable but now we know better - we have learned the variables and how to measure them. Currenlty the realm of quantum physics seems unpredictable, but perhaps our understanding is simply too limitted. Or perhaps it's by design that chance occurs at a lower level in order to bring order out of chaos... I don't really know.

Regardless, what is the point of this thread? What assertion are you making BGood?

Just trying to inspire thought

Also to share the fact that chance is beyond the realm of
*Echo*
science
science
science

Of course I mean all we can calculate is probability because we cannot know all the variables.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Your confusing the term removing variables.
The force variable was removed because it was measured and set.

I think we are talking past each other here, but don't tell me I'm confused. Go and read my first post on this topic to see what I meant by variables.

The force to make the coin spin was not removed. The fact that it was measured means that we knew the value of the variable, but the force to make the coin spin remains as one of the variables that will determine the outcome, as does the weight of the coin, for example.

You're right, and I am sorry.
But you know what I mean when the variables are measured and controlled they are no longer left to "chance".

[Byblos]

Perhaps the misunderstanding is on your part as in all of your examples the probability is repeated every time the roulette wheel is spun or lottery is conducted, thereby increasing the probability X number of times (X being the number of times the process is repeated).

In my reference, there's only one lottery, one spin of the roulette wheel, one chance and no other. What is the probability iin that case? Nill.

Yet here we are.

No I can take practically any example and multiply the probabilities until I get rediculous numbers, to make anything impossible.

Lets take your Great grandparents and the probability of everything that could have happened in their lives to have them meet, along with your 4 grandparents and parents and the chances that you could have been conceived are some 1 to 1 googlebazillion!
Yet here you are.

The flaw in the above logic is that yes, the chances of me personally being conceived are '1 to 1 googlebazillion' but the chances of a grandchild being conceived from a given set of grandparents are much, much greater. The analogy does not fit because the example I referenced does not leave room for 'alternate' life forms if certain conditions were different. It clearly supposes (and that is well established by science) that any other possibility other than the red dime being picked and life as we know it would not have been possible. That is the difference in our models, you're saying any number of things could have happened and I'm saying only 1 out of 10**37 did happen, and it happened only out of one pick.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Perhaps the misunderstanding is on your part as in all of your examples the probability is repeated every time the roulette wheel is spun or lottery is conducted, thereby increasing the probability X number of times (X being the number of times the process is repeated).

In my reference, there's only one lottery, one spin of the roulette wheel, one chance and no other. What is the probability iin that case? Nill.

Yet here we are.

No I can take practically any example and multiply the probabilities until I get rediculous numbers, to make anything impossible.

Lets take your Great grandparents and the probability of everything that could have happened in their lives to have them meet, along with your 4 grandparents and parents and the chances that you could have been conceived are some 1 to 1 googlebazillion!
Yet here you are.

The flaw in the above logic is that yes, the chances of me personally being conceived are '1 to 1 googlebazillion' but the chances of a grandchild being conceived from a given set of grandparents are much, much greater. The analogy does not fit because the example I referenced does not leave room for 'alternate' life forms if certain conditions were different. It clearly supposes (and that is well established by science) that any other possibility other than the red dime being picked and life as we know it would not have been possible. That is the difference in our models, you're saying any number of things could have happened and I'm saying only 1 out of 10**37 did happen, and it happened only out of one pick.

As far as we can tell yes.

[Jbuza]

But on the other hand, the fact that it is always this way may be due to supernatural interference determining order in an otherwise chaotic universe?

That which can interfere with the universe is by definition natural.

Supernatural has long been a term that was simply applied to what we don't understand, it is not that it isn't a natural phenomenon of the reality of things, it is just that our Theory doesn't explain it. An evolutionist might call The influence of God on the universe supernatural, while I might call missing links supernatural, or science fiction really. Lets see how does this relate to the coin.

From one perspective one of the variables could be the influence on the coin by God, and from the other will the coin become a bowling ball before it lands. ooops

Rather that is to say we perhaps can not really know the entirety of the variables even in the laboratory setting.

[Jbuza]

However, if the result of the coin flip are calculated based on the height, velocity, angle, and angular momentum, and the coin tosser is skilled enough to replicate these calculated values, then of course the "chance" is really no longer a chance. That's a lot of trouble to go through for a cookie

LOL. Thanks!

[BGoodForGoodSake]

But on the other hand, the fact that it is always this way may be due to supernatural interference determining order in an otherwise chaotic universe?

That which can interfere with the universe is by definition natural.

Supernatural has long been a term that was simply applied to what we don't understand, it is not that it isn't a natural phenomenon of the reality of things, it is just that our Theory doesn't explain it. An evolutionist might call The influence of God on the universe supernatural, while I might call missing links supernatural, or science fiction really. Lets see how does this relate to the coin.

From one perspective one of the variables could be the influence on the coin by God, and from the other will the coin become a bowling ball before it lands. ooops

Rather that is to say we perhaps can not really know the entirety of the variables even in the laboratory setting.

I'm an officer in the LA police department. I follow some tracks of an escaped convict and come across a lake. Upon reaching the otherside I see the tracks continue. I tell my comrade that this is the same mans tracks even though these were the tracks of a man with only one shoe and before the man wore a pair. He reprimands me, "Don't be foolish!Then where are the tracks in the middle?"

The coin becomming a bowling ball is about as silly as an egg hatching into a chicken. Or a catepillar turning into a butterfly.

[Jbuza]

Lets take your Great grandparents and the probability of everything that could have happened in their lives to have them meet, along with your 4 grandparents and parents and the chances that you could have been conceived are some 1 to 1 googlebazillion!
Yet here you are.

It doesn't matter if its the same variables or multiple the chances are only a calculation yet here we are!

All this does is prove your ability to calculate probabilities.
It doesn't make something impossible.

That is because you may not account for all the variables in your equation, depending upon your theoretical explanations. IT is highly likely that everything would be reduced to chance from an evolutionary understanding of existence.

I don't find the odds at all that bad, when I account for an intelligence that orders and arranges life they shrink much closer to 1:1. If something is prechosen while it can appear to be random simply because of the other possible combinations, it in fact is not.

Measurements and math wouldn't comprehend this, and that is why theories are not science they are beliefs, whatever they may be.