The study of chance.

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: The study of chance.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: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.
A scientific theory is not a beleif, it is used differently than the general way the word is used. The odds of getting hit by lightning are roughly a million to one. However to the unfortunate soul who did get hit this is no consolation.

Odds do not make something impossible. Because no matter the odds one of the possible outcomes does occur.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK

Re: The study of chance.

Post by Blob »

Jbuza wrote: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.
Earlier Byblos claimed the odds of us existing to be 1 against 10^37. In other words, there are 10^37 conceivable universes but only 1 allows for us to exist and we do indeed exist.

By that reasoning there may be 10^37 conceivable intelligences but only 1 allows our observed universe to exist and we do indeed exist. The improbability is therefore merely transfered from a universe to an intelligence.

Of course personally I do not accept these numbers to be meaningful and so consider both above arguments to be unsound.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: The study of chance.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

Blob wrote:
Jbuza wrote: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.
Earlier Byblos claimed the odds of us existing to be 1 against 10^37. In other words, there are 10^37 conceivable universes but only 1 allows for us to exist and we do indeed exist.

By that reasoning there may be 10^37 conceivable intelligences but only 1 allows our observed universe to exist and we do indeed exist. The improbability is therefore merely transfered from a universe to an intelligence.

Of course personally I do not accept these numbers to be meaningful and so consider both above arguments to be unsound.
Not only that but he stated the odds of us being here are close to nill. each of the 10^37 possibilities also have nill chance. Nill+nill+nill... 10^37 times = nill. So nothing happens?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

August wrote:
Certainly, these variables can be known, but I seriously doubt that they are in most instances. I presume that is where the "chance" comes in.
The point is that we perceive it to be chance because we don't bother to measure, but if we did, like the mathematician did, the element of chance goes away. So we write it off to chance, when in fact it is a lack of measurement of the forces acting on the coin. So the result is not really determind by "chance", but by physical forces acting on the coin in a certain fashion, which we could know, if we wanted to.
Sorry,
I missed this post, yes you are correct. Except the last part, up to a certain point we can never know, physically impossible to know all the variables. At least with our current understanding of physics.

It the old eyeball cannot see itself conundrum.
...
Don't bother looking it up I just made it up.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Re: The study of chance.

Post by Jbuza »

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: A scientific theory is not a beleif, it is used differently than the general way the word is used. The odds of getting hit by lightning are roughly a million to one. However to the unfortunate soul who did get hit this is no consolation.

Odds do not make something impossible. Because no matter the odds one of the possible outcomes does occur.
Of course it is a beleif. That is how this process works. IT is a beleif that has been varified through the observations and predictions. Someone who beleives evolution to be a credible thoery believes that life has evolved, there is no proof for it, it is not science, the evolution of life cannot be touched, cannot be measured, is not visible, it is based on the hypothetical wonderings of Charles Darwin. And work continued by others that have presupposed his beliefs to be true, and used it for inspiration to take further beliefs and see if observations support them, and make predictions from them.

I find evolution to be false, because the predictions I make based on that belief are not supported by observations. I see no speciation, I see less species today than in the recorded past. Now I know that scientists that have scrambled to the top of evolution like it is a drowning shipare trying to save their precious epxlanation of life without God and have created it into a complex absurdity to try and get it to stay in line with expansions in observed knowledge and make it more compatable with predictions. From a creationist theoretical view I could predict that their would be less species today than in recorded past.

You seem to be saying that since I subscribe to a theory of creation that I am no logner able to observe and predict, use logic and reason, and gain an understanding of the world. If you continue to fail to see the validity of creation as a theory than you fail to value the innovative spirit of science that has allowed for once rediculed beliefs to gain mainstream acceptance.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: The study of chance.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

Jbuza wrote:
BGoodForGoodSake wrote: A scientific theory is not a beleif, it is used differently than the general way the word is used. The odds of getting hit by lightning are roughly a million to one. However to the unfortunate soul who did get hit this is no consolation.

Odds do not make something impossible. Because no matter the odds one of the possible outcomes does occur.
Of course it is a beleif. That is how this process works. IT is a beleif that has been varified through the observations and predictions. Someone who beleives evolution to be a credible thoery believes that life has evolved, there is no proof for it, it is not science, the evolution of life cannot be touched, cannot be measured, is not visible, it is based on the hypothetical wonderings of Charles Darwin. And work continued by others that have presupposed his beliefs to be true, and used it for inspiration to take further beliefs and see if observations support them, and make predictions from them.

I find evolution to be false, because the predictions I make based on that belief are not supported by observations. I see no speciation, I see less species today than in the recorded past. Now I know that scientists that have scrambled to the top of evolution like it is a drowning shipare trying to save their precious epxlanation of life without God and have created it into a complex absurdity to try and get it to stay in line with expansions in observed knowledge and make it more compatable with predictions. From a creationist theoretical view I could predict that their would be less species today than in recorded past.

You seem to be saying that since I subscribe to a theory of creation that I am no logner able to observe and predict, use logic and reason, and gain an understanding of the world. If you continue to fail to see the validity of creation as a theory than you fail to value the innovative spirit of science that has allowed for once rediculed beliefs to gain mainstream acceptance.
So, are you saying you have seen a creation event? Have you observed the formation of coal? Do you reject that coal formed from ancient organic material? Do you reject the theory that the elements on Earth originated in a super nova? What exactly about evolution do you reject? And why your assumption that a loss of a species is counter to the theory of evolution?
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Jbuza
Esteemed Senior Member
Posts: 1213
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 5:26 pm

Re: The study of chance.

Post by Jbuza »

BGoodForGoodSake wrote: So, are you saying you have seen a creation event? Have you observed the formation of coal? Do you reject that coal formed from ancient organic material? Do you reject the theory that the elements on Earth originated in a super nova? What exactly about evolution do you reject? And why your assumption that a loss of a species is counter to the theory of evolution?
Thousands of thousands of creation events. The creative ability and the designing instinct are apparent in man and he has produced some entirely unique and new things. As far as original creation that my firend is a hypothesis that I developed from consulting ancient texts, trying to make sense of the apparent world, and forces that seem to exist, my own reason, and logic, and the marvelous order have all lead me to form a theory about how life came to be, and observations answer the predictions, and it explains my observations.

Never have seen that, I understand it can be replicated. I believe coal was formed in the Global water cataclysm that the God that created things, according to my theory, said he caused to come upon the earth, and that violently changed the face of the earth. I have no evidence to say that this speculation, that is akin to the explanations by evolution, is science, but the old book says it happened. Explaining unobserved observations is speculative, but there are tears in the earths crust, uplifts, volcanoes, huge beds of coal, and lakes of oil to explain.

Well from the theoretical perspective of creation I would speculate that God created them. I would assume from a evolutionary persceptive one would say that a Super Nova caused it. These are speculations and not really science, although there are certianly measurements and observations that do say there was a begining, and that is science, and It is entirely interesting it would be interesting, if this fascist culture within science would go away, to see where the two theoretical perspectives would take us next in discovering (a uniquely human and hugely adaptive trait) the infancy of this wonderful existence.

I do not reject anything much about evolution, I do think it is overrated. IT seems to have a superiority complex, and is being accepted and tought in schools as if it were fact, as if it were the very science, the very observations itself. Evolution is a particular theoretical perspective that allows one to guide and interpret and predict within the framework of science, The more open science is to the free exchange of ideas the better. I cringe when I hear the term theoretical framework, the conjecture and hypothesis and explanations are the theories and the operate with the framework of science each yielding different predictions and explanations, but both only geared at discovering the reality of things. I repeat, and shout it for the world to hear. LET SCIENCE BACK INTO THE ARENA OF IDEAS!!! I think that a evolutionist and a creationist could work very well side by side, and both be amazed by the wonders of this world.

The reason I made that point is beacuse I was taking the perspective of an evolutionist and predicting that if life came from one being and branched out through mutation and speciation that I would expect to see a history of increasing numbers of species, but from a creation perspective I would predict that since all species that ever existed were created at one point in time, that there would be a gradual lessening in number of species.
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: The study of chance.

Post by Byblos »

Blob wrote:
Jbuza wrote: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.

Earlier Byblos claimed the odds of us existing to be 1 against 10^37. In other words, there are 10^37 conceivable universes but only 1 allows for us to exist and we do indeed exist.


First, that is not a mere claim, it is a well agreed-upon probability. Second, I totally agree with your paraphrase that there were 10^37 conceivable universes and only 1 allowed us to exist. In fact, that was the precise outcome.
Blob wrote:By that reasoning there may be 10^37 conceivable intelligences but only 1 allows our observed universe to exist and we do indeed exist. The improbability is therefore merely transfered from a universe to an intelligence.


I don't know how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion. Are you saying there are 2 intelligences acting on the coin toss? Doesn't fit. the probability unequivocally states that if any pick other than the red dime and we would not be here to observe and argue (yes, it could have been any other lifeless universe but what would be the point, right?) . Now you might be right that all of this could be limited to our own discernable realities, who knows. But hey, it's the only thing we've got. Unless somebody can show me there are multiple realities (i.e. multiple universes) I'll just stick to observing the one I'm in.
Blob wrote:Of course personally I do not accept these numbers to be meaningful and so consider both above arguments to be unsound.


It is certainly your prerogative not to give it any weight. That, however, does not make it any less valid.
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: The study of chance.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

Byblos wrote:
Blob wrote:
Jbuza wrote: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.

Earlier Byblos claimed the odds of us existing to be 1 against 10^37. In other words, there are 10^37 conceivable universes but only 1 allows for us to exist and we do indeed exist.


First, that is not a mere claim, it is a well agreed-upon probability. Second, I totally agree with your paraphrase that there were 10^37 conceivable universes and only 1 allowed us to exist. In fact, that was the precise outcome.
Blob wrote:By that reasoning there may be 10^37 conceivable intelligences but only 1 allows our observed universe to exist and we do indeed exist. The improbability is therefore merely transfered from a universe to an intelligence.


I don't know how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion. Are you saying there are 2 intelligences acting on the coin toss? Doesn't fit. the probability unequivocally states that if any pick other than the red dime and we would not be here to observe and argue (yes, it could have been any other lifeless universe but what would be the point, right?) . Now you might be right that all of this could be limited to our own discernable realities, who knows. But hey, it's the only thing we've got. Unless somebody can show me there are multiple realities (i.e. multiple universes) I'll just stick to observing the one I'm in.
Blob wrote:Of course personally I do not accept these numbers to be meaningful and so consider both above arguments to be unsound.


It is certainly your prerogative not to give it any weight. That, however, does not make it any less valid.
Accepted probability. haha

Mathematically there are many different possible values for physical constants giving you this probability. But as it was pointed out earlier this is based on lack of information. It is quite possible that the number of possibilities is not this exact value.

The physical constants may have limitations that mathematics doesn't account for.

Example,
Mathematically Jimmy can be any where from 72 inches on down to 8 inches.
Also mathematically Jimmy can be anywhere from 82 years old on down to newborn.

Multiply the years by the possibly height configurations and you have 64x82 = 5248 possible Jimmy configuratations.

But an 8 inch 24 year old Jimmy is not a real possibility.

As the science of physics advances it is likely that the nature of some of the physical constants may come to light.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK

Re: The study of chance.

Post by Blob »

Byblos wrote:First, that is not a mere claim, it is a well agreed-upon probability.
I disagree. No one in this thread has derived or justified the figure. It seems to have been taken on faith, if you pardon the pun.
I don't know how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion.
Precisely. Meaningless, isn't it?
It is certainly your prerogative not to give it any weight. That, however, does not make it any less valid.
Feel free to ask why I don't accept the figure. ;)
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: The study of chance.

Post by Byblos »

Blob wrote:
Byblos wrote:First, that is not a mere claim, it is a well agreed-upon probability.
I disagree. No one in this thread has derived or justified the figure. It seems to have been taken on faith, if you pardon the pun.
Come on now, are you really questioning the very science you always quote? the ratio of the proton's size to the neutron's and its deviation probability are well established facts. As are the numbers governing the strength of gravity, or the cosmological constant, and many others. Here's a link that contains some quotes by well known scientists (who are also atheists) but I do not post it for the quotes but for the 25 or so scientific references on the bottom of the page.
Blob wrote:
I don't know how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion.
Precisely. Meaningless, isn't it?
Yep.

Blob wrote:
It is certainly your prerogative not to give it any weight. That, however, does not make it any less valid.
Feel free to ask why I don't accept the figure. ;)
[/quote]

Consider it an official request.
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: The study of chance.

Post by Byblos »

User avatar
Blob
Established Member
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2005 8:58 am
Christian: No
Location: UK

Re: The study of chance.

Post by Blob »

byblos wrote:the ratio of the proton's size to the neutron's and its deviation probability are well established facts. As are the numbers governing the strength of gravity, or the cosmological constant, and many others. Here's a link that contains some quotes by well known scientists (who are also atheists) but I do not post it for the quotes but for the 25 or so scientific references on the bottom of the page.
I'm afraid none of those quotes establish the statistical basis for the number 10^37 as the number of logically conceivable universes and, further, that only one of those 10^37 logically conceivable universes is capable of supporting life.
Consider it an official request.
The fine-tuning argument is a stastical argument and as such should properly be discussed stochastically. Take a physical constant, and call it x, which, fine tuning argues, can only be a specific value for life to exist. Fine tuning further argues that x might equally have been any other logically conceivable value. But any other logically conceivable value is the real number line which is infinite. Therefore the probability of x being a specific value is zero. Even if we expand the specific value of x to a specified range on the real number line the probability is still zero. Either we are not here or the fine tuning argument is flawed.

That is the main formal reason it is flawed but there are other, secondary, reasons too. One is that it put things back to front. To be amazed that the constants we derive from the universe match how the universe is would be like being amazed that the maps we derive from the coastlines of the earth match how the coastlines of the earth are. "What are the chances of that?!?!?"

Another reason is that fine tuning only considers one constant at a time when considering conceivable universes. Even if fine tuning was not stochastically flawed it would still be flawed for not acknowledging that if several constants were different they could conceivably balance out negative effects - so there are infinite conceivable universes that could support life and not only one.
While in external speech thought is embodied in words, in inner speech words die as they bring forth thought.
- Vygotsky
User avatar
AttentionKMartShoppers
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2163
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:37 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Re: The study of chance.

Post by AttentionKMartShoppers »

Blob wrote:
byblos wrote:the ratio of the proton's size to the neutron's and its deviation probability are well established facts. As are the numbers governing the strength of gravity, or the cosmological constant, and many others. Here's a link that contains some quotes by well known scientists (who are also atheists) but I do not post it for the quotes but for the 25 or so scientific references on the bottom of the page.
I'm afraid none of those quotes establish the statistical basis for the number 10^37 as the number of logically conceivable universes and, further, that only one of those 10^37 logically conceivable universes is capable of supporting life.
Consider it an official request.
The fine-tuning argument is a stastical argument and as such should properly be discussed stochastically. Take a physical constant, and call it x, which, fine tuning argues, can only be a specific value for life to exist. Fine tuning further argues that x might equally have been any other logically conceivable value. But any other logically conceivable value is the real number line which is infinite. Therefore the probability of x being a specific value is zero. Even if we expand the specific value of x to a specified range on the real number line the probability is still zero. Either we are not here or the fine tuning argument is flawed.

That is the main formal reason it is flawed but there are other, secondary, reasons too. One is that it put things back to front. To be amazed that the constants we derive from the universe match how the universe is would be like being amazed that the maps we derive from the coastlines of the earth match how the coastlines of the earth are. "What are the chances of that?!?!?"

Another reason is that fine tuning only considers one constant at a time when considering conceivable universes. Even if fine tuning was not stochastically flawed it would still be flawed for not acknowledging that if several constants were different they could conceivably balance out negative effects - so there are infinite conceivable universes that could support life and not only one.
Escape from science to metaphysics? LOL. The multiverse theory, it's so cute. It's not science.

And I don't know how Byblos got his number of 1 in 10^37 being the chances we had at being here-especially when the probabllity of a 100 amino acid protein coming into being naturally is by itself 1 in 10^64 :-p LOL.
That is the main formal reason it is flawed but there are other, secondary, reasons too. One is that it put things back to front. To be amazed that the constants we derive from the universe match how the universe is would be like being amazed that the maps we derive from the coastlines of the earth match how the coastlines of the earth are. "What are the chances of that?!?!?"
The maps were drawn based (hopefully...) on the geography of the earth-so non-sequitor.
"My actions prove that God takes care of idiots."

He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.
- On Stanley Baldwin

-Winston Churchill

An atheist can't find God for the same reason a criminal can't find a police officer.

You need to start asking out girls so that you can get used to the rejections.
-Anonymous
User avatar
BGoodForGoodSake
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2127
Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 9:44 am
Christian: No
Location: Washington D.C.

Re: The study of chance.

Post by BGoodForGoodSake »

Byblos wrote: Come on now, are you really questioning the very science you always quote? the ratio of the proton's size to the neutron's and its deviation probability are well established facts. As are the numbers governing the strength of gravity, or the cosmological constant, and many others. Here's a link that contains some quotes by well known scientists (who are also atheists) but I do not post it for the quotes but for the 25 or so scientific references on the bottom of the page.
You are confusing scientific theories with thoughts and ideas of individual scientists. As to the validity of your argument, its a number game your playing, see my post above. Calculating the probability of different constants does not take into account if those alternative possibilities are imaginary or not. And the variables used in any calculation for the probability of our universe are arbitrary.
It is not length of life, but depth of life. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Post Reply