14 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo is yours. But I guess Ad Hominems are all we are left with when you refuse to answer a very simple question because you know it will show that you are wrong.
Your foolish Ad Hominems are ridiculous.
Is this really the best you can do in a discussion l.e. partially copy and paste excerpts from someone's posts and ignore their full, substantive content?
I normally copy/paste the part I am addressing. I find it makes it clear what I am addressing and what I am not addressing. But in this instance, I believe I quoted his post in full, or are you referring to another post perhaps?
Which post/point did you wish me to address? Just ask, and I will do so.
14 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm through wasting my time responding to your non-responsive posts. Your juvenile "hold your breath until you turn blue" tactics are a distraction to what has otherwise been a decent discussion.
No, it wasn't. Please answer the question that was asked.
Grow up.
EDIT: TW: So why does your conclusion change when the probability gets lower?
no1: IF the discussion is whether A or B is more probable (with no other possibilities), IF the probability of B is less than the probability of A must necessarily be increased.
Is a complete and direct answer to your question.
14 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadThis exchange dealt with your "point" directly and completely:
Yet you have not been willing to tell us.
[b]Throwing 5 times is a red herring; the same point applies when you throw just once or whether you throw it a hundred billion times. You are aware of this, aren't you?
If it is a red herring, why are you so reluctant to answer the question?[/b]
Originally posted by JS357
That may be true but I didn't see it specified that the sum of the 5 throws was the data of interest. Another approach would be the exact sequence of the 5 throws. A sequence of 22222 and a sequence of 23315 are equally likely.
no1: If that's all TW meant, then his point is trivial.
In the case we are discussing there are only two possibilities:
A) The universe was designed;
B) The universe was a result of random forces.
Either one has to be more probable than the other or they can be equally probable. In point of fact given the evidence submitted, A is enormously more probable unless one can submit evidence that there were more "throws". No such evidence has been submitted so essentially what TW is insisting is that we should believe something highly improbable as compared to something highly probable (at least based on the information we have).
14 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderYou clearly misunderstood the question. I'll try and rephrase it.
Is a complete and direct answer to your question.
When you throw a die 5 times, the result is somewhat improbable. When it is thrown 1000 times, the result is even more improbable. When it is thrown 5 times, you are perfectly happy accepting the result is entirely random. When it is thrown 1000 times, you start to suspect design in the result. Why is that?
14 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderDoes it contain the probability of getting a particular sequence of numbers after throwing a die 5 times. If it doesn't, then no, it does not deal with my point. In fact, you don't even know what the point is, yet as I haven't told you. I first want you to give me the answer to the question, then I will tell you the point. Stop trying to mind read and get 5 steps ahead of yourself. The probability of you guessing right is very very small, as I am about to demonstrate when you finally answer the question after all your avoidance tactics.
This exchange dealt with your "point" directly and completely:
14 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIn the case we are discussing there are only two possibilities:
This exchange dealt with your "point" directly and completely:
Originally posted by JS357
That may be true but I didn't see it specified that the sum of the 5 throws was the data of interest. Another approach would be the exact sequence of the 5 throws. A sequence of 22222 and a sequence of 23315 are equally likely.
no1: If that's all TW meant, ...[text shortened]... improbable as compared to something highly probable (at least based on the information we have).
A) The universe was designed;
B) The universe was a result of random forces.
Either one has to be more probable than the other or they can be equally probable. In point of fact given the evidence submitted, A is enormously more probable unless one can submit evidence that there were more "throws". No such evidence has been submitted so essentially what TW is insisting is that we should believe something highly improbable as compared to something highly probable (at least based on the information we have).
Seems doubtful that you'll ever get TW to "see the light", so to speak.
Not very many people know this, but TW's favorite number is 5. As it so happened on his first roll the first time he played Yahtzee he rolled all 5s.
At that point it was pointed out to him that there are only two possibilities:
A) His roll "was designed;"
B) His roll "was a result of random forces."
That "either one has to be more probable than the other or they can be equally probable. In point of fact given the evidence submitted, A was enormously more probable." Nevertheless TW kept "insisting is that we should believe something highly improbable as compared to something highly probable."
Given that TW was unable to grasp the concept even then, I don't like your chances.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
14 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauder"In the case we are discussing there are only two possibilities:
This exchange dealt with your "point" directly and completely:
Originally posted by JS357
That may be true but I didn't see it specified that the sum of the 5 throws was the data of interest. Another approach would be the exact sequence of the 5 throws. A sequence of 22222 and a sequence of 23315 are equally likely.
no1: If that's all TW meant, ...[text shortened]... improbable as compared to something highly probable (at least based on the information we have).
A) The universe was designed;
B) The universe was a result of random forces. "
BTW shouldn't (B) start out as "The universe was not designed"?
This makes it explicit that the two alternatives are, together, exhaustive. Randomness plays such a role in this discussion that this equivalence of "not designed" and "random" should not be assumed.
For example, randomness may influence events differently when it occurs at different sages of the BB. Early on, quantum fluctuations may contribute to fundamental assymetries, just as an actual die will not yield exact probabilities of 1/6 for each value. A different orderliness, but an orderliness nonetheless, say, 1/6.000001 here and 1/5.999999 there, may result, leading to an ordered universe but one having order of a different sort. And unlike dice, these fluctuations may propagate to make big differences over time.
14 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou seem to have missed the point. By echoing no1's words back to him, I was hoping that he would see the absurdity of his position.
Would design be more or less likely if I had instead rolled only your favorite number?
What no1 continues to be unable to grasp, is that an improbable event, in and of itself, is not an indicator of "design". That only those who irrationally begin with the assumption that a given event is "special", see a "designer". For example, the improbability of a universe that supports life as we know it, the improbability of their own existence, the improbability that they survived a serious traffic accident without injury, the improbability of a stain on the wall of an underpass resembling the Virgin Mary, etc. He seems unable to move back a level of abstraction, i.e., "take a step back" to see what is really going on.
BTW, you can read about the stain here if you didn't get the reference:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7570729/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/salt-runoff-or-face-virgin-mary/
14 Dec 14
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneLottery Argument blah blah blah blah.
You seem to have missed the point. By echoing no1's words back to him, I was hoping that he would see the absurdity of his position.
What no1 continues to be unable to grasp, is that an improbable event, in and of itself, is not an indicator of "design". That only those who irrationally begin with the assumption that a given event is "special", see a " ...[text shortened]... nce:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7570729/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/salt-runoff-or-face-virgin-mary/
Already discussed, already debunked.
if that's the sum total of what you and TW have, then I think I've dealt with it enough.
14 Dec 14
1 edit
Originally posted by JS357I left B "as result of random forces" because if you accept the possibility of MetaRules, then there is a possible subset of non-designed universes that are not the result of random forces but of deterministic laws. No one seem to want to seriously discuss that possibility, however.
"In the case we are discussing there are only two possibilities:
A) The universe was designed;
B) The universe was a result of random forces. "
BTW shouldn't (B) start out as "The universe was not designed"?
This makes it explicit that the two alternatives are, together, exhaustive. Randomness plays such a role in this discussion that this equivale ...[text shortened]... erent sort. And unlike dice, these fluctuations may propagate to make big differences over time.
DT discussing the possibilities inherent in String Theory gave a 10 to the 400th power of a universe evolving randomly with life hospitable physical constants (he may correct this interpretation if I have misstated it). Penrose, a co-Noble prize winner for discovering the background cosmic radiation that was a signature of the Big Bang, made a similar calculation based on the possibility that a randomly evolved universe would have features consistent with the Second Law of Thermodynamics (as this one does) as something like 10 to the 123th power.
Some in this thread want to insist that observing such fantastically unlikely possibilities and labelling them as such, is some kind of self-glorifying delusional thinking. Of course, they absolutely refuse to discuss the derivation of such possibilities insisting on a "s**t happens" view of the probability of such occurences. Others can decide on who is being rational and scientific and who is not.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
14 Dec 14
Originally posted by no1marauderCould you further define a little the third "blah" in that series?
Lottery Argument blah blah blah blah.
Already discussed, already debunked.
if that's the sum total of what you and TW have, then I think I've dealt with it enough.