Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Fine Tuning & Probability

 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 7:33:47 PMPosted: 5 years agoThere is a difference between conceptual probability and probability based on evidence.For example conceptual probability would have you believe that if you roll a die you have 1 in 6 chance of getting the number 3.But in the real world if you roll the die 600 times, you probably won't get the number 3 turning up 100 times, but rather it will be within a certain deviation to the number 100.Now looking at the evidence probability of a life permitting universe.........There is one universe, there is also one life permitting universe1:1Evidence probability that a universe will be a life permitting universe = 100%OrThere is one universe, there is one universe that has constants within a life permitting range1:1Evidence probability that a universe constants within a life permitting range = 100%"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 5,955 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 7:40:08 PMPosted: 5 years agoI always find it humorous when people try to predict the probability of something that has already happened.Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 7:43:02 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/12/2011 7:40:08 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:I always find it humorous when people try to predict the probability of something that has already happened.hahaX happened ergo X has a 100% chance that it happened."Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 8:19:03 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/12/2011 7:33:47 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:There is a difference between conceptual probability and probability based on evidence.For example conceptual probability would have you believe that if you roll a die you have 1 in 6 chance of getting the number 3.But in the real world if you roll the die 600 times, you probably won't get the number 3 turning up 100 times, but rather it will be within a certain deviation to the number 100.Now looking at the evidence probability of a life permitting universe.........There is one universe, there is also one life permitting universe1:1Evidence probability that a universe will be a life permitting universe = 100%OrThere is one universe, there is one universe that has constants within a life permitting range1:1Evidence probability that a universe constants within a life permitting range = 100%I always find this atheistic claim interesting.I was born so the chance of me being born is 1:1My pet rabbits have a litter so the chance of a litter is 1:1My house is built so the chance of me building my home is 1:1Its foolish.Here is a practical thinking excercise:I had a 1:1 chance of starting out every conversation with my mother (and I had a 1:1 chance of having a mother, lol) reminding here as she had a 1:1 chance of being angry at me for fornicating, and I said to here "Mom, you had a 1:1 chance of having me! Do not blame me for my 1:1 certain actions with teenage girls!"Hopefully this drives home the point.I mean think about it.Do we walk away from a 10 car pile up unscathed and go "Wow I had a 1:1 chance walking away alive from that!"Or does the war vet return home and state "I had a 1:1 chance of making it home in one piece after 20 campaigns."Of course not.Why do we consider the odds of survival for a past car accident?How do we calculate the odds of a soldiers survival in a military action?We look at the numbers of soldiers present and the number of soldiers that survived the action. We calculate what the ratio of survival would have been had you been there.It is completely rational to review survival rates to assess the impact of an event in this way.I have no idea why setting aside common sense, logic and even reason when God is at the heart of Truth, is acceptable to the atheistic community.Foolishness has zero power to convert any reasonable person.
 Posts: 5,955 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 8:22:15 PMPosted: 5 years agoProbability is the science of throwing darts.Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 9:14:44 PMPosted: 5 years agoAnyway Gil even you don't agree with that whole thing about probabilities on past vs future events, lets go back to your car accident or army survival example.Now arn't I doing the exact same thing with the universe where I said.......Now looking at the evidence probability of a life permitting universe.........There is one universe, there is also one life permitting universe1:1Evidence probability that a universe will be a life permitting universe = 100%"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 1,922 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 10:15:09 PMPosted: 5 years agoIt's more like... here is the universe - it's one possible universe out of many that could have occurred. Each alternate universe is equally as likely to have occurred. But we got this one because the probability that the universe (writ large) will occur is 100%.OH MY GOD... we beat the probability.Right... not compelling at all.
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 10:39:40 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/12/2011 10:15:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:It's more like... here is the universe - it's one possible universe out of many that could have occurred. Each alternate universe is equally as likely to have occurred. But we got this one because the probability that the universe (writ large) will occur is 100%.OH MY GOD... we beat the probability.Right... not compelling at all.But this isn't based on some sort of concept probability, its based on EVIDENCE. and the only evidence we have is one universe, and the only evidence we have is of one life permitting universe.ergo based on the data there is a 100% chance that a universe will be life permitting."Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 10:41:11 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/12/2011 10:39:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:15:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:It's more like... here is the universe - it's one possible universe out of many that could have occurred. Each alternate universe is equally as likely to have occurred. But we got this one because the probability that the universe (writ large) will occur is 100%.OH MY GOD... we beat the probability.Right... not compelling at all.But this isn't based on some sort of concept probability, its based on EVIDENCE. and the only evidence we have is one universe, and the only evidence we have is of one life permitting universe.ergo based on the data there is a 100% chance that a universe will be life permitting.Osnap.Flawless syllogism for that @ss.
 Posts: 4,008 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/12/2011 10:49:51 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/12/2011 10:41:11 PM, Ren wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:39:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:15:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:It's more like... here is the universe - it's one possible universe out of many that could have occurred. Each alternate universe is equally as likely to have occurred. But we got this one because the probability that the universe (writ large) will occur is 100%.OH MY GOD... we beat the probability.Right... not compelling at all.But this isn't based on some sort of concept probability, its based on EVIDENCE. and the only evidence we have is one universe, and the only evidence we have is of one life permitting universe.ergo based on the data there is a 100% chance that a universe will be life permitting.Osnap.Flawless syllogism for that @ss.Its not a question of syllogism, its a question of our data sample.One universe, one life permitting universe, that's your sample."Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
 Posts: 7,102 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 3:34:38 AMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/12/2011 10:49:51 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:41:11 PM, Ren wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:39:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:15:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:It's more like... here is the universe - it's one possible universe out of many that could have occurred. Each alternate universe is equally as likely to have occurred. But we got this one because the probability that the universe (writ large) will occur is 100%.OH MY GOD... we beat the probability.Right... not compelling at all.But this isn't based on some sort of concept probability, its based on EVIDENCE. and the only evidence we have is one universe, and the only evidence we have is of one life permitting universe.ergo based on the data there is a 100% chance that a universe will be life permitting.Osnap.Flawless syllogism for that @ss.Its not a question of syllogism, its a question of our data sample.One universe, one life permitting universe, that's your sample.Well.You might want to go look up the word "syllogism." :\
 Posts: 3,667 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 5:36:25 AMPosted: 5 years agoBy this logic, you would need no explanation for rolling a 50 sided die 100000 times and getting '7' every time - because after you have rolled the die 100000 times there is a 1:1 chance that you have gotten 7 every time.Try again.
 Posts: 1,922 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 12:29:54 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/13/2011 5:36:25 AM, Kinesis wrote:By this logic, you would need no explanation for rolling a 50 sided die 100000 times and getting '7' every time - because after you have rolled the die 100000 times there is a 1:1 chance that you have gotten 7 every time.Try again.Yes - I agree that the OP is flawed.However, if you roll a 50-sided die 100,000 times, there would be what... 50! * 100,000 ... about 3 * 10^69 possible sequences of numbers you would get. Assuming your die does not fail, you will get one of those 3 * 10^69 sequences. Rolling all 7's is no more improbable than rolling all 6's.The fallacy of the fine tuning and probability argument is that AFTER the die has been rolled, they take the pattern and look at it in disbelief, as though it's magic, when it (A pattern, not THIS one specifically) is just the certain outcome of the process.
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 12:58:44 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/12/2011 9:14:44 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:Anyway Gil even you don't agree with that whole thing about probabilities on past vs future events, lets go back to your car accident or army survival example.Now arn't I doing the exact same thing with the universe where I said.......Now looking at the evidence probability of a life permitting universe.........There is one universe, there is also one life permitting universe1:1Evidence probability that a universe will be a life permitting universe = 100%I have given you several clear examples in real life where we do calculate the odds of "fulfilled" event. We do not run around anywhere in life stating absurditys like oh that was 1:1 baby!My mother would have beat me within an inch of my life if I attempted such a nonsensical description of my overtly immoral actions with a teenage girl.Considering the soldier example:The soldiers, both living and dead, odds of living or dieing are easily calculated for practical purposes.This is a fulfilled event yet we calculate the odds of survival. We do not say that the dead soldiers had a 1:1 chance of dieing and the living soldiers had a 1:1 chance of living.You would be laughed off the stage offering such an unrealistic description of a past event.We have clear reasons as to why we would want to calculate odds of survival.You have given zero practical events where we calculate a fulfilled event as 1:1, as you have done.I even tried to apply such a concept to the soldier analogy where it floundered.You have also given zero practical reasons to toss out the fine-tuning calculation and reestablish this as 1:1.For you to be correct you would need to show whereby we utilize the concept of 1:1 in real life and you need to give a valid (valid=everyone else would agree) reason to detract from the practical probabilities given for the fine-tuning of the universe.
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 1:04:45 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/12/2011 10:39:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:15:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:It's more like... here is the universe - it's one possible universe out of many that could have occurred. Each alternate universe is equally as likely to have occurred. But we got this one because the probability that the universe (writ large) will occur is 100%.OH MY GOD... we beat the probability.Right... not compelling at all.But this isn't based on some sort of concept probability, its based on EVIDENCE. and the only evidence we have is one universe, and the only evidence we have is of one life permitting universe.ergo based on the data there is a 100% chance that a universe will be life permitting.I do want to point out.We do have evidence of the varying levels of gravity, neutron counts, proton counts, electron counts etc...The fine-tuning of the Teleolgical argument is not the recent Hawking fine-tuning model espoused in his book.The theists do not speculate by the other possible universes that "could" exist as Hawking does.It calculates the known constants and quantities that exist only.Why Hawking chose to bring confusion to the discussion by proposing a new and errant fine-tuning model appears to represent the fact that his deteriation is lending to him being addled.
 Posts: 5,955 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 1:07:07 PMPosted: 5 years agoProbability is the science of being ignorant of all variables.Everything happened the way it did because there was no other alternative.Calculating the probability of things that have already happened is kind of ridiculous. Probability is more relevant when attempting to predict.Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
 Posts: 12,028 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 1:18:12 PMPosted: 5 years agommm...in what way can this world be said to be improbable?according to what?.. well.. you say it could be a million-billion different ways!but what's to say that any of those million billion other ways is Equally probable to occur?Nothing.Why do people take Other supposed 'possible' worlds as equally probable?By what standard, in what manner, is Our Existent world matched up to Other 'possible' worlds.. and How is the notion that they're equally likely come to?what is the Frame in which "our world" and "that world" fit into that they can be looked at and compared?There is no frame to fit them in! It is what it is, and that's that. there's no way of saying it could've not been.. or been otherwise. It is... and to say that it just as well /equally likely could have been some other way is completely baseless and not worth discussing."He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
 Posts: 5,316 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 1:27:37 PMPosted: 5 years agoIts not a question of syllogism, its a question of our data sample.One universe, one life permitting universe, that's your sample.Well, I always take a different route, along the lines of:Let the number of potential universes be Y, which is Q+ (A whole positive rational number excluding 0)Now, the chances of living in this universe = 1/y (probability = chance of an occurrence divided by chance of all possible occurrences). This is any number.Now, let's say there is multiple universes. This means that the number of potential universes we could live in / number of potential universes, leading to x/y when working out the universes' potential from being as it is. Therefore, it is any number.In conclusion, the claim that it is 1^12^100 or whatever is absolute crap, as it claims to know all possible variables. Whenever anyone claims the number, I require knowing the mathematics to reaching the number, and not someone else who said so, because it is proof of an infinite regress of BS from Christian theologians like W.L.Craig finding these figures on the internet, seeing they are impressive, and saying it is true.GIVE ME MATHS NOT NUMBERSGive a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP. Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 5,316 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 1:34:22 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/13/2011 5:36:25 AM, Kinesis wrote:By this logic, you would need no explanation for rolling a 50 sided die 100000 times and getting '7' every time - because after you have rolled the die 100000 times there is a 1:1 chance that you have gotten 7 every time.Try again.Imagine I flipped a coin. Now, what are the chances it turns up heads? Well, it is either HEADS or TAILS. Pretend it is an unbias coin. Now, the chance that it comes up any way is 50/50.New exercise. Imagine I have a bias on the coin. Which way, you ask? A valid question but one I shall not answer. Now, what are the chances? It is 0.5x : 0.5(1-x), where x < 1. Simplify the equation. You can't, unless you know what X is. Therefore, any claim on what the potential chance is requires the value of X, and is otherwise mindless conjecture.*Now, imagine I ask you to guess what way it came up. I know the result, you don't. Imagine both parties have motive to be unbias / tell the truth. I do not know if the coin is bias or not, so I could not even say if it is 0.5/0.5 chance.Imagine now I know that the coin turned up heads. Now, what are the chances the coin turned up heads? 1. It's not 0.5. It's not 1x10^-124. It's 1.*Interestingly, it has been shown through scientific testing of composites in british pennies that it is bias 0.51/0.49 heads over tails.Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP. Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 5,316 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 1:35:37 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/13/2011 1:04:45 PM, Gileandos wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:39:40 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:At 11/12/2011 10:15:09 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:It's more like... here is the universe - it's one possible universe out of many that could have occurred. Each alternate universe is equally as likely to have occurred. But we got this one because the probability that the universe (writ large) will occur is 100%.OH MY GOD... we beat the probability.Right... not compelling at all.But this isn't based on some sort of concept probability, its based on EVIDENCE. and the only evidence we have is one universe, and the only evidence we have is of one life permitting universe.ergo based on the data there is a 100% chance that a universe will be life permitting.I do want to point out.We do have evidence of the varying levels of gravity, neutron counts, proton counts, electron counts etc...The fine-tuning of the Teleolgical argument is not the recent Hawking fine-tuning model espoused in his book.The theists do not speculate by the other possible universes that "could" exist as Hawking does.It calculates the known constants and quantities that exist only.Why Hawking chose to bring confusion to the discussion by proposing a new and errant fine-tuning model appears to represent the fact that his deteriation is lending to him being addled.I tell you my coin is bias, you don't know which way. Assuming it is therefore 0.5/0.5 is blatantly false.Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP. Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
 Posts: 12,028 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 1:36:44 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/13/2011 1:18:12 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:By what standard, in what manner, is Our Existent world matched up to Other 'possible' worlds.. and How is the notion that they're equally likely come to?what is the Frame in which "our world" and "that world" fit into that they can be looked at and compared? There is no frame to fit them in!see.. what would be needed here is some Good Metaphysics!Might be better off to go try drawing some square circles."He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
 Posts: 2,394 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/13/2011 1:37:47 PMPosted: 5 years agoAt 11/13/2011 1:27:37 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:Its not a question of syllogism, its a question of our data sample.One universe, one life permitting universe, that's your sample.Well, I always take a different route, along the lines of:Let the number of potential universes be Y, which is Q+ (A whole positive rational number excluding 0)Now, the chances of living in this universe = 1/y (probability = chance of an occurrence divided by chance of all possible occurrences). This is any number.Now, let's say there is multiple universes. This means that the number of potential universes we could live in / number of potential universes, leading to x/y when working out the universes' potential from being as it is. Therefore, it is any number.In conclusion, the claim that it is 1^12^100 or whatever is absolute crap, as it claims to know all possible variables. Whenever anyone claims the number, I require knowing the mathematics to reaching the number, and not someone else who said so, because it is proof of an infinite regress of BS from Christian theologians like W.L.Craig finding these figures on the internet, seeing they are impressive, and saying it is true.GIVE ME MATHS NOT NUMBERSI have already addressed this to many of the other individuals.What you described is only a recent version of fine tuning by Stephen Hawking in his book.That is not how fine-tuning has been calculated by traditional mathematicians involved in fine-tuning.The fine-tuning is calculated based upon known quantities and constants of this universe.You can reread some of my posts above.