Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fine Tuning & Probability

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 7:33:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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 universe

1:1

Evidence probability that a universe will be a life permitting universe = 100%

Or

There is one universe, there is one universe that has constants within a life permitting range

1:1

Evidence 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
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 7:40:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I 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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 7:43:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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.

haha

X 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
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 8:19:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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 universe

1:1

Evidence probability that a universe will be a life permitting universe = 100%

Or

There is one universe, there is one universe that has constants within a life permitting range

1:1

Evidence 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 1:1
My pet rabbits have a litter so the chance of a litter is 1:1
My house is built so the chance of me building my home is 1:1

Its 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.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 8:22:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Probability 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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 8:37:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/12/2011 8:19:03 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 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 universe

1:1

Evidence probability that a universe will be a life permitting universe = 100%

Or

There is one universe, there is one universe that has constants within a life permitting range

1:1

Evidence 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 1:1
My pet rabbits have a litter so the chance of a litter is 1:1

Yep seems so.

My house is built so the chance of me building my home is 1:1

No your house is built so the chance of it being built is 1:1.

Its 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!"

Don't follow you here.

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!"

No the 1:1 chance isn't just walking away alive, but if you find your self walking away alive then its 1:1

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."

not exactly, its only 1:1 after he finds that he returned home is one piece. If he was still in the battle field the usual odds apply.

Of course not.
Why do we consider the odds of survival for a past car accident?

Well we take a sample of car accidents say 100, we then look at how many people survived those car accidents say 99, then say if some one is in a car accident they have a 99% of surviving.

How do we calculate the odds of a soldiers survival in a military action?

Same as car accidents.

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.

Yep.

It is completely rational to review survival rates to assess the impact of an event in this way.

But you missed the point, there is "solider" in one context and then there is the solider who we know has already survived.

A solider in the battle field who we don't know will die or not apply those odds.

When a solider returns home, then the odds of him coming out alive are 1:1

Its kinda a play on the whole what ever happened, happened.

This is why Comic I think makes the remark about how its funny how people makes probability judgement on things that have already happened.

There is a big difference between events which may or may not happen and events which have already happened and nothing can change that.
"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
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 9:14:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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 universe

1:1

Evidence 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
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:15:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:39:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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.
"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
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:41:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2011 10:49:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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.
"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
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 3:34:38 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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." :\
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 5:36:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
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.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 12:29:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 12:58:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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 universe

1:1

Evidence 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.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:04:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:07:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Probability 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
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:18:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
mmm...

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."
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:27:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
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 NUMBERS
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...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:34:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:35:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:36:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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."
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:37:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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 NUMBERS

I 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.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:39:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 1:37:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 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 NUMBERS

I 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.

Never read it, still don't care. It's not an argument.
That is not how fine-tuning has been calculated by traditional mathematicians involved in fine-tuning.

No, it's how traditional mathematicians calculate chance, I can tell, I am a mathematician, so is my teacher (course in mathematical philosophy)
The fine-tuning is calculated based upon known quantities and constants of this universe.

Yes, I know. That is why it is wrong. You can't randomly ignore variables, that is called intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale.
You can reread some of my posts above.
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...
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 1:58:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 1:39:56 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/13/2011 1:37:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 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 NUMBERS

I 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.

Never read it, still don't care. It's not an argument.
That is not how fine-tuning has been calculated by traditional mathematicians involved in fine-tuning.

No, it's how traditional mathematicians calculate chance, I can tell, I am a mathematician, so is my teacher (course in mathematical philosophy)

I was not discussing your formulation. That is correct to Stephen Hawking's fine-tuning calculations.

The formulation for fine tuning the variable of (y) is indeed known.
So in 1(y) we see:
Gravity (F) that is perfect or life is within a variant range of 9.8 mps baseline.

Too Below the baseline of 9.8 mps we see planets would not have formed. Too high above the baseline earth would be a black hole etc...

So the variation of (F) is within the baseline of 8.2 mps and 10.7 mps.

The scale is of (F) is 0 to 10,000 times 9.8 mps (the greatest known (F) of Gravity a singularity)

So we can predict the fine-tuned nature of this universe needs to be in that slim margin necessary for formation of at least planets and not something known to be destructive.

Fine-tuning only calculates around ten of these quantities and constants. It is not "made" up out of thin air as Hawking does.

Hopefully this was more comprehensive an explanation, albeit brief and I encourage the study of Demski or Reese if you desire to delve into the calculations with more force.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 4:20:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 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.

How is this a fail, you don't have any sample of a die rolling 50,000 and getting a 7 every time.

But we do have lots of samples of die being rolled and getting around the 1/6 mark for each number for a long time.

So what was the universe sample again ?
"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
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 4:27:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 1:58:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/13/2011 1:39:56 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/13/2011 1:37:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 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 NUMBERS

I 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.

Never read it, still don't care. It's not an argument.
That is not how fine-tuning has been calculated by traditional mathematicians involved in fine-tuning.

No, it's how traditional mathematicians calculate chance, I can tell, I am a mathematician, so is my teacher (course in mathematical philosophy)

I was not discussing your formulation. That is correct to Stephen Hawking's fine-tuning calculations.

The formulation for fine tuning the variable of (y) is indeed known.
So in 1(y) we see:
Gravity (F) that is perfect or life is within a variant range of 9.8 mps baseline.

Too Below the baseline of 9.8 mps we see planets would not have formed. Too high above the baseline earth would be a black hole etc...

So the variation of (F) is within the baseline of 8.2 mps and 10.7 mps.

The scale is of (F) is 0 to 10,000 times 9.8 mps (the greatest known (F) of Gravity a singularity)

The problem lays here: It could be 9.81, 9.82, 9.801, 9.800001, 9.8000000001053252, and it still works. You cannot create a definite number from a scale, because you are finding a number from an infinite (or an ordinal to be specific). Therefore, finding any specific mathematics is "made up out of thin air".

When you write all the maths up to come to the equation, it becomes a lot more obvious.

So we can predict the fine-tuned nature of this universe needs to be in that slim margin necessary for formation of at least planets and not something known to be destructive.

Fine-tuning only calculates around ten of these quantities and constants. It is not "made" up out of thin air as Hawking does.

Hopefully this was more comprehensive an explanation, albeit brief and I encourage the study of Demski or Reese if you desire to delve into the calculations with more force.
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...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 4:33:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 12:58:44 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 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 universe

1:1

Evidence 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.

I think your starwmanning my argument.

Lets look at our data sample, say in some battle.

100 men fought in a battle, 10 died, 10:1, 10% casualty rate right ?

Lets look at our universe sample..........

1 Universe, 1 life permitting universe, 1:1, 100% That the 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
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 5:10:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 4:27:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/13/2011 1:58:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 11/13/2011 1:39:56 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/13/2011 1:37:47 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 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 NUMBERS

I 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.

Never read it, still don't care. It's not an argument.
That is not how fine-tuning has been calculated by traditional mathematicians involved in fine-tuning.

No, it's how traditional mathematicians calculate chance, I can tell, I am a mathematician, so is my teacher (course in mathematical philosophy)

I was not discussing your formulation. That is correct to Stephen Hawking's fine-tuning calculations.

The formulation for fine tuning the variable of (y) is indeed known.
So in 1(y) we see:
Gravity (F) that is perfect or life is within a variant range of 9.8 mps baseline.

Too Below the baseline of 9.8 mps we see planets would not have formed. Too high above the baseline earth would be a black hole etc...

So the variation of (F) is within the baseline of 8.2 mps and 10.7 mps.

The scale is of (F) is 0 to 10,000 times 9.8 mps (the greatest known (F) of Gravity a singularity)

The problem lays here: It could be 9.81, 9.82, 9.801, 9.800001, 9.8000000001053252, and it still works. You cannot create a definite number from a scale, because you are finding a number from an infinite (or an ordinal to be specific). Therefore, finding any specific mathematics is "made up out of thin air".

When you write all the maths up to come to the equation, it becomes a lot more obvious.

Well you can review the fine-tuning advocates work for any particulars you want to review.

Complaining in this way seems problematic. Do you complain when physicists utilize the (F) at a set value?
Nothing is made up it all utilizes whole, real numbers at set intervals. Should decimals be articulated it is within the realm of the necessary calculation.

The Fine-tuning is set at "variants" that are meaningful and at whole, real numbers. For most aspects of science decimals are not used from baseline for (F). There are two exceptions to a force equation. Hooke's law for springs (generated force) and acceleration as it quantifies against the baseline.


So we can predict the fine-tuned nature of this universe needs to be in that slim margin necessary for formation of at least planets and not something known to be destructive.

Fine-tuning only calculates around ten of these quantities and constants. It is not "made" up out of thin air as Hawking does.

Hopefully this was more comprehensive an explanation, albeit brief and I encourage the study of Demski or Reese if you desire to delve into the calculations with more force.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/13/2011 9:22:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/13/2011 4:27:38 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 11/13/2011 1:58:34 PM, Gileandos wrote:

Too Below the baseline of 9.8 mps we see planets would not have formed. Too high above the baseline earth would be a black hole etc...

The problem lays here: It could be 9.81, 9.82, 9.801, 9.800001, 9.8000000001053252, and it still works. You cannot create a definite number from a scale, because you are finding a number from an infinite (or an ordinal to be specific). Therefore, finding any specific mathematics is "made up out of thin air".

Yep - this is how the "fine-tuning" argument works:

1) Find a value.
2) Define an arbitrarily large range around it.
3) Find the limits of the value that could sustain life.
4) Compare limits of life-giving range to arbitrary range.
5) Claim fine-tuning.
6) ????????
7) PROFIT

Nobody in the fine-tuning camp seems to realize that the fact that the life-sustaining value of gravity (for example) is relatively small doesn't necessitate tuning. Nor do they make any attempt whatsoever to ascertain the actual possible values for gravity - they just define an arbitrarily large range.

I should note too that 9.8 m/s^2 is not the value of gravity - that's just acceleration due to Earth's gravity. I'm curious what the fine-tuning camp will do when we find life on a planet that has a much stronger or weaker gravity field than ours...

Of course, this doesn't address the idea of the Big Bang maybe Big-Crunching if gravity force were much stronger... but if it were, matter would have been packed tighter, and therefore more energetically, resulting in a stronger "bang" so to speak... I'm curious where these pseudo-scientists get their numbers from...