Originally posted by PalynkaI'm perfectly aware of probability theory and have dealt with the "lottery" argument at length.
Because it embeds a misconception about probability theory.
An example. Draw an outcome randomly from a normal distribution. Call it x. The ex-ante probability of that outcome being drawn is zero. From that, you cannot infer that the outcome of x was non-random, even in this extreme case when that band that you refer to is infinitely narrow.
But unless it is shown to me that the many various narrow bands which were drawn from the Big Bang and which set the physical parameters of the universe have some reasonable probability of all being drawn blind, it looks to me that the result is non-random unless there are multiple (perhaps infinite) other universes. That seems the most logical conclusion rather than the shrugging of shoulders and "s**t happens" explanation being given by "lottery" argument proponents.
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet's say you have a million sided die. To get the universe we have, you have to roll a "1" 200 times in a row (for example).
Just because you did not use the word 'special' does not mean you did not imply it in your argument. Your argument depends on it. Why else would you claim that a given result of the throw of a die is non-random?
Your argument is equivalent to:
1. A series of events, properties etc lead to the current state of the universe.
2. The current state of the u ...[text shortened]... hy you would not apply the same reasoning to three throws of a die which comes up 5, 2 then 6.
Does the fact that you roll "1" 200 times in a row suggest that there is something funny (non-random) about the die?
Originally posted by no1marauderIf you ask me to show you that such a probability has to be (and I quote) "reasonable" then you clearly don't understand the argument.
But unless it is shown to me that the many various narrow bands which were drawn from the Big Bang and which set the physical parameters of the universe have some reasonable probability of all being drawn blind, it looks to me that the result is non-random unless there are multiple (perhaps infinite) other universes. That seems the most logi ...[text shortened]... ng of shoulders and "s**t happens" explanation being given by "lottery" argument proponents.[/b]
I just showed you an example where the ex-ante probability was zero.
2 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm not interested in doubletalk.
If you ask me to show you that such a probability has to be (and I quote) "reasonable" then you clearly don't understand the argument.
I just showed you an example where the ex-ante probability was [b]zero.[/b]
Please explain how your post is applicable to the discussion here. You might also respond to the post above directed to twhitehead.
If you were at a roulette wheel and the number "1" came up a thousand times in a row, I doubt even you would claim that the result was random.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's not doubletalk, it's probability theory. I thought you claimed to understand it.
I'm not interested in doubletalk.
Please explain how your post is applicable to the discussion here. You might also respond to the post above directed to twhitehead.
If you were at a roulette wheel and the number "1" came up a thousand times in a row, I doubt even you would claim that the result was random.
The mistake on the analogy you give is that it doesn't address the issue of conditional probability, which is clearly present in the original question.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhat prior event could effect the probability that, say, the strength of the force of gravity, is sufficient to form galaxies?
It's not doubletalk, it's probability theory. I thought you claimed to understand it.
The mistake on the analogy you give is that it doesn't address the issue of conditional probability, which is clearly present in the original question.
Originally posted by twhiteheadSo you think human life is just as probable as improbable?
I for one have never disputed that, and I find it unlikely that anyone else has. And as I pointed out, since it is not in dispute, there is no need to bring up examples such as quantum tunneling and hemoglobin to prove it.
[b]There is no reason for my argument to be circular on this because my faith does not rest on it particularly.
What your fait ...[text shortened]... not logically show that it is a miracle by looking at it solely from a probability perspective.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderConditional on the fact that there is already someone asking the question.
You cited "conditional probability"; the definition of "conditional probability" is: the probability of an event occurring given that another event has already occurred.
So the question stands.
Edit - And again you show your ignorance about probability theory. Conditional probabilities are not necessarily conditional on events that occurred before the event for which the probability is being calculated.
Originally posted by PalynkaYou would have gotten an "F" at Yale.
Conditional on the fact that there is already someone asking the question.
Edit - And again you show your ignorance about probability theory. Conditional probabilities are not necessarily conditional on events that occurred [b]before the event for which the probability is being calculated.[/b]
The conditional probability of an event B is the probability that the event will occur given the knowledge that an event A has already occurred.
http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/condprob.htm
Yep, I'm sure ignorant.
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderI would have gotten an A+ for correcting them. I'm sure they write it like that in 101 so that people like you can easily grasp the intuition, but their use of will occur is terribly imprecise. Ask your friend Scribbles if you don't believe me.
You would have gotten an "F" at Yale.
The conditional probability of an event B is the probability that the event will occur given the knowledge that [b]an event A has already occurred.
http://www.stat.yale.edu/Courses/1997-98/101/condprob.htm
Yep, I'm sure ignorant.[/b]
As long as two events are not independent then:
Prob(A|B) = Prob(A and B)/Prob(B)
Prob(B|A) = Prob(A and B)/Prob(A)
They both can be calculated, regardless of whether A occurs before or after B.
So, again, ignorant. Trying to google out of your lack of knowledge is only embarrassing you.
2 edits
Originally posted by Palynka😴😴
I would have gotten an A+ for correcting them. I'm sure they write it like that in 101 so that people like you can easily grasp the intuition, but their use of will occur is terribly imprecise. Ask your friend Scribbles if you don't believe me.
As long as two events are not independent then:
Prob(A|B) = Prob(A and B)/Prob(B)
Prob(B|A) = Prob(A a ...[text shortened]...
So, again, ignorant. Trying to google out of your lack of knowledge is only embarrassing you.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConditionalProbability.html
http://people.richland.edu/james/lecture/m170/ch05-cnd.html
And many other sites. Your bluster is unimpressive in the extreme.
Anyway as (un)interesting as this argument is, you've yet to show its relevance to the points raised. Please try to though your rhetorical skills have always been shown to be sadly lacking as you usually insist on using the "hold your breath till you turn blue" style of argumentation.
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderLearn how to read. Nothing in those sites says anything about the order in which the events must occur.
😴😴
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ConditionalProbability.html
http://people.richland.edu/james/lecture/m170/ch05-cnd.html
And many other sites. Your bluster is unimpressive in the extreme.
Anyway as (un)interesting as this argument is, you've yet to show its relevance to the points raised. Please try to though your rhetor ...[text shortened]... you usually insist on using the "hold your breath till you turn blue" style of argumentation.
For example the probability that I was born (A) conditional on the fact that I'm typing here (B) is 1. That I'm typing here after I was born does not prevent me from calculating the conditional probability.
Edit - My point was that such arguments reveal a profound misunderstanding of probability theory. Your insistence in making wrong statements is just proving my point.