How unique is a random card shuffle?

[Shadow Wolf]

Dang!! I had never thought about it but thats crazy.

"The chances that anyone has ever shuffled a pack of cards (fairly) in the same way twice in the history of the world, or ever will again, are infinitesimally small. The number of possible ways to order a pack of 52 cards is ’52!’ (“52 factorial”) which means multiplying 52 by 51 by 50… all the way down to 1. The number you get at the end is 8×10^67 (8 with 67 ‘0’s after it), essentially meaning that a randomly shuffled deck has never been seen before and will never be seen again. So next time you shuffle a deck, you should feel pretty special for holding something so unique! Try for yourself – if you make friends with every person on earth and each person shuffles one deck of cards each second, for the age of the Universe, there will be a one in a trillion, trillion, trillion chance of two decks matching."

How unique is a random shuffle? - Quantum Base.

Not too unique because games like blackjack and poker can utilize mathematical advantages over the draw to slant the odds in favor of the player.
And, surely, if you can reasonably predict it well enough to win money at those games how unique can it really be?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Whatever, some understanding of statistics and probability should help a lot in assessing the truth or not of some things.

 

[We Never Know]

Whatever, some understanding of statistics and probability should help a lot in assessing the truth or not of some things.

See post #19 from @Polymath257
I believe he has understanding of statistics and probability.

 

[Brian2]

Examples?

I could not find the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh Mc Dowell.
This talk by Josh gives you the idea if you watch it all the way through.

The first 20 seconds or so the video is not the Josh McDowell video.

Josh eventually in the talk takes 8 prophecies about Jesus and gives probabilities that they would all happen to the one man (1 in 10 to the 17) Then he says that is one coin in a pile of coins covering Texas to a depth of 2 feet.
Then of course it seems there are about 300 prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament and the probability that one man fulfills them all is a much smaller probability.
So you get the point.
The calculations were done by a Professor Peter Stoner.
The Statistical Probability of Jesus Fulfilling the Messianic Prophecies
From memory each prophecy was broken up into it's various parts and a probability assigned each part. Eg a 1 in 12 chance that a Jew would be born in the tribe of Judah etc and at the end all the little bits are multiplied together to see the probability that one man would fulfill them all.
Of course the usual rebuttal is that the story of Jesus was made up so that all these prophecies were part of the story.
Well it's not a rebuttal at all really, just what skeptics say so that none of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled has to be bothered about.

 

[Mock Turtle]

See post #19 from @Polymath257
I believe he has understanding of statistics and probability.

Many do, so?

 

[Polymath257]

I could not find the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh Mc Dowell.
This talk by Josh gives you the idea if you watch it all the way through.

The first 20 seconds or so the video is not the Josh McDowell video.

Josh eventually in the talk takes 8 prophecies about Jesus and gives probabilities that they would all happen to the one man (1 in 10 to the 17) Then he says that is one coin in a pile of coins covering Texas to a depth of 2 feet.
Then of course it seems there are about 300 prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament and the probability that one man fulfills them all is a much smaller probability.
So you get the point.
The calculations were done by a Professor Peter Stoner.
The Statistical Probability of Jesus Fulfilling the Messianic Prophecies
From memory each prophecy was broken up into it's various parts and a probability assigned each part. Eg a 1 in 12 chance that a Jew would be born in the tribe of Judah etc and at the end all the little bits are multiplied together to see the probability that one man would fulfill them all.
Of course the usual rebuttal is that the story of Jesus was made up so that all these prophecies were part of the story.
Well it's not a rebuttal at all really, just what skeptics say so that none of prophecies that Jesus fulfilled has to be bothered about.

Yes, I have read the book. Frankly, it is pretty crappy in almost every way. McDowell lies, he misrepresents, he makes assumptions that are known to be wrong, he presents false trichotomies, etc.

In your discussion of the tribes of Judah, multiplying the different probabilities together is only appropriate if they are independent. And that is incredibly *unlikely* in any human society. So the whole basis of the calculation is flawed from the start.

Again, people who don't understand probability and statistics will usually assume independence when it is far from being correct. Josh does this and thereby gets probabilities that are far, far smaller than the real ones would be.

As for the 300 prophecies, most are determined to be prophecy after the fact. Later people 'realized' the 'prophecy' related to Jesus (whether or not it did in the original). Or the prophecies are interconnected in ways that make any simple probability calculation wrong from the start.

This is similar to the creationist argument about a protein molecule being formed by multiplying the number of possible amino acids together in each spot on the protein chain. Sorry, but the different amino acids are NOT independent. And there are many more useful proteins than one for any given job. So the calculation has to take into consideration things like whether the amino acids are hydrophilic or hydorphobic, how many are in the active sites, etc.

Again, the whole basis for the calculation is wrong from the start. A valid calculation would be incredibly more complex and need information we simply do not currently know.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I have read the book. Frankly, it is pretty crappy in almost every way. McDowell lies, he misrepresents, he makes assumptions that are known to be wrong, he presents false trichotomies, etc.

In your discussion of the tribes of Judah, multiplying the different probabilities together is only appropriate if they are independent. And that is incredibly *unlikely* in any human society. So the whole basis of the calculation is flawed from the start.

Again, people who don't understand probability and statistics will usually assume independence when it is far from being correct. Josh does this and thereby gets probabilities that are far, far smaller than the real ones would be.

As for the 300 prophecies, most are determined to be prophecy after the fact. Later people 'realized' the 'prophecy' related to Jesus (whether or not it did in the original). Or the prophecies are interconnected in ways that make any simple probability calculation wrong from the start.

This is similar to the creationist argument about a protein molecule being formed by multiplying the number of possible amino acids together in each spot on the protein chain. Sorry, but the different amino acids are NOT independent. And there are many more useful proteins than one for any given job. So the calculation has to take into consideration things like whether the amino acids are hydrophilic or hydorphobic, how many are in the active sites, etc.

Again, the whole basis for the calculation is wrong from the start. A valid calculation would be incredibly more complex and need information we simply do not currently know.

My understanding of probability & statistics is miserable.
Whatever I once studied has long ago leaked out of my brain.
So like you, I like to examine the premises assumed. (No math
needed for that.) They're so often so wrong that any calculations
are meaningless.

Math calculations are often naught but window dressing to
lend the appearance of authority to dubious claims, eh.

 

[nPeace]

The chances of getting a royal flush first time is only one in 15 593 760 (I think)

...and the odds of getting 12 royal flushes consecutively?
Evolutionist want us to believe that was the case. We don't agree... in either case.

 

[Revoltingest]

...and the odds of getting 12 royal flushes consecutively?
Evolutionist want us to believe that was the case. We don't agree... in either case.

Oh, boy....another faux probabilistic biology expert
who gets all his premises wrong. Ya can prove
anything with statistics & probability...just assume
what's needed, & make a few errors.

 

[Brian2]

Yes, I have read the book. Frankly, it is pretty crappy in almost every way. McDowell lies, he misrepresents, he makes assumptions that are known to be wrong, he presents false trichotomies, etc.

In your discussion of the tribes of Judah, multiplying the different probabilities together is only appropriate if they are independent. And that is incredibly *unlikely* in any human society. So the whole basis of the calculation is flawed from the start.

Again, people who don't understand probability and statistics will usually assume independence when it is far from being correct. Josh does this and thereby gets probabilities that are far, far smaller than the real ones would be.

As for the 300 prophecies, most are determined to be prophecy after the fact. Later people 'realized' the 'prophecy' related to Jesus (whether or not it did in the original). Or the prophecies are interconnected in ways that make any simple probability calculation wrong from the start.

This is similar to the creationist argument about a protein molecule being formed by multiplying the number of possible amino acids together in each spot on the protein chain. Sorry, but the different amino acids are NOT independent. And there are many more useful proteins than one for any given job. So the calculation has to take into consideration things like whether the amino acids are hydrophilic or hydorphobic, how many are in the active sites, etc.

Again, the whole basis for the calculation is wrong from the start. A valid calculation would be incredibly more complex and need information we simply do not currently know.

Yes statistics can be deceptive.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes statistics can be deceptive.

Especially when done by someone that is dishonest or ignorant. McDowell fits both criteria.

 

[nPeace]

Oh, boy....another faux probabilistic biology expert
who gets all his premises wrong. Ya can prove
anything with statistics & probability...just assume
what's needed, & make a few errors.

.. but the other side wont see that... when they are on that end. Right?
This guy is only demonstrating one aspect based on reason, as the other side does, but he has more going for him, than they do.

Take for example, the probabilities of 1) having the right conditions to get life started spontaneously, and 2) surviving long enough to be fit enough to survive, given slow graduation over millions of years.

 

[Revoltingest]

Take for example, the probabilities of 1) having the right conditions to get life started spontaneously, and 2) surviving long enough to be fit enough to survive, given slow graduation over millions of years.

1) He doesn't know the number of mechanisms possible
for life to arise. Nor the size of the environments conducive
to this happening.
2) It's not millions of years...it's billions.

 

[nPeace]

1) He doesn't know the number of mechanisms possible
for life to arise. Nor the size of the environments conducive
to this happening.
2) It's not millions of years...it's billions.

You lost me.
Who does... and what does that have to do with what he said?

Don't we know how many "accidents" - according to some brilliant minds - had to take place in order for life to be here on earth?

 

[Revoltingest]

You lost me.
Who does... and what does that have to do with what he said?

How does one calculate the odds for/against
abiogenesis without knowing the possible chemistry
processes that could independently cause it to occur?
And typically, I see no addressing the number of
opportunities over the billions of years & vast size
of suitable environments on Earth.
If the premises are wrong, the calculations are meaningless.

Don't we know how many "accidents" - according to some brilliant minds - had to take place in order for life to be here on earth?

We don't

 

[nPeace]

How does one calculate the odds for/against
abiogenesis without knowing the possible chemistry
processes that could independently cause it to occur?

So, do they know? No? Then those that claim the conditions of early earth were, or probably were just right, are wrong. Yes?

And typically, I see no addressing the number of
opportunities over the billions of years & vast size
of suitable environments on Earth.
If the premises are wrong, the calculations are meaningless.

Lost. Sorry. What's this about, and in response to what?

We don't

No?
Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned universe in his 1984 book The Intelligent Universe. "The list of anthropic properties, apparent accidents of a non-biological nature without which carbon-based and hence human life could not exist, is large and impressive", Hoyle wrote.

Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

...and all the others don't know? What are they guessing?
Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

 

[Revoltingest]

So, do they know? No? Then those that claim the conditions of early earth were, or probably were just right, are wrong. Yes?

I'm just saying they can't calculate the probability.

Lost. Sorry. What's this about, and in response to what?

To calculate probability of abiogenesis, one needs
to know the number of trials. This would depend upon
the size of environments, & the number of years.

No?
Fred Hoyle also argued for a fine-tuned universe in his 1984 book The Intelligent Universe. "The list of anthropic properties, apparent accidents of a non-biological nature without which carbon-based and hence human life could not exist, is large and impressive", Hoyle wrote.

Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."

...and all the others don't know? What are they guessing?
Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

The thing about fine tuning is that it could
be exceedingly rare. But we don't know
the number of possible universes with
different properties. In the one with the
right conditions for life, it wouldn't be
improbable...it would justseem that way
because they don't know about the other.

 

[nPeace]

The thing about fine tuning is that it could
be exceedingly rare. But we don't know
the number of possible universes with
different properties. In the one with the
right conditions for life, it wouldn't be
improbable...it would justseem that way
because they don't know about the other.

That has nothing to do with the point.
The point is, we know how many "accidents" - according to some brilliant minds - had to take place in order for life to be here on earth.
We can count the number of "accidents".
Hence, the many hypotheses... including the multiverse idea.
What do you think about the Alien design idea?

 

[Revoltingest]

That has nothing to do with the point.

It does.
But I'm failing to explain why.
Agree to disagree.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Dang!! I had never thought about it but thats crazy.

"The chances that anyone has ever shuffled a pack of cards (fairly) in the same way twice in the history of the world, or ever will again, are infinitesimally small. The number of possible ways to order a pack of 52 cards is ’52!’ (“52 factorial”) which means multiplying 52 by 51 by 50… all the way down to 1. The number you get at the end is 8×10^67 (8 with 67 ‘0’s after it), essentially meaning that a randomly shuffled deck has never been seen before and will never be seen again. So next time you shuffle a deck, you should feel pretty special for holding something so unique! Try for yourself – if you make friends with every person on earth and each person shuffles one deck of cards each second, for the age of the Universe, there will be a one in a trillion, trillion, trillion chance of two decks matching."

How unique is a random shuffle? - Quantum Base.

Yep. More specifically, when you have a set of n objects and you want to calculate the number of ways to arrange r elements (which are a subset of the set you have) without repetition when order makes a difference (which is the case with shuffling a deck of cards), you use this permutation formula:

In the case of shuffling a deck of cards, you're calculating the number of ways to arrange 52 cards out of 52, so n = r = 52. This means you're just doing (52!)/(52-52)! = (52!)/(0!) = 52!, which is indeed an enormous number.