Indefinate Trails and Probabilty = Relativism?

[angellous_evangellous]

I am toying with the idea of writing an essay with the following premises:

Presuppositions:
1) Every human choice is based upon weighing various probabilities.
2) Every probability is the ratio of true outcomes to the number of trials

Premises:
1) The universe presents an indefinate number of trials for every possible outcome for any probability
2) If this universe continually spawns other "big bangs," then the number of trials are not only indefinate, but infinate

Conclusions:
When applied to the larger picture, all probabilities are meaningless because the number of trials will make every possible outcome occur. Thus, every "false" outcome will invitably be "true." At least given the number of possible trials, we can see that certain probabilities when applied to the universe lose their meaning. For example, some creationists say that evolution is simply not probable. However, given the awesome, unimaginable number of stars and planents in this universe alone, evolution of life is 100% probable.

Also, given the number of possible trails in the universe, is it not probable to be "true" and "false" at the same time? Does this have implications for relativism?

 

[michel]

I am toying with the idea of writing an essay with the following premises:

Presuppositions:
1) Every human choice is based upon weighing various probabilities.
2) Every probability is the ratio of true outcomes to the number of trials

Premises:
1) The universe presents an indefinate number of trials for every possible outcome for any probability
2) If this universe continually spawns other "big bangs," then the number of trials are not only indefinate, but infinate

Conclusions:
When applied to the larger picture, all probabilities are meaningless because the number of trials will make every possible outcome occur. Thus, every "false" outcome will invitably be "true." At least given the number of possible trials, we can see that certain probabilities when applied to the universe lose their meaning. For example, some creationists say that evolution is simply not probable. However, given the awesome, unimaginable number of stars and planents in this universe alone, evolution of life is 100% probable.

Also, given the number of possible trails in the universe, is it not probable to be "true" and "false" at the same time? Does this have implications for relativism?

I think I can see the way you are thinking; if I can use a game of chess as a parallel example, to each move there are numbers of choices, and each one of those will produce numerous other choices. Which is basically why I am not very good at chess, because my mind can't process more info past the first move.

The falacy - as I see it in your argument is at the start; 1) and 2) rely on the common sense of humans, and the ability to make decisions based on logic - which in practice is clouded by emotion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

OK, I know that in #2 and If... then statement cannot be listed in a premise. I will replace it with something else soon...

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Emotion makes no difference on whether or not a probability is true.

It is still a probability if emotions are involved:

The person says: this will make me happy or sad, etc. It is still a probability: what will be the "true" outcome for my emotions? - The "true" outcome is the choice.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have the "big picture" in mind, though.I am specifically thinking about everything that we know in physics to construct our relationships with the natural world, where every choice is based upon reason. Every choice is made based on probabilities, and the vastness of possible trials make every "false" true, and every "true" false. This renders every human choice meaningless.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

*bump

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Presuppositions:
1) Every human choice is based upon weighing various probabilities.
2) Every probability is the ratio of true outcomes to the number of trials

Last Thursday evening I chose to see the ballet Giselle ...
I roll 2 dice 4 times getting (1,5) (2,3) (4,2) (5,3). Therefore, according to you, the probability of rolling 6 is 50%.

Item (1) is a flawed 'presupposition'. Item (2) is a flawed definition. Not a good start for an essay in my opinion.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Last Thursday evening I chose to see the ballet Giselle ...
I roll 2 dice 4 times getting (1,5) (2,3) (4,2) (5,3). Therefore, according to you, the probability of rolling 6 is 50%.

Item (1) is a flawed 'presupposition'. Item (2) is a flawed definition. Not a good start for an essay in my opinion.

Deut, could you elaborate on the flaws please? Simply saying that they are flawed without giving reasons is not helpful.

Thanks

 

[robtex]

I am toying with the idea of writing an essay with the following premises:

AE, starting with your presuppositions:

1) some choices are spontaneous meaning they do not weight probablities. For instance, I hear an ice cream truck and run to get ice cream. as in impulse buy i am not thinking about what other snacks or any snacks i may buy instead or putting money in the bank..was a spur of the moment thing. can you amend that first one to say many instead of all?

2) what is the difference in a "true outcome" and an "outcome"?

On your premises:

1) why are you postulating that there was more than one big bang? What does the big bang have to do with the human choices in your presuppositions? Your presuppositoins are focused on man and than your premises on the universe..What is the correlation of the two?

On your conclusions:

1) you are stating probablities is meaninless? The insurance industry for one is going to dissapointed in this theory. Just kidding....but seriously.....they have meaning in as far as they predict trials on a per occurance senerio which has value. Like playing craps in a casino. The probablities have value on the very next die roll. Not on the theory that all 36 combinations of roles will occur someday therefore the very next roll does not count.


2) You say "on the larger picture" what larger picture? You didn't define it.

3) You say that it is "probable to be true and false at the same time." Do you have an example to qualify that with? You may want to define relativism for the purpose of your essay at the time you present it.

I get the idea that you are using your essay to give crediablity of evolution to creationist based theists. If so, understand that they did not reject the reality of evolution to the myth of creationism based on logic or rational thought. If you feel you must "convert" them better to appeal to their emotions as opposed to their intellect. Their emotions is what sold them on the Torah's explanation of our existance.

Thanks for trusting us with your essay......um....I am guessing you are argueing for a theistic interpretation of evolution but I am not sure..can you elaborate on your essay's goals for us?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Rob,
Just wanted some thoughts. I will make some changes to the presuppositions to what we know about physics, and not the probability for every choice.

This is just a morsel of a thought for an outline of an essay that I might write this year, just wanted some thoughts. Yeah, don't worry, I will define all of my terms in the essay and will most likely focus the logic specifically on my application. At this point, I am not sure where it will go...

Thanks

 

[robtex]

AE what is the essay about what is it's purpose?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut, could you elaborate on the flaws please? Simply saying that they are flawed without giving reasons is not helpful.

Simply saying they are flawed and providing clear examples is also apparently not helpful.

• Please explain how my choice of attending the ballet was "based upon weighing various probabilities".
• Please explain how a flawless definition of probability could indicate a 50% probability of rolling six as shown.

Is elaboration really necessary?

 

[robtex]

Deut 32.8 he is brainstorming. Some people write better that way. He threw an idea out with an error on probalities by factoring out "per occurance" no biggie.....its a rough draft ......throw him a bone not dipped in sarcasm and maybe you can help him make a skelton out of it.

although, AE we still don't have a premise or stated purpose which would be most helpful. I am guessing you are pitching evolution to theists but I can't tell..can you give us the backdrop so we can see your rough drafts in context?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

AE what is the essay about what is it's purpose?

No purpose yet... just sticking my toe in the water.

Obviously, the biggest flaw in my thinking has already been pointed out:

Simply because the universe may be infinately vast, there is a limited number of possibilities or trials for virtually every human choice. So my presuppositions are limited by scope. That is, the scope of the choice or probability is limited; although every human choice I think is based upon probability (whether by reason or imulse, I am not presupposing that there are multiple parallell universes where a person can make every possible choice. The scope is going to need to be limited to the larger choices like the probability of evolution.

I will need to use the same example for now:

Some think that evolution is so improbable that it is not believeable.

However, given the vastness of the universe, there are an indefinate number of trials.

A "true" would be a world on which life evolves

A "false" would be a world on which there is no life

We have an estimation of planents and stars, earth is 1 in X number of planents that we no about, none of which have life. However, the number of planents that we don't know about is beyond estimate, which makes the 1 to X probability useless in determining how likely it is for life to evolve.

 

[jimbob]

Sounds like a really good and interesting essay. Why are you writing it? is it for school?

 

[robtex]

No purpose yet... just sticking my toe in the water.

me thinks no purpose=no direction in the case of persuasive writing...any writing with premises and conclusions is persuasive by design.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

me thinks no purpose=no direction in the case of persuasive writing...any writing with premises and conclusions is persuasive by design.

Yes, but it may not be persuasive in the beginning ROFL :biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Sounds like a really good and interesting essay. Why are you writing it? is it for school?

Well thanks. I don't think that this will be appropriate for school. It may just end up being a subset of an argument which actually has merit.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Deut 32.8 he is brainstorming. Some people write better that way. He threw an idea out with an error on probalities by factoring out "per occurance" no biggie.....its a rough draft ......throw him a bone not dipped in sarcasm and maybe you can help him make a skelton out of it.

The presuppositions are wrong or meaningless.

The conclusion, i.e., that all probabilities are meaningless, flows directly from the 2nd 'presupposition', and is absurd on the face of it. Far better to face what you label sarcasm that to take such silliness into a casino or a statistics course.

Our friend knows full well that any medical professional would maintain that the probability of death from Aids is greater than the probability of death from hickies - ask him which condition he'd rather have given that "probabilities are meaningless". Brainstorming is not an excuse for not using one's brain.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The presuppositions are wrong or meaningless.

The conclusion, i.e., that all probabilities are meaningless, flows directly from the 2nd 'presupposition', and is absurd on the face of it. Far better to face what you label sarcasm that to take such silliness into a casino or a statistics course.

Our friend knows full well that any medical professional would maintain that the probability of death from Aids is greater than the probability of death from hickies - ask him which condition he'd rather have given that "probabilities are meaningless". Brainstorming is not an excuse for not using one's brain.

Well thanks, Deut. What do you think of limiting the probabilities to those whose subjects are liable to an infinate number of trials. I did qualify myself by saying that I can no longer hold the presupposition that my thinking can apply to every human choice because most human choices have a limited number of possible trials.

But,
What if you could go to a casino and play an indefinate number of games? You would eventually win, wouldn't you?