The Certainty of Improbability

[Subduction Zone]

Huh? Sorry, you've utterly lost me here. What now about terms? What now about grounds? Complaining? Who what why now? I'm really kind of confused now... and I think we're having two completely different conversations at this point. So... I give up?

I can see that.

 

[dybmh]

Why, then, should one assume that if an event is unlikely or perceived to be so, it must have been caused by an intelligent agent?

I think this is over simplified. Most folks look at many many events and different types of events to make this determination. It's not just one thing.

 

[Alien826]

Sorry, someone had to pick this particular nit.

A lottery, at least where they draw the numbers, doesn't have to have a winner. It's quite possible that nobody has the correct numbers. The odds against getting the numbers correct by any given person is a function of how many possible combinations of numbers there are, not how many people participate. The probability of someone having the correct numbers goes up as the number of participants increase, but it's possible that one person could participate and also get the correct number. He'd just get his own money back in that case, or the proportion that doesn't go to the organizers.

The huge die is better, though you have to control the rolling of it for fairness as well as the weighting of the die itself.

All of which has nothing to do with the point made by the OP. I just don't have a lot to do right now.

Incidentally all humans are intelligent agents. Not all intelligent agents are human.

Also if you make the die big enough, the granularity of the universe would effectively make it a sphere and it would just roll around forever and there would never be a conclusion, just like discussions in RF.

All of which points to my theory that God does indeed roll dice when governing the universe, so phhhht to you Einstein.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is one of the clearest explanations I have read of the fallacy of ascribing intentional action to low probability outcomes.

Your post should be compulsory reading for all creationists.

My mother was shifting house, going into retirement. She wanted me to buy her antiques. She would even throw in three hand carved dice.
You can guess what happened. 'If you can throw three sixes I will buy this stuff.'
And she did.
That's 6x6x6.

I played the pokies just once in my life. Guess what happened?
Dad gave me some money and I hit the jackpot on one of those one-armed bandits.
Not fooling me - I never went back again. Came out a winner.

And another.
I had shares in some company. I moved house and the company lost contact.
The company was sold to something like Amazon Gambling or some such name.
Just when gambling was being legalized.
When they eventually found me I was quite surprised. Went on an international holiday with that payout.

So you can win at gambling, save for having to buy mother's antiques.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, someone had to pick this particular nit.

A lottery, at least where they draw the numbers, doesn't have to have a winner. It's quite possible that nobody has the correct numbers. The odds against getting the numbers correct by any given person is a function of how many possible combinations of numbers there are, not how many people participate. The probability of someone having the correct numbers goes up as the number of participants increase, but it's possible that one person could participate and also get the correct number. He'd just get his own money back in that case, or the proportion that doesn't go to the organizers.

The huge die is better, though you have to control the rolling of it for fairness as well as the weighting of the die itself.

All of which has nothing to do with the point made by the OP. I just don't have a lot to do right now.

Incidentally all humans are intelligent agents. Not all intelligent agents are human.

Also if you make the die big enough, the granularity of the universe would effectively make it a sphere and it would just roll around forever and there would never be a conclusion, just like discussions in RF.

All of which points to my theory that God does indeed roll dice when governing the universe, so phhhht to you Einstein.

 

[blü 2]

Let's say we're thinking of complex life evolving on a barren starting earth. There I feel many sequential steps of incredible odds must have occurred to the point that I think intelligent involvement is the most likely explanation.

But as to questions of odds, the number of stars in the universe is unknown, but one informed guess suggested around 20-21 septillion (20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). It's not clear how many planets that might imply, but even if only one in 20,000 had a planet, that'd still be one sextillion planets (and as for odds of a billion to 1, that's a trillion shots at it).

So I see no justification for imagining a superbeing at the helm. Indeed, why on earth would it be puddling around on Earth when it could be down at the Superbeing Bar looking for a mate (or a suitable multiplying agent, anyway), which is what all living things are evolved to do.

 

[George-ananda]

But as to questions of odds, the number of stars in the universe is unknown, but one informed guess suggested around 20-21 septillion (20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). It's not clear how many planets that might imply, but even if only one in 20,000 had a planet, that'd still be one sextillion planets (and as for odds of a billion to 1, that's a trillion shots at it).

I hear what your saying but intelligent involvement is just the more likely and believable chance. Intelligence to me doesn't seem like the odds stretch that chance would be.

So I see no justification for imagining a superbeing at the helm. Indeed, why on earth would it be puddling around on Earth when it could be down at the Superbeing Bar looking for a mate (or a suitable multiplying agent, anyway), which is what all living things are evolved to do.

I did not say superbeing just 'intelligent intent'. I'm thinking more like a few of the septillion nature beings with a job to do. For that thought I'm also considering information from humans claiming greater insight than we can gain from our physical senses.

 

[sayak83]

Probably everyone has seen or heard of the standard six-sided die. When fair (not loaded), each number from one to six has a probability of 1/6 of being the outcome in a throw.

Now imagine a die with a billion faces, or a lottery with billions of participants. The probability of each individual face or ticket becomes extremely small, but in each of these situations, throwing the billion-sided die or drawing a ticket out of the billions in the lottery is guaranteed to yield one of these extremely unlikely outcomes.

When you have a space of individual, discrete outcomes in a situation where a lack of outcome is impossible, you are certain to get one of them even if they number in the trillions. You can't, for instance, throw the hypothetical, fair billion-sided die and have it not land on one of the faces, each of which has a probability of one in a billion of showing up after a throw. You can't randomly pull a ticket from the billions in the lottery and not have a winner on your hands, unless you initially placed some blank tickets in the pool.

Why, then, should one assume that if an event is unlikely or perceived to be so, it must have been caused by an intelligent agent? For example, if wind blows over the billion-sided die and causes it to land on one of its faces, is the extremely unlikely outcome the result of intelligent planning, or is it merely the result of the certainty that a thrown die will yield an outcome when it lands no matter how unlikely said outcome is?

This is correct. But if one of the outcomes is very different from the others, and the first throw causes that specific outcome to be generated, then we may suspect something fishy.

This is however not the case for our current universe. So we do not have to worry about anything of that sort.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Why, then, should one assume that if an event is unlikely or perceived to be so, it must have been caused by an intelligent agent? For example, if wind blows over the billion-sided die and causes it to land on one of its faces, is the extremely unlikely outcome the result of intelligent planning, or is it merely the result of the certainty that a thrown die will yield an outcome when it lands no matter how unlikely said outcome is?

I don't disagree, but we are very lucky. Its enough to get emotional about and to wonder whether intelligence might be an innate aspect of reality.

 

[blü 2]

I hear what your saying but intelligent involvement is just the more likely and believable chance. Intelligence to me doesn't seem like the odds stretch that chance would be.I did not say superbeing just 'intelligent intent'. I'm thinking more like a few of the septillion nature beings with a job to do. For that thought I'm also considering information from humans claiming greater insight than we can gain from our physical senses.

But doesn't intelligent involvement run into exactly the same problem? If we need special entities X for our earthly intelligence to arise, don't those special entities in turn need special entities X-1 to account for their intelligence? And don't they need special entities X-2 to account for their intelligence? And so on endlessly down the list of X-minuses?

And doesn't that consideration greatly if not decisively favor the 'chance' explanation?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm a little confused by '...that is how we get methodological naturalism.'

I self-describe as a methodological naturalist and that threw me. Could you explain what you mean?

Cheers!!

Well, it started in the modern sense with Descartes's Evil Demon, was refined by the is-ought problem, whether causality is a fact or psychology and the problem of the-thing-in-itself. There is even more in the history of the philosophy of science, but the end result is that as I learned it, is that the axiomatic assumption that objective reality is natural is without evidence, but one of the assumption in the method of using the concept of evidence.
BTW there is also the 5 tropes of Agrippa the skeptic.

 

[George-ananda]

But doesn't intelligent involvement run into exactly the same problem? If we need special entities X for our earthly intelligence to arise, don't those special entities in turn need special entities X-1 to account for their intelligence? And don't they need special entities X-2 to account for their intelligence? And so on endlessly down the list of X-minuses?

And doesn't that consideration greatly if not decisively favor the 'chance' explanation?

I’m thinking they start from the bare elements of earth and grow it upwards to a being that recognizes its own divinity.

 

[rational experiences]

I the man. I the Mage. In my life.

I mag ine.

No I won't. I'm human first. Imagination I use as a human.

Self idolator I am divine divinity.

First place human equal mutual in humans lawful legal mutual equal we are all human babies bible.

Now position number three last human warning.

First before Moses equalled destroyed life.

Second before Jesus equalled destroyed life.

Third...yet to occur would own new name as new earth technology earth mass removal was never predicted to be removed.

New.

Father son holy spirit 3x3
Mother daughter holy spirit 3x3

Third position now.

Son daughter father after him mother after him.

Predictability from baby creator human life conscious self now adult position whilst remaining in fixed one state holy spirit holy heavens.

Human.

Correct advice no theist legally allowed we own a mutual human life

Caused to be aware because of man's machine AI status.

Subliminal causes. Conscious mind changed.

What AI is about psyche.

Earth machine satellite in out of space. Transmits from through hot atmosphere. Clouds mass cools transmitters. Machines don't blow up as earth mass bodies.

Ancient how I was taught science by star mass.

Star mass higher energy frozen mass than earth stone. Cold. Burning moving by gas.

Arrives to earth. Blasts as per Russia event.

Mind given earth rock advice star no longer sun stone.

Learnt how a star mass solid mass first became dusts.

Is earths sun star human man advice.

Whole time within light constant.

There is no black hole black mass star theory on earth.

Reasoning. Half mind constant is dark clear night. If a star burst in night sky the sky would be lit up. From dark to light whilst a conscious man was given mind advice...fake.

As our bible testimony a new third bible is only about humans as baby life to adult life. No old new testimony is allowed to be referenced.

Legal ..a shut bible only no argument allowed it is now only...new.

In new life sun mass is falling in. Humans life is being removed suffering sacrificed. Caused by men with machines.

No organisation but legal is legal says governing.

 

[blü 2]

I’m thinking they start from the bare elements of earth and grow it upwards to a being that recognizes its own divinity.

Evolution has done that, and intelligence has resulted throughout the animal world.

Whereas the idea of intelligence being the result of purpose presupposes an earlier being intelligent enough to have purposes, no?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Probably everyone has seen or heard of the standard six-sided die. When fair (not loaded), each number from one to six has a probability of 1/6 of being the outcome in a throw.

Now imagine a die with a billion faces, or a lottery with billions of participants. The probability of each individual face or ticket becomes extremely small, but in each of these situations, throwing the billion-sided die or drawing a ticket out of the billions in the lottery is guaranteed to yield one of these extremely unlikely outcomes.

When you have a space of individual, discrete outcomes in a situation where a lack of outcome is impossible, you are certain to get one of them even if they number in the trillions. You can't, for instance, throw the hypothetical, fair billion-sided die and have it not land on one of the faces, each of which has a probability of one in a billion of showing up after a throw. You can't randomly pull a ticket from the billions in the lottery and not have a winner on your hands, unless you initially placed some blank tickets in the pool.

Why, then, should one assume that if an event is unlikely or perceived to be so, it must have been caused by an intelligent agent? For example, if wind blows over the billion-sided die and causes it to land on one of its faces, is the extremely unlikely outcome the result of intelligent planning, or is it merely the result of the certainty that a thrown die will yield an outcome when it lands no matter how unlikely said outcome is?

Isn't abiogenesis throwing hundreds of trillions of such dice?!

Isn't the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy saying NO dice could have made ALL?

 

[Revoltingest]

Isn't abiogenesis throwing hundreds of trillions of such dice?!

Exactly!
Trillions of chemical reactions on a big planet
with millions of square miles over billions of
years is a whole lotta opportunity for primitive
life to arise.

Isn't the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy saying NO dice could have made ALL?

No.

 

[George-ananda]

Evolution has done that, and intelligence has resulted throughout the animal world.

Whereas the idea of intelligence being the result of purpose presupposes an earlier being intelligent enough to have purposes, no?

Yes that is correct. My belief is that Consciousness/Brahman precedes matter and matter is a derivative of consciousness. Consciousness must then incarnate a being for physical brain intelligence to exist.

Now, why Consciousness/Brahman exists is a mystery we cannot get behind in my view.

My beliefs come from the most convincing sources (IMO) I have come across, Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and the direct insights of those claiming the experience of consciousness above the physical level.

And the evidence from so-called paranormal phenomena just does not fit a materialist worldview of intelligence/consciousness.

 

[Alien826]

This is correct. But if one of the outcomes is very different from the others, and the first throw causes that specific outcome to be generated, then we may suspect something fishy.

Mathematically, the odds applying to the first throw are exactly the same as those applying to all the other throws, so "it" happening on the first throw is no more or less likely than on any other iteration. Now, if the next couple of throws also came up with "it", we'd better ask some questions.

 

[Alien826]

But as to questions of odds, the number of stars in the universe is unknown, but one informed guess suggested around 20-21 septillion (20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000). It's not clear how many planets that might imply, but even if only one in 20,000 had a planet, that'd still be one sextillion planets (and as for odds of a billion to 1, that's a trillion shots at it).

So I see no justification for imagining a superbeing at the helm. Indeed, why on earth would it be puddling around on Earth when it could be down at the Superbeing Bar looking for a mate (or a suitable multiplying agent, anyway), which is what all living things are evolved to do.

Looking at this from the other angle, even if the probability of Earth emerging as it is is very low, we have lots and lots of tries to allow it to happen. Then we can invoke the anthropic principle, which says that it happened here because we are here to observe it (not as a cause, but an obvious result). I'll try that again. We are here observing the Earth, so we are living on one of the successful "tries". No probability required at this point.

 

[blü 2]

Yes that is correct. My belief is that Consciousness/Brahman precedes matter and matter is a derivative of consciousness. Consciousness must then incarnate a being for physical brain intelligence to exist.

Now, why Consciousness/Brahman exists is a mystery we cannot get behind in my view.

My beliefs come from the most convincing sources (IMO) I have come across, Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and the direct insights of those claiming the experience of consciousness above the physical level.

And the evidence from so-called paranormal phenomena just does not fit a materialist worldview of intelligence/consciousness.

Good luck to us both!