The Certainty of Improbability

[blü 2]

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.

"Tries" in the sense of tickets in a hyperlottery, "successful" in the sense we're here talking about it?

Yes, that works for me. Plus the processes of evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A simpleton's example....
100,000,000 people each buy a lottery ticket.
Bob wins. He says...
"It's a miracle! The odds were 1/100,000,000.
This is effectively impossible. Therefore God did it."
Any winner could say the same.
But the odds are 100% that someone would win.
Winners merely feel an improbable result from
their own perspective.

Let's expand a bit more even.

The day before the lottery draw, Bob prayed REALLY hard to god to make him win.
And then he won. "It's a miracle! God answered my prayer!"

Off course many others prayed just as hard, if not harder. But them not winning is not considered evidence against god or praying. Instead, it's more like "god works in mysterious ways" or "god must have his reasons" or "you prayed wrong" or "god thinks you didn't deserve it because you worked on the sabbath".

But Bob's prayer being answered, now THAT is evidence for god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

It's interesting because in my very first Texas Hold'm game EVER, I drew a Royal Flush.

I am not joking.

I won 50 bucks (and subsequently lost it again )

And no, the deck wasn't stacked. I shuffled them myself and did not cheat.

Sometimes, crazy stuff just happens.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

I think our type of intelligence is actually rather rare among the planets that have life on them, assuming there are such (which I consider likely)

It took 4 billion years of evolution and likely TRILLIONS of species before 1 arised (VERY recently) with that kind of trait.
If you represent the history of life on a 24 hour clock, we humans only appear in the final seconds.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I think our type of intelligence is actually rather rare among the planets that have life on them, assuming there are such (which I consider likely)

I suspect any planet has a chance if it has a migratory, social species which is occasionally split up into separate breeding groups that specialize and then which come back together after long periods of time. These probably encourage greater intelligence over many other survival traits.

It took 4 billion years of evolution and likely TRILLIONS of species before 1 arised (VERY recently) with that kind of trait.
If you represent the history of life on a 24 hour clock, we humans only appear in the final seconds.

So do clocks.

 

[sayak83]

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.

i was thinking of this in terms of high entropy and low entropy states of the universe.

 

[wellwisher]

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?

The problem is dice, cards and the many other objects found in gambling casinos are all manmade objects; artificial and not natural. Playing cards, for example, differ by their subjective facades that we define and agree upon, as having given values. These are not naturally assigned values, such as mass that each scientist would experimentally infer and deduce. We need to take the word of the casino pit boss.

Nature does not work in the same way as the money making tools in casinos. Atoms for examples, have objective values such as free energy and electronegativity, which loads these atomic dice a certain way. If we roll the two dice called O2 and H2, they always end up with H2O. It is a sure thing bet. We should not try to model natural things, with the man made dice and cards found in casinos. This has been a blunder of science, since it allows subjective tools to enter the thought process. Explain how statistics works but without any manmade objects like dice with subjective assignments of different but equal? That is like modeling atoms with widgets.

For example, say we had a theory, analogous to the billion sided dice, that had to be proven by another team of scientists. It may not be reproducible under normal budget time constraints. Yet if they all agree in advance; use the manmade tools of casinos, it will still be accepted as science, violating the philosophy of science. Say one team is lucky and observe a one in a billion cold fusion incident. However, like the billion sided dice, all the other teams do not that luck or the time needed to observe this. Real may be called subjective, while the subjectivity of the consensus teams may are called not real.

A good related question is, why do we have a quantum universe? The energy levels of the hydrogen atom are quantized, instead of being more or less continuous like a billion sided dice. Atoms have assigned energy levels with gaps between. This is how we can predict the red shift of galaxies; assigned values plus doppler shift.

Since quantum states, with gaps between, will reduces the options, compared to a continuous function atom; infinite sided dice, things can happen faster, thereby saving time. The quantum universe heads nature closer to determinism. In other words if A and B have to happen before the final goal of C, by limiting the options via quantum states, each of these steps will happen sooner, compared to the near infinite options on the billion sided dice.

The irony is although quantum saves time, it is still modeled with probability functions. I suppose if we load the billion sided dice, in a symmetrical way, then it becomes a like a manmade dice with fewer sides.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is very easy to assume a casual chain after the dice has landed on a particular side. The genius of hindsight.
One thing I had to come to learn to accept was how bad we humans are at predicting the results of the next dice roll.

I take it you mean a causal chain?

 

[Alien826]

i was thinking of this in terms of high entropy and low entropy states of the universe.

Run that past me again?

 

[Alien826]

The problem is dice, cards and the many other objects found in gambling casinos are all manmade objects; artificial and not natural. Playing cards, for example, differ by their subjective facades that we define and agree upon, as having given values. These are not naturally assigned values, such as mass that each scientist would experimentally infer and deduce. We need to take the word of the casino pit boss.

Nature does not work in the same way as the money making tools in casinos. Atoms for examples, have objective values such as free energy and electronegativity, which loads these atomic dice a certain way. If we roll the two dice called O2 and H2, they always end up with H2O. It is a sure thing bet. We should not try to model natural things, with the man made dice and cards found in casinos. This has been a blunder of science, since it allows subjective tools to enter the thought process. Explain how statistics works but without any manmade objects like dice with subjective assignments of different but equal? That is like modeling atoms with widgets.

For example, say we had a theory, analogous to the billion sided dice, that had to be proven by another team of scientists. It may not be reproducible under normal budget time constraints. Yet if they all agree in advance; use the manmade tools of casinos, it will still be accepted as science, violating the philosophy of science. Say one team is lucky and observe a one in a billion cold fusion incident. However, like the billion sided dice, all the other teams do not that luck or the time needed to observe this. Real may be called subjective, while the subjectivity of the consensus teams may are called not real.

A good related question is, why do we have a quantum universe? The energy levels of the hydrogen atom are quantized, instead of being more or less continuous like a billion sided dice. Atoms have assigned energy levels with gaps between. This is how we can predict the red shift of galaxies; assigned values plus doppler shift.

Since quantum states, with gaps between, will reduces the options, compared to a continuous function atom; infinite sided dice, things can happen faster, thereby saving time. The quantum universe heads nature closer to determinism. In other words if A and B have to happen before the final goal of C, by limiting the options via quantum states, each of these steps will happen sooner, compared to the near infinite options on the billion sided dice.

The irony is although quantum saves time, it is still modeled with probability functions. I suppose if we load the billion sided dice, in a symmetrical way, then it becomes a like a manmade dice with fewer sides.

He said "When fair (not loaded), each number from one to six has a probability of 1/6 of being the outcome in a throw".

That means that the die is constructed to give each outcome an equal chance. Real life dice don't have that property, agreed, but this is a mathematical argument, assuming "perfect" dice.

 

[syo]

Huh?

 

[sayak83]

Run that past me again?

Entropy is measured as

How many microscale configurations of a system generated the same large scale macro properties of the system. For example, billions of possible configurations of gas molecules give rise to the same value and distribution of macro property like pressure of the gas. These internal micro configurations are called degeneracies of the system. More degenerate a system, higher it's entropy.

Now the 2nd law states that an isolated system (like the universe) is overwhelmingly likely to be at or near its highest degeneracy state (ie highest entropy state) compared to any other lower degeneracy state. But the current universe and it's past observable configurations are nowhere near their highest degeneracy state. In fact the Big Bang state of the universe was near its lowest possible degeneracy state. This is a big open question in physics of why the early states of the universe has such low entropy values.

 

[RestlessSoul]

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?

The problem here is in the assumption that each outcome is equally probable. That may be the case with a hypothetical multi faceted die, where each face of the dice is unique, but a probabilistic universe does not appear to work like that. Let me quote Paul Dirac (again);

“If an experiment (on an atomic system) is repeated several times under identical conditions several different results may be obtained. It is a law of nature, though, that if the experiment is repeated a large number of times, each particular result will be obtained in a definite fraction of the total number of times, so there is a definite probability [his italics] of it being obtained.”
Put simply, some outcomes are far more probable than others, and this allows us to make predictions with measurable degrees of uncertainty.

Now let’s consider the Second Law of Thermodynamics; Entropy always increases in a closed system. The reason for this is also probabilistic. There are far more possible high entropy configurations of a system, than low entropy configurations; if we think of the universe as a pack of cards which, being ordered by suit and value, begins in a low entropy state, as it is shuffled by the hands of time the entropy increases because there are far more random configurations possible, than ordered ones. The probability of repeated shuffling returning the cards to their original ordered state is extremely low - so low as to be reasonably considered a statistical irrelevance; though if the process of shuffling continues for eternity, this absurdly low probability becomes an inevitability. But the universe has not been evolving for eternity; it appears to have been evolving for approximately 13.8 billion years only.

 

[wellwisher]

Like I said, the dice and cards often used to describe and explain probability to students are manmade objects and not natural objects; contrived. The result is a synthetic approach to reality. It would be like explaining life based on the activity of robots; synthetic life. But in realty, robots are modeled on life and not the other way around. Don't get me wrong, synthetic approaches can have practical value, but practical value does not necessarily mean natural reality. The result is what is assumed to be real, by a synthetic analogy approach, may not be real in the natural sense.

For example, the consensus of science assumes there is life on other planets. Based on earth life, chemical compositions of planets, speculated solvents, and Lady Luck, life on other planets seems likely based on the working assumptions of a practical tool. However, a consensus has formed, not due to hard evidence as required by the philosophy of science, but due to assuming the formation of life is a like lottery and someone has to win besides earth. There is no known lottery that nobody ever wins. That seals the deal without hard evidence.

The problem is the philosophy of science is ignored and even bypassed using the math of casinos, where the house always wins. Like in roulette, if each scientists bets on different numbers, on any given day of the week, each can be winner. One is not allowed to count cards, in science casinos; open the black box, even though approach this can be used to alter the odds, and make the results more causal. Reason is taboo.

Lack of hard evidence is not allowed in rational science, but statistical science has found a loophole that allows the conclusions. without hard evidence, to be called consensus science. Consensus is also used in politics to state one's group opinion without hard evidence. We only have to bet on the same lottery and have more people on our side.

The religious person who sees God in all Creation also bypasses the philosophy of science, which is based on hard repeatable evidence and not the premises of a belief system. This is always pointed out by Atheists, but same lack of hard evidence approach of statistics, is ignored. The debate between Evolution and Creation is really a religious war.

Probability used to be called the whims of the gods. The gods were fickle and on any given day, like dice, one was not sure which personality; side of the dice, and/or whim would appear. It could be the happy face or the angry face. However, if you wait, the happy face, like the roll of dice, will appear again. Expecting life on other planets is still the whims of the gods. The math is new but the approach was called a religion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

No.

While overcoming handed chirality, entropy, hitting zillion-to-1 combinations of acids/proteins, while making theoretical replicating RNA that does not exist now in any species, etc.

 

[Revoltingest]

While overcoming handed chirality, entropy, hitting zillion-to-1 combinations of acids/proteins, while making theoretical replicating RNA that does not exist now in any species, etc.

Could you explain how you use the word "entropy"?

 

[wellwisher]

If you look at the second law of thermodynamics; entropy, entropy is considered a state variable, meaning for any given state of matter the entropy will be a constant. For example, the entropy of liquid water at 25C and 1 atmosphere is 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is a measured value.

Physics will model the actions of the water molecules within the liquid state of water as being composed of randomness, waver functions and probability events, right down to the electrons of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. However, for any given amount of water; 1 mole, at the specific set of conditions of 25C and 1 atmosphere, all this randomness always adds to a constant. Random is actually a subset of entropic state determinism.

The second law states the entropy of the universe has to increase. Any increase in entropy absorbs energy; endothermic. The energy absorbed appears to go into the randomness; complexity. However, since there is only so much absorbed energy in any given entropic state of matter, the random has to live within its means; within that state's entropic free energy. At that point, random is not exactly random, but rather the sum of all the random events forms a fix state, where there is a balancing of affects.

Since the entropy of the universe has to increase, with the result being an even more complex entropic state, the second law implies that state determinism has the upper hand; second law, leading the local randomness into specific summation order. In that respect, this is similar to being able to adjust the odds on casino slot machines based on the revenue model of the state.

The first cell on earth was an entropic state. All the randomness now had to work together within the fixed energy that had been absorbed by this informational state. Information leading is often represented as God thinking and chaos following orders into that new state. This is easier to explain from a speed of light reference where space and time contract and everything, including random, appears locked into place.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you look at the second law of thermodynamics; entropy, entropy is considered a state variable, meaning for any given state of matter the entropy will be a constant. For example, the entropy of liquid water at 25C and 1 atmosphere is 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is a measured value.

Physics will model the actions of the water molecules within the liquid state of water as being composed of randomness, waver functions and probability events, right down to the electrons of the hydrogen and oxygen atoms. However, for any given amount of water; 1 mole, at the specific set of conditions of 25C and 1 atmosphere, all this randomness always adds to a constant. Random is actually a subset of entropic state determinism.

The second law states the entropy of the universe has to increase. Any increase in entropy absorbs energy; endothermic. The energy absorbed appears to go into the randomness; complexity. However, since there is only so much absorbed energy in any given entropic state of matter, the random has to live within its means; within that state's entropic free energy. At that point, random is not exactly random, but rather the sum of all the random events forms a fix state, where there is a balancing of affects.

Since the entropy of the universe has to increase, with the result being an even more complex entropic state, the second law implies that state determinism has the upper hand; second law, leading the local randomness into specific summation order. In that respect, this is similar to being able to adjust the odds on slope machines based on revenue model of the state.

The first cell on earth was an entropic state. All the randomness now had to work together within the fixed energy that had been absorbed by this informational state. Information leading is often represented as God thinking and chaos following orders into that new state. This is easier to explain from a speed of light reference where space and time contract and everything, including random, appears locked into place.

Consider that the Earth, all locations on it, & any
nascent life form or predecessor are all in an open
(ie, not closed) systems in which entropy can also
decrease, how are any of the concepts of entropy
involved at all?

 

[RestlessSoul]

Consider that the Earth, all locations on it, & any
nascent life form or predecessor are all in an open
(ie, not closed) systems in which entropy can also
decrease, how are any of the concepts of entropy
involved at all?

Hypothetically, entropy can decrease, in pockets of the universe. In a probabilistic universe it is highly improbable, but not impossible, for broken shards of china lying on the ground in a pool of liquid, to leap up onto a table and assemble themselves into a cup of coffee, ie. a complex configuration in a state of low entropy. But we justifiably consider this absurd, because it conflicts with all previous observations from among the entire body of humanity, past and present. The process would make it appear as if time were being rewound, and thus the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, being the only law in physics which distinguishes between the future and the past, would appear to be violated; but only locally.

 

[Revoltingest]

Hypothetically, entropy can decrease...

It's reality, not just hypothetical in open systems.

....in pockets of the universe. In a probabilistic universe it is highly improbable, but not impossible, for broken shards of china lying on the ground in a pool of liquid, to leap up onto a table and assemble themselves into a cup of coffee, ie. a complex configuration in a state of low entropy.

Just because one scenario you imagine is so
improbable as to be impossible, doesn't mean
that decreasing or stable entropy in an open
system is.

But we justifiably consider this absurd, because it conflicts with all previous observations from among the entire body of humanity, past and present. The process would make it appear as if time were being rewound, and thus the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, being the only law in physics which distinguishes between the future and the past, would appear to be violated; but only locally.

Have you ever done thermodynamic calculations
of open systems? If so, one finds that entropy
often tends to not increase.