|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: God's Debris | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4816 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
I would like to discuss Scott Adam's thought experiment, titled 'God's Debris.' In my opinion it's filled with very thought provoking (if not strange) ideas. If you've read it I would like to hear what you think, if not, you can find an online version, google for it. I don't want to open up with no actual topic to discuss, so I would like to talk about his ideas about probability. What's everyone's take on this idea that probability is one of the most driving forces in the universe; that it is just as effective guiding force as something as structured as DNA, just working on an infinate timeling. The idea that the what is never in question, only the when. Just an interesting idea to get started, if there is any interest in the book we can go from here.
Brad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4816 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
anyone?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4816 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
c'mon...it's a good read!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Yaro Member (Idle past 6524 days) Posts: 1797 Joined: |
Im interested, but I don't want to buy the book just to have an online discussion.
Can you sum up some of the points the book makes that you find interesting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4816 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
FINALLY! A reply, thank you so much Yaro!!!
The point Adam's makes about probability very interesting. Here is an excerpt from it where the old man is explaining to the package guy what makes up the universe. **also, could someone tell me how to put this in the quote box?**
Don't underestimate it. Probability is an infinitely powerful force. Remember my first question to you, about the coin toss? "Yes. You asked why a coin comes up heads half the time."
Probability is omnipotent and omnipresent. It influences every coin at any time in any place, instantly. It cannot be shielded or altered. We might see randomness in the outcome of an individual coin toss, but as the number of tosses increases, probability has firm control of the outcome. And probability is not limited to coins and dice and slot machines. Probability is the guiding force of everything in the universe, living or non-living, near or far, big or small, now or anytime. The discussion then is do you think probability is actually a force that controls and guides the universe? It's strange to think about, but in a strange way makes sense to me.Brad This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-19-2005 09:20 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4816 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
guess the book nook gets ignored mostly...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
If you use the "raw text" button at the bottom of a post you can see exactly what the poster entered.
When you are editing there is a "*UBB Code is ON" tag on the left. That gives a description of the ways to make different formats.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I don't think that it makes much sense to think of probability as a force. Especially not in the sense of somehow forcing a set of outcomes towards the mean.
Maybe it's just the way it's written but I think I detect the "Gambler's Fallacy" in there. It doesn't matter is you've had a run of 10 - or 100 or 100 - Heads in a row. The next flip of the coin is no more likely to come down Tails than the first (and if you've had a run of 1000 Heads, odds are that the chance of the coin coming down Tails next time is zero :-)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4816 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
True, but Adam's point is the longer you flip, the closer you get to the perfect 50 - 50. His explination of why that happens is because it's an unseen force that guides the coin to act in such a way, however the coin is a metaphor for everything. I'm not entirely sure what to make of the idea...it's weird, that's for sure. Is it valid? I'm not sure yet...
Brad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4816 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
Also, if you flip long enough, all outcomes WILL happen. You will eventually come to a point where you get 5, 50, 500, and even 5,000 heads in a row.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
That's actually only true in certain senses. The proportions will tend to get closer to 50-50 but the actual difference between the number of heads and the number of tails will tend to go up. And the "tend to" is important because this is probabilistic, too - it's no certainty.
And it's not because of any force influencing the outcome of the tosses either. It's just down to the mathematics of probability. One way to deal with it is to take the throws of a coin as a sequence of Heads and Tails. Because each sequence has the same probability you can use the number of sequences corresponding to each result as a substitute for the relative probability. e.g. for 4 coins there are:2 results that are 4:0 (HHHH and TTTT) (p = 2/16) 8 that are 3:1 (HTTT, THTT, TTHT, TTTH and THHH, HTHH, HHTH, and HHHT) (p = 8/16) 6 that are 2:2 (HHTT, HTHT, HTTH, TTHH, THTH and THHT) (p = 6/16) As the number of tosses goes up the number of sequences that are close to 50:50 goes up which means that the probability of a result that is close to 50:50 goes up. And that's all there is to it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4816 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
Well...so maybe Adam's thinking about probability is off in more then one way, but this is still a great read, if you'd like, I'd like to discuss another aspect of it. (P.S. Yaro, I'm doing this for you! Where'd you go?!?) This deals with the idea that Christians, and all religions don't actually believe in an omnipotent God, but like before, I'll let Adam's explain:
"If you were God," he said, "what would you want?" "I don't know. I barely know what _I_ want, much less what God wants." "Imagine that you are omnipotent. You can do anything, createanything, be anything. As soon as you decide you want something, it becomes reality." I waited, knowing there was more. He continued. "Does it make sense to think of God as wantinganything? A God would have no emotions, no fears, no desires, no curiosity, no hunger. Those are human shortcomings, not something that would be found in an omnipotent God. What then would motivate God?" "Maybe it's the challenge, the intellectual stimulation of creating things,"I offered. "Omnipotence means that nothing is a challenge. And what couldstimulate the mind of someone who knows everything?" "You make it sound almost boring to be God. But I guess you'll sayboredom is a human feeling." "Everything that motivates living creatures is based on some weaknessor flaw. Hunger motivates animals. Lust motivates animals. Fear and pain motivate animals. A God would have none of those impulses. Humans are driven by all of our animal passions plus loftier-sounding things like self-actualization and creativity and freedom and love. But God would care nothing for these things, or if he cared would already have them in unlimited quantities. None of them would be motivating." "So what motivates God?" I asked. "Do you have the answer to thatquestion, or are you just yanking my chain?" "I can conceieve of only one challenge for an omnipotent being -- thechallenge of destroying himself." "You think God would want to commit suicide?" I asked. "I'm not saying he wants anything. I'm saying it's the only challenge." "I think God would prefer to exist than to not exist." "That's thinking like a human, not like a God. You have a fear of deathso you assume God would share your preference. But God would have no fears. Existing would be a choice. And there would be no pain of death, nor feelings of guilt or remorse or loss. Those are human feelings, not God feelings. God could simply choose to discontinue existence." My question then is, often Christians accuse people of putting god in a box. Is that what Adam's is doing, or is he bringing up a logical point that many people don't think about? Does this excerpt follow, logically?Brad
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad Member (Idle past 4816 days) Posts: 143 From: Portland OR, USA Joined: |
bumpity bump bump...no one interested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
"I can conceieve of only one challenge for an omnipotent being -- the challenge of destroying himself."
OK.....shadow writes: As you know, I am a Christian. My human nature has pondered how God would think, yet I have never thought myself capable of hypothesizing how God would think. I will agree that Adams brought up a point that is not often brought up. My question then is, often Christians accuse people of putting god in a box. Is that what Adam's is doing, or is he bringing up a logical point that many people don't think about? Does this excerpt follow, logically?I have not read that book, however. It looks like a good one. I sometimes read books like that. This message has been edited by Phatboy, 09-03-2004 04:35 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024