So much delusion, so little time.
So what's the proper name for a change in probability?
What is wrong with saying 'a change in probability'? why make up a new technical term for something which is easily described with the current language. In maybe this is the root of the problem, if scientists used the words stroonth and plar instead of fitness and success you would have no objection to them, even if they meant exactly the same thing.
Both those claims mentioned about things going one way or another, were given to me by evolutionists, I lost reference. But I think we can simply discard your thesis that there is apparently no free behaviour in the universe as much meaningless philosphy.
Well thats great, an evolutionist told you, so it
must be true, but you can't tell us who or where or back up the statement in any way. And since you have such conclusive proof we can therefore dismiss all of my argument, how nice for you. So despite absoloutely no evidence on your side you are going to ignore any alternative possibility.
When rolling a die, you have 6 chances with equal probability, one of them get's realised. That point where this chance changes, it get's realised or not, I name the decision, determination. So the main determinatin for the eye, is the point from which on it was very likely that there would be an eye. That point is very early in the unverse, why Dawkins seems to imply it is, the way he writes about how very likely an eye is to occur.
So what probability are you choosing, I suggested 1 as the most obvious as that will be when the given outcome will always occur. As to what point this determination arises in the course of a die's roll, that would be a tricky bit of physics to workout, but not theoretically impossible. It is even harder to work out what point the probability of an eye evolving in the universes development would be, simply claiming that Richard Dawkins 'implies' that it is very early is insufficient. Are we talking the human eye, the invertebrate eye or light sensitive pigments?
And so with all organisms and attributes, we can perhaps trace them back to a few determinations, at which the origin of the major KINDS of organisms was set, with some variation left over to be determined in the future. The current state of knowledge points toward that being true.
It may be theoretically possible to determine the points at which specific probabilities of a specific entity arising became 1 but it would be a phenomenally complicated task for even 1 entity given the massive complexity of the systems involved. And you have yet to show what actual use this information would provide, it would certainly be interesting as a way of reconstructing in fine detail the evolution of life on earth say but it would be almost completely useless beyond that. It would not produce any predictive tools which could be applied to systems to say how they would evolve, all it could give us would be a starting point for the probabilistic evolution of the system and a probability distribution for varying outcomes.
That is except of course, at the very beginning of the universe, when the universe was even smaller then a brain. Decisions there could easily control a lot of things, the whole universe even, as tiny as it was then.
Is this supposed to be some sort of argument for the begining of the universe, when it was 'smaller then[sic] a human brain', being when the probability of the eye evolving became 1, if so it is phenomenally weak. Certainly a lot of things will have been ruled out of possibility as things resolved in the first few instants of planck time, but I can see absoloutely no concievable rational basis for you thinking that any of those resolutions would have brought the probability of the eye evolving to 1, unless you are taking a massively deterministic viewpoint diammetrically opposed to the one you held in our previous discussions.
I'm sure generals use a like-word to intelligence think meaningfully about decisive moments of the battle. Well they use the word "soul" you seem to imply. Perhaps if science about determinations get's developed, they would talk about a determination network, or structure, with manipulative controlling points and whatnot. I wouldn't know what words generals would use, but the word would be in the same class as intelligence.
I never implied that generals would use such a word, I was asking if you would describe a battle as intelligent since you claimed decision/determination required intelligence and battles can be described as having decisive moments. the language is already avialable in science for describing the point at which a probability of something happening becomes equal to 1.
So you see Mike, I think you should just be satisfied with getting a pointer towards intelligence accepted within science, in the form of science recognizing decision, then that you would want to bring in something like "intelligent designer", which is not generic common knowledge.
I'm hurt Syamsu, after all this time and many posts you can't tell the difference between me and Mike.
The fact that science can describe things as the evolution of a probability matrix towards a point at which a specific probability reaches 1 in no way brings any suggestion of intelligence into the mix. Except in as much as you choose to call such an occurrance determination and then conflate it with the human act of determination.
I'd be happy with 'probabilistic designer' if you like.
TTFN,
WK
™ Version 4.2
