Is there such a thing as chance?

Let’s get back on topic with another look at this carbon dating thing by analogy:When we {totally randomly} toss a {highly balanced two faced} coin in the air it is virtually impossible to determine if it is going to land on HEAD or TAIL positions.If we {similarly} toss 1 million {identical} coins in the air we can predict with a high degree of certainty that 50.00% will be HEAD and 50.00% will be TAIL positions. And in each case of each individual coin it will still be virtually impossible to determine if it is going to land on HEAD or TAIL positions.Next we take {arbitrarily} all the coins that landed on the HEAD position and toss them again. And again we can predict with a high degree of certainty that 50.00% will be HEAD and 50.00% will be TAIL positions. And in each case of each individual coin it will still be virtually impossible to determine if it is going to land on HEAD or TAIL positions.We can keep doing this until the number of coins gets small enough that 50.00% certainty can no longer be maintained and we have to go to 50.0% ... and finally to 50% certainty for the very last coin.Obviously the last coin could continue being HEAD up for several tosses, just as several preceding rounds could have consisted of unequal numbers of coins. At some point uncertainty is greater than certainty.In this regard each {coin toss} is like the half-life of a radioactive element, and the number of coins that end up in the TAIL position are like the individual molecules that decay in that period, and the uncertainty of the dating method is related to the number of molecules {available\remaining} in the sample -- as that number gets smaller the uncertainty gets higher ... the accuracy of the dating drops off with extreme age relative to the half-life of the element.¹⁴C has a half-life of 5730 years, and 57,300 is only 10 "generations" of the half-life so that is a (2¹⁰=) 1024:1 reduction in ¹⁴CWith an original proportion (similar to what we know for today) of 98.89% ¹²C, 1.11% ¹³C and 0.0000000001% ¹⁴C there is proportionally very little ¹⁴C in any sample to begin with (that is 1 molecule of ¹⁴C in every 1,000,000,000,000 total molecules of carbon), so you can see that it is possible to run out of molecules to be able to count with sufficient accuracy for dating.Note that it takes 20⁽¹⁾ {generations\tosses} to reduce 1 million to 1 (2²⁰=1,048,576) on an raw average basis and you can see that the level of uncertainty used in dating can be relatively low as long as you stay away from the stage where there just aren’t enough molecules to be certain of their behavior: as long as you keep to the point where you have over (say) 1000 coins/toss, you will have reliably accurate results.Turning it around, if I count {1024 HEADS} in a sample size that should have had {1048576} I can be pretty sure that 10 generations have passed, with very little assumption involved, but if I have only 1 then I cannot be sure if it is 20 or 25 generations, and if I don't have any heads then all I can assume is that I am most likely over 20 generations. ⁽¹⁾ - the actual number of tosses will very probably vary around that 20 number in a skewed {not bell curve} type distribution due to the randomness behavior at the end, the mathematical vagaries of probability and the general persnickityness of things overall.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

riVeRraT:yes it is based on average behavior in large enough populations that those averages are virtually inevitable while the individual chances are still indeterminant. the dating accuracy breaks down when the populations are no longer large enough for that to be the case. the overal average does have many determining factors and that is why they are accounted for in each of the different radiometric dating methods.I suggest a reading of the article by Roger Wiens on the "Science in Christian Perspective" website:
Radiometric Dating
to augment your understandings.and if you want to talk about the accuracy of ¹⁴C dating then try the {Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.} thread:
http://EvC Forum: Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.
there is a discussion there that you should read first and then comment. Feel free to disagree based on an unrealistic opinion that ignores the conditions specified all you want to -- that won't change the reality of what goes on in the universe. This also does not affect the end result of the dating methods. This is of course self contradictory ... if everything is predetermined then there is no free will, and if there is any free will then nothing is predetermined.This also assumes a special status for humans, and there is nothing in the known universe to indicate that human life is in any way special.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Actually I was expecting you to continue this as a way to challenge the dating method. I can let it rest. (for now). Or they are just unknowable and the result of random chaos in the system, the manifestation of the subatomic uncertainty. Certainly for our current level of knowledge there are enough unknown variables that we cannot rule out the ultimate existence of randomized uncertainty. What difference? At the sub-atomic scale there is none, at the cosmic scale there is none. We are composed of the same elements, from the same molecular structures, from the same proteins as other {earth-bound} life. Other animals communicate, some in ways that we cannot. Other animals have displayed understanding of good and evil — even ones with less brain mass than early humans — so that would make {those concepts} a more universal mental construction than just human. Other animals display learning and invention and teaching. What is different about humans? Perhaps it is our conceit? Actually our thoughts are physical, they are formed by electrons traveling neuron paths and forming chemical structures. According to your precept above, they must be as deterministic as the rest of the universe. According to my precept new thoughts can be derived from the action of {random\chaotic\uncertain} elements in the brain. Sorry, you did not demonstrate that assertion. Either there are {random\chaotic\uncertain} elements that allow {thought\will\consciousness} to {chose\decide\change} or there aren’t. And if there are, they apply to the whole universe in equal measure. I think all of existence is special, but that humans are a small realtively unremarkable ("mostly harmless") element of that whole picture. As I said, there is nothing in the universe as a whole to indicate any special status for humans or even for intelligence. This special-ness is just human conceit. Self-indulgent conceit.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Good. If you care to discuss what that point is, an appropriate forum is {{Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Part II.}}Your faith in our ability to understand the whole entire universe in all its myriad diverse and numerous interactions is charming.Are you familiar with string theory in physics? One of the offshoots of it is a theory called the ‘brane theory that explains the universe formation similar to the standard theory, but with a little difference in a couple of significant points, one of which being that it does not need any dark matter or dark energy to make the observed motions of major systems (galaxies and gas clouds etc) match the theoretical result. All it requires is an additional dimension or two to the universe (it also makes some predictions about what should be observed in the way of gravity waves that will differentiate it from the standard model — that is how scientific theory works eh?).The point being, that if this theory is correct, then there are other dimensions to the universe that we {are\will always be} incapable of {observing\measuring\understanding\predicting} and that this will in effect confirm the ultimate existence of randomized uncertainty as far as the possible capability of human science is concerned. Why? All you give is an assertion based on your incredulity on the issue.Consider that the basic building blocks of the universe across the board is founded on uncertainty. The sub-atomic particles dance in and out of existence, become different particles or even different numbers of particles within a {cloud} of uncertainty and we can never know the exactness of what particle is there and how much momentum it has and how fast it is moving in which direction ... we get to know half the story, and that is it. Thus the very foundation of the universe as we know it is quivering on top of basic random chaos, and it is unavoidable and it is beyond our capability to determine.Perhaps it is motion in and out of other dimensions per the string theory mentioned above where all the particles in what we know as the {probability cloud} are interacting in a way that is beyond our ability to determine, or perhaps it is the {ultimate reality of randomized existence}.The point being, that regardless of whatever theory of the universe is correct that we will not be able to determine the full description of the behavior at its most basic level, and everything above that is based on those {average behaviors of large numbers of particles} as discussed previously for radioactive decay,AND for all intents and purposes, that there will always be {motion\behavior} that will not be predictable because it will be at the {small number of particle} level where you just cannot make even an educated guess.And then there are systems where very definite and careful input still result in chaotic results, computer programs that generate chaos, natural systems that behave in a chaotic manner. The image of a butterfly in brazil causing a typhoon in Fiji 2 years later kind of thing. Then you must also be familiar with the adage that the more you know about a topic the more you know what you don’t know about it. I suggest that an effort be made to become more educated about it or to be less enthusiastic in your trust of ability. Again, this is an assertion based on your personal (limited) viewpoint. First off I don’t believe that free will is a real issue, nor that the ability to make decisions rests solely with humans (in fact I find the concept incredibly arrogant and condescending to other life). Certainly we are not the only species able to manipulate our environment. There is no maybe about it — it has been observed. It has been documented. It is fact. And there are some other species that we can communicate with as well. Not all humans do that ... so are they less human because of that? Interesting that your only choice of one of those so many things has the problem of assuming the existence of god as a fact, rather than, say, a psychological aberration applicable only to humans that other animals are not afflicted with — that would make us different but not special (unless you are talking of the short bus variety ). How about an example that is not based on faith but on mutually agreeable {fact\observation}? What is spirit? If you cannot determine its existence and measure it then how can you say that it would only be humans that have it rather than it being a universal essence of life? Strawman. I never said anything like that. Tell me how spirit is measurably different from the {being that is not being \ the is that isn’t} of buddhism? If you are going to use a concept then you have to be able to define it. If it is claimed as special to only one group of individuals then it must be {measurable\determinable\discernable} or it is nothing more than a (weak) opinion. But we aren’t. Isn’t that simple? Then I would say that is good evidence that we are not special, because we certainly are not central to even this solar system to say nothing about this galaxy. Are lice special? Are viruses?Personally I think that other life will be found and that it will (a) be significantly different from ours and (b) have evolved and be evolving and (c) probably not care about us in the slightest being too enamored with their own existence (if we are any model to go by).Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

that would be a yes, but not a vegetarian yes I would say there is equal wonder in all life.

You can always come back to it and carry it a little further. And yes, it opens up a possible scenario for many {spirit\ghost\paranormal} possibilities. Possible. The probability of any such visitation being in accordance with only one view that has (supposedly anyway) documented such behavior is low. The reality could be something else all together, as any earlier such visitation could have been terribly misinterpreted by a primitive worldview. I have said before on other forums that I think all religions are equally valid. Actually science stays agnostic on the issue — it is concerned with seeing what it can determine about the natural laws of the universe and the way things behave. Think about as science asking what can I understand about the {life, the universe and everything} that doesn’t require a supernatural explanation? Think about {religion\philosophy} as asking what can I understand about the {life, the universe and everything} that requires a supernatural explanation? With this viewpoint you can see that they are not necessarily in conflict but can actually be complementary. Nope, I am saying that it may be determined or it may be random, but because we can’t tell which is correct, we ... well ... just can’t tell which is correct. Our ability to make decisions is limited by our ability to control the outcomes. There is a mix of will and won’t, and a bit of random chaos for good measure. I can decide to have toast for breakfast, but for some reason the toast is always toasted to a different consistency .... What god(s) do atheists worship? What god(s) do clinical idiots worship? Are they less than human? If all creation worships god, then it does so by mere existence and none of it is any more special than the rest. No. Which the alcohol or the sin? If a father shoots himself in the foot while thinking of robbing a store is the child going to be born with a hole in {his\hers}? Will they also shoot themselves in the foot? Have you heard the line about you know you are getting old when you stop worrying about growing old and start worrying about not growing old?I have a high degree of confidence that other life will be found. Whether it will be intelligent or in comprehensible or even contemporaneous is up for grabs. The discovery of large organic compound precursors in deep space (far enough away to have existed before life on earth) and circling other stars gives me this confidence. I think one of the first thing formed in space from cooling gas and left over elements of exploded stars would be billions of molecules from the easier to combine elements ... H ... C ... O ... N ... etc.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

If I was anti-abortion then I would also have to give up eating anything. If that is not a viable solution then one must draw a line between what is {valuable to me} life and what is {wonderful but ... } life. Every person makes their own judgment call on that (morality is subjuctive?).The position I have arrived at in my evaluation is on another thread, and it involves a number of legal arguments. We can take up the issue there:
http://EvC Forum: Points on abortion and the crutch of supporters -->EvC Forum: Points on abortion and the crutch of supportersIt got a POTM at the time. and I am pretty happy with what is posted, even though I have changed the wording somewhat in other places (such as my website).As there are other forums to discuss this, it should be considered off {topic\limits} here.k?

Careful about those quantum moments now. If you feel it was necessary to design everything for an omniscient predetermined end, then you are kind of forced in that (predetermined) direction. On the other hand if you feel the design was intentionally to develop something that had never been before and couldn’t even be contemplated by an omniscient mind then you are forced to include randomness. It is almost humorous to read these (not just yours) arguments on "sin" -- they are so illogical. At what point is the decision to abuse made? The first drink? I know many people that have one drink a night. The third? I also know some people that once they have one drink they cannot stop until they have passed out — it is genetic, not choice. Is the gene the carrier of the sin of the father? LOL that is why the American Indian was genetically predisposed to the alcoholic response because of the generations of abuse of alcohol before the Whiteman came. Sorry that doesn’t wash. The only logical answer is that we don’t know yet, we will find out when it happens.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Or the will and ability of organisms to overcome their surroundings. SO if it affects you badly then it was abuse, but if it doesn't then you are home free? Isn't that a bit of an unuseable standard?Do you notice that the concept of free will opposes the concept of {original sin \ sins of the father}

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Not opposites, just opposing concepts: one says you can choose, the other say, sorry somebody else made that decision.

But you just said you didn’t know you were abusing your body until later. No, in that a decision by your {parent\grandparent\etc} has taken your ability to decide away by their behavior. But the surroundings are designed as well ....

Which gets us back to the total lack of free will issue. Can’t have it both ways. Unless it was designed for chaos. Everything else is inconsequential, from being hit by a falling brick dropped off a 20 story building, to tripping over a crack in the sidewalk. Again what is free will as opposed to will -- your will is exercised whenever you choose ... -- what does free add to the equation? Will is nothing more than the conscious reaction to the perceived reality of the universe, the conscious interaction with that universe. I didn’t say or imply that, nor did you in your earlier post, I was just pointing out the apparent time lag in your perception versus your avowed immediate knowledge of doing bad. It doesn’t add up. We also have what is purely anecdotal evidence, without verification and without control for other factors, oh well. Again, this is just a blanket assertion based on (your) faith, and bears no necessary relation to reality.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

tomatoee (, attack of the killer). Soitenly only some things need to be chaotic. Sub-atomic particles, for instance ... So I can operate with will and choose to do what I want and you can exercise free will at the expense of believing in a specific god. Sounds fair to me. The interaction could be pure emotional, flustered, white-eyed panic and it would still be conscious. Or it indicates the conscious realization that (at least) two courses of action are possible, together with a realization to some degree of the risks and benefits of the different choices — and that a first response answer may not be the best answer. One day I go outside and it is 40^oF and the next day I go out and it is 8^oF for no solid rhyme or reason, but I interact with it by dressing appropriately (while emoting verbally about it at the same time ... ) It is not complex to those of us who feel it is a non-issue. There are no issues less complex than non-issues, if you get my drift.enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I walk my path and your walk yours. Neither of us can say that the one or the other carries useless information. Neither. Is a tree falling in the forest good or bad? Was the election of shwubby good or bad? or was it pre-determined? ... The subject was "original sin" - a non-issue in virtually every other religion.

And if a human decision determines whether or not a tree falls in a forest ... not all human decision can be based on {good\bad} only the moral ones. The choice of which bank to use is innocuous. A freely determined election. I was refering to the last one ... The concept is first seen in Hinduism, I believe, and was adopted by the Christian religion. My understanding is that Judaism does not include sin. Islam having evolved from Christianity does have sin, but I don't think they have the "original sin" element or the "all born to sin" element. Certainly all the other world religions that have not evolved from christianity or hinduism do not have sin. Buddhism (and it's offshoots) has karma, but that is a different {issue\process\factor}.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}