Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
111 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 109 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,087 Year: 6,199/6,534 Month: 392/650 Week: 162/278 Day: 2/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Chance as a sole-product of the Universe
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 92 of 263 (762142)
07-09-2015 9:29 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Phat
07-09-2015 8:13 AM


Re: Not A Chance
Phat writes:

Its amazing to me how people see no difference between measurable probability and the whole idea of chance as a thing.

I can see a huge difference.

But this concept of "chance as a thing" is incredibly strange and this is the first time I've heard of it.

I've never thought that chance is an actual thing causing things to happen.
Can you indicate any group of people that do follow such a strange idea?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Phat, posted 07-09-2015 8:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 07-09-2015 12:16 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 214 by Phat, posted 07-06-2019 3:00 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 97 of 263 (762163)
07-09-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Phat
07-09-2015 11:07 AM


Re: Not A Chance
Phat writes:

What I am trying to do is to define this thing called chance. My take on it is it does not exist.

It does exist. Unless you're redefining it to mean something else.

Even your quote talks about it: "The odds are 50/50."
That's the chance, it's the same thing.

Doesn't matter if it's random or not, deterministic or not... that's the chance of it happening.

Any other re-definition of the word chance is simply the gambler's fallacy (if it's tails 10 times in a row... then the next must be heads because it needs to be 50/50!). That's the idea that chance is forcing something... and that's what we call the "gambler's fallacy"... because that's the idea that doesn't actually exist. It's not real.

Chance is only descriptive, not prescriptive.

Explain how chance is involved. Do you mean that the event is entirely random?

Chance is involved because we are aware of multiple possible outcomes without being aware of which one is determined (yet).
The rate at which different outcomes can occur is called their "chance" of happening.

It doesn't matter if they are truly random or fully deterministic.
All that matters is that we are not currently aware of which one is going to happen, and we are also aware of multiple possible outcomes.

You may be asking the question "is everything actually deterministic or is anything truly random?"

But asking this question and re-defining it as "does chance exist?" is merely confusing and a re-definition of the word 'chance.'


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 07-09-2015 11:07 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 184 of 263 (849309)
03-04-2019 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Phat
03-04-2019 12:03 PM


Re: Necessary Certainty
Phat writes:

I need certainty and not probability.

And what if certainty doesn't exist?

Would you rather know, for certain, that such certainty is unavailable?
OR
Would you rather fool yourself into believing you "have a certainty" that is, actually, false (because it's known to be unavailable - which means whatever-you-have-isn't-it?) - and then you're incredibly let down when the reality occurs and the falsity is proven to you?

Now move onto our current situation:
What if we don't know if the certainty exists or not?

Would you rather know, for certain, that we are not yet aware of any certainty? And that it's quite possible that none exists? But have a way to identify if any-idea-that-comes-along actually is "for certain" or not?
OR
Would you rather fool yourself into believing you "have a certainty" that is, actually, false (because it's not even known if any certainty is available or not - which means whatever-you-have-isn't-it?) - and then you're incredibly let down when the reality occurs and the falsity is proven to you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Phat, posted 03-04-2019 12:03 PM Phat has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(2)
Message 187 of 263 (850923)
04-17-2019 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by FLRW
04-16-2019 6:29 PM


Re: Necessary Certainty
FLRW writes:

It's time for intelligent Man to look at the facts now that we are aware of the structure of the Universe.

Facts are good.

1. There is no God, but there were Creators.

If "there were Creators" is a fact - I'd like to see the evidence for it.

I would call it more of a possibility.
One that may not even have a significant likelihood of being valid.

But - if there is evidence for this "fact" - understanding it would change my mind.

2. The Creators had a goal to create life.

I'm not even agreeing that Creators exist - as I haven't heard of any evidence for them yet.
But now you also know their goal, if they do exist? I would like even more evidence of this, please.

3. It seems that the Creators could not directly affect the physical world that they
created through Strings.This is why we have poor design.

From what I know - Strings are not required for us to have poor design.
That is, poor design can be entirely explained by the Theory of Evolution (descent with unguided modification) - the level of Strings doesn't even have to be mentioned.

4.This statistical creation of the Universe creates problems like pediatric cancer, again showing poor design.

Again - things like the poor design of pediatric cancer can be entirely explained using modern medical science - the level of statistical creation doesn't even have to be mentioned.

5. It seems that the goal of creation was intelligent man.

I don't agree with that at all.
Do you have any evidence to support this "fact?"

However, due again the the shotgun approach to creation there is a wide rage of intelligence (Gaussian distribution of IQ) in Humans.

I agree there is a wide range of intelligence in Humans. But I don't see why it must be explained by the shotgun creation approach.
The wide range of intelligence in Humans is, again, entirely explained by the Theory of Evolution (descent with unguided modification) - the level of creation (shotgun or otherwise) doesn't even have to be mentioned.

6. Now what is the purpose of Man? Probably to create AI.

This one I can definitely say is wrong - at least for me, and I am a Man.
My goal is not to create AI.
My goal is to care for and enjoy my family.

Are the rest of your "facts" so easily shown to be misleading?

The Creators can then inhabit AI beings and not be exposed to the frailties of poor physical design like cancer.

If the Creators (granting their existence...) can create a universe with us as inhabitants - why would they need us to create AI beings for them to inhabit? Why couldn't the Creators just create such AI beings and inhabit them on their own? For such a goal - we Humans seem like an entirely unnecessary requirement.

What special ability are we capable of that the Creators are not? Why can we do the special ability but not create universes? Why can Creators create universes, but not do the special ability?

Seems like poor project management.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by FLRW, posted 04-16-2019 6:29 PM FLRW has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by FLRW, posted 04-21-2019 4:41 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 197 of 263 (851292)
04-22-2019 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by FLRW
04-21-2019 4:41 PM


Re: Necessary Certainty
FLRW writes:

I am saying that strings are the only thing the Creators could directly control.

Yes, I understood that this was something you were claiming as a fact.

My question is: How is this a fact?
Do you have any evidence to support this "fact?"
Do you have any evidence to support even the existence of "the Creators?" (Let alone that they can "only directly control strings.")

My current understanding is that such evidence does not exist.
Therefore, there is no reason to posit that "the Creators" even exist.
Therefore - a lot of the problems with your ideas just disappear.

The fact that Man has had such a poor quality of life ( 60 percent of children died before the age of 5 thousands of years ago) shows that the Creators did not care about Man as he was just an intermediate step to some other goal.

I don't think it does show this.
I think that Man having a poor quality of life shows that Man evolved through an unguided process of descent with modification over hundreds of thousands, even millions, of years.

So - we agree on the fact that Man had a poor quality of life.

My explanation of an unguided process of descent with modification has hundreds of years and thousands of scientists providing evidence and support for it.

Your explanation of a Creator that did not care about Man has... no evidence at all?
No evidence that such a Creator even ever existed? Let alone anything about that Creator's feelings on the life of Man?

So far, I am not persuaded to accept your position over the one I currently tentatively hold.

What could be a product that Man could create that would be of value to the Creators? The only thing I can think of would be AI.

1. I don't even see why AI would be of any value to the Creators.
2. I don't even see that Creators exist at all in the first place.

These are big problems with your ideas.
But - watch the problems disappear:

"The Creators do not exist, and never did!"

Viola! Problems are gone.
Now we don't have to think of a reason why Creators would want AI!
Now we don't have to think of anything that would be of value to the Creators - because they don't exist!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by FLRW, posted 04-21-2019 4:41 PM FLRW has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by FLRW, posted 04-22-2019 9:32 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 199 of 263 (851295)
04-22-2019 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 191 by Phat
04-22-2019 12:50 AM


Re: Necessary Certainty
Phat writes:

If in fact we (humans) did come from mindless evolution as you call it, can we speculate on what we will eventually evolve into?

YES!!

Absolutely we can.
In fact, "speculation" can be the first (optional) step to learning!

Will the mind develop from mindlessness to nirvana mindfulness? (In your opinion)

I don't think the mind is mindlessness.
I think the mind is already very mindful - do you not think? Not 'think' as in 'agree with Stile'.... but 'think' as in 'have thoughts within your head.'

Do you think? Do you have thoughts within your head?
If so - how can that be called "mindlessness?"

If you are under the impression that a mindless process cannot create a mindful brain - I believe there are some scientific facts you should be made aware of. A visit to the local museum might be a great start. Feel free to ask questions to the people who work there, they can be very helpful.

You do know that a tree that cannot-hold-water can go through a waterless-process in order to become a vessel that can hold water very well, right?
Properties of end results do have restraints.
But they are not restrained by some strange rule such as "the end result can only have properties that are present at all times during the creation of the result."

If so, what would be the point of making anything?
If every end-product could only already have the characteristics present in the raw-materials... why go through the process of making the end-product if whatever-you're-looking-for is already present in the raw-materials?

Such a strange, illogical notion that goes against so many everyday products.
It makes me wonder what sort of mind would so assumingly-accept the ability of a calculator to be more than just plastic and metal... but the same mind rejects the idea that a brain could be more than just carbon and oxygen.

Useless things become useful things every day.
Many we create ourselves.
Many were created without our input.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by Phat, posted 04-22-2019 12:50 AM Phat has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 200 of 263 (851300)
04-22-2019 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 198 by FLRW
04-22-2019 9:32 AM


Re: Necessary Certainty
FLRW writes:

Creators exist because something had to create spacetime from nothing.

But the idea that such a "something" has to be a Creator - a sentient, intelligent being of some sort - requires more evidence.

Especially since as we learn more and more it's becoming more and more plausible that such a "something" could very well be unguided and non-intelligent (inanimate) itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by FLRW, posted 04-22-2019 9:32 AM FLRW has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 228 of 263 (857391)
07-08-2019 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by Phat
07-06-2019 3:00 AM


Re: Not A Chance
Thugpreacha writes:

There was a show on todays radio.
Creation By Chance
A good audio podcast.

I don't think it was very good.

A coin lands heads or tails based on chance.
Do you think "nothing" makes a coin land heads or tails?

If so - then I see why you think this was a good podcast.
It not - then this podcast is terrible for the same reason: "chance" is not equal to "nothing," and anyone attempting to force that conclusion is obviously scamming you for another agenda. Such dishonorable tactics are not appreciated.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Phat, posted 07-06-2019 3:00 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Phat, posted 07-08-2019 10:30 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 230 of 263 (857395)
07-08-2019 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Phat
07-08-2019 10:30 AM


Re: Not A Chance
Thugpreacha writes:

What I got from the podcast is the idea that probability and chance are two different things.

Yes, that's what the scammer is selling you.
They are not two different things.
They are both the exact same thing.

Sometimes there are different contexts... but both words can be used for all the different contexts.

Probability is measured and thus known, whereas chance is open ended.

Nope, both are measured and thus known, and both are open ended in different contexts.

Chance (or probability) was an abstract and not in any way responsible for the outcome.

Just like probability.

In other words, chance itself is not a causal agent.

This is true.
And is also true with probability.

Chance, and probability, are no causal agents. And they are also not "nothing."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Phat, posted 07-08-2019 10:30 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 07-08-2019 11:13 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 233 of 263 (858100)
07-16-2019 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Phat
07-08-2019 11:13 AM


Re: Not A Chance
Thugpreacha writes:

OK, I'll go with your argument. Explain to me why chance is "something" rather than nothing.

It's not my argument, it's yours.
My argument is that chance and probability are the same thing.

You already seem to understand how probability is "something" rather than nothing:

Thugpreacha writes:

Probability is measured and thus known...

I'm just saying that the same thing applies to chance.

"Chance is measured and thus known..."

Chance - and probability, are the likelihoods of possible outcomes.
That is "something" and not "nothing."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Phat, posted 07-08-2019 11:13 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by FLRW, posted 08-20-2019 6:05 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied
 Message 236 by Phat, posted 08-21-2019 3:38 PM Stile has replied
 Message 237 by Phat, posted 08-21-2019 3:41 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


Message 249 of 263 (861499)
08-22-2019 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 236 by Phat
08-21-2019 3:38 PM


Re: Not A Chance
My point is that probability and chance are the same thing.
You're still trying to claim that they're not.

But, if we take your quote, and interchange "probability" and "chance"... it reads exactly the same.

You're making up a difference that doesn't exist.
You're allowed to do that - but you're not allowed to suggest that everyone else should accept it because it feeds nicely into other arguments you'd like to make.

Your original quote:

quote:
What I mean is that probability is strictly measured...when they make random chip generators for slot machines or print a million lottery tickets, there is a known probability of precisely which ones will be winners and how much they will pay. It is predetermined. The universe, if it arose solely by chance, would arise from a mindless math concept that had, according to you, a set probability.

Modified by swapping "probability" and "chance:"

quote:
What I mean is that chance is strictly measured...when they make random chip generators for slot machines or print a million lottery tickets, there is a known chance of precisely which ones will be winners and how much they will pay. It is predetermined. The universe, if it arose solely by probability, would arise from a mindless math concept that had, according to you, a set chance.

The words "probability" and "chance" have nothing to do with the point (I think) you're attempting to make.
It only adds confusion, I'd drop it if you'd like to actually make your point and not create confusion.

I think you're trying to say something along the lines of:

Slot machines have a chance/probability that is strictly known.
The universe, if it arose by chance/probability, would arise from a mindless math concept that had, according to Stile, a set chance/probability.

To get to (what I think is) your point:

1. I don't claim that the universe arose "from" a mindless math concept in any way - regardless of if it had a set chance/probability or not.
2. If anything, I may have previously claimed that if the universe arose from a mindless process, then that process may be able to be described mathematically - and that description may or may not include chance/probability.
3. I do think the universe arose from a mindless process (but I'm open to being shown to be wrong - as I openly don't know much about the beginning of the universe.)
4. I think the universe arising from a mindless process is infinitely more amazing that a universe arising from an intelligence of some sort.
-We know that intelligence is quite capable of creating things within their means - we do it all the time
-I know that many other intelligences are superior to mine and such intelligences are capable of creating-things-within-their-means that I could never do
-Why would I be impressed by one more "other intelligence" that's also "superior to mine" that is also capable of "creating-things-within-their-means that I could never do?"

What I would find impressive - is if no intelligence was involved at all to create all we see and experience.
That would be novel.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Phat, posted 08-21-2019 3:38 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4083
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 4.6


(1)
Message 250 of 263 (861500)
08-22-2019 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Phat
08-21-2019 3:41 PM


Re: Not A Chance
Thugpreacha writes:

Probability is predetermined. Its value is set.
Chance is by definition not predetermined....at least not by humans.

Probability and chance, by definition, are exactly the same thing.
If you want to define them differently than everyone else - you're free to do so, but you're only adding confusion to whatever-other-point you're trying to make.

If you wish to argue that (whatever created the universe) was predetermined, you need to explain Who or What determined and/or set the probability into concrete terms.

I don't wish to argue such a thing.
But if I did, it would be easy to explain who or what determined the probability into concrete terms: It was determined by the constraints of reality itself.

How can reality become to exist in a way that reality can't exist?
Reality can only exist as it is capable of existing. That is, if reality arose in a way that it couldn't exist - it wouldn't arise at all.
Therefore, if it's going to exist on it's own - it needs must do so by the limitations inherent within itself.

Listen to the audio that I sent ringo: Chance:The Modern Myth And AZPaul3,

Eh.
I don't think I'll be getting around to that, sorry.

...explain to me if you still think Sprouls argument is deceitful and why.

He tries to define chance and probability as two different things, and use that confusion to mask the actual confusion he's creating with his own argument.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Phat, posted 08-21-2019 3:41 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022