God's Debris

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

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

anyone?

c'mon...it's a good read!

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?

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?** "Yes. You asked why a coin comes up heads half the time." 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.
BradThis message has been edited by AdminPhat, 03-19-2005 09:20 AM

guess the book nook gets ignored mostly...

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.

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 :-)

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

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.

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.

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, create
anything, 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 wanting
anything? 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 could
stimulate the mind of someone who knows everything?""You make it sound almost boring to be God. But I guess you'll say
boredom is a human feeling.""Everything that motivates living creatures is based on some weakness
or 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 that
question, or are you just yanking my chain?""I can conceieve of only one challenge for an omnipotent being -- the
challenge 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 death
so 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

bumpity bump bump...no one interested?

OK..... 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.
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