Comments

  • The Probability of a God


    In regards to probability, that is not at all how you from a proper hypothesis, or create a distribution (this is what you are essentially trying to do), and you also don't seem to understand what is "random" in this context or how to use it.

    Man, you just need to pick up a book, or take a few courses to educate yourself. Using probability to do a statistical analysis is something you are going to have to actually work at to learn. I can recommend some books to read if you really like, but you need to get that mathematical base down first. If you at least understand college algebra then an intro to statistics course at your local community college would be a great place to start.

    You essentially want to create a probability distribution and then use it to test your "hypothesis", and to do that you are going to need some schooling. It is not as simple as you think it is, and guess what it relies on empirical data.

    *edit - I would also like to point out that a hypothesis is generally tested at a 90, 95 or 99% confidence level. Testing a hypothesis at a 33% or 50% confidence level is almost worthless (far too much room for error for it to be dependable). Of course you don't actually have a testable hypothesis, all you have is a percentage you have assigned to your personal opinions. For it to be a hypothesis it has to be falsifiable, and to be a statistical hypothesis it has to be falsifiable with in the limits and context of statistics.
  • The Probability of a God
    Something people need to understand about equal probability: It generally does not just happen on its own, it needs people to make it happen with some type of equal probability procedure.
  • The Probability of a God
    Let me help you out here. There is either a platypus, a piece of lint, or nothing in your pocket. It's equal odds (of course), but there's now only a 33% chance of there being a platypus in your pocket. Better?SophistiCat

    No, that is not any better, if you say one of these in my pocket and the other two are not. Either a platypus or a piece of lint or nothing.

    Then you have three possible scenarios:

    You have a platypus, but not a piece of lint.

    You have a piece of lint but not the platypus.

    You have nothing.

    This is where the common misconception of probability is, because each scenario does not have a 33% chance of being in you pocket. One of them is 100% true and the other two are 0% true.

    Now I may take a guess but then it is my guess that has the % chance of being right. For example if you rolled a 3 sided die earlier in the morning to pick which to put in your pocket then I could maybe say my guess has a 33% chance of being right. But the chance applies to my guess, not the contents of your pocket. However, there could be confounding variables which compel me to guess one way over the others so not really a 33% chance. I might have a fondness for lint which could cause me to guess lint more often than the other two.

    However, if you did not apply equal probability to determine the contents of your pocket then the actual % chance of my guess being right is unknown because I don't know what confounding variables influence your pocket contents form day to day. I would need some type of random sampling procedure to come up with a predictor.
  • The Probability of a God
    I assume they are equally probable because there is no way we can know or prove that they are unequal. Whilst these scenarios are likely not equally probable, we can't really know how much more probable a certain scenario is - hence, I assume they are equal for the sake of providing some kind of statistic.Javants

    Also there is a problem with this.

    A statistic is any quantity that can be calculated from the observed data. You don't have any observed data. Data are not something you just make up. You gave no evidence for justification of your assumption of equal probability. You simply said I don't know what it is so I am just going to make it up.

    I applaud you for trying a scientific method to approach a philosophical dilemma, but the problem is you need to actually learn the science you are trying to use. Remember science is based on empirical data, and lack of these data is not a free ticket to just start making it up.
  • The Probability of a God
    Using that same reasoning there is a fifty-fifty chance that there is a flying pink unicorn next to me chanting in Aramaic, because it either exists, or it doesn't.Javants

    You are not paying attention. Probability requires a chance mechanism. You flip a coin; that coin has a chance to land on heads or tails, but once it lands there is no more chance involved, as it is either heads or tails. That result will not change no matter how many times you look at the coin. The only way for chance to come back into play is to flip the coin again.

    This is the basic concept of probability you learn when studying statistics.

    This is the academic definition of probability: Probability is the proportion of possible out comes under the repeat exercise of a random event.

    Your claim here:

    "These probabilities are made on the basis of how many times the outcome of a God existing is reached when we systematically analyse all the possibilities (as far as we know) of how we come to exist and whether or not other beings exist."

    Is not a random event.

    A random event is either random assignment or random sampling, and it requires all units of a population have an equal probability of being selected (that is how you get your proportion). The randomization is important for many reasons, but mostly to control confounding variables (or what you are calling "possibilities").

    It is more than clear that you don't really know what probability is and you know even less about how to apply it. You are using a layman's grasp of probability and trying to use it for things it cannot tell us.

    God is either there or is not there. If God exist then there is not a 33% chance that God exist. If God does not exist there is not a 33% chance that God exist. That makes no sense at all. Tell me do you have a 33% chance to exist? Things that exist don't have a chance to exist, only things that currently do not exist can have a chance to exist.

    The existence of God is not dependent on the chance values you made up, God's existence is independent of those values.
  • The Probability of a God
    By suggesting God has a chance to exist you are actually claiming that God currently does not exist but that a future event will give God a chance to exist.
  • The Probability of a God
    As such, we can determine that there are six possibilities about our cause and the existence of a God. Thus, we can deduce the probabilities of these outcomes (assuming they are all equally probable).
    That no God exists has a 1 in 2 (1/2) chance.
    That a God exists has a 1 in 3 (1/3) chance.
    That a Semi-God exists has a 1 in 6 (1/6) chance
    Javants

    That is not probability.

    Probability is the proportion of possible out comes under the repeat exercise of a random event. You didn't exercise a random event, you made up a bunch of stuff and assigned values to it.

    Also there is no probability for the existence of something; it either exist or it doesn't. God doesn't have a 33% chance of existing, that is just stupid. Either God is there or God is not. Something can have a chance to come into existence but once it is here it is no longer a question of probability.
  • Perfection and Math


    Probability ranges 0 to 1 because you can never have something with a higher probability of 100% or a probability lower then 0%

    Statistically probability is the proportion of possible outcomes from the repeated exercise of a random event.

    Categorical differences can be a number of things from colors, does a medicine make your feel better, is it night or day, etc.

    So I am not entirely sure what you mean by "measured relatively", as it might depend on what you are trying to find out. But for an example if I wanted to know if flowers grow more in day or night, then I would have to compare the two, and that would actually be a study that used both categorical and quantitative variables.
  • Perfection and Math


    It is categorical (or sometimes called qualitative) because things such a like and dislike are categories. There are no objective standards to measuring degrees of likeness. Even though you can assign numbers to the categories, they are still categories.

    Here is the text book definition, pulled from one of my statistics course books.

    Quantitative variables are made of numerical measurements that have meaningful units attached to them. Categorical variables take on values that are categories or labels.

    Like and dislike as far as math is concerned are categorical labels and not numerical measurements. If I say I like something more than something else then that is its label; that is not a numerical measurement.
  • Perfection and Math
    That's quantification if ever I saw one.TheMadFool

    No, it is not. That is qualitative.
  • Perfection and Math
    I think no other human invention has that much depth and breadth of application as mathematics.TheMadFool

    Spoken language and written language. Even math depends on these two.
  • Argument Against the Existence of Animal Minds
    Homo sapiens are just one of millions of extant species of conscious animals. If you rank these species in descending order of overall intelligence, human beings rank at the very top of the list--out of millions, we're number one. As a human being, it seems like I got very lucky, when it's conceivable that I could have been a bat, cicada, giraffe, cow, rat, spider, salmon, kangaroo, etc.jdh

    A probability model is only useful if it can be fitted to the real world. The probability of a species when a new life is actually born is not determined by a ranking system. It is determined by the species of the parents. You model is fictitious and worthless in determining the probability of your species. The fact is since both your parents were humans you had a 100% chance of being human.

    You can make up fictitious probability models all day long but just thinking them up will not make them an accurate approximation of real world probability. The only way to do that is by collecting real samples.

    Also, you would not rank the probability of a random life sample from Earth by intelligence, you would rank it by the proportion of human life out of all life on Earth.
  • The Coin Flip
    That's just what we mean when we say that the probability of a coin toss outcome is 50%. So the answer to your question in the OP: it doesn't matter whether the coin toss has occurred or not - as long as you haven't looked.SophistiCat

    No, it is not.
  • The Coin Flip
    If I flip the coin 10 more times each time I flip it, the coin can land on heads or tails, but after it has landed it does not matter how many times I go to look at the coin, it will not change from heads to tails or vice versa.

    So what this shows us is that in order for something to have probability there has to be a chance mechanism of some kind involved. After the coin lands probability is no longer a relevant question. We can guess what it might be, and you may have a 50% chance of being right but that chance pertains to your guess and not the coin.
  • How Nature Preorders Random mathematical Outcomes
    I think this is an ulterior motive behind this thread.
  • How Nature Preorders Random mathematical Outcomes
    The laws of physics do not change between a can of paint and a gigantic clambering vat of swirling marbles.Ergo

    Yes, they do. Liquids behave differently than solid marbles.

    Saturation is the point at which a solution of a substance can dissolve no more of that substance. This point of maximum concentration, the saturation point, depends on the temperature of the liquid as well as the chemical nature of the substances involved. If a change in conditions (e.g. cooling) means that the concentration is higher than the saturation point, the solution has become 'supersaturated'.
    In organic chemistry, a saturated chemical compound has no double bond or triple bond or ring. In saturated hydrocarbons, every carbon atom is attached to two hydrogen atoms, except those at the ends of the chain, which have three hydrogen atoms.
    In biochemistry, the term saturation refers to the fraction of total protein binding sites that are occupied at any given time. Applies to enzymes, and molecules like haemoglobin.
    In organometallic chemistry, an unsaturated complex has fewer than 18 valence electrons and thus is susceptible to oxidative addition or coordination of an additional ligand. Unsaturation is characteristic of many catalysts because it is usually a requirement for substrate activation.

    https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturation_(chemistry)

    It is my thinking that this particular discussion about randomness is among the most important debates in science, physics, mathematics and philosophy.Ergo

    References? If it is such an important debate surely you can manage that.

    I must also now point out that you have not actually presented any evidence to show that my original hypothesis has many flaws. You only concluded, that it does, offering no real world representations to support you opinion only more unfinished math.Ergo

    Let me get this straight you are now using unfalsifiability to justify your claim? You do realize that a hypothesis must be falsifiable in order for it to actually be a valid hypothesis, right? It is becoming more and more clear that you do not know much about science or statistics.
  • How Nature Preorders Random mathematical Outcomes
    I kind of think this discussion is at its end, Ergo's "hypothesis" has been shown to have many flaws.
  • How Nature Preorders Random mathematical Outcomes
    Math will allow us to calculate the probability of it happening. Does this prove it will happen? Not necessarily, but it does suggest it is a possibility, even if it is a very slim one. And the math is making a far more convincing argument than your words.

    One of the reasons I study math is so I can philosophize in mathematics as well as words.
  • How Nature Preorders Random mathematical Outcomes
    To be honest, I can't believe I over looked that detail, guess I was not paying close enough attention. We don't actually know if the marbles will be evenly distributed.
  • How Nature Preorders Random mathematical Outcomes


    He is also making an assumption about even distribution. I am not sure if that is what you are referring to with "well-mixed".

    colors of the marbles will tend to be evenly distributed inside the massErgo